Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0004-0199
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-03-24T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.

­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
X
:
:
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM:
:
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
:
HAZARDOUS
WASTE:
CONDITIONAL
:
EXCLUSIONS
FROM
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
:
AND
SOLID
WASTE
FOR
SOLVENT­
:
CONTAMINATED
INDUSTRIAL
WIPES;
:
PROPOSED
RULE
:
:
:
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
X
A
hearing
in
the
above­
entitled
matter
was
held
on
Tuesday,
March
9,
2004,
commencing
at
9:
43
a.
m.,
in
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1201
Constitution
Avenue,

N.
W.,
Room
1153,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
before:

TRACY
ATAGI
Hearing
Officer
BOB
DELLINGER
CHARLOTTE
MOONEY
JOHN
MICHAUD
EPA
Panel
Members
APPEARANCES
LARRY
GROIPEN
RICHARD
DANIELS
ART
ABELL
CARLE
SHOTWELL
ED
HOPKINS
CONGRESSWOMAN
ROSA
DeLAURO
LARRY
LIDEN
MARCI
KINTER
PETER
MAYBERRY
RALPH
SOLARSKI
GARY
JONES
LENORA
STROHM
ERIC
FRUMIN
MARK
FRAGOLA
DAVID
DUNLAP
ROBERT
SCHAFFER
JIM
BUIK
WILLIAM
GUERRY
RON
STIEF
DAVID
CASE
cgg
3
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
MS.
ATAGI:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Tracy
Atagi
2
and
I=
m
the
Official
Hearing
Officer
today.
My
job
is
to
3
make
sure
that
the
hearing
is
properly
run
and
that
everyone
4
who
has
signed
up
to
give
testimony
has
a
chance
to
do
so.
I
5
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
some
members
of
the
audience
will
6
be
videotaping
the
hearing
today
and
we=
ve
reserved
the
area
7
to
my
left
for
that
purpose.
Cameras
are
also
permitted
8
today,
but
please
no
flash
photography.
9
Now,
I
would
like
to
introduce
the
EPA
Panel
that
10
will
be
listening
to
your
testimony
today.
Bob
Dellinger
in
11
the
center
is
the
Acting
Director
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
12
Identification
Division.
Charlotte
Mooney
is
the
Chief
of
13
the
Generator
and
Recycling
Branch
and
John
Michaud
is
an
14
attorney
with
EPA=
s
office
of
the
General
Counsel.
I
would
15
also
like
to
introduce
our
court
reporter.
She
will
be
16
transcribing
all
of
your
comments,
so
speak
clearly
enough,
17
loudly
enough
and
fully
enough
for
them
to
be
recorded.
The
18
transcript
of
the
hearing
will
be
available
in
the
Rule
19
Making
Docket
Room
once
we
get
it.
20
The
purpose
of
this
public
hearing
is
to
receive
21
comments
on
EPA=
s
proposed
regulations
to
exclude
solid
22
contaminated
industrial
wipes
from
the
definition
of
solid
23
waste
and
hazardous
wipes.
These
proposed
regulations
which
24
were
developed
by
EPA=
s
Office
of
Solid
Waste
were
published
25
cgg
4
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
20th,
2003.
EPA
has
two
1
objectives
in
mind
for
this
hearing.
First,
we
would
like
to
2
give
all
interested
parties
an
opportunity
to
express
their
3
views
on
the
proposed
regulations.
Second,
we
would
like
to
4
obtain
as
much
new
relevant
information
as
possible
to
assist
5
the
Agency
in
developing
the
final
rule.
6
If
you
would
like
to
prevent
written
comments,
we
7
do
have
comment
sheets
available
on
the
back
table.
When
you
8
have
completed
the
written
comments,
you
can
leave
them
at
9
the
registration
table
or
with
Kathy
Blanton.
The
oral
and
10
written
comments
received
at
this
hearing
will
be
reviewed
by
11
EPA
and
will
be
responded
to
fully
in
the
final
rule
12
document.
13
Now,
for
the
public
testimony.
Testimony
will
be
14
limited
to
seven
minutes.
Given
this
limitation,
you
may
15
wish
to
summarize
your
comments
and
present
additional
16
comments
for
the
record
in
writing.
I
will
call
each
speaker
17
up
to
the
microphone.
As
you
begin
your
testimony,
please
18
state
your
name
clearly
for
the
record
and
include
any
19
organizations
you
will
be
representing.
To
assure
that
20
everyone
has
an
opportunity
to
testify
today,
please
limit
21
your
comments
to
seven
minutes.
If
you
run
over
your
22
allotted
time
I
will
ask
you
to
conclude
your
remarks.
I
23
will
also
warn
you
if
you
have
30
seconds
left
with
this
note
24
card
here.
So,
when
you
see
this
card
it
means
you
have
30
25
cgg
5
seconds
left.
1
Also,
to
keep
things
moving,
I
will
call
out
the
2
name
of
the
Next
speaker
and
the
speaker
after
that.
If
3
you=
re
the
on
deck
speaker,
then
please
come
up
and
sit
in
4
the
front
so
that
we
won=
t
have
to
wait
between
speakers.
5
The
seat
next
to
the
podium
is
reserved
for
the
next
speaker.
6
Before
we
begin
with
testimony,
I
would
like
to
7
emphasize
that
the
specific
purpose
of
this
hearing
is
to
8
receive
comments
from
the
regulatory
proposal
that
EPA
has
9
developed.
While
you
may
have
concerns
or
views
on
other
10
issues
that
relate
to
hazardous
waste
or
solvents,
please
try
11
and
focus
your
comments
on
this
particular
proposal.
I
12
understand
there
may
be
some
strong
feelings
and
different
13
points
of
view
regarding
this
proposed
regulation.
We=
re
not
14
here
today
to
resolve
all
the
issues,
but
rather
to
receive
15
everyone=
s
input
on
the
matter.
I
hope
we
can
have
a
civil
16
proceeding
and
be
respectful
to
the
various
points
of
view
17
that
will
be
expressed
this
morning.
18
Are
there
any
questions
regarding
the
testimony?
19
Our
first
speaker
wasn=
t
able
to
arrive
until
10
o=
clock,
so
20
we=
ll
go
ahead
with
the
other
registered
speakers
until
she
21
arrives.
So,
the
first
speaker
will
be
Larry
Groipen
to
be
22
followed
by
Richard
Daniel
and
then
Art
Abell.
23
MR.
GROIPEN:
Can
I
say
something
before
my
seven
24
minutes?
25
cgg
6
MS.
ATAGI:
Okay.
I
haven=
t
started
the
watch?
1
MR.
GROIPEN:
What?
2
MS.
ATAGI:
I
haven=
t
started.
3
MR.
GROIPEN:
You
haven=
t
started
only
because
a
4
picture=
s
worth
a
thousand
words,
and
I
think
to
get
the
5
thing
off
on
the
right
foot,
we=
re
talking
about
three
6
different
kinds
of
wipes.
We=
re
talking
about
a
rented
shop
7
towel.
We=
re
talking
about
various
non
woven
and
paper
8
towels,
and
we=
re
talking
about
various
throw
away
kinds
of
9
rags,
cloth
rags.
And
what
we=
re
talking
about
becoming
rule
10
is
this
is
water.
We=
re
going
to
pretend
it=
s
solvent.
One,
11
two,
three.
Right
now
they=
re
treated
completely
different
12
and
that=
s
what
my
comments
are
going
to
be
based
on,
the
13
fact
that
this
one
drop
here,
here,
and
here
are
treated
14
differently
as
it
currently
exists.
This
by
the
way
gets
15
washed,
these
two
get
thrown
away,
eventually
gets
thrown
16
away.
But,
anyway.
17
My
name
is
Larry
Groipen
and
I=
m
here
today
to
18
speak
on
behalf
of
SMART,
the
Secondary
Materials
That
19
Recycle
Textiles
Association.
Our
Executive
Vice
President
20
could
not
be
here.
He
had
a
previous
engagement
in
Los
21
Angeles.
I=
m
the
Association=
s
Vice
President
and
Chairman
of
22
our
Environmental
Committee.
I=
m
also
the
owner
of
a
small
23
wiping
products
distribution
company
located
in
24
Massachusetts.
My
comments
today
reflect
both
my
opinions
25
cgg
7
and
those
of
our
membership.
1
My
company
along
with
our
company=
s
200
members
2
supply
tens
of
thousands
small
and
medium
sized
businesses
3
around
the
country
with
recycled
textiles,
non
wovens
and
4
paper
wiping
materials.
Many
of
the
customers
are
5
manufacturing
plants,
municipal
agencies
and
service
6
companies.
Our
customers
use
these
wipes
for
all
wipe
7
purpose
including
grease,
oil,
dirt
and
solvent.
Our
8
Association=
s
members
sell
hundreds
of
different
kinds
of
9
non­
laundered
materials
to
meet
the
needs
of
our
end
user
10
customers
for
their
diverse
wiping
applications.
11
There
is
a
common
misconception
among
people
who
do
12
not
use
wipers
on
a
regular
basis
and
that
is
a
rag
is
a
rag
13
is
a
rag.
The
reality
is
that
some
materials
whether
cloth,
14
non
woven
or
paper
work
better,
are
safer,
are
more
effective
15
in
many
wiping
applications.
Being
in
this
business
more
16
than
25
years,
one
of
the
more
frequently
asked
questions
I
17
have
heard
has
been
can
I
throw
these
wipes
away?
Many
18
prospects
an
former
customers
have
told
me
that
they
use
19
laundered
towels
to
avoid
the
costs
and
the
responsibility
20
associated
with
the
disposal
of
non­
laundered
wipes.
21
Our
Association
members
have
suffered
dramatically
22
over
the
past
decade
as
large
national
laundry
companies
take
23
away
our
customers.
They
have
taken
business
away
by
24
lobbying
and
they
have
won
hazardous
and
solid
waste
25
cgg
8
exemptions
at
the
state
level.
Our
Association
is
made
up
1
mainly
of
family­
owned
businesses.
We
cannot
possibly
afford
2
to
compete
with
laundries,
outreach
and
the
political
arena.
3
EPA=
s
data
shows
88
percent
of
the
wipes
used
with
4
solvents
are
laundered
wipes.
This
is
not
because
they
5
perform
better.
It
is
because
EPA
has
allowed
the
industrial
6
laundries
to
dispose
of
solvents
on
laundered
wipes
with
no
7
conditions
while
requiring
non­
laundered
wipes
to
be
managed
8
as
hazardous
waste.
It
is
for
these
reasons
that
I
got
9
involved
with
this
issue
almost
ten
years
ago.
My
10
involvement
began
on
two
fronts.
First
with
the
work
of
Mr.
11
James
O=
Leary
from
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
The
other
12
front
was
through
the
work
of
the
EPA=
s
Office
of
Water
that
13
was
trying
to
formulate
pre­
treatment
standards
for
14
industrial
laundries
that
process
laundered
shop
towels.
15
Well
much
time
has
passed
and
both
agencies
have
had
multiple
16
personnel
changes.
My
commitment
on
behalf
of
my
Association
17
and
more
importantly
on
behalf
of
my
customers
remains
18
constant.
19
I
have
two
full
file
drawers
dating
back
to
my
20
first
meeting
in
Washington
in
which
Mr.
O=
Leary
outlined
the
21
Office
of
Solid
Waste=
s
initiative.
Interestingly
enough
the
22
manufacturers
and
distributors
of
non­
laundered
wipes
met
23
together
along
with
representatives
from
the
two
laundry
24
associations,
UTSA
and
TRSA
as
well
as
representatives
of
25
cgg
9
wiper
user
organizations,
all
of
whom
were
in
support
of
this
1
rulemaking.
Shortly
after
this
meeting,
UTSA
had
a
change
of
2
heart
and
in
a
letter
December
21st,
1995
to
their
Board
of
3
Directors,
backed
away
from
supporting
this
rulemaking
4
effort.
One
of
the
main
reasons
and
I
quote
from
the
letter
5
A
Our
industry
enjoys
a
marketing
advantage
which
may
be
6
compromised.@
Over
the
years,
UTSA
and
TRSA
and
the
7
respective
political
action
committees
have
spent
large
sums
8
of
money
contacting
legislators
to
influence
environmental
9
decision
making
process.
They
successfully
convinced
the
10
Office
of
Water
to
drop
the
pre­
treatment
standard
in
favor
11
of
a
voluntary
program
that
after
almost
five
years
has
not
12
published
any
results.
They
have
repeated
proclaimed
their
13
environmental
superiority
as
well
as
their
market
advantage.
14
In
a
recent
UTSA/
TRSA
question
and
answer
sheet
in
15
an
article
in
a
trade
magazine,
they
saved
the
rule
in
front
16
of
you
today.
Requirements
for
disposals
are
more
17
complicated
than
the
requirements
for
reusables.
Reusable
18
shop
towels
are
still
more
environmentally
friendly
and
lower
19
liability
alternative
to
disposables.
The
rule
provides
20
minimum
regulatory
relief
for
disposals.
The
reusable
shop
21
towel
service
still
holds
less
concern
for
a
user
than
the
22
classic
cradle
degrade
liability
found
with
disposables.
The
23
regulation
does
not
require
reusable
shop
towel
users
to
24
treat
towels
before
laundry
picks
them
up.
These
comments
25
cgg
10
show
that
while
OSW
started
out
with
good
intentions,
this
1
rule
as
written
is
not
fulfilling
the
goals
set
forth
many
2
years
ago.
3
The
goals
being
one,
develop
a
clear
and
national
4
policy
that
addresses
recycling
and
disposal
of
cloths
5
contaminated
with
solvents.
Create
a
user
friendly
document
6
easily
understandable
by
the
small
business
community.
7
Create
a
win
win
situation
for
the
environment,
the
printing
8
and
other
industrial
sectors.
9
The
one
clear
message
our
members
wish
to
send
to
10
you
today
is
that
this
rulemaking
should
not
be
about
11
laundered
wipes
or
non
laundered
wipes.
It
should
be
about
12
solvent.
As
the
Office
of
Water
pointed
out
when
it
passed
13
the
ball
to
OSW,
a
laundry
facility
does
not
recycle
solvent.
14
It
processes
it
as
waste.
The
Office
of
Water
stated
that
15
the
best
way
to
manage
the
solvent
is
to
remove
it
prior
to
16
entering
the
laundry
process.
The
solvent
whether
laundered
17
or
non­
laundered
ends
up
in
the
same
landfill
either
as
18
liquified
sludge
or
solid
waste.
Therefore
the
best
win
for
19
the
environment
is
removing
solvent
after
using
the
wipe.
20
Because
my
time
is
running
out,
I
don=
t
think
you=
ll
21
grant
me
an
exemption
or
an
exclusion
from
the
seven
minute
22
speaking
rule,
I
want
to
leave
you
with
my
fellow
trade
23
association=
s
message.
The
rule
in
its
final
form
must
treat
24
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes
in
a
similar
manner.
If
25
cgg
11
the
rule
is
non
dripping
or
non
dripping
when
run
or
a
five
1
grand
limit,
the
rule
must
apply
to
both.
If
the
rule
2
requires
special
containers
or
no
containers,
labels
or
no
3
labels,
it
must
apply
to
both.
If
the
rule
says
there
are
11
4
nasty
solvents
or
six
nasty
solvents
that
can=
t
go
to
5
landfills,
then
they
must
be
permitted
to
landfills
in
sludge
6
and
neither
can
they
be
laundered.
7
The
conditional
exemption
from
hazardous
waste
8
regulation
should
be
given
to
both.
After
all,
EPA=
s
data
9
shows
more
solid
waste
is
generated
by
sludge
than
by
non­
10
laundered
wipes.
Therefore,
a
solid
waste
exemption
is
not
11
warranted.
The
laundry
industry
believes
that
a
fair
and
12
evenly
proposed
rule
will
hurt
them
financially.
They
only
13
need
to
look
at
the
State
of
Massachusetts.
The
14
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
has
had
15
a
rule
allowing
non
dripping
solvent
soiled
wipes
to
be
16
disposed
of
as
solid
waste
for
almost
ten
years.
To
my
17
knowledge,
no
area
shop
towel
laundries
have
gone
out
of
18
business.
However,
half
the
non­
laundered
wipe
companies
19
have
gone
out
of
business
with
several
more
suffering.
20
Finally,
this
rule=
s
taken
18
years,
18
years
to
21
reach
this
point.
The
data=
s
been
collected.
The
various
22
constituents
have
been
heard.
Please
don=
t
get
bogged
down
23
in
yet
another
election
season
or
allow
another
pressing
24
environmental
issue
to
derail
what
is
a
long
awaited,
simple
25
cgg
12
to
follow
common
sense
rule
that
protects
human
health
and
1
the
environment.
Creating
a
simple
rule
will
increase
the
2
rate
of
compliance
while
offering
the
wiper
users
choices
3
based
on
performance
of
the
actual
wiping
product
rather
than
4
on
a
regulation
that
favors
one
product
over
another.
This
5
allows
small
businesses
the
ability
to
compete
in
the
6
marketplace.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
wish
I
could
have
said
7
that
slower.
8
MS.
ATAGI:
The
next
speaker
will
be
Richard
Daniels
9
followed
by
Art
Abell
and
Carle
Shotwell.
10
MR.
DANIELS:
Hi,
my
name
is
Richard
Daniels
and
I=
m
11
the
President
of
Oscar
Daniels
and
Company
in
Redding,
12
Pennsylvania.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
13
speak
to
you
today
allowing
me
to
share
my
thoughts
with
you
14
about
the
importance
of
the
notice
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
15
published
in
the
November
20th,
2003
edition
of
the
Federal
16
Register.
17
I
have
worked
in
my
family
business
for
nearly
40
18
years.
Yes,
like
many
of
our
industry,
our
company
is
a
19
poster
child
for
American
Small
Business.
We
are
a
small
20
business
buying
and
selling
to
hundreds
of
other
small
21
businesses.
In
fact,
my
father
and
uncle
started
the
22
business
in
1921
and
today
my
wife
and
my
adult
children
are
23
an
integral
part
of
the
operation.
24
Our
company
is
in
the
business
of
recycling
textile
25
cgg
13
materials,
some
of
which
are
used
for
non­
laundered
1
industrial
wiping
cloths.
During
my
four
decades
int
eh
2
business,
I
have
seem
significant
changes.
Today
the
market
3
has
shrunk
due
to
the
fac
that
many
firms
have
shifted
to
4
laundry
wipes.
The
main
reason
for
this
is
that
the
5
laundries
take
all
the
towels
and
solvent
and
dispose
of
it
6
for
the
generator.
Therefore
it
is
disposed
of
in
our
7
streams
and
landfills
in
the
form
of
sludge.
While
the
shift
8
of
manufacturing
to
other
parts
of
the
world
have
forced
a
9
significant
number
of
changes
to
our
business,
there
also
has
10
been
a
noticeable
significant
shift
in
our
customers
11
switching
over
the
laundered
shop
towels
in
order
to
relieve
12
themselves
of
disposability
responsibilities.
13
Our
company=
s
sells
wipers
of
various
shapes,
14
sizes,
weight,
thickness
and
degrees
of
durability.
Our
15
sales
staff
often
works
with
customers
to
select
the
most
16
appropriate
product
depending
on
the
application
and
price.
17
However,
in
recent
years,
many
of
our
customers
have
switched
18
to
using
laundered
towels
out
of
concern
being
penalized
for
19
the
improper
handling
of
the
disposal
of
used
wipers.
They
20
also
bought
the
hazardous
waste
disposable
fees
imposed
on
21
used
wipes
that
do
not
apply
to
laundered
shop
towels.
22
Because
the
importance
of
this
rule
is
my
business,
I=
ve
been
23
closely
monitoring
the
progress
of
the
proposed
rule
for
more
24
than
15
years.
EPA
has
spend
an
enormous
amount
of
money,
25
cgg
14
time
and
energy
evaluating
all
aspects
of
the
issue.
1
Initially
it
began
with
the
Office
of
Water
before
it
was
2
shifted
to
the
Office
of
Solvent
Waste.
Numerous
scientific
3
and
risk
assessment
studies
have
been
conducted.
Lions
of
4
reports
written,
dozens
of
people
have
had
meetings
with
EPA
5
officials
and
still
the
rule
has
not
been
published.
Even
6
environmental
groups
have
voiced
their
support
for
this
rule.
7
Please
do
not
delay
this
measure
any
longer
and
8
expedite
this
rule
to
its
final
stage.
Regulations
governing
9
disposal
of
contaminated
wipes
should
be
the
same
for
both
10
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes,
not
different
as
in
the
11
proposed
rule.
The
rule
must
be
clear
and
easy
to
implement.
12
As
you
know
there
is
a
great
confusion
on
the
handling
of
13
soiled
wipers
from
state
to
state,
county
to
county
even
14
township
to
township.
This
rule
should
clarify
and
simplify
15
the
mismatch
of
regulation
currently
in
existence.
16
I
also
urge
you
to
adopt
the
hang
wringing
17
procedure
over
the
five
gram
rules.
Measuring
five
grams
in
18
determining
is
water
and
the
other
solvent
is
on
the
wiper
is
19
cumbersome
and
unnecessary.
Non­
laundered
wipes
aren=
t
20
dripping
and
contain
solvents
that
EPA
has
identified
don=
t
21
pose
any
health
risks
should
be
allowed
to
go
to
landfills
22
without
a
five
gram
ruling.
By
encouraging
the
use
of
a
hand
23
wringing
solvent
to
where
nothing
is
dripping
makes
more
24
sense
also
by
hand
wringing
the
wiper
creates
an
opportunity
25
cgg
15
to
recover,
recycle
more
solvent.
1
As
a
company
that
does
business
in
multiple
states,
2
it
is
hoped
that
all
states
will
encourage
or
adopt
this
3
rule.
Not
only
will
there
then
be
a
consistent
national
4
approach,
companies
with
multi­
state
operations
could
have
5
one
safe
uniform
policy
for
wiper
disposal.
Furthermore,
6
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipers
should
be
treated
in
a
7
similar
or
same
manner
for
all
details
such
as
labeling,
8
exclusions
and
transportation.
From
everything
I=
ve
seen,
9
heard,
and
read
there
seems
to
be
widespread
support
for
10
moving
forward.
Only
industrial
laundries
oppose
a
common
11
sense,
simple
rule,
the
same
requirements
for
laundered
and
12
non­
laundered
wipes.
This
is
certainly
understandable
and
if
13
I
were
in
their
position
I
would
want
the
same
thing.
The
14
reason
for
their
opposition
is
simple.
For
many
years
they
15
have
been
exempt
from
regulation
regarding
disposal.
As
a
16
result
they
have
enjoyed
an
unfair
marketing
advantage
over
17
companies
like
mine
not
having
to
adhere
to
regulations
in
18
the
handling
of
solvent
laden
laundry
wipers.
Behind
the
19
selfish
motive
there
is
no
other
supporting
their
position.
20
The
industrial
laundry
industry
has
been
very
21
successful
exploiting
their
exemptions
from
record.
I
bring
22
your
attention
to
U.
S.
Navy=
s
regional
Hazmat
Program
web
23
page.
In
paragraph
2,
the
web
page
states
shop
towels,
­­
24
towels
cost
less
than
half
the
price
of
bail
rags.
25
cgg
16
Absorbency
rates
are
better
or
equal.
Disposal
fees
are
1
eliminated.
This
is
a
complete
falsehood.
The
Navy
is
2
making
this
statement
based
upon
information
supplied
their
3
vendor
­­
Mark
Uniform
that
is
taken
directly
from
their
4
website.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
the
comparison
means
5
nothing
unless
they
are
using
the
right
non­
laundered
wiper
6
compared
to
a
shop
towel.
7
Secondly,
the
statement
that
disposal
fees
are
8
eliminated
is
a
gross
misstatement.
Disposal
fees
are
not
9
eliminated.
They=
re
just
simply
transferred
to
other
outlets
10
such
as
water.
The
disposal
cost
is
included
in
the
cost
of
11
the
rental.
The
Navy
is
simply
transferring
their
problem
12
from
a
hazardous
waste
site
to
a
non­
hazardous
landfill,
then
13
the
local
POTW
which
feeds
into
our
nation=
s
waterways.
The
14
situation
is
not
unique
to
the
Navy.
Many
of
my
customers
15
have
switched
to
using
laundered
shop
towels
for
the
same
16
reason.
The
Navy=
s
Regional
Hazardous
Material
Management
17
program
actually
has
a
brochure
for
their
shop
towel
program.
18
In
it
they
say
and
I=
m
quoting
A
Shop
towels
are
laundered
so
19
they
don=
t
end
up
in
a
hazardous
waste
landfill
taking
up
20
space
that
could
be
better
used
for
other
waste
in
which
21
there
is
no
recycling
solution.
The
irony
here
is
that
the
22
sludge
from
the
laundry
actually
does
end
up
in
a
landfill.
23
Not
only
this,
a
local
landfill
untreated
is
a
highly
24
concentrated
form
is
much
more
hazardous
to
groundwater.
The
25
cgg
17
brochure
also
states
shop
towels
do
not
have
to
be
disposed
1
of
as
hazardous
waste.
The
activity
or
service
branch
saves
2
money
in
procurement
costs,
avoids
hazardous
waste
disposal
3
charges
by
using
shop
towels.
4
This
demonstrates
the
decided
market
advantage
the
5
current
situation
gives
industrial
launders.
This
rule
6
should
create
equal
treatment
of
the
wipe
whether
it
is
7
laundered
or
not
laundered.
This
rule,
the
appropriate
8
changes
will
be
good
for
the
environment
and
for
those
9
responsible
for
using
and
handling
these
materials.
It=
s
10
only
reasonable
to
expect
that
in
the
final
form,
you
must
11
treat
all
forms
of
wipes
equally.
At
the
same
time
this
rule
12
will
create
greater
competition
between
laundered
and
non­
13
laundered
wiping
fields,
resulting
in
allowing
the
using
of
14
the
most
appropriate
product
based
on
performance
and
cost.
15
It
would
be
a
mistake
for
the
federal
government
to
influence
16
buying
decisions
to
exempt
one
segment
in
this
regulation.
17
The
rule
must
be
written
so
everyone
understands
and
plays
by
18
the
same
rules.
19
Wipers
and
shop
towels
are
in
the
same,
similar
20
conditions,
should
have
similar
methods
of
handling
their
21
contaminated
materials.
This
will
make
it
safer
and
less
22
onerous
on
the
end
user.
More
importantly,
it
benefits
23
everyone
by
protecting
our
environment
in
actuality.
I
24
believe
my
customers
will
view
this
proposed
regulatory
25
cgg
18
nature.
1
MS.
ATAGI:
You
have
30
seconds.
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
All
right.
The
next
speaker
will
be
Art
Abell
followed
by
3
Carle
Shotwell.
4
MR.
ABELL:
It=
s
a
pleasure
to
be
here
today
and
5
share
my
thoughts
with
you
concerning
EPA=
s
proposed
rule
for
6
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipers.
My
name
is
Art
Abell
and
7
a
principal
in
Cando
Company,
Ridley
Park,
Pennsylvania.
We
8
are
manufactures
of
the
product
in
the
middle
here
that
Larry
9
showed
you.
Okay.
We=
re
a
small
converter.
10
EPA
is
to
be
commended
for
their
efforts
in
11
examining
various
issues
and
developing
a
sound
rule
that
12
will
bring
greater
understanding
of
the
best
methods
of
13
handling
and
disposing
of
wipes.
However,
after
18
years
of
14
extensive
research,
meetings,
memos,
letters,
faxes,
e­
mails
15
and
telephone
calls,
I
encourage
you
to
finish
your
work
and
16
finalize
this
rule
as
soon
as
possible.
The
current
17
proposals
shows
unwarranted
favoritism
for
laundered
wipers
18
with
no
justification.
EPA
should
not
provide
a
competitive
19
advantage
for
one
industry
over
another
where
there
are
no
20
differences
to
potential
health
and
environment.
The
facts
21
in
the
docket
prove
that
the
potential
risks
to
human
health
22
and
the
environment
are
the
same
for
laundered
and
non­
23
laundered
wipes.
But
there
are
numerous
examples
in
the
24
proposed
rule
of
seemingly
preferential
treatment
for
25
cgg
19
laundered
wipes.
One,
using
different
assumptions
for
1
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes
when
the
risks
being
2
evaluated
are
identical.
Two,
applying
more
stringent
3
conditions
to
non­
laundered
wipes
than
laundered
wipes
where
4
the
potential
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
5
the
same.
Three,
not
referencing
key
data
in
the
rules,
6
preamble
or
the
technical
background
document
which
exposes
7
the
environmental
risks
and
impacts
from
laundered
wipes.
8
These
studies
which
are
part
of
the
docket
clearly
indicate
9
that
imposing
stricter
conditions
on
non­
laundered
wipes
than
10
laundered
wipes
just
doesn=
t
make
sense.
11
The
environmental
assessment
of
shop
towel
usage
in
12
the
automotive
and
printing
industry
conducted
by
Lockheed
13
Martin
Environmental
Services
on
behalf
of
the
EPA
concluded
14
that
30
percent
more
solid
waste
is
sent
to
landfills
from
15
the
processing
of
laundered
wipes
than
non­
laundered
wipes.
16
Two,
the
industry
laundry
sludge
calculation
conducted
by
17
SAIC
on
behalf
of
EPA
using
best
guess
assumptions
indicated
18
that
45
percent
of
the
solvents
evaluated
would
present
a
19
risk
in
landfills.
The
mass
balance
estimation
of
solvents
20
on
soiled
printers
towels
conducted
by
ERG
on
behalf
of
EPA
21
indicated
that
35
out
of
36
potential
solvent
scenarios
for
22
laundered
sludge
would
exceed
EPA=
s
risk
threshold
for
23
landfills.
Providing
an
exclusion
for
laundered
wipes
with
24
solid
waste
regulation
despite
the
fact
that
more
solid
waste
25
cgg
20
goes
to
landfill
than
from
non­
laundered
wipes.
This
will
1
have
the
marked
impact
of
encouraging
generators
to
switch
2
from
non­
laundered
wipes
to
laundered
wipes
to
achieve
solid
3
waste
reduction
objectives
which,
in
fact,
when
in
fact
there
4
are
no
solid
waste
benefits.
5
In
effect,
EPA
would
be
sponsoring
a
reporting
6
deception,
enabling
generators
to
report
their
share
from
7
non­
laundered
wipes
to
laundered
wipes
as
a
solid
waste
8
reduction
when
solid
waste
is
actually
increasing.
From
the
9
league
of
perspective
EPA=
s
justification
for
providing
an
10
exclusion
from
solid
waste
regulation
didn=
t
account
for
six
11
factors
set
forth
in
40
CFR
260.31.
An
evaluation
of
those
12
six
factors
would
have
clearly
indicated
to
EPA
that
an
13
exclusion
from
solid
waste
regulation
for
laundered
wastes
is
14
unlawful.
15
Using
the
terms
of
usable
and
disposable
is
16
deceptive
and
misleading
at
best.
Implying
relative
17
environmental
benefits
for
laundered
wipes
when
EPA=
s
18
research
clearly
indicates
that
there
are
no
environmental
19
benefits
for
laundered
wipes
compared
to
non­
laundered
wipes.
20
The
final
rule
that
discriminates
against
non­
laundered
21
wipes
by
providing
regulatory
preference
to
laundered
wipes
22
will
adversely
impact
environmental
risks
as
well
as
hamper
23
market
courses
that
otherwise
would
provide
users
with
24
improved
wiping
systems
at
lower
cost.
Let
the
users
decide
25
cgg
21
which
industrial
wiping
product
is
best
for
their
application
1
based
on
the
performance
of
the
wiper,
not
based
upon
2
preferential
regulatory
treatment
for
one
type
of
wiping
3
product
over
another.
4
Our
industry
encourages
EPA
to
finalize
this
rule
5
as
soon
as
possible
taking
objective
approach
to
facts,
not
6
providing
unwarranted
preferential
treatment
to
laundered
7
wipes
where
it
is
not
supported
by
differences
and
potential
8
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
When
an
objective
9
approach
is
used,
we
are
confident
that
you
will
determine
10
that
equal
regulation
for
laundered
wipes
and
non­
laundered
11
wipes
is
appropriate.
This
will
have
significant
added
12
benefit
of
simplifying
the
rule,
making
the
compliance
much
13
easier
for
generator
and
resulting
in
increased
solvent
14
recovering
and
recycling.
It
is
vitally
important
to
dispel
15
the
myth
that
laundered
shop
towels
are
more
environmentally
16
friendly
than
non­
laundered
towels
or
wipes.
While
the
17
industrial
laundry
industry
has
done
a
good
job
of
PR,
the
18
facts
are
clear
and
prove
equal
potential
risks.
Therefore
19
conditions
of
rule
should
be
the
same
for
laundered
and
non­
20
laundered
wipes.
My
interest
in
being
here
today
is
to
21
encourage
the
EPA
to
keep
the
rule
as
simple
and
22
straightforward
as
possible.
Undue
requirements
measuring
23
will
only
complicate
the
rule
and
defeat
its
purpose.
I
see
24
clear
benefits
to
states
following
EPA=
s
lead,
adopting
this
25
cgg
22
rule.
In
virtually
every
state,
laundered
wipes
are
treated
1
as
exempt
while
non­
laundered
wipes
must
be
treated
as
2
hazardous
waste.
From
the
research
and
the
studies
that
have
3
been
completed,
this
fallacy
must
be
corrected.
For
far
too
4
long
the
laundry
powers
have
been
exempt
from
regulation.
5
This
dichotomy
is
a
result
of
lobbying
by
the
industrial
6
laundry
associations
and
their
members
at
the
state
level
7
where
they
have
used
rhetoric
that
because
laundered
wipers
8
are
reused,
they
are
being
recycled
and
are
therefore
aren=
t
9
waste.
They
argued
and
market
to
generators
that
laundered
10
wipes
are
environmentally
beneficial
compared
to
disposables
11
which
are
recycled.
Compared
to
disposables
because
they
are
12
recycled
and
help
to
keep
landfills
from
being
filled
up
by
13
disposable
wipers.
14
The
data
in
the
docket
clearly
shows
that
potential
15
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
the
same
for
16
both
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes.
While
others
will
17
address
this
in
greater
detail,
it
simply
makes
common
sense
18
that
the
solvents
on
laundered
wipes
don=
t
magically
19
disappear.
20
I
strongly
encourage
EPA
to
finalize
your
rule
that
21
will
have
one
set
of
conditions
for
laundered
and
non­
22
laundered
wipes.
This
will
appropriately
reflect
the
fact
23
that
potential
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
24
the
same
and
then
will
make
it
easier
for
the
hundreds
of
25
cgg
23
thousands
of
generators,
many
of
whom
are
small
businesses
to
1
understand
and
implement
their
operations.
2
Thank
you
very
much.
3
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
will
be
Carle
Shotwell
4
followed
by
Ed
Hopkins.
5
MR.
SHOTWELL:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Carle
6
Shotwell
and
I
am
Vice
President
of
Sales
and
Marketing
for
7
American
Fiber
and
Finishing.
We=
re
headquartered
in
8
Albemarle,
North
Carolina.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
9
speak
with
you
today
and
for
you
allowing
me
to
present
the
10
views
of
American
Fiber
and
Finishing
about
the
critical
11
importance
of
the
proposed
rule
to
modify
the
hazardous
waste
12
management
regulations
under
­­
which
appeared
in
the
13
November
20th,
2003
edition
of
the
Federal
Register.
14
I
would
specifically
like
to
comment
on
the
15
proposed
conditional
exclusions
from
the
hazardous
waste
and
16
solid
waste
for
solvent
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
17
American
Fiber
and
Finishing
is
a
privately
held,
vertically
18
integrated
textile
manufacturing
company.
We
are
a
small
19
business
as
defined
by
the
SBA
employing
less
than
500
20
employees.
We
have
been
a
textile
manufacturer
in
the
United
21
States
for
over
150
years.
During
that
time
our
company
has
22
manufactured
a
100
cotton,
woven
wiping
cloths
for
use
in
the
23
automotive,
aerospace,
medical,
graphic
arts
and
nuclear
24
power
industries.
And
also
by
the
United
States
Armed
25
cgg
24
Forces,
to
name
just
a
few.
Our
wiping
cloths
which
are
1
marketed
and
sold
under
the
registered
trademarks,
rumple
2
cloth
301
purified
wiping
cloth
and
pure
wipe
cheese
cloth
3
are
used
primarily
as
non­
laundered
industrial
wiping
cloths.
4
It
is
a
well
known
fact
that
the
textile
industry
5
in
the
United
States
of
America
is
under
siege
by
the
6
importation
of
cheap
textiles
from
unregulated,
low
cost
7
foreign
manufacturers.
AF&
F
is
in
the
forefront
of
this
8
battle
to
save
a
severely
wounded
domestic
textile
industry.
9
We
have
not
abandoned
the
belief
that
we
can
be
a
10
competitive
domestic
producer
in
the
current
global
11
marketplace
in
lieu
of
manufacturing
or
out
sourcing
our
12
woven
products
offshore.
On
the
contrary,
our
company
has
13
invested
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
over
the
last
ten
years
14
into
our
manufacturing
facilities
in
Newberry,
South
Carolina
15
and
Albemarle,
North
Carolina.
16
I
bring
this
fact
to
light
only
to
emphasize
the
17
point
that
under
current
hazardous
waste
management
18
regulations
our
non­
laundered
woven
wiping
cloths
are
being
19
discriminated
against
in
favor
of
laundered
rental
shop
20
towels
which
are
mostly
manufactured
offshore
and
imported
21
into
the
United
States
by
commercial
launders.
AF&
F=
s
22
business
in
the
industrial
wiping
market
has
declined
23
significantly
over
the
past
15
years.
Due
primarily
to
the
24
importation
and
use
of
laundered
foreign
shop
towels
that
are
25
cgg
25
not
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
that
are
placed
on
1
the
non­
laundered
wiping
cloths.
There
has
been
a
2
significant
migration
of
our
customer
base
to
laundered
shop
3
towels
in
order
to
avoid
their
cradle
to
grave
disposal
4
responsibilities.
5
Our
sales
and
marketing
efforts
are
focused
on
6
providing
the
end
user
or
generator
with
the
best
wiping
7
cloth
for
their
critical
wiping
processes.
Using
the
correct
8
wiper
can
dramatically
increase
the
efficiency
and
quality
of
9
the
wiping
process,
thereby
significantly
reducing
labor
and
10
manufacturing
costs
for
the
generator.
The
generator
cannot
11
currently
make
their
purchasing
decisions
based
on
12
traditional
factors
of
performance,
price,
quality
and
13
delivery.
Instead
they
make
their
purchasing
decisions
based
14
on
the
ease
of
avoiding
their
disposal
responsibilities.
Our
15
market
research
has
shown
that
generators
are
paying
a
16
premium
for
their
peace
of
mind.
17
In
one
study
of
the
Americap
Modification
and
18
Maintenance
Operation,
it
was
determined
that
the
generator
19
could
have
reduced
their
wiper
costs
significantly
by
using
20
one
of
our
non­
laundered
wiping
cloths
versus
the
laundered
21
shop
towel
they
were
using.
This
company
preferred
our
22
wiping
products
to
a
laundered
shop
towel
due
to
the
23
performance
of
our
wiper
and
the
associated
cost
savings.
24
The
only
reason
they
failed
to
make
the
conversion
was
their
25
cgg
26
additional
costs
and
liabilities
under
the
current
1
regulations.
2
This
is
a
common
objection
which
our
sales
people
3
encounter
in
the
marketplace.
Industrial
facilities
tend
to
4
use
laundry
shop
towels
instead
of
non­
laundered
wipers
5
because
shop
towels
are
not
subject
to
hazardous
waste
6
regulations.
The
non­
laundered
wipers
are
being
replaced
due
7
to
additional
cost
liability,
regulatory
burden
associated
8
with
current
regulation.
This
is
borne
out
by
the
EPA=
s
own
9
data
which
shows
laundered
shop
towels
have
almost
a
90
10
percent
share
of
the
industrial
wiping
market.
The
11
industrial
laundries
represented
by
the
TRSA
and
UTSA
have
12
certainly
not
ignored
the
unfair
advantage
they
enjoy
which
13
is
why
they
are
in
opposition
to
the
rule.
14
The
passage
of
the
proposed
rule
would
undermine
15
the
primary
marketing
technique
that
industrial
launders
16
employ
to
instill
fear
in
the
generators.
They
will
solely
17
bear
the
costs
and
liabilities
currently
associated
with
a
18
non­
laundered
wiping
products.
Passage
of
the
rule
would
19
force
them
to
significantly
alter
their
price
instruction
in
20
order
to
be
competitive
in
the
marketplace
with
the
non­
21
laundered
wiping
products.
22
American
Fiber
and
Finishing
urges
EPA
to
finalize
23
the
rule
as
quickly
as
possible
because
it
will
level
the
24
playing
field
that
has
been
favorable
on
their
shop
towels
25
cgg
27
for
years.
All
the
research
that
I=
ve
read
to
date
confirms
1
that
by
passing
the
proposed
rule
EPA
will
ensure
the
2
adequate
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
You
3
will
further
improve
the
recycling
and
conservation
of
4
hazardous
solvents
which
are
the
true
culprits
of
any
5
environmental
risk
associated
with
all
wipers
that
are
6
utilized
with
hazardous
solvents.
The
EPA
will
promote
7
improved
compliance
at
the
generator
through
simplifying
the
8
regulation
will
erasing
the
inequities
and
ambiguities
9
present
under
the
current
regulations.
10
I=
ll
submit
the
balance
of
my
comments
in
writing.
11
But
we
urge
you
to
finalize
this
rule
quickly
and
it
would
12
do
a
lot
to
alleviate
the
problems
that
our
company
is
13
currently
facing.
Thank
you.
14
MS.
ATAGI:
Next
speaker
will
be
Ed
Hopkins
followed
15
by
Larry
Liden.
16
MR.
HOPKINS:
Good
morning
and
thank
you
for
the
17
opportunity
to
speak
here
today.
My
name
is
Ed
Hopkins.
I=
m
18
the
Director
of
the
Environmental
Quality
Program
at
the
19
Sierra
Club.
My
comments
today
focus
on
the
proposal
to
20
exclude
reusable
contaminated
industrial
wipes
from
the
21
definition
of
solid
waste.
22
When
the
EPA
withdrew
it=
s
proposed
rule
to
23
establish
effluent
limitation
guidelines
for
the
industrial
24
laundry
industry,
it
concludes
that
local
waste
water
25
cgg
28
treatment
plants
had
the
authority
to
set
local
limits
to
1
address
any
toxins
problems
that
may
come
from
industrial
2
laundries.
Any
problems
could
be
addressed
at
the
local
3
level
they
said.
Local
POTWs
certainly
do
have
the
authority
4
to
address
solvent
discharges,
but
that
has
not
prevented
5
serious
problems
from
recurring.
For
example,
in
Traverse
6
City,
Michigan
an
industrial
laundry
exceeded
local
pre­
7
treatment
limits
for
solvents
and
on
multiple
occasions
in
8
2002.
In
Branford,
Connecticut,
the
Connecticut
Department
9
of
Environmental
Protection
has
sued
an
industrial
laundry
10
for
hundreds
of
Clean
Water
Act
violations
including
11
exceedances
of
solvent
permit
limits.
An
industrial
laundry
12
in
Central
Islip,
New
York
violated
limits
for
lead
and
other
13
metals
and
acids
in
2001,
2002.
14
Far
from
being
isolated
examples,
the
violations
of
15
limits
established
in
local
pre­
treatment
ordinances
seems
16
common
at
many
industrial
laundries.
Sierra
Club
is
aware
of
17
dozens
of
industrial
laundries
across
the
country
that
have
18
violated
local
pre­
treatment
limits.
When
EPA
withdrew
the
19
proposed
effluent
limitation
guidelines,
they
concluded
and
20
I=
m
quoting
from
the
records
here.
A
EPA
believes
that
for
21
this
industry,
the
best
way
to
control
effluent
discharges
of
22
certain
organic
pollutants
is
to
remove
the
pollutants
which
23
are
contained
on
the
laundry
items
before
they
are
washed.
24
Sierra
Club
strongly
supports
the
notion
of
removing
toxic
25
cgg
29
contaminants
before
washing.
In
early
2000
it
appeared
that
1
the
EPA
was
considering
regulatory
proposals
that
would
have
2
moved
in
that
direction.
Unfortunately,
the
proposed
rules
3
conditions
far
short
of
the
controls
needed
to
protect
4
workers
and
the
environment
than
the
solvents
used
in
5
conjunction
with
industrial
wipes.
6
EPA=
s
analysis
focuses
on
the
wipes,
not
on
the
7
solvent
in
the
wipes.
And,
in
our
view,
that
focus
is
8
misplaced.
It=
s
the
solvent
waste
on
the
used
wipes
that
9
merits
EPA=
s
attention,
not
the
fact
that
the
wipes
are
10
reused.
When
solvent
contaminated
industrial
wipes
are
11
returned
to
the
laundry
for
cleaning,
the
laundry
discards
12
the
solvent
waste
contaminating
the
wipe
usually
by
13
discharging
that
to
a
publicly
owned
waste
water
treatment
14
plant.
Watering
the
contaminated
wipes
is
not
a
method
of
15
recycling
the
solvents
on
the
wipes.
It=
s
a
type
of
16
disposal.
17
Our
second
concern
is
that
the
record
does
not
18
demonstrate
the
substantial
reclamation
of
solvent
19
contaminated
industrial
wipes
typically
takes
place.
No
free
20
liquids
condition
that
the
EPA
is
proposing
would
not
meet
21
the
processing
test
required
for
an
exemption.
In
fact,
the
22
proposed
rule
does
not
require
any
processing
by
the
23
generator.
The
no
free
liquid
standard
merely
requires
that
24
no
liquid
solvent
may
drip
from
contaminated
wipes
and
that
25
cgg
30
there
is
no
liquid
solvent
in
the
container
holding
the
1
wipes.
The
proposal
does
not
impose
any
requirements
on
the
2
generators
to
test
the
wipes
to
make
sure
that
they
meet
the
3
standards.
Generators
simply
have
the
option
to
use
their
4
knowledge
of
the
processes
to
determine
that
their
wipes
5
contain
no
free
liquids.
6
Instead,
the
EPA
should
require
processing
of
the
7
wipes
to
remove
a
substantial
percentage
of
the
solvent
8
before
it=
s
returned
to
the
laundry.
The
EPA=
s
technical
9
background
document
shows
that
centrifuging
is
capable
of
10
achieving
between
76
and
99
percent
solvent
removal.
The
EPA
11
should
require
the
generators
remove
as
much
solvent
as
12
technically
possible
to
avoid
worker
exposure
and
13
dissemination
of
hazardous
waste
throughout
the
environment.
14
That
centrifuging
may
be
beyond
the
means
of
some
facilities
15
that
generate
solvent
contaminated
wipes
should
not
preclude
16
the
EPA
from
requiring
it
of
the
larger
solvent
users.
Even
17
smaller
users
ought
to
be
able
to
take
some
steps
to
extract
18
solvents
from
the
wipes.
19
The
EPA
also
fails
to
satisfy
another
test
for
20
excluding
solvent
contaminated
industrial
wipes
from
the
21
definition
of
solid
waste.
That
initial
reclamation
22
increases
the
value
of
the
material.
Again,
the
proposed
23
rule
imposes
no
requirements
of
reclamation
upon
the
24
generator,
only
the
no
free
liquid
standard.
Therefore
there
25
cgg
31
is
no
reclamation
to
add
value
to
the
wipes.
Instead
it=
s
1
the
laundries
that
add
to
the
value
to
the
contaminated
wipes
2
by
treating
them
and
discarding
the
waste
solvents.
3
To
exclude
these
wastes
from
the
definition
of
4
solid
waste,
EPA
must
also
determine
that
the
material
is
5
handled
in
a
way
to
minimize
loss.
The
condition
EPA
has
6
proposed
for
container
transport,
however,
suggests
that
7
solvents
will
escape
from
containers
and
risk
to
workers
and
8
the
environment
are
a
likely
result.
The
EPA
has
proposed
a
9
standard
that
containers
be
designed,
constructed,
and
10
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
EPA
claims
that
11
plastic
or
cloth
bags
that
were
since
shut
should
also
meet
12
this
condition.
But
because
of
the
no
free
liquid
standard,
13
wipes
that
may
not
initially
drip
as
they=
re
quickly
removed
14
from
one
container
to
another
are
likely
to
yield
some
liquid
15
solvents
at
the
bottom
of
the
container.
Allowing
for
16
transport
in
a
porous
cloth
bag
may
allow
for
leaks
of
17
solvents
and
expose
laundry
workers
to
air
emissions
as
these
18
chemicals
volatilize.
19
We
also
think
that
if
EPA
goes
forward
with
this
20
there
should
be
a
record
keeping
and
recording
provision
in
21
the
rule.
Given
the
plausity
of
EPA=
s
enforcement
resources,
22
record
keeping
requirements
are
essential
to
hold
generators
23
and
laundries
accountable.
Especially
if
EPA
retains
the
24
locally
lax
standard
for
no
free
liquids,
it
should
require
25
cgg
32
both
generators
and
laundries
to
certify
that
there
are
no
1
free
liquids
at
the
bottom
of
the
container.
2
We
applaud
EPA
for
suggesting
that
solvent
3
extraction
and
pollution
prevention
are
essential.
However,
4
we
don=
t
think
that
this
rule
does
anything
to
move
in
that
5
direction.
Innovation
occurs
when
there
are
stringent
and
6
well
enforced
environmental
protection
rules
that
compel
7
waste
generators
to
look
for
options
to
reduce
the
use
of
8
toxic
chemicals.
The
Sierra
Club
urges
EPA
not
to
proceed
9
with
this
proposed
conditional
exclusion
and
instead
go
back
10
to
the
framework
that
it
was
discussing
in
early
2000
that
11
required
reclamation
of
the
solvents
at
least
by
wringing
12
before
transport.
It
also
required
closed
containers
for
13
transportation.
14
From
the
perspective
of
protecting
workers
in
the
15
environment,
EPA=
s
current
proposal
is
far
worse
in
every
16
respect
than
what
the
Agency
was
considering
just
a
few
years
17
ago.
We
urge
the
EPA
to
make
significant
extraction
of
18
solvents
at
the
generator
site,
the
basis
for
any
exemption
19
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
20
Thank
you.
21
MS.
ATAGI:
An
adjustment
in
the
speaking
schedule.
22
The
next
speaker
will
be
Congresswoman
Rosa
DeLauro
to
be
23
followed
by
Larry
Liden
and
Marci
Kinter.
24
CONGRESSWOMAN
DeLAURO:
Thank
you
very
much
and
25
cgg
33
thank
you
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
testify
this
1
morning
on
EPA=
s
proposal
on
shop
towels.
As
a
member
of
the
2
Congress
representing
more
than
680,000
people
in
3
Connecticut=
s
Third
Congressional
District,
I=
m
extremely
4
concerned
about
EPA=
s
proposal
to
exempt
industrial
laundry
5
companies
from
federal
hazardous
and
solid
waste
requirements
6
for
so­
called
shop
towels
contaminated
with
toxic
chemicals.
7
I
understand
that
industries
such
as
printing
facilities
and
8
manufacturing
shops
use
these
specialized
industrial
wipes
9
soaked
in
solvents
to
clean
machinery
and
other
equipment.,
10
It
is
estimated
that
as
many
as
164,000
businesses
in
the
11
United
States
use
approximately
3.8
billion
shop
towels
12
soaked
in
toxic
solvents
each
year.
EPA
estimates
that
these
13
wipes
contain
approximately
75,000
to
100,000
tons
of
14
solvent.
Most
of
these
towels
are
sent
to
laundries
to
be
15
cleaned
of
the
solvents
and
returned.
A
conservative
16
estimate
of
the
residual
solvent
indicates
that
as
few
as
ten
17
used
shop
towels
could
produce
one
pound
of
waste
solvent.
18
Given
that
more
than
three
billion
towels
are
being
sent
to
19
laundries
annually,
the
amount
of
solvent
discharged
from
20
laundries
can
be
roughly
estimated
to
be
in
the
millions
of
21
pounds
every
year.
22
Solvents
often
found
on
shop
towels
include
23
benzene,
a
recognized
carcinogen,
developmental
and
24
reproductive
toxin
known
to
pose
serious
health
risks.
The
25
cgg
34
effects
of
solvents
such
as
benzene
fall
most
heavily
for
the
1
laundry
workers
and
drivers
that
handle
them,
be
it
in
cloth
2
bags
or
other
opened
containers.
And
it
is
not
only
workers
3
who
handle
these
towels
who
are
exposed
to
these
chemicals
4
and
their
often
harmful
side
effects,
so
to
is
the
public
5
where
laundries
dump
these
chemicals
into
their
waste
waters
6
causing
serious
air
and
water
pollution
in
surrounding
7
communities
and
waterways.
8
To
give
you
an
idea
of
the
severity
of
the
problem,
9
if
only
half
of
the
100,000
tons
of
solvent
makes
it
into
the
10
washing
machines
at
laundries,
that
means
about
860,055
11
gallon
drums
of
toxic
solvents
are
being
dumped
into
the
12
nation=
s
waste
water
stream
every
single
year.
My
concern
is
13
that
EPA=
s
exemption
will
open
up
loopholes
in
federal
14
hazardous
waste
regulations
ordinarily
used
by
government
15
agencies
and
employers
to
protect
workers
and
the
environment
16
from
toxic
materials.
17
In
particular
the
EPA
proposal
fails
to
include
two
18
critical
provisions
that
I
understand
the
Agency
was
19
considering
as
late
as
June
of
2000.
That
proposal
would
20
have
prevented
solvents
from
entering
the
waste
water
stream
21
and
protecting
workers
by
requiring
towels
to
remain
in
22
closed
containers
throughout
the
transportation
to
the
23
washing
machines.
24
Let
me
take
a
moment
to
speak
about
the
Cintas
25
cgg
35
Corporation
and
why
I
think
they
are
an
example
of
why
these
1
tougher
remedies
are
required.
With
over
a
half
million
2
customers
and
nearly
2.3
billion
dollars
in
annual
sales,
3
Cintas
controls
a
third
of
the
uniform
market
and
its
market
4
share
is
growing
as
it
acquires
more
industrial
laundries
5
throughout
the
country.
The
nation=
s
largest
industrial
6
laundry
company,
Cintas
is
also
one
of
the
biggest
processors
7
of
shop
towels.
In
2000
the
Connecticut
Department
of
8
Environmental
Protection
sued
the
Cintas
plant
in
Branford,
9
Connecticut
which
is
located
in
my
district
for
250
10
violations
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
which
occurred
between
11
September
1994
and
April
2000.
12
These
charges
included
excessive
emissions
of
13
cancer
causing
solvents
like
methylene
chloride,
14
tetrachloroethyene
and
other
solvents
such
as
15
methylethylketone
and
metals
such
as
lead
and
cadmium.
16
Right
now
Cintas
awaits
a
pending
trial
to
address
the
17
charges
in
our
state=
s
Superior
Court.
But
we
only
need
to
18
look
at
the
company=
s
environmental
record
elsewhere
in
the
19
country
to
understand
how
seriously
Cintas
takes
these
20
alleged
violations.
In
Michigan,
Traver
City
forced
Cintas
21
to
stop
handling
shop
towels
in
September
2002
after
ten
22
violations
of
the
emissions
limits
for
organic
solvents.
23
Rather
than
commit
to
compliance
with
city
law,
Cintas
opted
24
to
move
its
operations
to
Grand
Rapids
which
has
no
limits
25
cgg
36
required
for
waste
water
contaminants
for
monitoring
for
1
toxic
solvents.
It
is
clear,
however,
that
regulations
at
2
the
state
level
is
not
enough
either.
3
Following
the
enforcement
efforts
by
the
4
Connecticut
DEP,
the
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
5
Cintas
stopped
processing
shop
towels
in
Branford
and
moved
6
its
shop
towel
operations
to
its
plant
in
Pittsfield,
7
Massachusetts.
In
essence,
rather
than
comply
with
the
8
regulators,
the
company
opts
time
and
time
again
to
move
9
operations
elsewhere,
be
it
another
city,
another
state
10
until,
of
course,
regulators
cite
the
company
for
similar
11
violations.
The
bottom
line
is
that
regulations
proposed
12
today
by
the
EPA
will
not
do
anything
to
change
Cintas=
13
behavior
or
the
behavior
of
similar
companies.
If
anything,
14
but
not
holding
laundry
companies
accountable
for
waste
water
15
and
environmental
violations,
the
EPA
will,
in
fact,
16
encourage
such
behavior.
17
Roughly,
let
me
say
a
word
about
how
all
this
18
affects
workers
at
these
laundries.
Many
of
them
are
19
immigrants,
hard­
working
people
who
have
come
to
this
country
20
in
search
of
the
better
life
for
their
families,
a
living
21
wage
and
the
opportunity
to
share
the
American
dream.
The
22
jobs
at
companies
like
Cintas
are
hardly
glamorous.
Workers
23
at
Cintas=
Branford
plant
have
no
pension
plan.
Health
care
24
for
their
family
coverage
costs
$
400
per
month
which
is
25
cgg
37
nearly
impossible
to
pay
on
an
$
8
hourly
wage.
In
the
last
1
20
years
OSHA
has
cited
Cintas
for
multiple
serious
safety
2
and
health
violations,
more
than
100
violations
of
OSHA
3
standards.
Out
of
Branford
plant
alone,
these
have
included
4
countless
management
failures
involving
worker
training,
5
protection
from
hazardous
materials
and
personal
protective
6
equipment.
One
such
potential
violation
concerned
former
7
Cintas
worker
Mark
Fragola
whose
doctors
believe
he
may
have
8
been
seriously
injured
by
his
work
with
shop
towels
in
9
Branford.
As
you=
ll
be
hearing
from
Mr.
Fragola
later
today,
10
his
injuries
required
surgery
in
his
sinuses.
His
medical
11
bills
have
cost
him
to
incur
substantial
debt.
Mr.
Fragola=
s
12
case
has
brought
the
most
public
example
of
a
laundry
worker
13
whose
life
has
been
changed
because
of
prolonged
exposure
to
14
solvents
in
the
workplace.
15
With
this
rulemaking,
I
believe
EPA
has
an
16
obligation
to
protect
workers
like
him,
workers
who
are
only
17
trying
to
do
their
jobs.
As
such,
I
believe
EPA
must
18
reconsider
the
options
that
it
had
previously
rejected.
19
Those
include
more
comprehensive
collection,
recycling
of
20
toxic
solvents
of
factories,
closing
containers
for
21
transporting
solvent
soaked
towels
and
better
training
of
22
workers
about
the
chemical
hazards
of
shop
towels
solvents.
23
These
steps
are
a
matter
of
good
environmental
stewardship,
a
24
matter
of
public
health.
The
very
least
we
can
do
for
a
25
cgg
38
laundry
worker,
I
urge
the
adoption
of
them
and
I
would
like
1
to
again
say
thank
you
to
the
EPA
and
the
Office
of
Solid
2
Waste
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
testify
before
you
3
today.
4
Thank
you
very
much.
Excuse
my
voice.
I
have
a
5
cold.
6
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
is
Larry
Liden
followed
7
by
Marci
Kinter
and
Peter
Mayberry.
8
MR.
LIDEN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Larry
Liden.
9
I=
m
a
Senior
Environmental
Scientist
for
Constellation
Energy
10
Group
in
Baltimore,
Maryland.
I=
m
here
today
on
behalf
of
11
the
Utilities
Solid
Waste
Group
otherwise
known
as
USWAG.
12
USWAG
is
an
informal
association
of
approximately
80
electric
13
utility
operating
companies
located
throughout
the
United
14
States
and
their
trade
associations.
Together,
USWAG
members
15
represent
more
than
85
percent
of
the
total
electric
16
generation
capacity
in
the
United
States.
I
serve
as
the
17
Chairman
of
USWAG=
s
Low
Volume
Waste
Committee,
the
technical
18
committee
responsible
for
most
of
the
subtitle
C
issues
that
19
affect
our
industry.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
20
today
on
behalf
of
USWAG
and
our
members
which
is
a
key
21
industry
stakeholder
on
these
important
issues
of
the
22
proposed
conditions
of
exclusion
for
solvent
contaminated
23
waste.
24
As
background,
since
its
formation
in
1978,
USWAG
25
cgg
39
has
participated
in
virtually
every
record
rulemaking
that
1
the
Agency
has
brought
forth.
We
have
represented
our
2
members=
viewpoints
on
these
rulemakings
and
in
the
effort
to
3
develop
cost
effective
practical
and
environmental
protective
4
hazardous
waste
regulatory
program.
Of
special
relevance
to
5
this
rulemaking,
many
USWAG
member
companies
generate
solvent
6
contaminated
rags
and
wipes
in
the
course
of
generating
and
7
distributing
electricity
and
natural
gas.
In
many
cases,
8
these
wipes
are
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
in
the
9
home
state.
Therefore,
USWAG
has
long
been
supportive
of
10
EPA=
s
efforts
to
establish
more
streamlined,
practical
and
11
cost­
effective
regulatory
programs
for
handling
these
12
materials.
USWAG
believes
that
EPA=
s
proposal
is
definitely
13
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
We
fully
agree
with
EPA=
s
14
findings
that
from
a
risk
management
perspective,
moving
15
forward
with
the
proposed
conditional
exclusions
is
fully
16
warranted
because
of
management
of
the
wipes
in
accordance
17
with
certain
minimal,
good
management
practices
will
ensure
18
that
they
do
not
pose
a
potential
hazard
to
human
health
and
19
the
environment
and
such
do
not
warrant
full
hazardous
waste
20
regulation.
USWAG
also
supports
EPA
attempt
to
develop
21
management
standards
that
for
the
most
part
are
intended
to
22
provide
the
regulated
community
with
as
much
flexibility
as
23
possible
to
qualify
for
the
exclusions.
24
We
think
this
type
of
practical
performance
based
25
cgg
40
approach
is
absolutely
critical
in
a
rulemaking
of
this
1
nature
where
there
are
literally
thousands
of
generators
2
involved
in
many
different
businesses
who
may
be
interested
3
in
managing
their
wipes
under
the
conditional
exclusions.
4
While
USWAG
supports
the
broad
aspects
of
this
5
important
regulatory
initiative,
there
is
always
room
for
6
improvement.
I
would
like
to
briefly
touch
on
three
issues
7
that
we
believe
should
be
corrected
or
modified
in
the
final
8
rule.
USWAG
will
be
following
up
on
these
items
and
other
9
issues
in
our
written
comments
which
we
will
provide
at
a
10
late
date.
11
Our
first
concern
is
of
a
scoping
nature.
In
12
particular,
the
proposed
regulatory
text
setting
forth
the
13
scope
of
the
conditional
exclusions
appears
to
be
narrower
14
than
the
scope
of
the
rules
as
they=
re
explained
in
the
15
preamble.
Inadvertently
excluding
an
important
category
of
16
solvent
contaminated
wipes
from
the
rule.
Specifically,
EPA
17
explains
in
the
preamble
that
the
rule
will
encompass
one,
18
A
Industrial
wipes
exhibiting
a
hazardous
characteristic,
19
i.
e.,
ignitability,
corrosivivity,
reactivity
or
toxicity
due
20
to
use
with
solvents
and
two,
industrial
wipes
contaminated
21
with
S01
to
S05
spent
­­
solvents
or
compared
with
P
and
­­
22
commercial
chemical
products
that
are
spilled
and
cleaned
up
23
with
industrial
wipes.
At
68
Fed.
Register
65589,
left
hand
24
column.
In
other
words,
it
is
clear
that
EPA
intends
for
the
25
cgg
41
conditional
exclusions
to
apply
not
only
to
industrial
wipes
1
contaminated
with
Fless
solvents
or
comparable
commercial
2
chemicals,
but
also
to
any
other
industrial
wipe
contaminated
3
by
a
solvent
that
causes
the
wipe
to
exhibit
a
hazardous
4
characteristic.
This
makes
perfect
sense
as
there
are
wipes
5
contaminated
with
certain
solvents
that
while
the
solvents
6
are
nonetheless
cause
the
wipes
to
exhibit
a
hazardous
7
characteristic
such
as
ignitability.
The
problem
however,
is
8
that
the
proposed
regulatory
text
identifies
only
wipes
9
contaminated
with
those
Fless
and
solvents
or
a
comparable
10
period
listed
commercial
chemical
products
as
falling
within
11
the
scope
of
the
rule.
12
We
do
not
believe
this
was
EPA=
s
intent
and
13
therefore
we
feel
it
is
important
for
EPA
to
ensure
that
the
14
final
regulatory
text
includes
all
wipes
exhibiting
a
15
hazardous
characteristic
due
to
contamination
by
any
solvent,
16
not
just
F­
less
solvents.
17
Our
second
comment
also
involves
a
scoping
issue.
18
In
particular
we
suggested
EPA
include
within
the
rule
scope
19
work
protective
clothing
such
as
gloves,
coveralls
and
shirts
20
that
like
wipes
also
become
contaminated
with
solvents
and
21
must
be
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
Workers
in
a
wide
22
variety
of
industry,
not
only
the
electric
utility
or
gas
23
utility
industry,
using
industrial
wipes
in
conjunction
with
24
personal
protection
clothing
such
as
coveralls,
gloves
and
25
cgg
42
this
clothing
also
often
becomes
contaminated
with
the
1
solvents
that
contaminates
the
wipes.
We
think
the
same
2
rationale
underlying
the
proposed
exclusion
for
solvent
3
contaminated
wipes
should
also
apply
to
protective
clothing
4
contaminated
with
the
same
solvents.
5
Indeed,
they
are
generally
cloth
like
materials
6
just
like
the
wipes
and
are
in
most
cases
managed
exactly
in
7
the
same
fashion.
Equally
important,
when
this
protective
8
clothing
becomes
contaminated,
we=
re
confronted
with
the
same
9
regulatory
quagmire
on
the
record
that
has
led
EPA
to
pursue
10
this
rulemaking
forcibly
for
the
solvent
contaminated
wipes.
11
We
believe
that
management
of
protective
clothing
in
12
accordance
with
the
proposed
management
conditions
for
wipes
13
will
ensure
that
those
materials
will
not
pose
a
hazard
to
14
human
health
and
environment.
We
urge
you
at
EPA
to
include
15
the
worker
protective
clothing
in
this
rulemaking.
16
My
last
point
concerns
one
of
the
proposed
17
conditions
that
we
believe
is
unworkable,
unnecessary
and
18
should
be
dropped
from
the
final
rule.
USWAG
believes
that
19
EPA
should
abandon
the
dry
condition
for
the
disposable
20
wipes.
We
already
have
spoken
with
many
of
the
members
21
operating
in
different
states
across
the
country,
and
every
22
member
consulted
thus
far
agrees
that
requiring
generators
to
23
remove
excess
solvents
to
achieve
a
maximum
solvent
residue
24
of
five
grams
of
solvent
per
wipe
or
requiring
every
wipe
to
25
cgg
43
go
through
some
type
of
solvent
extraction
process
is
1
completely
impractical
and
could
effectively
undermine
the
2
disposal
portion
of
this
rule.
3
We
would
like
to
point
out
to
the
Agency
that
4
literally
thousands
of
generators,
all
different
types
within
5
industry
generate
solvent
contaminated
wipes.
When
6
attempting
to
develop
a
one
size
fits
all
approach
for
such
a
7
large
and
diverse
universe
generators,
not
unlike
the
scope
8
of
EPA=
s
universal
waste
rules,
the
imposition
would
inflict
9
an
inflexible
volumetric
limit
on
each
individual
wipe
would
10
simply
be
too
burdensome.
11
To
conclude
USWAG
recommends
that
EPA
drop
the
dry
12
condition
altogether
and
replace
it
with
a
no
free
liquids
13
condition
that
EPA
proposed
to
apply
to
wipes
only
sent
for
14
laundering.
Using
the
low
free
liquids
condition
as
a
15
universal
condition
for
both
disposal
and
reusable
will
offer
16
generators
a
far
simpler,
less
confusing
and
more
practical
17
method
for
disposal
of
their
wipes.
18
On
behalf
of
USWAG,
thank
you
again
for
the
19
opportunity
to
participate
and
I
want
to
thank
you
again.
20
MS.
ATAGI:
The
next
speaker
is
Marci
Kinter
to
be
21
followed
be
Peter
Mayberry
and
Ralph
Solarski.
22
MS.
KINTER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Marci
Kinter
23
and
I=
m
the
Vice
President
of
Government
Affairs
for
the
24
Speciality
Graphic
Imaging
Association
International,
25
cgg
44
formerly
the
Screen
Printing
Graphic
Imaging
Association.
1
SGIA
represents
the
interests
of
the
screen
printing
and
2
digital
imaging
communities
and
their
associated
supplier
3
base.
There
are
over
50,000
screen
printing
and
digital
4
imaging
facilities
operating
in
the
United
States
with
an
5
average
employment
size
of
15.
All
of
these
facilities
use
6
shop
towels
and
wipes
as
part
of
their
operation.
Within
the
7
screen
and
digital
community,
both
reusable
and
disposable
8
towels
are
used,
but
predominantly
disposable
towels
and
9
wipes.
10
SGIA
has
long
been
supportive
of
the
Agency=
s
11
effort
to
develop
and
propose
a
rule
addressing
the
handling
12
of
the
disposal
of
solvent
contaminated
rags
and
wipes.
Over
13
the
years
the
printing
industry
has
continued
to
identify
the
14
ambiguity
of
the
state
policies
as
they
apply
to
both
15
disposable
and
reusable
solvent
contaminated
wipes
as
a
major
16
concern.
Due
to
the
fact
that
the
handling
and
disposal
of
17
such
materials
are
dictated
by
policy
rather
than
regulation,
18
many
states
were
led
to
develop
their
own,
also
conflicting
19
policies.
It
has
long
been
our
intention
to
encourage
the
US
20
EPA
to
establish
a
federal
regulation
that
levels
the
playing
21
field
and
provides
an
element
of
consistency
to
this
issue.
22
Overall,
we
feel
that
the
proposed
language
does
indeed
23
create
that
level
playing
field.
24
We
also
agree
with
the
Agency=
s
decision
to
address
25
cgg
45
both
reusable
and
disposables
in
the
proposed
language.
The
1
inclusion
of
both
satisfies
a
long
term
goal
of
the
printing
2
industry
which
is
to
essentially
codify
the
existing
policy
3
regarding
handling
of
reusable
towels
and
address
the
issue
4
of
disposal
towels
and
wipes.
Due
to
our
time
constraints
5
today,
I
will
limit
my
comments
to
several
issues
surrounding
6
the
Agency=
s
proposal
for
disposable
wipes.
We
will
be
7
providing
written
comments
that
will
provide
greater
details
8
as
well
as
address
several
other
key
issues.
9
The
printing
industry
has
long
advocated
that
10
disposables,
due
to
their
final
destination
need
to
meet
a
11
more
stringent
standard
then
reusable
towels.
However,
we
do
12
feel
that
once
the
standard
has
been
set
with
sufficient
13
safeguards,
the
regulatory
burden
on
the
generating
facility
14
should
be
minimal.
This,
too,
has
been
one
of
our
15
longstanding
goals.
Whatever
is
proposed
and
adopted
by
the
16
Agency
regarding
disposable
shop
towels
must
be
easy
to
17
implement
and
inexpensive.
18
We
do
appreciate
and
support
the
Agency=
s
use
of
a
19
performance
based
approach
to
the
standard.
Overall,
we
find
20
that
the
requirements
set
forth
can
be
implemented
by
the
21
industry.
However,
we
do
have
several
concerns
that
we
wish
22
to
raise.
23
First,
the
Agency
has
proposed
to
require
that
24
disposal
towels
destined
to
be
managed
at
a
non
landfill
25
cgg
46
disposal
facility
be
labeled
excluded
solvent
contaminated
1
wipes.
We
disagree
with
the
imposition
of
this
requirement.
2
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
requires
that
all
3
hazardous
materials
shipped
be
properly
labeled.
Disposal
4
towels
that
are
indeed
hazardous
materials
as
defined
by
the
5
U.
S.
DOT
would
require
a
label
on
the
container.
If
the
6
towels
do
not
require
a
label,
then
it
indicates
that
the
7
materials
are
not
considered
hazardous,
i.
e.
ignitable,
8
corrosive,
etc.
As
the
U.
S.
DOT
provides
for
both
labeling
9
of
combustible
as
well
as
flammable
materials
all
disposables
10
that
require
a
label
will
receive
one.
11
The
Agency
in
its
discussion
on
this
section
does
12
indicate
that
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
includes
13
a
variety
of
labeling
options
dependent
on
materials
being
14
shipped.
This
type
of
label
should
be
sufficient
to
inform
15
the
non­
landfill
site
as
to
the
types
of
materials
received.
16
Due
to
this
existing
regulatory
requirement,
we
do
not
find
17
the
need
for
an
additional
US
EPA
label
is
justified,
nor
18
would
it
provide
any
information
that
would
not
be
provided
19
by
the
US
DOT
label
and
shipping
paper.
20
Additionally,
we
do
not
understand
the
need
to
21
dispose
of
towels
in
separately
labeled
containers
if
the
dry
22
standard
of
five
grams
is
met.
As
a
standard
goal
of
this
23
proposal
is
to
encourage
pollution
prevention
and
waste
24
minimization.
The
inclusion
of
a
separate
container
and
25
cgg
47
labeling
standard
for
disposable
towels
destined
to
be
land
1
filled
will
inhibit,
not
encourage
pollution
prevention.
We
2
fail
to
see
the
benefit
of
requiring
facilities
to
take
this
3
step
when
disposing
of
towels
that
meet
the
dry
standard.
4
This
standard
was
chosen
because
it
falls
within
the
range
5
indicating
that
no
substantial
hazard
to
fume
and
health
and
6
the
environment
would
be
posed
as
confirmed
by
the
Agency=
s
7
risk
screening
analysis.
8
To
meet
this
standards
EPA
is
requiring
that
the
9
facilities
need
to
either
utilize
high
performance
solvent
10
extracting
technologies,
maintain
records
regarding
the
11
amount
of
solvent
is
less
than
five
grams,
or
conduct
12
sampling
to
ensure
the
dry
standard
is
met,
or
sample
the
13
amount
of
solvent
remaining
on
the
towels
meets
the
14
standards.
All
are
rigorous
tests
designed
to
assist
15
facilities
in
meeting
the
dry
standard.
We
believe
that
if
16
disposables
contaminated
with
a
hazardous
solvent
meet
the
17
dry
standard
then
they
should
be
allowed
direct
disposal
into
18
the
landfill.
19
There
are
precedents
set
on
other
EPA
regulatory
20
actions.
The
empty
container
standard
allows
for
the
direct
21
disposal
containers
that
contain
no
more
than
one
inch
of
22
product.
40
C.
F.
R.
261.7(
b)(
1)
provides
specific
23
instructions
as
to
how
a
container
is
to
be
emptied.
This
24
regulation
clearly
states
that
if
a
container
meets
these
25
cgg
48
criteria,
then
it
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
1
contained
in
40
C.
F.
R.
261
through
265
including
the
2
standards
set
out
for
hazardous
waste
generators.
3
We
also
find
another
analogous
situation
involving
4
the
regulation
of
non­
term
flated
use
oil
filters.
Under
40
5
C.
F.
R.
261.4(
b)(
13)
oil
filters
that
meet
a
specific
6
performance
standard
to
remove
used
oil
can
be
disposed
of
as
7
a
solid
waste.
There
are
no
labeling
or
special
container
8
requirements.
We
believe
that
disposal
of
the
one
time
use
9
shop
towel
is
similar.
And
the
standards
set
forth
by
the
10
Agency
are
more
stringent
as
a
specific
dry
standard
has
been
11
proposed.
Similar
to
the
requirements
set
forth
that
12
determine
an
empty
container
and
an
empty
oil
filter,
we
13
believe
that
the
five
gram
limit
constitutes
a
similar
14
standard
denoting
that
a
shop
towel
is
empty.
The
additional
15
labeling
and
container
requirements
imposed
for
disposable
16
towels
represent
an
additional
regulatory
burden
that
we
fill
17
is
not
justified
based
on
previous
Agency
rulemakings
or
the
18
risk
analysis
conducted
by
the
Agency.
Imposition
of
the
dry
19
standard
meets
the
requirement
to
minimize
environmental
20
releases.
21
There
are
other
issues
we
would
like
to
raise
22
regarding
the
proposed
language.
However,
due
to
today=
s
23
time
constraint,
we
will
address
them
in
written
comments.
24
It
is
our
hope
that
the
Agency
will
move
forward
in
a
timely
25
cgg
49
manner
to
complete
and
issue
this
rule
as
final.
Thank
you
1
very
much.
2
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
will
be
Peter
Mayberry
3
followed
by
Ralph
Solarski.
And
after
Mr.
Solarski=
s
4
testimony
will
have
a
brief
ten
minute
recess.
5
MR.
MAYBERRY:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Peter
6
Mayberry
and
I
serve
as
Director
of
Government
Affairs
for
7
INDA
Association
of
the
Nonwoven
Fabrics
Industry.
INDA
is
8
the
recognized
trade
association
of
the
nonwoven
fabrics
9
industry
and
nonwovens
are
used
extensively
in
the
10
manufacture
of
non­
laundered
industrial
wiping
products.
And
11
I
use
the
term
non­
laundered
because
most
of
the
industrial
12
wiping
products
manufactured
by
INDA
member
companies
can
be
13
wrung
out
and
reused
numerous
times.
They
are
typically
not
14
single
use
products.
I
am
here
today
to
thank
EPA
for
15
issuing
a
proposed
rule
intended
to
establish
a
common
sense
16
national
framework
for
industrial
wiping
products
used
with
17
solvents.
INDA
has
been
actively
involved
in
this
issue
for
18
more
than
ten
years.
And
we
hope
that
EPA
finalizes
this
19
proposed
rule
as
quickly
as
possible.
Indeed,
based
on
the
20
fact
that
more
than
18
years
of
extensive
research
and
21
outreach
have
already
been
conducted
INDA
contents
that
no
22
further
study
is
necessary
and
a
final
rule
should
be
23
published
before
the
end
of
this
calendar
year.
That
said,
24
however,
INDA
contends
that
certain
aspects
of
the
EPA
25
cgg
50
proposal
are
unnecessarily
complex
and
confusing
and
we
urge
1
the
Agency
to
make
several
changes
before
finalizing
the
2
rule.
While
we
will
detail
these
suggested
changes
in
our
3
written
comments
I
will
use
the
remainder
of
my
time
today
to
4
touch
upon
some
of
the
more
primary
issues
of
concern
to
5
INDA.
6
First
and
foremost,
as
proposed
the
rule
would
7
needlessly
perpetuate
several
inequities
regarding
handling,
8
treatment
and
disposal
of
industrial
wiping
products.
9
Specifically,
INDA
contends
that
laundered
shop
towels
should
10
not
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
Like
11
non­
laundered
wiping
products,
in
fact,
INDA
contends
it
12
would
be
much
more
appropriate
for
EPA
to
establish
13
conditions
by
which
all
types
of
wiping
products
laundered
14
and
non­
laundered
could
be
exempted
from
the
definition
of
15
hazardous
waste.
Excluding
laundered
shop
towels
from
the
16
definition
of
solid
waste
implies
that
these
products
do
not
17
produce
solid
waste.
Yet,
a
study
entitled
Environmental
18
Assessment
for
Shop
Towel
Usage
in
the
Automotive
and
19
Printing
Industries
that
was
conducted
on
behalf
of
the
EPA
20
by
Lockheed
Martin
Environmental
Services
concluded
that
30
21
percent
more
solid
waste
goes
to
landfills
from
laundered
22
wipes
than
from
non­
laundered
wipes.
This
due
to
the
23
substantial
volume
of
sludge
produced
during
the
industrial
24
laundering
process.
According
to
Lockheed
Martin=
s
findings,
25
cgg
51
in
fact,
the
landfill
volume
taken
up
through
the
disposal
of
1
sludge
generated
when
100
shop
towels
are
laundered
is
30
2
percent
greater
than
the
volume
taken
up
by
the
disposal
of
3
100
spent
wipers.
4
Moreover,
the
Lockheed
Martin
study
concluded
that
5
landfill
disposal
and
industrial
laundry
sludge
is
6
potentially
more
threatening
to
human
health
and
the
7
environment
that
landfill
disposal
of
spend
nonwoven
wipers.
8
Allow
me
to
quote
these
findings.
A
Water
washed
sludge
9
contains
approximately
22
percent
water
which
could
increase
10
the
mobility
of
these
pollutants
into
soil
and
groundwater.@
11
As
further
support
that
substantial
volumes
of
solid
waste
12
are
going
to
landfills
in
the
form
of
sludge
from
laundered
13
shop
towels,
EPA
need
look
no
further
than
its
own
study
14
entitled
A
Data
on
Amount
of
Sludge
Generated
Annually
by
15
Laundries@
which
showed
that
181
of
190
laundries
surveyed
16
processed
their
sludge
in
non­
hazardous
landfills
and
the
17
data
showed
that
processing
laundered
shop
towels
generates
18
20
percent
more
sludge
than
is
generated
from
all
other
items
19
processed
in
industrial
laundries.
All
told
therefore,
INDA
20
sees
no
reason
why
EPA
should
treat
laundered
and
non­
21
laundered
wiping
products
differently
when
it
comes
to
the
22
definition
of
solid
waste.
23
INDA=
s
second
concern
has
to
do
with
EPA=
s
24
unilateral
restrictions
on
soiled
wipes
intended
for
disposal
25
cgg
52
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
Specifically,
we
see
no
1
reason
why
EPA
has
proposed
to
limit
the
amount
of
solvent
2
that
can
be
on
each
wipe
intended
for
disposal
in
municipal
3
solid
waste
landfill
when
no
such
limit
applies
to
the
amount
4
of
solvent
for
shop
towel
that
can
be
discharged
through
5
municipal
water
treatment
plants
in
industrial
effluent
or
6
end
up
in
municipal
landfill
in
the
form
of
sludge.
7
Similarly,
we
fail
to
understand
why
the
Agency
would
8
completely
prohibit
certain
solvents
from
being
disposed
of
9
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
but
will
allow
the
exact
10
same
solvents
to
be
discharged
to
PFWs
or
disposed
of
in
a
11
landfill
as
sludge.
12
The
third
and
final
concern
that
I
would
like
to
13
raise
today
has
to
do
with
different
requirements
that
EPA
14
has
proposed
for
containers
used
to
transport
soiled
wiping
15
products.
INDA
contends
that
it
is
illogical
for
EPA
to
16
apply
different
labeling
requirements
to
laundered
and
non­
17
laundered
wiping
products.
We
believe
this
different
18
standards
are
unnecessarily
complex
and
unwarranted.
19
In
closing,
INDA
thanks
EPA
for
this
opportunity
to
20
present
some
of
our
views
on
this
important
rulemaking.
As
I
21
have
noted,
we
think
the
matter
is
critical
and
we
urge
the
22
Agency
to
make
the
rule
final
within
the
next
eight
months.
23
While
we
will
detail
all
of
our
concerns
in
written
comments
24
to
the
Agency,
we
believe
that
the
issues
we
intend
to
raise
25
cgg
53
are
fairly
straightforward
and
could
be
resolved
with
little
1
effort.
2
Thank
you
again
and
if
you
have
any
questions
I=
ll
3
be
happy
to
answer
them.
4
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
will
be
Ralph
Solarski.
5
MR.
SOLARSKI:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Ralph
6
Solarski
and
I=
m
with
Kimberly­
Clark.
And
I=
m
the
Chairman
of
7
the
Wiper
Focus
Interest
Committee
of
INDA,
the
Association
8
of
Nonwoven
Fabrics
Industry.
Kimberly­
Clark
is
a
9
manufacturer
of
non­
laundered
wipes.
Users
get
the
same
10
utility
from
non­
laundered
wipes
supplied
by
Kimberly­
Clark
11
and
other
manufacturers
of
nonwoven
products
as
they
do
from
12
laundry
wipes
supplied
by
industrial
laundries.
It=
s
13
appropriate
and
encouraging
to
see
that
EPA
is
addressing
14
this
issue.
After
18
years
of
extensive
outreach
and
data
15
gathering,
it
is
time
for
EPA
to
finalize
this
rule
and
to
16
provide
generators
with
clear
direction
on
how
to
handle
17
solvent
soiled
wipes
in
a
manner
that
appropriately
protects
18
human
health
and
the
environment.
19
While
we=
re
encouraged
to
see
that
EPA
has
20
addressed
this
issue
with
the
proposed
rule
published
in
the
21
Federal
Register
on
November
20,
2003,
we
find
that
the
rule
22
as
currently
published
won=
t
accomplish
EPA=
s
objectives
for
23
the
rule
and
is
unnecessarily
complex.
Applying
some
very
24
common
sense
principles
will
better
enable
EPA
to
accomplish
25
cgg
54
it=
s
objectives
and
would
dramatically
simplify
the
rule.
1
Let=
s
begin
with
EPA=
s
objectives
for
this
rule
and
2
an
assessment
of
how
the
conditions
of
the
proposed
rule
will
3
accomplish
those
objectives.
There
are
three
principal
4
objectives.
First,
minimize
potential
risk
to
human
health
5
and
the
environment
from
the
management
of
solvent
soil
6
wipes.
Second,
increase
solvent
recovery
and
recycling
and
7
third
provide
generators
with
clear,
common
sense
direction
8
on
how
to
manage
solvent
soil
wipes.
Now,
let=
s
take
a
look
9
at
how
the
proposed
rule
addresses
each
of
these
objectives.
10
11
Objective
number
one,
minimizing
potential
risk
to
12
human
health
and
the
environment
from
the
management
of
13
solvent
soil
wipes.
Under
the
proposed
rule
while
stringent
14
restrictions
are
placed
on
non­
laundered
wipes,
no
15
restrictions
are
placed
on
laundered
wipes
despite
the
fact
16
that
EPA
data
proves
that
the
potential
risks
at
landfills
17
from
the
sludge
of
industrial
launderers
is
the
same
as
18
potential
risk
of
non­
laundered
wipes
at
landfills.
When
19
neither
central
tendency
assumptions
or
high­
end
parameter
20
assumptions
are
applied
to
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes,
21
EPA=
s
risk
assessment
shows
the
same
potential
risk
at
22
landfills
from
both
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes.
23
So,
the
proposed
rule
is
inherently
inconsistent
24
applying
minimal
conditions
to
one
type
of
wipe
and
applying
25
cgg
55
very
stringent
conditions
to
another
type
of
wipe
when
the
1
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
the
2
same.
3
Objective
number
two,
increase
solvent
recovery
in
4
recycling.
As
proposed
the
rule
does
not
require
any
solvent
5
removal
or
recycling.
Objective
number
three,
provide
6
generators
with
clear
common
sense
direction
on
how
to
manage
7
solvent
soil
wipes.
As
proposed
the
rule
has
different
8
conditions
for
laundry
wipes
and
non­
laundry
wipes
destined
9
for
landfills.
There
are
different
regulatory
exclusions,
10
different
labeling
requirements,
different
limits
on
solvents
11
and
prohibitions,
all
run
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
12
the
environment
are
the
same.
It
is
not
a
simple
proposed
13
rule.
The
complexity
is
totally
unnecessary
because
of
the
14
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
the
15
same.
16
Here
are
four
principals
that
we
encourage
EPA
to
17
utilize
in
assessing
the
proposed
rule
that
will
result
in
18
EPA
better
accomplishing
its
objectives
and
significantly
19
simplifying
the
rule.
Principle
number
one,
apply
regulatory
20
conditions
only
where
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
21
environment
exist,
but
not
where
potential
risks
do
not
22
exist.
Principle
number
two,
apply
equivalent
regulatory
23
conditions
where
equivalent
risks
exist.
Principle
number
24
three,
encourage
solvent
recovery
and
recycling
at
the
point
25
cgg
56
of
generation.
Principle
number
four,
acknowledge
that
1
laundered
sludge
is
a
solid
waste
that
is
the
direct
result
2
of
the
use
of
laundered
wipes.
While
the
laundered
wipe
3
itself
will
be
reused,
the
spent
solvent
is
intended
for
4
disposal.
This
rule
is
about
the
solvent,
not
the
wipe.
And
5
the
solvent
is
intended
for
disposal.
That
solvent
is
by
6
definition
a
waste
whether
it
is
in
a
laundered
wipe
or
a
7
non­
laundered
wipe.
8
When
we
apply
these
principles
to
the
proposed
9
rule,
we
come
up
with
a
recommendation
that
the
final
rule
10
have
equal
conditions
for
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes
11
destined
for
landfills
including
the
following
upgrades
o
the
12
proposed
rule.
Number
one,
both
non­
laundered
wipes
and
13
laundered
wipes
should
be
excluded
from
hazardous
waste
14
regulation.
It
is
inappropriate
and
environmentally
15
unjustified
to
exempt
laundered
wipes
from
the
definition
of
16
solid
waste.
Number
two,
both
non­
laundered
wipes
and
17
laundered
wipes
should
have
the
same
container
and
labeling
18
requirements.
Number
three,
both
non­
laundered
wipes
and
19
laundered
wipes
should
meet
a
performance
standard
of
not
20
dripping
when
hand
wrung
by
the
person
managing
the
wipe
to
21
ensure
that
the
maximum
amount
of
solvent
that
can
22
practically
be
removed
from
solvent
soiled
wipes
is
recovered
23
and
recycled.
And
fourth,
the
rule
should
be
mandatory
for
24
all
states
to
implement
as
soon
as
possible.
Much
of
the
25
cgg
57
confusion
and
complexity
that
exists
today
is
due
to
the
1
differences
in
direction
from
state
to
state.
Please
clear
2
up
the
confusion
and
complexity
by
implementing
this
rule
3
nationally,
as
quickly
as
possible.
4
These
recommendations
will
result
in
the
5
substantial
increase
in
the
amount
of
solvent
recovered
and
6
recycled,
simplify
the
rule
for
easier
understanding
and
7
implementation
by
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
generators
who
8
must
implement
the
rule
and
provide
appropriate
protection
to
9
human
health
and
the
environment.
10
EPA
does
not
and
should
not
get
in
the
middle
of
11
competitive
dynamics
between
competing
products
unless
12
they=
re
environmental
reasons
for
doing
so.
Unfortunately,
13
in
this
situation
where
potential
environmental
impacts
are
14
the
same,
EPA
has
chosen
to
participate
on
the
competitive
15
playing
field
between
laundered
and
non­
laundered
wipes
and
16
is
currently
providing
substantial
regulatory
and
therefore
17
competitive
preference
to
laundered
wipes.
This
rulemaking
18
process
is
EPA=
s
opportunity
to
end
the
unwarranted
19
regulatory
preference
for
laundered
wipes
and
to
enable
20
generators
to
select
the
wipe
based
on
the
wipes
performance
21
for
the
task,
not
based
upon
regulatory
favoritism
from
EPA.
22
We
encourage
EPA
to
finalize
this
rule
as
soon
as
possible.
23
No
further
data
gathering
or
study
is
necessary.
All
24
interested
parties
have
had
an
opportunity
to
provide
their
25
cgg
58
input.
Eighteen
years
is
long
enough.
Eliminate
the
1
existing
confusion
and
complexity
and
implement
nationally
a
2
simple,
common
sense
rule
that
will
accomplish
EPA=
s
3
objectives.
Please
do
not
delay.
4
Thank
you.
5
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you
very
much.
We=
ll
take
a
ten
6
minute
recess
now.
When
we
return
Gary
Jones
will
be
the
7
next
speaker.
8
(
Whereupon,
a
brief
recess
was
taken.)
9
MS.
ATAGI:
We=
ll
go
ahead
and
reconvene.
Our
next
10
speaker
will
be
Gary
Jones,
to
be
followed
by
Lenora
Strohm
11
and
Eric
Frumin.
12
MR.
JONES:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Gary
Jones
and
13
I=
m
the
Manager
of
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Affairs
14
for
the
Graphics
Art
Technical
Foundation
and
the
Printing
15
Industries
of
America.
GATF
and
PIA
is
the
international
16
corporate
membership
trade
association
with
12,000
members
in
17
the
printing,
publishing
and
supply
industries
with
18
approximately
90
percent
of
its
members
located
in
the
United
19
States.
GATF
is
the
nonprofit
technical
and
educational
20
foundation
of
GATF
and
PIA.
GATF
and
PIA
represents
the
21
interests
of
the
commercial
printing
industry,
principally
22
the
offset
lithographic
printing
sector.
GATF
and
PIA
have
23
long
supported
EPA=
s
effort
to
develop
a
federal
standard
for
24
the
handling
and
disposal
of
solvent
contaminated
rags
and
25
cgg
59
wipes.
We
were
one
of
the
primary
industry
state
quarter
1
groups
that
approached
the
industry
to
request
this
action
2
that
would
provide
regulatory
consistency
among
the
states
on
3
this
issue,
clarify
the
definition
of
treatment
as
it
4
pertains
to
printers
removing
spent
solvents
from
their
rags
5
and
wipes,
to
examine
the
potential
that
exists
for
the
over
6
regulation
of
disposal
by
state
environmental
agencies.
7
GATF/
PIA
supports
the
intent
of
the
proposed
rule
as
issued
8
by
the
Agency.
The
stated
goal
of
the
printing
industry
has
9
been
to
establish
a
level
playing
field
between
state
10
regulations.
We
believe
that
this
rule
does
provide
that
11
level
of
consistency.
12
A
secondary
goal
concerned
the
definition
of
13
treatment
as
it
applies
to
removal
of
the
solvents
from
the
14
wipes.
We
also
believe
that
the
rule
both
addresses
and
15
resolves
this
issue.
The
rules
states
that
removal
of
16
solvent
from
the
towel
does
not
constitute
treatment.
We
17
fully
understand
that
it
remains
the
responsibility
of
the
18
facility
to
correctly
handle
and
dispose
of
the
solvent
that
19
is
extracted
from
the
towels.
20
Additionally
GATF/
PIA
supports
the
approach
offered
21
by
the
Agency
for
the
handling
of
reusable
shop
towels.
22
Today
over
90
percent
of
the
offset
lithographic
printing
23
industry
uses
reusable
shop
towels.
They
use
them
for
a
24
variety
of
reasons
mainly
production.
But
they
also
enjoy
25
cgg
60
the
opportunities
provided
by
the
state
policies
that
allow
1
companies
to
recycle
towels
and
to
not
have
them
counted
2
towards
the
amount
of
total
hazardous
waste
generated
by
the
3
facility.
4
This
practice
effectively
reduces
the
amount
of
5
waste
generated
that
often
may
be
land
filled
or
incinerated
6
and
reduces
the
total
cost
of
disposal
that
must
be
absorbed
7
by
the
facilities.
This
proposal
allows
facilities
to
8
continue
its
current
practices.
The
rule
also
achieves
our
9
stated
goal
providing
consistency
among
state
agencies.
10
While
many
states
do
currently
consider
reusable
towels
to
be
11
hazardous
waste,
many
variations
on
a
theme
exist.
The
12
language
included
in
the
rule
effectively
codifies
the
13
current
practices,
provides
facilities
with
the
necessary
14
guidance
regarding
handling
of
reusable
towels
and
wipes.
15
GATF/
PIA
also
supports
the
Agency=
s
decision
to
address
the
16
handling
of
disposable
wipes
and
rags.
17
For
the
first
time
the
Agency
is
providing
clear
18
direction
to
the
states
regarding
handling
disposal
of
these
19
types
of
wipers
and
will
create
as
with
reusable
towels
a
20
consistent
level
playing
field.
However,
we
do
have
several
21
comments
to
offer
regarding
proposed
language
for
disposable
22
wipes.
23
Due
to
time
constraints
this
morning,
I
will
only
24
address
one
issue
and
the
others
will
be
detailed
in
our
25
cgg
61
written
comments.
Today
I
would
like
to
address
the
Table
11
1
solvents
contained
in
the
proposed
language.
The
solvents
2
have
been
identified
by
the
Agency
as
posing
a
substantial
3
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment
if
the
wipe
4
containing
even
a
trace
amount
of
the
solvents
were
placed
in
5
landfills.
Since
it
is
virtually
impossible
to
achieve
a
6
zero
concentration
of
any
solvent,
we
recommend
that
the
7
Agency
clearly
state
in
the
final
rule
language
that
the
8
toxic
characteristic
if
available
for
each
of
the
solvents
9
listed
in
this
table
should
be
considered
the
diminimus
10
level.
For
those
that
do
not
have
a
toxicity
characteristic
11
level,
we
recommend
that
EPA
develop
a
concentration
for
12
them.
13
We
would
also
like
to
address
the
inclusion
of
14
methylethylketone
or
MEK
on
the
list.
We
believe
it
should
15
be
removed
from
this
table.
In
the
Agency=
s
report,
use
and
16
management
practices
of
solvent
contaminated
industrial
shop
17
towels
and
wipes,
MEK
was
listed
as
a
solvent
exhibiting
a
18
low
chronic
toxicity.
The
report
to
find
a
low
concern
is
19
one
that
I
quote
A
was
given
to
chemicals
that
exhibit
very
20
slight
effects
on
humans
or
no
human
data
available
on
21
animals.@
For
example,
the
compound
may
be
reported
to
cause
22
thermal
irritation
or
repeated
exposure
to
low
levels
of
the
23
compound
in
drinking
water
may
be
reported
to
be
linked
with
24
diarrhea
and
mouth
sores
in
humans.
The
report
relies
on
a
25
cgg
62
review
of
all
publicly
available
literature
and
not
a
1
qualitative
assessment
of
chronic
toxicity.
2
The
report
further
states
that
constituents
can
3
exhibit
a
low
toxicity
rate
but
a
high
ignitability
risk.
4
Acetone,
another
solvent
used
by
our
industry
is
considered
a
5
low
toxic
risk
with
a
flashpoint
of
minus
20
degree
Celsius.
6
MEK=
s
flashpoint
is
minus
seven
degrees
Celsius
and
acetone
7
has
not
been
included
on
the
list
in
Table
4.
Further,
the
8
risk
assessment
undertaken
by
the
Agency
to
determine
whether
9
or
not
a
solvent
should
be
added
to
Table
4
assumed
a
one
to
10
one
ratio
of
solvent
on
the
wipe
as
well
as
removal
11
efficiency
of
90
percent
by
centrifuge.
This
is
found
in
the
12
report
estimating
quantities
of
solvents
containing
rags
that
13
can
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
14
A
1999
study
estimating
risks
from
disposal
of
15
solvent
contaminated
shop
towels
and
wipes
in
municipal
16
landfill
states
in
its
concluding
remarks
that
the
risk
17
assessment
methodology
presented
can
be
used
to
estimate
risk
18
based
on
a
wide
variety
of
waste
disposal
scenarios.
19
Specifically,
the
report
states
that
one
may
consider
a
20
scenario
that
reduces
the
quantity
of
solvent
in
each
wiper
21
by
one
half
or
more
through
waste
elimination
efforts
such
as
22
centrifuging.
The
Agency=
s
own
report
on
evaluation
of
23
solvent
extraction
efficiency
of
an
industrial
centrifuge
on
24
a
variety
of
shop
towels
and
wipes
clearly
states
and
I
quote
25
cgg
63
A
The
solvent
that
seemed
to
be
most
easily
extracted
was
1
MEK.@
In
fact,
the
report
states
that
MEK=
s
extraction
2
efficiency
was
99
percent.
Based
on
the
extraction
3
efficiency,
we
recommend
that
the
Agency
reevaluate
the
4
solvent
extraction
efficiency
rating
of
99
percent
rather
5
than
90
percent,
the
exclusion
of
MEK
as
one
of
the
solvents
6
in
table
4.
7
As
stated
earlier
we
do
have
other
comments
to
8
offer,
but
due
to
time
constraints
this
morning
I
limited
my
9
testimony
to
this
one
issue.
We
will
provide
a
written,
we
10
will
be
providing
written
comments
on
other
areas
of
concern.
11
However,
we
do
offer
comments
on
the
proposed
language,
12
GATF/
PIA
remains
supportive
of
the
Agency=
s
efforts
to
move
13
forward
and
finalize
this
rule
as
quickly
as
possible.
This
14
effort
has
been
ongoing
for
over
ten
years.
The
amount
of
15
information
generated
supports
moving
forward
with
a
few
16
minor
adjustments.
17
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment.
18
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
is
Lenora
Strohm
19
followed
by
Eric
Frumin
and
Mark
Fragola.
20
MS.
STROHM:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Lenora
Strohm
21
and
I=
m
from
General
Motors
Corporation.
Today
I
represent
22
the
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers,
a
trade
association
23
of
nine
car
and
light
truck
manufacturers
including
BMW
24
Group,
Daimler
Chrysler,
Ford
Motor
Company,
General
Motors,
25
cgg
64
Mazda,
Mitsubishi
Motors,
Porsche,
Toyota
and
Volkswagen.
1
One
out
of
every
tens
in
the
United
States
is
dependent
on
2
the
automotive
industry.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
3
opportunity
to
present
our
position
on
EPA=
s
long
awaited
4
proposal
for
regulating
solvent
contaminated
industrial
5
waste.
6
Conceptually,
the
Alliance
supports
the
development
7
of
regulations
that
take
into
account
the
intended
8
disposition
of
the
wipes.
We
support
EPA=
s
efforts
to
9
develop
different
approaches
for
wipes
to
be
disposed
than
10
for
wipes
that
will
be
recycled.
Taking
into
account
the
11
different
environmental
impacts
of
recycling
and
disposal
is
12
prudent
to
encourage
and
support
recycling
efforts
while
13
ensured
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
It
14
also
addresses
the
resource
conservation
aspects
of
the
15
program
encouraging
less
wasteful
practices
and
improving
16
reuse
rates.
17
The
Alliance
supports
EPA
in
developing
an
18
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
wipes
that
19
are
going
to
be
reclaimed
and
reused.
The
Alliance
further
20
supports
the
proposed
generator
standards
that
would
require
21
a
generator
to
accumulate
the
wipes
in
non
leaking
covered
22
containers
and
transport
the
wipes
and
containers
designed
to
23
minimize
releases
to
the
environment.
However,
the
24
containers
should
be
allowed
to
contain
free
liquids
when
25
cgg
65
being
transported
off
site
to
a
solvent
recovery
facility
1
whether
within
the
same
company
or
to
a
third
party
recycler.
2
This
would
allow
the
solvent
reclamation
operations
to
be
3
run
by
businesses
specializing
in
those
types
of
processes
as
4
well
as
provide
an
efficient
and
economic
means
for
low
5
quantity
wipe
generators
to
also
enlist
in
solvent
recovery
6
programs.
7
It
would
provide
the
additional
important
benefit
8
of
opening
up
markets
for
use
of
the
reclaimed
solvent
by
9
providing
single
points
of
business
for
potential
end
users
10
of
the
reclaimed
solvent.
The
Alliance
further
agrees
with
11
EPA
that
the
standards
for
dry
required
for
wipes
to
be
land
12
filled
is
overly
stringent
for
reusable
wipes.
However,
EPA
13
has
not
gone
far
enough
in
the
proposal
to
adequately
exclude
14
legitimately
recycled
materials.
In
addition
to
excluding
15
the
regs
themselves,
the
solvent
reclaimed
from
the
16
contaminated
rag
should
also
be
excluded
from
the
definition
17
of
solid
waste
provided
that
the
solid
is
legitimately
18
recycled.
The
details
of
our
position
on
this
point
are
19
presented
in
our
comments
on
recently
proposed
regulations
20
regarding
revisions
to
the
definition
of
solid
waste
proposed
21
October
28,
2003.
22
In
summary
when
materials
are
legitimately
recycled
23
whether
on
site
or
off
site,
they
are
not
A
discarded
by
being
24
disposed
of,
abandoned
or
thrown
away.@
We
urge
EPA
to
adopt
25
cgg
66
the
broad
option
where
certain
materials
are
legitimately
1
bound
for
recycling
are
not
treated
as
waste.
This
option
2
both
implements
the
law
and
encourages
the
most
recycling
by
3
allowing
interindustry
transfers.
Combined
with
4
appropriately
applied
legitimacy
criteria,
EPA
can
control
5
and
regulate
those
materials
that
are
truly
solid
waste.
6
Those
comments
will
also
be
submitted
in
response
to
this
7
proposal
since
our
concepts
are
germane
to
the
issues
here.
8
The
Alliance
supports
EPA
in
developing
separate
9
standards
for
wipes
that
are
discarded
and
destined
for
10
disposal
and
recommends
that
EPA
adopt
criteria
that
allow
11
qualifying
wipes
to
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
12
hazardous
waste.
13
While
we
support
the
concepts
presented
in
the
14
proposal
overall,
we
do
not
support
the
proposed
layout
of
15
the
exclusions
and
the
subsequent
relationship
with
16
enforcement.
The
proposal
indicates
that
if
any
condition
17
for
the
exclusion
is
not
met
at
any
point
in
the
management
18
of
the
material,
then
the
material
loses
the
exclusion
and
is
19
deemed
a
hazardous
waste
back
to
the
point
of
generation.
20
While
the
Agency
may
believe
that
this
approach
may
provide
21
an
incentive
to
properly
handle
the
wipes,
we
believe
that
it
22
is
overly
onerous
and
makes
it
extremely
difficult
for
a
23
generator
to
use
the
exemption
and
assume
the
risk
of
non
24
compliance.
All
of
the
potential
benefits
of
the
rule
may
25
cgg
67
become
lost
making
the
proposal
a
moot
exclusion
regardless
1
of
the
technical
details
proposed.
2
In
closing,
we
would
be
happy
to
work
with
the
EPA
3
further
on
this
issue
and
will
be
submitting
more
detailed
4
written
comments
as
part
of
the
request
for
public
comment.
5
Thank
you
for
considering
our
positions.
6
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
is
Eric
Frumin
to
be
7
followed
by
Mark
Fragola
and
David
Dunlap.
8
MR.
FRUMIN:
Good
morning.
Before
our
start
I
want
9
to
give
the
panels
some
materials,
copies
of
the
statement.
10
Thank
you.
I=
m
Eric
Frumin,
the
Health
and
Safety
11
Director
for
UNITE,
a
trade
union,
predominant
representative
12
of
laundry
workers
in
the
United
States.
On
behalf
of
UNITE
13
President
Bruce
Rainer
and
the
tens
of
thousands
of
UNITE
14
members
who
work
in
industrial
laundries,
we
strongly
object
15
to
EPA=
s
proposed
regulatory
exemption
for
toxic
solvents.
16
This
exemption
will
open
up
loopholes
that
will
harm
laundry
17
workers
and
threaten
the
safety
of
our
waterways.
18
UNITE
estimates
that
there
are
about
20,000
workers
19
who
handle
shop
towels
in
laundries
on
a
frequent
basis.
How
20
well
do
the
laundries
manage
these
hazards?
According
to
EPA
21
and
the
industry
there=
s
no
problem.
But
let=
s
look
at
the
22
experience
of
two
major
companies,
the
Cintas
Corporation,
23
the
nation=
s
largest
industrial
laundry
company
and
Coyne
24
Textile
Services.
Cintas
has
been
found
repeatedly
to
have
25
cgg
68
violated
its
waste
water
permits
for
toxic
solvents
and
other
1
waste
water
contaminants
including
in
its
Branford,
2
Connecticut
laundry
to
which
Congressman
DeLauro
already
3
referred.
If
I
could
just
point
you
to
the
attachments
to
my
4
testimony.
There=
s
a
several
page
list
of
the
waste
water
5
contaminants
over
a
six
year
period
at
that
plant.
And
these
6
violations
were
the
basis
for
the
lawsuit
which
Connecticut,
7
Commissioner
of
Environmental
Protection
initiated
three
8
years
ago.
So,
as
you
can
see,
it=
s
an
unending
string
of
9
mismanagement
of
waste
water
issues
involving
shop
towel
10
contaminants.
11
Is
this
the
responsible
environmental
management
on
12
which
the
laundry
industry
prides
itself?
How
is
it
possible
13
for
Cintas
to
commit
violations
over
a
six
year
period?
14
According
to
Cintas=
website
A
Each
Cintas
rental
location
is
15
audited
each
year
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
16
regulations.
Cintas
is
also
a
charter
member
of
the
laundry
17
environmental
stewardship
program.
We
have
a
stringent
18
compliance
and
investigation
process
to
address
problems
as
19
they
are
detected.@
If
Cintas=
s
description
of
its
order
20
program
is
accurate,
it
is
inconceivable
that
they
could
21
commit
these
violations
without
the
knowledge
of
the
22
corporate
headquarters
in
Cincinnati.
The
sewage
treatment
23
plants,
the
agencies
know
about
these
violations
and
prevent
24
them.
Unfortunately,
in
many
cases
the
answers
to
both
of
25
cgg
69
these
questions
is
also
a
resounding
no.
In
fact,
there
have
1
been
multiple
violations
involving
either
metals
or
solvents
2
at
Cintas
plants,
Georgia,
Kentucky,
Illinois,
Indiana,
3
Louisiana,
Missouri,
New
York,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Tennessee
4
and
Texas.
Some
also
spanning
periods
of
months
or
years.
5
Cintas=
lawlessness
is
bad
enough,
but
as
the
industry
6
leader,
its
reckless
disregard
for
its
environmental
7
obligations
vividly
demonstrates
the
company=
s
abuse
of
the
8
trust
of
environmental
agencies.
9
Their
recklessness
on
environmental
issues
also
10
goes
hand
in
hand
with
its
disregard
for
the
safety
of
its
11
own
employees.
As
Congressman
DeLauro
pointed
out,
they=
ve
12
been
cited
repeated
by
OSHA.
Mark
Fragola,
a
former
Cintas
13
driver
in
Branford
will
testify
here
today
about
the
14
conditions
he
and
other
drivers
have
had
to
endure,
including
15
management=
s
refusal
to
prevent
the
illegal
transportation
of
16
heavily
contaminated
shop
towels.
17
Now,
Mark
escaped
Cintas
with
surgical
scars,
18
serious
medical
debts,
with
his
life
intact.
Others
have
19
been
less
fortunate.
In
the
past
five
years,
two
Cintas
20
workers
have
died
on
the
job
in
situations
where
the
21
company=
s
failure
to
comply
with
clear
OSHA
standards
22
contributed
to
the
workers=
deaths.
Unless
you
at
EPA
adopt
23
stricter
conditions
for
these
exemptions,
how
many
other
24
Cintas
workers
will
be
forced
to
undergo
abusive
treatment
of
25
cgg
70
callous
supervisors
when
Cintas
assigns
them
to
handle
shop
1
towels.
Worse,
how
many
will
be
forced
to
put
their
jobs
and
2
families
at
risk
when
EPA
requires
them
to
refuse
illegal
3
loads
of
contaminated
shop
towels.
When
EPA
claims
that
4
laundry
drivers
will
be
able
to
enforce
these
exemptions
by
5
refusing
to
pick
up
non
compliant
loads,
you=
re
deluding
6
yourselves
and
the
public.
You
must
be
living
in
that
same
7
dream
world
as
the
President=
s
economists
who
says
that
8
sending
jobs
offshore
is
good
for
the
economy.
9
EPA=
s
delusions
have
become
a
nightmare
for
Cintas
10
laundry
workers
like
Mark
Fragola
and
it=
s
time
to
stop
the
11
nightmare.
While
Cintas=
sheer
size
puts
it
in
the
top
ranks
12
of
the
laundry
industry=
s
environmental
law
breakers,
Coyne
13
Textile
Services
likewise
has
a
miserable
record.
A
leading
14
industrial
launderer
with
major
shop
towel
operations,
Coyne
15
also
abuses
its
workers
by
neglecting
basic
safety
measures.
16
In
the
last
few
years,
Coyne
Textile
has
repeatedly
been
17
cited
by
OSHA
for
serious
and
repeated
violations
of
OSHA
18
standards
dealing
with
chemical
hazards,
worker
training
and
19
protective
equipment.
With
regard
to
shop
towels,
in
>

97
at
20
Coyne=
s
Cleveland,
Ohio
plant,
their
mismanagement
of
the
21
hazards
from
solvents
in
shop
towels
created
a
fire
on
22
January
21st,
that
seriously
burned
four
employees.
As
OSHA
23
later
described
it
A
It
was
from
the
solvents
ignited
in
the
24
floor
below
the
washing
machine
and
in
a
trench
behind
it.
25
cgg
71
Two
employees
sustained
burns
in
the
resulting
fire.
One
1
employee
sustained
burns
while
trying
to
assist
his
co­
2
workers.@
It=
s
certainly
true,
it=
s
undeniable
that
Coyne
has
3
made
important
and
deliberate
efforts
to
capture
excess
4
solvent
from
shop
towels
to
reduce
their
waste
water
5
emissions.
However,
Coyne
has
also
failed
to
acknowledge
in
6
this
proceedings
its
other
evident
management
failures.
7
For
instance,
Coyne
has
also
failed
to
assure
that
8
its
customers
provide
Coyne
with
the
information
necessary
to
9
protect
Coyne
employees
from
those
hazards.
And
in
my
10
testimony
the
documents
indicating
Coyne=
s
ability
to
skirt
11
OSHA=
s
hazard
communications
standard
and
avoid
the
12
obligation
to
get
exactly
that
kind
of
information
essential
13
to
protecting
workers
and
running
safe
operations.
14
So,
it=
s
painfully
evident
that
workers
at
Cintas
15
and
Coyne
are
at
risk
from
the
management=
s
mishandling
of
16
shop
towels.
Has
anyone
at
EPA
ever
talked
to
a
laundry
17
worker.
Did
EPA
ever
even
ask
Cintas,
Coyne
or
the
other
18
major
laundries
to
document
their
waste
water
emissions
since
19
the
state
level
exemptions
were
granted
in
the
mid­>
90s?
How
20
could
EPA
have
failed
to
make
such
an
elementary
21
determination
when
it
was
meeting
with
industry
22
representatives
on
a
frequent
basis?
It=
s
obvious
that
the
23
only
people=
s
whose
views
EPA
takes
seriously
here
are
the
24
corporate
stakeholders,
not
the
workers,
the
community
25
cgg
72
residents
or
the
wildlife
and
waterways
on
the
receiving
end
1
of
the
negligence
of
laundry
industry
managers
like
Cintas
2
and
Coyne.
3
We=
ve
presented
an
extensive
critique
of
the
4
proposal.
We
have
very
limited
time
here
today
to
review
it.
5
I
would
like
to
reiterate
the
positions
that
the
Sierra
Club
6
and
others
have
taken
regarding
the
need
to
return
to
the
7
critical
elements
of
the
year
2000
proposal
that
EPA
was
8
considering
at
that
time.
9
And
we=
d
finally
like
to
say
that
in
sum,
there=
s
no
10
reasonable
assurance
from
any
independent
or
objective
source
11
about
current
industry
practice
that
the
laundry
industry
and
12
their
customers
will
comply
with
EPA=
s
intent.
If
the
Bush
13
Administration
proposal
is
adopted
laundry
workers
will
have
14
to
handle
towels
soaked
in
hazardous
waste
often
without
even
15
minimal
protective
equipment
like
rubber
gloves
or
effective
16
masks.
It=
s
time
for
EPA
to
force
the
laundry
industry
and
17
their
customers
to
stop
the
unnecessary
shipment
of
toxic
18
chemicals
that
endanger
workers
and
the
public
water
supply.
19
We
are
tired,
I=
m
almost
done.
We
are
tired
of
watching
the
20
Bush
Administration
twist
our
laws
to
benefit
corporate
21
interests
and
we
demand
that
EPA
withdraw
this
proposal.
You
22
must
reconsider
the
options
which
you
specifically
rejected
23
such
as
more
collection
and
recycling
of
toxic
solvents
at
24
factories,
close
containers
for
transporting
solvent
soaked
25
cgg
73
towels
and
better
training
of
workers
about
the
chemical
1
hazards.
2
Thank
you
very
much.
3
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you
very
much.
4
MR.
FRUMIN:
I=
d
now
like
to
ask
Mark
Fragola.
5
MS.
ATAGI:
Mark
Fragola
to
be
followed
by
David
6
Dunlap
and
Robert
Schaffer.
7
MR.
FRAGOLA:
Hi.
My
name
is
Mark
Fragola.
I=
m
8
here
to
represent
UNITE.
I
worked
at
Cintas
Corporation
at
9
Branford,
Connecticut
from
November
1999
until
July
of
2002.
10
During
this
time
I
worked
primarily
as
a
route
service
and
11
sales
representative
which
involved
driving
the
customers
12
dirty
laundry,
shop
towels
from
printed
plants
and
other
13
customers
that
were
soaked
with
solvents
such
as
acetone
was
14
a
big
part
of
the
load
that
I
carried
everyday.
I
also
had
15
to
carry
towels
and
mats
from
restaurants
that
were
filled
16
with
mold
and
fungus.
The
conditions
for
drivers
hauling
17
these
shop
towels
were
horrible.
Drivers
like
me
were
18
routinely
forced
to
count
up
dirty
rags,
one
at
a
time,
pick
19
up
dripping
rags
with
our
bare
hands,
without
cotton
gloves
20
and
breathe
the
contaminant
air
in
the
truck.
Sometimes
you
21
put
these
towels
into
plastic
bags,
but
they
would
tear
and
22
we
would
have
to
sit
there
and
pick
them
up
all
over
again.
23
We
usually
had
to
put
the
towels
in
cotton
bags,
in
the
bags
24
soaked
with
solvents.
I
know
this
because
the
solvents
left
25
cgg
74
a
stain
on
my
shirt
when
I
picked
the
bags
up.
When
I
came
1
home
I
had
to
warm
my
kids
don=
t
touch
daddy
until
I
took
off
2
my
uniform.
Only
after
a
couple
of
years
just
before
I
left
3
did
I
ever
get
some
plastic
gloves.
They
usually
didn=
t
have
4
enough
gloves
for
all
the
drivers.
My
biggest
problem
with
5
the
bags
of
rags
was
that
when
I
put
these
bags
in
the
back
6
of
my
truck,
there
was
nothing
to
protect
me
from
the
vapors.
7
The
smell
was
very
powerful.
I
used
to
joke
that
I
was
8
getting
a
buzz
and
then
sinus
headache.
It
would
last
a
few
9
hours
until
I
got
out
of
the
truck
and
back
at
the
plant.
10
We
were
never
told
what
chemicals
we
were
forced
to
11
handle,
never
really
warned
about
the
types
of
dangers
from
12
these
chemicals.
The
towels
were
also
sometimes
dripping
13
with
the
solvents.
Our
supervisors
knew
this
all
along.
One
14
time
I
was
given
some
papers
to
give
to
the
customers
asking
15
them
to
control
the
amount
of
solvents
on
the
towels.
But
16
the
customers
overlooked
these
warnings
and
Cintas
never
even
17
cut
them
off
as
customers.
I
don=
t
recall
Cintas
ever
18
telling
me
to
refuse
to
take
these
dangerous
loads
from
19
customers.
They=
re
just
interested
in
getting
all
the
20
business
they
could.
Shop
towels
were
easy
makers.
It
21
doesn=
t
surprise
me
that
Connecticut
EPA
is
fighting
Cintas
22
in
court
right
now
about
the
years
worth
of
violations
of
23
Cintas=
permit
and
EPA
rules
on
toxic
chemicals.
24
Cintas
by
law
and
workers
like
me
pay
that
price
25
cgg
75
with
our
health
and
our
jobs.
I
hope
that
EPA
will
remember
1
this
when
you
listen
to
all
the
lobbyists
for
the
laundries
2
of
other
companies
who
keep
promising
to
protect
the
3
environment.
Unless
they
­­
that
they=
re
operating
­­
I
4
wouldn=
t
believe
a
word
they
say.
After
two
years
in
5
October/
November
2001
I
developed
serious
breathing
problems
6
and
headaches.
By
February
of
2002
I
finally
went
to
my
7
doctor
­­
who
said
I
was
being
heavily
affected
by
the
mold
8
from
the
shop
towels.
He
said
I
actually
needed
surgery
and
9
I
was
forced
to
undergo
my
first
surgery
that
month.
The
10
effects
were
so
bad
that
I
had
to
stay
home
for
seven
weeks
11
to
receive
strong
antibiotics
through
a
tube
that
was
12
permanently
inserted
into
my
arm,
all
the
way
to
my
heart.
13
After
returning
to
work
for
a
few
weeks
in
April
14
2002
I
had
to
undergo
still
a
second
surgery
to
clear
out
my
15
sinuses.
After
two
more
weeks
I
went
back
to
work
again.
I
16
reported
all
of
this
to
Mike,
my
supervisor.
I
showed
the
17
letters
from
my
doctor
which
said
my
condition
was
related
to
18
my
job.
But
Cintas
kept
denying
that
this
was
work­
related.
19
They
refused
to
admit
that
this
is
a
worker=
s
compensation
20
case.
Instead
they
told
me
just
to
accept
my
disability
pay
21
which
is,
of
course,
less
than
the
worker=
s
compensation
and
22
cover
the
medical
costs
through
the
regular
health
insurance.
23
I
had
to
pay
for
20
percent
of
all
medical
bills
and
we=
re
24
still
paying
off
those
debts
today.
We
still
owe
about
25
cgg
76
$
2,000.
1
When
I
came
back
to
work
I
asked
for
a
different
2
driving
route
without
the
shop
towel
chemicals.
I
showed
the
3
letter
from
my
doctor
about
the
danger
the
job
posed
to
my
4
breathing,
but
they
refuse
to
accommodate
me.
Mike
said
I=
m
5
sorry,
there=
s
nothing
else
available.
Instead
they
offered
6
me
a
job
panting
the
plant
at
$
10
an
hour.
Compare
that
to
7
the
$
650
a
week
I
was
making
before
I
got
sick.
I
don=
t
8
understand
how
they
could
have
done
this
to
me.
9
Essentially
I
was
forced
to
quit
in
April
2002.
10
During
this
time
I
was
studying
Public
Health
at
the
11
University
of
Southern
Connecticut.
As
a
result
of
my
12
studies
I
graduated
in
May
2002
with
a
Bachelor=
s
Degree
in
13
Public
Health
with
emphasis
in
Environmental
Health.
I
14
started
looking
for
work.
I
soon
got
a
job
at
a
local
15
private
environmental
testing
laboratory
analyzing
water
and
16
other
samples
in
a
pollution
control
program.
17
I
strongly
recommend
that
the
EPA
changes
these
18
things
to
help
protect
workers
and
the
environment
and
change
19
these
rules
by
one,
forcing
customers
to
take
more
of
these
20
solvents
out
of
these
towels.
Number
two,
putting
the
towels
21
in
closed
containers
that
can=
t
leak
the
solvents
into
the
22
air
and
to
label
the
containers
with
the
names
and
the
hazard
23
of
the
solvents.
Number
three,
to
force
the
laundry
to
train
24
drivers
and
the
washing
workers
about
the
OSHA
and
EPA
rules
25
cgg
77
so
that
it
can
help
the
EPA
make
sure
the
rules
are
enforced.
1
Why
should
drivers
like
myself
have
to
put
our
jobs
and
2
families
at
risk
in
order
just
to
comply
with
the
law.
3
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
testify.
4
MS.
ATAGI:
Our
next
speaker
is
David
Dunlap
5
followed
by
Robert
Schaffer
and
William
Guerry.
6
MR.
DUNLAP:
Good
morning.
I=
d
like
to
thank
the
7
Board
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
morning.
8
My
name
is
David
Dunlap
and
I
am
the
Director
of
9
Environmental
Affairs
at
the
Uniform
and
Textile
Service
10
Association.
UTSA
is
a
nonprofit
association,
represents
the
11
interests
of
the
uniform
and
textile
supply
companies,
that=
s
12
the
industrial
laundry
industry.
I=
m
a
chemical
engineer
by
13
training
as
well
as
a
licensed
Class
I
waste
water
treatment
14
plant
operator
in
Virginia.
I=
ve
been
working
with
the
15
industrial
laundry
industry
since
1988
and
the
UTSA
since
16
1995.
All
combined
I
have
nearly
20
years
environmental
17
experience
in
both
environmental
engineering,
regulatory
18
analysis
and
municipal
and
waste
water
treatment
plant
19
operations.
20
This
morning,
my
goal
is
not
to
emphasize
the
21
negative
aspects
of
disposables.
The
record
is
clear
on
22
this.
I=
m
here
to
explain
the
benefits
of
reusables.
23
Industrial
laundries
provide
environmental
benefits
by
24
decreasing
natural
resource
consumption,
saving
energy
and
25
cgg
78
providing
effective
pollution
management
and
prevention.
1
When
compared
to
home
laundering,
industrial
laundries
on
2
average
use
64
percent
less
water,
73
percent
less
energy
and
3
90
percent
less
detergent
is
what
is
required
to
launder
the
4
same
quantity
of
towels
in
small
home
washers
and
dryers.
5
In
1996
EPA=
s
Office
of
Research
and
Development
6
conducted
a
life
cycle
assessment
study
of
reusable
and
7
disposable
wipes
entitled
Environmental
Assessment
of
Shop
8
Towel
Usage
in
the
Automotive
and
Printing
Industries.
9
That=
s
the
Lockheed
study
that
has
been
referenced
a
couple
10
of
times
today.
The
environmental
assessment
looked
at
the
11
raw
material
requirements
and
pollutant
emissions
associated
12
with
each
type
of
wipe
for
its
entire
life
cycle,
from
13
manufacture
through
usage
and
to
the
ultimate
disposition.
14
The
results
of
the
study
are
impressive,
particularly
when
15
adjustments
are
made
to
account
for
multiple
use
cycles
for
16
reusable
towels.
Now
this
is
something
that
Lockheed
failed
17
to
do
in
their
initial
analysis.
18
As
measuring
terms
of
poundage,
reusable
shop
19
towels
use
94
percent
less
water,
99
percent
less
energy
and
20
generate
52
percent
less
solid
waste
when
compared
to
an
21
equivalent
amount
of
disposable
paper
towels.
Because
22
uniform
and
textile
service
companies
deliver
clean
wipes
to
23
customers
and
pick
up
soiled
wipes
for
cleaning
and
reuse,
24
all
the
most
efficient
way
possible,
we
are
one
of
the
25
cgg
79
nation=
s
largest
recycling
industries.
Unlike
single
use
1
disposable
wipes
and
rags,
reusable
shop
towels
are
not
2
discarded
after
use
but
are
rather
used
to
clean
and
then
3
reused
over
and
over.
4
On
the
other
hand
disposables
are
used
once
and
5
then
sent
to
a
landfill
or
incinerator.
All
the
solvents
on
6
disposable
wipes
are
never
treated.
In
most
cases
end
up
7
going
directly
untreated
to
landfills.
In
contrast
there=
s
8
no
direct
water
or
solid
waste
discharges
to
the
environment
9
from
laundries.
More
than
15
years
ago
the
laundry
industry
10
self
imposed
no
free
liquid
standard
for
reusable
shop
11
towels.
Laundries
have
since
been
working
with
customers
to
12
reduce
the
amount
of
solvents
and
other
pollutants
found
on
13
these
towels.
The
no
free
liquid
standard
remains
the
14
foundation
of
most
state
shop
towel
guidelines
and
therefore
15
is
a
principle
upon
which
the
proposed
rule
is
modeled.
16
Those
minimal
solvents
that
are
still
present
after
17
meeting
the
no
free
liquid
standard
are
then
effectively
18
removed
during
sequential
stages.
The
initial
laundering
19
process,
the
subsequent
waste
water
pre­
treatment
process
and
20
finally
the
ultimate
treatment
at
the
downstream
publicly
21
treatment
works
of
POTW.
All
industrial
laundries
are
22
indirect
discharges
unless
their
waste
water
is
controlled
23
via
local
pre­
treatment
limits,
private
discharge
in
24
municipal
sewer
systems.
In
the
past
ten
years,
numerous
25
cgg
80
data
collection
efforts
by
EPA,
the
industrial
laundering
1
industry
and
third
parties
to
document
the
overall
2
effectiveness
of
laundry
waste
water
treatment.
In
fact,
and
3
this
was
during
the
Clinton
Administration,
EPA=
s
1999
4
decision
to
withdraw
proposed
guidelines
of
the
industry
was
5
based
on
the
fact
that
industrial
laundry
effluent
is
already
6
effectively
treated
at
laundries
and
their
POTWs
and
is
no
7
way
adversely
impacting
the
environment.
8
As
required
under
­­
industrial
laundries
examine
9
the
characteristics
of
waste
water
sludge
and
other
solid
10
waste
generated
by
their
waste
water
treatment
systems.
US
11
EPA=
s
comprehensive
risk
analysis,
screening
analysis
12
properly
concludes
that
the
sludge
produced
by
industrial
13
launderers
does
not
contain
constituents
in
concentrations
14
which
would
exceed
any
of
the
allowable
health
benchmarks.
15
Due
to
the
industry=
s
extensive
waste
water
permitting
16
laundries
are
in
regular
contact
with
local
regulators.
This
17
ensures
a
laundry
complies
with
no
just
local
waste
water
18
rules
but
with
the
rules
that
govern
the
proper
disposal
19
solid
waste
generated
by
the
laundry
treatment
systems
as
20
well
as
state
regulations
and
policies
that
require
the
21
proper
management
for
reusable
shop
towels.
22
Because
recycle
and
research
conservation
is
such
23
an
essential
part
of
our
industry,
USTA
and
TSA
together
with
24
EPA
created
the
laundry
environmental
stewardship
program,
25
cgg
81
laundry
ESP.
That
was
in
1999.
Laundry
ESP
is
a
voluntary
1
program
by
which
industrial
laundries
both
large
and
small
2
raise
their
overall
environmental
performance.
Laundry
ESP
3
is
not
just
limited
to
reusable
wipes
though.
It
also
4
extends
laundry=
s
entire
line
of
textiles.
More
importantly,
5
laundry
ESP
facilitates
an
exchange
in
cooperation
in
6
critical
environmental
matters
across
industries
including
7
the
various
businesses
that
use
and
rely
on
reusable
shop
8
towels.
9
Laundry
ESP
documents
the
industry=
s
environmental
10
performance
as
whole
and
it
has
been
a
resounding
success.
11
Through
program
participation,
laundries
have
achieved
the
12
following.
An
11
percent
decrease
in
water
use.
That
means
13
we
saved
over
4.9
billion
gallons
of
water
since
1997.
We=
ve
14
also
achieved
an
11
percent
reduction
in
energy
consumption.
15
That=
s
over
10
trillion
BTUs
of
energy
saved
since
1997
16
also.
And
since
1998
we
have
reduced
the
toxicity
of
our
17
waste
water
discharges
by
over
40
percent.
As
I
say
Laundry
18
ESP
has
been
a
great
success
for
us.
19
One
last
point,
that
the
record
is
clear,
reusable
20
shop
towels
and
the
materials
found
in
reusables
after
use
21
are
handled,
after
reusables
are
handled.
Excuse
me,
let
me
22
start
over.
The
record
is
clear.
Reusable
shop
towels
and
23
the
materials
found
on
reusables
after
use
are
handled
in
a
24
more
environmentally
sensitive
way
than
disposal
wipes
and
25
cgg
82
rags.
EPA
should
create
regulatory
incentives
not
barriers
1
to
permit
reuse,
recovery,
recycling
of
reusable
towels
2
through
the
environmentally
beneficial
services
provided
by
3
laundries.
All
of
the
industrial
laundry
waste
streams
are
4
already
subject
to
comprehensive
federal,
state
and
local
5
environmental
regulation,
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
RIPRA
as
6
well
as
the
related
pre­
treatment
permits
and
state
policies
7
and
the
proper
management
of
shop
towels.
There
will
be
no
8
environmental
basis
or
justification
to
impose
duplicative
9
regulations
on
laundries
or
their
customers.
10
In
conclusion,
UTSA
and
TRSA
fully
support
EPA=
s
11
proposal
to
provide
a
realistic
solution
for
reusable
shop
12
towels
including
the
former
exclusion
of
properly
managed
13
reusable
shop
towels
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
To
14
reiterate,
we
strongly
support
this
rule
as
opposed.
15
Thank
you
very
much.
16
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
next
speaker
17
is
Robert
Schaffer
to
be
followed
by
William
Guerry
and
Jim
18
Buik.
19
MR.
SCHAFFER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Robert
20
Schaffer.
I=
m
Director
of
Environmental
Affairs
for
Coyne
21
Textile
Services.
I=
m
here
today
testifying
on
the
company=
s
22
behalf
as
well
as
on
the
behalf
of
TRSA
for
which
Coyne
is
a
23
member
company.
24
Coyne
is
a
national
textile
rental
company
with
37
25
cgg
83
locations
doing
business
in
25
states.
I=
m
a
chemist
by
1
training
and
have
had
extensive
career
in
both
federal
2
government
and
the
private
sector.
I
work
for
Dow
Chemical
3
Company,
United
States
Department
of
Interior,
U.
S.
EPA
and
4
as
an
independent
environmental
consultant.
I
was
at
EPA
for
5
11
years
and
concluded
my
career
there
as
Director
of
the
6
Effluent
Guidelines
Division
where
I
supervised
the
7
development
of
categorical
standards
under
the
Clean
Water
8
Act.
I
have
been
with
Coyne
for
11
years.
9
EPA=
s
proposed
rule
addresses
reusable
and
disposal
10
shop
towels.
In
the
laundry
industry
there
are
several
11
different
types
of
reusable
towels
used
by
different
12
customers
for
a
variety
of
different
purposes.
Most
of
the
13
towels
are
used
by
printers,
automotive
repair,
service
14
facilities
and
other
general
manufacturing.
These
towels
are
15
typically
soiled
with
oils
and
greases
and
to
a
much
less
16
extent
solvents.
Towels
used
in
the
printing
industry,
of
17
course,
more
frequently
contain
solvents
and
certainly
not
18
all
shop
towels
contain
solvents.
19
Coyne
specializes
in
serving
industries
with
20
reusable
towels
and
over
the
years
a
significant
portion
of
21
our
rental
line
has
been
devoted
to
industrial
customers
and
22
many
in
the
printing
industry.
Coyne
is
intimately
familiar
23
with
all
the
environmental
and
worker
safety
issues
24
associated
with
solvent
contaminated
reusable
towels
25
cgg
84
including
waste
water
treatment,
solvent
extraction
and
1
recycling
and
workplace
exposure.
Because
of
our
experience
2
in
dealing
with
solvent
contaminated
towels,
especially
the
3
critical
issue
of
whether
they
have
any
work
safety
impacts,
4
we
felt
an
obligation
to
attend
this
hearing
and
to
share
our
5
experiences
with
the
Agency.
We
are
also
testifying
here
6
today
because
reusable
towels
play
a
significant
role
in
our
7
business.
8
Coyne
like
other
TRSA
and
UTSA
member
companies
has
9
a
strong
commitment
to
protection
of
worker
health
and
10
safety.
We
conduct
routine
sampling
of
air,
water
to
ensure
11
that
the
concentration
of
solvents
and
other
regulated
12
substances
are
well
within
acceptable
limits.
Coyne
has
13
invested
millions
of
dollars
in
treatment
facilities,
in
14
environmental
worker
safety
controls
and
we
have
an
annual
15
budget
in
excess
of
$
2,000,000
to
cover
these
matters.
Coyne
16
provides
its
workers
with
all
necessary
training
and
17
protective
equipment
to
meet
federal,
state
and
local
18
requirements.
We=
ve
conducted
several
comprehensive
worker
19
exposure
studies.
We
have
provided
the
results
to
the
20
Agency.
In
those
studies
we
performed
detailed
analysis
of
21
air
samples
collected
in
personal
breathing
zones,
of
two
22
workers,
for
instance,
and
this
is
an
example,
in
the
23
receiving
and
sorting
area
of
our
facilities.
24
These
studies
demonstrated
as
all
of
our
workplace
25
cgg
85
exposure
data
has
confirmed
that
our
employees=
workplace
1
exposures
are
well
within
safety
levels.
One
study
evaluated
2
the
presence
of
approximately
40
compounds
in
the
breathing
3
zone
of
two
textile
sorting
workers
at
one
of
our
facilities.
4
At
the
facility
bagged
soiled
towels
are
delivered
via
truck
5
and
manually
loaded
at
an
open
air
exterior
loading
dock.
6
Weighed
on
four
scales
and
then
manually
removed
from
the
7
bags
for
sorting.
Towels
are
then
loaded
onto
another
truck
8
for
delivery
to
one
of
Coyne=
s
laundering
facilities.
9
Breathing
zone
sampling
was
conducted
for
comparison
with
an
10
eight
hour
time
related
average
for
TWA
for
permissible
11
exposure
limit,
PEL,
established
by
the
United
States
12
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration,
OSHA.
13
The
study
was,
of
course,
conducted
under
14
applicable
OSHA
and
NIAGE
standards.
The
results
of
the
15
study
demonstrated
no
significant
health
risk
associated
with
16
any
of
the
evaluated
solvent
compounds.
Concentrations
of
17
the
solvents
were
at
least
100
times
less
than
the
OSHA
PEL
18
and
sometimes
a
thousand
times
less
than
the
OSHA
PEL.
19
A
second
study
involved
solvent
vapor
exposure
from
20
soiled
textiles
to
a
Coyne
driver
on
a
heavy
soil
pickup
21
route.
The
driver=
s
basic
task
involved
picking
up,
making
22
stops
at
various
customer
locations
and
delivering
clean
and
23
picking
up
soiled
products.
The
driver
stated
that
during
24
this
task,
the
greater
than
average
number
of
soiled
towels
25
cgg
86
were
picked
up
during
his
22
stops
on
that
particular
run.
1
The
driver
also
unloaded
20
­­
bags
of
soiled
towels.
2
Consultants
using
personal
monitoring
devices
on
the
driver
3
to
measure
concentrations
in
his
breathing
zone
conducted
the
4
tests.
The
duration
of
tests
were
slightly
over
eight
hours
5
and
a
monitor
was
also
placed
in
the
truck.
All
test
results
6
for
the
36
solvents
found
were
far
below
OSHA=
s
PEL.
Only
7
two
values
or
more
than
one
percent
of
this
and
all
were
less
8
than
one
and
a
half
percent
of
the
PEL.
A
consultant
9
reminded
us
that
these
results
provided
conservative
estimate
10
of
worker
exposure.
11
The
most
important
aspect
of
these
studies,
and
12
Coyne
has
conducted
a
number
of
them
over
the
years
is
that
13
the
concentration
of
solvents
detected
are
always
a
minute
14
fraction
of
the
OSHA
PELs.
Aside
from
giving
the
company
15
confidence
that
worker
health
is
not
jeopardized
this
data
16
demonstrates
that
existing
industry
practices
and
regulatory
17
responsibilities
under
state
law
and
OSHA
adequately
and
18
comprehensively
address
worker
exposure
concerns
associated
19
with
solvent
vapors
in
the
industrial
laundry
workplace.
20
Furthermore,
the
amount
of
solvents
contained
on
21
soil
towels
returned
to
Coyne=
s
facilities
has
been
reduced
22
over
the
years.
This
reduction
is
due
in
large
part
to
23
Coyne=
s
customer
education
efforts
and
the
education
of
our
24
own
folks.
We
continually
stress
the
requirement
consistent
25
cgg
87
with
company
policy,
industrial
management
standards
and
1
state
regulation
that
return
towels
contain
no
free
liquid.
2
And
customers
seem
to
be
more
conscious
of
using
the
least
3
amount
of
solvent
products
necessary
for
their
given
tasks
at
4
their
locations.
The
reduction
of
solvent
use
is
also
5
reflected
in
the
waste
water
generated
by
Coyne
and
our
6
ability
to
meet
our
discharge
requirements.
We
had
noticed
a
7
25
percent
reduction
in
the
last
few
years
between
1998
and
8
2003
of
solvents
we
had
recovered
from
our
waste
water
9
treatment
operations
for
beneficial
reuse.
10
Although
the
proposed
regulation
does
not
require
11
to
the
extent
they
codify
their
regulation,
not
required
from
12
a
worker
safety
perspective
to
the
extent
that
they
codify
13
the
regulatory
status
quo,
Coyne
supports
EPA=
s
efforts
and
14
subject
to
the
joint
comments
and
these
are
the
joint
15
comments
that
will
be
submitted
by
UTSA
and
TRSA
later
this
16
month.
17
Thank
you
very
much.
18
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you.
Our
next
speaker
is
William
19
Guerry
to
be
followed
by
Jim
Buik
and
the
Rev.
Ron
Stief.
20
MR.
GUERRY:
Good
morning,
my
name
is
Bill
Guerry
21
and
I
serve
as
Environmental
Counsel
to
the
industrial
22
laundry
industry
through
the
two
trade
associations
UTSA
and
23
TRSA.
I=
m
testifying
here
today
to
explain
the
legal
24
precedent
which
compels
EPA
to
finalize
its
proposal
to
25
cgg
88
exclude
properly
managed
reusable
shop
towels
from
their
1
RIPRA
definition
of
a
solid
waste.
2
In
evaluating
whether
a
recycled
secondary
material
3
constitutes
a
solid
waste
under
RICRA
courts
have
universally
4
held
that
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
materials
are
truly
5
A
discarded,
disposed
of,
thrown
away
or
abandoned.@
Courts
6
have
also
precluded
EPA
from
regulating
those
secondary
7
materials
which
A
have
not
yet
become
a
part
of
the
waste
8
disposal
problem,
rather
they
are
destined
for
beneficial
9
reuse
or
recycling.@
Most
recently
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
10
Appeals
has
clarified
that
secondary
materials
that
are
11
A
retained
or
saved
as
part
of
an
overall
recycling
production
12
process
are
not
discarded
or
thrown
away
as
solid
waste.@
13
Unlike
discarded
rags,
reusable
shop
towels
are
14
retained
and
saved
as
products
so
that
they
do
not
threaten
15
to
become
part
of
the
waste
disposal
problem.
In
the
context
16
of
determining
whether
reusable
shop
towels
are
solid
waste,
17
numerous
EPA
regional
offices
have
correctly
interpreted
18
RICRA
as
I
quote
from
Region
9,
A
Industrial
Textiles
19
manufactured
for
multiple
cycles
of
soiling
and
cleaning
are
20
generally
not
regulated
as
solid
waste
until
they
are
21
discarded.@
Similarly
states
like
California
have
recognized
22
A
reusable
textiles
are
in
essence
a
piece
of
industrial
23
equipment.
And
when
soiled
are
no
more
waste
material
than
a
24
dull
cutting
tool.@
25
cgg
89
EPA=
s
proposed
solid
waste
exclusion
for
reusable
1
shop
towels
is
based
on
extensive
judicial
and
regulatory
2
precedent.
In
fact,
since
1980,
EPA
has
created
20
similar
3
solid
waste
exclusions
for
commodity
like
materials
under
40
4
C.
F.
R.
Section
261.4(
a).
All
of
these
solid
waste
exclusions
5
are
based
on
clear
and
straightforward
management
conditions,
6
simply
set
forth
as
keeping
the
commodity
like
material
from
7
being
directly
placed
on
the
ground.
8
In
the
proposed
rulemaking
EPA
correctly
relies
on
9
the
following
three
well
established
criteria
to
conclude
10
that
properly
managed
reusable
shop
towels
are
more
commodity
11
like
than
waste
like.
First
reusable
shop
towels
are
12
partially
reclaimed
by
laundry
customers
who
remove
free
13
liquids.
Second,
reusable
shop
towels
are
handled
throughout
14
the
laundering
and
reuse
process
as
viable
commodities.
15
Third,
because
the
shop
towels
are
owned
by
the
same
entity
16
throughout
the
use
and
reuse
process,
laundries
have
enormous
17
incentives
to
ensure
that
the
shop
towels
are,
in
fact,
18
reused
and
not
discarded.
In
fact,
reusable
shop
towels
far
19
exceed
EPA=
s
commodity
like
criteria
as
applied
to
20
other
20
solid
waste
exclusions.
Because
shop
towels
represent
one
of
21
the
core
primary
assets
on
which
laundries
directly
derive
22
their
revenues
and
profits
as
opposed
to
being
a
secondary
or
23
incidental
by
product
which
may
have
value
which
is
the
core
24
basis
of
most
of
the
other
solid
waste
exclusions.
25
cgg
90
Following
me,
Jim
Buik,
President
of
the
Roscoe
1
Corporation
will
document
the
economic
factors
that
ensure
2
the
proper
and
safe
management
of
reusable
shop
towels.
3
It
is
critical
for
both
legal
and
policy
reasons
4
that
EPA
clearly
exclude
properly
managed
shop
towels
from
5
solid
waste
classification.
This
is
because
numerous
states
6
with
large
reusable
shop
towel
markets
impose
onerous
7
requirements
on
both
generators
and
processors
of
non­
8
hazardous
industrial
solid
waste.
By
indicating
or
implying
9
incorrectly
that
reusable
shop
trowels
are
or
could
be
a
10
solid
waste,
EPA
would
unintentionally
number
one,
override
11
the
decisions
of
virtually
all
states
that
reusable
shop
12
towels
should
not
be
subject
to
solid
waste
regulation
and
13
two,
trigger
inappropriate
requirements
for
industrial
14
laundries
and
their
customers.
If
reusable
shop
towel
15
products
were
incorrectly
deemed
solid
waste,
then
a
critical
16
distinction
between
reused
shop
towels
and
discarded
rags
17
would
disappear
and
a
significant
portion
of
the
shop
towel
18
market
could
shift
away
from
usable
shop
towels
to
discarded
19
rags.
Thus
a
uniform
exclusion
from
only
the
definition
of
20
hazardous
waste
for
both
reusable
shop
towels
and
discarded
21
rags
would
result
in
unintended
negative
consequences
that
22
are
directly
contrary
to
RICRA=
s
goals
of
reducing
over
23
regulation
and
encouraging
recycling.
24
One
of
the
laundry
industry=
s
primary
goals
as
you
25
cgg
91
just
heard
from
Bob
Schaffer
is
to
protect
workers
and
to
1
provide
a
safe
workplace
at
all
laundry
facilities.
As
you
2
know
Congress
appropriately
delegated
to
OSHA
the
role
of
3
protecting
employees
from
unsafe
working
conditions.
OSHA
4
has
implemented
this
authority
and
established
comprehensive
5
permissible
exposure
limits
or
PELs
for
all
of
the
hazardous
6
solvents
regulated
under
RICRA.
As
Mr.
Schaffer
testified,
7
laundry
workplace
exposure
to
solvent
vapors
is
a
diminimus
8
fraction
of
the
various
OSHA
PELs
for
solvents.
9
Moreover,
industrial
laundries
are
already
subject
10
to
and
must
meet
OSHA
Hazard
communications
standard
11
requirements
which
require
employers
to
inform
their
12
employees
of
chemical
hazards
via
container
labels,
MSD
13
sheets
and
training.
14
In
conclusion,
well
established
legal
and
15
regulatory
precedent
as
well
as
sound
policy
compels
EPA
to
16
finalize
the
proposed
solid
waste
exclusion
for
reusable
shop
17
towels.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
EPA
to
achieve
18
RICRA=
s
environmental
goals
to
promote
resource
recovery
and
19
recycling.
20
Thank
you.
21
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you.
All
right.
The
next
speaker
22
is
Jim
Buik
to
be
followed
by
the
Reverend
Ron
Stief
and
the
23
David
Case.
24
MR.
BUIK:
We
officially
cross
over
from
good
25
cgg
92
morning
to
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Jim
Buik.
I=
m
the
1
President
of
the
Roscoe
Company
located
at
3535
West
Harrison
2
Street
in
Chicago,
Illinois.
I=
m
testifying
not
only
as
the
3
owner
of
a,
or
I=
m
testifying
as
the
owner
of
a
small
4
industrial
laundry
business
in
Chicago
as
well
as
serving
as
5
the
Vice
Chairman
of
UTSA.
I=
ll
testify
from
both
6
perspectives.
7
My
grandfather,
George
Buik,
started
Roscoe
in
8
1921.
My
father,
Don
Buik,
owned
Roscoe
from
1973
to
1999
9
and
now
I
own
the
business.
The
bank
owns
part
of
it
too.
10
Roscoe
employs
90
people.
We=
re
located
in
an
11
economically
disadvantaged
neighborhood
on
the
west
side
of
12
Chicago
in
a
designated
empowerment
zone.
Our
workers
are
13
represented
by
UNITE
and
we
have
a
longstanding
tradition
of
14
maintaining
strong
ties
to
the
community.
In
addition
to
15
maintaining
strong
ties
to
the
community,
for
generations
my
16
grandfather
and
father
started
a
tradition,
an
ethic
of
17
environmental
excellence
long
before
it
was
in
vogue.
In
18
fact,
Roscoe
was
the
first
industrial
laundry
in
the
United
19
States
to
install
an
advanced
pre­
treatment
waste
water
20
system
in
1973
as
part
of
a
joint
project
between
the
EPA,
21
our
company,
UTSA
and
TRSA.
Though
my
grandfather
laid
the
22
groundwork,
my
father
was
primarily
responsible
during
the
23
1970s
for
putting
Roscoe
on
the
cutting
edge
of
technology
24
and
environmental
due
diligence.
25
cgg
93
In
the
1980s
we
focused
our
efforts
on
creating
a
1
clean
work
environment
in
order
to
better
protect
workers,
2
improve
the
work
setting
and
ease
environmental
compliance.
3
To
make
sure
we
continued
to
achieve
our
goals
in
this
4
regard,
Roscoe
has
the
Illinois
Department
of
Economic
and
5
Community
Affairs
conduct
hygiene
and
safety
inspections.
6
Roscoe
also
from
time
to
time
has
our
employees
don
exposure
7
badges
to
measure
the
exposure
of
materials
of
concern.
In
8
short,
we
really
double
check
our
work.
9
I=
ve
done
my
best
to
follow
in
this
tradition.
And
10
in
1999
Roscoe
won
the
Illinois
Governor
Pollution
Prevention
11
Award
for
our
achievements
in
reducing
solid
waste
water
12
consumption
in
our
hangar
recycling
program.
My
grandfather
13
introduced
reusable
shop
towels
to
Roscoe=
s
textile
line
in
14
the
1940s.
Today
shop
towels
represent
about
15
percent
of
15
our
overall
revenue
and
thus
represents
a
substantial
part
of
16
our
business.
Shop
towels
have
also
added
value
because
they
17
are
frequently
offered
as
a
component
to
the
entire
textile
18
package
for
customers
that
might
also
rent
uniforms,
floor
19
mats
and
other
textile
products.
Over
the
years,
Roscoe=
s
20
gathered
the
best
practices
for
managing
shop
towels.
21
These
practices
range
from
our
own
company=
s
22
procedures
and
infrastructure
such
as
ventilation
systems
to
23
protect
workers
handling
shop
towels
to
imposing
strict
24
rental
conditions
on
our
customers
including
a
no
free
25
cgg
94
flowing
liquids
policy
for
return
shop
towels
and
finally
1
comprehensive
employee
training
so
that
our
route
drivers
can
2
discriminate
whether
or
not
to
accept
a
load
of
soiled
shop
3
towels.
4
At
Roscoe,
we
partner
with
our
customers
to
help
5
them
manage
their
waste
streams
in
an
environmentally
6
friendly
manner.
The
industry
practices
that
we
have
7
developed
and
followed
over
the
years
help
us
do
just
that.
8
As
I
stated
earlier,
shop
towels
make
up
approximately
15
9
percent
of
Roscoe=
s
revenue.
This
revenue
is
generated,
of
10
course,
by
providing
a
service
to
our
customers.
The
11
provision
of
clean,
a
clean
supply
of
textiles.
The
12
individual
shop
towels
and
the
ability
to
use
and
reuse
the
13
shop
towels
again
and
again
is
the
cornerstone
of
our
14
business
model.
We
deliver
approximately
10,000,000
shop
15
towels
to
our
customers
annually.
Because
we
use
and
reuse
16
shop
towels
we=
re
able
to
achieve
this
10,000,000
shop
towel
17
delivery
with
an
annual
fleet
of
one
and
a
half
million
shop
18
towels.
19
EPA
is
absolutely
entirely
correct
that
laundered
20
shop
towels
are
not
a
solid
waste.
Rather
than
being
21
disposed
of
after
use,
our
shop
towels
are
laundered
and
used
22
again
and
again.
Put
another
way,
if
the
shop
towels
were
23
solid
waste
we
would
be
purchasing
10,000,000
shop
towels
24
annually
to
meet
the
customer
demand,
not
the
one
and
a
half
25
cgg
95
million
that
we
currently
purchase.
That=
s
six
times
more
1
landfill
space
that
would
be
taken
up
and
that=
s
not
one
of
2
Administrator
Levitt=
s
goals.
The
value
of
a
shop
towel
is
3
also
reflected
in
the
accounting
and
paperwork
that
we
4
maintain
with
our
customers.
Customers
are
financially
5
responsible
for
shop
towels
that
are
in
their
possession.
If
6
a
customer
loses
a
shop
towel
or
destroys
it,
the
customer
7
would
pay
to
replace
that
shop
towel.
If
a
customer=
s
needs
8
change
and
they
require
a
lower
amount
of
shop
towels
9
inventory
is
reduced
and
their
account=
s
credited.
10
To
us
each
shop
towel
is
like
a
dollar
bill.
WE
11
protect
our
shop
towels
the
same
way
we
protect
our
money.
12
My
grandfather
started
the
tradition
of
walking
the
plant
on
13
a
regular
basis
picking
up
shop
towels.
He
was
a
statsman
14
and
he
had
a
stern
burrow,
but
the
plant
manager=
s
knew
right
15
well
that
he
was
very
upset
when
he
would
find
shop
towels
16
lying
around.
My
dad
continued
that
tradition
as
did
I.
If
17
I
find
a
shop
towel
on
the
floor
of
our
plant,
I
have
a
18
little
talk
with
our
manager
because
it=
s
completely
out
of
19
the
question
that
something
like
that
should
happen.
Those
20
are
dollars
sitting
on
the
floors.
Those
are
our
corporate
21
assets
laying
around.
I=
ll
guarantee
it
doesn=
t
happen
very
22
often.
23
Excluding
reusable
shop
towels
from
the
definition
24
of
hazardous
waste
only
and
thus
defining
them
as
a
solid
25
cgg
96
waste
makes
no
sense
considering
the
fact
that
reusable
shop
1
towels
play
in
my
business.
We
work
closely
with
the
2
Illinois
EPA
and
together
have
developed
a
viable
3
environmentally
sound
program
for
managing
used
shop
towels
4
from
pickup
at
the
customer
facility
through
the
laundering
5
process.
The
management
conditions
we
adhere
to
ensure
6
protection
of
our
workers
and
the
environment.
A
solid
waste
7
exclusion
contingent
on
a
lab
or
testing
rather
than
the
8
common
sense
management
conditions
we
already
employ
would
9
totally
undermine
the
existing
viable
state
regulatory
10
program
and
create
additional
but
unnecessary
compliance
11
costs.
These
additional
compliance
costs
might
make
the
12
provision
of
reusable
shop
towels
too
expensive
for
some
13
customers
and
possibly
too
expensive
for
all
customers.
14
These
costs
would
surely
impact
our
ability
to
15
generate
revenue
that
may
lead
to
employee
layoffs.
16
Unnecessary
regulation
of
reusable
shop
towels
would
also
17
impact
other
aspects
of
our
business
because
customers
18
frequently
run
a
collection
of
textiles
in
addition
to
shop
19
towels.
If
a
shop
towel
component
of
a
customer
account
20
becomes
too
expensive
or
unavailable
customers
may
be
21
inclined
to
satisfy
their
needs
for
other
textiles
such
as
22
uniforms
and
floor
maps.
23
In
closing,
Roscoe
is
not
a
company
to
shirk
our
24
environmental
or
worker
safety
responsibilities.
We
have
a
25
cgg
97
longstanding
tradition
and
company
ethic
to
go
beyond
1
requirements
and
serve
as
an
industry
van
guard
in
these
2
areas.
We
trust
EPA
will
maintain
its
position
on
reusable
3
shop
towels.
That
they
are
not
a
solid
waste.
Excluding
4
reusable
shop
towels
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
will
5
allow
Roscoe,
a
third
generation
family
business
to
continue
6
its
tradition
of
environmental
responsibility,
resource
use
7
and
recycling
as
well
as
local/
community
leadership.
8
Thank
you.
9
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you.
I
understand
the
Reverend
10
Stief
had
to
leave.
So
our
next
speaker
will
be
David
Case.
11
MR.
CASE:
My
name
is
David
Case.
I=
m
the
Executive
12
Director
of
the
Environmental
Technology
Council.
ETC
as
you
13
know
is
a
trade
association
of
companies
that
provide
various
14
services
and
technologies
to
customers
for
recycling,
15
treatment
and
proper
disposal
of
both
hazardous
waste
and
16
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste.
In
particular,
many
ETC
17
companies
provide
in­
plant
industrial
services
to
customers
18
where
they
pick
up
properly
manage,
recycle
and
dispose
of
19
solvent
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
Because
in
many
20
states
these
industrial
wipes
are
hazardous
waste,
we
see
the
21
industrial
wipes
at
the
point
of
pickup
for
proper
22
transportation
and
ultimate
disposal
or
recycling.
And
I
can
23
tell
you
we
don=
t
often
see
wipes
that
have
only
one
drop
or
24
solvent
on
them.
We
see
wipes
that
are
soaked
in
solvent
and
25
cgg
98
have
been
used,
are
filthy
dirty
with
contamination
from
1
equipment,
from
automobile
or
ink
manufacturing
facilities.
2
And
these
shop
towels
need
to
be
managed
properly.
It=
s
a
3
sad
day
when
a
representative
of
the
waste
management
4
industry
has
to
tell
EPA
that
a
proposed
rule
poses
a
threat
5
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
but
that
is
the
6
situation
this
afternoon.
7
We
are
alarmed
by
a
number
of
the
provisions
in
the
8
proposed
rule
which
simply
do
not
reflect
safe
management
9
practices
in
our
industry.
For
example,
solvent
soaked
rags
10
could
be
accumulated
in
containers
with
just
a
piece
of
11
plywood
or
a
piece
of
cardboard
put
over
the
top
and
thereby
12
be
deemed
a
closed
container.
Solvent
rags
could
be
dry,
13
deemed
dry
without
using
any
solvent
removal
technology
like
14
a
centrifuge
or
other
commonly
available
equipment
for
that
15
purpose.
Instead
somebody
can
sit
at
a
desk
and
make
a
rough
16
guesstimate
of
the
volume
of
solvent
used
and
the
volume
of
17
rags
and
thereby
claim
that
every
solvent,
every
rag
had
less
18
than
five
grams
of
solvent.
Under
this
rule
there
would
be
19
no
standards
for
accumulating
and
storing
of
these
solvent
20
soaked
rags
to
prevent
fires,
not
even
something
as
simple
21
regular
inspections
of
the
facilities.
22
The
solvent
soaked
rags
could
be
shipped
in
things
23
like
plastic
bags,
cloth
bags,
wraps,
even
paper
bags
which
24
obviously
can
be
pierce
and
allow
accumulated
solvent
to
be
25
cgg
99
released.
And
the
solvent
rags
could
go
to
landfills
or
1
municipal
incinerators.
After
we
have
spent
30
years
under
2
RICRA
trying
to
keep
solvents
out
of
landfills,
this
rule
3
would
allow
solvents
to
be
disposed
of
in
landfills.
4
Any
of
these
practices
if
conducted
by
a
waste
5
management
person
at
one
of
our
companies
would
end
up
6
sending
that
person
to
jail.
There
are
a
number
of
7
provisions
in
the
proposed
rule
that
we
think
need
to
be
8
seriously
revised
and
upgraded.
And
I=
ll
basically
follow
9
the
life
of
a
solvent
soaked
rag
through
accumulation,
10
transport
and
disposal
and
comment
on
each
phase.
11
Under
the
proposed
rule,
solvent
rags
could
be
12
accumulated
for
an
indefinite
period
of
time
at
the
generator
13
site,
no
limitations
on
the
amount
of
time
of
storage
or
the
14
type
of
facility
that
could
retain
the
stored
materials.
And
15
we
think
that=
s
just
not
good
management
practice
for
this
16
kind
of
waste
material.
We
recommend
that
the
rule
first
of
17
all
distinguish
between
accumulation
and
storage
which
it
18
doesn=
t
do.
While
shop
rags
are
being
accumulated
we
can
see
19
the
practical
need
for
the
worker=
s
to
be
able
to
put
the
20
rags
in
some
sort
of
a
bin
or
container
with
a
lid
that
is
21
secure
but
not
sealed
tight.
Obviously
you
need
that
22
practical
flexibility.
But
once
the
drums
or
the
bins,
23
whatever
container
is
being
used
are
filled
and
the
material
24
is
going
to
be
stored,
waiting,
picked
up
and
transported,
we
25
cgg
100
think
the
material
should
be
stored
properly
in
sealed
1
containers
for
some
limited
time
period
such
as
90
days
and
2
with
some
regular
inspection
period
or
self
inspections
of
at
3
least
once
a
week
to
ensure
that
the
containers
aren=
t
4
leaking
or
that
they
don=
t
pose
some
kind
of
a
fire
hazard.
5
After
the
material
is
picked
up,
it=
s
going
to
be
6
transported
and
we
think
all
shop
towels,
solvent
soaked
shop
7
towels
should
be
transported
in
sealed
containers
that
are
8
appropriate
for
the
type
of
material
that=
s
being
9
transported.
It=
s
not
the
cloth
or
the
paper
rag
that=
s
of
10
concern,
obviously.
It=
s
the
solvent
and
the
contaminants
11
that
have
been
picked
up
with
the
solvent.
12
When
the
material
is
delivered
to
a
landfill,
EPA
13
has
evaluated
only
the
potential
for
the
solvent
to
then
be
14
released
from
an
online
landfill
and
get
into
people=
s
15
drinking
water.
That
is
not
the
major
concern
of
solvents.
16
Solvents
are
a
concern
because
they
attack
synthetic
liner
17
systems
and
cause
the
liner
to
deteriorate
and
be
breached.
18
So,
instead
of
doing
a
computer
model
of
an
unlined
landfill
19
and
the
potential
release
of
contaminants
directly,
what
EPA
20
needs
to
look
at
is
a
landfill
that
has
at
least
a
single
21
liner
which
is
common
today,
and
the
risk
of
allowing
the
22
solvent
in
these
rags
to
be
compressed
in
the
landfill
to
23
accumulate
on
top
of
the
liner
to
then
deteriorate
and
cause
24
a
breach
of
the
liner
system
which
would
allow
not
just
25
cgg
101
solvents
but
all
the
collective
waste
contaminants
in
the
1
landfill
to
be
released
into
the
environment.
That=
s
a
2
fairly
basic
risk
assessment
that
EPA
after
apparently
18
3
years
of
study
has
failed
to
do.
4
Likewise,
when
material
is
going
to
be
delivered
to
5
a
municipal
or
a
waste
to
energy
incinerator,
in
that
case
6
the
material
doesn=
t
even
have
to
be
dry.
It
has
to
be
what
7
I
called
not
quite
dripping
with
solvent.
And
if
you=
ve
ever
8
been
to
a
municipal
waste
incinerator,
you
will
see
that
the
9
material
is
then
generally
dumped
into
a
large
bin
or
10
concrete
pit
and
it
is
manipulated
with
a
clam
shell
or
a
11
backhoe
or
equipment
of
that
nature.
If
the
Agency
thinks
in
12
this
proposed
rule
that
somebody=
s
going
to
look
in
the
bags
13
to
see
if
there=
s
any
free
liquid,
that=
s
just
not
going
to
14
happen.
The
material
is
immediately
off
loaded
into
these
15
bins
where
it
is
manipulated
by
heavy
equipment.
There
is
a
16
very
serious
risk
of
fire
in
that
situation.
A
spark
from
17
the
equipment
could
easily
ignite
the
solvent.
And
the
whole
18
management
of
the
material
before
it
gets
into
the
municipal
19
incinerator
by
putting
it
onto
conveyor
systems
and
that
sort
20
of
thing
allow
easy
release
to
the
environment
and
21
evaporation
primarily
because
municipal
incinerators
are
not
22
equipped
and
people
are
not
trained
to
manage
this
kind
of
23
hazardous
material.
24
And
then
finally
EPA
has
simply
ignored
the
25
cgg
102
contamination
from
the
material
that
the
solvent
removes
from
1
the
equipment,
the
metals,
the
inks,
the
colors,
things
of
2
that
nature.
The
background
document
makes
clear
that
EPA
3
simply
didn=
t
collect
information
that
it
would
need
in
order
4
to
assess
the
risks
posed
by
those
materials.
And
that=
s
5
something
EPA
needs
to
do.
6
I
think
in
the
end
so
many
conditions
would
be
7
necessary
to
allow
this
material
to
be
handled
under
8
conditional
exclusion.
But
really
it
ought
to
be
handled
9
under
the
universal
waste
rule
kept
within
the
RICRA
system
10
but
managed
under
flexible
standards
that
are
appropriate
for
11
universal
hazardous
waste.
12
Thank
you.
13
MS.
ATAGI:
Thank
you
very
much.
All
right.
That
14
concludes
the
testimony
today.
Are
there
any
questions
15
before
we
adjourn?
No.
Thank
you
all
very
much
for
your
16
participation.
And
this
meeting
is
now
adjourned.
17
(
Whereupon,
at
12:
22
p.
m.,
the
hearing
was
adjourned.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
DEPOSITION
SERVICES,
INC.,
hereby
certifies
that
the
attached
pages
represent
an
accurate
transcript
of
the
electronic
sound
recording
of
the
proceedings
before
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
in
the
matter
of:

HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
By:

Caroline
G.
Gibson,
Transcriber