1
OSWER
and
INDA/
SMART
Meeting
Notes
March
30,
2006
On
Thursday,
March
30,
representatives
of
INDA,
SMART,
Kimberly
Clark,
ERC
Wiping
Products,
and
the
Beveridge
&
Diamond
Law
Firm
met
with
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Assistant
Administrator,
Susan
Bodine
and
other
EPA
staff.

Peter
Mayberry,
INDA
explained
the
purpose
of
the
meeting.
In
2003,
EPA
proposed
a
rule
to
remove
many
of
the
regulatory
requirements
for
disposed
and
laundered
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags.
Peter
explained
that
there
are
three
categories
of
wipes:
laundered
shop
towels,
non­
woven
towels
and
rags.
The
members
of
SMART
generally
use
rags.
Shop
towels
are
used
in
the
automotive
industry
and
others.
These
towels
are
washed
at
an
industrial
laundry
and
then
returned
to
the
customer.
Nonwovens
are
used
by
many
different
industries.
The
reality
of
non­
wovens
is
that
they
can
now
be
used
several
times
before
they
are
disposed/
discarded.
They
are
used
in
everyday
applications.
Towel
usage
depends
on
what
the
facility
does.

According
to
EPA's
mixture
and
derived­
from
rule,
if
one
drop
of
solvent
is
on
the
wipe,
it
is
a
hazardous
waste
and
must
be
managed
as
such.
However,
laundered
towels
are
regulated
by
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
and
do
not
have
the
same
restrictions.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
(
OW)
proposed
pretreatment
standards
for
laundries.
In
1999,
OW
elected
to
withdraw
its
proposal
because
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
was
contemplating
a
rule.
This
is
the
one
that
was
released
in
2003.

The
2003
rule
said
it
was
focusing
on
the
solvent
rather
than
the
wipes.
The
rule
should
provide
equal
treatment
for
laundered
wipes
and
disposed
wipes
since
the
same
solvents
are
used
and
the
wipes
are
used
in
the
same
manner.
The
Resource
Conservation
Challenge's
goal
is
recycling.
It
was
designed
to
reduce
or
stop
burning
and
landfilling
of
hazardous
materials.

The
message
to
Susan:
Get
this
rule
out
before
this
Administration
leaves
office.

A
second
concern
for
the
industry
are
the
small
business.
The
rule
is
complex
and
not
easily
implemented
and
unfairly
regulates
disposed
wipes
more
stringently.

Karl
Bourdeau­
Beveridge
&
Diamond
Mr.
Bourdeau
believes
the
rule
falls
short
of
its
goal.
That
goal
being
the
solvent
in
the
wipes,
not
the
wipe
itself.
The
proposed
rule
listed
several
damage
cases
of
fire
and
human
health
issues
caused
by
wipes.
The
rule
endorses
management
practices,
but
does
not
require
solvent
reclamation.
There
is
a
disconnect
between
storage/
accumulation
and
transportation.
The
rule
has
more
stringent
requirements
for
storage
than
for
transportation.
Containers
used
for
storage
must
be
non­
leaking
and
covered.
Wipes
sent
offsite
should
be
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
Mr.
Bourdeau
was
surprised
that
the
proposed
rule
did
not
require
solvent
reclamation,
especially
since
that
was
the
original
purpose
of
the
OW's
proposed
rule.
2
The
second
goal,
as
listed
in
the
proposed
rule,
was
to
foster
pollution
prevention
and
recycle
solvents.
This
EPA
failed
to
do,
since
EPA
did
not
even
require
solvent
extraction.
EPA
did
not
achieve
its
goal.
Simple
hand
wringing
could
remove
40%
of
the
solvent.

Larry
Groipen­
ERC
Wiping
Products,
Inc.
My
life
is
wipes.
I
have
an
example.
If
I
take
5
grams
of
liquid
and
place
it
on
a
paper
wipe,
it
would
look
like
this.
If
I
take
70
grams
of
liquid
and
place
it
on
a
cloth
shop
towel,
it
would
look
like
this.
If
I
then
wring
the
cloth
towel
out,
I
can
remove
20
grams
of
liquid.
The
5
grams
is
the
limit
EPA
proposed
for
non­
woven
towels.
For
laundered
shop
towels
all
that
is
required
is
that
the
wipe
not
drip.
Mr.
Groipen's
customers
use
the
wipes
to
clean
not
clean
up
spills.
Most
of
the
time,
the
wipes
do
not
have
much
solvent
on
them.

Bourdeau­
Wipes
should
be
wrung
out
to
maximum
extent
possible.
MA
has
had
a
program
for
10
years
requiring
wringing
for
disposed
towels.
MA
allows
the
wipes
to
go
to
a
landfill
if
the
wipe
does
not
drip
after
hand
wringing.
MA
has
not
noticed
substantial
risk
to
the
environment
from
its
policy.
Surveyed
the
states
for
programs
on
laundered
wipes
and
found
that
at
least
half
have
some
type
of
wringing
requirement.
Wringing
of
the
wipes
would
result
in
more
generation
of
liquid
hazardous
waste.
This
would
provide
an
incentive
for
the
generators
to
look
for
substitutes
and
to
use
less
solvent.

The
third
goal
of
the
proposed
rule
was
to
simplify
the
state
requirements.
The
rule
doesn't
accomplish
that.
There
are
four
sets
of
requirements:
laundry,
landfills,
incinerator,
and
handlers.
Many
of
the
wipe
users
don't
know
where
the
wipe
will
end
up
until
it
is
collected
for
disposal.
The
current
regulations
give
an
unfair
advantage
for
the
laundries.
Additionally,
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
is
unlawful.
The
legal
basis
used
was
the
commodity­
likeness
of
the
laundered
wipe.
This
goes
against
every
single
exclusion
to
date
that
EPA
has
given.
EPA
has
always
required
substantial
treatment
to
meet
the
commodity­
like
condition.
The
propose
rule
is
granting
a
recycling
condition
in
spite
of
no
solvent
being
recycled.
This
raises
two
issues.
One,
have
we
gone
through
years
just
to
have
the
rule
dead
on
arrival
and
two,
what
is
the
precedent
that
is
being
set
for
recycling
a
non­
hazardous
waste
and
allowing
the
hazardous
waste
to
be
disposed.

This
rule
has
been
in
progress
for
years.
It
has
been
21
years
since
the
original
petition.
We
want
to
encourage
you
to
find
the
resources
to
get
this
done.
We
would
like
to
see
it
promulgated
as
soon
as
possible
but
at
least
before
the
end
of
this
administration.

There
are
three
changes
we
think
are
necessary.
1)
Replace
the
5
grams
with
no
free
liquids
accomplished
by
hand
wringing.
2)
Require
the
same
labeling,
training,
storage
conditions
for
both
types
of
wipes.
3)
The
exclusion
for
all
wipes
should
be
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.

During
a
presentation
that
Susan
gave
at
the
RCRA
National
Meeting,
she
challenged
OSW
on
its
goals.
This
would
be
a
good
rule
for
that.

Susan
asked
Karl
if
controls
are
necessary
for
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
going
to
laundries
or
landfills
in
order
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Mr.
Bourdeau
believes
hand
wringing
would
make
the
wipes
less
risky.
Susan
asked
if
this
would
rise
to
a
level
of
concern.
3
Mr.
Bourdeau
stated
that
wringing
wipes
would
be
comparable
to
EPA's
empty
drum
regulations.
It
is
very
similar­
the
maximum
amount
of
solvent
is
removed
from
the
wipe
and
any
remaining
solvent
on
the
wipe
would
be
de­
minimus.

Brad
Reynolds­
Kimberly
Clark
There
is
a
misconception
that
laundered
wipes
are
more
environmentally
friendly.
That
is
not
necessarily
true.
Many
times
the
wipes
have
toxics
along
for
the
ride
and
the
sludge
is
aqueous.
In
addition,
more
laundry
sludge
goes
to
landfills.

Mr.
Groipen
wanted
to
know
what
it
would
make
this
rule
a
priority.
Susan
said
she
will
review
the
rule
and
the
information
provided.
4
Attendees:

Brad
Reynolds
Kimberly­
Clark
770­
587­
8443
breynold@
kkc.
com
Dave
Kovitz
Kimberly­
Clark
770­
587­
7319
dkovitz@
kkc.
com
Larry
Groipen
ERC
Wiping
Products,
Inc.
781­
593­
4000
larry@
ercwip.
com
Peter
Mayberry
INDA
703­
538­
8805
pgmayberry@
aol.
com
Bernard
Brill
SMART
301­
656­
1077x101
bernie@
smartasn.
org
Karl
Bourdeau
Beveridge
&
Diamond
202­
789­
6019
kbourdeau@
bdlaw.
com
John
Michaud
EPA/
OGC
202­
564­
5518
michaud.
john@
epa.
gov
Carolyn
Hoskinson
EPA/
OSWER
202­
566­
0190
hoskinson.
carolyn@
epa.
gov
Susan
Bodine
EPA/
OSWER
202­
566­
0200
bodine.
susan@
epa.
gov
Matt
Hale
EPA/
OSW
703­
308­
0635
hale.
matt@
epa.
gov
Teena
Wooten
EPA/
OSW
703­
308­
8751
wooten.
teena@
epa.
gov
