and separate economically usable goods from this

country's solid waste streams.

To avoid chaos in the market place and consumer hardship

we would urge even stronger Federal pre-emption provisions than those contained in paragraph (b) of Section 218.

II. HAZARDOUS WASTES

Dow agrees with EPA (testimony before the Panel on Materials Policy, June 12, 1974) that hazardous wastes are a serious national problem. We believe that positive regulatory control of land disposal of hazardous wastes is desirable and generally support the concepts embodied in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of S. 1086, the Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973.

In supporting legislation on land disposal of hazardous wastes, we feel it is important for you to consider the regulatory control mechanism and the definition of hazardous

waste:

1. We strongly believe you will achieve greatest national improvement if the legislation establishes a regulatory control mechanism for hazardous wastes separate from the control mechanism for the broad area of solid waste. This is based on the following:

(a) From a volume standpoint, hazardous waste represents only a small portion of the total solid waste problem:

Hazardous Waste

Industrial Waste

Consumer Disposables

10 million tons/year 110 million tons/year

125 million tons/year

Priority for energy and resource recovery
should therefore be directed to industrial
waste and consumer disposables. In general,
hazardous wastes provide potential for only
minimally conserving our virgin resources.

(b) Management of solid waste will be concerned
with energy and resource recovery, the avail-
ability of land, the problems of collecting,
transporting, and handling tremendous bulk
of material, and judgments on various social,
esthetic, and economic trade-offs.

(c) Hazardous wastes represent a complex spectrum of materials, ranging from toxic mercury derivatives to pathological wastes from hospitals. Hazardous waste regulation will therefore be highly concerned with judgments on health effects and long-term environmental degradation.

(d) Proper disposal of hazardous wastes is costly. EPA estimates $50 to $90 per ton compared to some present practices of $3 per ton. We believe the increased cost of proper disposal

should be paid by the generators of such hazardous

wastes. This would provide a strong incentive

for basic producers to minimize quantities

for disposal and to utilize and develop

recovery technology wherever practical.

Congressional direction to establish separate regulatory control mechanisms therefore seems desirable to us.

2. Criteria for specification of a hazardous waste are crucial to sound implementation. We note that the

criteria are partially covered in the definition of hazardous waste (Section 3 (4)) and in the Administrative identification of hazardous waste (Section 4(b)). These two sub-sections refer to certain properties of hazardous wastes but do not direct the Administrator to consider the interrelationship of the properties of the waste. For example, both concrete and cyanide wastes are nondegradable. It is improbable that concrete would be classified as hazardous. In contrasts, cyanide is highly toxic and under certain environmental conditions may well be classified as a hazardous waste. The interrelationship of properties is the key to classification.

Also, we believe the intent of the legislation would be technically clarified if the definition reflects the intensity of hazard

substantial hazard to health or

organisms and the Administrative identification of

hazardous wastes reflects all of the criteria for such

an identification.

We therefore suggest that Sections 3(4) and 4 (b) be replaced with the following wording:

Section 3......

(4) The term "hazardous waste" means any
waste or combination of wastes, which when
disposed of in sufficient quantities, in
or on the land, pose a substantial present
or predictable potential hazard to human
health or to beneficial living organisms.

Section 4......

(b) In identifying any waste as hazardous,
the Administrator shall specify the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of such
waste which renders it a hazardous waste,
taking into account:

(1) the interrelationship of the following:
(A) the quantity to be disposed of;
(B) the degree of toxicity of the waste;
(C) its non-degradable or persistent
nature in the environment; and

(D) its biological magnification po-
tential in the environment;

(2) means of disposal, disposal sites, and
disposal practices; and

(3) the effects of regulating the waste in
terms of the risks avoided compared to
the benefits gained or lost from the
economic, social, and environmental
standpoints.

.- Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

cmi

August 5, 1974

1800 K Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 872-1280

TWX: 7108229337 GLASS WSH

The Honorable Jennings W. Randolph
Chairman, Panel on Materials Policy
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works
Washington, D.C.

RE: 1974 SOLID WASTE, ENERGY AND RESOURCE RECOVERY LEGISLATION (S.3560, S.3549, S. 3277, S.3723, S.1086)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc. appreciates the
further opportunity to comment on the above referenced proposed
legislation. Our comments are supplemental to the industry testimony
presented by Mr. Ebon C. Jones, Executive Vice President, and
General Manager, Packaging Group, Owens-Illinois, Inc., to the
Panel on July 19, 1974.

Attached to these comments is a re-drafted version of S.3560 which contains suggested amendatory language reflecting our industry's position regarding certain aspects of the Bill.

We have carefully examined the other four bills under consideration
and find them hopelessly defective in comparison to S.3560. We
are opposed to their enactment because, in our view, they are
philosophically repugnant to our free enterprise system, particularly:

1. Section 218, 221, 222, 223 of S.3277;

2. Sections 12 and 13 of S.1086;

3. Sections 102(b)(7), 103(7), 104(a)(7), 110, 111,
112, 114, 116, 117(c) 118(a) of S.3549;

4. Subsections (2) (3) (5) and (6) of Section 2(b) and
Sections 5, 7, 16 and 20(e) of S.3723.