Conference en
              y- 1. 1 »/ »
         Washington, 1 .4 .

   This publication (SW-7p) was prepared by the staff
          I j HP A "^
  U.S. Environmental Protection Asenoy

An environmental protection publication  (SW-7p)
      in the solid waste management series

 For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                   Washington, D.C. 20402

       Waste reduction, defined as prevention of waste at its sources
through change in the design of products or in the ways products are used,
was the subject of a conference  sponsored by the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency on April 2-3, 1975, in Washington,  D.C.
       For our society, geared to intensive consumption of resources, estab-
lishment of waste reduction as a basic goal would require major shifts in
attitudes, industrial practices,  and consumer behavior.  The wide-ranging
implications were apparent in the interests represented by the approximately
200 persons attending the Conference on Waste Reduction—industries,
citizen and public interest groups, labor unions, government at all levels,
research and development organizations, consumers, universities,  and
environmentalists.  As might be expected, the conference was characterized
by keen interest, controversy, and variety in  the facts presented and their
       The first day of the conference was devoted to exploration of the
policies and views of government, industry, labor, and public interest groups.
On the second day, the  technical means of  implementing waste reduction were
discussed, with special attention given to mandatory deposits on beverage
containers.  This publication includes all 28 presentations but not the in-
formal discussions.  Except where editorial changes seemed necessary for
clarity or format, the original language of the papers has been retained;
the opinions expressed  are those of the speakers and not necessarily those
of EPA.
       The Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended requires EPA to study and
investigate "changes in current product characteristics and production
and packaging practices which would reduce the  amount of solid waste."
The Act also authorizes the collection and publication of this information.
By sponsoring the Conference on Waste Reduction and publishing these
proceedings, we hope to further the exploration, discussion, and under-
standing of this increasingly important subject.

                                —SHELDON MEYERS
                                  Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                 for Solid Waste Management

Conference Chairman:
      H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.,  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency

 Session on Government Perspectives:
      Hazel Henderson,  Public Interest Economics Center

 Session on Industry and  Labor Perspectives:
      Eileen Claussen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Session on Public Perspectives:
      Toby Page, Resources for the Future

 Session on Technical Options:
      Howard Harder,  Modern Packaging

 Session on Beverage Container Legislation:
      Kay Stouffer,  National Association of Counties


     Roger Strelow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

     View from EPA	   5
          ArsenJ. Darnay, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Energy Conservation and Source Reduction   	   9
          Morris Zusman,  Federal Energy Administration
     Senate Commerce Committee Plans to Encourage
     Materials Conservation	13
          Linda A. McCorkle, Senate Commerce Committee
     Observations of a Senate Staffer	18
          Richard Hellman, Senate Public Works Committee
     The Need for Action Grows	21
          John R. Quarles, Jr., U.S.  Environmental Pro-
          tection Agency

     Innovation Versus Regulation: Industry View	27
          William Sadd, Glass Container Manufacturers
     A Food Industry Perspective	32
          David James, General Foods
     Concerns of Labor  	36
          George H. R. Taylor, AFL-CIO
     Environmental Protection and Productivity   	41
          James  R. Peterson, The  Pillsbury Company
     Retreading and the 100,000-Mile Tire	45
          W. James Sears, Rubber Manufacturers Association

     Views of a Consumer	50
          Arthur H.  Purcell, George Washington University
     Source Reduction: An Important Part of a Materials
     Policy	54
          Pat Taylor, Environmental Action, Inc.

     In the District of Columbia	53
           William C. McKinney, Department of Environmental
           Services, District of Columbia
     View of the League of Women Voters	63
           Dana Duxbury, League of Women Voters
     Approaches to Source Reduction	66
           Karen A. Wendt,  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

     Some Basic Choices	74
           William E. Franklin,  Franklin Associates,  Ltd.
     Packaging Systems Requirements  	78
           Howard Cannon, Continental Can Company
     Waste Management through  Product Design:  The Case of
     Automobile Tires	83
           Robert R. Westerman, California State University
     Contemporary Dairy Packaging:  Consumer Appeal and
     Conservation	95
           Charles B. Russell, International Paper Company
     Fast-Food  Packaging and Waste Reduction	100
           Norman D. Axelrad, McDonald's Corporation
     "Bring 'Em Back, Repack and Save"	105
           Alan  K. Greene, Red  Owl  Stores
     For a Total Systems Approach	H3
           Kenneth G. Van Tine, Owens-Illinois,  Inc.
     Industry's Commitment to Waste Reduction	H9
           Eric  A. Walker, Aluminum Company of America

     The Referendum in Dade County	124
           Harvey Ruvin, Dade County Commissioner
     A More Positive Strategy	129
           Henry B. King, United States Brewers Association,
     Effects of Reuse and Recycling of Beverage Containers .... 136
           John  H. Skinner,  U.S. Environmental  Protection
     A Labor Viewpoint	142
           Robert McGlotten, AFL-CIO


                          Roger Strelow*
       I would like to welcome all of you very heartily to this 1975 Waste
Reduction Conference. In some ways this is a first as far as I know, the
first major conference held on this subject exclusively; the first one de-
voted to waste reduction, or source reduction, as it is sometimes known.
Most conferences dealing with waste management or recycling touch on
this subject to some degree, but an  issue as important as this one certainly
deserves the time that obviously, by your attendance,  you plan to give it
today and tomorrow.  The turnout is certainly encouraging.  I think it ex-
emplifies the kind of importance, and certainly the widespread interest,
that this subject carries.  It is very much on people's minds today.  I
am also very gratified in looking over the program that we have a number
of well qualified participants.  I think it is important that we have a good
cross-section; a representation of a variety of viewpoints from industry,
labor, consumers, and different areas of government.
       It's not surprising that we do have the kind of interest that exists
today on the subject of wastefulness. In the past, we  rather assumed that
questions relating to eventual serious resource shortages would work them-
selves out through the laws of supply and demand and  through technological
developments, and we didn't have to worry about them.  But I think for a
variety of reasons,  including the fact that the economic system doesn't
work all that ideally,  in terms of supply and demand interactions in an
ideal Adam Smith type of free market, we do have to worry about them
consciously.  We do have to do some very careful and thoughtful planning.
We can't simply leave it to the forces that be to sort out our problems. I
think the energy crisis that we're now in,  and are going to be in for some
time no matter what we do in the very near term, illustrates that well.
It  is  shown by a variety of factors,  only one of which is the power of the
OPEC nations and the kinds of perturbations that they  can create just with
a meeting like this,  in one day's time,  by a decision about their prices.
It  is certainly clear that we cannot be complacent about our very serious
resource questions.
       Much of the interest in waste reduction, at least from my own per-
spective, is traceable to a concern with the increasing proliferation and
       *Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

complication of packaging materials.  People began to realize many of our
consumer products are being incredibly overpackaged.  This  made people
begin to think,  and fortunately I think this has led to much more fundamental
concerns, even though that in itself is an important one.  The interest in
packaging was stimulated when people realized that the rates  of solid waste
generation were far outstripping the capacity of our municipal systems to
handle the waste.  Indeed, I remember this was pointed out very vividly in
an article in Fortune  magazine a number of years ago dealing with waste
generation in our society.  Certainly my impression at the time was that the
incredible rate of per capita waste generation, not only its increase in this
country, but also in comparison with that of other societies in the world,
was just downright embarrassing. To think that our society could have a
value system and an economic system that would involve such incredible
consumption and throwaway of wastes.
       These kinds of concerns, as the more serious implications were
realized, gave  rise to questions: Shouldn't we be doing something about
it ? Not just what to do with the wastes we have, not just accepting as in-
evitable these spiraling rates of waste generation, but can't we do some-
thing to affect it at the source?  Can't we slow down the volume of the waste
stream? Certainly we are in an age where this  total perspective of pollu-
tion control  makes  a lot of sense.  One of the truisms in the pollution con-
trol business is that you ought to deal with pollution at its source, rather
than try to clean up later.  Whenever you can simply reduce the amount  of
pollution to be generated, the raw waste load going into the waters, or
whatever, that  is preferable from a variety of standpoints.
       The Congress  recognized this concept in the  1970 Resource Recovery
Act.  Among other  things that act required EPA to investigate and study
means of reducing the generation of waste  at the source.  A number of
studies and analyses have been conducted;  obviously a lot more remains to
be done.  EPA  can't and shouldn't do all of it.  That's really what this con-
ference is about.   Others will get into much more sophisticated detailing
of some of the issues  involved as the conference goes along, but let me
briefly mention a few  that come to my mind in thinking about the subject.
       First, clearly waste reduction is a significant departure from the  con-
ventional way of seeing things in the waste management field.  It is not a
subject that  can be  approached with conventional perspectives and viewpoints.
It really requires a whole new mode of thinking,  and we all have to be willing
to stretch our minds a bit and try to approach it with a. creative,  constructive,
and thoughtful perspective.  The waste explosion imposes responsibilities  on
all sectors,  public  and private,  as well as  individual citizens. It's not a prob-
lem that's going to be solved by any one type of activity alone. Exploration of
the various roles and  responsibilities of different elements of society is
needed: What is reasonable to expect? Where will the  costs fall under dif-
ferent options for dealing with the problem? Who logically ought to bear the
costs  that will be involved in making whatever changes  may be ultimately de-
sirable? These are issues that we need to face.
       Second, there  are really two types  of waste reduction action that we

can contemplate in very generalized terms.  One type can and will take
place, perhaps naturally, as a result of economic conditions. We are
seeing some of this already.  In the energy field there is already in-
creasing incentive for major industries to curtail wasteful use of energy.
It had simply not occurred to people, and  if it had, it was not particularly
important to them in an economic sense before. I think we are also seeing
this to some extent in decisions about packaging and other matters.  So
there are natural economic forces that will come to bear.  Their effect
has to be seen in perspective and in conjunction with the second type of
action,  which is taken as a matter of conscious social decision.  One of
the issues raised, then, is where can we and should we rely  on certain
market forces that exist or can be expected to exist and where, on the
other hand,  should we rely on legislative mechanisms and conscious
policy decisions in Congress and elsewhere?
       A third issue, touched on before, is that when we make conscious
public policy decisions and impose them on the marketplace and on society
generally,  there are always some costs involved.  Some of the key ques-
tions  that we must address, and that EPA is certainly very concerned
with,  are:  Where would these costs fall under different options ? Who
would bear them ?  Who should bear them ? I hope one of the  messages
that will be conveyed clearly in this conference is that, although we ap-
proach the subject from an environmental standpoint because of our
agency's mission, we are not by any means unmindful of the  other ramifi-
cations  of a topic and a goal such as waste reduction.  In this day and age
it is true in all of our programs that EPA must take a comprehensive view
and not be narrowminded or single-minded in its objectives.  We do want
to see the total spectrum of interests involved, and the ramifications on
the economy, social patterns, and energy consumption.
       The fourth point is that waste reduction means saving resources
for the future.  However, it's particularly difficult to quantify or to cost
out the benefits that will be realized in the future.  Our ability to predict
and project virgin resource availability is very important, but in many
cases our predictions are just stabs in the dark.  To some degree,  as in
other activities of the agency, many times we shall simply have to act out
of a reasonable prudence, rather than on the basis of precise quantifica-
tion of the benefits.  We have to be  careful and analytical  of where we
think  certain risks  lie,  including the risks of not taking some action;  many
times, frankly, we take an action in order to avoid the risk of some un-
certain magnitude.
       The fifth point is that,  as we fully recognize and I know many of
you do,  the subject of waste reduction is a very complex one. We need
to proceed deliberately and carefully, but this does not mean slowly.
There are things we can and should be doing in the very near  term.   But
I  think all who are familiar with this subject realize that we must proceed
with great care.  We want to make sure that the concept does not get a
bad name by virtue of some precipitous action which turns out to have

side-effects or nonenvironmental ramifications that we had not foreseen
or others had not foreseen.  There could obviously be a negative reaction
to the concept if we did proceed in that manner, so we want to be careful.
There are a lot of tradeoffs involved.  One interesting example came up
in a discussion we were having the other day on the  nonreturnable bottle
issue.  One option that I raised for consideration, obviously with some
facetiousness, stemmed from my visit a couple of years ago to the Soviet
Union.  At that time I was part of an environmental  delegation on water pol-
lution issues.  One of the many fascinating things to observe about the way
things are done in the Soviet Union is that their vending  machines, or at
least the ones  we saw, did not have either bottles or cans or paper cups.
They had plastic cups attached to the machine by a small chain.  You put
your kopek in the machine, placed your cup under there, had  your drink,
and went on your way.  This is an obvious example of a  scheme that could
have some real source reduction benefits but possibly some other "disbene-
       I know this will be an important and useful conference. It is an im-
portant issue.   I think we stand to learn and gain a great deal of insight
from many of you today, and I want to extend again my personal apprecia-
tion for your participation, interest,  and helpfulness to us.

      Gcvernment  Perspectives
                         VIEW FROM EPA

                         Arsen J. Darnay*
    I guess the $64 question is: What are government perspectives on
waste reduction ?  Because when we talk about government, we are talk-
ing about State and local governments and the Federal Government, and
within the Federal Government, its branches.  And, as this issue con-
tinues to advance, we are finding that the courts are more and more in-
volved in making final decisions in what is and what is not to be the gov-
ernment's role in waste reduction, or source reduction, as we used to
call it.
      In terms of history, I recall very well the beginnings of the waste
reduction issue, at least in the Federal Government.  At one time the
Midwest Research Institute had a Washington representative by the name
of Peter Shoup, who went around talking to new and fledgling agencies,
among which was the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. He regularly
went to see those people to find out what they were doing. One day his
wife bought a paper dress.  You will probably have forgotten that at one
time there was to be a big industry built around the paper dress.  But he
saw this paper dress, and it triggered an idea in his mind, "My God,
what will happen with all the underwear, all the shirts, and all the socks
when everything will be disposable?" So he went to the Bureau and said,
"Hey, fellows, what about looking at disposables and what this will do to
your program in the future?" The answer came back from the Bureau,
"Curious that you should have been thinking about that because we have
been thinking about packaging.  Why don't you guys make a proposal to
look at packaging, and we'd like to have a report that has all the facts
and numbers. We have an image of a report that has lots and lots of
      I turned out to be the unfortunate guy who did that report and made
all those tables with one or two associates, one of whom will later appear
and comment on it for himself.  With the beginning of concern about pack-
aging, waste reduction became an established issue, and suddenly more
and more people began to think about it.  I'm not suggesting that this
whole issue was generated by that paper dress, but I am suggesting that
Federal activity had something to do with it.
       *At the time of the conference, Mr. Darnay was Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste Management, U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency; he has since left that post to join the Carborundum Company.

       Rapidly the issue became focused around beverage containers.
I've been involved in that issue since 1969 when, as a result of a speech-
writer's action in the White House, I think the first or second environ-
mental report of President Nixon's called for an investigation of a
mandatory ban or some such thing. In the wake of that presidential
announcement, a  staff was pulled together to look at what had been said
in order to put together what might be a reasonable program on the
issue. I remember working very hard on that and looking at all the op-
tions that continue to be discussed today.
       Today in the area of State legislation, with the exception  of Min-
nesota, waste reduction at the government level continues to be an issue of
the bottle and the can.  The uniqueness of this topic, of course, is that
in the case of beverage containers, there is a  ready alternative to the
one-way system,  which is the  existing returnable system.  I think one of
the reasons, why waste reduction has focused on beverage containers is
because there is an existing returnable system as compared to a one-way
system.  Once you get away from the returnable beverage container, the
waste reduction issue becomes much more difficult—difficult to deal with
conceptually as well as in practical terms.
       Before I get into some  of those options that are open to government
at all levels,  let me try to say where I think it stands right now.   We have
two States and one or two communities with beverage container legislation.
We have the State of Minnesota which has a wider authority on packaging.
At the Federal level, it is primarily the EPA that has the  authority to study
the issue and report to Congress what it finds.  The studies that  we have
carried out to date have focused primarily on packaging and on beverage
containers.  Obviously as long as we have the  authority we are going to
continue to take a look at other options as they come up.  Congress  has
taken a considerable amount of interest in this topic, and we are now at
the stage where Federal legislation pending on solid waste may or may not
contain provisions for waste-reduction-type measures, either regulatory
or otherwise.   But it's very much an open kind of thing as to what will
really happen. It's  one  thing to say that we at EPA fully believe  and sup-
port this concept, believe we are in it for the long run, and think that we're
going to dig in and do the job no matter what the pressures may be.   It's
another thing to say that the Federal Government has made a decision on
it in the sense of  having passed a law to require something to be  done,
something other than looking at it and analyzing it.
       So the  situation is very much in the balance.  A large number of
States are looking at beverage containers.  If a number of them do pass
laws, I think  there may be a stampede in this direction. If a large num-
ber of them are defeated, there is going to be  no stampede. I don't know
which way it's going to go, frankly.
       When  you  look at waste reduction approaches from the government's
perspective,  you  really see four major options. If you are looking at wide-
spread waste reduction approaches, which involve a large number of products,

it seems to me the only feasible method is taxation.  You have to impose
a tax so as to influence the choice of materials and the quantity of ma-
terials that are chosen and purchased. If the tax is placed at the point
where the industrial user buys it rather than where the consumer buys
it, it is likely to be more effective.  Short of that, administrative
mechanisms that attempt to regulate packaging as a whole are meaning-
less because packaging is not a thing you can grasp. It is many,  many
little things,  each of them very complex.
       So the alternative to mass approaches, which probably calls for
fiscal approaches, is specific regulation of individual objects and items.
Now the beverage container issue is an example  of what you get into when
you look at individual package regulation.  It seems like such a simple
thing when cans and bottles are associated with beer and soft drinks, but
when you get into the topic, you find that it's an extremely complex dis-
tribution system.  If regulatory approaches are taken,  then it means
basically that items have to be studied one by one, and decisions have to
be reached one by one.  That is a slow process.
       The third basic approach is  to reach voluntary agreement with in-
dustry or groups of industries.   This is a common approach in Europe
where there are no antitrust laws,  where an industry association really
can stand for and represent the whole industry, where deals can be made,
and agreements and contracts can be signed between government and
industry.  In this country the voluntary approach is much more difficult
to achieve.
       The fourth option is voluntary action by the consumer. This means
simply that the consumer knows  enough to make  the right kind of product
choices in the marketplace, and  the consumer  chooses  the product that
has less material or consumes less energy, or consumes less energy in
the  making.
       Obviously at EPA we are looking at all  these options.  We are  look-
ing  at mass-effect type of legislation, the most common example being
the  penny-a-pound type of concept.  We are looking at specific regulations
oriented toward individual product  lines.  We are exploring voluntary  ap-
proaches with industries or individual corporations.  Obviously we are also
engaged in publicizing what we know about products,  so the consumer  can
make the choices.
       One major problem I think the government faces in this area, which
has already been alluded to and will be heard about further, is that in  waste
reduction approaches, particularly where they are nonvoluntary and where
they are an intrusion into the  virgin sanctuary  of free enterprise, there is
always a cost.  And who  is to bear that cost ?  I am always  reminded of the
difference with which the British and the Americans handled the issue of
slavery.   When the British decided to do away  with slavery in 1839 or
thereabouts,  they compensated the owners of the slaves and as a conse-
quence they did not have  a major civil war.  In the United States the ap-
proach was different. The slaves were simply declared free  as they had

always been in terms of nature.  But those who owned these people, of
course, were expropriated of what they considered to be their property,
and as a consequence we had a major war.  This,  of course, simplifies
history; nevertheless, it helps me to visualize the reactions of an in-
dustry, such as the beverage container industry, or a special group of
skilled workers in an industry to having taken away from them arbi-
trarily (it would seem to them because there had been no early warn-
ings) an economic capability which they considered to be their own.
And this brings to the fore the question of what we should do:  How
would you implement such laws responsibly at the national  level?  Very
little discussion has been held about the question of compensation, and
I think that that is a worthwhile question to consider. There are tran-
sition costs—who is to bear them?
       Now we at EPA have begun to look at some of these issues. The
agency has a mandate to look at waste reduction approaches, and in
doing so we find that if they can be implemented, they are better than
resource recovery, they are better than environmental control of land
disposal or of burning. They are the best and simplest way to con-
serve resources.   They can be achieved over and above any connection
with recycling. They represent a very major and promising response
to  the problems of waste.
       How to implement: that's a problem.  How soon to  implement:
that's another problem. Where to implement: that's a third problem.
But that we should act is clear to us, certainly on the basis of what we
have been able to learn.  And that we are going to continue to press for
action is also clear.


                         Morris Zusman*
       Five years ago this month the Nation celebrated the first Earth
Day.  Since then, protection of the environment has assumed its rightful
place as a major public issue.  Only a little more than a year ago the
Arab oil embargo raised the issue of energy to similar status as a focus
of major public interest and concern.
       Some people now tend  to view energy and environmental  interests as
mutually antagonistic,  and insist that environmental concerns must give
way to allow greater exploitation of energy resources.  And it is_true that
in the interest of energy independence it may be necessary to revise some
of the timetables for achieving certain environmental goals.
       But, in the long run, and viewed from a larger perspective, energy
and environmental interests are remarkably consistent—particularly in
the area of conservation.  Although energy and environmental issues were
recognized by the public at different times, and under radically different
circumstances, I think we must all begin to realize that they are actually
part of a whole.  Pollution, energy shortage, and a developing scarcity of
certain metals and other materials are all related to our high-energy, high-
consumption lifestyle.
       EPA often makes the point that Americans generate more solid
waste per capita than do citizens of any other country.  By the same token,
we at Federal Energy Administration often note that Americans  use six
times as  much energy on a per capita basis as the average for the rest of
the world.
       During the past 10  years America's appetite for energy has in-
creased nearly 5 percent per  year,  far faster than our population.  At
this rate  our need for energy  supply would double in about  15 years.
Reducing the growth rate to a 3-percent rate would mean doubling  in 24
years; a  1.5-percent rate would mean doubling in 50 years; and a  1-percent
growth rate would mean doubling in 72 years. The implications of having
to double our supply in 15  years as opposed to 50 years (or 72 years) are


       At a time when we  have to look to  other nations for energy  supplies
that are becoming increasingly more expensive, it is absolutely essential

       *Office of Energy Conservation and Environment, Federal  Energy

that we curb runaway growth if we are to remain a strong industrial nation.
We must gain significant time to restore balance between energy supply,
which is  shrinking, and energy demand, which is growing.
       We must have that half-century to permit a rational reduction in
oil imports.
       We must have that half-century to eliminate the driving force of
our current inflation, for the almost fivefold increase in world oil prices
in recent years is  one of the main contributors to inflation.
       We must have that half-century to clean up  the environment and de-
vise ways to keep it clean.
       We must have that half-century to develop significant new tech-
nology in energy sources, transmission, storage,  and use.  It takes 25
years on the average to develop technology such as nuclear-fission or
solar energy.  It will be 10 years since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was
first proposed before we bring any oil out of Prudhoe Bay.  It will also
take a decade to bring in new fields on the outer continental shelf.  It
normally takes 5 to 10  years for a new powerplant  and 3 years or  more
to start up a new coal mine or a new refinery. Each of those is only an
optimum estimate.  If siting difficulties are encountered, the time is much
       Whether you agree with me that we should have 50 years, or
whether the optimum is 36, 24, or some other period,  there can be no
disagreement that  achieving energy self-sufficiency will take time.  The
most  immediate, the most pressing, way for us to bring energy demand
and domestic energy supply into any sort of reasonable balance is through
a strong, decisive energy conservation program.   That is the only way we
can buy the time we must have.
       Obviously one sure way to conserve energy is to reduce the per
capita generation of solid waste—to recycle, to reuse,  and to reduce
waste at  the source. It seems -almost axiomatic that as solid waste
systems  are developed that incorporate these conservation technologies,
energy will also be saved in some more or less direct proportion to the
amount of materials that are saved.  For example, a ton of primary
aluminum takes nearly 176 million Btu to produce; a ton of primary cop-
per takes nearly 116 million Btu;  a ton of glass containers takes about 18
million Btu; and a  ton of newsprint nearly 22 million Btu.
       By discarding these materials as waste, or by using them in care-
less and  even frivolous  ways, such as in overpackaging, we must recog-
nize that we are wasting the energy required for their extraction and man-
ufacture, as well as the material resources they represent.
       On the other hand, by reducing the amount  of energy we use, to
that degree the adverse impact of energy production on the environment
will be reduced. The less fossil fuel burned, whether petroleum or coal,
the less  air pollution; the less chance for oil spills; the fewer sludges
generated; and the less  land disrupted by the coal mining process.

                    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
                     REDUCED CONSUMPTION

       You might ask, can we afford to reduce our energy consumption
growth rate to the range of 1 to 2 percent per annum, or would our standard
of living suffer as a consequence ?
       Essentially,  the same question may be raised regarding levels of
consumption of a kind that notoriously contributes to high waste volumes
such as packaging wastes and short-lived goods. This question must be
considered by EPA. However, in the case of energy it is a fact that the
nations with the lowest standard of living are those with the lowest energy
consumption per capita, nations such as India, Pakistan, South Vietnam,
and Thailand.  The nations with the highest standards of living are those
with the highest per capita consumption. One might  conclude from these
observations that economic growth and energy growth are inseparable—
that economic growth cannot  occur without energy growth.  As we dig
deeper, however,  this conclusion becomes less obvious.
       Four nations with per capita incomes comparable to ours consume
less than half as much total energy per capita.  In  millions of Btu, our
consumption is 310 million per capita; Sweden's  is 161 million; Denmark's
141 million; West Germany's 134 million; and Switzerland's 90  million.
These  figures are  surprisingly low and  suggest that energy growth may
not necessarily be a prerequisite for economic growth.
       Let's look deeper into the economic impact of reduced consump-
tion.  Just as "a dollar saved is a dollar earned,"  a barrel of oil saved
is better than a barrel of oil produced.  To name one benefit, it is
easier and cheaper to keep the environment clean by not producing and
consuming the energy resource than to have to clean up after  burning it
in the atmosphere.   That's one compelling reason why conservation be-
comes such an attractive alternative;  saving on energy demand  may not
even require massive changes in our lifestyles.  The only changes could
be those that improve the quality of life. It  may not  make any difference,
for example, to a person wishing to increase the use of his car by 3, 000
miles a year in 1980 over 1975 how he or she does it.  One could provide
that the motorist has, say, 30 percent more fuel available, or one could
assure him that his car would get the  equivalent  in better mileage.
(Someone has said that a fish in a bowl that has sprung a leak does not
care whether you continue to put water in at the top as fast as it runs out,
or plug the hole; the results are the same.)
       I'd like at this point to indicate some of the specific areas  relating
to solid waste that FEA is pursuing.
       Through the efforts  of the Administration, the three major auto
manufacturers have committed themselves to achieving a 40-percent im-
provement in new car fuel economy within a 4-year development period.
This 40-percent improvement in average miles per gallon of the 1980 new
car fleet is measured against the average fuel economy of 1974 models.

In order to achieve these efficiencies auto manufacturers will have to
utilize two techniques that will result in less solid waste—namely, radial
tires,  a longer lived product, and less packaging material, lighter auto-
mobiles.  The New York Times reports that the 1977 standard Chevrolet
having the same interior dimensions as the 1975 Chevrolet Impala will
weigh 1,000 pounds less.
       Through our industrial energy conservation programs, we are
working with industry to find ways  to improve the thermal efficiencies
of their process.   This  includes utilizing scrap material to the greatest
extent  possible.
       We are  making broad strides in developing policies and educational
programs that will encourage the productive utilization of waste oil.
       Similarly,  there is an active program to identify and overcome the
barriers to productively utilizing the latent energy in the solid waste
       Rather than closing on a list of specific  activities relating to solid
waste that are currently underway in the Office of Energy Conservation
and Environment,  I would like to leave you with the fact that source reduc-
tion is a fundamental theme  in developing a national conservation ethic.
It is imperative that we  develop such an ethic.
       The need for this conservation effort is  all too obvious when we
consider that the Arab embargo of 1973 resulted in a significant drop in
our gross national product and the  unemployment of perhaps one-half
million people of our labor force.  Yet today, even more of our imports
are coming from Africa and  the Middle East than a year ago. Now over
half of our petroleum imports come from sources outside of the Western
Hemisphere. And, unless we do something, this dependence on African
and Middle Eastern sources  will continue to grow. By 1977  imports will
reach 8 million barrels  per  day, as compared with 6 million during the
last embargo.  Because all of the increase will come from insecure
sources, we may well be just as vulnerable as we were last  winter.
Further, without conservation, our tab for imported oil, which was $3
billion in 1970, and $24  billion last year (1974), would reach $32 billion
in 1977.  This is simply unacceptable.   In the immediate future, there is
only one thing we can do, and that is to launch a vigorous, sustained, and
all-encompassing energy conservation  program.
       The time to start is now.


                        Linda A. McCorkle*
       It is a pleasure to meet here this morning with you to discuss the
plans of the Senate Commerce Committee in the areas of materials con-
servation and waste reduction.
       The Senate Commerce Committee recognizes that we are no longer
a resource-rich country.  During the oil embargo and related energy
shortages,  the Nation became aware, brutally aware in the case of energy,
of our international dependence on foreign sources for a variety of critical
natural resources.  This increased recognition should help us to move away
from our throwaway mentality, which is characterized by conspicuous
consumption, to a vitally needed ethic of conservation.   The Commerce
Committee endorses the conservation ethic.  The committee also recog-
nizes that the efficient use of materials and energy at all stages of the
materials cycle and the reduction of waste at all stages of the materials
cycle—including extraction, processing, design,  use, and disposal—are
essential components  of a legislative strategy to meet the goals of the
conservation ethic.
       I am not here to build the case for materials conservation.  We
are all too  familiar with the facts: over 125 million tons of solid waste
are generated annually by this country; U. S. consumption of materials
is  far above that of the rest of the world—we represent only 7 percent of
the world's population but consume 35 to 40 percent of the world's re-
sources; government practices and policies continue to provide disincen-
tives for recycling and reuse; and Interior Department figures indicate
that the United States  is dependent on imports for over half of its supply
of  six selected basic raw materials—bauxite, chromium, rubber,  tin,
nickel, and zinc.  But despite these facts we are not moving expeditiously.
Recycling,  as just one part of a comprehensive materials conservation
approach, is an environmental necessity and akin to motherhood but,  un-
like energy conservation, is not yet an economic necessity.  Many of the
externalities of waste and demand by future generations are not included
in  the current prices for virgin natural resources. Whether  or not the
Congress does move on legislation to change this situation remains to be
seen, but despite how neo-Malthusians and cornucopians come out on  the
question of the ultimate exhaustion of our natural resources,  the clear
       *Staff Counsel,  Senate Commerce Committee.

fact is that price fluctuations for essential resources and materials will
continue and become increasingly severe in the future if the materials
conservation ethic is not incorporated into government and industry
policies and priorities. This scenario can only increase our vulnerability
to shortages and other severe market dislocations in the future.

       The Senate Commerce Committee is working on a number of items
in the 94th Congress which will meet the need for incorporating the con-
servation ethic into government and  industry policies.  The work of the
full committee in the areas of energy,  materials, environment, and
technology is being closely coordinated this Congress due to the obvious
overlaps in policy development.  I will briefly list the parts  of the Con-
gressional Energy Program which the  Commerce Committee is addressing
but will focus  the remainder of my remarks on general materials conser-
vation initiatives.  The energy initiatives include:  (1) natural gas legisla-
tion to improve the supply situation while controlling prices; (2) automobile
fuel economy standards;  (3) industrial  energy conservation to stimulate
energy conservation in U. S. industry through a program with specific
conservation goals for industrial efficiency; (4) truth in energy; (5) reform
of the electric utility rate structure  to eliminate  waste and promotional
rates.  In addition to energy conservation initiatives, the Senate Commerce
Committee will consider specific legislation for materials conservation
in order to prevent other resource problems from ever reaching the crisis
proportions of our energy situation.  Briefly, and I will discuss  each of
these items  in greater detail, the materials conservation suggestions the
committee has under consideration include: (1) materials conservation
and recycling  incentives  (a package left over from last year's recycling
bill which includes the authority for  issuing product standards); (2) non-
returnable container legislation;  (3)  materials research and  development;
(4) materials information system.
           Materials Conservation And Recycling Incentives

       General.  In the 93rd Congress, the Senate  Commerce Committee
reported S. 3954, the Resource Conservation and Energy Recovery Act
of 1974.  It was a comprehensive bill for materials conservation which
was compiled after receiving testimony from  62 witnesses during 11 days
of hearings.  S. 3954 was then referred to the Senate Public Works Com-
mittee.  I am told that Public Works will be moving in the near future on
its comprehensive legislation for recycling through amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.  Staffs of both committees are working together.

In order to avoid the necessity for re-referral, members of the Commerce
Committee will probably attempt to move simultaneously with the Public
Works effort but only on matters within Commerce Committee jurisdiction.
These matters include: the discriminatory impact and reasonableness of
freight rates for recycled materials; labeling policies of the Federal Trade
Commission which discriminate against recycled oil; government procure-
ment policies for recycled materials; research and development demon-
stration projects for new energy and resource recovery technology (but
only to the extent members of Commerce feel Public Works does not ade-
quately cover this); the establishment of a National Commission on En-
vironmental Costs to  study the feasibility of utilizing charges to internal-
ize the costs of depleting natural resources; and product standards to re-
duce solid waste, to conserve critical materials, and to protect human
health and the environment.
       Product Standards.  Let  me briefly outline the current staff ap-
proach to product standards.  The Commerce Committee is committed to
the conservation of materials  and energy and to waste reduction at the
source. As far as the specifics of source reduction are concerned, how-
ever,  it is not entirely clear what is the best and most appropriate way to
proceed.  Many here  today are familiar with section 7  of last year's
S. 3954, which authorized the promulgation of product  standards by EPA
for the control of waste. Although it was reported by the committee,  that
language was attacked later as being too broad a grant  of discretionary
power. The philosophy behind section 7 has been endorsed by the full
committee during the last Congress.  It is not clear, however, that EPA
can administer the section as  it  was reported.  Consequently, it is being
redrafted to meet the valid objection of overbreadth. If EPA has any
hope of administering a product  standards program,  the criteria for
identifying products for which standards should be developed must be
specific and the method for developing appropriate standards for those
identified products also must be specific. Technically, it is very diffi-
cult to measure the materials  and energy savings of alternate  standards.
In many cases, information on the economic consequences of alternate
standards  is also deficient. Requiring EPA to work closely with an
agency experienced in developing standards and measuring materials
properties,  such as the National Bureau of Standards,  would perhaps
help alleviate some of these technical problems.  In some cases, it may
be determined that more basic research on the properties of materials
and savings from alternate processing techniques is needed before tying
up the agency in litigation for  failing to promulgate standards.  The
product standards program must be handled thoughtfully in order to assure
its effectiveness in meeting conservation and efficiency objectives. Clas-
ses of products can be identified based upon the amount of material con-
tributed to the solid waste stream, the potential such products offer for
reducing the use of critical and essential materials in  short supply, or
the unreasonable hazard to human health and the environment associated

with the manufacture, distribution, and disposal of such products.  The
committee is interested in promoting a market for recycled,  reusable,
durable,  and biodegradable products.  More Senators are open to the con-
cept of achieving this through product standards. With your suggestions,
we can move on reporting such a section this year.
       Bottle Bill.  Senator Hatfield's bill, S. 613, requiring a 5-cent
refundable deposit on all beer and  soda containers  is before the Senate
Commerce Committee again this Congress.   The bottle bill in Oregon
was originally enacted as an anti-litter law, but  is now promoted as an
energy and materials saving device as well.  As you know, the debate on
the relative merits of this proposal is hot and heavy.  The committee
intention at this time is  to consider this proposal in conjunction with its
other materials conservation, and waste reduction initiatives.  The Com-
merce Committee will first solicit comments on the  bill and  then decide
whether or not  additional hearings are necessary this year because of
the extensive hearing record developed last year on the nonreturnable
beverage container issue.  At this time,  tentative plans do not include
additional hearings  on the bill. The committee,  however, is extremely
interested in developing this legislation properly.  The bill represents an
honest effort to reduce waste through a national program.  The bottle is
symbolic of our throwaway mentality and the  need for a national  commit-
ment to conservation.  The committee will carefully consider the com-
peting claims of the proponents and opponents of the bill,  including the
energy and materials savings from a shift to  a returnable system; the
investment requirements for a shift to a returnable system; the economic
impact of the bill on industries producing the beverage containers; the
economic impact of the bill on labor—both employment opportunities in
the long-term and short-term employment dislocation—an especially
sensitive issue while our economy is in a recession; and  the economic
impact of the bill on the final price to consumers.  Last year officials
from both FEA and the EPA supported the bill. Of course, administra-
tion support will be important if the committee favorably reports the bill.
                Materials Research and Development

       Additionally, the Senate Commerce Committee will continue its
work in this Congress on a proposal for a materials research and devel-
opment program which harnesses technological opportunities throughout
all levels of the materials cycle to avoid future shortages of products and
materials. The committee supports approaches to materials conserva-
tion  which capitalize on technology.  A materials research and develop-
ment program which promotes the development of substitute materials
and processes, increases recycling opportunities, increases the potential
for saving on our annual corrosion loss of over $20 billion, and encour-
ages the design of products for a longer life and more efficient use is

an important part of a materials conservation program.
                    Materials Information System

       Another major legislative initiative in the materials area is the
establishment of a materials information system.   The Commerce Com-
mittee held hearings last year on legislation to improve the current in-
formation systems for materials projections.  In conjunction with the
committee's work on legislation this year to establish an entity for
monitoring the supply and demand for  resources,  materials, and prod-
ucts,  the committee will work with and exercise its oversight responsi-
bility over the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages.  This
commission was established as a temporary body to examine current and
future shortages of resources to  report on means for averting such
shortages, and to report on institutional adjustments  for examining and
predicting these shortages and other market dislocations in the future.
The most important contribution  the commission can  make to national
resource policies is to recommend the institutional mechanism for mon-
itoring the supply and demand for essential resources. Its recommen-
dations, as well as  an assessment of the information  system by the
Office of Technology Assessment, a branch of Congress, will be care-
fully considered by the Commerce Committee as it proceeds on legisla-
tion for a materials information system.   In addition  to monitoring the
availability of resources, the system should also have the capability
to develop policy alternatives with respect to the resource evaluation of
forthcoming shortages and market dislocations.
       The establishment of such a materials information system was
mentioned as long ago as 1908 at a governors' conference on natural re-
sources and again by the President's Materials Policy Commission in
1952.   The major question addressed by that commission, which is com-
monly referred to as the Paley Commission, is still relevant today:  "Has
the United States of America the  material means to sustain its civilization?'
Not if we continue to use materials and resources  the way we have, totally
disregarding the consequences of unrestrained use and refusing to require
a systematic and coordinated approach to resource management.  The
1973 report of the National Commission on Materials Policy made similar
recommendations, and the 1974 General Accounting Office report on com-
modity shortages  and the recently released report by the National Academy
of Sciences also recommended the establishment of such an information
system.  The 1974 GAO  report severely criticized  the Administration for
failing, during the 20-year interval after the Paley Commission report, to
implement its  recommendations.  Consequently, the basic requirement
for resource management continues  to be the need for a coordinated sys-
tem on materials  information.  The  Commerce Committee held hearings
on legislation for  such a system last year  and will continue to  consider
related proposals  this Congress.


                         Richard Hellman*
       Good morning, I am Richard Hellman, minority counsel of the
Senate Committee on Public Works.  My remarks this morning of course
are my own and not necessarily those of the Senators for whom I work.
       I wish to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the  in-
vitation to speak and particularly for the opportunity to learn more about
source reduction from the other participants in this conference.  I con-
gratulate EPA and particularly Ms.  Eileen Claussen for staging this first
EPA conference on source reduction.  I am informed by Linda McCorkle
and others  on the Commerce Committee staff that source reduction  is one
of those areas which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Commerce Committee and that therefore Public Works will not have to
deal with it.  So you could take my remarks this morning as those of an
interested bystander.
       I would be surprised,  however,  if this clear delineation of commit-
tee  jurisdiction works out in practice. The Senate Public Works Commit-
tee  has been deeply involved in all aspects of development of Federal
solid waste authorities and programs.
       In the 93rd Congress,  the committee, under the leadership of
chairman Jennings Randolph and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution, Senator Edmund Muskie, and that of the rank-
ing  minority members of the committee and subcommittee,  Senator
Howard H.  Baker and Senator James Buckley, set up a Panel on Material
Policy under the subcommittee. The panel held 10 days of hearings  on
problems related to solid waste management and resource  recovery and
particularly on bills introduced by Senators Randolph, Muskie, Pete V.
Domenici,  Baker (by request of the Administration), as well as the  bill
reported by the Commerce Committee.  Although some interesting testi-
mony was given by State and local government witnesses and public  inter-
est  representatives on behalf of source reduction, the hearings placed
more  emphasis on support for State and local solid waste programs,
hazardous waste controls, and resource recovery incentives.  The sub-
committee  then held a number of markup sessions in an attempt to arrive
at a consensus bill for adoption by the full committee.  Although the 93rd
Congress elapsed before action was  completed by the subcommittee, this
work was not in vain.  Based on last year's hearing record, the commit -
       *Minority Counsel, Senate Public Works Committee.

tee staff is working on a draft bill to present to the members for dis-
cussion in the next few weeks.  Some members of the committee also may
introduce their own versions of legislation dealing with solid waste.  I
do not believe that the staff draft will address source  reduction in more
than a cursory version, but  some of the bills that the  members are con-
sidering may deal more extensively with this area.  It is interesting  to
note that of the three bills introduced to date, one, S. 13, cosponsored
by a member of our committee, Senator Robert T. Stafford, is the Hat-
field Returnable Beverage Container Act of 1975 introduced  February 7
and referred to the Commerce Committee, and another,  S.  551, by
Senator Pete V.  Domenici, is the proposed National Oil Recycling Act
which deals with incentives to recycling of used oil.
       The Public Works Committee has dealt in comprehensive and non-
partisan manner with many difficult subjects in air and water pollution as
well as  noise abatement and solid waste management. I, therefore,  look
to a continuing search for facts by the committee in hearings and in staff
meetings, field trips, and discussions with industry,  labor, govern-
mental, and public interest groups.
       This year the Panel on Material Policy, which will hold hearings
and attempt to report a solid waste bill, is comprised of Senators Gary
Hart (chairman), Lloyd Bentsen,  Robert Morgan, Robert Stafford and
Pete V. Domenici.
       One example of the Senators' continuing factfinding effort is a re-
cent letter by Senator Domenici to the United States Brewers Association
and others requesting comments on the recent EPA study on nine beverage
container alternatives.
       In terms of prognosis, I look forward to our committee reporting
a bill that emphasizes assistance  to States and localities  to set up pro-
grams for advanced solid waste management and energy and resource
recovery; incentives for resource recovery; and Federal procurement
incentives.  I would anticipate that the bill will not change the current
EPA efforts involving source reduction, i.e.,  advice, assistance,  guide-
lines, and information to help cities  and States experiment with such pro-
grams.  With the new composition of our committee and the Congress,
however,  I could be too timid in this prediction. In any event,  I expect
the Commerce Committee to deal more  extensively with source reduction
measures. Moreover I look to EPA  and FEA,  in cooperation with cities
and States, to make a renewed effort to  quantify the savings in energy
and material which can be achieved through  source reduction measures,
perhaps as part of the President's overall "War on Waste" declared
last fall.  More particularly, I look forward with interest to the EPA
recommendations for a phase-in version of the Packwood-Hatfield Bill,
which John Quarles promised to submit  when he supported the bill in
hearings before the Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment last
May 7.  Perhaps the "specific mechanisms—for efficient implementation"
of the bill, which Administrator Russell E. Train said were still being

explored at the time of his letter to that subcommittee last July 1, are
now ready to be unveiled.
       Meanwhile I look forward to examining more closely, at this con-
ference and  in other forums, the pros and cons of source reduction and
particularly the experience of the States and localities which actually are
implementing such measures.


                       John R. Quarles, Jr.*
       It is a pleasure for me to participate in welcoming you to the 1975
Conference on Waste Reduction sponsored by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.  Seldom in the wide range of environmental problems we face
do we confront a problem that is more vexing or more important than
waste reduction.
       Environmental protection has come a long way in this country, and
we can all be justifiably proud of our achievements.  The very proof of our
success is  the fact that environmental agencies are under pressure every-
where.  As a nation, we are no longer merely talking about the clean-up
of our air,  water, and land—we're doing something about it—and beginning
to see the benefits as well.  The costs are also becoming apparent, and a
certain amount of disenchantment has been the result.  But that is natural.
       Environmental protection is a new activity.  It is a departure from
the  past. It represents change.  Change,  when it is real,  inevitably causes
a certain amount  of pain.  We are experiencing some of that pain now,  and
that is a healthy sign.
       National concern over solid waste  is a more recent phenomenon
than our concerns for air and water pollution. Control of solid wastes  has
long been the neglected stepchild of the environmental movement.  Along
with the control of toxic substances, it represents the "open end" of a full
system of environmental protection. So long as we can  continue to dump
solid wastes and sludges on the land without adequate controls, so long as
we can manufacture toxic chemicals and introduce them  into the environ-
ment without thorough evaluation of short and long term effects, the na-
tional structure to provide a safe and clean environment for the people
remains unfinished.
       The generation of waste is the consequence of our day-to-day living.
High levels of waste generation accompany societies with advanced tech-
nology.  The problem of waste occurs throughout the world.  Where tech-
nological societies exist, there we see a growth in the solid waste stream.
       But  the United States is unique among advanced societies in the
amounts of wastes we create.  Our rates of waste generation far exceed
those of other similar societies. We have made a fetish of convenience,
and we purchase convenience by the expenditure of materials and energy.
       *Deputy Administrator,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In short, we are simply wasteful—using more material, more land, and
more energy than is justified against perspectives of future need.
       Waste and pollution are tied together.  Use of materials and energy
usually creates pollution of air and  water, while at the same time it also
causes waste generation.  Waste generation results in further environ-
mental degradation through inadequate forms of disposal.   In addition,
waste generation and disposal together mean that valuable raw materials
are thrown away rather than utilized.   This  means that we  must mine or
harvest more materials and energy, with pollution the necessary result.
Throughout the cycle of production and consumption, our current practices
typically entail an unnecessary degree of both waste and pollution.
       The problem is that our way of life creates patterns of waste that
are seldom considered in the actual act of consumption.  Few people
think about fiber supplies when they tear off a sheet of paper toweling.
Few people think about iron and  tin  ore imports when they toss away a
can.  And, until recently, few thought about international energy balances
when they bought a bigger car.
       These general considerations bring me to the topic  of this confer-
ence: waste reduction, or source reduction, as we have called it in the
past.  The purpose of this conference is to emphasize that  wastes must be
reduced at the source, not merely managed  at our incinerators, land dis-
posal sites, and fledgling resource  recovery facilities.
       By waste reduction we mean to include every change in our pro-
duction and consumption practices that will result in less waste of raw
materials or energy and will reduce disposal problems.  Shifting back to
the returnable bottle is  one example and a good one,  though unfortunately
far too few people  recognize that it  is only one of literally hundreds of good
opportunities to achieve waste reduction.
       We should, for instance, take  a close look at our appliances to
make them more durable and to  strip  away unnecessary features.  We
should redesign our products so that they do the job with less material.
The life of our tires could be lengthened, thus saving resources. Smaller
cars, as we have repeatedly said, consume  less gasoline—and also use
less material.  We should favor remodeling and modernization in our
buildings—rather than demolition.  We should favor multiple-use items as
opposed to disposables.
       Another major need is to challenge existing practices in "modern"
product packaging.  The major purpose of a package is to protect and
preserve a product. But the trend  in  packaging is going beyond that.
Packaging users have become increasingly aware of the market value of
packaging—the use of more elaborately designed packaging to attract the
customer. Consumer convenience  has also  brought about increased pack-
aging as shown by the market growth  for food products packaged in con-
venient individual servings.
       All of these factors have been responsible for substantial growth
of the packaging industry.  For example:  Overall, the consumption of

food in the United States increased by 2.3 percent by weight on a per
capita basis between 1963 and 1971.  In the same period, the tonnage of
food packaging increased by an estimated 33.3 percent per capita, and the
number of food packages increased by an estimated 38.8 percent per
capita.  Another example:  Between 1958 and 1970,  milk consumption de-
creased by 23.1 percent by weight on a per capita basis, but milk con-
tainer consumption increased by 26.1 percent on a unit per capita basis.
The trend toward increased use of convenience-sized containers provides
another example.  It has been estimated  that elimination of all tomato
juice cans smaller than 32 ounces  in 1971 would have resulted in a reduc-
tion in steel use of 19.6 percent for this  product. This one case illustrates
how the use of larger sizes could produce significant benefits in resource
consumption and solid waste generation.
       Now let me turn to the basic policy issues raised by the rapidly
emerging emphasis on waste reduction.  Waste reduction is a radical con-
cept. We might as well recognize that at the outset.  It means basic
change in our  ways of approaching day-to-day activities.  In this sense it
is analogous to various other environmental and safety issues.  Air and
water pollution control, noise regulation, Federal supervision over foods
and drugs, and transportation safety requirements—these and many other
departures from a simpler time all were equally radical once, but they
are now well accepted requirements of our society. Waste reduction also
is radical—but no more so than the other activities that I have mentioned.
       The traditional way of looking at products has been strictly from
the economics of the marketplace.  In our free enterprise  system the
marketplace dictates  which products should be produced, how they are de-
signed,  what durability they shall have, what levels of energy consumption
they require,  how  much they cost, and how many shall be made.
       Conspicuously absent from these  considerations is  a concern for
external effects that products  cause.  Neither producers nor consumers
need to worry  about the disposal of products.  Nor do people consider
products in relation to waste processing, their potential for recycling,
their reusability, or their environmental, resource use, and energy effects.
       It is precisely this lack of attention that has  led to the dramatic in-
crease in our  waste generation and to the consequent problems of managing
these wastes in the disposal phase.  A new interest in reducing wastes at
the source as  a way to deal with these problems—by preventing the waste,
rather than letting it happen and then cleaning it up afterward—is now
forced upon us with urgency because in the past this aspect of the prob-
lem has been almost totally ignored.
       In relationship to solid waste management, our patterns  of produc-
tion and consumption  represent a classic case of unconscious exploitation.
Let me illustrate that point.
       Waste  management has always been a public responsibility.  Pri-
vate industry participates in the activity, but the chief responsibility rests
with the government as a result of public health concerns.  Waste

management systems have been established to deal with waste.  Many of
these systems, especially the large urban systems, are publicly funded—
from tax revenues—whether publicly or privately operated.  Significant
increases in the volumes of waste which result from the myriad individual
decisions of producers and consumers are overloading most systems.
The public manager is  frequently unable to expand his capacity, to find
disposal sites, and to raise the money necessary to deal with the in-
creased burden.  In a fiscal sense,  he competes with other needs—needs
that often seem more pressing—public safety, education or transportation.
Of necessity,  he reduces the services provided,  tries to make do, and the
result is dangerous to public health, both in the collection and disposal
phases of operations.
       The fact is that problems of handling municipal solid waste are
reaching alarming proportions.  The levels of waste generated per capita
continue to mount ever skyward.  This effect is aggravated in most
metropolitan areas by continuing population growth.  The historic city
dump is overwhelmed and obsolete.  Municipal incinerators consume val-
uable fuel and  cause air pollution problems to boot.  Pressures for devel-
opment are squeezing out sites for land disposal. Moreover as tight
controls are imposed on air and water pollution, new quantities of munici-
pal and industrial solid wastes are being created that must also be
disposed of.  Meanwhile the daily volumes of trash and garbage continue
to grow.  Easy relief is nowhere in sight.
       Another aspect of the dilemma faced by the waste manager con-
cerns resource recovery.  Resource recovery has traditionally been prac-
ticed by making presegregated waste materials ready for the market.
Elimination of contaminants has always played a major role.  The munici-
pal manager is faced with the same requirement. He must process  the
waste in such  a manner that it can be sold. This creates both a need and
a desire to influence that which is thrown away—to eliminate contaminants
at the source rather than being forced into high-cost adjustments in the
separation or  conversion process.  A production system which can and
does dump anything and everything on the waste manager, regardless of
such considerations as recyclability, is counterproductive to a resource
recovery thrust.  Hence pressures  for product controls arise.  These
pressures will grow  more intense as the problems become more serious.
       In this  connection, let me make one point.  You have probably heard
the argument that recycling rather than waste or source reduction is the
answer.  I disagree with that philosophy.  We must  do both.  After all
reasonable waste reduction steps have been taken, the remaining waste
should be recycled.  Thus a double  benefit can be achieved.
       Waste  reduction has yet another aspect—one not connected directly
with solid waste management.  Extremely high materials and energy con-
sumption practices are creating a debt against the future.  The mortgage
on that debt will be passed  on to unborn generations.  Production and con-
sumption decisions are not made with a long-range view of materials and

energy availability in the future.  They are based on current prices and
expectations.  By squandering our resources today we are jeopardizing our
well-being for tomorrow.
       The usual argument is that the future is uncertain.  That technology
will develop to allow us to obtain the energy and materials we shall need.
That marketplace adjustments will take place as shortages  occur.  Hence,
there is no need to worry today about energy and materials supplies in
the future—or at least no need to worry to the extent of interfering with
free market forces at the present time to obtain uncertain future benefits.
       The argument is sound enough so far as it goes.  What it leaves
unsaid is that the market mechanism is imperfect at best.  Valuable ma-
terials which are dispersed into the environment in  minute  quantities, for
example tin as it coats metal cans, are irretrievably lost.  Short-term
dislocations have severe political consequences, both domestic  and in-
ternational. In this day and age I need not stress that point.  The public
has little patience with the market mechanism when it comes to waiting
in line for gasoline.  The national government is held responsible—and
rightly so, I think—for failing to foresee and to make provisions for un-
pleasant contingencies.  Just because the future is uncertain does not
mean that we should  not manage the present, especially if the costs are
reasonable and the benefit predictable.
       It is therefore sound national policy to work  toward  reasonable
materials and energy practices, to reduce waste generation at the  source,
and to ensure that valuable resources are  not needlessly lost.
       Let me now discuss some problems of implementing waste  reduc-
tion approaches.
       Our economy is what it  is—a tremendous investment of capital and
skill in a complex and highly interlocked production system.  It cannot be
changed overnight.  Even minor adjustments can have major welfare im-
pacts in unemployment and lost productive capacity.
       Waste reduction approaches,  especially legislatively mandated
approaches, imply adversity for some sector of the economy.  This is
not an area where abrupt changes can b.e made without a good deal  of
reflection and planning. The benefits stipulated for waste reduction—
saving resources, avoiding waste and its environmental consequences,
and ensuring a balanced pool of materials  and energy for our grand-
children—should be carefully balanced against the costs and impacts.
Decisions cannot be made lightly.
       The key to successful waste reduction is orderly transition. As-
suming that some change in production is desirable—how is that goal to be
achieved?  How should the transition be managed? —knowing that no
change can be made without paying some type of penalty.
       This critical element of transition  is the foundation for the  Envir-
onmental Protection Agency's policy on beverage container legislation.
A year ago in  May,  I testified on Capitol Hill in favor of the concept of a
mandatory national beverage container deposit requirement.  One aspect

of that testimony has been largely overlooked.  It was an insistence that
any such legislation be phased in over time, in such a way that the ad-
verse consequences of such legislation would be minimized or eliminated.
       I said earlier that the concept of waste reduction is  radical.  Be-
cause it does require fundamental change it is highly controversial, and
discussion of it often is dominated by extremists.  Most of  the debate
over waste reduction has been polarized between those who want rapid
change, now! and those who want no change,  ever!  This polarization
skirts the central issue—how can we effectively make changes as soon as
possible and at the least cost in welfare.
       Let me make clear the position of the Environmental Protection
Agency.  It is the middle ground position which all must come to in the
end. We recognize that immediate transformation of established prac-
tices cannot be obtained. We recognize that existing capital investments
must be counted, and that people's jobs must be counted even more.  We
recognize that no change should be commanded until all of the benefits
and the costs have been calculated.   We want to be reasonable, and we
will be careful.  But we are insistent that certain changes can be made.
       The objective of waste reduction is not to change the world  over-
night.  The objective is to change the direction of current patterns.  The
objective is to make a beginning to reduce the practices of waste that have
proliferated throughout our society.
       Because  we do desire to proceed with care it is especially impor-
tant that progress be made through cooperation.  Public education,  indus-
trial cooperation, and improved practices must go hand in hand. Surely
the most promising and least disruptive way to implement waste reduc-
tion in all areas would  be by cooperative agreements between the various
interests involved:  labor, industry, the citizenry, and government.
       I am well aware that voluntary programs have a limit.  Neverthe-
less, voluntary approaches to waste reduction must be tried.  Russell
Train, the Administrator of EPA, is committed to this route along with
other approaches.  The success of voluntary efforts will  in large part de-
termine how much farther it is necessary to go.
       Let me sum up my observations as  follows: Waste  reduction is a
necessary part  of the total effort to bring our productive and consumptive
functions into harmony with environmental  preservation. It makes sense
from a waste management and a resource conservation point of view, it
eliminates pollution, and it facilitates  resource recovery.
       Under Congressional mandate,  EPA is charged with the explora-
tion of various waste reduction approaches.  Our  findings are submitted
to Congress in annual reports.  Our chief concern is with the problems
of implementation:  how to bring about  change at least cost.  In that area,
far too little thought and analysis have  taken place,  and I certainly hope
you will address yourselves to that issue.
       All of us, I believe, share a common concern for a  better world
—one which is cleaner, safer, and more predictably stable than the world
of today.  As we work toward that goal, waste reduction is  one of many
tools we should use—but wisely.


Industry and Labor Perspectives

                           William Sadd*
        I would like to thank Arsen Darnay for pointing out this morning
  that this conference is really concerned with source reduction and that the
  focus of that issue is still pretty much where it has always been—on bev-
  erage containers.  For,  as  Linda McCorkle said, beverage containers
  form a symbol.  The source reduction movement really doesn't seem to
  have many other arrows in its quiver.  I've heard mention of radial tires,
  paper, and automobiles this morning, but little else.  I  am curious and
  would like to hear, through  the course of this conference, about ideas for
  source reduction other than just beverage containers.
        Since lunch I am faced with a real problem because John Quarles
  was so conciliatory that I feel bad about taking the gloves off, but then that's
  never bothered me.  As I understand my assignment today, I am to present
  one of several industrial perspectives on  the subject of waste reduction.
  Let me  make it clear that any perspective I may offer is mine alone and not
  that of any particular industry. Now I would like to note that when Eileen
  Claussen called and asked me to participate in this seminar,  she told me
  the subject was to be that of source reduction.  However,  in the good Wash-
  ington tradition of coating very bitter subjects with political sugar, we find
  that the title of the seminar is "Waste Reduction."  That is a theme which
  must provoke a positive response rather than provoke the latent hostility
  which is enmeshed in source reduction.  One of the publicity pieces for the
  seminar says that this first  day's program is to examine institutional and
  attitudinal barriers to waste reduction. So I would like  to position myself
  at the outset as a representative of an attitudinal barrier, which is hostile
  to the concept of source reduction, as I understand it, through governmental
  intervention in the marketplace. Having then taken such a position, I think
  it is incumbent upon me to state my understanding,  or perhaps lack of under-
  standing, of the goals and the issues involved in the source reduction move-
        Reduced to its simplest terms, I see the goal of  this movement to be
  a reduced population, depleting finite resources at a slower rate, having
  more leisure time, and approaching an equilibrium state with nature so as
  to maximize the lifespan of the finite resources of the  planet Earth. In other
  words, this is an issue which goes far beyond the relatively simple question of
        *President, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

how Montgomery County will get rid of its garbage.  By golly, I found it
kind of hard to disagree with that overall goal as I sat writing this speech
by a palm-shaded swimming pool in Florida. Surely, this is a wonderful,
Utopian dream of the activist segment of the comfortable middle classes.
       In all fairness, serious scholars firmly believe that such a shift
must be made.  But I am not about to  debate the law of entropy.  Also,
in fairness, I think that some source reduction  proponents recognize the
potential adverse impact of these concepts on some segments of society.
We heard that today.   Indeed, some proponents  manage to turn the argu-
ment around and point out that by increasing the durability and useful life
of manufactured goods,  the consumer will be better served than he or she
is today with allegedly shoddy  merchandise and built-in obsolescence.
       It seems to me,  then, that the real fire  and brimstone which sur-
round the matter of source reduction really arise first, from the  time
frame for the achievement of a balanced system; second, and more im-
portantly, from  the question of how we get there from here; and third,
and most importantly, from the question of who should control the
journey.  Among the suggestions that  have been made to meet the basic
problem of resource depletion are:  population control,  education to
achieve a conservation ethic, product redesign  (either voluntarily or by
inducement or legislation), pollution taxes, depletion quotas, and re-
source recovery and recycling.
       Consider the  time frame,  for the solutions to be adopted must
be influenced by the time in which we  must act.  Advocates of immediate
action point to some  landfill operations which have reached the satura-
tion point,  while per capita generation of waste is increasing.  These
advocates can point also to polluted water,  polluted air, electrical
brownouts and blackouts, and dependence on unpredictable foreign sources
for critical raw  materials and energy. I must say that I personally do
not find any cause for panic over those situations.  A crisis attitude is
not, in my opinion, justified.  We are making progress,  I feel, in air
and water quality, and even there, serious consideration is being given
to extension of deadlines previously enacted in a crisis atmosphere.
New means of waste  disposal and resource recovery are becoming
available to alleviate the waste disposal problem where it exists.   Sub-
stantial amounts of money and talent are coming from the private sec-
tor. The shortage of fossil fuels comes as close as any to stimulating a
sense of urgency.  But the urgency of that situation to me seems pres-
ently to be more a matter of international politics and economics  than of
resource depletion.
       All human endeavor requires energy. Unless you are willing to
opt for social control of how a consumer will spend his leisure time, I
would not be optimistic that a policy of lower productivity and more
leisure time will result in net  energy  savings.  Why is Florida having
such a banner tourist season in the face of a recession?  Obviously, I
think we must be more careful with our use of fossil fuels,  but  more

importantly we need new energy sources. I recall a motto which I once
saw in a telephone company vehicle.  It went something like this, "No job
is so important, no service so urgent, that we cannot take time to per-
form our work carefully and safely." I think that motto is quite  important
in the quest for striking a rational balance between our standard of living
and our finite resource base,  including energy.  I think that even with re-
gard to energy, we have time to do the job without drastically upsetting the
social and economic structure.
       Proponents of source reduction argue that we cannot continue to
pursue a policy of constantly growing GNP and an increasing convenience-
oriented standard of living.  I  disagree because I think that the constant
struggle of man to improve his lot on earth provides the spark for creative
genius.  I think that we can and should pursue an increased standard of
living, but I think that this quest must be tempered with a realization that
everybody cannot have every material thing which he may desire.  I per-
sonally believe that our current economic problems in this  country have
roots in what some of the  source reductionists term "growth mania."  But,
please, do not blame the situation  on industry and its advertising alone.
Government itself must shoulder a very large portion of the responsibility,
with its promises of a fair share to all and its heavy-handed interferences
in the marketplace.  Now, as a nation, we are being forced to pay the piper
and face up to the real costs of our standard of living.
       Some agonizing changes are being wrought in our society. Witness
the price of energy,  which is forcing reevaluation of family budgets as well
as industrial budgets across the land.  Automobiles appear to be starting
a shrinking process.  My  industry is feeling an increased demand for the
home canning jar.  In fact, our statistics for February even show in-
creased shipments of returnable bottles over the same month a year ago.
My point is that changes are being made,  some faster and some slower.
So in terms  of getting into better balance with nature, I  see a time frame
of decades if not longer.
       How  are we to make  this  trip from where we are today to where we
ought to be?  And who will control the trip?  I do happen to believe that the
scientific and  industrial communities can provide a technological fix to
better balance the supply and demand of many resources.  Certainly re-
source recovery from the solid waste stream is an idea whose time is
upon us. Now, if you are one  of those who see the law of entropy as  a limit
on the concept of resource recovery, then I suggest that you focus your
personal energy upon the problem  of harnessing solar energy, so that we
can optimize the use of our finite,  terrestrial resources and in turn opti-
mize the overall standard of living.
       How  much government  is going to be  required to oversee  this tran-
sition?  Very little,  I hope,  for I happen to have great faith in our political
and economic system. I am reminded of a conversation a few years  ago
when I was traveling with Professor Phillip Kurland, the eminent constitu-

tional scholar.  The conversation concerned the so-called Watergate matter
and its many sordid facets.  One person in the group was lamenting that our
whole political system was threatened.  Professor Kurland made the ob-
servation that, to the contrary, the system seemed to be working remark-
ably well, and I think that the end result demonstrates the validity of his
remarks, for the legislative and judicial branches did exercise control
over the executive branch.
       I am similarly optimistic that our economic and  political systems
can function to bring a better balance in the matter of resource utilization
and the  standard of living.  The pricing mechanism is already at work re-
ordering some consumption patterns. I believe that there is some evidence
that the price of gasoline has helped to stem the growth  rate of gasoline
consumption.  By definition, the money being removed from consumer
pockets by utility fuel adjustment charges  must be restricting  other con-
sumer purchases and altering patterns of consumption of electricity.
Technology is moving in the direction of better resource utilization.  It
makes sense to utilize our solid waste as a fuel source as it is being done
by the Union Electric Company in St.  Louis.  I would not deny that polit-
ical and moral pressures  generated by the environmental community
have had a substantial impact in moving the industrial machine, and to
some extent the popular ethic, in this direction.  So I see the role of gov-
ernment in this whole process as primarily a role of monitoring,  advising,
and assisting the process, not a role of substituting government planning
for the right of free choice.  I think the government has a pretty bad track
record in the manner of economic planning. I cite the position of mass
transit and the railroads along with wage and price controls as horrible
       The government should keep the information data base  on our re-
source problems up-to-date and well publicized, as with this conference.
It should act where necessary to stimulate technology.   It should keep chan-
nels of capital formation unclogged.  It should set some reasonable rules
for air emissions and water effluents where necessary.  And only as a last
resort,  should it enter the market and ration resources. I do not think we
are anywhere near  that point of last resort except as periodic  aberrations
appear, such as the Arab  oil boycott.
       The government should not enact pollution taxes, or worst of all,
product standards.  In order to achieve any semblance of fairness, and
hope to  achieve the desired goals,  taxes would have to relate to the impacts
of various products or processes.  I see the definition and  measurement of
such impacts as an incredible morass, requiring yet another level of bu-
reaucracy in a government already swollen to an almost intolerable point.
The setting of product standards would be  even worse in my opinion. Auto-
mobile seat belt-ignition interlocks are enough evidence to convince me that
we don't need the government's help in product design.  For those who dis-
agree with me, I recommend the reading of the Interim  Staff Report of the

House Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Investigations and Re-
view, concerning Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.  In the interest of time, I will not quote from that, but it is a very in-
structive document.  The document paints a very dismal picture with respect
to Federal control of water quality and the complications thereof.  I submit
that overreaching Federal intrusion into product design offers an opportunity
to make the problems of the water law look almost ridiculously simple by com-
       On the other side of the coin,  Federal participation in projects to push
solar energy is, in my opinion,  a reasonable use of our government resources
which themselves are limited, even though that limitation is not always—
in fact hardly ever—recognized.
       Let me summarize. I agree that there is a need  to do a better job of
husbanding our finite resources.  I believe that we have time in which to ac-
complish this goal.  I think we are already moving in that direction as evi-
denced by our leveling population trend,  some of our consumption patterns, and
some of our industrial processes. Increased technology is necessary and can
help us in reaching this goal.  The pricing mechanism in a free market can
and is already starting to cause  shifts in products and processes to reduce re-
source depletion.  The role of the government in the marketplace concerning
this problem should be minimal  except in extreme situations. If that position
is a call for laissez faire, so be it, for I do have more faith  in our free market
system than I do in our present bureaucratic structure.
       Leviathan has grown too  much.  The struggle to feed  it is becoming
crushing.   Source  reduction is one issue where we should draw the line as the
President did and say "No more government growth. " Let source reduction
begin right here at home in Washington with the Federal  establishment. It is
time for labor and industry to join together and bring the bureaucratic struc-
ture under control.  The issue of beverage container legislation has  shown
that labor and industry are natural allies in the defense of a free market sys-
tem.  Let us expand this coalition and get on with the  job of bringing govern-
ment under control.


                          David James*
       My comments this afternoon are aimed at clarifying some of the
challenges faced by packaged foods processors in reducing solid waste.
When I received the EPA invitation to participate in this conference, I
was told that the purpose was to examine the challenge of product redesign
and reuse and product life extension as a means of reducing solid waste.
       I believe that my contribution in response to this is first to pre-
sent a few facts about the kinds of waste we generate and handle at our
factories and then to proceed to the more difficult issue of dealing with
packaging material wastes.
                     FACTORY SOLID WASTE

       We operate several factories that process agricultural commodities,
such as corn, green beans, and peas to package prepared food products.
On a visit last fall to one of our factories processing corn, I noted that we
were receiving about 150 truckloads a day of corn from nearby farms.  At
the same time, about 100 truckloads of corn residue per day, comprised of
husks and cobs left behind after the corn was processed, were being hauled
back to the farms as animal feed.
       I happen to believe the example of factory corn processing is the
kind of activity that makes common sense.   It is very efficient from an
energy viewpoint in that the trucks return back to the farms with a load
rather than as empty vehicles.  The corn husks and parts of the  cob are
recycled to feed animals with no further processing.
       What are the possible alternates ?  If you send the corn to a  retail
market as fresh corn on the cob, you have the same solid waste  of corn
husks and cobs ending up in the housewife's garbage can.  The transporta-
tion cost and the disposal cost are higher and new problems are  created,
My point is this—the present system of food processing is cost effective
and solid waste effective because competition made it that way.  If you
want your corn on the  cob fresh when it is in season, you have the freedom
to choose and pay for such a version.  In the winter, when fresh corn is
generally not available,  the supermarket gives you  a choice of canned or
frozen corn.
       *Director, Environmental Control, General Foods.

       With this choice comes a different disposal problem.  I doubt that
"product redesign" is a viable alternate for corn on the cob or cut corn.
The use of the factory would seem to be more efficient than the housewife
placing the same waste  in her garbage can.  For disposable food items,
such as corn, it would appear that the packaging materials are a small
price to pay.
       Another example, using a different factory waste, coffee grounds,
can illustrate another approach. • Anyone who has ever cleaned out the
coffee grounds from a percolator at home knows that this soggy material
should not go down the drain of the kitchen sink and can leak through
wrapping paper. What would you do if you had three large factories
making millions of cups of instant coffee every day? Our largest plant
has about 150,000  pounds of soggy coffee grounds, which is equivalent to
about 40 truckloads a day.  At one time, this was a real problem to a
nearby landfill disposal site. Luckily, we found a better way—especially
in these days of energy  shortages—was to burn the grounds in a special
boiler. The fuel value of the grounds is sufficient to supply about one-
third  of the steam  needed to run the coffee plant.
       We are just one  of many companies that have collected their facts
on factory waste.  Once we have the facts, the economic solution usually
turns out to be the best  answer for solid waste.  I would hope that future
regulatory efforts  would continue to recognize industry's capability of
solving most of its solid waste problems.
                        PACKAGING WASTE

       In 1974, EPA issued Resource Recovery and Source Reduction;
Second Report to  Congress, which singled out a few special wastes for
study purposes.   The report covers automobiles and recycling, beverage
containers,  rubber tires, and packaging as special waste problems.
       I believe the packaging solid waste reference material contained
in the EPA report gives adequate facts to  show that packaging is the
largest and one of the fastest growing product classes in municipal solid
wastes.  The major functional purpose of  all packaging is to protect the
item that is  being packaged.
       The primary purpose of food packaging material must be product
protection to achieve quality attributes and exclusion of contaminants.  I
am concerned that the EPA efforts on packaging wastes source reduction
could be in eventual conflict with Food and Drug Administration and U. S.
Department  of Agriculture food protection efforts.  I believe we must give
priority to food safety.  We recognize the need to go beyond the product
protection criteria, however,  into areas such as disposability.

                Disposability of Packaging Materials

       General Foods recognizes its responsibility to take practical steps
to avoid pollution of the environment with packaging wastes.  Every effort
is being made to minimize waste by eliminating excessive packaging ma-
terial and to ease the solid waste problem by utilizing the most disposable
package consistent with practical considerations.
       All new  and revised packages are reviewed for ultimate disposability
by the responsible division.  The purchase specifications covering packaging
material and the package design  take into account  the return of the discarded
package to the environment to minimize packaging pollution.
       Actually, 85 percent of our packages are made of materials that are
handled without trouble by municipal waste disposal systems.  Virtually all
of our food products are opened and used in family kitchens and disposed  of
through municipal systems.  The remaining 15 percent are  either cans or
jars, and about a third of these are reused by consumers as containers in
the household.
                     RECYCLING AND REUSE

       In 1971, we joined with a number of corporations and other inter-
ested parties to organize the National Center for Solid Waste Disposal.
Later, the name was changed to National Center for Resource Recovery.
This agency is evaluating the increasing number and variety of techniques
that are being developed to  conserve natural resources through new ways
of handling solid waste of all kinds.   For example: melting down cans to
make more cans—a closed, waste-free cycle.  It seems certain that sig-
nificant progress will be made in this area in the years ahead, and we
will be watching closely, ready to adapt wherever we can to conform with
new ways of handling these  kinds of waste.
       Meanwhile, we are  especially concerned with the ecological bene-
fits of using paperboard made from recycled material. Seventy-eight
percent, by weight, of all paperboard used for General Foods' product
packaging is now manufactured  from recycled materials, and we are con-
stantly examining and re-examining ways in which even greater amounts
can be employed.
       There are a number of technical and regulatory considerations,
however, that must be dealt with in the use of recycled paperboard.  With
corrugated shipping cases,  for  example, the use of recycled paperboard
is likely to come more slowly because of technical problems related to
strength and durability.  The use of recycled paperboard for frozen food
packages has proved impractical, because such board cannot resist wax
penetration, with resultant  package discoloration.
       Other products—such as powdered  desserts, rice, cereals, and
pet foods—can be packaged  with recycled paperboard without any

resulting disadvantages.
       Ways to further utilize recycled paperboard, as well as methods
of improving the board itself, will certainly be found.  Our corporation
performs constant research in this area, while keeping in close communi-
cation with appropriate government agencies and industries.  When new
developments occur, General Foods  will quickly employ those new uses
for recycled paperboard which prove practical.
       In closing, we believe that the present economic climate will con-
tinue to place heavy emphasis on cost reduction of packaged food products.
Many of these cost reduction efforts  will involve the reduced use of
packaging material; thus,  the compatibility of cost reduction with waste
reduction.   Package redesign can help reduce the use of packaging ma-
terials. We have gone to  lighter sheet metal gauges in cans, thinner and
lighter weight glass jars,  and alternate paper and plastic film laminates
wherever it has been feasible in the past. We will continue to pursue
promising packaging options in the future.

                     CONCERNS OF LABOR

                       George H.R. Taylor*
       I appreciate this opportunity to present to you the views and con-
cerns of organized labor regarding the serious and growing problems of
solid waste in America, and in particular regarding the issue of source
reduction as a possible solution.
       Before this informed audience it is hardly necessary to replow
the same field and recite the statistics which describe qualitatively the
Brobdingnagian dimensions of the waste products of our society being
spewed upon the American landscape.  What this does in adding to and
complicating the problems of pollution abatement, land use,  depletion
of the nation's and the world's  raw materials and energy resources base,
esthetic blight, and threats to the public health is only too well known.
       A quarter of a century ago, the Paley Commission warned that
the United States was rapidly becoming a have-not nation with respect
to many of the raw materials essential to the workings of our economy.
In 1973, the final report of the National Commission on Materials Policy,
established under the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, pointed out a
worsening situation in the U. S. dependency on foreign sources of raw
materials and energy fuels, further complicated by worldwide shortages
and higher costs resulting from competition by both industrialized and
developing nations.
       The whole solid waste problem has also been caught up in the so-
called energy crisis, which crowded on the public stage with the Arab
oil embargo in late 1973.  This aggravated  an already severe inflationary
cycle which in turn has been followed by an economic recession and high
unemployment.  As a result, there has been a shift of immediate concern
from the pollutional and land use impacts of solid waste to a more im-
mediate preoccupation with the drain on nonrenewable raw materials and
use of energy fuels.
       For convenience the evolution of the attempts to solve America's
solid waste problem can be divided into three phases:   (1) collection and
disposal; (2) recycling and reuse, which holds great promise in taking
our raw materials through a closed cycle of use, salvage, reprocessing
and reuse; (3) source reduction, a concept predicated  on an assumed
critical shortage of key raw materials and energy fuels, which would
       *Economist, Department of Research,  AFL-CIO.

leap to the ultimate by reducing the generation of solid waste at its
       The proponents of an immediate source reduction program would
apparently abandon recovery-recycling-reuse programs.  The sharp edge
of the source reduction approach has been in the area of nonreturnable
beverage containers—cans and bottles.
       Source reduction reaches far into the marketplace.  Not enough is
known of its full needs, methods of implementation, and consequences for
it to be established as a policy.  Should circumstance force  the United
States to curtail drastically its high energy and high materials use,  this
would have a revolutionary effect on economic growth, living standards,
and employment.  Such a decision would not be the responsibility of the
Environmental Protection Agency with regard to actions resulting in dras-
tic restructuring of this nation's socioeconomic institutions. It would
come about only after a far broader and more comprehensive examination
of all aspects of the problem than has thus far been given  to it,  and by a
far broader constituency, namely the  American public.  EPA's part in its
implementation would be only  that which its  congressional charter, now or
in the future, would permit.
       As  a matter of fact, EPA itself seemed to realize  that the hour of
source reduction implementation has not yet struck.  Its second report to
the Congress in 1974  on resource recovery and source reduction has this to
       .  .  . product controls  could have profound impacts on the market
       system because they involve direct control of product design or
       consumption levels.  The effect of these measures is difficult  to
       predict and hasty reaction could result in  significant economic
       dislocations.  For these reasons it is important to proceed very
       cautiously in this area and to consider options that are reasonable,
       fair and equitable.
       At present,  there is insufficient information to evaluate the neces-
       sity or desirability of product  control measures. . . .

       Yet, EPA is cautiously adding fuel to the fire of the first push for
source reduction in the form of banning the use of nonreturnable beverage
containers  either by act of Congress or legislation and ordinances at a
State or local level.   Two recent, identical statements made by EPA repre-
sentatives before the Vermont and Massachusetts State  Legislatures con-
sidering such legislation advocate national legislation requiring a mandatory
deposit phased over a period of time "and with proper controls" in order to
eliminate State and local divergencies, but in the  meantime  making it plain
that EPA does not oppose such State and local laws and ordinances which
minimize "economic dislocation" and  anticipate national legislation.
       EPA and environmental groups pushing for this kind  of program
should pay more attention to its economic and social consequences.  In

fact we believe that it is their obligation to do so,  just as it is the obligation
of the AFL-CIO and its unions to understand the need to clean up our environ-
ment,  and support programs that are soundly conceived to move toward this
goal.   This the AFL-CIO has done from the first piece of legislation on water
pollution to the present.
       But, it is on the container legislation issue that we part company with
the environmentalists and without qualification.
       The arguments in favor of source reduction in the beverage container
field reflect a singular myopia on the part of a number of environmental groups
both national and local.   This myopia takes  the form of either an inadvertent
or a calculated failure to try to understand how people in this society live and
what they want  out of life; this leads to solutions which are either irrelevant
or anathema to large groups  of fellow citizens.  Some of this may result from
the cultural alienation of America's middle  class in our post-industrial
society—from the poor, from minority groups, from problems associated with
achieving upward mobility of the poor, in short, not equality of opportunity, bat
attainment of equality of results.
       Although in many areas there has been some improvement in curing this
environmental myopia, it appears to be difficult to concern many environmen-
talists with the necessity of overcoming their basic distrust of the nature of man
in the total eco-system and developing a workable  accommodation between man
as a part of nature and man as a social and  political creature.
       The ban-the-bottle-and-the-can issue is a case history in this regard:
First,  this has been made a major  strategy in resource and energy savings in
a fashion that far overstates  the case.   Second, it  disregards the problems of
job loss by applying macroeconomic assumptions that there will be a balance
struck in new jobs created as against existing ones lost.
       Considering the first  assumption, we consider it  to be fallacious in sev-
eral respects since it provides too  little a benefit at too great a cost.  The pro-
portion of solid waste contributed by beverage containers is a minor part of
that thrown out upon the landscape from packaged containers of all kinds.
They contribute only about 20 percent of total highway litter, albeit they are
the most visible and esthetically offensive of the lot.
       The beverage industry uses  1 to 2 percent of total industrial energy,
which means  about . 4 to . 8 percent of total  national energy use.  Cutting dowa
this use by a  fraction  would have little impact on our national energy status,  but
it would have an inordinately large  impact on jobs.   Furthermore the ban-the-
bottle-and-can proposals leap over  workable strategies for recycling which
are being developed and in some instances already in use.
       As to  job loss, this has been estimated by EPA as being in excess of
60,000.  These are highly paid,  skilled, and permanent jobs. The EPA esti-
mate that there could  be a replacement of the  equivalent  number of other jobs
in washing and distributing and handling containers is a statistical cop-out.
       In the first place the replacement job would be an unskilled one at
$4,000 to $5,000 a year as against  the wages paid  to present workers in the
container industry at three times that amount, together with a large number
of fringe benefits, health services,  pensions,  insurance benefits, paid vaca-

tions,  and holidays.  Most wage earners in the container industry are family
breadwinners in their middle years.  The tragedies that would multiply from
their displacement would be stark and manifold.  It is questionable whether
many of them could ever successfully bid for the newly  created lesser paying
jobs of bottle sorting and washing because of factors such as location and
       Working people constantly face the hazard of job loss. That hazard
is as close to home as last month's unemployment rate  published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the long lines of working men and women
standing in line at unemployment compensation offices.  Changing markets
for goods, automation, export of jobs overseas by multinational corporations,
pressure  of imports, accidents and ill healtlf, plant relocation or company
bankruptcy—all can spell personal disaster.  Among middle-aged and older
persons the price  in loss of both hope and dignity is often beyond calculation.
       Organized  labor has long fought and continues to fight for programs
which provide income protection and alternative employment for such vic-
       Congress certainly has  the right to abolish by legislation or regulate
the manufacturing, distribution, and sale in commerce  of socially harmful
goods.  But, before such action is taken in the beverage container industry,
action  that wipes out thousands of livelihoods, it must be demonstrated be-
yond doubt that the potential benefit to society will far outweigh the costs.
We have concluded that beverage container legislation,  which I have been
discussing,  can produce only very limited social and economic benefits
that weigh very little on the scale against the costs of many thousands of
workers'  jobs.
       The proponents of prohibitions on the use of nonreturnable beverage
containers,  in this case history illustration,  have accomplished one other
thing.  By talking  mostly to themselves, elected public  officials, and EPA,
they have apparently decided to engage in no discourse with the labor move-
ment.  The result has been that our unions involved in the beverage con-
tainer  industry have been forced to make common cause with their coun-
terparts in management to oppose, each group for its own reasons, this
legislative approach wherever it appears.  A better job of alienation
could not  have been done.
       I want it understood, however, that the AFL-CIO and its affiliated
unions are not dinosaurs in the field of solid waste management.  I will
read to you portions of the  AFL-CIO policy statement on this issue:

              A clean environment and full employment are not incompati-
       ble; in fact, they can and should go hand-in-hand.
              Labor's position is especially pertinent in relation to the
       twin problems of solid waste disposal and depletion of valuable
       natural resources.  The answer to these companion problems lies
       in transforming waste into usable products.

              The answer does not lie in proposals to ban disposable cans
       and bottles or to curtail use of certain materials.  These proposals
       are really "nonsolutions."  By disrupting industry and causing heavy
       losses of jobs,  more problems would be created than solved.
              Similarly, we reject proposals that would:  (1) place a hidden
       excise tax on products containing certain materials, or (2)  expand
       the depletion allowance tax loophole to companies that use waste ma-
       terials.  The depletion allowance loophole has encouraged using up
       valuable natural resources and has not provided for prudent materials
       use policies.
              The Federal Government must expand its effort in developing
       new techniques  for disposing of solid wastes, recovering valuable
       materials from wastes and for using wastes  in new ways, such as
              To do this, the Congress must greatly increase the  solid
       waste budget of the Environmental Protection Agency that was
       slashed by the Administration.  With increased funds the EPA could
       assist local governments in establishing alternate measures for dis-
       posing of solid wastes.

       In short, we do have a positive program and a far-reaching approach
to commit this country to a policy of resource recovery. We would be the
last to say that this symposium on source reduction will not have its posi-
tive aspects.  This  issue deserves more light and less heat.  I hope that
from it will stem a more constructive exchange of views and information
by all concerned than exists at present.


                       James R. Peterson*
       With energy shortages and accelerated costs of energy and other
critical materials, there is ample economic justification to discuss the
subject of more efficient energy and materials usage.  It is becoming
increasingly apparent that value can be extracted from what we don't use
—by using what we need more efficiently and by increasing the uses for
materials traditionally thought of as waste. These considerations are
both environmentally and economically sound.  In fact, good environmen-
tal management must be viewed as a straightforward aspect of good man-
agement, a key ingredient of any corporate productivity program.
       We have been practicing this kind of management for years. In
1972, we made these concerns explicit by establishing a corporate policy
to protect the environment which states in part that:
       The Pillsbury Company will protect the public interest in all of our
activities which involve the use of natural resources or have an impact on
the environment and will support legislative and regulatory efforts to de-
velop sound environmental programs.  We will adopt a leadership role in
providing a high quality of environment at our facilities.
       Our consumer divisions have had, since 1972, policies concerning
environmentally sound packaging.  These policies embody our intentions
which are to minimize the total amount of packaging material used com-
patible with the food products' protection needs and good manufacturing
and marketing practices.  It is our policy to use as little packaging ma-
terial as possible and use recycled and biodegradable materials whenever
possible.  Our businesses are required to establish and maintain  written
policies and procedures necessary to assure that each of our companies
will take all practical means to carry  out these policies and to assure full
compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of applicable laws and
       Let me take a few minutes to tell you more specifically about some
of the things we have done and are doing.

                       PACKAGING  DESIGN

       We consider packaging to be an essential concern both for our
business and for protection of the environment.  When considering the
       *President, The Pillsbury Company.

design of an economically and environmentally sound package in the food
business, we must take into account in order of priority the following
packaging issues.
       1.  The packages must be safe and maintain the safety of our food
       2.  Considerations of total package volume and quantities to be
       3.  The product life protection quality—that is,  the ability  of the
           package to maintain the product's quality over its intended
           life, consistent with our distribution system.  For our  kinds
           of food products, these time periods range from 90 days for
           refrigerated products to lj years or more for grocery  mix
       4.  The package's physical strength must be consistent with the
           expected handling exposure occurring in our distribution sys-
           tems and the distribution systems of our customers and con-
       5.  The package must provide good consumer service, that is,  be
           usable by the consumer.
       6.  The package must be merchandisable, that is, meet our mar-
           keting standards.
                   Package Optimization Program

       We have a constant and vigorous package optimization program
whose objective is to encompass the above priorities and our environmen-
tal concerns as economically as possible. Consider the following examples
illustrating our efforts to use less packaging material, use more recycled
material, and use biodegradable materials whenever possible.
       Use of Less Packaging Material.  I stated we have  as our goal to
use as little packaging material as possible.  Over the last 10 years we
have had a program to reduce the amount of metal used in  our refrigerated
can ends. During this time, we made a 36-percent reduction in the amount
of metal used in these can ends which is equivalent to a waste reduction of
about 11.1 million pounds per year.  This was achieved by extensive work
and cooperation between ourselves and our supplier and required the de-
velopment of new end designs, stamping techniques, and a considerable
amount  of new equipment.  This work resulted in can ends which perform
with a higher level of dependency than the old ones.  This reduction of use
of metal not only saved us money and reduced waste but conserved con-
siderable amounts of energy associated with the production of raw metal
and its final disposal.
       Last year we switched to the use of trays instead of carry-out bags
for Burger King customers choosing to eat in the restaurant.  This re-
sulted in a 30-percent reduction in the total amount of paper and paper-

board used in Burger King.  We are presently working on the reduction
of bag size in our Burger King operations.
       By increasing use of bulk handling systems for bakery and indus-
trial flour, which we have promoted vigorously,  our consumption of
multiwall paper bags has been decreased by about 11 million pounds per
       Use of Recycled Materials.  Not counting Burger King, Pillsbury
uses about 100  million pounds of paper and  paperboard each year of which
more than half  (approximately 53 percent) is recycled fiber.  Essentially
all of our folding cartons and can body stocks are derived from this re-
cycled paper and paperboard.
       Use of Biodegradable Materials.  In addition to reducing  amounts
of packaging material and using recycled materials whenever possible, we
strive to use biodegradable materials whenever possible.  As just noted,
paper and paperboard are used extensively and are fundamental to our
package design. We use as  little plastic and metal as possible.  All of
our paper and paperboard is biodegradable, which accounts for the 100
million pound figure mentioned  above for Pillsbury, exclusive of Burger
       Eighty-eight percent of our Burger  King refuse stream is biode-
gradable. This is not insignificant since we generate about 1,200 pounds
per week from  each of our approximately 1,400 Burger King  stores. We
are presently working to replace our styro  shell used on the Burger King
Yumbo and Big Plain Sandwiches.

       Waste reduction is not only a packaging consideration,  however.
Most of our manufacturing facilities do not generate substantial amounts
of solid waste.   We do,  however, have a major potato manufacturing
plant which processes the raw potato into finished dehydrated potato mix
products.  In 1971, we started a program  to convert essentially all of
our potato waste into animal feed.  Since then, we have established our
own feed ingredient plant which utilizes potato peels from our potato
manufacturing plant and others to make animal feed.  This essentially
eliminated the generation of about 50 tons  of potato waste each day and,
in the present time of food concerns, permitted us to convert a food
waste not fit for human consumption into an animal feed.
       We are presently experimenting with an exciting idea in one of
our refrigerated food plants.   In cooperation with the local community
and an innovative new business,  we intend to convert all our solid waste
and sewage sludge from this plant into  steam power for  use by the plant.
Should this experiment prove feasible,  we expect to save 180,000 gallons
of fuel oil per year, essentially all of that plant's oil requirements.  In

addition, we may generate substantial amounts of electricity for our own
use.  Today, in accordance with State regulations, sewage sludge must
be trucked at considerable expense to the Atlantic Ocean.  If this experi-
ment succeeds, we not only stop a part of the State's dumping into the
Atlantic Ocean, but save ourselves money too.  We are going to continue
to explore alternatives to relate waste reduction to energy needs.

       In closing, I should add that we have further opportunities to ex-
plore. Certainly, no effort is 100 percent successful.  Even the best de-
signed packaging and waste reduction system can result in materials which
consumers, through careless habits, can use to produce litter. We want
to work with the public to increase their level of concern for litter reduc-
tion, just as we seek to reduce our level  of waste output. We have taken
an active position to inform the consumer and discourage littering.  We
intend to continue to improve our efforts  and to improve the consumer's
efforts "to have it his way."  We  strongly believe that any corporate pro-
ductivity program must have as a fundamental element both  energy and
material usage reductions, and they are interrelated.

            RETREADING AND THE 100,000-MILE TIRE
                         W. James Sears*
       Tires made in the United States are produced in 62 plants in 23
States by 17 companies.  During 1972, the tire manufacturing industry
employed 107,000 workers and had a sales volume of $4, 890 million.
       These companies produce many different kinds  of tires.  Automo-
bile, truck and bus, motorcycle, construction equipment, farm tractor and
implements, aircraft, industrial pneumatic, garden tractor, and bicycle.
       In 1973, the last year for which complete  statistics are available, a
total of 249 million tires of all kinds were produced.  Automotive tires for
use on automobiles, trucks and buses, amounted  to 223 million units or 90
percent of the total. Since automotive tires account for this  large a share,
I will deal only with them in my subsequent comments.
       The doctoral dissertation authored by Robert R. Westerman under
the title, The Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires, has been reviewed
by members of our environment committee and others. He concludes that
the best management of waste tires would be achieved by retreading and the
production of a 100,000-mile tire. My remarks are confined to these two
aspects. This week I have received a critical analysis  of this dissertation
prepared by Dr.  Robert H.  Snyder, Vice President for Tire Technology,
Uniroyal Tire Company. Dr. Snyder points out several errors of fact, use
of incorrect information,  and the need to furnish  correct information into
the computer to develop a meaningful linear programming model.  A copy
of Dr.  Snyder's critique will be furnished to  the EPA.
       All tires will some day end up on the  scrap pile. For every new tire
sold in the replacement market,  one  is removed from the wheel and discar-
ded. Dependent upon its condition, the tire may find its way into a retread
shop or to the scrap pile. Remember also that of the four or more tires on
the 8 million or more automobiles and trucks scrapped each year, many
never find their way into the stream of discarded tires. It has been esti-
mated that as many as 200 million discarded tires become available each
year. The accessibility and the methods and  costs of collection are major
problems. It is from this supply of discarded tires that retreaded tires are
       The retread industry has  been in existence for over 60 years, and
its current growth has been estimated at approximately 3_percent per year.
       *Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association.

There are some 6,000 or more retread shops in the United States with an
estimated capacity of some 50 to 60 million tires per annum.  While ac-
curate statistics are not available, it is estimated  that 49 million automo-
tive tires were retreaded last year—36 million automobile and 13 million
truck, bus,  and off-the-highway tires.  The number of automobile tires
retreaded represent about 20 percent, or one in  five,  of all the replace-
ment  tires sold in the United States.   The number of truck, bus, and off-
the-highway tires retreaded amounts to approximately 35 percent, or one
in three, of all such tires sold for replacement purposes. Retreading
extends the useful life of the tire casing, which is the structural body of
the tire that is  made of a variety of materials such as different synthetic
fibers, fiberglass and, in recent years, steel wire.  In this process, new
tread rubber is vulcanized to a carefully prepared  casing, permitting the
casing to be put back into use with its replaced tread.
       Before a used tire that has been discarded can be retreaded, it must
be carefully and thoroughly inspected to determine whether it is suitable
for retreading.  Only 25 percent of the 200  million tires discarded in a
year are retreaded.  This is because not all discarded tires reach a point
of inspection, and many of those that are inspected are rejected as un-
suitable for  retreading because of casing damage.  One prominent retread
specialist estimated that of every 100 automobile tires discarded,  60 are
inspected and 30 of these are found suitable for retreading.  For every 100
discarded truck and bus tires, 90 are examined  and 80 are retreaded.
       The new longer mileage automobile  tires that have been introduced
in the past few  years face much greater exposure to cuts, punctures, and
other road hazards because of their longer lives.  Many truck tires may
be retreaded more than once. It is not considered good, nor safe prac-
tice,  to retread an automobile tire more than once.
       Retreading is certainly not the complete answer to the scrap tire
disposal problem, since the retread will some day be scrapped.  However,
at a given point in time, retreading does reduce  the number of discarded
tires  that would otherwise go to the scrap pile.   Retreaded tires will give
many useful miles with the expenditure of less petroleum based  materials
than required for the production of a  new tire.  The retreading industry
should be complimented for the improvement of their processing techniques
and the performance of their product.
       The industry today produces some 100,000-mile truck tires and
three separate  types of passenger car tires:  the bias ply tire, the belted
bias tire, and the radial ply tire.  Within each of these three different con-
structions, dependent upon the kinds  and quantities of materials used, tires
giving considerably different mileages can be produced.  Although there
are wide variations in tire mileages,  the following estimates indicate the
national mileage averages at which tires wear out: bias tires, 20,000
miles; belted bias, 30,000 miles; and radial ply, 40,000  miles.  The
belted bias and radial tires have only been available on new cars and in
the replacement market during the last few years.  These mileage

averages represent a considerable increase from those anticipated only a
few years ago.  There are known instances when tires of all three of these
constructions have gone 100,000 miles before wear-out. Top lines of
radial ply tires now carry warranties by their manufacturers for 40,000
miles  of tread life expectancy.
       It is often assumed that treadwear is merely related to the abra-
sion resistance of the rubber tread.  This is only one, and not the most
important factor.  The important factors are: (1) the transmission of
forces during the changes in vehicle operation; (2) the vehicle suspension
parameters, vertical spring rate, load distribution, and wheel positions;
(3) load on the tire and the inflation pressures; (4) environmental condi-
tions including road construction materials, temperatures, moisture,
topography, and geography.
       Surveys in all parts of the United States have been made to mea-
sure treadwear performance of tires in actual service. Such surveys
have shown that  in a given geographical area,  the variability between the
best and the worst wearing tires are greater than twofold.  Such surveys
have also disclosed that there is a twofold difference in treadwear be-
tween geographical areas.  Thus, the vehicle that gets 20,000 miles of
treadwear in Charlotte, North Carolina,  could get 40,000 miles  in
Chicago, Illinois.
       While there is no theoretical reason why the tire industry could
not produce an automobile tire that would go 100,000 miles before wear-
out,  the following are some reasons why such tires  would be  impractical.
Generally speaking, anything that is done to improve treadwear perfor-
mance, or the total number of miles that a tire operates, would be detri-
mental to the tire's performance in its life prior to  wear-out. Increasing
the thickness of the tread to improve mileage would increase the fuel
consumption required to  roll the tires and adversely affect high speed
capability.  The traction performance of the tire would also be hurt in
that the tread  elements would be more  flexible and therefore not grip the
road as positively.  The  ride would also be affected in a detrimental way.
The heavier tire with the thicker tread would not absorb the road irregu-
larities as well as current tires.  The  damage to a casing that makes it
unsuitable for retreading is related to the miles driven.  The likelihood
of road damage would be substantially increased with a 100,000-mile
tire.  Thus, substantial unused tread and an unrecovered investment
would remain when it  was removed from service due to injury. As far
as tread compounds are concerned, the industry sees no new break-
through or new materials in the foreseeable future.   Generally speaking,
to improve the treadwear performance of the tire,  you hurt the tire's
traction and consequently its safety capability.  While there are compounds
now available that would  improve and,  in some cases,  substantially im-
prove the treadwear characteristics  of the tire,  it would be too slippery
or the  traction would be so poor that it would be a detriment to highway

       When we discuss the mileage expectancy of an automobile tire, we
must always remember that the tire is an integral component of the auto-
mobile.  In this regard, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration 5 years ago told the appropriations committee:
       The pneumatic tire is probably the most complex component
       of an automobile.  The tire is principally composed of tex-
       tile fibers and various rubber compounds with several other
       chemical additives,  extenders, and modifiers.  When in-
       flated with air, the tire must support the vehicle and trans-
       mit all steering, driving, and stopping forces from the
       vehicle  to the roadway, while providing a comfortable ride
       to the passengers and durability at a reasonable cost to the
       It is the automobile  manufacturer that determines the power re-
quirements of the vehicle, its acceleration,  deceleration, braking  re-
quirements, the steering mechanism, the suspension parameters,  the
riding comfort,  the stability, and handling requirements.  It is the com-
bination of these factors that dictate the design of the tire,  including its
tread life expectancy.  If you could  increase the size of a tire on a new
automobile, add more rubber to the tire tread, beef up its casing and
operate at much higher inflation pressures,  you could substantially im-
prove tread life such that a 100,000-mile expectancy would not be un-
reasonable.  If this were initially designed for the Chicago, Illinois, area,
then you could have a 50,000-mile tire in the Charlotte,  North Carolina,
       The new automobile equipped with these kinds of 100,000-mile
tires would have performance standards unacceptable to the car design
engineer and  the motorist.  It certainly would ride extremely hard, its
stability and handling might be quite different, and it is likely that  the
automobile would fall apart before the tires reached the theoretical
100,000 miles.  Today, the average automobile  is scrapped after it runs
89,000 miles.  Even today, the high quality radial tires will provide more
miles than the lifetime of some of the vehicles.  The beefed up 100,000-
mile tire would require more materials, be of higher cost, and would
not be a compatible component in today's automobile.
       The radial tires produced by the industry are supplying approxi-
mately twice  the mileage of the older constructions, and this has the
tendency of reducing the unit demand for replacement tires. This  factor,
together with reduced auto production, has had a depressing effect upon
the industry's financial operations.  The production of a 100,000-mile
tire, in our opinion, would  not be an effective, economical, and certainly
not the best management of waste tires.
       As I indicated at the outset,  our association's environmental com-
mittee has been dealing with the problem of scrap tire disposal. They
recognize that the ideal solution  should have no adverse effect on the en-
vironment, conserve natural resources by recovery and recycling  raw

materials, and have miuimum adverse impact on established industries.
Furthermore, the processes should have minimum costs and be capable
of widespread use while the products produced should have commercial
       In their review,  the committee has found that there is no one
single process by which all scrap tires could be utilized, but there are
many processes that must be used to solve the problem.
       Because of all of the ongoing work, it has been predicted that in a
few years, scrap tires will not be considered a solid pollutant, but
rather be recognized as a valuable raw material, which may be used as
a fuel or processed into several useful products, relieving the  inevitable
strain on our natural resources.

              Public Perspectives
                      VIEWS OF A CONSUMER
                          Arthur H.  Purcell*
       Speaking for the consumer is a rather immodest task, since we
are all consumers, and all have our own consumer opinions and biases.
But one "consumer" comes to mind who speaks for many of us.  You may
remember Inspector Clouseau, so aptly portrayed by Peter Sellers in
"Shot in the Dark" and "Pink Panther." In a scene in one of those films,
in response to a question about who he suspects has committed the crime,
the  good inspector looks around,  founders a bit, and says:  "I suspect
everyone.  I suspect no one. "  If I may paraphrase our friend Clouseau:
Today, consumers  expect everything.  They expect nothing.  There is
both profound disillusionment and great hope among consumers and in
the  consumer movement,  as well as among those who watch consumer
trends and who must deal  with consumers.  This  disillusionment and hope
bear directly on the question of how consumers figure in the waste reduc-
tion picture, or what Mr.  Train has called the "War on Waste."
       Let us look  at some examples on the debit side—the disillusion-
ment—that lead consumers to expect nothing, that lead consumers to feel
that industry and government are not acting in their interest: First, in
the  food products area. As you well know, sugar  prices have risen as-
tronomically, and sugared product costs have gone up correspondingly.
Yet, the major producers and retailers of comparable sugared and non-
sugared products have generally hiked the prices of the sugar-free goods
just as steeply as the sugared ones. This makes no  sense from the con-
sumer standpoint, and certainly reflects insensitivity towards the con-
sumer. To add to the  problem, there  has been virtually no government
action aimed at halting this discriminatory consumer product pricing prac-
tice.  (I should note here that last week a friend of mine purchased some
Neatsfoot oil, an oil that definitely doesn't come out  of the ground.  He
asked the clerk why the price had tripled, and the reply was "Landsakes,
boy.  Haven't you been reading about what's happened to the price of oil?")
In Washington, D.C.,  we  have seen that a takeover of the food retailing
business, to the point where about 70 percent of it is controlled by three
giants (no pun intended), has led not to decreased prices, but to food prices
about 12 percent higher than those in the rest of the nation.
       I'll give you a very subjective example.  You may remember that
Shell Oil television ads used to have for a grand finale a big fat automobile
       *Assistant Professor, George Washington University.

crash through and tear to shreds, a life-size mural (If I'm not mistaken,
it had trees on it!).  This particular ad,  to me,  said: "Look, everybody,
we like to waste, and isn't  it cute?"  So I wrote a letter to the president
of Shell (I do things like that from time to time) saying that the ad of-
fended me, and probably others, and that it showed a lot of contempt for
our resources—in this case paper.  I got a letter back that said, in
essence:  "You dummy, don't you know that a car crashing through a
paper mural is our logo? People associated that with us.  And  it was
only a very small piece of paper in relation to our annual tonnage. Be-
sides, don't you know that paper is recyclable?"
       Or how about that recent letter from Mr. Kendall,  Chairman of
Pepsico  ,  to Mr. Train where he basically told Mr. Train—in regard to
the question of banning throwaway beverage containers—that what is good
for the beverage and container  industries is good for America.  On his
January 10 newscast, Edward P.  Morgan said of this letter  (which Kendall
carbon copied, incidentally, to Gerald Ford and William Simon, among
others):  "As a document of a tycoon's arrogance to a public official, it
could become a classic." Not too comforting for consumers who  hope to
effect change in waste habits by demonstrating to open-minded industrial-
ists that  they want to, and are willing to, work with them  to reduce con-
sumer product waste.
       Consumers feel rather helpless, too,  knowing that basic process-
ing decisions affecting material usage in consumer products can only
very indirectly be influenced by consumer habits.  As brought out at the
recent annual meeting of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and Petroleum Engineers, which focused on the subject of resource con-
servation in the materials and metals industries, many product manu-
facturing specifications are overly stringent and encourage materials and
energy waste.  But,  rightly or wrongly, the consumer has little to say  in
this important area.
       Those who observe consumer trends have also been disillusioned
in some respects by consumer actions, as well as  at times confused.
Confusion, of course, arises out of the having-the-cake-and-eating-it-too
approach of many consumers.  For example, no consumer wants to pay
for what he or she doesn't need and must throw away.  This  is perfectly
consistent with the objectives of waste reduction.  But now,  particularly
as more consumers are attempting, e.g., to use bicycles, public trans-
portation, or just their own feet, the problem of literally lightening the
burden of consumer products grows,  and poses a conflict with the aims of
waste reduction.  After all, which weighs less, a throwaway aluminum can
or a returnable glass bottle? Our consumer society prides itself on new
lifestyles,  greater freedom and mobility, etc.  Are these  conducive to
waste reduction? No, they generally are not,  and  we can  think  of many
examples that tell us why:  from individually wrapped picnic items to
throwaway cigarette lighters to second,  third, and fourth overweight

gas-guzzling family automobiles.
       Last year,  consumer watcher disillusionment probably hit rock
bottom.  As soon as the Arab oil embargo was lifted, and former Presi-
dent Nixon assured us that the "energy crisis" was over, consumption of
everything looked like it was going back to the old levels and beyond.
Conservation and waste reduction were instantly old hat.  Americans re-
sumed practicing what  Senator Goldwater described as their basic right
to say "Fill'er up!" But there is_hope.  There is significant hope be-
cause a conservation ethic somehow seems to be emerging.
       Let's face it. The Ford and Nixon Administrations' economic
game plans and ploys have given the drive for waste reduction great
momentum; we're just  too poor to consume and throw away things at the
rate to which we were, until recently, accustomed.  Statistics are showing
that the solid waste stream is shrinking as the unemployment lines grow.
But, I think that this reduction in waste reflects more than a tight eco-
nomic situation. I think it may well be indicative of a genuine reduction
of material wastes, just as we have managed to reduce our energy con-
sumption.  As consumers, we can take inspiration from the Federal
Government which, in the past year and a half, has managed to cut its
in-house energy expenditures by about 25 percent.  Several leading in-
dustries have taken substantive conservation steps,  (This has,  interest-
ingly, been documented by some of Senator Magnuson's staff people who
compiled responses to  a letter the Senator wrote to executives of
America's 100 largest  corporations asking, simply:  "What have you
done to conserve energy and resources ?")  At least one container manu-
facturer has stated a commitment to reduce material and energy usage in
beverage containers by 1980 to the point where, according to  his figures,
the energy intensiveness, if not the materials intensiveness,  of the con-
tainers will approach that of 10-trip returnable bottles.  While this may
not be satisfactory from the material waste reduction standpoint, remem-
ber that light cans can  be regulated or banned,  just as heavier ones. It
was revealed last week that the country's balance of payments deficit re-
versed itself this past month, with the credit going mainly to  reduction of
oil imports, which also means reduction of materials usage.  This is good
news.  And recent economic evidence  indicates that,  on an absolute cost
basis, it is now cheaper to expand resource and energy productivity through
conservation and waste reduction means than through the classical incre-
mental expansion of energy and resource facilities.
       Senator Percy's S. 200, the consumer protection act of 1975,
promises that we may have a  federal consumer agency one of these
days.  If properly set up, this agency could do a great deal to elimin-
ate waste in consumer  products.
       Consumers are obviously in a formidable position in the question
of waste reduction, since there is vast potential for waste reduction in
the products made for them.  The question now is: "How can consumers

best go beyond their disillusionment, latch on to the hope that is emerging,
and be an effective, positive force in helping realize the waste reduction
potential?"  This vital question—so easy to ask and so hard to answer—is
one which Technical Information Project (or TIP), a group with which I
have the opportunity to be associated,  is taking a hard look at. TIP be-
lieves, as I certainly do,  that consumers will have maximum input and
Impact only if they work together closely with other sectors of our society
including environmentalists, labor,  minorities,  poverty groups, tech-
nologists, lawmakers—to implement strategies that are palatable  to these
diverse groups, and others, which figure so prominently in this national
question. A striking example is one which permeates any serious discus-
sion of the waste reduction issue.  That is the problem of social costs of
labor, industry, and other group dislocations accompanying significant
waste reduction efforts.  It is time that consumers sit down with their
colleagues,  really listen and try to grasp what the others have to say, and
make a strong effort to go beyond the rhetoric and ill feelings, such as
consumers and labor generally have  over bottle bills,  to work out  a plan,
or plans, which will be amenable to paying these social costs as well as
swift  implementation of waste reduction programs.  Most assuredly,  this
is a tall order, but a necessary one.
       To conclude, may I simply say that,  while  there is good cause for
disillusionment, by the consumer as well as toward the consumer, there
is even better cause for hope.  We are all consumers.  So let us neither
underestimate our collective abilities  to help conserve this country's
natural resources, nor allow ourselves to underparticipate in the  positive
effort it will take to do so on a meaningful scale.

                     SOURCE REDUCTION:

                           Pat Taylor*
       Thank you very much for this opportunity to share with you my
views on the need for reduction in waste generation.  Source reduction can
and must play an important role in reorienting our nation's materials use
cycle—resulting in savings to municipalities and consumers as well as
materials and energy.
       Over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been a dramatic shift in
per capita consumption of goods and materials. Consumers are now
being offered increasingly large quantities of product packaging when
compared with actual product consumed.   For example, according to the
EPA's Resource Recovery and Source Reduction; Second Report to Con-
gress, "Overall, the consumption of food  in the United States  increased
2.3 percent by weight on a per capita basis between 1963 and 1971. Earr-
ing the same period, however, the tonnage of food packaging increased
by an estimated 33.3 percent per capita,  while the number of food
packages increased by an estimated 38.8 percent per capita."
      It is these trends which are of grave concern to environmentalists
—because of the attendant energy, resource, and solid waste impacts of
present  materials use patterns.
       Briefly, I would like to examine some of the impacts of the United
States' present energy and materials intensive economy on the work force,
the consumer,  and the environment.
      In a statement before the Senate Interior Committee last year,
Professor Nathaniel Wollman of the University of New Mexico addressed
the implications of present materials and  energy use patterns head-on:
       "Unless the total of materials use  is reduced," he stated,  "our
environmental problems will continue to grow.  By substituting labor for
materials in certain strategic sectors of the economy,  material through-
put is reduced without a corresponding decline in the output of final goods.
The increased labor needed for environmentally desirable  or neutral
products will come from the reduction in the pool of unemployed or par-
tially employed labor."
      A growing reliance on materials and energy for producing  and
delivering goods to the consumer has severely impacted the American
worker.  For all food and beverage shipments, the number of containers
       *Environmental Action, Inc.

shipped increased from 78 billion units in 1967 to 103 billion units in 1972
—a 32-percent increase. The value of these shipments rose 30 percent—
from $84 billion to $110 billion in the same period.  However,  the work
force declined in the beverage and food industries from 1.7 to 1.6 million
employees,  despite the rapid rise in output. Production and sales in the
food and beverage industries have become increasingly reliant on the sub-
stitution of materials and energy for labor.
       Another specific example of this phenomenon is in the brewing in-
dustry where job losses have been accompanied by a restructuring of the
industry.  In 1958,  71, 700 people were employed in the brewing industry.
By 1971, only 57,000 people were employed—a decrease of 26 percent in
employment. Despite these job losses, in 1971, 14.1 billion more con-
tainers were shipped than in 1958.
       Accompanying the decline  in employment has been an accelerating
trend toward concentration  and dominance in the production and sale of
beer in the United States.  In 1968, 111 million barrels of beer were sold
in the United States. The 10 leading brewers shared 68 percent of the
market. Last year, 144 million barrels  of beer were sold in the United
States.  The 10 leading brewers shared 81 percent of the market, with 6
breweries controlling 61 percent.  By 1974, only  99 brewing plants re-
mained in the United States, a substantial reduction from 400 in the early
       According to an article by Mr. Sanford Rose in the March 1974
issue of Fortune magazine,  "The  more complex an industrial society be-
comes, the more it learns how to organize  electrical, mechanical or
nuclear means of doing the  work that men once did with hands."
       It is  this substitution of materials and energy for human labor
that has stimulated  consumer and environmental interest in the reduction
of waste generation.
       For consumers,  it is especially critical.  In testimony presented
to the House Subcommittee  on Monopolies and Commercial Law in July
1973, Ralph Nader and Bevereley Moore  stated, "The theoretical model
of a free enterprise market economy assumes that advertising, packaging
and other seller promotional information will provide consumers with
accurate nutritional information.  Consumers certainly have a  right to
expect  to receive this information since they are paying $4 billion a year
for food advertising costs that are included in food prices. "
       However, food packaging no longer merely protects  a package and
conveys to the consumer information on the nutritional value and costs of
its contents—rather food packaging has become an integral part of the
merchandising-advertising-packaging complex.
       In a January 1974 article which appeared in Nation,  Robert Choate
discussed the impact of packaging as an advertising medium, "The food
industry became convinced  long ago that nutrition couldn't sell  its prod-
ucts.  The advertising agencies turned  to toys, fantasy, sex appeal and
hilarity to distract the food purchaser from worrying about  the ingredients."

       The cereal industry is probably a good example of what Mr.
Choate is driving at.  Between 1958 and 1970, cereal, flour,  and re-
lated product consumption declined 6 percent, while package consump-
tion increased 12.5 percent.
       The food purchaser is concerned not only about ingredients—but
product cost and environmental impact as well. As a recent food page
article in The Washington Post advised shoppers, "Read the net  weight
on the label; don't let appearances fool you.  Often the package size
bears little relationship to the contents."  The article was advising con-
sumers on how to save money while shopping.
       In a survey conducted by a beverage industry firm, reported in
the June 7, 1974, issue of Beverage Industry, consumers were inter-
viewed about proposals to require deposits on all beverage containers.
It was found, "Overwhelmingly, those interviewed said 'ban them [non-
returnables] by law' rather than increasing the cost of products to  cover
disposal costs or putting up with the pollution problems they cause. "
       This response cuts across all lines: education, occupation, union
membership,  marital status, and political  affiliation.
       How  long does the consumer have to beware ?  How long must
the public educate itself about the true costs of convenience packages ?
       Source reduction is a policy option which will have significant
impact by reducing the amount of wastes generated, making possible
savings in space at land disposal sites.  This impact is of special im-
portance to municipalities faced with limited lifetime at existing disposal
sites.  For municipalities transporting wastes for disposal any distance,
transportation costs as well as land space savings will be achieved.
       It is this benefit which prompted the National League of Cities and
U. S. Conference of Mayors to recommend the adoption of national  source
reduction legislation.  Their endorsement of national waste reduction
policies  stated, "The skyrocketing volume  of solid waste is created by
national economic forces that transcend local government.  Unless we re-
duce the total volume of solid waste generated nationally, local govern-
ments will continue to be overburdened with the flow and financing of the
nation's solid wastes."
       Source reduction will also reduce the amount of wastes that need
to be collected, thus making savings possible in collection costs, the  most
expensive part of local solid waste expenditure.  The savings are con-
tingent, however,  on increased efficiency in collection procedures as a
result of the decreased waste generation.
       Sometimes resource recovery and source reduction are presented
in the context of either/or. This is most unfortunate for,  I would assume,
most environmental organizations are not opposed to the recovery of
materials from waste.  Rather, it is our contention that both are impor-
tant components of a balanced solid waste management strategy.  What
is simply frightening to us is the potential for institutionalizing waste
generation through construction of resource recovery facilities dependent

upon a steady stream of wastes that can and should be reduced.
       Policies which have encouraged the rapidly expanding consumption
of energy and raw materials must be reversed.  We can no longer afford
to ignore the broader implications of the solid waste disposal crisis facing
cities across the country.  It is a crisis of raw materials and energy manage-
ment and policymaking  that will affect the country for years to come.
       For municipalities and waste collection agencies, the easiest
problem to solve is one that you didn't create in the first place.  That's
what source reduction is really all about.
       There is no one  solution to the  disposal crisis or materials and
energy shortages.  Explorations into the potential for energy recovery,
increased materials recovery (through facilities construction and source
separation), and source reduction have shown they all have a role to play
in a balanced solution to the solid waste crisis.


                       William C.  McKinney*
       In all of my readings on the subject of waste reduction and disposal,
I have failed to see any reference to the profound pronouncement of Omar
Khayyam which neatly solves the problem, namely, "A loaf of bread, a jug
of wine,  and thou."  I hasten to point out that this statement was couched
in terms of unwrapped bread,  a refillable jug for wine, and thou. Where
is the waste disposal problem ? The bread was unwrapped, the jug  re-
fillable from the cask at the winery, the  only questionable item being
thou. Unfortunately, technology and the  demands of modern civilization
have negated this simplistic approach to  one of the major problems we
face today in our current society.  The health department has dictated
that bread and other products will  be properly packaged to protect them
against contamination. The Internal Revenue Service mandates the non-
reuse of the jug under the alcoholic beverage container laws of the coun-
try.  Thou remains as the one unresolvable item.
       I  find it difficult as an employee of the District Government,  dedi-
cated to the service of its population,  to present to you in categorical
terms the considered public opinion on all facets of our waste reduction
and disposal problems in the District.  Let me hasten to assure you that
it is a problem with which I deal on a day-by-day basis and for which we
have found no single suitable solution.  Last fall, the  D.C. City Council
considered proposed legislation to require a mandatory deposit on beverage
containers.  The legislative proposal was developed by a task force of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and  included representa-
tives from the District of Columbia.  The proposal was predicated on a
requirement for a 5-cent deposit on all beverage containers,  refillable
and otherwise,  to be instituted by all jurisdictions within the Washington
Metropolitan Area.   It was recognized that such a proposal would have to
apply within the several jurisdictions in order to be meaningful and en-
       It was one of the best attended public hearings which had been held
by the City Council in a long time, indicating a depth of interest unusual in
legislative proposals under consideration by the council.   The position
taken by  the Department of Environmental Services was a tempered one
based in  large measure on our inability to anticipate the total impact of
       *Director, Department of Environmental Services,  Government of
the District of Columbia.

the legislation on the District. We did not feel that the experiences in the
two States of Oregon and Vermont were translatable into the urban situa-
tion which prevails in the District of Columbia.   Our reservations were
based on the potential health hazards incident to the storage of used
beverage  containers in households,  food establishments,  and other fa-
cilities where such containers would be stored for varying periods of
time  pending return to the supplier.  There is evidence that would indi-
cate that the problems of rodent and vermin control in such areas would
be exacerbated further by the usual  lack of adequate storage capacity for
handling such containers in the establishments in question.   We recognize
the fact that such legislation would probably encourage the use of refillable
containers. However, this is not an unmixed blessing due to the capital
investment which would be required for the installation of necessary wash-
ing and sterilizing equipment to permit the reuse of such containers coupled
with the increased hazards  associated with the possible improper clean-
ing and disinfection of containers prior to refilling.
       In summary,  the arguments  pro and con on the legislative pro-
posal did  not lend themselves to a categorical conclusion as to the bene-
fits of the bill from the public viewpoint.  The arguments that the use of
refillable containers  would  result in a reduced cost of beverage to the
user was  countered by arguments that the increased difficulties of hand-
ling,  storage, and return would result in the need for increased transport
and labor costs with an actual increase in the cost of the beverage to the
consumer.  It was argued by some that legislation would effect a substan-
tial reduction  in litter.  The studies by this department indicate that only
20 percent of the litter (by count) consisted of beverage containers.   We
do not anticipate any real saving to the department in dealing with the
problem of litter through this somewhat modest reduction in quantity.
The counter arguments on health and safety pointed out the  benefits associ-
ated with the elimination of nonreturnable beverage containers because of
the avoidance  of cuts and other injuries resulting from their use.  There
were  other arguments presented as  it related to its impact  on retailers,
actual resources,  energy savings, impact on jobs. Suffice  it to say that the
legislative proposal was  approved by the council and subsequently vetoed
by the mayor.  Similar legislation has been recently reintroduced before
our newly elected City Council and will be up for further hearings.   In ad-
dition, the jurisdictions within the Metropolitan Area are reexamining their
position on this matter.  The city of Bowie has recently been upheld by
the courts to the effect that their bottle legislation is legal and enforce-
       The final outcome on container legislation within the Metropolitan
Area  remains  to be determined.  I can assure you that the problem of
waste collection and disposal, litter, and the general problem of a clean
environment is one of the foremost issues  in the District of Columbia.  In
my opinion, no single piece of legislation will solve the problem.  We will
never have the dollars to deal with the problem on  a unilateral basis,

particularly litter,  unless we generate the wholehearted support and co-
operation of the public in preventing litter at its point of origin. The new
litter containers which you no doubt have seen on the streets of our city
represent one step  in the development of a litter control program.  The
innovative approach here was developed by a nonprofit organization,
Pride Environmental  Services, Inc., which, through the sale of adver-
tising space on the  sides of the containers, has been able to generate
revenue sufficient to cover the cost of the containers with some additional
financial return to the organization.  It has relieved the city of the finan-
cial obligation to  find funds for the placement of some  10,000 litter con-
tainers throughout the city.
       We are  in the  process of implementing a "Clean City Program"
which has been funded at a level of $1.2 million a year.  This program is
dedicated to the overall improvement of environmental conditions within
the city with particular reference to the litter,  trash,  refuse problems
with which we deal. We are  structuring the program on a three-pronged
approach; namely,  (1) the institution of an expanded street and alley
cleaning program dedicated to the cleanliness of public space generally
throughout the city; (2) the establishment of a surveillance program in
order to monitor  the city on a day-by-day basis to identify those areas
where problems are developing and to take necessary action, including
legal action,  against the violators of our litter  and  refuse regulations in
the District when necessary; (3) the establishment of a community-wide
committee involving representation from residents, neighborhood groups,
business and commercial interests, governmental agencies, and others
dedicated to cleaning  up our city and keeping it clean.  I shall be most
happy if we can convince the  residents to properly containerize their
waste in order that it can be  properly collected and disposed of by both
the municipal and private collection systems operating within the city.
       I am convinced that legislative enactments,  regardless of how well
founded they may be,  which place responsibility on the individual will
never succeed unless the individual is motivated.  Our task hopefully is
to change the point  of view of the residents and tourists to our city re-
garding the need for proper litter and refuse disposal.  Further, I am
convinced that the future of waste reduction in  the District will be in the
field of recycling and resource recovery.  From an economic point of
view, this can be best carried out on a city-wide basis rather than trying
to impose requirements on individual residents for separation,  storage,
and disposal of various components of the waste stream.  I believe that
this position is not  in conflict with container legislation which would divert
the beverage containers from the solid waste stream of the city. The re-
duction of steel, glass,  and aluminum in the stream will not significantly
impact the economics of a resource recovery facility.   Based on available
data,  the  maximum effect of such a  requirement would result in a 40-percent
reduction in aluminum wastes, 45-percent reduction in glass wastes,  and

 a 15-percent reduction in ferrous wastes.  The economics of most resource
 recovery plants depend primarily on the revenue derived from the sale of re-
 fuse-derived fuel (RDF),  estimated at $10  to $15 per ton of waste processed.
 Loss of revenue from the beverage container fraction would amount to some
 $1 to $2 per ton of waste  processed based  on the national average quantities
 of aluminum,  glass,  and steel in the waste stream.
       It  is entirely possible that the need  for facilities to recover glass
 and aluminum could be deferred pending better definition of their removal
 technology. In any event, we would need to evaluate the  impact of bever-
 age container legislation on recyc ling levels which may be much higher
 (70 percent) than anticipated.
       The budget request for the Department of Environmental Services
 recently submitted to the City Council for fiscal year 1976 provides for
 the institution of two major projects directed toward the  creation of re-
 source recovery facilities within the District.  We are proposing a pilot
 project to be located at our Solid Waste Reduction Center No. 1 designed
 primarily for the production of refuse-derived  fuel for use as a supple-
 mentary fuel at the Potomac Electric Power generating plant at Benning
 Road.  These two facilities are located  in immediate proximity to each
 other, and the processed fuel will be delivered to the powerplant
 through a pneumatic system designed to produce approximately 170 tons
 of fuel per day.  The budget request also contains funds in the amount of
 $9.6 million for the construction of a resource recovery facility at our
 sanitary landfill operation at Lorton, Virginia.  This plant would be de-
 signed to handle 650 tons of refuse per day and would provide not only for
 the production of refuse-derived fuel but also the recovery of steel and
 possibly aluminum, glass, and other reusable components in the waste
 stream.   The  nonusable residue amounting to approximately 15 percent
 by weight of the total waste would be disposed of at the sanitary landfill.
       In my opinion,  this represents the best  approach  based on current
 technology. I do not feel that alternate  methods of disposal  such as
 pyrolysis  have been developed at this time  to the point where they would
 constitute a suitable alternative to the recycling facility of the type I
 have described.  Technological developments over the next several years
 may prove me wrong.
       In closing, we in the Department of Environmental Services have
 been deeply appreciative of the help and assistance given by the Office of
 Solid Waste Management Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency
 in the overall field of solid waste management.   There are only one or two
points I would  like to make in passing,  and  I hope they will be accepted in
 a constructive sense.  I would plead for a more complete systems analy-
 sis  dealing with all facets of a given problem in the solid waste handling
 and disposal field as opposed to the concentration on individual facets of
the problem. Also,  I am always overwhelmed by the national figures and
the billions of tons of this and the billions of dollars expended. I have
trouble relating these types of data to the situation within the District.

Also, it doesn't take five pages of dissertation to prove the point that if
there is less waste there will be lowered disposal costs.  Finally, please
give a little more attention to the sociological factors that are involved
in developing recommended approaches to the problem.  I am confused by
a statement that says,  "Many activities by their nature create important
environmental disamenities that cannot be adequately internalized and
controlled. " Tell me, in simple terms, how I can get the public to co-
operate in dealing with the massive problems  we face in this field of solid
waste collection and disposal.


                          Dana Duxbury*
       I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for this
opportunity to present the League's views on waste reduction.  As you
may know, the League of Women Voters of the United States is a volun-
teer citizens  organization of 1, 300 local leagues with approximately
140,000 members in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands.
       The deep concern of league members across the country  over our
ever-burgeoning problem of solid  waste disposal and its pollution effects
caused them to decide, in 1971, to give special attention to solid waste
management in their national environmental work. And so local leagues
across the country studied solid waste management and resource recovery
for 2 years.  Our study made us aware of America's greedy consumption
habits.  The "good life" leaves much flotsam and jetsam in its wake.  We
were overwhelmed with the vastness of our nation's wastes and the prob-
lems our communities face because of their seemingly endless piles of
       League members across the country studied and observed local
solid waste disposal practices.  We saw the heavy burden our  ever-growing
bundles of refuse place on the local property taxpayer and the  local officials,
who in many communities are technically and financially ill-equipped.
They cannot cope now.  Why should we place on them the strain  of more
unnecessary wastes ? And why should they have to bear the economic bur-
den of extra wastes ? So many local landfills, even if we grace them with
that name, are full.  So many landfills are causing serious leachate prob-
lems.  So many incinerators are faulty,  improperly operated,  or unable
to meet air pollution standards. We have seen such strong local opposition
to the siting of new disposal facilities and less and less environmentally
suited land available for land disposal.
       As for resource recovery, we firmly support it, but we realize
that it will only be economically feasible in areas of high population density
which do  not have much cheaper disposal options.
       The League of Women Voters seeks to inform the public  as well as
our own members about the issues with which we are concerned. In 1971
we brought out an introductory publication on solid waste collection and
       *Committee on Environmental Program and Projects, League of
Women Voters of the United States.

disposal and the general problems of solid waste management.  In 1972
we published a pamphlet, Recycle, covering a.ll we had learned on the
need for and the obstacles to reuse, recycling;,  and reclamation. And
now, because our members believe that the American people must cut
back on the amount of waste we generate, the League is about to publish
a timely booklet called Reduce, which will explain the reasons for source
reduction of solid waste.
       We believe that industry has created and citizens have allowed a
situation to develop in which we now have many less durable goods, many
new throwaway items, enormous numbers of excessively wrapped packages,
and many containers which are now treated a.s dispensable.  It has often
been said that citizens demanded and welcomed what some have  called
"convenience" packaging, but which we might prefer to call "nuisance"
packaging.  We believe that citizens have been mesmerized into believing
that these changes are desirable. We are sure though that people are
becoming more and more aware of the excess costs they must now pay for
such items and the drain they place on our resource and energy  use.
       We hope that industry will reconsider its present trends.  Surely
it's what's inside the package that counts.  Admittedly packaging is a
necessity, but it is also a luxury. Creating waste should not be our goal.
Reusability and longer product life certainly are both sensible goals—ones
which we think consumers value especially today when their disposable
incomes have shrunk.
       We think that source reduction will not cancel out energy recovery
from solid waste.  The U.S. EPA has estimated that there are a total of
832 trillion Btu in the waste stream. With the reduction of  a possible 82
trillion Btu through source reduction measures, we believe that energy
recovery would not be seriously altered.  Although we have supported in
the past Federally funded sewage treatment plants, our observations of
these programs leave us less than enthusiastic about Federally funded
resource recovery facilities.   But no matter where the operating and
capital costs come from, private or Federal, State or local, why should
the taxpayer be expected to pay for unnecessarily large disposal facilities
and extra collection and resource recovery costs arising from uncontrolled
industrial practices ?
       League members have grown concerned about our rapid rate of non-
renewable resource depletion and our overuse of our renewable resources.
They concluded that this country should forestall this depletion.  We have
long opposed the environmental degradation tliat our mining and  other raw
material extraction processes have caused.  What a senseless land-use
policy to rapidly strip resources from their natural  areas and dump the
residuals from mining and processing onto the land or into the air or
water somewhere else when we need not have extracted the  virgin mater-
ials at all and when their extraction, processing, and transportation re-
quire so much energy consumption!  Our members are strongly pressing
for resource recovery, for adoption of energy conservation measures by

government,  industry and citizens, and for reduction of waste at its
source.  We believe waste reduction is  an important place for us to begin
to slow our profligate energy use.
       The areas we consider potential candidates for  source reduction
include:  (1) durable goods such as appliances and tires; (2) nondurable
goods such as disposable paper products; (3)  throwaway containers and
excess packaging.
       The league believes that Government should establish policies and
programs to reduce the generation of solid waste.  Through testimony on
specific bills, the League of Women Voters of the United States has en-
couraged the Congress to recognize the importance of source reduction
and to set product regulations and standards that will help to bring about
waste reduction.  Many local and State leagues and the national league have
testified in support of returnable beverage containers.
       We believe that the Federal Government must assume the respon-
sibility of forcing citizens, industry, and itself to evaluate those things
which are placing a needless burden on  the present and disregarding our
needs in the future.
       We appreciate that any changes in our society may have both posi-
tive and negative effects.  We believe, however, that the benefits of
source reduction greatly outweigh the drawbacks.  Unemployment from
reduction in nonreturnable containers must be mitigated of course by job
retraining, phasing in programs, and other measures  supportive of  those
who must seek other work.
       We all know that any changes that industry itself institutes often
have drastic effects on production, jobs, and plant locations.  We feel it
is unfair of industry to ask citizens to maintain the status quo when their
own decisions at times have had the same "negative effects" they say
would be caused by source reduction.
       In a way, the energy and economic crises may have been a slight
blessing to this country,  for they have forced us,  as no concerns or
claims by a few citizens could have done, to examine the collective im-
pacts  of our patterns of consumption. Planning, saving,  and changing our
voracious energy and resource use will in the long run benefit us all.


                         Karen A. Wendt*
       People from Minnesota are fond of quoting a speech which Chief
Seattle, leader of a tribe in the Washington territory, delivered in 1854
to mark the transferral of Indian lands to the Federal Government.  The
prophetic words of Chief Seattle deal directly with what I call the frontier
mentality of American society:
       We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One
       portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger
       who comes  in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs.
       The earth is not his brother, but his enemy,  and when he has con-
       quered it,  he moves on.  He leaves his father's  graves behind,
       and he does not care.  He kidnaps the earth from his children.
       He does not care.  His father's graves and his children's birth-
       right are forgotten.  He treats his mother, the earth, and his
       brother, the sky,  as things to be bought, plundered, sold like
       sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and
       leave behind only a desert.*
       Chief Seattle refers to the geographic frontier mentality prevalent
in his day.  When land resources became depleted or scarce on the east-
ern seaboard, people moved West.  When the geographical frontier closed
in the 1890s,  another frontier replaced it—expectations of higher stan-
dard of living based on overconsumption of resources.  Today the United
States  consumes resources at a rate that far exceeds that of the rest of
the world.  To use paper as an example, the United States consumes 639
pounds/capita/year which is 36.5 percent more than the next closest con-
sumer, Sweden.  Canada consumes  even less than Sweden (Table 1).  But
is the quality of life in those countries substantively different than that of
the United States ?
       One of the alleged  indicators of a country's standard of living is
the number of choices the consumer has at the supermarket.  Oftentimes
the argument in favor of increasing  the amount of product choice to
       *Research Scientist, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
       tchief Seattle, leader of the Suquamish tribe in the Washington
territory.  Speech delivered transferring Indian lands to the Federal Gov-
ernment (William Arrowsmith,  translator), 1854.

                             TABLE 1


                 Country                Pounds per capita per year
       United States                              639
       Sweden                                   468
       Canada                                   451
       United Kingdom                           301
       Federal Republic of Germany              299
       Soviet Union                               67
       People's Republic of China                  18
       Kenya                                     13
       Niger                                        .22
       Mali                                         . 44

       *Pulp and Paper International Review. San Francisco, Miller
Freeman Publishers, July 25, 1973.

consumers is advanced in dramatic tones, as though profligate consump-
tion was  a God-given right, or at the very least, one supplied by the U.S.
Constitution.  It is doubtful that anji rational person would argue that the
standard of living in the United States had significantly increased in the
last 9 years, but yet the number of items carried by the average super-
market has increased by 25 percent since 1964 and by nearly 70 percent
since 1950 (Table 2).  We have also seen a proliferation of frivolous
products foisted upon the American consumer in recent years.  For ex-
ample, hair coloring products represent a 282 percent increase in size
and brand selection in the last 4 years.  Stomach relief preparations in-
creased by 261.5 percent during the same time and female antiseptics/
deodorants increased in size and brand selection by 260 percent (Table 3).
While we agree that consumers are entitled to some product choice, it is
not clear that the wide array available today has  either increased  our
quality of life or made us  a more  contented population.
       John Kyi, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,  has  stated that the
United States is headed for a materials shortage  which will make the
energy crisis look like a  "Sunday  school picnic" and predicted that it
would occur by 1979. * Just as we realized in the 1890s that the geo-
graphic frontier had closed, so are we now beginning to realize that the
mineral and  energy frontier is rapidly closing too.
       What can we do to preserve those rapidly diminishing material and
energy resources ?  In  Minnesota,  source reduction—or waste reduction-
is our most important goal. That is, we try to reduce the generation of
       *St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept. 30,  1974.


                            TABLE 2

                                          Number of
                   Year                     Items

                   1950                      2,470
                   1960                      5,100
                   1964                      5,950
                   1968                      6,925
                   1970                      7,300
                   1972                      7,775
                   1973                      7,950

       *41st annual report of the grocery industry. Progressive Grocer
(Western Edition), 53(4):153, Apr. 1974.
                            TABLE 3

        Products            1973       1972      1971      1970
Spray deodorants and
Female antiseptics/
Hair coloring products
Pain relief
Stomach relief
Cold symptom relief
*Chain Store Age;


Super Markets

65 56

23 15
85 47
71 50
63 41
63 44
(Stores Edition), 50


(7):165, 170,
172, July 1974; 49(7):168, 177-178, July 1973; 48(7):196,  202, 205, July
1972; 47(7):190, 192, 199, July 1971.

solid waste through a reduction in the consumption of materials and prod-
ucts.  Basically there are four major goals of source reduction:  (1)  reuse
containers rather than immediately disposing of them; (2)  reduce  the con-
sumption of energy and materials per product; (3) extend product  lifetime;
(4) decrease product consumption.
       Government can achieve these source reduction goals through two
avenues: regulation and public education.  First I'd like to discuss those
regulatory approaches government might undertake, then  move to a dis-
cussion of the feasibility of public education in this  area and, lastly,  talk
about a few things the consumer might do to reduce consumption.
       The regulatory approach that has gotten most of the attention  from
environmentalists as well as industry has been beverage container legis-
lation of various types.   Bills which have been geared toward reducing the
proliferation of throwaway beverage containers have been introduced in
most State legislatures,  many municipalities,  and the U.S. Congress over
a period of several years.  According to Barry Commoner,  the highest
postwar growth rate has been in the production of nonreturnable soda bot-
tles—an increase of 53,000 percent. *
       These throwaways were created in large  part to provide a "con-
venience" to the consumer; however, consumers are not informed through
advertising of the true costs to them.  Instead, they are subjected to ad-
vertising which promotes the consumption of throwaway beverage con-
tainers because they are  recyclable.  These kinds of advertising and public
relations campaigns,  involving hundreds of thousands of dollars and the
most sophisticated mind  manipulating techniques, are designed to create
widespread public acceptance of wasteful throwaway containers on the
grounds that they are  recyclable and therefore "good" for  the environment.
It makes little sense,  however, to toss diamonds into the front end of
the solid waste stream,  so that diamonds can be recovered at the other
end.  After an intensive nationwide advertising campaign to create con-
sumer enthusiasm for recycling aluminum cans—80 percent of all alumi-
num  cans produced are used for beverage containers")"—aluminum  industry
figures show that 16 percent of these cans are being recycled.^  Where
are the other 84  percent of these "aluminum diamonds"?
       *Udall,  S., C.N. Conconi, and D. B. Osterhout. The great energy
joyride. The Progressive.  38(11) :43,  Nov. 1974.
       tBLngham, T.H., et al. (Research Triangle Institute). An evalua-
tion of the effectiveness and costs of regulatory and fiscal policy instru-
ments on product packaging.  Environmental Protection Publication SW-
74c.   (Washington), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.  p. 52.
      ^Taylor, P. Debunking Madison Avenue.   Environmental Action,
6(16):8, Dec. 18, 1974.

       Unfortunately, there are only two States and a handful of munici-
palities throughout the country that have enacted bottle bills to date.
Russell Train, EPA Administrator, delivered a speech in San Francisco
before the Third National Congress on Waste Management Technology
and Resource Recovery in which he explained part of the reason for this
dismal failure to take care of one  of the fastest  growing segments of the
municipal solid waste stream:
       I am not surprised that those  engaged in the manufacture of cer-
       tain of the containers would oppose attempts to place  restrictions
       on the use of nonreturnable beverage containers, but  the broad-
       scale corporate concern about the nonreturnable container makes
       me suspect that, symbolically, this issue touches on  nerves that
       are still sensitive to the currents of yesterday when,  wittingly or
       not,  we embraced the  illogical notion that waste makes wealth. *
       A regulatory approach that was adopted by the Minnesota Legis-
lature  in 1973 gave the Minnesota  Pollution Control Agency the authority
to regulate new or revised packages based on environmental  impact.
Since packaging accounts for 34 percent of the municipal solid waste
stream and in 1971 accounted for 47 percent of all paper production,  14
percent of aluminum production, 75 percent of glass production,  8 per-
cent of steel production and approximately 29 percent of plastic produc-
tion, we believe that Russell Train is correct when he said—again from
the San Francisco speech:
       ... if packaging growth continues in the next two decades at  the
       same rate and using the same virgin resources as it has in the
       past two decades, we will soon have nothing to put into the pack-
       The Minnesota statute called for the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency to develop regulations for  packaging review.  Toward that end,
the staff of the Agency conducted nearly a 2-year series of meetings with
industry groups and environmentalists and held  an unprecedented series
of three public hearings on the issue.  We have  not yet reviewed or pro-
hibited any packages; however, I would venture  to say that there has been
some positive effect on Minnesota's solid waste stream simply because
we have the regulatory authority.  We suspect,  for example, that cer-
tain products have been kept out of the Minnesota market—whether for
test marketing purposes or as permanent retail items.  Also, the series
of formal meetings and informal contacts with industry during the writing
of the regulations had a positive impact.  Those industries which had not
considered the environment in designing their packages previously be-
came aware of another parameter to  consider during the package design
       *Train, R.E. Win the war on waste.  Presented at 3d National Con-
gress on Waste Management Technology and Resource Recovery, San Fran-
cisco,  Nov. 14,  1974.  p. 7.
       tTrain, Win the war,  p. 5.


       We at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency believe that both of
the previously discussed regulatory approaches—beverage container regu-
lation and packaging regulation—should be national in scope.  However,  we
are also convinced that we will never see national legislation in either of
these two areas until more States develop packaging regulations and more
municipalities and States join Oregon and Vermont on beverage container
regulation.  Both of these regulatory approaches need some industry sup-
port for passage at the national level, and we believe that industry would
vigorously lobby for national bills in both of these areas if they were faced
with differing regulations in five to seven large States.  We therefore en-
courage other States to join the three source reduction States in these two
       There are several other source reduction measures which could  be
implemented on either a State  or local level at this time.  Some of these
would include promoting the establishment and operation of successfully
managed food and other consumer cooperatives. This would reduce prod-
uct packaging and would also provide substantial savings to the budget-
conscious shopper.
       Regulatory and economic mechanisms to encourage  a return to the
use of refillable and standardized containers in some instances should be
explored.  This would also be  done best on a national level; however, the
impetus in this  area would no doubt have to come from several States first.
We believe that items such as  pickle jars, mayonnaise jars, peanut butter
jars, and ketchup bottles to name just a few could be reused.  Provide an
economic incentive—such as a deposit—to the consumer to guarantee the
return of these  glass containers, and they could be reused simply by re-
placing a paper label.
       Another State and/or local approach to source reduction involves
the actual collection of solid waste.  Here we would suggest two things.
Collection costs should be tied to the actual amount of trash generated in
the household.  Since magnetic separation of refuse is costly during the
recycling process, it is also suggested that communities experiment with
having a voluntary source separation program whereby those householders
who were willing to separate their trash would pay less  for collection than
those who were not willing to do so.  Both of these schemes would make the
consumer more conscious of what was being discarded by forcing him to
take a look at his own garbage.
       There are three other areas in which we believe regulation could
help achieve some source reduction goals.  These all deal with the exten-
sion of product  lifetime.   The product warranty system  should be ex-
panded and improved to guarantee all product repairs—from breakage
during normal use—for the total lifetime of the product as an incentive to
manufacturers  to build more durable products. There might be legisla-
tion passed to provide disincentives—in the form of taxes—to manufac-
turers of short-lived products  or disposable products such as disposable
lighters, disposable razors, disposable diapers, etc.  The third

suggestion is to provide incentives to the repair industry to make it easier
for consumers to get items repaired.  It is a sad commentary on a society
which makes it cheaper for a consumer to  go out and purchase a new lamp,
for example, instead of repairing a minor  problem on the old one.  Yet
today this happens all too often.
       I'd like to take a few brief moments nov/ to discuss what govern-
ment and environmental groups might accomplish through public educa-
tion.  Let's  consider a few questions:  Does the consumer  make rational
choices in product selection?  What has  caused the consumer to believe
he needs convenience items ? What has caused the current throwaway
mentality?  We suspect that industry advertising has made a significant
impact on consumer habits.  Advertising has the potential  for creating a
demand for a product the consumer never  realized he "needed."  As an
example of this thesis, consider the case of the "fruit ripening bowl. "
Ludicrous as an electric bowl to ripen fruit sounds, a considerable con-
sumer demand could be generated through  an advertising campaign.  How-
ever, before the advent of such a product and advertising campaign,  the
very consumers who would rush out to purchase this particular product
would have given no thought to  an electric fruit ripener.  We believe the
approach of  creating an unnecessary product,  followed by an intensive
advertising campaign to create consumer demand for it, happens all too
frequently in the real world. We therefore believe that public education
in the area of source reduction is an effective measure  to take toward
achieving the goal of retarding the growth  of the municipal solid waste
stream.  Industry has proven that consumers will respond to advertising;
therefore, it is our belief that  consumers will also respond to environ-
mental public education programs. In most instances source reduction
measures coincide with consumer savings. These savings should be
pointed out to the consumer along with the  benefits to the environment.
Industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars per year  to induce con-
sumption, yet enlightened governments and environmentalists have little
money to counteract this  message. We  must begin now to  do whatever we
can to bring the facts to consumers regarding the environmental and
economic consequences of their purchases.
       What should we as consumers do in our everyday lives to reduce
consumption ?
       If you don't need it, don't buy it.
       If you do need  it,  select a brand  that is of high quality and durable.
       If it breaks, get it repaired rather  than disposing of it.
       If you no longer need the item, give it to a friend or charitable or-
          ganization rather than disposing of it.
       The major problem to be tackled is to slow down growth and devel-
opment—the too rapid consumption of both  energy and resources.  This
does not mean we at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are against
all growth and development. We have borrowed the motto of the Pacific
Northwest Chapter of the Sierra Club: "Not blind opposition to progress,

but opposition to blind progress. "
       While source reduction programs «iay result in a small shift in the
economy due to reduced consumption of material and energy resources, the
shift is gradual.  If there is a considerable delay in the implementation of
source reduction programs and the predicted resource crisis occurs, the
shift will be much more dramatic and rapid and will be accompanied by
parallel dislocations in other areas of the economy so that the impacts will
be unnecessarily severe.  Again quoting from Chief Seattle: "Continue to
contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. .
This we know.  The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
This we know.  All things are connected like the blood which unites one
family.  All things are connected."*
       "•Chief Seattle, Speech, 1854.

              Technical Opticm

                    SOME BASIC CHOICES
                       William E.  Franklin*
       The purpose of this presentation is to discuss some of the technical
options available for source reduction, or waste reduction, as it is termed
in this conference.
       Source reduction was described in the EPA's Second Report to
Congress as "the reduction of post-consumer solid waste generation either
by altering the basic design,  lifetime, or use pattern of particular con-
sumer goods or by changing the composition of sales in such a way as to
reduce the waste volume associated with a given level of aggregate con-
sumer demand, "t
       The question of technical options for reducing solid waste stems
from the fact that today it's really not a question of whether we're going
to waste-reduce but a question of how; over what period of time; and who
will control or dictate the manner in which it's done.  There are really
two options: (1) stop or  reduce the flow of goods into the waste stream by
reducing consumption, or (2) eliminate or prevent the final disposal of ma-
terials that do enter the  nation's solid waste stream.  The secret is learn-
ing how  to shift to a less materials-intensive economy and to rely less on
natural resources from the earth.  In other words,  use less material per
unit of national output and, as much as is feasible, practice reuse,  re-
cycling,  or conversion of wastes into useful products.
      Manufactured goods make up about 62 percent (by weight) of solid
waste. About 25 to 35 percent of this could probably be eliminated,  giv-
ing a net reduction potential of about 20 percent in the total waste stream,
by various dramatic consumption-reducing actions (such as elimination
of "disposable" products like paper napkins or no-return beverage con-
tainers). While about 60 percent of the waste stream is amenable to source
reduction, the other 40 percent is garbage and yard waste  and not amenable
to any conventional source reduction measures being proposed today. In
other words,  there's a large segment of the waste stream which is generated
as a result of living and  eating habits that do not involve manufactured materials.
       *President, Franklin Associates, Ltd.
       tu. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. Resource recovery and source reduction; second
report to Congress.  Environmental Protection Publication SW-122.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. p. 60.

Through resource recovery techniques it is possible to reduce waste disposed of
on the land by 88 percent.  However, this would apply to waste  in specific lo-
 cations; nationally the practical limit of resource recovery is no more than
 20 to 25 percent of the total waste stream.  Obviously applying both ap-
 proaches would have a greater impact on the waste stream than applying
 only one.

       1.  Redesign products so they require less material but perform
 the same function.  This is the forte of industry—where "competitive"
 technology shines.  The options are many and you will be told about a
 number of the innovations in product design in the course of this confer-
 ence.  A few examples  are:  a new package-sealing technique and  inter-
 lock for a carton; a new package shape that increases integrity of  the
 product while using less material; and elimination of unnecessary rein-
 forcement in a product  or package.  There is a 15 to 20 percent reduction
 potential for most manufactured products.
       2.  Substitute one material for another.  Make a part or product
 from a different material to reduce its bulk, improve shape, function,
       3.  Package for consumer use patterns.  Make small sizes for
 some uses and bulk sizes for families through product redesign.
       These first three practices take place in the course of "normal"
 competition within industries.
       4.  Design products for durability,  repairability, and reusability.
 A product may take more materials per unit initially, or more expensive
 materials, or modular  design, but extending the useful life of the  product
 will lead ultimately to less waste.
       If we get more mileage out of the product,  then we  achieve a reduc-
 tion of the flow of materials into the waste stream over a period of time.
 This is where we talk in terms of "reusable" versus "disposable"  products.
 The afternoon will be spent talking about refillable beverage containers
 versus nonrefillable beverage containers, which has become the classic
 example.  There's also interest in the use of cloth towels versus paper
 towels, glass tumblers  versus paper or plastic cups, and other reusable
 options.  There are other issues involved besides waste  reduction, how-
 ever, including sanitation,  health,  and of course the basic economics of
 the various alternatives. Waste reduction is not going to be the obvious
 first priority in many cases.
       All of these options have the objective of reducing materials use-
 some do  it painlessly, some do  it by eliminating consumption habits.
 Finally,  the ultimate in waste reduction might be to find  some way to de-
 liver goods but drastically  reduce  the materials requirements for  so doing.
 For example, it might be possible through technical innovation to  do away

with the printed newspaper delivered to the home but not with the news
provided by that source.  One option would be to completely change the
nature of the product so that the newspaper is displayed on a television
set and a person could scan the pages using a remote control on his own
set—to read the want ads, news, comics,  etc., all without the use of 10
million tons of newsprint every year (which,  incidentally, is "instantaneous"
waste because of the short life of the paper).   This is an improbable de-
velopment for the near future but it could  happen,  without losing freedom
of the press.  This is just one "far out" waste reduction option that would
make us  a less materials-intensive society.
                      RESOURCE RECOVERY

       At the other end of the system, it is possible to prevent entry of
material into a disposal site or the waste stream rather than avoiding
utilization of the material or the product to begin with.  This measure
basically boils  down to reducing the flow of virgin materials into the
waste stream.  There are two options here:  (1) recycling of materials,
or (2) resource recovery, which is a broader term that includes re-
       There's a good deal of technical capability and technical advance-
ment needed in this field, but there's also a good deal that has taken place.
About 35 percent of the municipal solid waste stream is amenable to re-
cycling today,  including roughly 9 percent metals,  9 percent glass, and
17 percent paper.  Of course, this 35 percent is before considerations of
recovery efficiency, the  geographic scope, and  market considerations.
       On the other hand, resource recovery in the broad definition could
recover about 88 percent of the total municipal  solid waste stream if all
the organics were converted to some usable form such as fuel, compost,
or other products.  There's new resource recovery technology coming,
there's new technology already developed, and there's technology already
in place.  In fact, there's a good deal of work being sponsored by both
the Federal Government and private industry.
       The need today in this whole technical area of waste reduction is
to recognize two or three key issues. One is that,  as one of the speakers
said yesterday, we need  to approach the subject on  a systems analysis
basis considering both the resource and environmental consequences of
any actions.  Second, we need to bring into that consideration the eco-
nomic costs and benefits of taking any particular action.  Third, we
need to address health and safety aspects of any waste reduction meas-
ures.  A good deal more of our technology or technological prowess
should be devoted to waste reduction. This last point is probably the
basic  message  being delivered here, and that has been delivered at past
conferences and discussions by industry and the public.  Both source re-
duction and resource recovery require the application of our technological
capabilities to achieve the objectives of resource conservation, environ-
mental improvement, and waste reduction.



Franklin, W. E., et al. [Midwest Research Institute] .  Base line forecasts
       of resource recovery, 1972 to 1990.  Washington, U.S. Environ-
       mental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
       grams, Resource Recovery Division, Mar.  1975.  376 p.  (Unpub-
       lished report.)
Hunt, R.G., et al.  [Midwest Research Institute].  Resource and environ-
       mental profile analysis of nine beverage container alternatives; final
       report,  v.  1-2.  Environmental Protection Publication SW-91c.
       Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1974.  178 p.
Smith, F. A. Technical possibilities for solid waste reduction and resource
       recovery:  prospects to 1985. Washington,  U.S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
       Resource Recovery Division,  Dec.  10,  1974.  18 p.   (Unpublished


                          Howard Cannon*
       In the last 150 years,  packaged food has become the backbone of
our food preservation and food distribution system since it offers a unique
combination of long storage life, retention of original texture and flavor,
convenience, and low cost.
       Originally metal and glass containers were handmade, expensive,
and not too reliable.  In the last 60 years, great progress has been made
in reducing the weight of containers and in automating their production,
filling, and sealing.  With automation, the requirements imposed on the
can have become much more complex. Today,  any packaging system,
whether based on metal,  glass, plastic, fiberboard or combination,  must
meet, at least in part, the following requirements  for processed food:
(1) use of low-cost materials; (2) rapid manufacture of containers; (3) ease
of handling empty containers; (4) rapid filling; (5) perfect gas-tight sealing
—9,999 times out of 10,000; (6) resistance to sealing forces;  (7)  capable
of being heated to about 250 F; (8) introduces no flavor, odors, colors or
poisons to the food product; (9)  resistance to corrosion induced by the
product;  (10) resistance to shipping abuse; (11)  outer appearance appeal-
ing to customers; (12) shelf life of 1 to 3 years; (13) retain foods' natural
texture and flavor; (14) easy to open; (15) convenient to dispose of.
       These requirements are not easy to meet in a packaging system.
Frequently long  and complex efforts involving specialists from many areas
and usually requiring test packing, which  may take 6 months to 3 years to
actually prove that the selected specification is  satisfactory in all aspects
for the intended use, are necessary.  I stress these practicalities of con-
tainer selection  and the many requirements which must be met to empha-
size that accommodation to the increased  importance of pollution control,
reuse or recycling, and reduced material  use is not a simple or quick
       I believe great strides are being made to meet these new require-
ments while still optimizing as  much as possible the other requirements
in the previous list.  However, typically it takes 5 to 7 years from the
initial concept of a major change in packaging until it is commercialized.
Since packaging  is a highly competitive business, packaging companies do
not announce their new developments until they  are fully ready for com-
mercialization.  Consequently the outside  world usually isn't  aware of
       *Assistant to Vice President, Continental Can Company.

developments underway. These new requirements represent new oppor-
tunities and as a result you can expect a lot of new lower weight packages
to be introduced in the American market in the next 5 years.
       With that introduction, I would like to devote the rest of my allot-
ted time to recent and potential future resource conservation in packaging.
Material resource conservation should be accomplished both by
reducing the weight of packages where feasible, and by recovering and
reutilizing the packaging materials when total energy considerations favor
this approach.  Energy conservation should be given emphasis since
energy once used is gone forever, and liquid and gaseous fuel resources
are limited.  On the other hand, materials are not consumed.  They are
available for recovery and reuse after they have served their primary
       I would like to digress a moment to mention our  attitude toward re-
cycling.  The recent increases in both raw material and energy costs  have
increased the cost incentives for recycling.   Municipal waste processing
for recovery of materials and energy has become a profitable business
that many large companies  are investing in.   A Continental Can and Metal
Cleaning & Processing Company joint venture opened a new  scrap can
detinning plant in Wilmington, Delaware, last year using a new process
that optimizes tin removal from soup cans.  This plant will  not only re-
cover up to 1,000 pounds of tin per day but also clean and purify the scrap
cans and other ferrous waste so that it can be sold as very high grade
scrap for new steelmaking.  Steel produced from scrap  only requires  30 to
40 percent as much energy as steel produced from virgin materials.
       An even more impressive energy savings can be made with re-
covered aluminum cans. Here,  ingots from scrap only  require 10 to 15
percent as much energy to produce as ingots  made from virgin materials.
       However,  getting back to weight reduction in the last 10 to 15 years,
appreciable weight reduction  has been made in many of the common food
packages.  The recently introduced "ultra low density" paperboard permits
a 10-percent weight decrease in the folding cartons used to package dry
foods such as rice,  cereals,  and pet foods. In 10 years, the weight of 1-
gallon high density polyethylene bleach bottles has decreased 25 percent,
and at the same time the quality of the bottles has improved. The re-
placement of the paperboard carton for six-packs  of beverage cans with
hi-cone polyethylene collar-type multipaks reduces the carrier weight by
90 percent.
       Further, since  1959,  the body weight  of soldered beverage cans
has decreased 29 percent.  The introduction of welded and cemented tin-
free steel body  structure results in a further 2-percent weight reduction
in addition to saving over 2,000 tons  of tin and 8,000 tons of lead a year
based on 1973.  The weight of aluminum beverage cans has  decreased  21
percent since 1963.  The development of the necked-in structure has al-
lowed an 8- to 10-percent reduction in the weight of beverage can ends.
In the next 5 to 10 years, the weight of two-piece aluminum and steel

beverage cans will be reduced an additional 12 to 20 percent while still
meeting the present handling and filling requirements.  If product and
distribution specifications can be modified, even further weight reduction
is possible.
       The Kerr-Heye process for glass bottle production should permit
15- to 20-percent reduction in the weight of beverage bottles.  But much
larger bottle weight reduction will be possible through the commercializa-
tion of plastic beverage bottles which will reduce empty bottle weight by
80 to 90 percent. Continental Can, Monsanto, DuPont, and others have
had extensive R&E programs underway for the last 6 to 7 years trying to
perfect these containers.
       Two other beverage containers, the Regello plastic bottle and the
Mirolite paperboard-encased plastic bag, are under small-scale use in
Europe for prepasteurized beer. These two packages  offer up to an addi-
tional 40-percent weight reduction over presently planned plastic bottles,
but at the sacrifice of a much shorter shelf life.  Normal beverage con-
tainers can be stored for 6 to 12 months while the Regello bottle and the
Mirolite plastic bag have shelf lives  at present of only a few weeks.  In
their present form, these containers are not satisfactory for the American
       Another development which can have impact on beverage cans is the
development of the non-detach foil/plastic easy-opening tape  seal announced
by Continental Can last  November.  This concept eliminates the tear tab
litter problem, but more importantly,  since the adhesively attached  tape
can be used on either a  steel or aluminum end, it will promote the use of
all-steel or all-aluminum cans which will facilitate recycling of used con-
tainers from municipal  waste.  Other manufacturers are developing push-
in button opening features which eliminate the tab litter problem and
hopefully will be applicable to both steel and aluminum ends.
       Less opportunity exists for reducing the present weight of metal
food containers since the present sidewall and bottom thicknesses are al-
ready at their practical limit for straight-sided containers.  However,
there is a trend toward  more beaded cans which do allow reduction of
sidewall but may require modification of the filling, closing,  and ware-
housing operations because of the reduction of axial strength  caused  by the
beads. A typical example is the beaded 1-pound coffee can.  At least one
company has switched over to a special packing operation which permits a
25-percent reduction in the can body weight.
       Two-piece cans  offer a weight reduction for some food can applica-
tions at least in regard  to the final can weight (manufacturing scrap  is much
higher than for three-piece cans).  However, it is very dependent on spe-
cific can wall and bottom thickness requirements.  In general, two-piece
can structures offer  major weight  reductions only for pressure products
such as carbonated beverages.
       With the increasing cost and  scarcity of tin, the use of tin-free
steel for food container construction becomes more feasible.  Tin-free

steel usage would reduce consumption of a fairly scarce material (tin) and
facilitate recycling of the metal can from municipal waste since it would
minimize the tin removal problem.
       Another new food packaging system, retort pouches, offers a great-
er opportunity for weight and energy reduction in food containers.  The
retort pouch is a flexible pouch usually made from very thin aluminum
foil laminated to polypropylene and polyester.  This retort pouch has
gained wide acceptance in Japan and is expanding rapidly in Europe at the
present time.  In the United States the need for Food and Drug Administra-
tion concurrence in its use and the unavailability of high-speed filling and
sealing lines have  delayed its introduction.  However, its ability to reduce
container weight by 90 percent  when compared to steel cans,  along with
its generally superior ability to retain desirable food  texture and flavor
characteristics, would strongly indicate that this container will show very
rapid growth in this country once FDA concurrence is received.  Since
the retort pouch is  shelf stable, yet has the high product quality usually
associated with frozen foods, it should replace a segment of this market,
and thereby save the energy needed for refrigeration of frozen foods.
       Composite  fiber cans are  also extending their  market more and
more as  the technology of the container develops  and allows packaging of
the harder-to-hold  products. At  the present time, fiber cans are used for
petroleum products, pet foods, clothing, toys, automotive additives and  a
variety of nonprocessed foods and fruit juices. Its reduced weight and
predominant use of a renewable resource which is easily recycled for
energy recovery would suggest expanded use of it in the future as the tech-
nology improves.
       The packaging of liquid  milk in polyethylene plastic pouches offers an
80- to 90-percent container weight reduction compared to the traditional
gabled milk carton. However,  extensive trials in Canada, Europe, and
Massachusetts seem to indicate that it lacks customer appeal  and, conse-
quently,  probably will not be widely commercialized especially since im-
proved paperboard  containers are being developed which will reduce milk
carton weights by 15 to 30 percent.
       In the bulk  shipping area,  considerable progress has been made in
reduction in the weight of b^k shipping containers. Fiber drums are re-
placing metal drums, palletizing  and shrink wrapping replacing corrugated
containers,  triple-wall corrugated replacing wooden containers, plastic
corrugated replacing wirebound boxes, and foamed plastic tote boxes re-
placing wooden fish boxes. The trend toward lower weights in these areas
should accelerate because of the  effect of higher  oil prices on shipping costs.
       There are a few items where seemingly excessive packaging ma-
terials are used—small but relatively expensive items in open supermarket
type stores: razor blades, stereotapes, batteries, and photo  film are
typical examples.   Pilfering, especially by teenagers, has been a problem
since it was so easy to slip these  items into a pocket and walk out.  The
problem  has been of sufficient magnitude to justify use of oversize blister-

pack cards.  These items are overpackaged but for good sound economic
       I hope in this brief talk I have been able to outline some of the di-
verse requirements the food container must try to meet and to show the
great strides that have already been made in reducing package weights and
indicate some of the possible future developments which will further re-
duce material and energy contents of packaging systems.
       Packaging systems are complex.  I believe there already exist
more than enough monetary and public sentiment  incentives to guarantee
strong competition between the various packaging companies to reduce the
weight and energy content of packages.  If left unencumbered,  the packag-
ing industry will commercialize them with a minimum dislocation of the
over 1 million people working in the industry and in a manner which will
optimize the combination of other package characteristics important to
the consumer.


                       Robert R.  Westerman*
       Solid wastes from durable goods products, "product solid wastes,"
comprise but a small portion of refuse in general; yet they pose significant
problems.  Large quantities of refrigerators,  washers, dryers,  television
sets,  furniture, automobiles,  tires,  etc., are scrapped each year.  In
1975 alone 7.5  million automobiles and 200 million car tires can be expected
to be  scrapped.  Each new year brings an increasing deluge.
       Bulky solid wastes pose various  separate, special problems for
managers of private  and public waste collection, transport, and proces-
sing and disposal operations.  Specialized collection vehicles, on trips
separate from general refuse collection trips, haul bulky solid wastes to
disposal facilities.  Bulky solid wastes require specialized processing
equipment such as larger landfill compaction equipment or specially de-
signed tire incinerators. These separate facilities and operations are cost-
ly additions to the already high costs of routine refuse handling operations.
   Solid waste quantities and handling costs are determined by product de-
signs. There is an inverse relationship between product design durability
and the rate of solid  waste generation. Automobiles, under current product
designs, last an average of 10 years; cars produced and sold this year will,
in general, require disposal in 1985.  This current automobile design param-
eter generates  7.5 million scrap car hulks each year.  Cars designed for an
average lifetime of 15 years, however, would  in time decrease the solid
waste generation rate to 5 million scrap car hulks per year.  Of course,
the effects  of automobiles already in the system and of increases in car sales,
if realized, would mask this effect for some time.  Nevertheless, the rate
of solid waste generation from durable goods products is controllable
through product design.
       The recurring benefits attributable to decreases in the waste gen-
eration rate are substantial.  Product changes toward longer durability
designs provide benefits through waste decreases which:  (1) avoid waste
collection,  processing,  transport, and disposal costs; (2)  provide aesthetic
and ecological benefits through decreased litter and accumulation of waste
       *Assistant Professor of Management, California State University,

in and on the land.  Longer durability designs may provide conservation
benefits through decreased resource usage rates; they may decrease the
rate of costs to consumers for the services provided by durable goods.
The value of these benefits can be very substantial.
       On the other hand, increased product durabilities forebode de-
creased sales volume rates for manufacturers and sellers; washing ma-
chines that last twice as long obtain only one-half the sales volume in a
given planning period. Manufacturers, even if they should discover de-
signs which—without extra cost—make their products more durable, would
not implement such designs.  They would,  instead,  seek less durable ma-
terials and designs provided that these could be implemented at not much
more cost than those associated  with the  more durable design.  This strat-
egy creates larger markets,  more sales commissions,  and higher profits
to business firms.  The doctrine that "the most profitable is the most
socially beneficial strategy" in this instance does not hold true.
       The economic and  environmental interrelationships between prod-
uct durabilities and product solid wastes  may be illustrated by analysis of
one product; cost and benefit structures incident to product management,
and to waste management, of durable goods most likely  have much in com-
mon. Consequently, the case of passenger car tires contributes insight
into the management of all product solid wastes.
                          WASTE TIRES

       This year in the United States 200 million passenger car tires are
being discarded as waste; similarly, large amounts will be generated in
each succeeding year.  Scrap tires are not amenable to routine solid
waste handling procedures; tires are differently distributed and are not
suitable for conventional collection, processing, landfill,  or incineration
operations.  Waste tires pose special management problems.
       There  is no indication that  a means for disposal of any significant
portion of the  tire waste stream even exists !  Only 30 percent of the scrap
tire stream is currently reclaimed, retreaded, or split into tire products..
The remainder is left to accumulate.  Accumulation in this case is not
management; it is disregard and neglect.  The disregard is based upon
economic analysis.
       The costs of adequately handling the accumulation of waste
tires outweigh the benefits.  The net costs for five prominent waste tire
collection,  transport, and recovery processes are listed in Table 1.  Pro-
cessing the tire accumulation for recovery is not economical for the tire
industry, for consumers, or for any private entrepreneur.
       Increasing tire durabilities is yet another tire waste management
alternative.  Bias belted tires, the most widely used tires  today, last an
average of 25, 800 miles.  At a rate of usage of 10, 000 miles per year,

                             TABLE 1
Tire collection, transport,                         Net processing
          recovery                                  cost per tire

Use as roadbase aggregate                              $ . 47
Use as asphalt additive                                   . 69
Land reclamation                                         . 81
Special incineration                                       . 85
Destructive distillation                                  1.06
these tires last 2.58 years.  A bias belted tire,  then, generates one
waste tire at the end of 2. 58 years.  Tires designed for longer dur-
abilities generate less waste.  During a 2.58-year period,  38,000-
mile tires—the current steel-belted radial designs—generate only
two-thirds of one waste tire.   Passenger car tires designed to last
the 10-year lifetime of a car, 100,000-mile tires, would generate  only
one-quarter of one waste tire every 2.58 years (Table 2).

                              TABLE 2

               Total            Tire    Waste in Waste decrease
Construction  mileage Years* waste/yr  2.58yr     in2.58yr
Bias belted
25, 800
. 33
       *At 10,000 miles per year.

       A longer tire durability design, for 100,000 miles,  can decrease
the number of waste tires generated in the United States by 75 percent.
Instead of 200 million waste passenger car tires each year, we can
control the wastes to 50 million per year once enough time  has passed
for the tires system to reach a steady state.  According to  the recovery
processing costs presented (Table 1) then, $70 to $150 million per
year can be saved  and waste handling costs avoided by a shift to 100,000-
mile tires.
       A computer simulation of the U.S. tires system-illustrates the
waste and market decreasing effects of a shift toward longer durability
tires (Table 3).  Model Run 2 incorporated a shift to 100,000-mile
tires as original equipment on all 1978 model new cars, together with
retreaded tires as replacements.   The waste decreasing effects are
most evident beginning in 1981.


       That 100,000-mile tires would eliminate a corresponding amount
of the replacement tire industry is also apparent from Table 3.  Con-
sumers would not need to purchase new tires every 2 or 3 years because
100,000-mile tires would last the life of a car under present auto designs.
This plan has much appeal from the consumer's viewpoint since the re-
quirement for a new set of tires to replace those worn out is unwelcome
and unpleasant.  Replacement tire purchases leave the consumer no bet-
ter off than he was before the purchase.   Consumers have but the same
tire services after replacement as they had before, but at a substantial
       Consumers are not generally well-informed replacement tire
buyers either.  The array of tire products available is large and confus-
ing. The 100,000-mile tire would avoid this confusion and would enable
consumers to include the tire purchase price in the original price of the
car.  It would seem to be a worthwhile idea to design tires to last the
life of the car.
       The cost of producing a 100,000-mile tire will not be much  greater
than the production cost of current radial tires.  Production cost of the
38,000-mile radial tire is about $22; 18 percent of this production cost
is attributable to materials used.  Assuming that the materials needed to
build the 100,000-mile tire are in linear proportion to the increase in
mileage obtained over belted bias tires,  2.6 times as much material
will be needed to produce 100,000-mile tires.  If 38,000-mile tire  equip-
ment can be used for production of the more durable tires, then 100,000-
mile tires can be produced for $28.21  If aew equipment is re-
quired, the cost will be approximately $30. Consumers most likely can
obtain more mileage for fewer dollars with longer durability tires.
This is, of course, unless the tire industry sets 100,000-mile tire
prices very high.
       Consumers may receive the  same tire services via different
product designs.  Tire service of 100,000 miles could be obtained by
using four belted bias tires, at $27 each, in succession, for a total
cost of $108.   Alternatively, 100,000  miles could be obtained, as sug-
gested here,  from a single 100,000-mile tire which costs about $30 to
produce and which could be sold at a price well below $108 (even allow-
ing for reasonable levels of administrative costs, marketing costs,
and profits).  Here, again, however,  even if manufacturers discover designs
to make their products more durable without extra cost, they would not
implement such designs. They would, instead, seek less durable materials
and designs to create larger markets. Prototypes of the 100,000-mile
tire have been produced. Perhaps consumers and public decisionmakers
for waste management  reasons can help  (or regulate) the tire industry
towards implementing a longer tire  durability design.

                             TABLE 3
                    SALES:  1960 THROUGH 1990
                            (in 100,000's)
New cars
Waste tires
model run
(1) (2)
2, 030
Repl. tire
       *Model Run 2 implements the policy of all 100,000-mile tires
on original equipment cars, and 27,000-mile retreaded tires for re-
placements, beginning in 1978.  Although these figures were taken from
a single computer run, they suffice for a rough indication.   Followup
research should sample from this model to obtain average results.

       The consumer economics,  environmental, and waste control
considerations we have discussed indicate that longer product durability
designs for passenger  car tires are a reasonable management alterna-
tive from a societal viewpoint. This alternative, as a waste  manage-
ment alternative, however,  should be compared with the tire resource
recovery methods (Table 1); it should be carefully evaluated, with re-
spect to both public and private costs and benefits involved, to determine
if justification for its adoption exists.

       Increasing tire design durabilities has many effects which im-
pinge upon different segments of society at different times and for vary-
ing lengths of time.  The effects which we included in our analyses are
identified in Table 4.   Deterministic measurements of some of these
effects are displayed in Table 5.
       The evaluation of the five recovery processes, from a social
perspective, is the uncomplicated summation of all the costs and bene-
fits indicated in Table 5.  Four of the five processes, all of which were
uneconomical from a profit oriented viewpoint, are economical when
the public aesthetic and ecological benefits are included in the analysis.
These benefits include both the values of products recovered and the
increase, or maintenance, of quality of the environment  as measured
through waste handling costs avoided.  Only destructive distillation,
the highest cost and, curiously, the most promoted alternative,  still
remains uneconomical.

        A detailed examination of the benefits and costs relevant to the
 longer durability tires alternatives is given in the paper, The Manage-
 ment of Waste Passenger Car Tires.  There we examine the interesting
 and dramatic case of 100,000-mile tires. The 38,000-mile tire case, with
 one exception which will be noted, parallels that of 100,000-mile tires.
        Some of the waste management costs of longer durability tires
 are incurred at the time of production.   Each 100,000-mile tire costs
 more to produce  than its alternative belted bias tire.   These increments
 total $13.67 per 100,000-mile tire produced.  Small production volumes
 are required with longer durability tires; sales and administrative costs,
 when allocated equally over the volume of 100,000-mile tires,  total $7.09
 per 100,000-mile tire.  They represent a benefit.  The 100,000-mile
 tire loses revenues due to tire production and sales avoided; however,
 75 percent of the demand for tires is eliminated.  This is, of course,
 demand for tires in terms of number of tires.,  One 100,000-mile tire


i : i
° 0
w 5
8 5
Q £3
Z  S « -2
.H •"J hJ3 H
1 ? g 1 >
•jj ^ he o TJ
j_j be Q3 O
! ! 1 1 i
H, ^ co -^ m

g ? S (9) Corporate profits
oo oo oo/cn opportunity cost
                              TABLE 5

Asphalt additive
Roadbase aggregate
Land reclamation
Destructive distillation

C -C
il 15

$ .30


$ .35

B „
. 92

replaces, approximately,  four belted bias tires at a loss of $27 each.  If
a price of $108 is charged for the 100,000-mile tire, then no market in
terms of dollar volume is  lost; in fact, when the time value of money is
considered, the tire industry is better off.  There is a difference in
profit levels and corresponding corporate profit taxes in addition.  The
difference between corporate profit taxes on one $100 tire and four $27
tires (at  50 and 36 percent gross profit margins, respectively) is an added
cost of $7.24 per 100,000-mile tire.  Taking the time value of money in-
to consideration,  the cost  would be even higher.  Finally, each 100,000-
mile tire finally requires  disposal.  Assuming that disposal characteristics
of a 100,000-mile tire are the same as those of belted bias tires, and
assuming that the tire industry is to pay for its waste handling, each
100,000-mile  tire costs $.92 to collect, process, transport, and landfill.
Yet it displaces four belted bias tires. The result is a $2. 76 benefit.
           100, OOP-mile tires          Incremental cost per tire

           Corporate profit tax
              Total including cost/10 yrs.

                                        Incremental benefits

           Administrative costs avoided         $  7.09
           Waste costs avoided                    2.76
              Total including benefits/10 yrs.     $  9. 85

       The net cost of each 100,000-mile tire, in this representation of
the tire industry's viewpoint, is $11.06 over 10 years.   This amounts to

$2.77 during the lifetime of each belted bias tire.  Of course,  if the
selling price for 100,000-mile tires were set at a price less than $108
per tire, a not unlikely event, then there would be a corresponding
opportunity cost to the tire industry.  If 100,000-mile tires were sold
at current prices, say around $68  each, then there would be a $40 oppor-
tunity cost  over 10 years.  This corresponds to an opportunity cost of
$10 for each belted bias tire lifetime.
       It is obvious that the tire industry's evaluation of 100,000-mile
tires is one of overwhelming disfavor. If the alternative is to be of
value,  it must be due to factors other than those discussed above. If
the alternative is to be implemented,  it must be by regulation or by set-
ting appropriate economic incentives for the industry.
       The 38,000-mile radial tire, at a price of $68 each, offers a profit
benefit to the tire industry.  The price for tire services is higher than
the comparable price for belted bias tires.  Consumers, however, pay the
corresponding cost.

       There are substantial benefits which accrue to society with the
100,000-mile tire.  It conserves valuable resources, preserves the
quality of the physical environment, and provides additional tax resources
to the public; it may offer a lower  cost of tire services to consumers.
                     Conservation of Resources

       Longer durability tires conserve resources.  The tire carcass ac-
counts for 80 percent of the $14.54 manufactured value of a belted bias
tire.  The number of tire carcasses needed is decreased by the 100,000-
mile tire.  In lieu of four tire carcasses each 10 years, or $46.52 of re-
source value,  one tire carcass,  or $18. 70  of resource value, is used in
a 100,000-mile tire.  Thus each 10 years $27. 82 worth of resources are
saved and conserved for later or other uses.
             Preservation of Quality of the Environment

       The 100,000-mile tire decreases the rate of waste generation by
75 percent as compared to belted bias tires.  There is a corresponding
decrease in the use of the physical environment as a sink for waste dis-
posal.  Decreased use of the environment parallels maintenance of envir-
onmental quality; it improves the environmental quality relationship to
waste generation.  A conservative,  surrogate measure of this benefit is
available through the value of the waste handling costs necessary if the

wastes are sunk in the physical environment.  This amount is $. 92 per
waste tire, $2.76 in 10 years for the three waste tires avoided.  Thus
$2.76 of aesthetic and ecological benefits in  terms of quality of the en-
vironment are provided by a 100,000-mile tire over 10 years.
                           Tax Benefits
       The additional corporate taxes paid by the tire industry, when
100,000-mile tires are substituted as original equipment on automobiles,
are transferred to society; these are funds available to the public.  They
can be used by the public to buy whatever benefits are desired.
                         Cost to Consumers

       The 100,000-mile tire at a price of $108 each costs the same
amount as the four belted bias tires which it replaces; it costs a bit
more, actually,  when the time value of money is included  in the analysis.
At a production cost of $30,  however, there  is much potential for provid-
ing 100,000 miles  of tire service at less than $108 and yet still allow the
tire industry  to cover their costs and to realize substantial profits per
tire.  Even if administrative, distribution, and marketing expenses total
$30 also, a 100,000-mile tire sales price of $81 per tire would provide
36 percent of the selling price in gross profits. This  is comparable to
profit margins on current bias belted tires.  This price would provide
$27 in benefits to consumers over 10 years,  about $7 per belted bias tire
       The public benefits of 100,000-mile tires are summarized in
Table 6.

                             TABLE 6
           THE 100,000-MILE  TIRE: PUBLIC BENEFITS

           Category of benefit             Per tire $ value of
                                          benefit  in 2.5 years

        Environmental quality
        Tax transfers
        Cost to consumers
           Total benefits


       The $7 decreased cost to consumers,  if effected,  would impose a
corresponding $7 opportunity cost to the tire  industry.  The net costs,
above, for the 100,000-mile tire alternative from the industry's viewpoint
were $2. 77 during each 2^-year period.  With the opportunity cost added
the net cost is $9.77 per tire.  The corresponding benefits on the public
side, $16.46,  are clearly and substantially in excess of the costs even
when opportunity costs to industry are included in the analysis.  Conse-
quently,  a requirement that tire producers design for longer, 100,000-
mile, durability is socially justified.
                100,000-MILE TIRES:  COMPARISON

       The evaluations for the resource recovery methods and the evalu-
ation for 100, 000-mile tires, in net benefits per 2.5 years, may be com-
pared to determine the desirability of a shift to 100,000-mile tires as a
waste management alternative.  Our data for 100,000-mile tires were
organized on a "per 2.5 year" rate basis.   Our standard for comparison,
the belted bias tire, lasts 2.5 years also.  All 100,000-mile tire costs
and benefits were measured as  incremental costs with respect to bias
belted tires and  so we compare costs and benefits of the bias belted sys-
tem each 2.5 years with costs and benefits  of the proposed 100,000-mile
alternative each 2.5 years.  The net benefits per bias belted tire are
measured in both cases.   The $6.69 net benefit for 100,000-mile tires  is
clearly  and sustantially in excess of the best tire resource recovery method,
the $.44 per tire net benefit for waste tire use as roadbase aggregate.

       A requirement that passenger car tires be designed to last 100,000
miles, the life of the car, is socially justified; 100,000-mile tires are the
economically preferable waste management alternative for tires.   Consid-
eration should be given to development of the methodology for manufacture
of 100,000-mile tires and to the means of implementing this alternative.

Cooper, T.A.  The impact of the radial tire in the United States.  M.S.
       Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, 1972.
Gill, G. S.  Public price support as an incentive to the use of solid waste as
       a resource.  Compost Science^ 12(1):16-19, Jan.-Feb. 1971.

Mishau, E.J.  Cost-benefit analysis: an introduction.  New York, Prae-
   ger Publishers, 1971. 364 p.
Robinson, Joan. Economic philosophy.  New York, Doubleday and Com-
       pany, Inc., 1962.
Sawyer, J.W.,  Jr.  A regional model of the automobile steel scrap
       processing sector of the economy.  Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer-
       sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,  1973.
Westerman, R.R.  The management of waste passenger car tires.  Ph.D.
       Dissertation,  University of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, 1974.
       239 p.


                        Charles B.  Russell*
       At International Paper Company, dairy packaging is an important
part of our business.  We are concerned about maintaining our position of
leadership in this field and in order to do this, we have to be constantly
alert to new methods and new materials that might offer an improvement
in the package or an economy in the system.
       This competitive pressure has led us to many innovations that have
been of benefit in one way or another  and sometimes due to the magnitude
of dairy packaging these benefits can be significant far beyond our immedi-
ate  objective.  Such is the case with our new entry in the packaging of milk
in the individual  service size containers.
       We appreciate being invited by the EPA Office  of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs to discuss two of our most universally beneficial
package developments with you today  at this Conference on Waste Reduc-
                        A NEW HALF PINT

       Eco Pak is the very descriptive name we have originated for our new
half-pint milk carton. We say descriptive because Eco stands for both
ecology and economy in their true sense when applied to this new package.
The Eco Pak  carton reduces the impact on the environment by using con-
siderably less material, i.e., paperboard and polyethylene, thus benefiting
the ecology.  At the same time the new carton provides for important cost
savings to the milk processor and is already being referred to as "the
economy package."
       Actually,  the Eco Pak  is a redesign of the regular Pure Pak half-
pint carton with a taller, more slender shape which provides for nearly the
optimum use  of packaging material in relation to product packaged.  We
have reduced the cross sectional measurement of the container from a
2 3/4-inch square to a 2 1/4-inch square. This means considerably less
paperboard in the top and bottom with only a slight increase in the height
of the sidewalls.   The net result is 16 percent less square inches in each
carton blank.  At the same time we are using a lighter weight, lower
       International Paper C ompany.

density sheet of paper which provides sufficient rigidity and strength for
performance but actually weighs from 11 percent to 20 percent less per
square foot than the 175# or 194# regular cartons.
       While we have referred to Eco Pak as a half-pint package because
that size represents the major volume,  there are 4-ounce, 6-ounce and
10-ounce sizes available also.  Another version has a flattened top to en-
able more filled containers to be packed in a case for delivery.
       Thus through technological improvement by design we are using
less material and therefore conserving  resources and energy while ac-
complishing the same end, satisfactorily packaging milk for the individual
consumer, with less contribution to the waste stream.
                          A Huge Market

       In order to fully realize the scope of this package innovation, a bet-
ter understanding of the 8-ounce and 10-ounce market is necessary. Each
year 562. 5 million gallons of milk are packaged in more than 9 billion car-
tons to supply the 8-ounce and 10-ounce market.  This requires 175,000
tons of polyethylene coated paperboard. If each of these 9 billion cartons
were placed side by side in a single row, they would stretch for some
426,000 miles. I understand it is only 240,000 miles from the earth to
the moon, so this gives you some idea of how many packages we are talk-
ing about.
       The bulk of the 9 billion cartons is consumed in school milk pro-
grams.  It is estimated that each school day more than 40 million people
will drink from a half-pint paperboard container.
                    Dairy Industry Consolidation

       You may well question why a packaging change of this sort did not
come about earlier.  The answer lies in the changing scope of the individual
dairy processing plants over the last 25 years.  In 1950 there were approxi-
mately 8,000 dairies processing 40 billion pounds of fluid milk annually.
This is compared to the current 1, 500 dairies which process 60 billion
pounds of fluid milk each year.   The average annual output per dairy has
increased from 5 million pounds to 40 million pounds.  Twenty-five years
ago dairies were much smaller in physical size, productive capacity and
sales volume than the modern dairy.  When the half-pint market was con-
verting from glass to paper in the 1940s and 1950s, a carton was needed
with the physical characteristics to adapt  its forming, filling, and  sealing
to existing machinery.  The small dairy of the 1950s could not afford
specialized equipment for forming and filling half-pint cartons.  Thus, the
original half-pint container evolved from the standard quart design using
the same cross section so that it could be filled on the same basic  quart


       The modern dairy now requires efficient high-speed equipment to
meet the increased demand that changing circumstances have placed upon
it.  The substantial increase in sales volume per plant now justifies the
expenditure for large-scale, specialized equipment that is needed to form,
fill,  and seal Eco Pak.
       Recognizing this fundamental change in the  dairy industry, Inter-
national Paper proceeded with its research to design a half-pint carton that
would better utilize paperboard and polyethylene.  The end result of this
research effort was Eco Pak.
                Economic and Environmental Impact

       We mentioned that the principal design changes in the regular or
standard carton were the changes in the cross-sectional dimension from
a 2 3/4-inch to a 2 1/4-inch square for 16 percent less square inches of area
and a reduction in the basis weight of the paperboard ranging from 11 per-
cent to 20 percent.  While our initial effort was to design a more economi-
cal half-pint milk carton,  it wasn't long before the implication of these
package modifications on the environment and the dairy industry economy
were recognized.
       It is somewhat difficult to believe that just changing the container
design from short and fat to tall and more slender and reducing its overall
weight by less than one-fifth ounce could possibly have much of an impact
in the area of  resource conservation.   However, when this overall re-
duction is applied to  a 9-billion-carton-per-annum market,  the end  results
are indeed impressive.
       Because we can use less material in the new design, Eco Pak offers
the dairy savings in  purchase price of $1.11 per thousand, which justifies
the dairy's investment in higher-speed,  specialized machinery. On 9
billion cartons, $1.11 per thousand represents $9,990,000  to the dairy
industry in purchase cost alone.
       Savings are also realized in the outbound delivery of the filled Eco
Pak cartons.  With the new construction, the dairy is now able to deliver
as many as 75  Eco Paks in a standard milk case whereas only 44 of  the
regular half pints could previously be handled.  This can amount to  a 70-
percent increase in units per delivery truck based  on space saved.
       It should be noted that none of the savings has come about at the
expense of the consumer.  In fact,  Eco Pak  is a better consumer package
than the standard half pint.  Eco Pak is easier to handle, more readily
disposable, and its smaller pouring spout provides a better aperture for
drinking directly from the carton.
       The resulting effect of the redesigning is most significant when
expressed in terms of conserved resources.  If the dairy industry con-
verted to Eco Pak 100 percent,  a saving of 58,000  tons of materials
would be  realized and of course the energy required to produce and

transport these 58,000 tons would not be expended.  One thousand less
rail cars would be needed to bring the fewer tons of paperboard from
paper mills to converting plants.  In addition, 4,000 less truckloads would
be required to transport the finished product from the converting plant to
the dairy.  This is in addition to the savings at the dairy and in the de-
livery system.   Although we have not attempted to calculate the energy
savings or the reduction in the contribution to the waste stream, the fol-
lowing is a quote from Mr. Michael  Loube of the EPA that will be pub-
lished in a fact sheet:
       Using anticipated 1976 control standards  for air and waterborne
       pollutants,  air emissions would be reduced by about 1,600 tons
       and waterborne wastes would be  reduced  by over 600 tons from
       the paper savings alone.  Energy saved by not producing  the ex-
       tra paper would amount to over 2. 3 trillion Btu annually.  This
       energy savings is equivalent to 1,100 barrels of oil per day.
                        Industry Acceptance

       We are most pleased that the dairy industry is showing that they
recognize the  advantages inherent in the Eco Pak system and that they
will invest the capital required to install the new machinery necessary.
       Since last summer when there was only one prototype machine in
operation, there have been some 20 machines installed in dairies using
Eco Pak cartons at the rate of 8 million a week.   This means over Ij
million children are drinking milk from Eco Pak containers each school
       Plans are going forward for the machinery manufacturers to build
as many as 60 more machines to be installed by the beginning of school
in September of this year.  We feel confident that the industry will be more
than 50 percent converted to the Eco Pak style carton by the end of 1977.
       We are proud to have  instigated this trend to a more economical
and more environmentally sound milk package.
                       A NEW FAMILY SIZE

       In addition to the Eco Pak we have also introduced a new family-
size milk package which might be of interest to you as a technical option
for reducing product waste.
       Again, through package design, we have developed a carton to hold
3 quarts of milk, a size not previously available, which offers several con-
sumer advantages while at the same time reducing the ratio of packaging
material to product packaged.
       The 3-quart carton is rectangular in shape rather than square so
that it fits in the hand and also the shelves of a refrigerator door. The

lighter weight of 3 quarts instead of a gallon makes the package easier to
lift and handle.
                          Saves Materials
       Of greater importance is the fact that this 3-quart package, due to
its design and the paperboard used, can reduce the material required to
package a given quantity of milk by 10 percent (compared with paper  gallons)
to 18 percent (compared with paper quarts).
       If 20 percent of the paper milk package market were converted to
the 3-quart package, we estimate a saving of 25,000 tons of plastic-coated
       We believe that a conservation of this amount of material plus the
resultant saving in energy is worthwhile, especially when coupled with a
package that is more desirable to the consumer because of  convenience.
       The dairy industry, because of its tremendous package volume,
does offer truly worthwhile conservation opportunities.
       At International Paper we are trying to take advantage of these op-
portunities by offering innovations  in packaging that conserve material and
at the same time render a better service to the consumer.


                        Norman D. Axelrad*
       As you know, McDonald's sells hamburgers. We sell so many ham-
burgers that we have become the largest single purchaser of beef in the
United States. (I understand that the U. S. government is our nearest com-
petitor in the beef-purchasing process.)
       McDonald's as one of the largest members of the fast-food industry
has 3,300 restaurants in the United States and 17 foreign countries.  Ap-
proximately one-third of these restaurants are owned and operated by
McDonald's Corporation, and the others are owned and operated by inde-
pendent licensees.
       As a highly conspicuous user  of paper packaging, the fast-food in-
dustry draws a fair share of public environmental attention.  The major
areas of concern include claims of excessive use of paper and its claimed
depletion of our forest resources,  and the litter problem.  More recently,
as our cities are  running out of places to dump their garbage, interest is
turning to the fast-food industry's contribution to the solid waste stream.
I would like to briefly comment on  these points.
       As to the assertion that the use  of paper packaging depletes our
forest resources, this is not the  case.  Integrated paper companies are in
the business of planting and harvesting  hybrid pulpwood forests much as
a farmer plants crops.  Forest lands are now 70 percent of what existed
when Columbus discovered the New World.  The U. S.  Forest Service has
publicly confirmed that there is nothing approaching a  pulpwood  shortage
now or in the near future.
       As to solid waste reduction, and its application to packaging and
the role of the fast-food industry in particular, I offer  a few interesting
facts.  First, all of the nation's paper packaging combined account for
13 percent of total collectible solid wastes.  The exact portion of the solid
waste stream contributed by the fast-food  industry remains unknown.
However, it is estimated that the fast-food industry uses approximately
1. 3 million tons of paper per year  which would account for approximately
2.5 percent of the paper packaging in the  solid waste stream. However,
this data must be viewed in the perspective of a recent study by  the Illi-
nois Institute of Technology which revealed that a McDonald's restaurant
actually produces less packaging waste per person per meal than a
       *Vice President, Public Affairs, McDonald's Corporation.

comparable meal prepared at home.  Packaging costs in the industry, as
a ratio to sale price of products in other food distribution businesses, are
among the lowest.
       However, I am not here to discredit the critics of the fast-food
industry with a few palliatives that say, "We're really not that bad,  folks."
Rather, I would like to share with you the approach that one fast-food cor-
poration, McDonald's, is taking to further reduce its contribution to the
solid waste stream, and to encourage your suggestions on any further im-
provements we might make.
       There are obviously several social and economic disadvantages of
wasteful and irresponsible packaging.  These business disincentives
serve as an invisible regulator of business conduct.  As a consumer-
oriented business,  we desire to establish and maintain a positive custo-
mer/public relations posture.  Competition also has an impact on opera-
tional decisionmaking.  These forces lead a company to respond to the
public's interests and expectations in the selection of packaging materials.
The issues of biodegradability, recycled or recyclable materials, paper
versus plastics, the quantity and cost of packaging, and its likelihood of
litter, are factored into  the decisionmaking equation.  Let me  illustrate:
(1)  Litter bearing the name of any particular company is an excellent ex-
ample of negative merchandising.  People are not encouraged to buy your
product or use  your services when they see your garbage littering the
environment. (2)  Packaging costs money. We're in the business of sell-
ing food and beverages,  not paper packaging.  It costs  money to design,
order, purchase,  ship, and put something into a package.  It also costs
money to dispose of packaging.  A McDonald's restaurant must pay  to
haul away its trash.  This trash consists mainly of used packaging.
       While these dollar costs are in fact passed on to the consumer in
order to make a profit, the net effect is to raise the price of the product.
Since the highly competitive fast-food industry merchandises its ability
to serve quality food at reasonable prices, no company can afford to let
its prices wander upward. Competition and customer resistance would
quickly and effectively eliminate those companies that allow  packaging
costs to push prices up.  In fact,  McDonald's packaging costs,  as a  per-
centage of dollar sales,  have declined  in the past several years.
       There is of course another reason to  reduce packaging.  The
present energy and food  crises have effectively brought home the message
that the world's resources are not infinite.  It is  increasingly apparent
both in the United States  and  throughout the world that there  are certain
levels of resource and energy consumption that nature will not  tolerate or
maintain.  A new conservation ethic is replacing the traditional spawning
of disposable material goods.
       With all these disincentives, what is the rationale for packaging at
all?  Why are wraps, lids, cups, straws, stirrers, cartons, collars,
boxes, and paper and plastic bags so much a part of the fast-food industry?

Our customers want a quality product, a clean and sanitary eating envi-
ronment,  and quick, efficient service.  Packaging is designed to meet
these requirements. First, packaging serves to retain heat and moisture
of food and makes it possible for the customer to transport a purchase
away from the restaurant.  Second, packaging does help to guarantee
that the food will retain its basic form through preparation, handling,  and
transportation.  Third,  packaging improves sanitation by protecting the
food.  And lastly, the use of disposable packaging reduces the amount of
labor,  equipment investment, and space that would otherwise be needed to
handle china service.
       Ten years ago well over 90 percent of the food McDonald's sold was
consumed in the automobile or at home.  Proper packaging was essential
in order to ensure that the food retained temperature and moisture and  re-
mained intact and appetizing thrr.igh the post-sale transportation process.
As the industry gradually changed in concept from drive-in to sit-down
restaurants, opportunities to reduce packaging have arisen. Today approx-
imately 50 percent of the food sold by McDonald's is consumed in the
restaurant. While the evolution was taking place, certain packaging needs
remained,  that is, delivering a quality product, quickly,  inexpensively,
and in an appetizing (uncrushed,  warm, moist, together),  aesthetically
pleasing way.   Some packaging systems became obsolete and unnecessary,
and therefore excessive.  Most companies redesigned their packaging to
reflect their evolving business formats.  And some did not.
       At McDonald's, one of the foremost missions of our packaging is to
satisfy our business system: we attempt to anticipate demand by preproduc-
tion of food and holding it for purchase. So when the customer places an
order, it's already prepared and waiting.  Producing food in advance and
holding it  for a few minutes makes it possible to serve  large numbers of
people in a reasonable amount of time.  The economics are basic. High vol-
ume makes profit possible on low prices.  Moreover, preproduction makes
possible a  more efficient utilization of labor.
       In  discussing the role of packaging within the McDonald's system, I
hoped to share  with you the complexity of the problem.  The ever-present
challenge  is how to enhance the functional contribution of our packaging to
our business.   The question here is, does a particular  form of packaging
allow us to serve a fresh, hot product to our customers?  At the same
time, we must  deal with the disadvantages for irresponsible use of packag-
ing. Obviously, excess packaging serves neither our economic goals nor
public expectations.  In attempting to meet this challenge, we have devel-
oped several strategies.
       Because of our evolution from a drive-in/carry-out to sit-down fam-
ily restaurant,  it has become possible to redesign or even eliminate some
packaging, resulting in reduction in packaging. We have,  through announced
corporate policy, attempted to eliminate disposable carrying trays, cup lids,
and paper bags for use by customers eating  in the restaurant. We do this
by serving food and beverages on reusable plastic trays.   Due to our large

numbers of customers and the need to serve customers quickly, this
means placing extra demands on our order takers who now have to ask
if the customer will be eating the meal in the restaurant or taking it
out.  It's difficult to change old habits, but more and more of our res-
taurants are responding as we continue to emphasize the cost and mer-
chandising benefits of this source reduction program to our employees
and licensees.  We believe this policy will  soon be adopted in all our
stores and significantly reduce the use of unnecessary packaging by as
much as 20 percent.
       Our sandwich boxes do the job, but  we're not satisfied.  We're
looking for a better package and a better system.
       Our latest experiments  in reducing  packaging involve  the use of
alternative materials.  We are presently testing polystyrene  packaging.
Our concern about the environmental  tradeoffs between polystyrene and
paperboard cartons prompted our commissioning the Stanford Research
Institute to make an exhaustive review of all the evidence on the issue.
SRI concluded that a plastic-based product  is more acceptable from an
environmental standpoint than paper!
       Among the factors considered  by Stanford Research were:
       1.   Polystyrene uses significantly less energy in the production
       2.   Polystyrene packaging being tested by McDonald's is consid-
erably lighter than comparable paper  packaging,  approximately one-
fourth to one-fifth the weight.
       3.   Polystyrene offers several advantages in the disposal process.
Among these advantages are secondary utilization of polystyrene con-
tainers; a potentially profitable market for the recycled product; if in-
cinerated properly, polystyrene represents an efficient means of energy
production; and if used in a landfill, polystyrene will not release effluents
into the air or water systems.
       The cost of the polystyrene container is roughly comparable to or
less than the cost of paper.  In addition to polystyrene improving the heat
and moisture retention for  our sandwiches, it could also permit a signifi-
cant reduction in the overall weight,  volume, and pieces of paper packaging
used.  Specifically, sandwich wraps,  boxes, and collars would no longer
be required.  Further, it is our hope  that the development of a compact
pelletizing process  would make it possible  for us to profitably reclaim a
substantial portion of this packaging for sale and eventual reuse in non-
food related products.
       A strategy we have  employed with some success is the use of re-
cycled paper.  At the present time, approximately 19 percent by weight of
McDonald's packaging is recycled material. We had fairly high hopes for
large-scale utilization of recycled paper.   However,  we found that re-
cycled paper was significantly more expensive than new stock.  Then  we
learned that more recycled paper was needed to produce the same pack-
age strength.  For example, a french fry box made of recycled paper

weighs eight times more than the same box made from virgin fiber stock.
We also discovered that recycled sandwich wrap doesn't have a memory,
that is,  hold a fold very well; that packaging made from recycled paper
comes in a variety of shades of unappetizing grey; and that neither
McDonald's nor the Food and Drug Administration are happy about the
chemicals found in recycled paper coming into direct contact with hot
food.  And finally, our customers were not receptive to the idea of eating
food out of recycled paper packaging.
          In addition to the packaging of our sandwiches, we are  also con-
cerned about the packaging of the food we receive from our suppliers.
(Perhaps I should point out that McDonald's does not produce or distribute
its  own food or supplies.) We have had pilot programs to recycle corru-
gated boxes, but we no longer consider this the most sensible way to pro-
ceed. In the spirit of source reduction, we have significantly reduced the
packaging waste from our suppliers through the use of two-way containers,
packaging with  secondary uses, and reduction of packaging material.  We
will continue to push our suppliers and distributors toward this course.
          Packaging obviously has a merchandising impact.  But as I indi-
cated earlier,  in the fast-food industry this can be negative as well as
positive.  When it is found on city streets,  it is no longer packaging:  it's
litter. Eliminating unnecessary or excessive packaging reduces  the
likelihood of litter.  But this is not enough.  Our store personnel are  in-
structed to retrieve litter far beyond the premises of our stores.  But to
be effective, we also need to instruct and educate the users of our prod-
ucts.  This is done, in part, through messages in the media, via com-
mercials, through local community involvement in conservation,  and  most
significantly, through educating youngsters in the schools.
          We have developed and distributed  an Ecology Action Pack.  It is
used as a classroom aid to teach primary school children about conserva-
tion,  source reduction,  and  litter.  The Action Pack, containing spirit
masters with classroom activities,  has been  used by  millions of children
as an environmental supplement to their social studies curriculum. The
Action Pack was so well received by teachers that we followed  it  with a
film and workbook entitled "Meecology," which instructs youngsters on
recycling through developing new uses for discarded materials.
          Obviously,  our society consumes and disposes of too many  things
which contribute to the solid waste stream.  Market forces of cost, com-
petition,  and public attitudes, combined with  an emerging conservation
ethic  will motivate private efforts in providing effective and efficient  solu-
tions  for solid waste reduction.  This is preferable to a centralized author-
ity arbitrarily determining what products or packaging should be  eliminated.
          McDonald's views its leadership in the fast-food industry with a
social responsibility to the public.  Much of what we have done, and will
continue to do,  will influence the industry.  We hope that our initiatives
and search for  better ways for waste reduction,  resource recovery pro-
cedures, and promoting the  environmental/conservation ethic will be
advanced by the industry.


                         Alan K. Greene*
       The notion that our way of life causes us to buy the things we do
and causes those same things to impact upon the environment and our
resources is a notion that is beginning to sink in with the American con-
sumer. It is really the essence of the challenge of campus youth in re-
cent years,  the challenge of our lifestyles.  It's not a new notion, nor
one not followed in other parts of the world.  But it is new to American
consumers.  It has stood the test of time in Europe,  where land scarcity
and resource dependence are centuries old.  To think it won't stand the
test  of time  in this country  is to refute the facts that surround us.  Our
population is becoming crowded,  and our once abundant resources are
dwindling.  Consumers are becoming aware.
       In July of 1971, the  Management Committee was asked a series
of specific questions by the members of the Environmental Concerns
Committee.  One of those questions  seems appropriate for review, for
the answer was somewhat causal to the development  of the Milwaukee
"Bring 'em Back, Repack and Save" program, which is the subject of
this  report.
       Question to Management:  "Is the Red Owl commitment to our
       environment sufficiently strong and bold to permit the altera-
       tion, to include a greater emphasis on environmental factors,
       of retailing plans, programs and practices which are designed
       mainly to bolster sales and profits?"
       Answer:  "Yes, retailing plans and programs can be changed to
       place a greater emphasis on  environmental factors as long as
       they  are effective  in their aim to bolster sales and profits. "

       The program to "Bring 'Em Back, Repack and Save" was con-
ceived by the members of the ECC to accomplish the objectives of sales
and profits,  and to be in tune with some of the new "lifestyle" thoughts
that  have invaded consumer thinking. It was to be a program that would
make an encouraging appeal to "Bring 'Em Back," but not a forcing ap-
peal. A shopper could use all, any part, or none of the program to save
both  money and resources,  and still feel comfortable shopping at Red Owl.
       Making the return of reusables and returnables sufficiently con-
       *Director, Environmental Affairs, Red Owl Stores.

venient seemed to be the single most important design problem. The
design of just such a system was  accomplished,  and a marketing program
was developed and approved.  There are two basic questions that must be
considered separately and concurrently with this report:
       1.  Is "Bring 'em Back, Repack and Save" a workable market pro-
       2.  Is the market ready for this or any other similar retailing pro-
       This report will attempt to answer the first question with precision.
The reader is invited to join with the authors and users  of the program in
attempting to answer the second question.  For that is one of timing and
business judgment.
                   SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

       The program to "Bring 'Em Back, Repack and Save," as tested in
Milwaukee, Cedarburg,  and West Bend,  is mechanically sound but adver-
tising-dependent. It is not recommended as a short-range marketing
program but as a longer range program.  The program is recommended
to be stepped up with more advertising in the Milwaukee stores and in-
troduced in the Twin Cities market.   Segments of the program are seen
as immediate candidates for all stores.
       The priority placed on the investment required  to achieve sales
and profit  results is looked upon as follows: Short-range market expec-
tations entail medium  investment, low risk, and low-to-medium return
while long-range market expectations entail low investment, low risk,
and medium-to-high return.

       "Bring 'Em Back, Repack and Save" is a new system with which
customers may do their shopping.  Their motivation to take advantage of
the system may be economic, may be environmental, or a combination of
the two.  It is  designed to assist high volume shoppers to take advantage
of the savings  that follow from returnables and reusables.  Of course, the
system works  well for low volume shoppers too, but their patterns of
shopping are not really inhibited by the inconvenience of returnables and
       A customer will enter the store with a shopping bag containing
returnables and reusables.  She may,  if she wishes, hook the shopping
bag to the handle end of the cart to transport the items through the store
and to the checkstand.  As she shops the store, she will pack her own
eggs from a bulk display of grade A large, using her own egg carton. If
she has no egg carton of her own, then she may select eggs from a

packaged display.  As she proceeds through the store, she will be re-
minded of the savings available with different items of merchandise that
fit the program.  Milk and beverages in returnables are sold from appro-
priate displays in the conventional manner and highlighted with "shelf-
talkers. "
       The checkout counter will be the point from which in-store selling
will be more direct. For the more complex transactions to take place,
the checkers' duties will include the following:
       1.  Stamp any new egg cartons and new shopping bags.  For the
customer not on the program,  let the customer know why the merchan-
dise is being stamped and invite her to join the program.
       2.  Ring up the groceries, as usual, and then count the number of
egg cartons  and grocery bags returned and repacked,  to make refund for
those items. Bags  are 2 cents each and egg cartons are 3  cents each.
The amount  of the refund should not be deducted from tape  totals, but re-
turned to her in change.  This is our savings passed on to her.
       3.  Handling of the milk and soda pop returns should be  as usual
for deposit containers.  The packing of the grocery bags should first
make use of the returned sacks, along with any new or used plastic shop-
ping bags the customer may have.
       Upon returning home with the groceries, the customer will need
advertising reminders to "Bring  'Em Back, Repack and Save. " The ad-
vertising inducements to join the program could also take the form of
additional savings for "Bring 'Em Back" shoppers, such as 5-cent sav-
ings on repacking your own eggs at times, or double savings on the
return of grocery bags,  4 cents each.
       Store employees should be sufficiently enlightened with program
information  to share our corporation's knowledge and concern with cus-
tomers who  bother to ask.  Consumer fact sheets should be available to
assist this side of the program.
                         IN MILWAUKEE

       The market test for "Bring 'Em Back, Repack and Save" was con-
ducted in our 10 Milwaukee corporate stores plus two stores in Cedar-
burg and West Bend.  The test period was from June 25 to August 18 for
a total of 8 weeks.  (The stores still continue to promote the program
with their signs and merchandise displays.)
       This program generated only a very slight impact on sales (see table).
Between the milk, eggs, and plastic bags,  our weekly sales were running
about $5,000 per week for all stores, or 1 percent of total.  Store managers
were cautious, but 10  out of 12 advised that we continue the program.
Customers using the program definitely favored it.
       Almost all store managers seemed convinced that the program
will become successful with more advertising,  more in-store presentation,




® -u
13 CQ
^ &
. 3
O n

fn {/}
N ^"

•8 *

o *3
,2 ^
13 °
be .
,g £


















0 0
0 0
0 0
CO 00
••* in

<=> s

o m
^ ^

00 £V.

in o
t- 00

00 o

4 1
> £
•s §
h -±
ffl in
0 rH

in in
* *

O 0
0 0
O 0
m •*

t- rH
00 rH
O t-


oo in
t> CM

•* in

oo o

"O .
d ^
rn *
u o
T3 j-
£ 13
CM to
C75 E>
CO Tt<
^ ^
m m
* *








0 0
0 0
0 0
t- rH

0 0
t- in
^F t-

0 0
0 0

m in
CM r-l

and more customer learning time.  They felt a need to shift away from the
traditional ad page to sell this program in the marketplace.
       The opening press release, along with an interview in Milwaukee
with two television stations, was extremely successful in launching the
program with the public. Two things stand out with our release:
       1. The consumer surveys show nearly 40 percent of  our customers
learned of the program from the television and newspaper releases.
       2. Both the television  station staff and the newspaper reporters and
editorial writers were excited by the program.  Channel 6 gave  it 4|-
minute coverage during  the noon, 6 pm,  and 10 pm news hours.  The Journal
carried a staff editorial praising Red Owl.  The Sentinel carried an ex-
tremely complimentary  feature story. The program was newsworthy and
timely to the media.
       Consumer attitudes  about the program followed along with many of
the checkers' comments; customers were generally very complimentary
about the program,  whether they were using the program or  not. It was
interesting to note that of the 22 nonusers surveyed, 9 indicated they liked
the program.  Of this group, it is also noted that there was less employee
encouragement to the customer to try the program.
       Mai Anderson was requested to furnish comments on  our advertis-
ing of this program (see Appendix), if assigned to "make the program
really go in the market."  His comments do coincide with the thinking of
our store people and seem appropriate for consideration.
       The reusable plastic bag did not perform in quite the  way envi-
       1. The bag definitely did not sell well. By the 10th week,  sales
were typically running from 5 to 25 bags per week at a store depending
upon size of store, etc.
       2. The  strength of the bag required continual "selling." People
just did not believe it to  be  adequate.
       3. The plastic bag became too much a symbol of the  program.  The
bag was not put in perspective  with other component parts of the program;
it was probably looked upon as the whole program by many of our customers.
Even one of our store managers became  distracted by the bag and away
from the program.
                 Conclusions from the 8-Week Test

       1.  The program to "Bring  'Em Back, Repack and Save" is mechan-
ically sound.  It works well for all types of shoppers at little or no extra
store cost.
       2.  The program is dependent upon advertising to a very large ex-
tent.  The program needs  much media coverage to attract shoppers to the
system, and to accomplish this objective in a given market, possibly as
much as $50,000 would be  required beyond the  normal expenditures.

       3.  Once "hooked," a customer would stay with the program with
good probability, but would need constant reminders to do so. Introductory
advertising would taper off, but reminder techniques would have to be used.
       4.  The program seems more store-dependent than customer demo-
graphic-dependent,  i. e., a store that has enthusiasm for the program will
fare better with customer groups of most types, than a store that lacks
enthusiasm will fare with a more environmentally concerned customer
       5.  In-store signing and consumer information materials are essen-
tial components and probably can't be overdone.  Both the employees and
the customers will find these materials fortifying their enthusiasm.
       6.  The program is definitely timely (this does not mean,  however,
that the timing for Red Owl is now). The timeliness is evidenced by the
media response to our release, by the conversation still taking
place about it at store level,  by the nearly 40 percent of persons surveyed
discussing the program outside our store, and by the ease with which the
program was comprehended by the public (only 7 percent had difficulty at
first).  National attention focused  on the program is also indicative.
BusinessWeek will carry the  story and Chain Store Age is running a fea-
ture story on it.
       7.  The program can build sales.  It appears most unlikely that
the program could have a negative effect.  Therefore, any effect at all
would be a plus to sales.
       8.  The program probably  does not have of itself the kind of strength
needed to  really turn a store around once its sales begin declining; only
5. 7 percent of the program users  were not regular shoppers at Red Owl.
Whether those persons convert to  become regular customers of ours is un-
known but, clearly, new customers did not flock to the stores to join the
program,  even during our opening 2 weeks following excellent media ex-
posure in  the newspaper and on television.
       9.  The program has  its greatest appeal because of the economic
savings, particularly among the shoppers of large families.  Unless the
economic  savings are in some way felt, the program gets weak.
      10.  Much "free publicity time"  is now available to us with the
media in Milwaukee.  This would be most likely in any of our markets in
which the  program was tried "as long as we were first. "
      11.  Environmental organizations, along with interested governmen-
tal departments, would support the program.
       In  conclusion, the program should be looked upon, in the short
range, as  one of medium investment, low risk,  and low-to-medium re-
turn.  In the long range, however, the ranking would be changed to one of
low investment, low risk, and medium-to-high return.


       It is recommended that the marketing program be redesigned
along the lines of advertising recommended by Mai Anderson, General

Manager, Advertising, and introduced into the Twin Cities market (see
       All  other corporate stores should begin to adopt just two items for
their mode of merchandising: bulk eggs at 3 cents off per dozen if you
repack your own, and grocery bags refunded at 2 cents  each when brought
back for repacking.
       The program should be continued in Milwaukee with the sending of
new sign kits,  followup press releases that are now being requested by
the media,  and a special budget set forth from which our advertising de-
partment may develop media messages.
       Expansion of the complete program to other stores does not seem
wise, though timely.  We should consider, however, exceptions to this
recommendation upon the advice of store managers and district managers
who may request the program for reasons of "store readiness."  Future
expansion to all stores should be considered  at a later date.
       The Consumer Relations Committee should begin the development
of customer materials useful to stores, using all or just part of the pro-
       The Twin Cities market is recommended for this program with
two very special business  interests:
       1.  The curtailment of store expansion in the Twin City market
requires investment in sound marketing programs to an even greater ex-
       2.  The Twin Cities are ready for this kind of program.  The mar-
ket has been sufficiently engrossed in consumer and environmental issues
to be primed for this program.

       During the 8-week period, paid advertising to promote the program
consisted of Monday and Wednesday ads in the Milwaukee Journal.
       First Week:  We broke with a full-page ad on Monday, June 25, de-
picting the shopping cart and saver bag with program explanation.  This ad
was accompanied by a shopper's saver bag coupon.
       Second Week:  No advertising.
       Third Week: On Monday of the third week we repeated the theme,
"We'll Put Cash in your Pocket  Today to Help Save a Little Bit of Tomor-
row. "  Again,  we explained the  program and this time tied in with a return-
able  Coke special. The Wednesday ad carried a shopper saver bag coupon,
along with a |-page x 3-column  "drop in" describing the program.  In this
ad we also tied in with the Coke ad still running.
       Fourth Week:  We repeated the "Cash in Pocket" theme with a
miniaturized cart and  program explanation. We tied in with returnable
milk, a feature item.  This ad was run both Monday and Wednesday.
       Fifth Week:  We repeated the  "Cash in Pocket" theme with a

miniaturized cart near the top of the ad with good location to the meat
special, on both Monday and Wednesday.
       Sixth Week:  Both the Monday and Wednesday ads carried the
"Cash in Pocket" theme with prominence near the top of the ad.
       Seventh Week: Both the Monday and Wednesday ads carried a
very small (2 inches x 4| inches) repeat of the "Cash in Pocket" theme
with picture of cart  and five-step program explanation.
       Eighth Week: We featured a Shopper Saver Bag coupon that was
highlighted with the  "Cash in Pocket" theme,  on both Monday and Wed-
       Following the 8-week period of advertising,  Mai Anderson was
asked to comment upon our ads and how he would approach the advertis-
ing of the program if requested to "really make the program go":
       The opening  week was good with a  full-page ad calling attention
       to the program, just as we did.  But after that, I would run a
       series of |-  to full-page ads once each week on just one item or
       component part of the program until I had covered  them all ...
       these ads would close in on just the return of egg cartons to a Red
       Owl Store, and so on.  This would have given us the opportunity
       to write the copy that is necessary to get the program across.
       Followup newspaper ads would not be entire program explanation
       ads,  as  much as they would be "merchandise highlights" that are
       a part of the  program.
       Then, I  would consider  the use of billboard space—with each sign
       a graphic illustration of just one part or piece of merchandise  in
       the program. This could be backed up with in-store signing, bill-
       board repeats, etc.
       Lastly,  I would like to see some 10-second I. D. radio and televi-
       sion commercials where we take just one part of the program and
       get in and get out with it ...  such as: "Bringing back your empty
       egg carton will save you 3 cents per dozen at Red Owl.   Join Red
       Owl's customers who 'Bring 'Em Back and Save.' "
       In summary, Mai commented that  "We tried to explain the whole
program every  time we ran the ad until it simply got down to fine print.
Using just the regular ad in the newspaper did not really expose the pro-
gram to non-Red-Owl shoppers."


                       Kenneth G. Van Tine*
       I appreciate the opportunity of addressing this conference today on
behalf of Owens-Illinois—a company concerned with the quality of our en-
vironment, as well as continuing to be a successful business enterprise.
In the next few minutes, I would like to expand on the following thoughts.
       First, packaging is not inherently evil!
       Second, the restrictive beverage container  issue has become en-
tirely too emotional and symbolic.
       Third,  the packaging industry  is constantly trying to improve the
environmental profiles of its products.
       Fourth, Owens-Illinois endorses a total systems approach to our
environmental problems through resource recovery and  recycling.
       Through the late 1960s and now the 1970s, both industry and gov-
ernment have hopefully developed some sophistication in dealing with
environmental problems.  We are still learning as evidenced by the re-
cent difficulties with the catalytic converter.  We should at least come
away from the catalytic converter experience recognizing that attempts
to control environmental problems in  one area may actually aggravate the
problems in another.  It is this type of conference  which we hope will
avoid the compounding of errors in our national environmental policy.  By
bringing industry and government leaders together and sharing perspec-
tives, we can cut down on the margin  of error involved in managing en-
vironmental problems.
       Today, we face highly interrelated social/economic/environmental
problems which demand sophistication and the sharing of perspectives.
Whenever possible, we should avoid the consequences of the "trial  and
error" approach to environmental problems—the "trial and error"  ap-
proach is no way to formulate public policies.
       This conference addresses techniques for managing the solid waste
problem via source reduction, which will, at least in theory, reduce some
portion  of the solid waste  stream.
       The concept of source reduction is not new; as a  matter of fact, it
is a concept which has been internalized by the packaging industry for
many years.  As profit-minded institutions,  packagers have constantly
sought out new ways of reducing raw materials and energy costs.  The
business manager needs no legislative directive to tell him to minimize
       *Vice President,  Owens-Illinois,  Inc.

the materials used in fabricating his products.  He is constantly trying to
cut costs to remain competitive and, therefore, implicitly looks for new
methods of bringing about source reduction. In this way, source reduction
is internalized by the cost-conscious manufacturer.  This is especially
true in the packaging industry where competition for the least costly package
can ultimately determine the success or failure of the business enterprise.
       The focus of this conference is waste reduction as a means of
managing  the municipal waste stream, but what becomes more evident as
our discussions progress is that the focus of this  conference is not upon
managing  the overall problem of municipal solid waste, but is typically
directed towards managing only the packaging component of the waste
       As such, we are no longer talking about a  comprehensive and sys-
tematic approach to the solid waste problem—nor are we addressing a
municipal disposal problem over the long term.  Under the concept of
waste reduction, we have directed our attention towards reducing only pack-
aging waste which comprises merely a third of the solid waste stream.
What is even more disturbing is that this afternoon we will further narrow
our horizons and consider an even smaller portion of the municipal solid
waste problem; that is, the percentage of solid waste represented by beer
and soft drink containers.
       Let me use the  example of one-way glass containers to dramatize
their comparatively insignificant impact in the overall solid waste problem.
Similar arguments could be made for the other "one-way" container sys-
tems.  When we consider all glass in municipal solid waste—windshields,
doors, windows, bottles, jars,  etc.—glass comprises approximately  9
percent of the total.  For the moment let's dismiss the fact that glass is
inert and recyclable.  Of this 9 percent, only about two-thirds or 6 per-
cent exists in the form of glass containers.  Later today, we will discuss
beverage container legislation which concerns "one-way" glass and would
affect a still smaller percentage of the glass containers. Only 2 percent
(approximately) of the total municipal refuse exists in the form of non-
returnable beer and soft drink bottles.  In this perspective, then, legis-
lation dealing with nonreturnable bottles addresses only a minute portion
of the solid waste problem.
       The objective of waste reduction is admirable,  but ask yourself
the question—"How have we shifted our attention from the overall problem
of solid waste management to the issue of source  reduction in packaging ?"
—and then, finally,  "How have we come to focus on the restrictive legis-
lation of beverage container systems?"
       The emphasis placed upon the packaging industry and beverage
container  systems in our waste reduction agenda  implies that these pack-
ages are wasteful.  Perhaps it is packaging's visibility in our way of life
which makes it seem a logical starting point for cutting out whatever fat
exists in the composition of municipal waste.  I would argue that it is the
very visibility and prominence of packaging which indicates its importance

to our way of life.  Though it must bear some criticism, the benefits and
contribution of the packaging system should not be evaluated within the
narrow context of a single environmental issue, in this case, the solid
waste issue.  In this context, we end up devoting our attention to what
represents but one stage in the overall packaging system; that is, the
final stage, disposal.
       But what of the other equally important stages in the distribution
cycle ?  The other stages in our distribution system  are highly automated
and involve an interdependent matrix of producers, manufacturers,  whole-
salers,  and retailers.  Besides serving a variety of functions for each
member of the distribution system, the main job of packaging is conveying
the product safely and efficiently to the consumer.  These  stages and bene-
fits of the distribution system are largely overlooked.
       We have also overlooked the fact that our packaging and processing
industries  actually help in preventing waste.  In Florida, for instance, the
packaging and processing of 100 pounds of citrus products  in fiber cans
generates 39 pounds of leftover pulp,  peels, and other unusable raw ma-
terials.  Of this 39 pounds, 38 pounds  are then recycled in the form of
byproducts; for example, cattle feed—leaving only 1 pound of solid waste
to be disposed.  Instead of the city of Washington handling  the pulp,  the
orange peels,  and the spoiled fruit, packaging's rapid handling and cen-
tralization permits the utilization of these byproducts.  This is a positive
example of waste reduction.
       Packaging is not an empty can or a discarded bottle. It is a sys-
tem which provides many benefits in transporting the product from the
farmer and manufacturer to the consumer.  We cannot simply think in
terms of empty cans, bottles, and other packages, because the product
that was once contained in those packages is the real focal point of the
distribution system.  Yet, this conference concerns itself  with the empty
tin can and the empty gum wrapper,  and once the focal point, the product,
is removed from these packages,  how can we rationally evaluate their value
to the overall distribution system?
       The packaging industry is not a grand scheme to inundate the
United States in trash.  On the contrary, it is a system which adds greatly
to our overall quality of life.   Packages perform a variety of functions
which include containment of the product; protection of the package con-
tents; apportioning and dispensing; sanitation; convenience; communica-
tion; and most important, providing a low-cost and efficient means of
supplying consumer needs.
       These  are among the  many benefits of packaging likely to be omit-
ted in any discussion of waste reduction.  The contribution of the packaging
system cannot be measured in pounds of trash!  If legislation is enacted
to reduce the packaging portion of municipal solid waste, there is no
guarantee that municipal waste will be substantially reduced because waste
would be created in other areas.  Nor is there any guarantee consumers
would accept living in a society with fewer products, higher food costs,

and fewer of the benefits we have already realized.
       The gloomy inflation picture that we've received over the past
few months has prompted many government leaders to accent the positive.
We hear that Americans spend comparatively less on food than most peo-
ple in the world.  We take pride in the fact that only 4.5 percent of our
population are able to feed this nation and other parts of the world  as
well.  We should be proud, but this phenomenon is not only due to the in-
dustrious farmer.   It is also because we have an efficient food distribu-
tion system and the packaging technologies to insure that what is grown
in the fields ends up on the table.  The importance of packaging's role in
our economy and society is, in this conference,  overshadowed by the more
dramatic issue of solid waste.
       Packaging is important to the economy.   Besides being the  nation's
largest  employer and generating 10 percent of the value of all finished
goods, packaging actually cuts down on waste while providing for a low-
cost,  efficient means of distribution.
       Packaging is important to the consumer.  A product's life in the
marketplace has historically been determined by consumer demand.  De-
mand in the marketplace reflects consumer needs,  and restrictive pack-
aging legislation will not only limit consumer choice, but also leaves
these needs unfulfilled.  For example, in the case of one-way glass, our
sales indicate a strong consumer preference for this type of container
system.  Returnable glass,  on the other hand, has lost ground in the mar-
ketplace.  These trends indicate the popular vote, if you will, of today's
consumers. I question whether it is the prerogative of government to
limit the consumer's choice while, at the same time, impose on him the
increased cost of that interference.
       The packaging industry has evolved in response to consumer needs.
It has created products and developed technologies  in order to supply
consumer needs in a low-cost, efficient manner. The real problem that
confronts this conference is that while our  packaging and distribution sys-
tems have advanced, our disposal systems have not.  Municipal disposal
systems are antiquated and waste valuable  materials and potential energy
sources.  Even though recycling and resource recovery are in the  forma-
tive stages, they represent a significant effort to update  our wasteful
disposal systems.   Industry and government are working hard to create
efficient recovery  systems, as you well know.
       In the glass industry, Owens-Illinois has been recycling in-house
waste glass for years as an integral part of the glass manufacturing
process.  Owens-Illinois initiated community recycling projects as early
as 1968 in Bridgeton, New Jersey.  Industry-wide glass  recycling began
in July 1970.  As of the end of 1974, the glass container  industry has re-
cycled nearly  2 billion pounds of waste glass—the equivalent of 4 billion
bottles which otherwise would have found their way  into the waste stream.
In addition to paying approximately $20 million to the public, recycling
has also provided industry with a necessary supply of glass cullet.   This

 supply of waste glass has allowed our industry to develop the capability
 of utilizing larger quantities and higher percentages of cullet in the make-
up of glass furnace batch.
       The increased use of cullet not only removes glass from the solid
 waste stream,  but has led to some very promising prospects for source
 reduction in the glass manufacturing process itself. Indications are that
 the increased use of cullet carries with it some very significant energy
 savings as well as: (1) extended furnace life due to lower operating tem-
peratures; (2) a substantially reduced need for soda ash and other in-
gredients; (3) lower air emissions from the glass furnaces.
       The industry's ability to use greater quantities of waste glass
has been largely limited by the supply of glass cullet available.  The
 successful completion of the many municipal resource recovery facili-
ties,  now in the planning stages, will gradually alleviate this constraint.
       Besides the responsibility of meeting consumer needs,  Owens-
Illinois and the packaging industry recognize their responsibility to create
products responsive to the environmental problems of  today.  Let me
share with you a  few examples of our continuing effort  to lower energy
use and conserve raw materials.
       The amount of energy and raw material used in glass manufactur-
 ing varies directly with the weight of the individual containers.  Sub-
stantial source reduction can be realized, therefore, by designing lighter
containers.  Over the years, the trend has been to  lightweight containers.
I can assure you  that the glass industry is aggressively pursuing even
lighter versions of existing package configurations  due to the competitive
pressures in the  packaging  industry.
       For example, Owens-Illinois developed the  nonreturnable plasti-
shield bottle in the early 1970s.  When we compare the 32-ounce plasti-
shield bottle with our best selling conventional 32-ounce nonreturnable,
significant weight savings are realized.  The 32-ounce plasti-shield bot-
tle weighs 14 3/4 ounces, while the conventional bottle carries 21 ounces
of weight.  Thus, the plasti-shield package  represents  a 30-percent
weight reduction.
       The weight savings achieved when comparing a case of plasti-
shield bottles with a case of conventional 32-ounce nonreturnables are
dramatic.  This weight reduction not only saves raw materials, but also
reduces solid waste.
       Along with the historical trend toward lighter containers, we have
also experienced consumer  preference for larger size containers.  Owens-
Illinois' introduction of the resealable "large sized" container, in both re-
turnable and nonreturnable forms, delivers more product to the consumer
with less container.  Therefore,  a source reduction is achieved and at
the  same time, the consumers' needs are fulfilled. The resealability
feature cuts down on waste and saves money because the consumer is able
to save the unused portion of the product. Improving bottle designs is
one way Owens-Illinois is reducing waste.

       As a result of consumer cooperation, we are gaining greater flexi-
bility in designing and manufacturing our glass packages.  Better designs
will not only lead to more functional bottles, but will also lead to improved
source reduction.  The bottle I am holding (7-Up, metric) represents  a
unique design which will soon be commercially introduced as a returnable.
A similar nonreturnable design is also being developed. The improved
design will enable it to deliver a full liter of product,  1. 82 ounces more
product than the conventional 32-ounce bottle with an accompanying  weight.
reduction of 18 percent.  This is an example of positive source reduction.
       These are but a few examples of how we are trying at Owens-Illi-
nois to improve our packages, expand consumer choice, and at the same
time improve the environmental profiles of our products.
       In summary,  I would like to say that the packaging and beverage
container industries provide benefits beyond the  scope of this conference,
and have been,  therefore, unrecognized in our discussion of solid waste.
The efficiency of the American distribution system is unparalleled in the
rest of the world.  It is time to bring that same efficiency to the manage-
ment of the solid waste problem.  Cooperative industry and government
efforts in recycling and resource recovery  systems should aim at making
our disposal systems the  most efficient in the world as  well.
       We urge the members of this conference  to treat the disease—not
the symptoms—in the solid waste problem.  Initiatives in recycling  and
resource recovery have made remarkable progress when you consider
the short time in which they have been developed.  We encourage more of
this comprehensive,  long-term approach to the entire solid waste issue,
not simply directing  our efforts at a relatively small portion of the problem.
       Freely competing products, unencumbered by legislation, will not
only serve consumer needs but will also provide for the lowest possible
cost system of distribution.  Source reduction will be implemented wher-
ever possible by the  very nature of the cost conscious and intensely com-
petitive packaging industry.  For example,  Owens-Illinois' energy cost
last year was up nearly 50 percent in spite  of a 5-percent reduction in
energy consumption.  These costs  make  it imperative that source reduc-
tion,  in its true manufacturing sense, be considered in every aspect of
our business.   Ladies and gentlemen, Owens-Illinois  is concentrating upon
source reduction. We know if we ignore these costs,  we are violating one
of the tenets of the free enterprise system, and such a violation  can only
lead to severe economic consequences.
       The debate over restrictive container legislation has reached sym-
bolic  proportions. The real issues have been obscured  by the emotional
pleas of both sides.  The beverage container industry has become the
"straw man" of numerous environmental issues, but there is no  way that
the total disruption of our distribution system can be justified by the mar-
ginal environmental benefits gained.  In the spirit of waste reduction,  I
suggest we not waste our time on continuing the debate on this type of  leg-
islation, but concentrate  our energy upon constructive programs which
provide for a total systems approach to our environmental problems.



                         Eric A. Walker*
       I find this a rare treat because never before have I addressed a
subject on which there was total agreement. In this instance,  however, I
can tell you with full confidence that I speak for all of industry and for
everyone in this room when I say that we are against waste. But as we
all know, that doesn't dispose of the subject.
       There are almost as many ideas on how to reduce waste as there
are people  in this room, and  that makes the problem extremely difficult
to attack.   But resolving differences is not an overwhelming task.  We do
it all the time. I feel certain that we  share a common goal: All of us
want to do something about needless waste  in this country.  That's an ex-
cellent place to start.  And I  believe that industry is prepared  to make a
definite commitment to solving  the solid waste problem in a way that will
hold waste  to a minimum.
       There is a broader issue that concerns all of us in this room,
something that affects our ability to resolve all issues of public policy
that influence the working of our great economy.  It is something that re-
quires commitment—not just  industry's, but that of every segment of our
society—the commitment of government, and of the special interest
groups as well as business.   In the simplest terms, this  is the need for
communication and cooperation to replace confrontation as  a way of life.
       This is basic to the solid waste problem—and to all  the others that
have been escalated into national issues. There must be commitments
by individual industries; by individuals in both the legislative and adminis-
trative branches of government who enact and apply the laws, rules, and
regulations; and by special interest groups  to make our political/economic
system work in a way that can deal with the mounting list of very complex
problems with which we are confronted.  Certainly inflation, unemploy-
ment,  lack of capital to expand  our industrial plant, and our loss of
credibility  as an international power are of utmost concern. Frankly, I
do not  consider waste disposal among the most pressing problems we
face, but if we can resolve the waste problem there is hope we can handle
the others.   Unfortunately for the citizens of this country, any serious at-
tempts to deal with the waste problem are suffering in one way or another
due to  the current feverish debate over counterproductive,  piecemeal
       *Vice President, Science and Technology, Aluminum Company of

attempts to attack the problem.  I'm referring to the countless number of
legislative proposals that would ban, tax, or in some way restrict a variety
of products that end up in whole or in part in the solid waste stream.  If
we do not come to grips with this paralyzing inaction soon,  I very much
fear that the noble American experiment will be just one more floater in
the solid waste stream.
       The reason solid waste management still is an issue rather than a
collective effort is because there is no mutually-agreed-upon approach to
solving the problem by government, special interest groups, and the pri-
vate sector.  Obviously, we're not communicating well or the problems
would be pretty well in hand by now.  The reason why we're not communi-
cating  is that we have thus far failed to establish a  monocoque of trust
within  which we can work together  earnestly to solve the waste problem.
       I  sincerely believe that if we do not take the time now to examine
our attitudes  about each other and to establish real communication and
trusting working relationships, this conference and the effort it is trying
to further will be  just another exercise in futility.  It will simply serve to
further confuse and delude the public, which already has become sus-
picious that this political/economic system—Congress, the  Administra-
tion, business and voters—can only move from one disaster to another.
       I  don't believe the situation is at all hopeless.  There have been
many times when  business and government have worked effectively toward
a common goal.  The  atomic age was born of such an effort.  We knew our
goals,  and everyone was too busy to throw up roadblocks.   Polio and
other dread diseases have been conquered through team effort by govern-
ment and the  private sector.  America was electrified in this way, a
common  goal and  a joint effort; and Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon
because the Federal Government and the private sector developed a rela-
tionship of great strength.
       Here is a  good current example of this effectiveness in reaching an
accord on a smaller but important  problem.  The six major industries
that account for 70 percent of total energy use by U.S.  industry, got to-
gether with the Commerce Department and the Federal Energy Adminis-
tration in a cooperative effort which, in less than a year's time, estab-
lished  meaningful goals to emphasize energy management,  and thus
conserve significantly large amounts of energy. These industries that
have worked historically at using energy efficiently now have made a
serious commitment to specific energy saving goals.  My industry,  for
example,  during the past three decades has cut nearly in half the electri-
cal energy needed to produce a pound of aluminum from the ore.  And
that power consumption will be reduced another 30 percent  with the new
Alcoa smelting process, which will be operating late this year with the
startup of a new plant in Anderson  County, Texas.  To this  effort, we have
added specific goals for total energy conservation by 1980.
       Unfortunately, there are  many examples of the failure of govern-
ment and the  private sector to make their partnership work.  Mass transit

still is stuck in a traffic jam of bickering.  Urban renewal is in desperate
need of renewing.  Atomic power developments are stalled in the courts
and regulatory red tape.  Currently industry is struggling with a whole
raft of enviro-energy programs,  one of those being the nonreturnable
container controversy.  And the public is paying the price for these fail-
       When we sort out the shining examples of success and the abun-
dant pile of failures,  a few things are apparent.   Common to all the areas
in which the private sector and government have succeeded are: (1) a
common, essentially universal sense of need and national purpose; (2)
effective leadership by officials inspired by public need and sensible
laws rather than political or personal expediency; (3)  commitment by all
parties based on agreement as to objectives and roles; (4) useful com-
munication, not shrill recrimination; (5) facts that reveal the true costs
and consequences  of various courses of action as they affect the individual
citizen and our economy.
       Much is needed if any issue of national scope is to be resolved to
the benefit of the public.  The attempt to manage solid waste is one of
these.  It can go either way. We can continue to bicker and muck around,
or we can get together and solve the problem in a manner acceptable to
government,  workable for industry, and  desirable for the public.
       Judging by the present course, I would say that we're headed for
another failure.  Thanks to the public display of our adversary relation-
ship, the waste issue has surfaced  in the public mind  as  another crusade
by busy politicians and bureaucrats against obstinate and heartless big
business.  Some people seem to think the U.S. trash pile can be legis-
lated away piece by piece, beginning with the beer can.   Once more, a
complex problem has been oversimplified,  raising false  hopes in  the
public mind,  and destined to further delude the country by showing the
inability of government and business to solve problems together.
       Frankly,  while it can reasonably be argued that solid waste is at
the most a State,  if not purely local, issue,  it is our view that both the
Federal Government and industry have appropriate, supportive roles  to
fill in coming to grips with the solid waste problem.  The technology of
resource recovery is in its infancy, its economical viability is  yet to  be
proven, but there  is a great deal that can be done to accelerate its devel-
       The aluminum industry, working with the packaging and beverage
industries, has been intensely engaged in developing both solid  waste  re-
covery systems and voluntary reclamation programs.  I am sure  you  are
aware of the extensive can recycling effort we have mounted. What
started out for us as an effort to demonstrate the high scrap value of our
metal and help with the litter problem has turned out to be an economical-
ly viable arrangement for aluminum producers.   Last year Alcoa in-
creased its collections to three-quarters of a billion all-aluminum cans,
nearly three times the number handled the previous year.  Redeeming

those cans,  at $300 a ton, put approximately $5 million back into con-
sumers' pockets and saved 95 percent of the energy needed to produce an
equivalent amount of virgin metal from the ore.
       Just down the road from this hotel, there is under construction a
test facility for resource recovery that will process refuse at a rate of 25
tons an hour.  Within a year or so the facility, established by the National
Center for Resource Recovery, will extract aluminum, steel, and glass
and burn the combustible fraction to produce electricity.  Alcoa is lending
a sophisticated,  new device to this project that will extract the aluminum
from the solid waste stream.  Our engineers and metallurgists will assist
with the startup of the  so-called "aluminum magnet" and will develop pro-
cedures for utilizing the recoverable aluminum fraction.
       We are highly optimistic about these early efforts, as well as about
some of the other projects getting started in St.  Louis, New Orleans,
Ames, Iowa, the State  of Connecticut, and other parts of the country. But
we know also that industry does not have all of the answers and that to
encourage the growth of this new technology will require public support
and commitment.
       Establishing resource  recovery nationwide would mean that indus-
try and government agencies would  have  to evaluate recoverable tonnage,
invest large amounts of capital in facilities to accept and process scrap,
establish specifications for recoverable materials, and develop useful
product applications for the recycled materials in volume markets most
likely to remain constant.  My company is well along with such an effort,
recognizing that about  1.5 billion pounds of aluminum could be recovered from
the solid waste stream and recycled annually.
       A very necessary role for government, primarily State and local
government, would be  to help  minimize the risk of major capital invest-
ments. The Federal Government could be invaluable in spreading the bene-
fits of developing recovery technology,  it could share the cost of full-
scale commercial facilities that recover all valuable fractions and energy,
and thus help stimulate replication of successful projects throughout  the
       The task is formidable, but the prize is substantial.  I would like
to challenge your imagination  somewhat with the potential of nationwide
waste recovery.  The economics certainly make sense.  I wasn't sure
just how much until I saw the results of a cost/benefit analysis of resource
recovery systems in the major metropolitan areas of the United States
which was done for Alcoa by the research firm,  Franklin Associates.  The
data is based on studies done for EPA and an analysis commissioned by
one of the Midwestern  states.  The Alcoa-sponsored analysis indicates:
       1.   A total of 226 facilities would process virtually all the solid
waste of the 150  major metropolitan areas of the country.
       2.   Facilities built to  recover materials and use the combustible
fraction to generate energy could operate at a cost less than the composite
average cost of incineration or urban landfill.

       3.  Value of the recoverable portion of aluminum,  glass, steel
and paper, and the energy from combustibles would amount to more than
$1 billion a year at current prices.
       4.  Construction of the recovery facilities would employ some
10,570 workers for 10 years,  and  operation would create 25,700 perma-
nent jobs.
       5.  Total savings of disposal costs, recovered materials, and
energy produced would amount to $3.6 million a day at current prices; in
other words, each of the 226 centers would save the public an average of
$16,000 each day of the year.
       According to our study, 25  percent of this nationwide recovery
operation could be on stream and operating by 1985 and all of it completed
by the year 2000.
       Of the various alternatives  proposed for dealing with solid waste,
resource recovery makes the most sense to me, to my company and,  I
believe, to the vast majority of American businessmen.  It would reduce
litter although the real solution to  that problem lies elsewhere.  It would
expand our energy resources although only to a tiny fraction of our need.
It would solve neither of these problems, and should not be undertaken
for these objectives.  Its really significant benefit will be to make an
enormous contribution to waste reduction and resource conservation.
And it would, of course,  solve the  problem of disposal. Developing this
potential is a challenge that  the private sector could handle well—with
the help of government.
       As I see it, industry and government can continue to square off
and shout with special interest groups egging us on from the sidelines,
and the results  can be predicted with 100-percent certainty.
       Or we can get together and  succeed. We must do so if we are going
to  solve the solid waste problem.  And much more vitally,  we must do so
if we wish our political/economic system to continue.   My commitment
and industry's commitment is  to make it work.

   Coverage Ccntainer Legislation

                         Harvey Ruvin*
       Many of you probably already know that in Bade County there was
a referendum on a proposed ordinance that was almost word for word  the
same as the Oregon bill. Prior to that referendum I had introduced the
ordinance to the Bade County Commission. We have a rather unique form
of government, probably closer to that of the city of Toronto than to that of
any area of the United States.   It's a metropolitan form of government; it's
totally home rule and has been a leader in the past in terms of consumer
legislation and legislation that  our State legislature wasn't adopting.  We
thought we were a large enough area, not only 1 \ million population but
nearly 2,500 square miles, which is larger than three States in the country.
A major soft drink and beer market, it was really a rather logical place
for the issue to be framed.  We had passed laws  to ban the sale of deter-
gents above a certain percentage of phosphate content as well as other types
of ordinances that have seemed to benefit some of our communities.
     My first involvement  with the beverage container issue was as Vice
President of the Tropical Audubon Society back in 1970. The Tropical Au~
dubon Society in the southern part of Florida  is the second largest Audubon
chapter in the country.  We were  involved in  lobbying for a State law back in
1970.  Of course,  at the time we were easily discounted as communistic
and probably as some wild-eyed form of anti-free-choice effort.  The issue
gained a little momentum after the Oregon experience. About the time I
was elected county commissioner, the Oregon law came into effect, so we
had about 1| years of watching that experience before  the issue was finally
introduced before  the Bade  County Commission.  A great deal of staff work
and a great deal of advance planning were done so we would have a good hearing.
     I'd like  to say at this  time that the best part of the whole experience
has been the contact with extremely worthwhile people. Eileen Claussen is
an incredible  person as far as  I'm concerned. Not only has she done  her
job with integrity and forthright commitment  to idealism, but she's done it
under,  most people would say, highly difficult circumstances.  I think that
really is the test of a person.   Whatever she  does from here on  out, I'm
certain it will be valuable.
     Eileen came and testified.   We had people  from  Oregon; we had  Bill
Moore,  the enforcement officer in Oregon; we had a bottler from Corpus
      *Bade County (Florida) Commissioner.

 Christi, Texas, who made a trip to Miami to testify; and Don Waggoner,
 Oregon Environmental Council,  came as well.  The other side certainly
 brought in all the experts that they could, and I think we probably had one
 of the finest factual hearings on  the issue anywhere.  The people who tes-
 tified at the congressional hearings told me that there was really a much
 more outstanding debate of the issue for us than anywhere they had seen.
 It was some 5 hours of hearing,  and it contained a great deal.  Unfor-
 tunately, the coverage of that hearing never touched upon the debate or
 any of the testimony that was offered because of the rather unusual end-
 ing that the meeting had.
       The Dade County Commission has nine members.  At the time we
 had two vacancies; one member  was absent, so there were six people
 present.  As the meeting (a special one set for that day) progressed, we
 learned that two of them would not be able to vote because of conflict of
 interest.  One was an owner of a convenience store chain; the other one,
 a fine man by the name  of Ed Stevenson, represented AFL-CIO in Dade
 County.  Although they announced their conflict of interest, they didn't
 leave the meeting that was called especially for that one item.   I was de-
 lighted when the final vote was taken.  Of the  four people who could vote,
 we had won three to one.
       However, the decision was  handed down by our county attorney,
 which I think was a proper one based upon our charter and the  laws exis-
 ting in Dade County, that we had to win by a majority of those present,
 not those voting.  So at that point,  we were in the middle of a rather in-
 tense finger-pointing situation.  We were losing the substance  of the
 issue, what really should have been discussed—the pros and cons of this
 law.  Instead we were debating the procedural irrelevancies. I frankly
 felt at that time that the only way to go was to put it to a public vote.  We
 placed it on the November ballot.
       There were 2 months to prepare, and  a whole series of debates
 and radio programs took place.  We argued the facts as we saw them.
 The reports as I had read them led me to the  very strong conclusion that
 there were certainly cogent arguments favoring the law and that most of
 the other arguments against it really didn't have any weight once you
cross-examined them,  I tried to be objective.  I read all of the studies.
 I read everything I could read.  I sent out a package when I introduced the
 legislation, some 300 pages of background material.  We argued a bit-
 as Mr. King acknowledged a few  moments ago—that the figures of the
 EPA regarding energy certainly  show that we could save a great deal of
 energy, perhaps enough to supply all of the electrical needs of a popula-
 tion of 9 million in 1 year.  That was a significant argument in favor of
the law.
       I think the record clearly shows that the law—this is really a by-
product of the law—operates as a tremendous  deterrent to litter.  The
 material waste seems to me to be the most obvious.  There are many

more arguments.  We felt the facts showed that actually increased em-
ployment results rather than a decrease.  While some skilled jobs would
be lost, there would be other jobs added—truck drivers and warehousing
and retail clerks.  The Oregon experience, certainly, showed a net in-
crease  in employment and we would probably have the same kind of
impact on our employment.
       The debates were really very interesting,  and I think that up until
1 or 2 weeks before the  election, we  had a fairly good,  high-level discus-
sion taking place in the community.  The 5 or 10 percent of the people
who  read  the newspapers and watch television had in fact heard both
sides.  There was no question that all the newspapers—the weeklies and
the local newspapers, as well as the  two major ones, the dailies-
endorsed the ordinance.  Then we got down to the  last week, and I really
don't want this to sound  like sour grapes because I feel that we had a
victory even though we lost, and I think I can demonstrate that.  It was a
rather interesting campaign, and all  I can say to you is that anybody in-
terested in the evaluation of the Dade County experience, the referendum
on the issue, please let  me have your name and address, and I'll send you
a report issued by the FAU-FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban
Problems,  which contains an evaluation of the election  returns and of the
whole campaign experience. In the last week of the  campaign, we found
ourselves facing an impressive avalanche of media blitz.
       As a politician, I really stood back and admired the weight of the
opponents' campaign because it was highly effective.  There wasn't a  can
of beer  sold in Dade County in the last week that didn't  have a red, white,
and blue sticker on it that read, "Vote Against Forced Deposit Law and
Keep Freedom of Choice. " The bottom message was that this law, if
enacted, would  raise the price of a six-pack 30  cents.  Interestingly,  the
logo was very reminiscent of the one used by the anti-busing constituen-
cies about ij years before.  It was red,  white,  and blue, the same shape,
and had the same kind of phrasing.
       By Thursday before the election I frankly knew that we had gone
down the drain.  That was the day that the radio started.  The ads were
on eight stations, every 20 minutes on each station,  from early in the
morning until late at night.  The ads were really beautiful:  "Hey, do
you remember those long lines at the gas stations  ?  Well,  you haven't
seen anything yet. Wait till you get those long lines at  the grocery stores.
Just like the government did it to you then, they're going to do it to you
again." They hammered very hard on the cost factor.  There's no doubt
that a great majority of  the people who voted against the law were under
the impression  that 30 cents would be an increase  in price rather than
what it was—a deposit.
       Dade County is a community where more than 99 percent of the
beer sold is in throwaways and only one of the five major chains sells  it
in returnables,  and that is an off-brand.  Industry argued that there was

an overwhelming 99 percent consumer demand for the throwaway, so con-
sumer demand should really be the ultimate test. Well, the vote was 57. 2
to 42.7, and it dispelled that argument.  It showed that nearly 43 percent
of the people in Bade County were voting for this law.  Certainly it proved
a 99 percent consumer demand is really not consumer demand but chain
store demand.  That is the demand the beer distributors look to and assess.
When people go to buy beer, they'll buy  what's available.
       The election returns show that while we did rather well in the higher
education areas, we really did rather poorly in the lower education, lower
socioeconomic areas.  I think the direct message from stores appearing on
all shelves in the last week was phenomenal. Little signs read, "We are
trying to keep  the prices of these drinks down.  So help us by voting against
the Forced Deposit Law." Attached to the pushcarts in all the stores was
the same sign.
       Television was really devastating.   Winn-Dixie went into a separate
campaign, but the main one was waged through an organization called the
Dade Consumer Information Committee. The total amount of money spent
as shown in their reports was $220,000, the same amount we showed in
our spending reports.  I estimate that they spent closer to $400,000 or half
a million.  Things that they really probably didn't have to show were not
included in their reports.  For instance, while the contributors to the com-
mittee—all national corporations such as Continental Can and Bethlehem
Steel—were limited to $1,000 contributions, every stockholder in Dade
County of these 250 corporations received letters saying that if this law
passed, his dividends would probably  go down.
       So,  if you're going to have a referendum, you're going to have to
fight this kind  of opposition. I think they had a right to do it. But I think
they're utilizing arguments in the most  inflammatory way, and they are
seeking certain constituencies in those kinds of elections.  If you get into
the same kind  of situation,  you should try to reach those constituencies as
well. I found  it very hard to do.  We  did get some free response time under
the Fairness Doctrine, but the ratio was such and the level that they were
spending was such that we were really avalanched.  I think,  however, we did
end up with some positive results.
       On the  eve of the election, one interesting thing was done.   Dade
Consumer Information Committee called a press conference and announced
the flop-top can.   As you know,  part of  the Oregon law and part of our plan
would have been  the banning of the pop-top part.  They showed this flop-top
plastic attachment, which wouldn't detach from the can, with the statement
that you should vote against the law because half of it is obsolete,  and we're
going to come  out with these flop-tops as soon as possible.   I did get from
them a total commitment to have that  in effect in Dade County by August of
this year.  I haven't seen any in Dade  County yet, but by August it's going
to be apparent that either they have fulfilled their commitment or apparent
that they haven't. So that I feel was a positive step.

       I think we raised a lot of consciousness, and that's what I think I'd
like to end on.  I respect Dr. Walker, and I'm sure that everything he said
was well motivated.  Just in the couple of hours I've been here listening to
people, I seem to sense an attitude that the industry is saying, "Let's get
together, let's not be inflexible, and let's start being conciliatory."  And
I think that there's a healthiness about that.  But I would say to those of
you in the audience who feel strongly about this and are convinced that
you are right because I think that you are right, don't give up.  Keep the
pressure on.  Fight as hard as you can because in the long run I think
that the validity of this approach is going to become more apparent to
more people and the  truth of it  will be borne out.  What I felt after my ex-
perience was that if you peel it all away, what we have is an industry saying
to us,  "Look,  we have worked hard to develop a system.  We've struc-
tured ourselves around this system—the can, the whole marketing
process that we've built."  That's what they're saying to us. I think
they ought to be structuring themselves in the best interests of society
and the savings that could be accomplished in ending energy waste and
material waste.

                   A MORE POSITIVE STRATEGY

                          Henry B. King*
       One of the practical results of the environmental movement a few
years ago was the requirement for an environmental impact statement on
Federal and other public projects. This was designed to insure that care-
ful and reasonable thought would be given in the planning stage of a major
construction effort, military system,  or other program which might upset
or infringe on our delicate ecological balance.   Lately, however, some
environmentalists have proposed programs, laws, and actions which do
not consider the effect on another, very delicate balance in our world—
the economy.

       As you well know, there are and have been many proposals at
local, State,  and Federal levels recommending a ban, tax, or mandatory
deposits on nonreturnable beverage containers.  Such proposals aim at
reducing litter and solid waste. It is alleged that these actions would
save in  energy use, increase jobs, and result in dollar savings to the con-
sumer.  Proponents of such measures point to examples of "success"
where such laws are in force.  I would propose, therefore, that we review
the experiences gained so far and  the pertinent facts dealing with energy,
costs, and employment. I believe my introduction of these factors would
then become relevant to a need for an economic impact statement surround-
ing these issues. This, I believe, should lead us to look for a better way,
an alternative.
                     OREGON'S EXPERIMENT

       No one quarrels with the need to reduce the blight of litter or cut
down on waste filling up scarce landfills.  In fact, I like  to think all Amer-
icans are environmentalists.  The main difference among us is how we
view the methods to attain the desired goals.  The Oregon legislature felt
that a law banning the nonreturnable beverage container would indeed
significantly reduce litter and supported the measure.  Let's see what the
       *President,  United States Brewers Association, Inc.

Oregon law did.
       The official Oregon report on results of the first year of that
State's law showed a 10.6 percent reduction in litter.  The Applied De-
cision Systems report, contracted by the State, showed beverage-related
litter reduced, but all other litter increased.   More recently, facts have
shown that beverage-related litter actually may be in an upward trend.
For example,  the Oregon State Highway Department litter survey for
June through August 1974 showed that beverage container litter increased
52 percent from the year before, and all other litter increased 6 per-
       This is the tragedy of the Oregon law which resulted in a  loss of
skilled jobs, cost the beverage and container industries between  $6. 9 and
$8.6 million in pretax earnings, and cost the consumer.  The Oregon
State Highway Department, it should be noted,  abandoned its survey fol-
lowing its September 1974 pickup.
       The ADS  study also showed that Oregon had a 10. 7-percent  in-
crease in cleanup costs and that malt beverage excise tax collections
were down by  $37,000.  The consumer found his choice among the com-
peting packages severely restricted. Due to the standardized container
given preferential treatment by the law, foreign and specialty brands
lost half of their former share of the Oregon market.
       William E. Trebilcock, General Manager of Pacific Coca-Cola
Bottling Company, said,  "Per capita consumption of packaged soft  drinks
experienced an unprecedented decline during the law's first year. . . .
As of November  1, 1974, our wholesale and consumer prices on  return-
able  bottle soft drinks in Oregon were substantially higher than any other
domestic subsidiary of the Coca-Cola Company."   He also pointed out
that Chicago consumers, for example, are paying 30 percent less at re-
tail than Portland's wholesale price.
       The ADS  study made a significant,  final observation: "A  final
note  must be added to those who will extrapolate Oregon's experience
under its Minimum Deposit Law to other areas. One must consider the
similarities and  differences of the markets, consumer attitudes,  and in-
dustries in both areas in the process of translating Oregon's experiences
to other regions."
       More important, there was no progress toward closing dumps or
toward achieving resource recovery.  In my opinion, the human energy and
initiative which were dissipated in a futile attempt to reduce litter  should
have been directed at these higher priorities, closing dumps and achiev-
ing resource recovery.

                     ENERGY SAVING CLAIMS

       Statements have been made by proponents of container legislation
that would have us believe a great savings in equivalent gallons of gasoline
would result if nonreturnable beverage containers were prohibited.  They

attempt to support these claims by assuming 10, or even 15, trips for a
returnable bottle.  I believe it is essential to put these claims in per-
spective lest we miscalculate what may be attainable.
       An all-returnable system would result in some reduced use of
energy in the manufacture of a single package, the returnable bottle.
But, let us look at the tradeoff factors. Each beer and soft drink truck
can carry only 75 percent of its capacity in a returnable system. This
means an addition of at  least 25 percent more vehicles to the fleet would
be required.  That's more gasoline consumption, not less.  I say "at
least" because the trucks cannot go out fully loaded; they must save room
for the empty bottles picked up en route.  When that  many more trucks are
added to the streets and highways, you not only burn more gasoline, but
invite many more obvious problems.
       Any claim of 10  to 15 trips for a returnable bottle is highly opti-
mistic, especially in urban areas.  Due to the weight and size character-
istics of a returnable bottle, we may well witness  an  increase, instead of
a decrease, in container refuse.
       Any energy savings in substituting returnables for nonreturnables
could be greatly lessened by increased costs in shipping the substantially
heavier returnable.  This is particularly true in areas of critical fuel
availability.  Also, increased energy use is required in washing of re-
turnables.  Finally, consumption of energy for the manufacture of non-
returnable beverage containers amounts to less than four-tenths of 1  per-
cent of our total energy usage.  In other words, tradeoff factors will  make
any savings minimal at  best.
                    COSTS AND EMPLOYMENT

       I think we have seen so far that restricting the nonreturnable bev-
erage package does not do the job it is intended to do.  The results in
Oregon show this; over 200 jobs were lost as a result of the law.  Skilled
jobs.  If that was the result of restrictive container legislation in Oregon,
what would happen in many of our industrial States ?  A  more recent ex-
ample of the results of the Oregon law was the decision announced last
month by National Can Corporation to close its plant in  Yakima, Washing-
ton.  Company officials said that the Oregon law almost totally eliminated
the plant's soft drink container business.  As the ADS study pointed out,
extrapolating the Oregon experience to other States might be a mistake.
I think the ADS observation is very valid.  A restrictive container law
will not accomplish its intended  environmental objectives  and yet poses
severe negative  economic consequences for any State.   We can see prod-
uct costs go up,  and unemployment compensation costs  will increase with
a corresponding reduction in income and sales tax revenues.  The biggest
cost, of course, is the human and social one attributed  to job loss.  I.W.
Abel, President of the United States Steel Workers, estimates 45,000 to

58,000 jobs will be jeopardized in the steel,  aluminum, and can manu-
facturing industries by a national "bottle law."
                        AN ALTERNATIVE

       The Environmental Protection Agency recommends adoption of
various conservation strategies: (1)  energy recovery; (2) recycling; (3)
improved solid waste collection; (4) source reduction.
       The U. S. Brewers Association strongly believes that the first
three strategies represent positive steps forward.  However, EPA's
source reduction strategy is a step backward  and could easily lead to a
serious decline in our national productivity.  The question is not
whether we should develop a national resource (energy) recovery and
recycling system and the most efficient solid  waste collection systems,
but rather, whether once we develop  these systems, does the EPA's
approach to source reduction make any economic sense?
       Peter W. Stroh, President of the  Stroh Brewery Company  and
Chairman of the Board, USBA,  has said: "The development of a nation-
wide system of resource and energy recovery and recycling systems
would accomplish our national energy and materials conservation  objec-
tives in a far more economically sound manner than any attempt to
achieve these objectives through source reduction by eliminating nonre-
turnable beverage containers."
       Policy recommendations on this subject generally conclude with a
view toward two combinations of "strategies": (1) to implement only
resource/energy recovery and recycling or,  (2) to implement both re-
source/energy recovery and source reduction.
       Dr. Robert S.  Weinberg of R.S.  Weinberg & Associates, St. Louis,
Missouri, a noted analyst, has  said,  based on published reports,  an in-
vestment of $3.8 billion (1973-1974 dollars) will be required to  build the
plants necessary to process the solid waste generated in each of the
standard metropolitan statistical areas considered in the EPA report. It
is also estimated that the malt beverage and soft drink industries  would
require $5 billion in new capital investment to return to a returnable-
bottles-only production/distribution system (Table 1).
       USBA contends that the capital investment  required to produce the
net environmental gains offered by the source reduction strategy,  once we
follow the resource/energy recovery and recycling strategy, is excessive
and could not be accepted on the basis of any  reasonable economic cri-
teria.  An investment of approximately $8,000 for the capital equipment
required to support the resource/energy  recovery and recycling strategy
will produce an energy "savings" equivalent to one barrel of oil per day.
Therefore, the $3. 8 billion investment would  yield 473,000 barrels of oil
per day. To achieve the same energy "savings" from the source reduc-
tion strategy, combined with the resource recovery strategy, would

require a capital investment of over $61,000, over 7.5 times as great as
resource  recovery strategy alone (Table 2).  Thus, the investment of $5
billion to  return to an all-returnable system would produce only 81,000
barrels of oil per day. Clearly, the net contribution of the source reduc-
tion strategy is quite small when compared to the required additional
capital investment.
       A  dollar "invested" in the resource/energy recovery  and recycling
strategy is not only more than 7.5 times more productive as far as energy
"savings" are concerned, but more than 81 times more productive in terms
of reducing solid waste disposal requirements:  2.20 times more produc-
tive in terms of conserving aluminum; 12.69 times more productive in
terms of conserving ferrous metals; and 4.47 times more productive in
terms of conserving glass.
       Once we  accept the resource/energy recovery and recycling stra-
tegy, the  source reduction strategy drops to  a poor second.  The former
is the positive approach and the one which would provide our country sub-
stantial economic "dividends" for other more serious environmental and
social problems.
       The State of Connecticut has authorized $270 million for regional
resource  recovery centers.  It is estimated that by 1985 that State will
have saved $100 million.  Projected over urban America as a whole, our
country might save $6 to $7 billion within the same time frame. These
savings could be applied to  other serious environmental or social prob-
lems.  This is a forward approach.
       We all need to support community, industry, government, and
PEOPLE  efforts aimed at the more positive course of  resource recovery
and litter  reduction.  What we do not need are proposals to reduce litter
which actually produce greater problems.  The  sound approach is to
weigh alternatives and then proceed with a totally committed  community
effort.  This  is done by considering environmental needs together with
economic  and other considerations.
       I believe that if our nation takes a forward position in resource re-
covery, we will witness a dividend, money that  will be returned for
more important environmental and other social  programs.
       The essence of good management and national leadership is to
select the wise approach, the best approach.  This is mandatory when the
two approaches  are in conflict and are counterproductive. Restrictive
legislation is inflationary and wasteful—wasteful of our most  precious re-
source—human energy.  And every man-day or  year lost through unem-
ployment is a complete loss; it perishes forever!
       The other alternative, resource recovery, achieves our environ-
mental goals and our economic goals simultaneously and thereby provides
a unity of  purpose of all sectors—government, labor, industry, and the
general public.






^ ..„
> s
O ^
o p
CD >i
*H 0
£n 'O
CD (3
C d

. Ol rj< iH lO
00 CO rM 1C

O ^ IT2 r-i
J CO »H 00
10 ' J^ tH

1 C*
E 2
^^ Si i z
00 . M ^(<
n 2.

•o ^
"S w
I §
2 m
e °
_ M -
"S *2 Sj
g S 1
.§2 V
squired capital inves
lergy "savings" (thoi
Energy recovery
Source reduction
Total energy "ss

IO ifl O t-
t- If5 LO CD
CD "^ Ol
c- t>

^_ "m" "S*
03 ,-* M M
co m o O -4_>
2^j CO fn S-i CD
CD O -4-* bD +j bfi C
bOC boSogoco
CMW "oOi-i
... omooc-oo
CDrH 0^»0*-
^-^ m  .
3 .m.
•g -S " 3 «
fll W Zv. CD T^
1 SPS s I
•M ^1 •
•B s « d s;
TO *-• £3 i- CQ
» 0) S &
•a S bn S .
1 1 ^ S 1
1 "3 § >, 2
g co iS bt S
'•£ 13 ij aj
CQ CD f^ (*4 £3
S i> * g 3
*j r rj ^^ '-w
o ^ .£3 o ca
a & o a >
a a e b s
S - s g g
?H J3 £H dj, (H
•^ bD o CD O
CT ^ £-t ^ o
g ° > . o -g
*"* -C fl . O m
^ a W. I § 1
§ .2 co "1 m -s
1 1 P 8 S |
> S - S -2 °
a g^1^ a o
"^ r-! O O ra
x o -2 o * r^-g
1 ° 1 1 § t ; °
§ gS-S ^ S o,g
1 S| B-S 2^
g w£f .2 -o a
° . £ £.3.3
•S 45 s m -3 .3 £
*1972 databas
oube, and F.A. Smit
on Publication SW-i:
United States
sample economic an
1975]. 17 p. [Unpub]
B/DOE = ban
j a cs'— i




















"co -g*
irt »«H
ital energy "s;
equivalent pe

rH 0 OS C-
t- CM CO •<£

rH CM (N ^
00 rH

t- 00 >



t required

rategies simul




vironmental g




0 fH
covery and re
le economic c
0) ,O
•M cc!


                         John H. Skinner*
       Just 20 years ago almost all soft drink and malt beverages were
packaged in refillable containers.  Since then, population has grown and
the consumption of beverages has increased but the use of refillable
containers  has decreased.  For example, between 1963 and 1972 packaged
soft drink consumption increased 76 percent on  a volume basis, and
packaged beer consumption increased 50 percent.   At the same time
refillable soft drink bottle fillings declined 20 percent,  while refillable
beer bottle fillings decreased 24 percent.   One-way beer con-
tainer fillings increased by 112 percent, while one-way soft drink con-
tainer fillings increased by a factor of eight during that period.
       This increase in one-way beverage container consumption has
resulted in an increase in solid waste generation.  About  8 million tons of
beverage container solid wastes were generated in the United States in
1973.   This represented about 21 percent of all packaging wastes and
approximately 6 percent of all  solid waste generated by commercial
establishments,  households, and institutions. Beverage containers  are a
rapidly growing  segment of municipal waste with a growth rate of approximate-
ly 10 percent per year from  1962 to 1972/1" Beer and soft  drink containers
also form a large and highly visible segment of  roadside litter. Most
estimates of the beverage fraction of litter range, from 20 to 30 percent
by item count and 45 to 70 percent by volume. 3-5
       While a concern for the growth in solid waste and  litter is the
most obvious reason to reduce the number of discarded containers,
beverage container production  has a significant  impact on material and
energy consumption as well. In 1973, 6 million tons of glass,  1.6
million tons of steel,  and 400,000 ton^ of aluminum were consumed  and
thrown away in beverage containers.  The beverage container manufac-
turing process accounts for 1 to 2 percent of all energy used by all U. S.
industries.  Consumption of  this material and energy is also accompanied
by significant pollutant emissions to the atmosphere and natural waters
and the generation of industrial solid wastes.
       Until recently little had been done to come to grips with the
litter,  solid waste, and material and energy resource problems created
by the production of beverage containers.  However, legislation regulating
the beverage container portion of waste has been implemented  in the
       *Deputy Director, Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
      fU.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculations based on data
from Franklin, et  al.,  Base line forecasts, p. 79, 98.

States of Oregon and Vermont. In these States deposits are required on
all soft drink and malt beverage containers.  Such deposits are refunded
when the empty containers are returned to the retailer or distributor.
The basic purpose of mandatory deposit legislation is to provide an
incentive for the return of beverage containers for  reuse or recycling.
Similar legislation is being considered in many other States and communities
across the nation. I would like to focus now on the effects of such
legislation as studied by research organizations and EPA, and as determined
by the actual experiences of Oregon and Vermont.
       Mandatory deposit legislation  is likely to result in significant
decreases  in the number of beverage  containers discarded as  litter.  Data
provided by the Oregon and Vermont State Highway Departments indicate
approximately a 65-percent reduction in beverage container litter after
passage of mandatory deposit legislation.  '
       In terms of solid waste generation, if 90 percent of the containers
bearing a deposit were returned,  a decrease of 70 to 75 percent in the
beverage container portion of solid waste would result. This  would  re-
duce waste generation 5 to 6  million tons per year nationally.
       In terms of the conservation of energy,  it is clear that the reuse
and recycling of containers provides energy savings. Refillable glass
bottles used 10 times consume less than one-third the energy  in their
manufacture and use than any one-way container now on the  market.
Aluminum cans that are recycled save 78 percent of the energy required
to manufacture an aluminum can from virgin raw materials.   Steel can
recycling also results in a 39-percent energy reduction.  If a mandatory
deposit system resulted in a situation in which 80 percent of all beer
and soft drinks were packaged  in  refillable bottles reused 10 times,  with
the remaining 20 percent packaged in cans which were returned and  re-
cycled at a 90-percent rate, there would be a reduction in the energy
required to produce beverage containers of approximately 190 trillion
BTU per year.  This is the energy equivalent of 90,000 barrels of oil
per day.
       Of considerable  importance in light of today's inflation is the
issue of cost to the consumer.  Beer  and soft drinks sold in refillable
containers  are generally, cheaper to the consumer than beverages in one-
way bottles and cans.      To the extent that mandatory deposit legis-
lation induces a shift to refillable bottles, average prices of beer and
soft drinks should  decline.
       Based  on these  data, we have  concluded that enactment of national
mandatory deposit legislation is highly desirable from a resource con-
servation,  environmental,  and cost point of view.
       Turning now to the economic effects of mandatory deposit legislation.
Experience in Oregon indicates a drop in the beer consumption growth,
rate  from nearly 6 percent in previous years to 1.4 percent in 1973,
However,  beer sales increased by 5.7 percent from 1973 to 1974.
Therefore, it  is difficult to imply any long-term adverse sales impacts
from  the Oregon beverage container legislation.

       In Vermont beer sales  initially fell 16 percent in the year after
enactment of the law.   However, during this period there were  also
similar declines in the sales of other products and a significant reduction
in tourism.     Therefore, it is not clear that the beer sales reduction
can be attributed to the legislation.
       Soft drink sales in Oregon have been reported to be down 4 percent
on a unit basis and unchanged on an ounce basis.   However,  in 1973,
sugar price  increases resulted in increased soft drink prices and thus
adversely affected the sale trends of soft drinks both in Oregon and
nationally.   Therefore, the results from one  transitional year are not
sufficient to determine whether a permanent change in soft drink con-
sumption has occurred as a result of passage of this legislation.
       One major drawback of a mandatory deposit program is the potential
for considerable temporary industrial disruption.  A study performed by
Research Triangle Institute estimated that in 1969,  a deposit measure
would have resulted in a  loss of approximately 60,000 jobs nationally,
primarily in the container manufacturing industries.   However, there
would have been created  a roughly equal number of new jobs in the
retail and distribution sectors  of the economy.   It is important  to
note,  however,  that the jobs gained  would be  lower paying than those
lost.  Thus, such a measure might produce a net loss in labor income.
Time-phasing of such a measure can go a long way toward reducing
these adverse impacts.
       Mandatory deposit legislation is also likely to result in a decline
in tax revenues during the period of transition to a refillable system.
This would be due to the fact that a majority of  beverage can lines
would become obsolete, as would a large percentage of container-
handling equipment.  Under extreme conditions, the dollar cost of  rapid
change over, could be as high as $5 billion overall according to industry
estimates.   Estimates of losses in revenue from beer excise taxes and
corporate write-offs for  obsolete equipment during the first year of
transition range from $271 million to $803 million nationally.
These figures would probably be lower if beverage sales did not  decline,
and if beverage in cans continued to be sold or if legislation was phased
in over time.
       Mandatory deposit legislation may result in limitations in both
brands of beverages and  sizes of beverage containers available to the
consumer.  Preliminary data from Oregon support this indication as many
foreign beers and some soft drink brands cannot be obtained in the same
sizes in which they were available before the law went into effect.
       Based upon the experience in the States  which have enacted
mandatory deposit laws,  it is clear that a mandatory deposit program
results in conservation of energy and materials and a reduction  in  solid
waste and litter caused by beverage containers. Therefore, EPA has
testified before the U.S.  Congress in favor of adoption of nationwide
mandatory deposit legislation.

       However,  associated with a sudden shift to refillable systems is
the likelihood of some economic disruption and unemployment. There-
fore, in order to achieve the resource and energy recovery benefits of a
national mandatory deposit program while at the same time minimizing
the adverse economic repercussions, we have recommended that such
a system be implemented over an extended period of time and with
proper controls.
       Mandatory deposits for beverage containers have been studied
fairly intensively and there is a reasonably reliable body of data con-
cerning this issue.  We also have the benefit of  the Oregon and Vermont
experiences.  Based on all of this information,  it should be clear that
a requirement of mandatory deposits for beverage containers could make
a significant contribution toward the solution of  the environmental pro-
blems associated  with no-deposit, no-return containers.


1. Franklin, W. E., et al.  [Midwest Research Institute].  Baseline
       forecasts of resource recovery, 1972 to 1990.  Washington, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
       Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division,  Mar. 1975.
       376 p.  (Unpublished report.)

2. Smith,  F.A.  Technical  possibilities for solid waste reduction and
       resource recovery;  prospects to 1985.  Washington, U.S. Envir-
       onmental Protection Agency, Office  of Solid Waste Management
       Programs, Dec. 10,1974.   18 p.

3. Applied Decision Systems, and Decision  Making Information, Inc.
       Study of the effectiveness and impact of the Oregon minimum
       deposit law; project completion report.  Salem, State of Oregon
       Department of Transportation,  Highway Division, Oct. 1974.
       1 v. (various pagings.)

4. Bingham, T.  H., and P. F.  Mulligan. [Research Triangle Institute].
       The beverage container problem; analysis and recommendations.
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1972.  190 p.
       (Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
       Springfield,  Va., as PB-213 341.)

5. Scheinman, T.  Mandatory deposit legislation for beer and soft drink
       containers in Maryland; an economic analysis.  Annapolis, State
       of  Maryland, Council of Economic Advisors, Dec. 11, 1974.
       20  p., app.

6. Loube,  M.  Beverage containers; the Vermont experience. Washington,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.   (In preparation.)

7. Hunt, R. G., et al., [Midwest Reasearch Institute].  Resource and
       environmental profile analysis of nine beverage container alter-
       natives; final report,  v. 1-2.  Environmental Protection Pub-
       lication  SW-91 c.  Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, 1974.  178  p.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculations from data presented
       in  References 1 and 7.

9. Impacts of beverage container regulations in Minnesota; a report to the
       Governor and the Minnesota Legislature. [Minneapolis], Minnesota
       State Planning Agency,  Jan. 1974.  140 p.

10. Environmental Action.  Press release,  Oct. 17, 1974.  5 p.

11. Stern, C., et al.  Impacts of beverage container legislation on Conn-
       ecticut and a review of the experience in Oregon, Vermont and
       Washington State.  Storrs, University of Connecticut, Department
       of Agricultural Economics, Mar. 20, 1975.  181 p.

12. Statement of J. Lucian Smith, President, Coca-Cola, U.S.A.  In
       U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. Exclusive
       territorial allocation legislation.  Hearings before the Subcommittee
       on Antitrust and Monopoly, 92d Cong., 2d sess., on S.  3040,
       S. 3116, S. 3133, S.  3145 and S. 3587.  pt.  1.  Aug.  8-10, Sept.
       12 and 14, 1972.   Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Office,
       1973.  p. 161-194.

13. Waggoner, D.  Oregon's bottle bill  two years later.  Portland,
       Columbia Group Press, May 1974.  37 p., app.

14. Donovan, G. A.  Vermont skiing survey, 1973-74.  Economic
       Research Report No. 74-2.  [Montpelier], Agency of Develop-
       ment and Community Affairs, Research Planning Division,
       July 1974.  5 p.

15. R. S. Weinberg & Associates.  Resource/energy recovery  and re-
       cycling vs. source reduction: a simple economic analysis of two
       basic resource conservation  strategies.  Washington, U.S.
       Brewers Association, Inc., 1975. 17 p.

16. Quarles,  J. R., Jr.  Statement  of Honorable John R.  Quarles, Jr.,
       Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,  before
       the Subcommittee on the Environment,  Committee on Commerce,
       United States Senate, May 7, 1974. Cincinnati, U.S.  Environ-
       mental Protection Agency.  National Environmental Research
       Center, 1974.  14 p.

                     A LABOR VIEWPOINT

                        Robert McGlotten*
       Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to listen to the other
participants on the dais, to participate and hear the  arguments pro and
con, their relationship to the whole thesis of this conference.  I am going
to be very, very brief but also address myself to the remarks of Mr.
Ruvin and Mr. King.
       First of all, just let me state that the AFL-CIO's position is very
clear.  Unfortunately I just ran from another meeting on the Hill, and I
didn't have ah opportunity to bring any of our policy  resolutions with
me. We're for solid waste legislation, resource recovery, that will not
affect the jobs of our membership. We're very,  very serious about
this.  We can ill afford at this  stage of the game, whatever your per-
suasion may be, to have more  folks unemployed.  Many kinds of legis-
lation, which you are espousing around the country,  are saying to our
workers, "You are no longer needed." We've got to fight unemploy-
ment; we can no longer stand the kind of situation which we have. We
want to join you, work with you, to clean up litter, but we're not going
to have our workers unemployed because you want to do away with a
can or bottle.  We just cannot afford  it.  We will not stand for it.
       Mr.  Ruvin made the statement that Oregon increased its number
of jobs.  I'm not really familiar with the results of the study.  But I
can guarantee you that any increase is in jobs with lesser skills, and
that means lesser pay for our  membership.  We cannot stand that
either.  We have steel workers and aluminum workers making $5.06
an hour,  and all of a sudden you're going to say to them that you're
going to replace their jobs with bottle washer jobs at $2.05 an hour.
We're not going to take it.  We can't  afford to.
       In the same way that you relate to your constituents in terms  of
cleaning up the environment, we have to relate to our constituents in
terms of what they buy every day.  When you talk about the cost of the
returnable,  a gentleman made  the statement that it's not really a direct
cost, but it comes out of our members' pockets.  When he's paying
$1.40 for a six-pack and all of a sudden it goes up to $1. 70,  it  comes out
of his pocket,  and I don't care  whether he takes back the can or not.
       In addition, let me remind you of one thing.  I remember as a kid
       *Legislative Representative, AFL-CIO.

I used to return bottles to the stores.  Little bottles I got 2 cents for; big
bottles I got a nickel for. It was very profitable for me to do that in the
city of Philadelphia where I grew up; on my way back to school,  I had a
couple of pretzels to take back and maybe gave one to a little girlfriend.
But you can't buy anything in the store any more for 2 cents or 5 cents.
I'm not certain whether, if we did have deposits, that would really clean
up the litter, with the way our society is growing and the new kind of life-
style. Certainly bottles, paper, and cans are a problem that we have to
deal with.
       So, how do we deal with it?  Not in terms of punitive legislation—
because of your views you'll destroy another segment of society's liveli-
hood—but in terms of something constructive.  We are going hand in hand
with the beverage industry and can industry to try to find a  solution to it.
All of our various affiliated unions are trying to do the same thing in a
way which will not affect jobs but get to the objective that you want to get
to.  And that's to clean up the litter. We're willing to do that.  And I
think the St. Louis  kind of experiment with the Union Electric Company
is a very good experiment to start with: where  they're burning one-fifth
trash that's being recycled with four-fifths coal and using no oil  at all.
       Let's stop for a moment and talk about the real long-range plans
that we have in labor.  We look at anything that  affects our  membership;
we think this makes very good sense because of one or two  things.   First
of all, if we build the kind of recycling system that puts a market out
there for people to buy recycled material, we're really doing something
to help to create jobs.  Second,  if we're burning no oil, and we can burn
that waste,  then in 50 cities where we have this kind of facility we can save
approximately 400,000 barrels of oil a day.  This should be one  of our pri-
mary goals  when looking at the deficit as far as importing oil from the
OPEC countries.
       In addition,  I may say that it's important for you to  recognize that
just banning the nonreturnable bottle is not going to be the solution to the
waste problem. If you want to ban something, and you're talking about lit-
ter, why not ban paper? All of you know the EPA studies of the  municipal
waste stream.   What do bottles  and  cans really  make up?  Eight percent of
the total as  opposed to paper and other kinds of  rubbish. Are we going to
have  returnable pea cans, soup  cans, other kinds of cans?  Let's talk about
really looking at the problem as it is.  Yes,  we have to do something about
resource recovery.  When we talk about source reduction,  I think that's a
little bit further down the road and that's a little bit more than a slogan.  I
think each of us, when dealing with our own constituents, must take a look
ahead at the kinds of positions we take and how it affects the rest of the
American people.
       We just cannot sit idly by,  those of us in industry, or labor, or those
of you who have an  interest in our society and environment.  We would be
against any  kind of punitive legislation that will  increase the amount of un-
employment in our  society.  I don't  have to give you the figures, but I just

want to recite them to you so that you'll understand which way I am going.
       In February and March unemployment was 8. 2 percent, which
meant 7.5 million people unemployed.  The kinds of legislation that are pro-
posed around this country,  I would dare say, would bring it up another
half a million people.  Ladies and gentlemen, we don't need additional
persons on the unemployment rolls.  You have your thing, and you may
say,  "That's great, " but that's your thing.  Well, it's also going to be my
thing because I care.  I care  about whether my brothers or sisters who
work  in steelmills and aluminum plants and glass plants are going to work
       Yes, we can do something about the litter, but I think it's got to be
done in a very constructive way where  we look at everybody.

                           REGISTRATION LIST
Barbara Reid Alexander
League of Women Voters of Maine
10 Garden Street
Bath, Maine 04530

Gail Allison
League of Women Voters
1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20036

Robert Anderson
Environmental Law Institute
Washington. D.C.

Shari Annes
American Can Company
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Norman D. Axelrad
Vice President, Public Affairs
McDonald's Corporation
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521

William D. Balgord
The Aluminum Association
750 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Bob Bartolotta
International City Management Association
1140 Connecticut Avenue. N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20036

S.  Baum
Gordian Associates, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10020

Mary G. Baur
4316 N.W. 169th Street, Route 2
Ridgefield, Washington 98642

Laurence J. Becker
Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel, Inc.
1729 H Street, N W
Washington, D.C. 20006
William A. Belm
FMC Corporation
Suite 520, 1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Robert E. Belliveau
The Proctor and Gamble Company
Ivorydale Technical Center
5299 Spring Grove Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45217

James M. Bennett
Joseph Schhtz Brewing Company
235 West Galena Street
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53201

Fredrika E. Bernstein
14710Sutton Street
Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Tayler H. Bingham
Research Triangle Institute
P.O.  Box 12194
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina

Mar> Blakeslee
Air and Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Thomas Blessing
Ecology Center of Ann Arbor
417 Detroit Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Ethel Bobroff
West Michigan Regional Plan Commission
2634 Manor Drive S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506

Gilbert F. Bourcier
Reynolds Metal Company
6601  West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23261

Ann Branston
International City Management Association
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Timothy J. Bratton
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

William R. Bree
Oregon State Department of Environmental
1234 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205

Harry Butler
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Thomas N. Canfield
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Christine M. Carlson
League of Women Voters of Ohio
1445 Meadow Lane
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387

June M. Carmichael
League of Women Voters of Vermont
98 Jericho Road
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452

John Cashel
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 94643

Mrs. Robert F.  Cocklin
League of Women Voters of Arlington
4237 North 31st Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207

George M. Conley
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
1200 Ring Building
Washington, D.C. 20036
 Joan E. Cook
 League of Women Voters of Oregon
 1832 Longview Avenue
 Eugene, Oregon 97403
J Wendy Cook
Government of Ontario
Waste Management Advisory Board
Queens Park, Toronto M7A 1A2
Ontario, Canada

Jack L. Cooper
National Canners Association
 1133 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Mrs. Linda Craig
League of Women Voters of California
30 Rondo Way
Menlo Park, California 94025

Trenton Crow
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Russell E.  Cummings
Leonard S. Wegman Co., Inc.
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Lloyd Curtiss
PepsiCo., Inc.
Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, New York 10577

Anne L. Darneille
D.C. City Council
District Building
Washington, D.C. 20004

Louis  C. David
Principal Planner
Department of Administration, Statewide
  Planning Program
265 Melrose Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02907

Victor A. Denslow
Amoco Chemicals Corporation
200 E. Randolph M/C 4006
P.O. Box 9640A
Chicago, Illinois 60601

James W. Dixon
(Science Teacher)
745 Gibson Drive N.W.
Concord, North Carolina

Walter H.Dolbier, Jr.
Dewey & Almy Chemical Division
W.R. Grace & Company
Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

Dennis R. Downs
Utah State Division of Health
2220 East 4800 South #422
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117

William V. Driscoll
Tissue Division, American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016

R.E. Duffy
The Carborundum Company
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20005

John ]. Dunn, Jr.
Montgomery County Environmental Pro-
  tection/Solid Waste Management
6110 Executive Boulevard, Room 300
Rockville, Maryland 20852

John Dzikowicz
471 Tennent Road
Morganville, New Jersey

A. Blakeman Early
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460

C. Soutter Edgar
International Paper Company
220 E. 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017

J. Rodney Edwards
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Charles W. Felix
Single Service Institute, Inc.
250 Park Avenue
Neu York, New York 10017

Mrs. Diana B. Friedman
Materials Division
Bureau of Domestic Commerce
U.S.  Department of Commerce
Washington. D.C. 20230

Richard Fry
U S.Jaycees
366 Harnstown Road
Glen Rock. New Jersev
Richard W. Garbett
918 16th Street, N.W., Suite 503
Washington, D.C. 20006

Chester E. Gardner
United States Brewers Association, Inc.
1750 K Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Linda Gelberd
McDonald's Corporation
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521

Neil Getnick
Center for Environmental Quality
Hollister Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca. New York 14850

Thomas D. Gillard, Engineer
Waste Management Section, Hazardous
  Materials Branch
U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
  Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City. Missouri 64108

Charles N. Goddard
State Department of Environmental
Division of Solid Waste Management
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233

Rosalie Grasso
National Solid Wastes Management
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
Washington. D.C  20036

 Michael J. Greene
Council of State Governments
 Iron Works Pike
 Lexington, Kentucky 40511

Betsy Greer
Crusade tor a Cleaner Environment
2000 L Street, N.. ' , Suite 520
Washington, DA  10036

Clyde L.Griffith, Counsel
National Restaurant Association
1155 15th Street, N.W., Suite 505
Washington, D.C. 20005

Jim Groomc
Mead Packaging
P.O. Box 4417
Atlanta. Georgia 30302

Ashok Gupta
Environmental Action
1346 Connecticut Avenue. N W., Suite 731
Washington. D.C. 20036

John E. Haaland
The Pillsbury Company
608 Second Avenue S.
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402

Edwin A. Hafner
Hatner Industries. Inc.
Box 1923 Amity Station
New Haven. Connecticut 06525

Thomas R. Hagley
Aluminum Company of America
1656 Alcoa Building
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15219

Penelope Hansen
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460

Allen K. Harris
Assistant Attorney General State of
123 N.W. 15th Street
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73103

Denise F. Hawkins
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460

Mrs. Lucinda Headrick
League of Women Voters of Texas
1008 Walnut
Irving, Texas 75060

J.D. Heaman
Government of Ontario
168 Inglewood Drive
Toronto. Canada M4T 1H"1

Dr. Karl E. Henton II
University of Texas at Austin
BEB 701 Graduate School of Business
University of Texas
Austin. Texas
C L  Hoebel
Carrier Corporation. Suite 510
1025 Connecticut Avenue. N.W.
Washington. D C  20036

William D. Holland
Division of Solid Waste
Department for Natural Resources and
  Environmental Protection
Frankfort. Kentucky 40601

Lawrence A. Hollev'
Director of Research and Education
Aluminum Workers International Union
818 Olive Street. Suite 338
Si Louis. Missouri 63101

Eileen Jacobson
Solid Waste Chairman, D.C League of
  Women Voters
4400 Albemarle Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20016

Mrs. Eileen L, Johnston
505 Maple Avenue
Wilmette.  Illinois 60091

Barbara Kandarian
League of Women Voters
170 Cederwald Court
Rochester. Michigan 48063

Sheila S. Keeny
3600 Albemarle Street, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20008

lohn J. Kcmish
American Can Company
American Lane
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Gary D. Knight
U S. Chamber of Commerce
 1615 H Street. N.W.
Washington. D C. 20062

 Ellen Knox
Ohio Chapter, Sierra Club
 3141 Huntingdon Road
 Shaker Heights. Ohio 44120

Sherry N  Koehler. Executive  Director
 Environmental Acnon Coalition
 235 East 49 Street
 New York. New York 10017

Nancy Kourtjian, President
Earth Alive, Inc.
30089 Fiddlers Green
Farmington, Michigan 48024

Edward Dew Kratovil
American Can Company
1660 L Street, N.W. (St. 1007)
Washington, D.C. 20036

Ernest J. LaBaff, Vice President
Aluminum  Workers International Union
818 Olive Street, Suite 338
St. Louis, Missouri 63101

William A.  Largent
Keyes Fibre Company
160 Summit Avenue
Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Russell J. LaVine,  City Councilman
City of Des  Moines
East 1st and Locust Street
Des Moines, Iowa  50307

Richard J. Leary
Continental Can Company, Inc.
633 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Bun Song Lee
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Earl Leonard
Atlanta, Georgia

Richard P.  Leonard
Calspan Corporation
Box 235
Buffalo, New Yor,  14221

Muriel Lightfoot
League of Women  Voters of Connecticut
12 Meeker Road
Westport, Connecticut

Carl Lindstrom
Environmental Specialist
Office of the Scientific Attache, Swedish
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
 Stephen A. Lingle
 Office of Solid Waste Management
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington. D.C. 20006

 Gary Brian Liss
 Department of Engineering
 920 Broad Street, City Hall Room 410
 Newark. New Jersey 07102

 Michael Loube
 Office of Solid Waste Management
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D.C. 20460

 Patrick E. Lynch
 Illinois Environmental Protection Agencv
 2200 Churchill Road
 Springfield, Illinois 62706

 Dan B. Magoun
 Indiana State Board of Health
 1330 W. Michigan Street
 Indianapolis. Indiana 46202

 W.P. Mahoney
 Ball  Corporation
 1509S. Macedonia
 Muncie, Indiana 47302

 Louis J. Maresca, Jr.
 Department of Urban and Policy Sciences
 State University of New York at Stony
 Stony Brook, New  York 11794

 Anna M. Martin, Division of Solid Waste
 Department for Natural Resources and
   Environmental Protection
 Frankfort. Kentucky 40601

 David F. Martin
 National Soft Drink Association
 1101  16th Street. N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20036

Joseph J. McCann, Jr.
 Keyes Fibre Company
 160 Summit Avenue
Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Andrew McCutcheon
 Reynolds Metal Company
 P.O.  Box 27003
 Richmond,  Virginia 23261

Grant J. Merritt
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935W. County Road, B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113

Edward L. Miles
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
721 Pestalozzi Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63118

Harry L. Moore
Glass Bottle Blowers Association
221 S. 16
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Barbara Morton
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Washington, D.C.

John Murphy, Vice President
Aluminum Workers International Union
818 Olive Street, Suite 338
St. Louis, Missouri 63101

Ralph A. Nichols
1501 ALCOA Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Charlene Nimmo
Florida  League of Women Voters
5715 Leesway Boulevard
Pensacola. Florida 32504

Dr. M.V. Noble
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company
1007 Market Street
Wilmington. Delaware 19898

Joseph A. Orlando
Mathematica, Inc.
3401 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
John Osborn
Office of Technology Assessment
U.S. Congress
Washington.  D.C.

 Dr. W.A. Patterson
 W.R. Grace & Company
 P.O. Box 464
 Duncan. South Carolina 29334
William Pauly
Miami Valley Regional Planning
333 W. First Street
Dayton, Ohio

Rosalie Peirsol
Pennsylvania League of Women Voters
219 Lafayette Avenue
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081

Charles Peterson
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460

Mrs. Edith Poor
Concern, Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Avenue. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007

Marian Possin
501 E. Lincoln Street
Waupun, Wisconsin 53963

Roger W. Powers. President
Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
99 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Donald E. Prescott
Director of Public Relations
National Soft Drink Association
1101 16th Street, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20036

Theodore D. Puckorius
Lester B. Knight & Associates, Inc.
Suite 4304
490 L'Enfant Plaza E. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024

Daniel Rago
J.C. Penney Company
1156—15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20005

Larry Ravitz
Henry J. Kaufman & Associates. Inc.
1053 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007

Barclay Resler
Can Manufacturers Institute. Inc.
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington. D.C.

Austin T. Rhoads
International Association of Ice Cream
910 17th Street, N.W.. llth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006

Henry Ritter, Vice-President, New York
Avco Aerostructures Division
P.O. Box 210
Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Duane L. Robertson
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Environmental Sciences Division
Montana Department of Health and
  Environmental Sciences
14249th Avenue
Helena. Montana 59701

Thomas L. Roller
Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50316

Margery D. Romberger
League of Women Voters National Capital
2005 Forest Hill Drive
Silver Spring, Maryland 20903

C.B. Russell
International Paper Company
220 East 42nd Street
New York New York 10017

Judy Rysdon
League of Women Voters of North Carolina
910 Cindy Street
Cary, North Carolina 27611

Harold Samtur
Office of Solid Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460

Edward A. Sarget
Grumman Ecosystems Corporation
1111 Stewart Avenue
Bethpage. New York 11714

Marvin Schlackman
EPA,  Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
 Robert L. Schulz
 The Fourth Sink Management Group. Inc.
 P.O. Box 75
 Kattskill Bay, New York 12844

 Mrs. William E. Shadle
 Chairman, Housewives to End Pollution
 7052 West Lane
 Eden,  New York 14057

 Alan Shilepsky
 Office of Solid Waste Management
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D.C. 20460

 Mack R. Skaggs
 Texas  State Department of Health
 1100 W. 49th Street
 Austin, Texas 78756

 J. Thomas Sliter
 Government Research Corporation
 1730M Street, N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20036

 Mrs. Emily Smith
 League of Women Voters of Illinois
 7407 S. Merrill Avenue
 Chicago, Illinois 60649

 John R. Snell, President
 John R. Snell Engineers, Inc.
 221 West Saginaw
 Lansing, Michigan 48933

James E. Stacey, Jr.
Department of City Planning
Room 508, City Hall Building
Norfolk. Virginia 23510

Patricia B. Stem
League of Women Voters of Minnesota
5208 84th Avenue,  North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55443

Mrs. Cora Stencil
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
536 La Plant Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54302

Robert W. Swanson
Coordinator of Solid Waste  Management
Sierra Club. Pacific Northwest Chapter
4534'/2 University Way, N.E.
Seattle. Washington 98105

Barbara M. Swart?
N.Y. State League of Women Voters
Box 1074
Setaukct, New York 11733

Merle E. Taylor
Operations Staff Coordinator
Arby's International
17 Colonial Drive
Youngstown, Ohio 44505

L.M. Thomka
DOW Chemical U.S.A.
2040 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan

Bruce R. Thompson
Joseph Schlitz Brew ing Company
235 West Galena Street
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53212

Robert Tonetti
P.O. Box 501
Hiram. Ohio 44234

Sue Turen
Environmental Action
1346 Connecticut Avenue. N.VV . Suite 731
Washington, D.C. 20036

James P. Turner
Manufacturing Chemists Association
1825 Connecticut Avenue. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009

J. Ross Vincent
Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc.
P.O. Box 19344
New Orleans, Louisiana 70170

Diana H.Wahl
National League of Cities/U.S. Conference
  of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Daniel J. Walsh
The Aluminum Association
750 Third Avenue
New York. New York 10017

Beverly B. Warburton
Colorado League of Women Voters
Gold Hill
Boulder, Colorado 80302

Donald W. Webster
Vermont Agency of Environmental
5 Court Street
Montpelier. Vermont 05602

Karen A. Wendt
 Minnesota Pollution Control
1935W. Co. Rd. B-2
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

F.D. Wharton.Jr.
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Richard J. Wiechmann
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Timothy M. Wilkinson
Aluminum Company of America
1656 Alcoa Building
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15219

Peters D. Willson
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

R.H. Woolvett
Government of Ontario
Waste Management Advisory Board
Queens Park. Tornoto M7A 1A2
Ontario, Canada