Laundered Shop Towels: What You Don’t Know Could Hurt You

By: By Rory Holmes, President & Cos Camelio, Technical Director
INDA (Association of the Nonwovens Fabric Industry)

While one might assume that a “freshly laundered” shop towel is fresh and clean, the fact is that commercial laundries aren’t always able to remove the tiny bits of metal shavings, lead, oil and other chemicals that can become embedded in the towels by previous users. Embedded metal shavings can injure faces and hands, resulting in lost work time. Metal shavings can also damage surfaces by causing scratches. And residual oils and chemicals can cause skin rashes. Heavy metals can cause additional health problems, as well.

Click here for full story

Discussion: In the recent past, several states have enacted legislation and/or regulations
regarding donation boxes used to collect second hand textiles. In 2007, for instance, the
New Jersey State Legislature approved a bill which requires, among other things, that: 1)
permits be obtained before donation boxes are placed; 2) labeling which clearly identifies
the recipient of any donations is placed on the boxes; and 3) designates specific locations
when donation boxes can be placed. These actions are needed, according to proponents,
to ensure that donation boxes are properly maintained, safely operated, and are not being
used for fraudulent purposes.

Position: SMART supports the need for “transparency” when it comes to the operation
of donation boxes so that donors will know who benefits from their donations. Without
transparency, it is likely that donations will eventually diminish. Similarly, SMART
recognizes that zoning concerns exist throughout the country that can result in permitting
requirements and/or restrictions on the placement of donation boxes. For these reasons,
SMART does not oppose most governmental efforts to regulate donation boxes. We do,
however, reserve the right to oppose governmental actions that present unnecessarily
onerous compliance requirements for our industry and/or threaten our members with
significant penalties for unwitting violations.

Discussion: There are approximately 30 countries around the world that restrict imports of second hand textiles. Some of these countries ban such imports outright while others have adopted punitive tariffs and/or non-tariff barriers to trade. SMART opposes restrictions on trade of second hand textiles because we believe that: 1) global commerce is facilitated with open borders; 3) restrictions limit consumer choice; and 3) black markets can flourish when restrictions are in place

SMART Position: SMART supports countries that accept exports of second hand clothing and actively seeks opportunities in which the U.S. government – as well as any government outside the U.S. in which our members operate – can place pressure on foreign countries to remove restrictions on imports of second hand textiles.

Last month I reported that SMART sent a letter to the California General Assembly seeking an amendment to legislation (AB 2610) that was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) and contained provisions that would prohibit for-profit entities from operating collection boxes for 2nd hand clothing.

I am now pleased to report that SMART’s concerns were recognized, and AB 2610 was amended by the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee on April 22 such that all of the language regarding “recognized charitable organizations” has been removed.

SMART has received word that the Technical Management Board (TMB) for the International Standards Organization (ISO) has approved a new work item and agreed to form a project committee to begin work on the development of one or more standards regarding 2nd hand goods. SMARTTalk readers may recall that a draft outline for this project was circulated in 2006 and included a long list of 2nd hand products that could potentially be included in the standarddevelopment exercise, and that textiles and apparel were included in that preliminary draft.

In two separate actions from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week, EPA highlighted the industrial laundry industry directly and indirectly. EPA’s indirect reference came in the form of a new regulation that defines solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The direct reference comes as a press release announcing nearly a half-million dollars in fines that EPA levied against G&K Services – a major industrial launderer – for “numerous” hazardous waste violations committed by two of the company’s facilities in California.

A recent article in the business section of the Baltimore Sun by Robert M. Hathaway and Edward Gresser was entitled "A Trade-First Pakistan Policy".  The article notes that "Instead of more aid increases the U.S. should drop high tariffs on clothing, leather and textile industries."

A country of 165 million and nuclear armed, a democratic Pakistan has been recognized as crucial to combating terrorism and radicalism throughout the world. The key to achieving this goal, it is asserted, is a strong economy and good jobs.

By Jessica Franken, Government Affairs Consultant

The November 2003 proposed wiper rule focuses on the management of disposable and laundered solvent contaminated industrial wiping products under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the principal federal law governing the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. That proposal, among other things, would establish “dueling exemptions”-- one set of conditions that disposable wipes would have to meet to be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste, and a separate, less demanding set of conditions that laundered wipes would have to meet in order to be excluded from the definition of solid waste.  The distinction matters because hazardous wastes are regulated much more heavily than solid wastes.