DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
1
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
261
[
FRL
­
]

RIN
Hazardous
Waste
Management
System:
Identification
and
Listing
of
Hazardous
Waste:
Conditional
Exclusions
from
Hazardous
Waste
and
Solid
Waste
for
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ACTION:
Proposed
rule
SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
today
proposes
to
modify
its
hazardous
waste
management
regulations
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
for
certain
solvent­
contaminated
materials,
such
as
reusable
shop
towels,
rags,

disposable
wipes
and
paper
towels.
Specifically,
EPA
is
proposing
(
1)
to
conditionally
exclude
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
disposable
industrial
wipes
that
are
contaminated
with
hazardous
solvents
and
are
going
to
disposal,
and
(
2)
to
conditionally
exclude
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
reusable
industrial
shop
towels
and
rags
that
are
contaminated
with
hazardous
solvents
and
are
sent
for
laundering
or
dry
cleaning
(
hereinafter
referred
to
as
disposable
industrial
wipes
and
reusable
industrial
wipes,
respectively).
This
proposal
affects
contaminated
industrial
wipes
being
sent
to
both
landfill
and
non­
landfill
(
e.
g.,
laundries
and
combustion)
facilities
and
is
applicable
to
(
1)
industrial
wipes
exhibiting
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
i.
e.,
ignitability,

corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity)
due
to
use
with
solvents
or
(
2)
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
F001­
F005
spent
F­
listed
solvents
or
comparable
P­
and
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products
that
are
spilled
and
cleaned
up
with
industrial
wipes.

Today's
proposal
would
resolve,
at
the
federal
level,
long­
standing
issues
associated
with
the
management
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
by
(
1)
facilitating
pollution
prevention
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
2
and
waste
minimization
opportunities,
including
the
recycling
of
the
spent
solvents
extracted
from
contaminated
industrial
wipes;
(
2)
fostering
improved
solvents
management
by
generators
and
handling
facilities;
(
3)
reducing
compliance
costs;
(
4)
increasing
consistency
in
the
regulations
governing
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
across
the
United
States;
(
5)
clarifying
existing
federal
rules;
and
(
6)
creating
flexibility
for
generators
to
work
with
industrial
laundries,
as
appropriate,
to
ensure
compliance
with
local
pretreatment
standards
established
by
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTWs).

Today's
notice
also
contains
the
Agency's
proposed
response
to
rulemaking
petitions
filed
by
the
Kimberly­
Clark
Corporation
and
the
Scott
Paper
Company.

DATES:
Submit
comments
on
or
before
[
INSERT
DATE
90
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
Comments
postmarked
after
this
date
will
be
marked
"
late"
and
may
not
be
considered.
Any
person
may
request
a
public
hearing
on
this
proposal
by
filing
a
request
by
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Section
1.
B.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
information,
contact
the
RCRA/
Superfund/
EPCRA/
UST
Hotline
at
(
800)
424­
9346
(
toll
free)
or
TDD
(
800)
553­
7672
(
hearing
impaired).
In
the
Washington,
D.
C.
metropolitan
area,
call
(
703)
412­
3323
or
TDD
(
703)
412­
9810.
You
can
also
contact
Kathy
Blanton
at
(
703)
605­
0761
or
at
blanton.
katherine@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
3
I.
General
Information
I.
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

I.
A.
1.
Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­

2003­
0004.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(
RIC)
at
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
Washington,
DC.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,

Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
To
review
docket
materials,
it
is
recommended
that
the
public
make
an
appointment
by
calling
(
202)
566­
0270.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
the
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$
0.15/
page.

I.
A.
2.
Electronic
Access
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket
or
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
4
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Docket.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,

publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
A.

For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,

whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.

Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

I.
B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
5
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

I.
B.
1.
Electronically
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

I.
B.
1.
a.
EPA
Dockets
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
"
Information
Sources,"
"
Dockets,"
and
"
EPA
Dockets."
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
Number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.
The
system
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
6
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.

I.
B.
1.
b.
E­
mail
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
"
rcra­
docket@
epamail.
epa.
gov",

Attention
Docket
ID
Number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,

EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
"
anonymous
access"
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

I.
B.
1.
c.
Disk
or
CD
ROM
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
this
section.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

I.
B.
2.
By
Mail
Send
your
comments
to:
RCRA
Information
Center,
Mailcode:
5305T,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
Number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.

I.
B.
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,

DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
Number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
7
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
above.

I.
B.
4.
By
Facsimile.

Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566­
0270,
Attention
Docket
ID.
Number
RCRA­
2003­

0004.

I.
C.
How
Should
I
Submit
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
To
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305W),
U.
S.

EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.

RCRA­
2003­
0004.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.

In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

I.
D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
8
You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:

1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.

2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.

3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.

4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.

5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

6.
Offer
alternatives.

7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

ACRONYMS
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
9
Acronym
Definition
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
10
APA
............................................................
ASTSWMO..............................................
...

CAA..........................................................
..
CAS
No.......................................................
CBI...........................................................
...
CESQG.....................................................
..
CFR..........................................................
...
CSI............................................................
..
CWA.........................................................
..
DOT..........................................................
..
EPA..........................................................
...
FR..........................................................
......
HSWA......................................................
...
ICR...........................................................
...
IRIS..........................................................
...
LDR..........................................................
...
MIBK........................................................
..
MWC........................................................
...
NESHAP...................................................
..

NSPS........................................................
...
NTTAA.....................................................
..
OMB.........................................................
Administrative
Procedures
Act
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
Clean
Air
Act
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
Registry
Number
Confidential
Business
Information
Conditionally
Exempt
Small
Quantity
Generator
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
Common
Sense
Initiative
Clean
Water
Act
Department
of
Transportation
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Federal
Register
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
Information
Collection
Request
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
Municipal
Waste
Combustor
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazaredous
Air
Pollutants
New
Source
Performance
Standards
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
Office
of
Policy,
Planning
and
Evaluation
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
Performance
Based
Measurement
System
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Reference
Air
Concentrations
Reference
Doses
for
Exposure
through
Ingestion
RCRA
Information
Center
Toxicity
Characteristic
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
Technical
Background
Document
Telecommunications
Device
for
the
Deaf
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
11
The
contents
of
today's
proposal
are
listed
in
the
following
outline:

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
get
Copies
of
the
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

C.
How
Should
I
Submit
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
to
the
Agency?

D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

II.
Legal
Authority
III.
Summary
of
Proposed
Changes
A.
Generator
Conditions
1.
Generator
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
2.
Generator
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
B.
Handling
Facility
Conditions
1.
Handling
Facility
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
2.
Handling
Facility
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
C.
Who
Would
be
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Exclusions?

IV.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Intent
of
Today's
Regulatory
Proposal?

B.
Jurisdiction
Over
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
1.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
2.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
C.
Solvent
Removed
from
Industrial
Wipes
V.
Detailed
Discussion
of
Proposed
Rule
A.
Scope
of
Solvents
Covered
by
the
Proposed
Rule
B.
Conditions
for
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
Solvent­

Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Destined
for
Disposal
1.
Why
is
EPA
Proposing
to
Conditionally
Exclude
Disposable
Solvent­
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
12
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste?

2.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Initial
Storage
and
Accumulation
3.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Containers
Used
for
Transportation
4.
Proposed
Labeling
Condition
for
Containers
Used
to
Transport
Disposable
Wipes
5.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Transportation
to
a
Municipal
or
Other
Non­
Hazardous
Landfill
6.
Proposed
Condition
for
Transportation
to
Non­
Land
Disposal
Facilities
7.
"
Exotic"
Solvents
8.
Generators
that
Remove
Solvent
from
Industrial
Wipes
9.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Intra­
Company
Transfers
10.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Management
at
Handling
Facilities
11.
Management
of
Industrial
Wipes
Containing
Co­
contaminants
12.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Burning
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
in
Combustors
13.
Disposal
of
Treatment
Residuals
from
Municipal
Waste
and
Other
Combustion
Facilities
C.
Conditions
for
the
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
for
Reusable
Industrial
Wipes
1.
Why
is
EPA
Proposing
to
Exclude
Reusable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste?

2.
Applicable
Solvents
3.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Initial
Storage
and
Accumulation
4.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Containers
Used
for
Transportation
5.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Transportation
to
Laundry,
Dry
Cleaner,
or
Handler
6.
"
Exotic"
Solvents
7.
Generators
That
Remove
Solvent
from
Industrial
Wipes
8.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Intra
Company
Transfers
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
13
9.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Management
at
Handling
Facilities
D.
Recordkeeping
E.
Enforcement
F.
Alternative
Options
to
the
Approach
in
Today's
Proposed
Rule
1.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
Disposable
and
Reusable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
2.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
All
Disposable
Solvent­

Contaminated
Wipes
Under
a
Single
Set
of
Conditions
VI.
Additional
Benefit
of
the
Proposed
Rule:
Fostering
Pollution
Prevention
VII.
Risk
Screening
Analysis
A.
Introduction
B.
What
Analyses
Did
EPA
Do?

C.
What
Were
the
Results
of
the
Analyses
and
What
Do
they
Mean?

1.
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Managed
in
Landfills
2.
Ash
from
Incineration
of
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes
Managed
in
Landfills
3.
Sludge
from
Wastewater
Treatment
at
Industrial
Laundries
and
Managed
in
Landfills
4.
Ecological
Assessment
D.
What
External
Review
was
Done
of
the
Risk
Screening
Analysis?

VIII.
History
and
Relationship
to
Other
Rulemakings
A.
Proposed
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Industrial
Laundries
B.
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
Determination
for
Spent
Solvents
IX.
State
Authorization
A.
Applicability
of
Rule
in
Authorized
States
B.
Effect
on
State
Authorizations
X.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Economic
Analysis
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
14
1.
EO
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
2.
Affected
Economic
Sub­
sectors
3.
Economic
Impact
of
Today's
Other
Proposed
Exclusion
Options
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Appendix
A:
Demographics
of
the
Industrial
Wipes
Industry
Proposed
Rule
Language
II.
Legal
Authority
EPA
proposes
these
regulations
under
the
authority
of
Sections
2002,
3001­
3010,
and
7004
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act,
as
amended
by
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
as
amended
by
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA),
42
U.
S.
C.
6912
,
6921­
6930,
and
6974.

III.
Summary
of
Proposed
Changes
EPA
today
proposes
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
hazardous
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
1Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
are
co­
contaminated
with
another
material
that
makes
them
characteristically
hazardous
for
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity
would
not
be
eligible
for
the
execlusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
or
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
If
the
industrial
wipes
are
co­
contaminated
with
a
material
that
makes
them
characteristically
hazardous
for
ignitability
they
would
remain
eligible.
For
more
discussion
of
this
provision,
see
Section
V.
B.
11.

15
waste
for
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
going
to
disposal
and
combustion,
including
use
as
a
fuel,
and
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste
for
solventcontaminated
reusable
wipes,
shop
towels,
and
rags
that
are
sent
for
laundering
or
dry
cleaning
(
hereinafter
referred
to
as
disposable
industrial
wipes
and
reusable
industrial
wipes,
respectively).

As
long
as
the
specified
conditions
are
met,
the
Agency
proposes
that
the
exclusions
from
both
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
and
the
definition
of
solid
waste
be
applicable
to
(
1)
industrial
wipes
exhibiting
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
i.
e.,
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity)
1
due
to
use
with
solvents
or
(
2)
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
F001­
F005
spent
F­
listed
solvents
or
comparable
P­
and
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products
that
are
spilled
and
cleaned
up
with
industrial
wipes.
This
proposal
would
not
affect
the
regulatory
status,
under
federal
regulation,
of
Conditionally
Exempt
Small
Quantity
Generators
(
CESQGs)
 
those
that
generate
no
more
than
100
kilograms
of
hazardous
waste
or
no
more
than
one
kilogram
of
acutely
hazardous
waste
in
a
month
and
who
accumulate
no
more
than
1000
kilograms
of
hazardous
waste
or
no
more
than
one
kilogram
of
acutely
hazardous
waste
at
one
time.

It
has
long
been
EPA's
policy
to
encourage
the
appropriate
state
or
EPA
regional
office
to
characterize
the
regulatory
status
of
laundered
and
reused
wipes
based
on
site­
specific
factors.

(
See
Appendix
B,
which
contains
a
policy
memo
from
Mike
Shapiro,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
to
EPA
Waste
Management
Division
Directors,
February
14,
1994.)
Most
authorized
states
already
exclude
reusable
wipes
from
the
definition
of
solid
or
hazardous
waste
as
long
as
certain
basic
conditions
are
met,
such
as
the
removal
of
free
liquids
by
the
user.
It
is
not
EPA's
intent
to
modify
or
in
any
way
limit
the
existing
state
or
EPA
regional
exclusions
or
policies
through
this
proposed
federal
rulemaking.
Because
this
action
is
a
proposed
rulemaking,

provisions
of
the
proposal,
as
well
as
EPA's
assumptions
and
rationale
leading
to
them,
are
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
16
subject
to
public
notice
and
comment.
Therefore,
until
a
final
rule
governing
these
materials
is
issued,
the
regulatory
status
and
classification
of
these
materials,
including
all
regulatory
exclusions
under
the
current
RCRA
programs
implemented
by
a
state
or
EPA
region
implementing
the
RCRA
program,
remain
unchanged.
See
section
IX.
B.
of
this
preamble
for
the
effect
this
rule
would
have
on
the
RCRA
program
in
authorized
states
when
finalized.

EPA's
recent
examination
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
is
a
result
of
issues
and
questions
raised
by
stakeholders
concerning
the
Agency's
current
policy
on
these
materials.
In
developing
our
response
to
those
concerns,
EPA
also
conducted
a
risk
screening
analysis
and
an
investigation
of
potential
damages
from
mismanagement
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
make
sure
risks
from
wipes
management
would
be
addressed
and
taken
into
consideration.

We
emphasize
that
EPA's
concern
surrounding
the
use
of
both
types
of
industrial
wipes
 
disposables
and
reusables
 
is
based
on
the
hazardous
solvent
contained
in
the
used
wipes,
not
the
industrial
wipes
themselves.
This
proposed
rule
would
not
apply
to
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
aqueous­
based
solvents
or
solvents
that,
when
spent,
are
not
hazardous
wastes.
We
strongly
recommend
that
generators
examine
the
feasibility
of
substituting
non­
hazardous
solvents
for
hazardous
solvents.
By
using
non­
hazardous
solvents,
individual
facilities
may
eliminate
or
reduce
compliance
costs
associated
with
RCRA
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
as
well
as
U.
S.

Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA),
and
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
regulations.
For
generators
using
reusable
industrial
wipes
that
are
managed
by
an
industrial
laundry
or
dry
cleaner,
indirect
costs
associated
with
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)

regulations
may
also
be
reduced.
We
also
encourage
generators
to
examine
the
possibilities
of
resource
conservation
through
removal
and
reclamation
of
their
solvents,
if
possible,
and
believe
that
the
changes
proposed
today
will
encourage
additional
reclamation
of
hazardous
solvents.

The
conditions
that
would
be
required
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
and
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
are
outlined
below.
For
a
more
detailed
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
2For
the
purposes
of
today's
preamble,
we
will
use
the
term
other
non­
hazardous
landfill
to
denote
Part
257
Subpart
B
compliant
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills.
If
a
non­
hazardous
landfill
that
is
not
a
municipal
landfill
accepts
this
waste,
it
must
meet
the
minimum
standards
of
40
CFR
Part
257
Subpart
B.

17
discussion
of
generator,
handler
and
processing
facility
conditions,
see
Section
V.

III.
A.
Generator
Conditions
III.
A.
1.
Generator
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
For
disposable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
will
be
managed
at
a
non­
land
disposal
facility
to
meet
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
generators
would
be
required
to
(
1)
accumulate
and
store
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
on­
site
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers;
(
2)
ensure
that
the
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids,
except
as
noted
below,
when
transported
off­
site
to
a
handling
facility;
and
(
3)
transport
the
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
off­
site
in
containers
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
solvent
loss
to
the
environment
and
labeled
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes."

Today's
proposal
would
require
that
disposable
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
managed
at
municipal
landfills
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
that
meet
the
standards
under
40
CFR
Part
257
Subpart
B
(
the
disposal
standards
applicable
to
the
receipt
of
CESQG
wastes
at
nonmunicipal
non­
hazardous
waste
disposal
units)
2
(
i)
must
be
"
dry"
(
i.
e.,
contain
less
than
five
grams
of
solvent
each),
and
(
ii)
must
not
contain
any
of
the
11
F­
listed
spent
solvents
which
the
Agency
has
tentatively
determined
may
pose
adverse
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
disposed
of
in
a
landfill,
even
if
the
wipe
is
"
dry."
See
Table
1
below
for
the
F­
listed
solvents
that,
when
contaminating
industrial
wipes,
would
make
landfilled
wipes
ineligible
for
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
In
other
words,
wipes
contaminated
with
Table
1
solvents
would
not
be
allowed
in
municipal
landfills
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
under
the
provisions
of
this
proposal.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
18
Table
1
F­
listed
Solvents
Ineligible
for
Municipal
or
Other
Non­
Hazardous
Landfill
Disposal
2­
Nitropropane
Nitrobenzene
Methyl
Ethyl
Ketone
(
MEK)
Methylene
Chloride
Pyridine
Benzene
Cresols
(
o,
m,
p)
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
In
addition,
EPA
is
proposing
that
transporters
be
allowed
to
carry
wipes
with
free
liquids
to
other
facilities
within
the
same
company
under
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion
when
they
are
transporting
them
to
a
solvent
recovery
facility
that
will
remove
enough
solvent
to
meet
either
the
"
no
free
liquid"
or
the
"
dry"
condition,
provided
the
other
conditions
are
met.

III.
A.
2.
Generator
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
For
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
going
to
be
reclaimed
and
reused
to
meet
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
generators
would
be
required
to
(
1)

accumulate
and
store
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
on­
site
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers;
(
2)

ensure
that
the
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids
when
laundered
on­
site
or
transported
off­
site
to
a
handling
facility,
except
as
noted
below;
and
(
3)
transport
the
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
off­
site
in
containers
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
losses
to
the
environment
(
e.
g.,
plastic
bags,
55­
gallon
drums,
or
other
containers).
The
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
would
be
applicable
only
to
wipes
that
are
being
reclaimed
for
reuse
through
a
cleaning
process.

EPA
is
also
proposing
that
wipes
can
be
transported
with
free
liquids
to
facilities
within
the
same
company
under
the
exclusion
when
they
are
transporting
them
to
a
solvent
recovery
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
19
facility
that
will
remove
enough
solvent
to
meet
either
the
"
no
free
liquid"
or
the
"
dry"
condition,

provided
the
other
conditions
are
met.

III.
B.
Handling
Facility
Conditions
III.
B.
1
Handling
Facility
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
For
disposable
industrial
wipes
to
continue
to
meet
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
combustors
and
facilities
that
handle
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
remove
solvent
from
them
prior
to
disposal
would
be
required
to
manage
them
(
a)
in
containers
designed,
constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
losses
to
the
environment
that
meet
the
transportation
requirements
in
today's
proposal
or
(
b)
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
that
would
meet
the
generator
accumulation
conditions
in
today's
proposal.
Unless
the
handling
facility
and
the
generator
are
in
the
same
company,
if
a
handler
discovers
any
free
liquid
accompanying
the
used
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
it
would
be
required
either
to
remove
the
free
liquid
and
manage
it
properly
as
a
hazardous
waste,
if
applicable,
or
to
return
the
container
with
the
wipes
and
free
liquid
to
the
generator.

III.
B.
2.
Handling
Facility
Conditions:
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
For
reusable
wipes
to
continue
to
meet
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,

industrial
laundries
and
dry
cleaners,
as
well
as
facilities
that
handle
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
remove
solvent
from
them
prior
to
cleaning,
would
be
required
to
manage
them
in
containers
designed,
constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
losses
to
the
environment
(
i.
e.,

today's
proposed
transportation
condition),
or
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
that
would
meet
the
generator
accumulation
conditions
in
this
proposal.
Unless
the
handling
facility
and
the
generator
are
in
the
same
company,
if
a
handler
discovers
any
free
liquid
accompanying
the
used
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
it
would
be
required
either
to
remove
the
free
liquid
and
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
20
manage
it
properly
or
to
return
the
container
with
the
wipes
and
free
liquid
to
the
generator.

III.
C.
Who
Would
be
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Exclusions?

The
following
table
summarizes
the
types
and
numbers
of
entities
nationwide
which
we
estimate
could
be
eligible
for
the
proposed
exclusions.
The
exclusions
would
only
affect
those
establishments
which
use
industrial
wipes
in
conjunction
with
operations
involving
solvents
which
are
included
in
the
scope
of
this
proposal
(
i.
e.,
F001­
F005
spent
F­
listed
solvents
at
40
CFR
261.31;
comparable
P­
and
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products
at
40
CFR
261.33
that
are
spilled
and
cleaned
up
with
industrial
wipes;
and
solvents
exhibiting
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
i.
e.,
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,
or
toxicity
at
40
CFR
261.21­
24)
due
to
use
with
solvents).
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
21
Table
2
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Item
Economic
Sub­
Sector
(
Entity
Type)
NAICS
Code
SIC
Code
Number
of
Affected
Establishments*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Printing
manufacturing
(
mfg)
Chemical
&
allied
products
mfg
Plastics
&
rubber
products
mfg
Fabricated
metal
products
mfg
Industrial
machinery
&
eqpt
mfg
Electronics
&
computers
mfg
Transportation
eqpt
mfg
Furniture
&
fixture
mfg
Auto
dealers
(
retail
trade)
Publishing
(
printed
matter)
Business
services
Auto
repair
&
maintenance
Military
bases
Solid
waste
services
Industrial
launderers
323
325
326
332
333
3344
336
337
4411
5111
561439
8111
92812
562
812332
275
to
279
28
30
34
352
to
356
367
37
25
5511
&
5521
271
to
274
7334
753
9721
4953
7218
18,700
to
42,000
1,100
to
2,900
1,400
to
3,700
4,900
to
13,000
2,400
to
6,300
550
to
1,500
1,100
to
3,000
1,600
to
4,300
4,000
to
10,700
10,600
to
23,600
2,900
to
6,400
13,500
to
35,900
50
to
130
4,800
to
9,650
590
to
1,175
Total
=
68,000
to
164,000
*
Note:
Establishment
counts
above
do
not
necessarily
represent
all
establishments
in
each
industry;
counts
represent
EPA's
estimate
of
establishments
which
use
solvent
industrial
wipes,
to
which
the
conditional
exclusions
may
apply.

IV.
Background
EPA
is
addressing
the
issue
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
in
response
to
stakeholder
concerns
that
these
materials
warrant
special
consideration
to
correct
over­
regulation
as
well
as
to
ensure
more
consistency
in
the
regulation
of
these
materials.
In
addition,
EPA
sees
this
proposed
rule
as
encouraging
resource
conservation
and
responsible
solvent
management,
as
well
as
removing
potential
regulatory
restrictions
to
solvent
recovery.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
22
Industrial
wipes
are
used
by
thousands
of
commercial
and
industrial
facilities
throughout
the
United
States
to
ensure
that
products
and
services
meet
design,
performance,
or
operating
standards.
Generators
often
use
these
wipes
in
conjunction
with
ignitable
solvents
(
any
material
with
a
flash
point
less
than
140

F)
or
listed
solvents
that,
when
spent,
are
hazardous
wastes
(
approximately
30
specific
halogenated
and
non­
halogenated
solvents
are
defined
by
EPA
as
meeting
the
criteria
for
designation
as
hazardous).

For
the
purposes
of
this
proposal,
we
are
considering
two
broad
categories
of
industrial
wipes:
reusables
and
disposables.
Specific
definitions
for
the
different
kinds
of
industrial
wipes
can
be
found
in
Appendix
A
to
this
proposal
but
we
have
chosen,
for
simplicity's
sake,
to
call
all
disposable
wipes
and
reusable
shop
towels
and
rags
for
which
this
proposed
rule
would
be
applicable
"
industrial
wipes,"
and
to
distinguish
only
between
those
which
are
going
to
be
laundered,
or
otherwise
cleaned
for
reuse
("
reusables"),
and
those
which
will
be
discarded
either
by
combustion,
including
use
as
a
fuel,
or
landfilling
("
disposables").

A
generator's
decision
to
use
disposable
or
reusable
industrial
wipes
depends
primarily
on
their
processes,
but
sometimes
it
may
be
based
on
their
waste
management
strategy.
The
process
employed
is
important,
for
example,
because
the
amount
of
lint
a
wipe
generates
can
play
a
very
significant
role.
Some
processes,
such
as
those
in
electronics
and
printing
applications,
cannot
tolerate
any
lint,
whereas
other
processes,
such
as
cleaning
auto
parts,
can
tolerate
large
amounts
of
lint.
Absorbent
capacity
is
also
another
factor
in
some
tasks,
as
is
durability
of
a
wipe
in
both
physical
strength
and
in
its
ability
to
withstand
strong
solvents.

As
with
other
commodities,
a
wipe's
life
cycle
depends
on
its
ultimate
disposition.
The
following
description
illustrates
generally
how
industrial
wipes
are
used,
but
is
not
exhaustive
of
all
possibilities.
Some
disposable
wipes
arrive
at
the
generator
dry,
whereas
others
are
packaged
already
saturated
with
solvent
and
are,
therefore,
ready
for
use
immediately.
Either
way,
the
generator
uses
the
wipe
in
its
process
and
then
often
discards
it.
These
wipes
are
typically
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
23
disposed
of
either
in
a
landfill
or
by
combustion.
Alternately,
some
wipes
generally
thought
of
as
"
disposable"
(
perhaps
if
they
are
made
with
paper
fiber)
are
used
more
than
once
by
being
put
through
a
solvent
removal
system.
Because
this
proposal
makes
a
distinction
between
wipes
destined
for
disposal
and
destined
for
reuse,
in
this
case
the
industrial
wipe
would
be
considered
"
reusable"
if
it
were
to
be
reused,
even
if
it
was
manufactured
for
typical
one­
time
use.

Reusable
wipes
are
part
of
a
more
systematic
handling
system.
In
general,
a
laundry
owns
reusable
industrial
wipes,
rents
them
to
generators,
and
collects
them
for
laundering
on
a
regular
basis.
Generators
receive
deliveries
of
wipes
from
the
laundries,
use
them,
and
accumulate
used
wipes.
Drivers,
most
often
employed
by
the
laundries,
pick
up
the
contaminated
industrial
wipes,

replacing
them
with
clean
wipes
at
the
same
time,
and
then
return
the
soiled
wipes
to
the
laundry.

Once
at
the
laundry,
the
wipes
are
then
counted
to
assure
the
laundry
is
getting
back
from
the
generator
the
same
number
sent
out
and,
finally,
are
cleaned
before
entering
the
cycle
again.

Solvent
removal
and
recovery
can
happen
at
various
points
in
the
life
cycle
of
both
disposables
and
reusables.
Generators
may
choose
to
recover
solvent
either
to
reduce
solvent
use
and
save
money,
or
to
reduce
environmental
impact;
generators
may
generally
recover
solvents
without
additional
RCRA
requirements
under
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
261.6(
c).
In
addition,

laundries
may
recover
solvents
from
the
wipes
that
arrive
at
their
facilities
to
minimize
the
amount
of
solvent
in
their
effluent
to
comply
with
pretreatment
requirements
imposed
by
a
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW)
or
to
recover
solvent,
which
can
be
sold,
refined,
and
reused
when
it
is
recovered.
One
of
EPA's
goals
in
this
rulemaking
is
to
encourage
solvent
recovery
and
recycling
in
order
to
minimize
the
amount
of
potentially
hazardous
solvents
that
are
released
to
the
environment
and
to
conserve
resources.

IV.
A.
What
is
the
Intent
of
Today's
Regulatory
Proposal?

A
brief
history
of
the
current
regulatory
scheme
applicable
to
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
24
lends
perspective
on
how
EPA
has
developed
this
proposal
and
explains
how
EPA
has
focused
its
efforts
on
responding
to
stakeholder
concerns.

Since
EPA
began
to
look
at
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
we
have
heard
from
many
interested
groups
that
they
are
frustrated
with
the
regulatory
scheme
now
applicable
to
them.
After
the
initial
promulgation
of
the
federal
hazardous
waste
regulations,
EPA
began
receiving
inquiries
from
makers
and
users
of
disposable
wipes,
who
stated
that
the
regulations
were
too
stringent
for
industrial
wipes
based
on
the
risks
they
pose.
Specifically,
in
1985,
EPA
received
a
petition,
pursuant
to
40
CFR.
260.20,
from
the
Kimberly­
Clark
Corporation,
a
manufacturer
of
disposable
industrial
wipes,
that
asked
EPA
to
exclude
disposable
wipes
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
The
petition
stated
that
these
materials
are
over­
regulated
because
the
amount
of
solvent
in
the
wipes
is
insignificant
and
because
the
disposable
wipes
do
not
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment
even
when
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
In
1987,
EPA
received
a
second
rulemaking
petition
from
the
Scott
Paper
Company
that
reiterated
many
of
Kimberly­
Clark's
points
and
added
that
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
are
not
necessary
because
contaminated
disposable
wipes
are
handled
responsibly,
make
up
just
1%

of
a
generator's
waste
stream,
and
could
be
beneficial
to
the
operation
of
incinerators
because
of
their
heat
value.

In
addition
to
these
petitions
from
the
makers
of
disposable
wipes,
in
1987,
EPA
received
a
rulemaking
petition
pursuant
to
40
CFR
260.20
from
the
industrial
laundries
requesting
that
the
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
they
wash
before
returning
them
to
their
customers
for
reuse
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
In
2000,
the
laundries
withdrew
their
petition.

Nevertheless,
the
various
rulemaking
petitions
helped
set
in
motion
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule
that
addresses
the
regulatory
requirements
for
both
disposable
and
reusable
industrial
wipes.

A
rule
addressing
both
types
of
wipes
is
also
important
because
generators
of
solvent­
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
25
contaminated
wipes
have
asked
EPA
over
the
years
to
clarify
our
position
on
both
disposable
and
reusable
wipes.
In
the
early
1990s,
EPA
developed
a
policy
that
deferred
determinations
and
interpretations
regarding
regulation
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
states
authorized
to
implement
the
federal
hazardous
waste
program
or
to
the
EPA
region
in
the
cases
where
a
state
is
not
authorized
(
see
2/
14/
94
Memo
from
Shapiro
to
Waste
Management
Division
Directors
Regions
I­
X
in
Appendix
B).
We
did
this
because
we
felt,
at
that
time,
that
these
questions
were
best
addressed
by
the
regulatory
officials
responsible
for
implementing
the
regulations.

This
policy
led
to
the
application
of
different
regulatory
schemes
for
both
types
of
industrial
wipes
in
EPA
regions
and
states.
Although
the
states
differ
in
the
details
of
their
policies,
in
general,
they
regulate
disposable
industrial
wipes
as
a
hazardous
waste
when
they
are
contaminated
with
a
solvent
that
is
listed
or
exhibits
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic.
On
the
other
hand,
many,
but
not
all,
states
provide
regulatory
relief
for
reusable
contaminated
wipes
sent
to
an
industrial
laundry
or
other
facility
for
cleaning
and
reuse.
In
about
half
the
cases,
this
regulatory
relief
is
in
the
form
of
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
whereas
other
states
provide
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
The
substantive
difference
between
these
two
approaches
is
that
materials
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
are
not
considered
a
waste
at
all,
and
are
not
subject
to
federal
RCRA
regulation,
whereas
materials
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
are
considered
to
be
wastes
that,
when
certain
conditions
are
met,
do
not
need
to
be
managed
as
hazardous
wastes.

For
reusable
industrial
wipes,
the
conditions
for
the
various
exclusions
vary
from
state
to
state,
but
most
require
that
the
containers
of
wipes
not
contain
free
liquids,
and
require
that
the
laundry
discharge
to
a
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW)
or
be
permitted
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Some
states
have
established
other
requirements
such
as
requiring
generators
to
manage
contaminated
wipes
according
to
the
hazardous
waste
accumulation
standards
prior
to
laundering,
and
requiring
generators
to
file
a
one­
time
notice
under
the
land
disposal
restriction
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
26
(
LDR)
program
(
see
40
CFR
Part
268)
when
wipes
are
sent
to
be
laundered.
More
detail
on
the
specifics
of
the
states'
policies
can
be
found
in
Chapter
3
of
the
Technical
Background
Document
to
this
proposal.

The
EPA
policy
laid
out
in
the
Shapiro
memo,
deferring
interpretation
to
the
states
or
EPA
regions,
has
led
to
some
confusion.
The
state
regulations
and
policies
established
on
the
basis
of
the
Shapiro
memo,
as
described
above,
differ
from
state
to
state.
This
rule,
when
finalized,
would
clarify
that
EPA
believes
that
full
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulation
of
these
materials
is
not
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
and,
therefore,
that
management
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
in
the
manner
described
in
this
proposal
is
appropriate.

In
late
1994,
EPA's
policy
regarding
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
came
under
further
review
as
a
part
of
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
(
CSI)
for
the
printing
industry.
The
CSI
sought
the
insight
and
input
of
multiple
stakeholders
on
how
to
make
environmental
regulation
more
easily
implementable
and/
or
less
costly
while
still
maintaining
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
one
significant
problem
posed
by
RCRA
regulations
identified
by
the
representatives
from
the
printing
industry
was
the
ambiguity
of
the
rules
and
regulations
applicable
to
disposable
and
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
Specifically,
they
requested
that
EPA
do
three
things:
(
1)
clarify
the
definition
of
"
treatment"
as
it
pertains
to
printers
wringing
solvent
from
their
wipes;
(
2)
examine
the
potential
for
over­
regulation
of
disposable
industrial
wipes;
and
(
3)
increase
regulatory
consistency
among
the
states.

This
proposal,
therefore,
results
from
discussions
during
the
printing
industry
CSI
as
well
as
the
concerns
we
have
heard
from
other
stakeholders
on
the
Agency's
(
and
states')
current
policies.
We
are
addressing
these
concerns,
while
at
the
same
time
encouraging
recycling
and
solvent
recovery
and
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
summary,
the
stakeholders'
general
positions
are
that
generators
of
contaminated
industrial
wipes
seek
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
3See
66
FR
27266,
May
16,
2001,
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(
HWIR):
Revisions
to
the
Mixture
and
Derived­
From
Rules:
Final
Rule.

4See
63
FR
42109,
August
6,
1998,
Hazardous
Waste
Management
System;
Identification
and
Listing
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Petroleum
Refining
Process
Wastes;
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
for
Newly
Identified
Wastes;
and
CERCLA
Hazardous
Substance
Designation
and
Reportable
Quantities.

5See
62
FR
6621,
February
12,
1997,
Military
Munitions
Rule;
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
and
Management;
Explosives
Emergencies:
Manifest
Exemption
for
Transport
of
Hazardous
Waste
on
Right­

27
clarification
of
the
rules
and
a
more
consistent
regulatory
scheme
throughout
the
states;

manufacturers
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
feel
their
product
is
over­
regulated
by
RCRA
when
levels
of
risk
are
taken
into
consideration
leading
to
inequitable
treatment
vis­
a­
vis
reusable
wipes;

and
industrial
laundries
which
clean
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
believe
they
are
managing
a
commodity,
not
solid
wastes,
and
should
be
considered
accordingly.

Additional
stakeholder
groups
have
also
been
involved
in
the
development
of
this
proposal.
The
first
is
made
up
of
the
state
and
local
governments
that
have
been
developing
and
implementing
policies
for
these
materials
for
the
past
ten
years.
They
have
come
to
EPA
to
ask
advice
on
what
they
should
do
when
conditions
established
at
the
state
level
for
an
exclusion
are
not
met.
The
second
is
worker
unions
which
have
also
recently
expressed
interest
in
RCRA
requirements
for
management
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
because
of
worker
safety
concerns.

IV.
B.
Jurisdiction
Over
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
IV.
B.
1.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
The
concept
of
regulating
a
waste
if
it
fails
to
meet
certain
standards
forms
the
basis
of
many
RCRA
regulations.
To
provide
added
flexibility
for
implementation,
EPA
has
previously
promulgated
conditional
relief
from
Subtitle
C
regulation
for
low­
level
mixed
waste,
3
for
certain
refining
wastes,
4
and
for
non­
chemical
military
munitions.
5
Today's
proposed
rule
would
limit
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
of­
Ways
and
Contiguous
Properties:
Final
Rule.

28
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
for
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
are
disposed
or
combusted
(
circumstances
when
the
industrial
wipes
are
used
as
a
fuel
are
included)
when
they
meet
the
conditions
described
in
this
notice.

The
DC
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
has
expressly
upheld
EPA's
authority
under
RCRA
to
establish
a
conditional
exemption
from
Subtitle
C
regulation
(
i.
e.,
hazardous
waste
regulation)
for
wastes
that,
absent
the
exemption,
would
be
hazardous
(
See
Military
Toxics
Project
v.
EPA
146
F.
3d
948,
D.
C.
Cir.
1998).
For
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
EPA's
authority
to
establish
a
conditional
exemption
from
Subtitle
C
regulation,
see
the
discussion
at
62
FR
6636­
6637
for
the
Military
Munitions
Rule
preamble.

IV.
B.
2.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
Makers
and
users
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
that
are
sent
to
laundries
or
dry
cleaners
to
be
cleaned
prior
to
reuse
have
asked
EPA
to
maintain
our
current
policy
of
deferring
to
the
states.

Under
current
EPA
policy,
as
established
in
1994,
EPA
defers
interpretations
and
decisions
about
how
to
regulate
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
to
either
an
EPA
region
or
authorized
state
(
see
2/
14/
94
memo
from
Shapiro
to
Waste
Management
Division
Directors
Regions
I­
X).

EPA
is
today
proposing
to
exercise
its
discretion
to
exclude
from
the
Subtitle
C
definition
of
solid
waste
reusable
industrial
wipes
exhibiting
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic
due
to
use
with
solvents
or
containing
listed
solvents
when
the
industrial
wipes
are
laundered
or
cleaned
for
reuse
under
the
conditions
set
out
below.
Liquids
removed
from
such
wipes
are
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulation
if
they
contain
listed
solvents
or
if
they
exhibit
hazardous
waste
characteristics.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
29
The
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
will
not
apply
to
wipes
that
are
taken
out
of
service
to
be
disposed
of.
When
the
wipes
are
disposed
of,
they
cease
being
"
reusable"
industrial
wipes
and
become
"
disposable"
industrial
wipes
and
must
be
handled
accordingly.
The
proposed
exclusion
also
does
not
apply
to
reusable
wipes
containing
solvents
or
other
materials
that
are
not
hazardous
wastes.
These
wipes
are
not
subject
to
Subtitle
C
regulation.

EPA
is
also
preparing
a
proposed
rule
that
would
eliminate
regulation
of
a
range
of
materials
which
are
reused
in
a
continuous
process
within
the
same
generating
industry.
EPA
intends
to
develop
a
proposed
rule
that
would
establish,
if
finalized,
that
such
materials
are
not
solid
wastes
under
the
rulings
in
American
Mining
Congress
v.
EPA,
824
F
2d
1177
(
1987)

("
AMC
I")
and
Association
of
Battery
Recyclers
v.
EPA,
208
F.
3d
1047
(
2000),
("
ABR").
While
today's
proposal
is
more
narrowly
targeted
in
terms
of
waste
streams,
and
involves
cross­
industry
transfers,
EPA
will
take
appropriate
action
to
ensure
that
the
provisions
in
this
rule
are
consistent
with
those
of
that
broader
rule,
when
finalized.

IV.
B.
2.
a.
Basis
for
Proposed
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
EPA's
basis
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
proposed
today
is
that
industrial
wipes
being
cleaned
and
returned
into
service
are
more
commodity­
like
than
waste­
like
and,
therefore,
that
they
can
be
conditionally
excluded
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste.
In
40
CFR
260.31(
c),
EPA
states
that
a
material's
commodity­
like
properties
can
be
a
basis
for
a
variance
from
being
a
solid
waste,
among
other
things,
this
is
because
of
how
they
resemble
a
product
rather
than
a
waste
and
how
they
are
managed.
The
finding
that
solventcontaminated
reusable
industrial
wipes
are
commodity­
like
is
based
on
three
factors
and,

importantly,
on
the
fact
that
in
this
case
all
three
factors
apply
to
industrial
wipes.
EPA
may
not
reach
a
similar
conclusion
for
a
material
that
meets
just
one
or
two
of
these
factors.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
30
The
first
of
the
"
commodity­
like"
factors
is
that
the
industrial
wipes
are
often
partially
reclaimed,
that
is,
spun
in
a
centrifuge,
wrung
out,
or
allowed
to
drain
so
that
some
of
the
unwanted
solvent
has
been
removed
before
shipment,
helping
to
restore
the
wipes
to
a
usable
condition.
We
are
proposing
a
"
no
free
liquid"
condition
for
transportation
off­
site
to
ensure
that
wipes
that
are
going
to
reclamation
have
low
levels
of
solvent
consistent
with
this
factor.

The
second
of
the
factors
is
that
industrial
wipes
are
handled
throughout
the
laundering
or
reuse
process
as
valuable
commodities
because
the
laundry
benefits
from
their
use
and
reuse.

When
wipes
return
to
a
laundry
from
a
user
to
be
laundered,
they
are
counted
before
the
washing
process.
This
process
keeps
users
financially
accountable
for
the
number
of
wipes
they
have
in
their
possession
and
demonstrates
that
the
wipes
are
not
waste­
like,
as
they
have
value
to
the
laundries
and
to
the
users.
Consequently,
it
is
more
likely
that
the
used
industrial
wipes
will
be
handled
carefully,
in
appropriate
containers,
and
will
be
treated
as
commodities,
rather
than
as
wastes,
by
both
users
and
laundries.

The
final
consideration
is
that
the
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
are
owned
by
the
same
entity
throughout
the
process.
Laundries
own
the
wipes
and
lease
them
to
the
users
and,

therefore,
have
an
incentive
to
ensure
that
the
wipes
are
reused,
not
discarded.
This
factor
encourages
much
of
the
same
behavior
as
the
second
factor
does,
leading
to
responsible
management
of
the
materials.

IV.
C.
Solvent
Removed
From
Industrial
Wipes
When
industrial
wipes
are
returned
to
laundries,
the
solvents
are
removed
through
laundering
so
that
the
wipes
can
be
reused.
In
some
cases,
the
solvents
are
collected
and
recycled
for
further
use,
but,
in
other
cases,
the
solvent
is
discarded
as
a
hazardous
waste
or
discharged
to
a
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW).
Some
stakeholders
have
argued
that
industrial
wipes
should
not
be
considered
eligible
for
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
being
commodity­
like,
because
the
solvent
is
the
hazardous
constituent,
not
the
industrial
wipe,
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
31
and
the
solvent
is
often
discarded
rather
than
reused.
However,
spent
material
reclamation
scenarios
frequently
involve
the
removal
of
unwanted
contaminants
from
the
material
being
reclaimed.
In
this
case,
as
stated
above,
EPA
perceives
the
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
be
a
commodity­
like
material.
Even
though
it
contains
solvent,
the
material
is
predominantly
a
product
that
needs
servicing
(
i.
e.,
solvent
removal)
before
it
can
be
used.

Therefore,
no
discard
occurs
until
after
the
contamination
is
removed
from
the
wipe.

In
addition,
EPA
has
previously
concluded
that
contaminated
material
can
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
even
though
contamination
ends
up
in
the
wastestreams
of
the
reclamation
process.
See,
for
example,
the
proposed
exclusion
for
glass
from
cathode
ray
tubes
(
67
FR
40509)
and
the
finalized
conditional
exclusion
for
waste­
derived
zinc
fertilizers
(
67
FR
48393).
Nevertheless,
the
Agency
solicits
comment
on
this
issue,
and
specifically
on
whether
reusable
industrial
wipes
should
be
conditionally
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,

as
opposed
to
being
conditionally
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.

V.
Detailed
Discussion
of
Proposed
Rule
EPA
is
today
proposing
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
industrial
wipes
and
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
solvent­
contaminated
reusable
industrial
wipes.

This
section
discusses
in
detail
the
major
features
of
and
rationale
for
the
proposal.
The
Agency
also
presents
options
we
are
considering
in
developing
the
proposed
rule.
We
welcome
any
comments
on
all
aspects
of
this
proposed
rule
and
on
other
options
we
considered
in
developing
this
proposal.
More
discussion
of
the
options
is
also
available
in
the
Proposed
Rule's
Technical
Background
Document,
available
in
the
Rulemaking
Docket.
Throughout
this
description
of
the
proposed
rulemaking,
EPA
specifically
requests
comments
on
certain
options,

but
comments
are
welcome
on
all
elements
of
the
proposal.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
32
V.
A.
Scope
of
Solvents
Covered
by
the
Proposed
Rule
EPA
is
proposing
that
both
the
exclusions
in
this
proposal
be
applicable
both
to
industrial
wipes
that
exhibit
a
hazardous
characteristic
(
see
40
CFR
261.21­
14)
due
to
use
with
solvents
and
to
industrial
wipes
containing
any
listed
hazardous
waste
solvents:
F001­
F005
listed
spent
solvents
(
see
40
CFR
261.31)
and
corresponding
P­
or
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products
when
spilled
(
see
40
CFR
261.33).

We
also
note
that
this
proposed
rule
would
not
be
applicable
to
generators
using
nonhazardous
solvents,
since
these
industrial
wipes
are
not
currently
subject
to
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
EPA
strongly
recommends
that
generators
examine
the
feasibility
of
using
nonhazardous
solvents
because
of
reduced
risk
from
use
of
these
solvents.
However,
EPA
also
realizes
that
in
some
cases,
production
incompatibilities
may
make
such
a
substitution
infeasible.

Table
3
summarizes
which
industrial
wipes
would
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
and
which
would
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and
the
conditions
each
type
of
wipe
would
be
required
to
meet.

Table
3
Summary
of
Conditions
for
Generators
If
you
use
or
generate
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
that
will
be
managed
at
...
Then
for
your
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
...
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
6As
stated
above,
for
the
purposes
of
this
preamble,
we
will
use
the
term
other
non­
hazardous
landfill
to
denote
Part
257
Subpart
B
compliant
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills.
That
is,
if
a
non­
hazardous
landfill
that
is
not
a
municipal
landfill
accepts
this
waste,
it
must
meet
the
minimum
standards
of
40
CFR
Part
257
Subpart
B.

33
A
combustion
facility
or
other
non­
landfill
disposal
facility
without
first
being
sent
to
a
handling
facility
for
solvent
removal
To
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
you
would
be
required
to...
1.
Accumulate
the
used
wipes
on­
site
in
a
non­
leaking,
covered
container;
2.
Ensure
that
the
wipes
do
not
contain
free
liquids
when
transported
off­
site;
3.
Handle
any
removed
solvents
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
accordingly;
4.
Package
wipes
for
shipment
off­
site
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment;
and
5.
Mark
containers
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes."

A
municipal
or
other
nonhazardous6
landfill
without
first
being
sent
to
a
handling
facility
for
solvent
removal
To
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
you
would
be
required
to...
1.
Accumulate
the
used
wipes
on­
site
in
a
non­
leaking,
covered
container;
2.
Ensure
that
the
wipes
meet
the
"
dry"
condition
(
contain
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent
per
wipe
or
have
been
processed
by
advanced
solvent
extraction)
when
transported;
3.
Handle
any
removed
solvents
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
accordingly;
4.
Package
wipes
for
shipment
off­
site
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment;
5.
Mark
the
container
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes;"
and
6.
Ensure
that
the
wipe
does
not
contain
the
F­
listed
solvents
in
Table
1.

­
An
industrial
laundry
­
An
industrial
dry
cleaner
­
A
handling
facility
(
not
intra­
company)
that
cleans
wipes
for
reuse
or
removes
solvent
prior
to
cleaning
or
being
sent
for
disposal
To
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
you
would
be
required
to
...
1.
Accumulate
the
used
wipes
on­
site
in
a
non­
leaking,
covered
container;
2.
Ensure
that
the
wipes
do
not
contain
free
liquids
when
laundered
on­
site
or
transported
off­
site;
3.
Handle
any
removed
solvents
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
accordingly;
and
4.
Package
wipes
for
shipment
off­
site
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.

Another
facility
within
the
company
(
intra­
company)
for
free
liquids
removal
processing
to
meet
either
the
"
no
free
liquid"
condition
or
the
"
dry"
condition
To
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
or
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
you
would
be
required
to
...
1.
Accumulate
the
used
wipes
on­
site
in
a
non­
leaking,
covered
container;
and
2.
Package
wipes
for
shipment
off­
site
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
Note:
These
wipes
can
be
transported
with
free
liquids.

Notes:
(
1)
If
wipes
do
not
meet
the
appropriate
conditions
for
accumulation
and
transportation,
they
would
not
be
excluded
and,
if
they
cannot
be
made
to
meet
the
conditions,
must
be
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
(
2)
For
residues
from
combustion
and
industrial
laundry
wastewater
treatment
(
sludges),
the
generator
must
determine
if
they
are
characteristically
hazardous
and
must
be
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
If
not,
additional
generator
or
transport
requirements
do
not
apply.

V.
B.
Conditions
for
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
Solvent­

Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Destined
for
Disposal
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
34
V.
B.
1.
Why
is
EPA
Proposing
to
Conditionally
Exclude
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste?

As
discussed
above,
stakeholders
have
on
several
occasions
indicated
to
us
that
regulating
disposable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
as
a
hazardous
waste
is
burdensome
and
unnecessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
this
results
in
inequitable
treatment
relative
to
reusable
industrial
wipes.
They
argue
that
solvents
associated
with
wipes
are
in
low
concentrations
and
are
not
likely
to
pose
health
and
environmental
risks
similar
to
those
from
the
disposal
of
process
wastes.
EPA's
risk
screening
analysis,
conducted
to
evaluate
whether
this
contention
is
valid,
suggests
that
management
of
these
wipes
under
certain
minimal,
good
management
standards
does
not
pose
a
substantial
hazard
to
human
heath
and
the
environment
and,
therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
presented
today.
The
conditions
proposed
as
part
of
the
exclusion
are
designed
both
to
minimize
loss
of
solvent
into
the
environment
and,
therefore,
to
minimize
the
risk
of
damage
to
the
environment
from
those
solvents,
and
to
encourage
solvent
recovery
and
recycling.

Unions
representing
workers
who
come
into
contact
with
these
materials
have
also
raised
concerns
to
EPA
regarding
the
exposure
of
their
members,
both
through
direct
contact
and
through
air
emissions,
to
hazardous
solvents
when
handling
industrial
wipes.
The
conditions
EPA
would
establish
would
also
limit
volatile
releases
and
potential
exposure
of
workers
both
at
generator
facilities
and
during
transportation.

Finally,
EPA
has,
where
possible,
designed
these
conditions
to
be
performance­
based
and
easy
to
understand
and
implement
to
address
the
concern
that
the
Agency's
current
policy
coupled
with
differing
state
policies,
is
complicated
and
hard
to
understand.
Note
that,
as
discussed
in
Section
IV
of
today's
preamble,
wipes
are
defined
as
disposable
on
if
they
will
be
disposed
after
use.
If
a
wipe
manufactured
to
be
disposable
is
used
and
cleaned
several
times
before
disposal,
it
should
be
treated
as
a
reusable
wipe
until
its
final
use.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
35
V.
B.
2.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Initial
Storage
and
Accumulation
V.
B.
2.
a.
Proposed
Condition
The
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
would
apply
to
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
industrial
wipes
at
the
point
when
the
wipes
are
discarded
by
the
generator.
If
the
wipes
were
managed
according
to
the
proposed
conditions,
they
would
not
be
considered
hazardous
waste
subject
to
Subtitle
C
regulation.

The
first
condition
the
industrial
wipes
would
have
to
meet
is
an
accumulation
standard.

When
an
industrial
wipe
is
contaminated
with
a
hazardous
solvent
and
is
being
disposed,

generators
would
be
required
to
place
the
hazardous
solvent­
contaminated
wipe
in
a
non­
leaking,

covered
container.
This
performance
standard
leaves
room
for
flexibility
because
a
non­
leaking
covered
container
can
range
from
a
spring­
operated
safety
container
to
a
drum
with
its
opening
covered
by
a
piece
of
plywood.
Generators
would
not
need
to
seal,
secure,
latch,
or
close
the
container
every
time
a
wipe
is
placed
inside;
rather,
they
would
only
need
to
ensure
that
the
container
was
covered.
EPA
recognizes
that
many
generators
use
a
large
number
of
wipes
daily,

so
to
require
unsealing
and
sealing
a
container
each
time
a
wipe
is
placed
inside
would
be
impractical.
This
condition
would
reduce
fugitive
air
emissions,
maximizing
the
ability
to
capture
free
liquids
for
reuse
or
recycling.
It
would
also
be
among
good
management
practices
for
generators
to
have
regardless
of
this
proposal
to
minimize
worker
exposure
to
solvents.

Under
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
there
would
be
no
limit
on
accumulation
time
of
wipes
under
federal
regulations
if
the
accumulation
condition
is
being
met
and
wipes
are
kept
in
a
non­
leaking
covered
container.
Because
the
wipes
would
be
solid
waste
but
not
hazardous
waste,
RCRA
hazardous
waste
accumulation
times
would
not
apply.

This
condition
is
designed
to
prevent
releases
of
solvent
while
wipes
are
being
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
36
accumulated
for
shipment.
EPA
believes
that
accumulating
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
in
covered
containers
is
a
responsible
way
to
manage
them
to
prevent
loss
of
wipes
and
solvent,

and
that
it
represents
good
management
practices
for
this
material,
as
well
as
good
housekeeping.

The
condition
may
also
help
to
prevent
the
risk
of
fires,
the
most
common
damage
reported
from
mismanagement
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes,
and
would
help
reduce
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
being
emitted
to
the
work
environment
and
the
atmosphere.
It
would
also
prevent
the
intentional
air
drying
of
wipes
as
a
way
to
reduce
free
liquids.

One
advantage
of
establishing
a
performance
standard
such
as
the
one
described
above
is
that
the
generator
may
take
innovative
approaches
to
meet
the
performance
standard
being
sought
rather
than
having
to
use
a
specific
design.
A
performance
standard
also
provides
a
degree
of
flexibility
in
terms
of
allowing
different
approaches
that
minimize
the
length
of
time
required
for
workers
to
place
a
used
wipe
in
a
storage
container.

This
condition
would
reduce
requirements
for
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
industrial
wipes.
Currently,
all
states
regulate
disposable
industrial
wipes
as
a
hazardous
waste.
40
CFR
Part
265,
Subpart
I
describes
the
current
federal
requirements
for
the
proper
storage
of
hazardous
waste
in
containers
at
generator
facilities.
These
standards
require
generators
of
hazardous
wastes
to
accumulate
such
wastes
in
units
meeting
certain
technical
requirements.
The
unit­
specific
requirements
for
generator
accumulation
units
are
found
in
40
CFR
Part
265.
In
addition
to
requiring
that
containers
are
in
good
condition
and
that
they
are
made
of
a
material
that
is
compatible
with
the
wastes
being
contained,
Subpart
I
requires
that
containers
be
closed
(
i.
e.,
sealed)
during
accumulation
and
they
must
be
inspected
weekly.
In
addition,
hazardous
waste
containers
are
subject
to
weekly
visible
inspections
to
locate
potential
deterioration,
corrosion,
or
leaks.
In
addition,
containers
storing
ignitable
or
reactive
hazardous
wastes
are
required
to
be
located
at
least
50
feet
from
the
facility's
property
line
and
special
requirements
exist
for
incompatible
wastes.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
37
V.
B.
2.
b.
Other
Options
Accumulation
Time
Limit
EPA
is
also
considering
including
a
condition
that
establishes
a
time
limit
for
accumulation
of
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
wipes
at
a
generator
facility,
so
they
cannot
be
kept
on­
site
indefinitely
without
management.
This
condition
would
be
that
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
wipes
being
accumulated
at
the
generator
under
the
conditions
proposed
today
must
also
follow
the
accumulation
time
limits
in
40
CFR
262.34
that
are
applicable
for
their
generator
category
(
i.
e.,
90
days
for
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
and
180
days
for
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs)).
In
addition
to
following
the
time
limits
in
262.34,
generators
would
have
to
mark
any
container
in
which
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
industrial
wipes
were
being
accumulated
with
a
label
stating
that
it
holds
excluded
solvent
­
contaminated
wipes
and
stating
the
date
accumulation
started.

Although
this
option
would
require
generators
to
follow
the
appropriate
time
limit
for
their
generator
size,
because
the
industrial
wipes
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
from
the
point
of
generation,
they
would
not
have
to
be
added
to
the
generators
counting
of
hazardous
waste.
In
other
words,
generating
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
under
the
conditions
of
the
proposal
would
not
cause
a
facility
to
move
from
being
an
SQG
to
being
an
LQG.

No
RCRA­
Specific
Condition
The
Agency
also
is
considering
not
establishing
a
specific
accumulation
condition,
but
relying
on
other
regulatory
statutes,
like
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
(
OSHA).
The
Occupational
Health
and
Safety
Standards
of
Part
1910
provide
both
general
and
specific
requirements
for
containers
used
to
accumulate
and
store
certain
types
of
materials.
Subpart
H
of
Part
1910
may
be
applicable
for
the
storage
of
industrial
wipes
prior
to
solvent
removal
or
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
7
Flammable
liquids
are
defined
as
any
liquid
having
a
flash
point
below
100
°
F
(
37.8
°
C)
or
higher,
the
total
of
which
make
up
99
percent
or
more
of
the
total
volume
of
the
mixture.
Several
solvents
that
are
either
listed
or
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
and
are
used
in
conjunction
with
wipes
also
meet
the
definition
of
a
flammable
liquid
(
such
as
acetone,
ethyl
acetate,
ethyl
benzene,
methyl
ethyl
ketone,
petroleum
naphtha).

8
Combustible
liquids
are
any
liquids
having
a
flash
point
at
or
above
100
°
F
(
37.8
°
C).

38
recovery.
Section
1910.106
contains
standards
for
the
management
of
hazardous
materials,

including
requirements
for
the
management
of
flammable7
and
combustible8
liquids;
facilities
which
either
generate
or
launder
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
may
be
subject
to
these
standards.
According
to
these
standards,
flammable
liquids
must
be
stored
in
approved
containers
which
meet
the
requirements
of
§
1910.106(
d).
Metal
containers
and
portable
tanks
meeting
Department
of
Transportation
standards
(
see
49
CFR
Part
173
and
178)
are
acceptable.
Section
1910.106
also
specifies
standards
for
the
areas
where
containers
holding
flammable
liquids
are
to
be
kept.
The
requirements
for
industrial
plants
may
apply
to
generators
or
launderers
of
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
because
the
regulations
apply
to
the
portions
of
an
industrial
plant
where
the
"
use
and
handling
of
flammable
and
combustible
liquids
is
incidental
to
the
principal
business
(
e.
g.,
solvents
used
for
cleaning
presses
at
printing
facilities)."
At
industrial
plants,

flammable
liquids
must
be
stored
in
tanks
or
closed
containers,
defined
as
a
container
that
is
sealed
with
a
lid
or
other
device
to
prevent
the
release
of
liquids
or
vapors
at
ordinary
temperatures
(
§
1910.106(
a)(
9)).

Storage
of
spent
solvent
wipes
that
contain
a
negligible
amount
of
solvents
may
be
addressed
under
OSHA's
regulations
at
29
CFR
1910.106
(
e)(
9)(
iii),
which
describe
general
housekeeping
measures
for
"
combustible
waste
material
and
residues"
and
residues
of
flammable
liquids,
combustible
waste
material
and
residues
in
a
building
or
unit
operating
area.
These
standards
specify
that
these
materials
are
to
be
(
1)
kept
to
a
minimum;
(
2)
stored
in
covered
metal
receptacles;
and
(
3)
disposed
of
daily.
However,
these
standards
may
not
apply
to
solvents
if
they
do
not
meet
OSHA's
definition
of
flammable
liquid,
although
they
may
still
be
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
39
We
believe
that
OSHA
requirements
would
be
applicable
in
some
situations
involving
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
and
that
those
generators
following
OSHA's
requirements
would
be
managing
their
wipes
in
a
protective
manner.
Another
advantage
of
using
the
OSHA
standards
would
be
that
many
generators
are
already
familiar
with
these
standards.
These
standards
would
not,
therefore,
complicate
implementation
of
the
conditional
exclusion.

However,
it
appears
there
would
be
gaps
in
coverage
if
we
relied
strictly
on
deferring
to
OSHA
regulations.
For
example,
the
OSHA
container
standards
may
not
apply
to
contaminated
wipes
with
no
free­
flowing
liquids
or
when
wipes
are
contaminated
with
non­
flammable
solvents
and,
therefore,
OSHA
regulations
may
not
cover
every
workplace
that
RCRA
does.
Note,

however,
that
if
generators
meet
the
OSHA
standard
for
flammable
liquids
(
whether
or
not
that
standard
is
applicable
to
them
under
OSHA),
they
will
meet
the
condition
proposed
here.

V.
B.
2.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
our
proposal
for
accumulating
spent
reusable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
in
non­
leaking,
covered
containers
while
at
the
generator's
facility.

We
also
seek
comment
on
whether
wipes
are
accumulating
at
generator
sites
in
large
numbers
that
may
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
on
the
options
of
adding
an
accumulation
time
limit
to
this
accumulation
condition.
In
addition,
we
seek
comment
as
well
on
the
desirability
of
deferring
to
OSHA
regulations
for
the
proper
storage
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
on­
site
at
a
generator's
facility.

V.
B.
3.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Containers
Used
for
Transportation
V.
B.
3.
a.
Proposed
Condition
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
40
We
are
proposing
a
condition
for
containers
generators
use
to
transport
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
off­
site
under
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
This
condition
is
to
ensure
that
transporting
industrial
wipes
without
full
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements
will
still
protect
against
any
risks
posed
by
these
materials
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Under
this
proposal,
generators
must
transport
industrial
wipes
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
In
proposing
this
condition,
EPA
intends
for
transporters
to
use
containers
that
do
not
leak
liquids
and
that
provide
for
control
of
air
emissions.
This
condition
is
designed
to
minimize
loss
of
solvent
to
the
environment
during
transportation
and,
therefore,
minimizes
risk
as
well.
Minimization
of
loss
through
evaporation
or
leakage
also
makes
it
more
likely
that
larger
quantities
of
solvent
will
be
recycled
or
properly
managed.

EPA
has
chosen
to
propose
a
condition
designed
as
a
performance
standard
for
this
condition
because
it
provides
industry
the
ability
to
be
creative
in
developing
less
expensive
ways
to
reach
a
desired
outcome.
Because
there
are
several
common
ways
industrial
wipes
are
presently
transported
that
meet
this
description,
such
as
in
drums
and
in
plastic
bags,
EPA
determined
that
a
performance
standard
would
be
a
more
flexible
way
to
ensure
protective
management
than
establishing
specific
conditions
that
might
unintentionally
force
the
use
of
specific
containers
or
types
of
containers.
A
performance
standard
allows
for
use
of
a
wide
variety
of
containers
so
generators
could
continue
with
current
practices
where
appropriate.
For
example,

we
would
consider
containers
that
meet
DOT
packaging
requirements
for
hazardous
materials
to
meet
the
proposed
performance
standard,
as
would
closed,
sealed,
impermeable
containers.

Plastic
bags
or
cloth
bags
that
were
cinched
shut
might
also
meet
this
condition.
Closed
cinched
bags
would
minimize
exposed
surface
area
and,
thus,
minimize
evaporative
loss
and,
provided
no
free
liquids
were
present,
as
required,
may
not
release
liquid
solvents.
We
would
consider
hazardous
solvents
that
are
spilled
or
leaked
during
transportation
to
be
disposed
and
those
managing
the
industrial
wipes
at
the
time
the
spill
occurred
would
be
responsible
for
managing
the
spilled
hazardous
waste
according
to
generally
applicable
RCRA
requirements.
The
excluded
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
9DOT's
Hazardous
Materials
Regulations
(
HMR)
state
that
any
person
who
offers
a
material
for
transportation
in
commerce
must
determine
whether
the
material
is
classified
as
a
hazardous
material.
Typically,
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
are
classified
as
"
solids
containing
flammable
liquid,
n.
o.
s."
(
see
49
CFR
§
172.101).
Under
49
CFR
§
172.102,
Special
Provision
47
allows
mixtures
of
solids
not
subject
to
regulation
as
a
hazardous
material
and
flammable
liquids
to
be
transported
under
the
generic
entry
"
solids
containing
flammable
liquid,
n.
o.
s."
without
first
applying
the
classification
criteria
of
Division
4.1
Flammable
Solids,
provided
there
is
no
free
liquid
visible
at
the
time
the
material
is
loaded
or
at
the
time
the
packaging
or
transport
unit
is
closed.
All
packaging
must
correspond
to
a
design
type
that
has
passed
a
leak
proof
test
at
the
Packing
Group
II
level.
Containers
which
are
authorized
for
transporting
hazardous
materials
in
Packing
Group
II
are
listed
under
49
CFR
§
173.212
and
include,
among
other
things,
steel,
aluminum,
or
plastic
drums
and
plastic
or
cloth
bags.

41
industrial
wipes
would
remain
excluded
if
the
spill
were
managed
properly
and
promptly.

Generators
would
also
have
to
comply
with
the
existing
DOT
standards.
9
EPA
believes
that
the
"
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment"
condition
is
necessary
because
the
DOT
regulations
may
not
be
applicable
to
all
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
if
they
do
not
meet
certain
DOT
definitions,
such
as
"
solids
containing
flammable
liquid."
Proposing
this
performance
standard
ensures
that
the
container
condition
would
apply
to
all
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
to
which
today's
proposal
applies.

EPA's
condition
for
transportation
does
not
specify
that
the
containers
must
be
closed
(
i.
e.,
containers
with
lids
screwed
on).
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
closed
containers
would
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
We
do
not
expect
that
open
containers
would
meet
the
performance
standard
due
to
the
potential
for
wipes
and/
or
solvent
to
be
released
from
the
container
if
an
open
container
tipped
over
during
transportation.
We
also
do
not
believe
that
containers
that
are
open
to
the
environment
would
minimize
other
losses,
such
as
evaporative
losses.

V.
B.
3.
b.
Other
Option
Closed
Containers
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
42
EPA
is
also
considering
requiring
all
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
transport
them
in
impermeable
"
closed"
containers.
By
closed
containers
we
specifically
mean
containers
with
a
lid
that
screws
on
to
the
top
and
must
be
sealed
to
be
considered
"
closed."

Some
stakeholders
have
expressed
concern
that
those
transporting
industrial
wipes
would
not
be
able
to
determine
if
the
industrial
wipes
met
the
"
no
free
liquids"
or
the
"
dry"
condition
without
having
to
further
handle
the
container
and
wipes.
Unsealing
these
containers
each
time
a
wipes
is
placed
into
the
container
and
to
make
the
no
free
liquids
determination
would
be
time
consuming
and
would
expose
more
of
the
solvents
to
the
air
than
opening
covered
container.
In
addition,

stakeholders
argue
that,
if
the
transporters
of
the
wipes
are
unable
to
determine
at
the
time
of
pick­
up
whether
there
are
free
liquids
in
the
container,
this
may
result
in
an
unnecessary
burden
falling
on
the
handlers
if
noncompliant
wipes
arrive
at
their
site.
We
believe
the
approach
taken
in
today's
proposed
regulation
addresses
these
concerns
and
will
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

V.
B.
3.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
our
proposed
performance
standard
and
on
the
other
option
described
above
for
containers
used
for
transporting
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.

V.
B.
4.
Proposed
Labeling
Condition
for
Containers
Used
to
Transport
Disposable
Wipes
V.
B.
4.
a.
Proposed
Condition
EPA
is
proposing
as
a
condition
of
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
that
generators
must
appropriately
label
containers
used
to
transport
disposable
industrial
wipes
containing
hazardous
solvents.
This
condition
is
meant
to
alert
anyone
handling
the
materials
of
what
is
enclosed
in
the
container
so
that
proper
handling
(
or
inspection)
may
occur.
We
are
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
10As
will
be
noted
later
in
today's
preamble,
a
similar
labeling
requirement
is
not
being
proposed
for
reusable
industrial
wipes
that
are
sent
for
reclamation/
laundering
or
dry
cleaning.
The
Agency
believes
such
a
requirement
is
not
necessary
for
reusable
industrial
wipes.
For
further
discussion
see
Section
V.
C.
5.

43
proposing
to
impose
a
labeling
condition
that
would
require
the
containers
used
to
transport
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
for
disposal
to
be
marked
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes."
This
condition
is
comparable
to
the
used
oil
designation
labeling
requirement
in
40
CFR
Part
279.

This
is
a
simple,
straight­
forward
approach
for
labeling
and
would
indicate
the
status
of
the
materials
to
generators,
workers,
and
downstream
handlers.
In
addition,
a
label
on
containers
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
stating
that
they
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
may
benefit
the
generators
of
these
wastes
by
eliminating
questions
from
facilities
receiving
the
waste,
such
as
landfills
or
combustors,
who
may
recognize
that
there
are
solvents
in
the
waste
and
may
be
reluctant
to
accept
the
excluded
industrial
wipes
before
getting
an
assurance
that
they
are
not
hazardous
waste.
10
A
labeling
condition
would
not
add
significant
burden
as
existing
regulatory
programs
administered
by
EPA,
DOT,
and
OSHA
already
prescribe
labeling
requirements
for
containers,

both
in
storage
and
transportation.
Environmental
Protection
(
40
CFR
Parts
260­
265),

Transportation
(
49
CFR
Parts
171­
173),
and
Labor
(
29
CFR
Section
1910.1200)
regulations
all
contain
sections
pertaining
to
the
management
of
hazardous
waste,
including
labeling
requirements.
Most
of
these
labeling
requirements
refer
to
the
DOT
regulations
found
in
49
CFR
172.
A
variety
of
hazardous
solvents
may
be
used
with
industrial
wipes,
so
DOT
has
a
number
of
specific
hazardous
waste
regulations,
including
labeling
requirements,
that
apply
to
them.

V.
B.
4.
b.
Other
Option
No
RCRA­
Specific
Labeling
Condition
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
11See
footnote
to
Table
3
for
explanation
of
the
use
of
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
in
today's
Preamble.

44
Another
option
we
are
considering
is
not
imposing
a
specific
labeling
condition.
Under
this
approach,
designation
of
the
disposable
industrial
wipes
as
hazardous
materials
under
DOT
regulations
might
still
require
placarding
or
other
marking
for
transportation
of
some
fraction
of
these
materials,
as
described
previously.
However,
for
the
reasons
explained
above,
we
do
not
expect
that
the
DOT
provisions
would
apply
to
all
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
covered
by
today's
proposal
and,
therefore,
would
not
be
applicable
to
all
industrial
wipes
covered
by
today's
proposed
rule.

V.
B.
4.
c.
Request
for
Comment
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
today's
proposal
and
the
non­
RCRA
labeling
condition.

In
particular,
is
a
labeling
requirement
necessary,
and,
if
so,
is
there
a
label
that
is
more
appropriate,
easier
to
understand,
and/
or
easier
to
implement
than
that
being
proposed?

V.
B.
5.
Proposed
Condition
for
Transportation
to
a
Municipal
or
Other
Non­
Hazardous
Landfill
V.
B.
5.
a.
Proposed
Condition
The
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
disposable
industrial
wipes
proposed
today
would
allow
generators
to
transport
certain
disposable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
to
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills11
for
disposal
instead
of
to
hazardous
waste
landfills
when
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
are
met.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
other
forms
of
land
management,
such
as
management
in
a
waste
pile
or
surface
impoundment,
are
being
applied
to
this
waste
stream.
We,
therefore,
limited
this
proposed
hazardous
waste
exclusion
to
land
disposal
of
wipes
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills.
A
condition
for
disposal
is
that
the
industrial
wipes
contain
no
more
than
five
grams
of
solvent
per
wipe,
as
explained
in
detail
below.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
45
Benzene*
2­
Nitropropane
Carbon
tetrachloride*
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene*
Pyridine
Cresols
(
o,
m,
p)*
Tetrachloroethylene*
Methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
MEK)
Methylene
chloride
Trichloroethylene*
Because
of
risk
concerns,
EPA
is
proposing
that
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
the
specified
F­
or
U­
listed
solvents
in
Table
4
or
that
are
characteristically
hazardous
for
other
hazardous
constituents,
such
as
metals,
cannot
be
disposed
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills.
EPA
has
tentatively
concluded
that
the
solvents
listed
in
Table
4
below
may
pose
a
substantial
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment
if
wipes
containing
them
were
disposed
in
such
landfills.
If
land
disposed,
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
these
solvents
would
have
to
continue
to
be
managed
in
full
compliance
with
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
management
standards.
Because
of
the
risk
concerns,
this
condition
applies
to
any
blends
that
contain
a
percentage
of
these
solvents.

Table
4
F­
listed
Solvents
Not
Allowed
in
Municipal
Landfills
Nine
of
the
solvents
in
Table
4
are
characteristically
toxic
(
TC),
as
defined
in
40
CFR
261.24.
Of
these
nine,
six
(
as
noted
by
an
asterix:"*")
are
ineligible
for
disposal
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
because
they
meet
the
toxicity
characteristic,
not
because
of
the
results
of
EPA's
risk
screening
analysis.
EPA's
analysis
finds
that
even
when
they
have
been
through
an
advanced
solvent­
extraction
process
and
contain
less
than
five
grams
of
solvent,
the
levels
of
these
solvents
in
contaminated
industrial
wipes
are
likely
to
be
higher
than
the
regulatory
levels
indicated
in
40
CFR
261.24.
Therefore,
these
TC
solvents
are
ineligible
for
disposal
in
municipal
and
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
because
of
their
potential
risk,
as
determined
when
they
were
originally
identified
by
EPA
as
TC
wastes.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
12Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
(
MIBK)
was
also
found
to
be
ineligible
by
the
risk
screening
analysis,
but
because
MIBK
is
listed
for
its
characteristic
of
ignitability
and,
therefore,
when
mixed
with
solid
waste,
is
no
longer
hazardous
waste
unless
it
continues
to
display
its
characteristic,
a
wipe
containing
it
can
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
if
it
meets
the
other
requirements.

46
We
are
proposing
that
the
remaining
five
solvents
in
Table
4
also
be
restricted
from
disposal
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
because
EPA's
risk
screening
analysis
indicates
that
they
may
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
disposed
of
at
levels
lower
than
the
5­
gram
condition
described
in
detail
below.
12
Included
in
these
five
are
three
solvents
that
both
meet
the
toxicity
characteristic
and
that
were
indicated
in
the
risk
screening
assessment
to
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
(
methyl
ethyl
ketone,
nitrobenzene,
and
pyridine).

Table
5
contains
the
19
F­
listed
solvents
that
were
evaluated
in
the
risk
screening
analysis
and
that
would
be
allowed,
under
this
proposal,
to
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
or
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
if
they
meet
the
"
dry"
condition.
Also
see
Section
VII
for
additional
details
on
the
results
of
our
risk
screening
analysis.

Table
5
F­
listed
Solvents
That
May
Be
Disposed
of
In
a
Municipal
Landfill
under
Today's
Proposal
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
13
Descriptions
of
these
technologies
are
found
in
the
Technical
Background
Document.
Mention
of
these
processes
is
for
descriptive
purposes
only
and
is
not
an
endorsement
of
the
products
themselves.

47
Ethyl
Ether
Acetone
Methanol
Butanol
Toluene
Carbon
Disulfide
Xylenes
Cyclohexanone
2­
Ethoxyethanol
Ethyl
benzene
Isobutyl
Alcohol
Ethyl
Acetate
Trichlorofluoromethane
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
1,1,2­
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
Generators
transporting
their
disposable
industrial
wipes
to
a
municipal
or
other
nonhazardous
waste
landfill
must
ensure
that
the
wipes
are
"
dry."
For
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule,

an
industrial
wipe
is
considered
"
dry"
when
it
contains
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent.
EPA
chose
5
grams
to
be
the
standard
for
this
condition
because
it
falls
within
the
range
found
in
our
risk
screening
analysis
to
not
pose
a
substantial
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
is
also
within
the
range
of
what
is
achievable
through
use
of
advanced
solvent­
extraction
processes.

Generators
can
meet
this
condition
either
by
using
less
than
five
grams
of
solvent
per
wipe
or
by
putting
used
industrial
wipes
through
an
advanced
solvent­
extraction
process
capable
of
removing
sufficient
solvent
to
meet
the
5­
gram
condition.
Generators
can
do
the
following
to
meet
the
"
dry"
condition:

°
Remove
excess
solvents
by
centrifuging
or
other
high­
performance
solvent­
extraction
or
­

removal
technology,
for
example,
microwave
solvent
recovery
processes
or
the
Petro­

Miser
or
Fierro
processes;
13
°
Use
normal
business
records,
such
as
the
amount
of
solvent
used
per
month
for
wiping
operations
divided
by
the
number
of
wipes
used
per
month
for
solvent
wiping
operations,

to
show
they
are
under
the
threshold;

°
Conduct
sampling
to
measure
the
amount
of
solvent
applied
per
wipe
before
use;
or
°
Sample
to
measure
the
amount
of
solvent
remaining
on
wipes
when
use
is
completed.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
48
EPA
is
proposing
that
generators
using
advanced
solvent­
extraction
technologies
will
be
considered
to
have
met
the
"
dry"
condition
because
EPA
believes
that
when
properly
operated
these
technologies
will
remove
sufficient
solvent
to
meet
the
5­
gram
condition.
For
example,
with
respect
to
centrifuge
effectiveness,
our
evaluation
of
existing
centrifuges
from
site
visits
and
data
provided
by
industry
shows
that
well­
operated
centrifuges
result
in
wipes
that
contain
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent
per
wipe.
We
have
found
that
the
other
high­
performance
processes
have
the
same
or
greater
rate
of
success
at
removing
solvents.
Therefore,
if
a
generator
uses
one
of
these
advanced
solvent­
extraction
technologies
on
industrial
wipes,
they
would
qualify
for
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion.
Using
business
records
to
calculate
the
average
amount
of
solvent
on
each
wipe
would
also
be
an
acceptable
way
of
assuring
that
each
wipe
would
have
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent
on
it.
Finally,
EPA
considers
sampling,
when
done
properly
using
representative
samples
to
be
an
appropriate
way
of
demonstrating
that
a
standard
is
being
met.

V.
B.
5.
b.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
its
proposed
"
dry"
condition.
Comments
are
requested
particularly
on
our
preliminary
decision
that
certain
solvents
contained
in
industrial
wipes
cannot
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills.
For
example,
should
solvents
which
exhibit
the
characteristic
of
toxicity,
but
which
were
not
found
to
pose
a
significant
risk
in
our
risk
screening
analysis
for
today's
proposal,
be
prohibited
from
being
sent
to
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills?

EPA
is
also
requesting
comment
on
what
other
high­
extraction
technologies
not
mentioned
in
this
preamble
could
be
used
to
meet
the
"
dry"
condition.
Although
we
do
not
intend
to
promulgate
a
list
of
the
only
acceptable
technologies,
information
on
those
that
are
appropriate
for
meeting
the
standard
may
be
useful
for
future
guidance.

In
addition,
as
discussed
in
Section
VII,
our
risk
screening
analysis
identifies
industrial
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
49
wipes
that
pose
an
insignificant
risk
when
disposed
of
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
even
though
they
contain
solvents
that
meet
the
"
no
free
liquid"
condition,
rather
than
the
more
stringent
5
gram
condition
(
or
"
dry"
condition).
Nevertheless,
to
simplify
the
rule,
we
chose
to
propose
that
all
industrial
wipes
containing
solvents
that
can
be
landfilled
under
this
proposal
would
be
required
to
meet
the
"
dry"
condition
prior
to
being
allowed
to
be
shipped
to
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
landfills.
The
Agency
requests
comment
as
to
whether
we
should
allow
industrial
wipes
containing
solvents
that
pose
insignificant
risk
when
meeting
the
"
no
free
liquids"

condition
to
be
placed
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
without
being
required
to
meet
the
"
dry"
condition.
We
also
request
information
on
other
advanced
solvent­
extraction
technologies
or
processes
capable
of
meeting
the
"
dry"
condition.

Finally,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
whether
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
meeting
the
"
dry"
condition
should
be
required
to
meet
the
transportation
requirements
for
wipes
described
in
V.
B.
3.
The
rationale
for
not
specifying
transportation
standards
would
be
that
the
level
of
solvents
escaping
would
be
insignificant
if
the
industrial
wipes
were
to
contain
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent
each.
This
option
would
increase
relief
for
generators
whose
wipes
meet
the
"
dry"
condition,
but
would
complicate
implementation
of
the
rule
both
for
regulators
and
generators.

V.
B.
6.
Proposed
Condition
for
Transportation
to
Non­
Land
Disposal
Facilities
V.
B.
6.
a.
Proposed
Condition
EPA
is
proposing
a
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
to
apply
to
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
going
for
disposal
at
a
non­
land
disposal
unit
such
as
a
municipal
waste
combustor
(
MWC)

or
other
combustion
unit
(
circumstances
when
the
industrial
wipes
are
used
as
a
fuel
are
included)

or
to
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
sent
to
an
intermediate
handler
for
further
processing
to
meet
the
"
dry"
condition
for
disposal
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill.
This
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
50
final
case
would
apply
to
a
generator
who
wants
to
send
its
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
a
landfill,
but
does
not
want
to
be
responsible
for
making
them
meet
the
"
dry"
condition.
The
generator
could
send
them
to
an
intermediate
handler
under
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
and
contract
with
that
handler
to
remove
enough
solvent
that
the
wipes
would
meet
the
"
dry"

condition.
This
condition
is
meant
to
minimize
the
likelihood
of
loss
of
solvent
into
the
environment,
as
well
as
to
encourage
solvent
recovery
and
pollution
prevention
by
generators.

In
developing
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition,
EPA
hopes
to
make
it
simple
enough
that
both
generators
and
handlers
of
the
materials,
as
well
as
regulatory
officials,
would
easily
be
able
to
verify
that
free
liquids
have
been
removed
from
the
industrial
wipes.
For
wipes
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition,
no
liquid
solvent
could
drip
from
them
when
sent
off­
site.
In
addition,
no
free
liquids
may
be
present
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
in
which
the
wipes
are
transported.

One
concern
certain
stakeholders
have
expressed
with
this
proposed
condition
is
that
once
in
a
container,
either
at
the
generator
site
or
in
transit,
industrial
wipes
can
compress
and
solvent
can
percolate
through
them,
collecting
at
the
bottom
of
a
container.
This
means
that,
while
there
may
not
have
been
free
liquids
in
the
container
at
the
generator
site,
some
may
be
generated
during
transportation.
EPA
believes
that
generators
can
take
steps
to
minimize
percolation
by
using
less
solvent
or
by
recovering
solvent
from
wipes
before
they
are
transported.
However,

EPA
acknowledges
that
in
some
cases
percolation
can
result
in
free
liquids
at
the
bottom
of
a
container.

Because
of
percolation
effects,
the
proposed
rule
contains
the
provision
that,
if
free
liquids
are
discovered
at
the
handling/
combustion
facility,
the
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
would
remain
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
as
long
as
the
handler
either
removes
the
solvent
and
manages
it
properly,
or
returns
the
shipment
to
the
generator
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable,
as
described
in
Section
V.
B.
10.
a.
However,
if
solvents
escaped
the
container
as
a
result
of
percolation,
the
container
would
not
meet
the
"
minimize
loss"
condition
described
above.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
51
Similarly,
the
mismanagement
of
the
free
solvents
by
the
handler,
either
by
illegal
disposal
or
other
means,
would
be
a
violation
of
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion.
Because
the
generator
is
originally
responsible
for
the
existence
of
free
liquids
in
the
wipes,
it
would
also
be
potentially
responsible
for
the
wipes
having
lost
the
exclusion
at
the
handler
despite
the
wipes
being
out
of
the
generator's
control
at
that
moment.

Note
that
handlers/
combustors
would
be
required
to
determine
whether
the
solvent
which
has
been
removed
from
the
industrial
wipes
is
listed
as
a
hazardous
waste
or
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
a
hazardous
waste
as
defined
in
40
CFR
Part
261.
Any
hazardous
waste
solvent
removed
from
the
wipes
would
have
to
be
managed
in
accordance
with
hazardous
waste
requirements
found
at
40
CFR
Parts
260­
268
and
40
CFR
Part
270.
In
addition,
for
purposes
of
this
proposed
regulation,
techniques
or
technologies
used
by
generators
to
remove
solvent
from
the
wipes
would
not
be
defined
as
treatment
under
RCRA
and,
therefore,
would
not
be
subject
to
RCRA
permitting
(
see
Section
V.
B.
8.
for
further
discussion).

V.
B.
6.
b.
Other
Option
EPA
is
considering
a
"
no
free
liquids
when
wrung"
condition
instead
of
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
Some
states
favor
this
approach,
as
it
may
minimize
the
chance
for
later
solvent
releases.
They
argue
that
this
condition
may
result
in
better
solvent
management
and
less
frequent
receipt
of
free
liquids
at
handling
or
combustion
facilities.
This
approach
differs
from
what
we
are
proposing
in
that
it
would
require
that
each
wipe
could
not
drip
solvent
when
hand
wrung.
Some
stakeholders
argued
that
such
a
requirement
would
be
a
substantial
change
from
current
state
policies
on
free
liquids
and
would
be
burdensome
for
generators
to
implement.
They
also
argue
that
this
would
expose
wipes
to
the
air
more
than
necessary
and,
in
essence,
would
require
that
the
wipes
be
wrung
immediately
prior
to
placement
on
the
shipping
vehicle,
further
burdening
generators.
Based
on
these
concerns,
we
are
not
including
"
when
wrung"
as
part
of
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
in
this
proposal,
but
are
seeking
information
on
whether
the
benefits
of
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
52
an
extra
step
of
solvent
removal
at
the
generator
outweigh
the
limitations
of
these
concerns.

V.
B.
6.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
our
proposed
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
and
our
decision
not
to
propose
a
"
no
free
liquids
when
wrung"
condition.

V.
B.
6.
d.
How
Can
Generators
Meet
the
"
No
Free
Liquids"
Condition?

Presently,
state
agencies
have
established
several
methods
for
verifying
compliance
with
state­
imposed
"
no
free
liquids"
standards
for
a
container
or
individual
wipe.
The
majority
of
states
require
the
use
of
the
Paint
Filter
Test
(
SW­
846
Method
9095)
though
other
specified
methods
include
the
Liquids
Release
Test
(
SW­
846
Method
9096),
and
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(
TCLP)
(
SW­
846
Method
1311).
The
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
has
established
a
"
one
drop"
standard,
where
generators
must
ensure
that
the
wringing
of
a
wipe
will
not
result
in
a
drop
of
liquid
flowing
from
the
material.
We
understand
that,
although
these
are
by
no
means
the
only
ways
of
meeting
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition,
if
generators
meet
any
of
these
state
standards
or
if
they
hand
wring
wipes,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
proposed
today
would
be
violated.

In
this
proposal,
EPA
intends
for
compliance
with
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
to
be
determined
by
a
practical
test.
That
is,
does
a
wipe
drip
liquid
from
it
when
held
for
a
short
period
of
time,
for
example,
when
being
transferred
from
one
container
to
another?
One
way
a
facility
or
an
inspector
could
test
for
compliance
with
this
condition
would
be
to
place
two
containers
adjacent
to
one
another
and
to
transfer
wipes
from
one
container
to
the
other.
If
they
drip
liquid
during
transfer,
or
if
there
are
free
liquids
in
the
bottom
of
the
container,
they
would
not
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
Generators
and
inspectors
would
have
to
make
sure
they
are
checking
the
industrial
wipes
at
the
bottom
of
containers
as
well
as
at
the
top
for
release
of
free
liquids
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
53
because
percolation
could
cause
solvents
to
sink
and
saturate
the
wipes
at
the
bottom
of
any
given
container.
Facilities
could
also
check
for
compliance
with
the
condition
by
using
screen­
bottomed
drums
and
checking
the
bottom
portion
of
the
drum
for
liquid
solvent.

As
stated
above,
rather
than
checking
all
wipes
for
free
liquids,
generators
could
hand
wring
wipes
before
placement
in
containers
or
send
wipes
through
a
mechanical
wringer,

centrifuge,
or
use
any
other
effective
method
as
a
way
to
ensure
that
free
liquids
are
not
present.

Stakeholders
from
the
printing
industry
have
recommended
to
EPA
that
we
specify
a
list
of
acceptable
technologies
that
would
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
for
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
and
that
we
also
specify
the
above
performance
standard
as
a
catch
all
to
account
for
new
technologies
that
are
developed
in
the
future.
Printing
industry
stakeholders
believe
this
option
would
clarify
for
them
and
other
industrial
sectors
those
technologies
that
would
pass
the
"
no
free
liquids"
performance
standard
so
that
no
uncertainty
exists
on
the
part
of
either
generators
or
EPA
and
state
inspectors.
While
understanding
generator
concerns,
EPA
is
not
proposing
in
today's
Federal
Register
specific
regulatory
language
which
identifies
those
technologies
that
would
presumptively
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.

Nevertheless,
the
Agency
provides
some
discussion
of
the
specific
technologies
EPA
has
examined
that
can
reduce
the
amount
of
solvents
in
industrial
wipes
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquid"

condition
both
in
this
Preamble
and
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
this
proposal.

Generators
also
have
the
option
to
use
their
knowledge
of
their
processes
to
determine
that
their
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids.
For
example,
a
generator
may
know
that
a
certain
process
requires
only
small
amounts
of
solvent
on
each
wipe
and,
therefore,
free
liquids
are
unlikely
to
be
present.

V.
B.
6.
e.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
our
proposed
approach
to
determining
if
the
"
no
free
liquids"
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
54
condition
is
met.
Are
there
other
approaches
EPA
should
have
considered
in
this
proposal?
The
Agency
also
solicits
comment
on
the
printing
industry's
suggestion
that
the
final
rule
should
specify
a
list
of
technologies
that
would
be
considered
to
meet
the
condition
to
assist
in
the
implementation
of
and
compliance
with
this
rule.

V.
B.
7.
"
Exotic"
Solvents
In
the
process
of
developing
this
proposed
rulemaking,
the
Agency
has
learned
that
there
are
new,
"
exotic"
solvents
on
the
market,
such
as
terpenes
and
citric
acids,
that,
while
labeled
as
non­
hazardous,
could
actually
be
flammable.
Although
the
solvents
do
not
exhibit
the
ignitability
characteristic
in
40
CFR
261.21,
stakeholders
have
told
us
that,
under
certain
conditions
that
have
yet
to
be
determined,
oxygen
can
mix
with
the
industrial
wipes
that
contain
these
exotic
solvents
and
spontaneously
combust.
According
to
some
representatives
of
industrial
laundries
and
fire
marshals,
resulting
fires
have
caused
major
damage
to
facilities.
Some
stakeholders
have
suggested
that
EPA
propose
that
generating
facilities
be
allowed
to
transport
their
industrial
wipes
off­
site
with
free
liquids
if
the
facility
is
using
one
of
these
"
exotic"
solvents
that
could
react
or
spontaneously
combust,
so
that
generators
can
wet
down
the
wipes
with
water
prior
to
sending
them
off­
site.
They
explain
that
this
is
consistent
with
what
laundries
do
now
with
their
customers.

We
request
information
and
comments
on
these
"
exotic"
solvents
and
how
they
are
presently
managed.
We
would
like
to
know
which
solvents
that
would
currently
be
considered
hazardous
wastes
are
viewed
as
"
exotic"
and
for
which
solvents
commenters
believe
a
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
would
be
problematic.
We
request
information
on
documented
cases
of
combustion
caused
by
a
lack
of
free
liquids.
We
also
request
comments
on
whether
the
final
rule
should
give
containers
with
wipes
contaminated
with
exotic
solvents
special
consideration,

particularly,
allowing
the
solvents
to
be
wetted
down
with
water
during
accumulation
and
transportation
and,
further,
what
other
conditions
should
be
placed
on
management
of
these
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
55
materials
if
special
consideration
were
to
be
given.

V.
B.
8.
Generators
That
Remove
Solvent
from
Industrial
Wipes
V.
B.
8.
a.
Regulatory
Status
of
Removed
Solvent
Any
solvent
removed
from
an
industrial
wipe
by
a
generator
may
be
subject
to
regulation
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Therefore,
the
generating
facility
would
be
required
to
determine
whether
the
solvent
removed
from
the
industrial
wipe,
if
it
is
not
reused,
is
listed
as
a
hazardous
waste
or
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
a
hazardous
waste
as
defined
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
and,
if
so,
manage
the
solvent
according
to
prescribed
RCRA
regulations
under
40
CFR
Parts
260­
268
and
270.

V.
B.
8.
b.
Regulatory
Status
of
Solvent
Removal
Technologies
Under
today's
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
the
solventcontaminated
wipes
would
not
be
hazardous
waste
at
the
time
they
undergo
solvent­
removal.

Therefore,
solvent
removal
technologies
would
not
be
considered
treatment
of
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
and
such
operations,
whether
they
be
conducted
by
generators
or
handling
facilities,

would
not
be
considered
to
be
treating
hazardous
waste
and
would
not
require
a
RCRA
permit.

Because
under
today's
proposed
rule
solvent
extraction
would
not
trigger
RCRA
treatment
standards,
generators
may
be
more
likely
to
recover
solvent
for
reuse
and
reduce
the
amount
of
solvent
that
they
purchase.

V.
B.
9.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Intra­
Company
Transfers
V.
B.
9.
a.
Proposed
Condition
Several
stakeholders,
particularly
those
who
use
large
numbers
of
wipes
daily
with
large
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
56
amounts
of
solvent
on
each
wipe,
would
like
the
flexibility
of
not
having
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
when
transferring
their
wipes
off­
site
to
an
intra­
company
facility
that
would
extract
the
solvents
from
the
wipes.
Several
states
already
allow
these
kinds
of
transfers
to
be
made
when
both
the
generating
facility
and
the
extracting
facility
are
part
of
the
same
company.

Under
the
proposed
condition,
the
extracted
solvent
at
this
point
could
either
be
returned
to
the
originating
customer
or
sold
to
another
manufacturer
for
reuse
as
a
feedstock
in
a
manufacturing
or
service
operation.
Alternatively,
when
the
economics
of
solvent
recycling
are
not
favorable,
the
extracted
solvents
could
be
disposed
of
as
a
hazardous
waste.

To
encourage
reclamation
and
recycling
of
the
solvents
in
the
wipes,
today
we
are
proposing
to
allow
industrial
wipes
to
qualify
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
if
the
generator
transfers
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
containing
"
free
liquids"

between
their
own
facilities
and
if
the
receiving
facility
has
a
solvent­
extraction
and/
or
­
recovery
process
that
will
remove
sufficient
solvent
to
ensure
the
wipes
meet
either
the
"
dry"
condition
or
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
Generators
taking
advantage
of
this
part
of
the
rule
could
then
use
one
piece
of
solvent­
extraction
equipment
to
serve
industrial
wipes
from
several
of
the
company's
generators.
EPA
hopes
that
allowing
intra­
company
transfers
of
free
liquid
under
these
conditions
would
encourage
companies
obtain
advanced
solvent
recovery
equipment
that
they
would
not
purchase
for
use
at
just
one
of
their
facilities.

Of
course,
to
be
eligible
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
the
industrial
wipes
must
meet
the
other
conditions
described
in
this
notice.
Specifically,
the
generators
would
be
required
to
manage
the
wipes
and
free
liquids
in
the
same
way
as
they
would
when
they
are
under
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion.
They
would
be
required
to
accumulate
the
wipes
and
solvents
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
and
to
transport
the
industrial
wipes
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment
and
labeled
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes."
EPA
is
proposing
the
same
performance
standards
as
for
wipes
meeting
the
"
dry"
and
the
"
no
free
liquids"
conditions,
but
note
that
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
57
because
of
the
free
liquids
transported
with
these
wipes,
not
all
types
of
containers
are
likely
to
be
appropriate
(
e.
g.,
cloth
bags
are
not
likely
to
minimize
loss
for
wipes
containing
free
liquids).
The
solvent,
once
extracted,
would
have
to
be
managed
as
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
if
going
to
disposal.
In
the
end,
we
believe
this
option
would
result
in
substantial
savings
for
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
as
well
as
in
increased
solvent
recovery
by
generators.

As
stated
above,
generators
can
only
take
advantage
of
this
condition
when
the
handling
facility
is
in
the
same
company
as
the
generator.
EPA
is
seeking
comment
on
whether
intracompany
transfers
should
include
affiliates,
subsidiaries,
and
parent
companies
as
eligible
for
this
provision.

EPA
is
making
this
condition
applicable
to
just
intra­
company
transfers
because
the
Agency
believes
the
management
of
the
free
liquids
in
transportation
to
prevent
loss
or
spills
is
likely
to
be
more
comprehensive
when
the
whole
transaction
occurs
within
one
company.

Communication
is
likely
to
be
better
between
the
entities
transporting
and
receiving
the
waste
if
they
are
in
one
company,
as
would
oversight
over
the
entire
generation,
transportation,
and
recovery
system
to
ensure
that
solvents
are
being
recovered.

Several
potential
benefits
to
allowing
such
shipments
under
the
conditional
exclusion
from
hazardous
waste
include
the
additional
opportunities
for
increased
recycling
because
some
generating
facilities
would
find
recycling
solvent
more
convenient
when
not
having
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
As
stated
elsewhere
in
this
proposal,
several
technologies
already
exist
to
extract
and/
or
recover
the
spent
solvent
contained
on
industrial
wipes
both
economically
and
safely.
In
addition,
there
are
likely
to
be
environmental
benefits
because
solvent
that
would
have
been
sent
to
combustion
or
disposal
in
a
landfill
would
be
recovered
and
reused.

V.
B.
9.
b.
Other
Options
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
58
Additional
Conditions
for
Intra­
Company
Transfers
On
the
basis
of
discussions
with
state
implementors
and
stakeholders,
EPA
is
considering
adding
conditions
to
this
provision
in
the
proposed
rule.
Specifically,
we
are
considering:

(
i)
requiring
a
one­
time
notification
to
the
state
to
alert
the
state
that
the
generator
is
taking
advantage
of
the
intra­
company
transport
allowed
under
this
exclusion;

(
ii)
maintenance
of
appropriate
business
records
that
identify
where
the
industrial
wipes
are
being
managed
and
where
the
recovered
solvent
is
being
sent;

(
iii)
compliance
with
RCRA's
employee
training
and
emergency
response
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
262,
and
(
iv)
transfer
of
the
industrial
wipes
with
free
liquids
in
closed
(
i.
e.,
sealed)
containers.

Inter­
Company
Transfers
Some
stakeholders
have
also
suggested
that
EPA
propose
to
allow
transfers
of
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
with
free
liquids
between
companies
for
solvent
extraction.
This
option
would
allow
generators
to
ship
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
with
free
liquids
to
any
facility
if
the
receiving
facility
uses
solvent
extraction
to
remove
enough
solvent
from
the
industrial
wipes
for
them
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
required
for
shipment
to
a
laundry.
This
option
would
allow
more
facilities
to
take
advantage
of
this
provision
than
the
intracompany
provision
would
allow
and
may
encourage
more
use
of
advanced
solvent­
extraction
technologies
on
these
materials
resulting
in
more
potential
recovery
and
reuse
of
solvents.
EPA
did
not
propose
this
option
because
it
believes
currently
that
intra­
company
transfers
would
maintain
better
control
of
the
industrial
wipes
during
transportation
and
would
better
prevent
releases
than
transfers
between
different
companies.
However,
we
request
comment
on
this
premise
and
this
option
for
transfer
of
industrial
wipes.

V.
B.
9.
c.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
intra­
company
shipments
of
industrial
wipes
containing
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
59
free
liquids
should
be
allowed
under
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
and
whether
this
provision
would
be
likely
to
facilitate
the
recovery
of
hazardous
solvents.

As
stated
above,
we
seek
comment
on
whether
EPA
should
consider
parent
companies,

subsidiaries,
and
affiliates
as
eligible
for
the
intra­
company
transfer
provision.
EPA
also
seeks
comment
on
whether
the
intra­
company
transfer
provision
should
include
a
distance
limit,
such
that
only
facilities
shipping
their
wipes
and
solvents
the
prescribed
distance
or
less
would
be
eligible
for
the
intra­
company
transfer
option.

EPA
also
seeks
comment
both
on
whether
the
additional
conditions
discussed
in
Section
V.
B.
9.
b.
should
be
included
and
also
on
whether
we
should
expand
the
provision
to
allow
industrial
wipes,
under
the
conditional
exclusion
from
hazardous
waste,
to
be
sent
with
free
liquids
to
third­
party
solvent­
extraction
facilities.
allow
generators
to
send
shipments
containing
free
liquids
to
solvent­
extraction
facilities
not
within
the
same
company.

V.
B.
10.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Management
at
Handling
Facilities
V.
B.
10.
a.
Proposed
Conditions
Of
all
the
handlers,
generators
have
the
primary
responsibility
for
assuring
that
the
industrial
wipes
they
transport
off­
site
meet
the
conditions
for
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion,
but
non­
landfill
facilities
which
receive
disposable
industrial
wipes,
such
as
combustors
or
handling
facilities
that
perform
further
solvent
removal,
would
also
need
to
meet
certain
minimum
conditions
for
the
wipes
to
remain
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
First,
during
the
time
between
when
the
wipes
arrive
on­
site
and
when
the
facility
first
introduces
them
into
their
process
(
e.
g.,
when
the
wipes
are
removed
from
their
container
and
placed
in
a
solventextractor
these
facilities
must
store
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
either
(
a)
in
containers
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
60
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment
that
would
meet
the
transportation
conditions
in
today's
proposal,
or
(
b)
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
that
would
meet
the
generator
conditions
in
today's
proposal.

The
second
condition
is
that
if
facilities
(
other
than
those
intra­
company
facilities
where
solvent
is
removed)
receive
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
with
free
liquids,
in
order
to
retain
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
the
wipes,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
either
(
a)
return
the
container
(
with
the
wipes
and
liquid)
to
the
generator
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable
(
e.
g.,
with
the
next
scheduled
delivery),
or
(
b)
recover
any
liquid
solvent
that
arrives
at
the
facility
and
properly
manage
it
under
federal
or
state
hazardous
waste
regulations,
as
applicable.
When
returning
the
wipes
and
liquid
to
the
generator,
the
facility
would
have
to
transport
them
in
containers
that
meet
the
original
shipment
condition,
but
would
not
be
required
to
use
a
hazardous
waste
manifest.

The
objective
of
this
condition
is
to
address
situations
where
free
liquids
arrive
with
industrial
wipes
at
a
handling
facility
through
no
fault
of
the
handling
facility.
A
shipment
of
industrial
wipes
would
be
considered
to
contain
free
liquids
either
if
solvent
drips
from
the
wipes
or
if
there
are
free
liquids
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
of
industrial
wipes.
Rather
than
subject
the
industrial
wipes
to
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements
in
this
situation,
EPA
is
proposing
that
they
be
allowed
to
be
further
processed
to
ensure
that
the
conditions
of
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion
are
met
and
that
removed
solvents
are
properly
managed
either
by
the
receiving
facility
or
the
original
generator.
We
believe
this
can
be
done
safely
and
we
also
believe
that
this
will
provide
additional
incentive
for
solvent
recovery.
At
any
time
that
hazardous
solvents
are
spilled
or
leaked
from
a
barrel
of
excluded
wipes
at
a
laundry
or
handling
facility,
or
are
otherwise
mismanaged,
we
would
consider
this
to
be
disposal
and
the
handling
facility
managing
the
solvents
would
be
responsible
for
cleaning
up
the
spill.

V.
B.
10.
b.
Request
for
Comment
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
61
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
above
conditions
for
handling
facilities
that
manage
industrial
wipes.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
whether
handling
facilities
receiving
shipments
of
wipes
that
do
not
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
should
be
required,
as
in
the
case
of
some
other
conditional
exclusions,
to
submit
a
notification
to
the
state
or
EPA
region
implementing
RCRA
to
inform
them
that
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
had
not
been
met.

V.
B.
11.
Management
of
Industrial
Wipes
Containing
Co­
Contaminants
Today's
proposed
rule
is
not
intended
to
override
EPA's
mixture
and
derived­
from
rule
regarding
contaminants
on
industrial
wipes
other
than
the
solvents
specified
in
this
proposal.
In
addition
to
these
solvents,
spent
industrial
wipes
from
industrial
applications
may
be
contaminated
with
material
removed
during
the
industrial
process
 
anything
from
dirt
and
grease
to
listed
hazardous
wastes.
The
presence
of
these
co­
contaminants
may
make
the
industrial
wipes
subject
to
the
hazardous
waste
mixture
rule
(
40
CFR
Part
261.3(
a)
(
2)(
iv)),
which
states
that
a
mixture
made
up
of
any
amount
of
a
nonhazardous
solid
waste
and
any
amount
of
a
listed
hazardous
waste
is
a
listed
hazardous
waste.
Therefore,
if
the
wipe
contains
a
listed
waste
other
than
the
identified
solvents,
it
would
still
be
considered
a
listed
hazardous
waste
and
would
no
longer
be
eligible
for
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
being
proposed
today.

Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
exhibit
a
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste,
due
to
co­
contaminants
also
are
not
eligible
for
the
hazardous
waste
exclusion,
unless
the
characteristic
is
ignitability.
Specifically,
EPA
is
proposing
that
industrial
wipes
that
would
exhibit
the
characteristics
of
toxicity,
corrosivity,
or
reactivity
because
of
wastes
with
which
they
are
cocontaminated
would
not
be
eligible
for
the
conditional
exclusion.
On
the
other
hand,
because
the
industrial
wipes
are
already
likely
to
be
ignitable
because
of
the
nature
of
the
solvents
on
them,

and
because
this
risk
is
managed
by
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
from
hazardous
waste,
wipes
co­
contaminated
with
ignitable
waste
would
remain
eligible
for
the
exclusion
if
they
meet
its
other
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
62
conditions.

V.
B.
12.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Burning
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
in
Combustors
V.
B.
12.
a.
Proposed
Condition
Based
on
the
results
of
our
risk
screening
analysis
discussed
in
Section
VII
of
this
preamble,
we
are
proposing
that
municipal
and
other
waste
combustors
be
allowed
to
burn
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
meet
the
proposed
conditions
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
Facilities
managing
these
wipes
would
have
to
ensure
that
the
wipes
remain
in
containers
that
meet
today's
proposed
transportation
condition
until
they
enter
the
combustion
process.
Also,
if
a
combustion
facility
finds
wipes
with
free
liquids
when
it
initiates
processing
of
the
wipes,
like
other
handlers,
it
would
have
the
choice
of
removing
the
free
liquids
and
managing
them
as
a
hazardous
waste
or
closing
the
container
and
sending
the
wipes
back
to
the
originating
generator.
When
returning
the
wipes
and
liquid
to
the
generator,
the
combustor
would
have
to
transport
them
in
containers
that
meet
the
original
shipment
condition,

but
would
not
need
to
use
a
hazardous
waste
manifest.

V.
B.
12.
b.
Basis
for
Condition
Allowing
combustion
of
industrial
wipes
in
municipal
waste
combustors
(
MWCs)
and
other
non­
hazardous
waste
combustion
units,
such
as
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators
(
circumstances
when
the
industrial
wipes
are
used
as
a
fuel
are
included)
is
a
viable
alternative
for
managing
conditionally­
excluded
industrial
wipes.
First,
combustion
facility
owners/
operators
should
be
screening
industrial
wipes
contaminated
with
hazardous
solvents
that
arrive
at
their
facilities
to
ensure
they
do
not
violate
local
permit
conditions.
In
addition,
these
combustors
are
easily
capable
of
destroying
the
solvent
in
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
As
described
in
more
detail
in
Section
xx
of
the
Technical
Background
Document,
EPA
has
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
63
promulgated
revised
air
emission
requirements
under
the
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
for
large
new
and
existing
MWCs
(
facilities
managing
more
than
250
tons
of
waste
per
day)
and
revised
NSPS
air
emission
requirements
for
smaller
MWCs
(
facilities
managing
less
than
250
tons
of
waste
per
day).
EPA
has
also
promulgated
NSPS
for
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators
(
65
FR
75338,
December
1,
2000).
These
NSPS
standards
for
non­
hazardous
waste
combustors
provide
a
level
of
protection
comparable
to
the
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
hazardous
waste
incinerators
and
should
ensure
that
at
least
99.99
percent
of
the
solvent
in
contaminated
industrial
wipes
is
removed
or
destroyed.

Also,
as
stated
in
Section
VII.
C.
2.,
the
risk
analysis
for
this
proposal
indicated
that
none
of
the
solvents
would
exceed
health
benchmarks
if
the
ash
were
disposed
in
a
landfill.

V.
B.
12.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
our
approach
of
allowing
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
to
be
managed
in
Municipal
Waste
Combustors
and
other
combustors
provided
they
meet
the
other
conditions
described
in
today's
Preamble.

V.
B.
13.
Disposal
of
Treatment
Residuals
from
Municipal
Waste
and
Other
Combustion
Facilities
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
when
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
meet
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
before
being
combusted,
they
would
not
be
considered
a
hazardous
waste.
Therefore,
the
mixture­
and
derived­
from
rule
does
not
apply
to
the
ash
derived
from
the
burning
of
these
materials.
In
other
words,
the
ash
generated
by
a
MWC
or
other
combustion
facility
is
a
newly­
generated
waste
and
is
subject
to
the
waste
identification
requirements
of
40
CFR
Parts
261
and
262.
Owners
and
operators
of
MWCs
and
other
combustion
facilities
must
determine
whether
or
not
the
ash
generated
at
their
facilities
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste.
They
may
do
so
by
knowledge
of
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
64
the
wastes
they
receive
and/
or
generate,
coupled
with
knowledge
of
the
capability
of
their
combustor
facility
or
by
testing.
If
they
determine
that
MWC
ash
exhibits
the
hazardous
characteristic,
the
ash
must
be
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
Subtitle
C
management
requirements,
including
the
land
disposal
restrictions.

V.
C.
Conditions
for
the
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
for
Reusable
Industrial
Wipes
V.
C.
1.
Why
is
EPA
Proposing
to
Exclude
Reusable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
from
the
Definition
of
Solid
Waste?

EPA
is
proposing
today
to
conditionally
exclude
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste.
One
of
the
reasons
EPA
is
proposing
an
exclusion
from
solid
waste
for
these
materials,
as
opposed
to
one
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
proposed
for
disposable
industrial
wipes,
is
that
the
Agency
believes
that
reusable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
are
commodity­
like.
(
See
Section
IV.
B.
2
for
a
detailed
explanation
of
the
Agency's
basis
for
this.)
Those
wipes
that
have
had
free
liquids
removed
are
similar
to
partially­
reclaimed
materials
because
solvent
removal,
reclamation,
laundering
or
dry
cleaning
of
wipes
removes
solvent
from
the
wipe.
EPA
believes
that
the
conditions
for
the
exclusion
from
solid
waste
are
appropriate
because
they
ensure
that
the
manner
in
which
generators
and
laundries
manage
these
materials
is
consistent
with
how
companies
would
manage
a
valuable
commodity.

For
these
reasons,
today's
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
is
applicable
only
to
industrial
wipes
that
are
being
reclaimed
for
reuse
through
a
cleaning
or
laundering
process.

EPA
does
not
consider
other
types
of
recycling
or
reclamation,
such
as
blending
wipes
into
a
fuel,

as
being
eligible
for
this
proposed
exclusion
from
solid
waste.
Note,
however,
that
as
discussed
in
Section
IV
of
today's
preamble,
any
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipe
which
will
be
reused
as
a
wipe
can
be
managed
under
the
conditions
for
reusable
wipes
even
if
it
was
manufactured
for
one­
time
use.
Likewise,
any
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipe
not
being
sent
for
reuse
must
be
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
65
managed
as
a
disposable
industrial
wipe.

EPA
believes
that
the
conditions
proposed
for
management
of
disposable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes,
described
in
detail
above,
in
addition
to
ensuring
that
wipes
don't
pose
a
substantial
hazard,
are
what
generators
and
handlers
would
do
in
handling
valuable
commodities.
Because
of
this,
EPA
is
proposing
many
of
the
same
conditions
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
reusable
wipes
as
we
are
proposing
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
disposable
industrial
wipes.
Nevertheless,
in
several
places
where
it
is
appropriate,
as
described
below,
we
are
proposing
different
conditions
for
reusable
wipes.

This
section
details
a
number
of
proposed
conditions
that
specifically
would
ensure
that
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
are
handled
as
valuable
commodities,
such
as
the
condition
that
industrial
wipes
must
not
contain
free
liquids
and
the
container
conditions
for
accumulation,
transportation,
and
handling
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
Solvent
spillage
from
free
liquids
or
leaking
containers
would
increase
the
costs
of
managing
industrial
wipes
incurred
by
laundries
both
during
transportation
and
at
the
cleaning
plant,
thus
devaluing
the
overall
worth
of
reusable
industrial
wipes.
In
addition,
free
liquids
arriving
with
the
wipes
would
require
laundries
to
incur
the
increased
costs
of
disposing
or
otherwise
managing
the
contaminated
solvents,
again
reducing
the
overall
value
of
the
reusable
industrial
wipes.

Additionally,
because
of
the
flammable
nature
of
many
of
the
solvents
to
which
this
proposal
applies,
proper
containers
and
the
reduction
of
free
liquids
reduces
the
fire
hazard
posed
by
industrial
wipes.
We
believe
that
companies
which
value
their
industrial
wipes
would
be
likely
to
manage
them
in
a
manner
that
protects
their
facility
from
fire
damage
and
that
protects
them
from
loss
of
value,
which
would
occur
if
the
wipes
were
to
catch
on
fire.

Some
laundries
recover
solvents
from
the
industrial
wipes,
but
their
economic
interest
lies
principally
in
the
wipes
themselves.
Management
of
free
liquids
to
ensure
compliance
with
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
66
pretreatment
standards
established
by
local
sewer
authorities
and
to
guard
against
fire
hazards
could
increase
overall
operating
costs.
However,
conditions
that
ensure
the
use
of
appropriate
containers
and
that
restrict
the
amount
of
solvents
coming
into
the
laundries,
as
described
above,

always
enhance
the
value
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
to
the
laundries.

V.
C.
2.
Applicable
Solvents
Unlike
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
industrial
wipes
sent
for
disposal
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills,
which
is
not
applicable
to
11
of
the
listed
solvents,
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
is
applicable
to
wipes
contaminated
with
all
hazardous
solvents.
The
central
question
in
solid
waste
determinations
is
whether
the
material
has
been
discarded
and,
therefore,
because
EPA
believes
reusable
industrial
wipes
containing
any
of
the
solvents
listed
in
Table
1
would
be
commodity­
like
when
generators
meet
the
proposed
conditions,
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
would
apply
to
wipes
contaminated
with
all
hazardous
solvents.

V.
C.
3.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Initial
Storage
and
Accumulation
V.
C.
3.
a.
Proposed
Condition
The
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste
would
apply
to
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
at
the
point
where
the
generator
ceases
using
them.
If
the
wipes
are
managed
according
to
the
proposed
conditions,
they
are
not
considered
solid
waste.

The
first
condition
the
industrial
wipes
must
meet
is
an
accumulation
condition.
For
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
EPA
is
proposing
the
same
performance­
based
onsite
management
condition
as
for
the
exclusion
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
from
the
definition
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
67
of
hazardous
waste:
for
reusable
industrial
wipes,
when
wipes
are
discarded,
the
user
must
place
them
in
a
non­
leaking,
covered
container.
This
condition
is
more
fully
described
above
in
Section
V.
B.
2.

One
point
that
would
differ
for
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
is
that
under
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
speculative
accumulation
would
apply
for
these
materials.
This
means
that
in
any
calendar
year,
75
percent
of
the
material
accumulated
for
recycling
must
actually
be
recycled.
If
this
percentage
of
recycling
is
not
fulfilled,
the
material
becomes
classified
as
a
solid
waste.
The
speculative
accumulation
provision
ensures
that
materials
that
have
been
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
such
as
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
are
not
collected
indefinitely
under
that
exclusion
instead
of
being
recycled.
However,

because
of
the
business
practices
between
industrial
launderers
and
users
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
described
above,
we
believe
that
excluded
reusable
industrial
wipes
will
be
traveling
between
users
and
the
laundries
often
enough
that
the
speculative
accumulation
provision
will
not
be
a
concern.

Currently,
management
standards
for
accumulation
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
differ
from
state
to
state
due
to
varying
state
policies.
Some
states
require
that
the
reusable
wipes
be
handled
as
hazardous
waste
prior
to
laundering,
some
require
the
use
of
best
management
standards
or
the
use
of
closed
containers,
and
other
states
simply
exclude
reusable
industrial
wipes
from
meeting
any
requirements.
However,
some
trade
associations
and
industrial
laundries
already
encourage
their
members
and
customers
to
use
closed
or
sealed
containers
during
storage
and
transportation
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes.

EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
condition,
designed
to
minimize
loss
of
solvents
into
the
environment,
ensures
responsible
management
of
the
wipes
in
a
manner
that
is
commodity­
like
by
preventing
the
loss
of
wipes,
preventing
the
loss
of
solvent
which
could
be
recovered
and
reused,

and
protecting
against
risks
from
fires.
At
the
same
time,
by
being
performance­
based,
this
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
68
approach
allows
for
a
wide
variety
of
containers
to
be
acceptable
for
accumulation
of
reusable
wipes.

V.
C.
3.
b.
Other
Option
As
with
disposable
industrial
wipes,
EPA
is
considering
not
requiring
a
RCRA­
specific
condition
to
be
met
for
accumulation
of
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
and
instead
relying
on
OSHA
regulations
and
any
other
applicable
statutes.
This
option
is
fully
described
above
in
section
V.
B.
2.
b.

V.
C.
3.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
our
proposed
conditions
for
accumulating
reusable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
in
covered
containers
while
at
the
generator's
facility
as
well
as
the
option
of
not
proposing
a
RCRA
standard,
but
relying
on
the
OSHA
regulations.

V.
C.
4.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Containers
Used
for
Transportation
V.
C.
4.
a.
Proposed
Condition
For
transportation
of
reusable
industrial
wipes,
we
are
proposing
that
facilities
that
transport
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
off­
site
to
an
industrial
laundry,
a
dry
cleaner,
or
a
facility
that
removes
solvents
from
industrial
wipes
prior
to
cleaning
must
do
so
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment;
this
is
the
same
condition
we
are
proposing
for
disposable
industrial
wipes
that
are
conditionally
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
We
believe
this
condition
reflects
the
manner
in
which
a
commodity
would
be
transported
because
it
minimizes
the
possibility
that
valuable
material
would
be
spilled,
lost
or
damaged
during
transportation.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
69
This
condition
is
more
fully
described
above
in
Section
V.
B.
3.
Its
main
advantage
is
that
it
allows
for
flexibility
while
assuring
that
losses
are
minimized.

V.
C.
4.
b.
Plastic
and
Cloth
Bags
Used
reusable
wipes
are
often
transported
from
the
generator
to
the
laundry
in
either
plastic
or
cloth
bags
and
throughout
the
development
of
this
proposal,
there
has
been
much
discussion
with
stakeholders
about
the
use
of
such
bags
for
transportation
of
industrial
wipes
and
for
management
of
them
once
they
arrive
at
the
laundry.
Stakeholders
have
asked
whether
these
bags
could
continue
to
be
used
under
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.

EPA
has
chosen
to
propose
a
performance
standard
for
this
condition
because
it
provides
industry
the
ability
to
be
creative
in
developing
less
expensive
ways
to
reach
a
desired
outcome.
A
performance
standard
allows
for
use
of
a
wide
variety
of
containers
so
many
generators
could
continue
with
current
practices.
For
example,
while
we
would
consider
closed,
sealed,

impermeable
containers
to
meet
this
condition,
plastic
or
cloth
bags
that
were
cinched
shut
could
also
potentially
meet
this
condition.
Cinched
bags
would
reduce
exposed
surface
area
and
evaporative
loss
and,
provided
no
free
liquids
were
present,
might
not
allow
liquid
solvents
to
leak.
However,
at
any
time
that
hazardous
solvents
are
spilled
or
leaked
during
transportation,
we
would
consider
this
to
be
disposal
of
a
hazardous
waste
and
those
managing
the
industrial
wipes
at
the
time
the
spill
occurred
would
be
responsible
for
cleaning
up
the
spill
and
returning
the
wipes
to
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
(
i.
e.,
the
performance
standard).

V.
C.
4.
c.
Other
Options
For
reusable
industrial
wipes,
EPA
is
considering
two
additional
alternatives
during
transportation:
(
1)
requiring
transportation
of
the
industrial
wipes
in
impermeable
closed
containers,
or
(
2)
the
addition
of
a
provision
that
allows
wipes
containing
less
than
five
grams
of
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
70
solvent
to
be
transported
without
any
management
standards.

EPA
initially
considered
proposing
that
all
generators
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
would
be
required
to
transport
them
in
impermeable,
"
closed"
containers
(
e.
g.,
containers
with
the
lids
screwed
on).
Representatives
of
the
industrial
laundries
(
the
Uniform
Textiles
Trade
Association)

questioned
the
need
to
require
closed
containers
because
they
believe
it
would
require
them
to
purchase
new
and
larger
trucks
for
storage
during
transit.
In
addition,
they
expressed
concern
that
those
transporting
industrial
wipes
would
not
be
able
to
determine
if
free
liquids
were
present
within
a
closed
container
with
a
lid
screwed
on
without
further
handling
of
the
container
and
wipes.
Unlike
checking
the
bottom
of
a
bag
for
liquids,
unsealing
these
containers
would
be
time
consuming
and
would
expose
more
of
the
solvents
to
the
air.
In
addition,
they
argue
that
if
the
transporters
of
the
wipes
are
unable
to
determine
at
the
time
of
pick­
up
whether
there
are
free
liquids
in
the
container,
this
may
result
in
an
unnecessary
burden
falling
on
the
handlers
were
free
liquids
to
arrive
at
their
site.
Based
on
these
concerns,
we
are
not
proposing
this
alternative,
but
believe
the
approach
taken
in
today's
proposed
regulation
addresses
these
concerns
and
will
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

The
second
alternative,
regarding
allowing
wipes
that
contain
less
than
five
grams
of
solvent
to
be
transported
without
management
controls,
is
more
fully
described
above
in
section
V.
B.
3.
b.

V.
C.
4.
d.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
transportation
condition,
the
alternatives
considered,
and
on
the
ability
of
cloth
bags
to
meet
the
proposed
performance
standard.

V.
C.
5.
Proposed
Condition
for
Transportation
to
Laundry,
Dry
Cleaner,
or
Handler
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
71
V.
C.
5.
a.
Proposed
Condition
Today,
we
are
proposing
that
generators
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
prior
to
solvent­
contaminated
reusable
industrial
wipes
being
transported
off­
site
to
be
cleaned
for
reuse
or
being
laundered
on­
site.
This
is
the
same
as
the
condition
for
disposable
industrial
wipes
being
transported
for
disposal
at
a
non­
land
disposal
facility,
such
as
a
municipal
solid
waste
combustor,

and
is
consistent
with
what
state
programs
have
required
for
their
exclusions
for
reusable
industrial
wipes.
For
wipes
to
meet
the
federal
"
no
free
liquid"
condition,
no
liquid
solvent
could
drip
from
the
wipes
when
sent
off­
site.
In
addition,
no
free
liquids
could
be
present
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
in
which
the
wipes
are
transported.

EPA
has
tentatively
concluded
that
the
"
dry"
condition,
proposed
as
a
condition
for
disposable
industrial
wipes
going
to
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills,
is
overlystringent
for
the
management
of
reusable
industrial
wipes.
We
believe
this
to
be
the
case
because,

throughout
the
solvent
removal
and
cleaning
process,
the
conditions
established
for
eligibility
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
are
already
consistent
with
the
existing
hazardous
waste
regulations.
For
example,
solvents
removed
prior
to
cleaning
at
a
laundry
must
be
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
solvent
discharges
to
POTWs
are
allowed
under
the
wastewater
exclusion
found
at
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
2).
Local
POTWs
have
the
authority
to
set
limits
applicable
to
individual
indirect
dischargers
to
prevent
releases
and
to
prevent
interference
with
operations
at
the
POTW;
solvent
discharges
are
often
subject
to
these
limits.

We
believe
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
helps
ensure
that
reusable
industrial
wipes
that
are
saturated
with
solvent
are
partially
reclaimed
before
they
are
shipped
for
cleaning
or
laundry
and
helps
ensure
that
they
are
handled
as
valuable
commodities
by
reducing
the
risk
of
losing
valuable
wipes
as
the
result
of
fires
caused
by
ignitable
solvents.
Therefore,
it
may
lead
to
resource
conservation
by
encouraging
recovery
of
solvent
by
the
generator.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
72
The
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
is
more
fully
described
above
in
Section
V.
B.
6.
As
mentioned
in
that
section,
solvents
removed
from
wipes
are
solid
wastes
and
may
be
characteristic
or
listed
hazardous
wastes
and
must
be
managed
accordingly.

For
reusables
going
to
laundries,
dry
cleaners
and
industrial
wipes
handlers,
we
are
not
proposing
a
labeling
condition
that
parallels
the
one
described
in
Section
V.
B.
4.
for
disposable
industrial
wipes.
EPA
decided
not
to
propose
a
labeling
condition
in
this
case
because
the
commodity­
like
nature
of
reusable
wipes
means
that,
in
general,
laundries
have
agreements
with
their
customers
and
already
know
what
is
in
the
containers
of
wipes
that
arrive.
Therefore,

containers
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
do
not
require
a
label
to
provide
this
information
or
to
notify
the
transporters
or
laundries
how
the
wipes
should
be
handled.
EPA
believes
that
because
these
materials
are
managed
as
commodities
by
the
generators
and
the
handlers,
previously
existing
business
documents
should
provide
sufficient
information
to
ensure
proper
handling.

V.
C.
5.
b.
Other
Option
EPA
is
also
considering
a
"
no
free
liquids
when
wrung"
condition
instead
of
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
This
condition
would
differ
from
what
we
are
proposing
in
that
it
would
require
that
each
wipe,
when
hand
wrung
at
any
time
after
its
use
until
it
is
laundered,
could
not
drip
solvent.
See
section
V.
B.
6.
b.
for
further
description
of
this
option.

V.
C.
5.
c.
Request
for
Comment
We
request
comment
on
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
and
the
"
no
free
liquids
when
wrung"
option
as
well
as
on
whether
EPA
should
include
a
labeling
requirement
as
a
condition
for
sending
reusable
wipes
to
laundries
or
industrial
wipes
handlers.
In
addition,
we
also
specifically
request
comment
on
the
information
submitted
by
the
Association
of
Nonwoven
Fabrics
Industry
and
the
Secondary
Materials
and
Recycled
Textiles
Association
regarding
whether
to
place
a
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
73
specific
limit
on
either
the
maximum
amount
of
solvent
or
the
concentration
of
solvent
on
reusable
wipes
sent
to
a
laundering
or
dry
cleaning
facility
or
a
numerical
limit
on
the
number
of
shop
towels
launderers
or
dry
cleaners
can
accept
on
an
annual
basis
for
cleaning.

V.
C.
5.
d.
How
Can
Generators
Meet
the
"
No
Free
Liquids"
Condition?

The
measures
that
a
generator
can
take
to
meet
a
"
no
free
liquids"
condition
are
the
same
for
reusable
wipes
as
for
disposable
wipes.
For
more
information
on
these
measures,
see
Section
V.
B.
6.
d.
above.

V.
C.
5.
e.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
is
taking
comment
on
our
proposed
approach
to
determining
if
the
"
no
free
liquids"

condition
is
being
met.
Additionally,
we
request
comment
on
whether
there
are
other
approaches
EPA
should
have
considered
in
this
proposal.

V.
C.
6.
"
Exotic"
Solvents
In
the
process
of
developing
this
proposed
rulemaking,
the
Agency
has
learned
that
there
are
new,
"
exotic"
solvents
on
the
market,
such
as
terpenes
and
citric
acids,
that,
while
labeled
as
non­
hazardous,
could
actually
be
flammable.
Some
stakeholders
have
suggested
that
we
propose
to
allow
generating
facilities
to
add
water
to
the
containers
used
to
transport
their
industrial
wipes
off­
site
when
these
facilities
are
using
one
of
these
"
exotic"
solvents.
For
more
information
on
this
issue
see
Section
V.
B.
7.
above.
In
that
section,
we
also
request
information
and
comments
on
these
solvents,
and
on
whether
special
conditions
should
be
established
for
"
exotic"
solvents.

V.
C.
7.
Generators
That
Remove
Solvent
from
Industrial
Wipes
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
74
V.
C.
7.
a.
Regulatory
Status
of
Removed
Solvent
Any
solvent
removed
from
an
industrial
wipe
by
a
generator
when
using
solvents
in
conjunction
with
industrial
wipes
may
be
subject
to
regulation
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Therefore,

the
generating
facility
must
determine
whether
the
solvent
removed
from
the
industrial
wipe
is
listed
as
a
hazardous
waste
or
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
a
hazardous
waste
as
defined
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
and,
if
so,
manage
it
according
to
prescribed
RCRA
regulations
under
40
CFR
Parts
260­
268
and
270.

V.
C.
7.
b.
Regulatory
Status
of
Solvent
Removal
Technologies
Under
today's
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
the
solventcontaminated
wipes
would
not
be
a
solid
or
a
hazardous
waste
at
the
time
they
undergo
solventremoval
Therefore,
as
discussed
in
Section
V.
B.
8.
b.,
solvent
removal
technologies
would
not
be
considered
treatment
under
RCRA
and
such
operations,
whether
they
were
conducted
at
generating
or
handling
facilities
would
not
be
considered
to
be
treating
hazardous
waste
and
would
not
require
a
RCRA
permit.

V.
C.
8.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Intra­
Company
Transfers
V.
C.
8.
a.
Proposed
Condition
EPA
is
proposing
that
wipes
can
qualify
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
when
transferring
solvent­
contaminated
reusable
industrial
wipes
containing
"
free
liquids,"

provided
the
transfer
is
between
facilities
within
the
same
company,
and
the
receiving
facility
has
a
solvent­
extraction
and/
or
­
recovery
process
that
removes
enough
solvent
from
industrial
wipes
for
them
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquid"
condition.
Generators
must
transport
the
industrial
wipes
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment.
This
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
75
provision
encourages
use
of
technologies
that
remove
more
solvent
than
processes
such
as
hand
wringing
would;
it
is
an
effort
to
increase
solvent
recovery
and
resource
conservation,
as
well
as
a
way
to
minimize
solvent
going
into
laundries'
wastewater
or
into
landfills.
As
we
are
proposing
a
similar
condition
for
conditionally­
excluded
industrial
wipes
going
to
disposal,
more
detailed
discussion
of
this
provision
as
well
as
other
options
EPA
is
considering
can
be
found
above
in
Section
V.
B.
9.
Note,
however,
that
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
would
not
be
required
to
meet
the
labeling
requirement
described
in
that
section,
as
labels
are
not
required
for
reusable
wipes
elsewhere.

V.
C.
8.
b.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether
intra­
company
shipments
of
industrial
wipes
containing
free
liquids
should
be
allowed
under
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and
whether
this
provision
would
be
likely
to
facilitate
the
recovery
of
hazardous
solvents.

EPA
also
seeks
comment
both
on
whether
the
additional
conditions
should
be
included
and
on
whether
we
should
expand
the
provision
to
allow
industrial
wipes,
under
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
to
be
sent
in
with
free
liquids
to
third­
party
solvent­
extraction
facilities
not
within
the
same
company.
Both
options
are
discussed
in
Section
V.
B.
9.

V.
C.
9.
Proposed
Conditions
for
Management
at
Handling
Facilities
V.
C.
9.
a.
Proposed
Condition
As
described
for
disposable
industrial
wipes,
generators
would
have
the
primary
responsibility
for
assuring
that
their
industrial
wipes
meet
the
conditions
for
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
Additionally,
handling
facilities
which
receive
and
process
reusable
industrial
wipes,
such
as
industrial
laundries,
would
also
need
to
meet
certain
minimum
conditions
for
the
wipes
to
remain
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
The
first
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
76
condition
is
a
container
standard
for
the
time
between
when
the
industrial
wipes
arrive
on­
site
and
when
the
facility
first
introduces
them
into
their
process.
The
laundry's
process
begins
when
the
laundry
begins
to
handle
the
wipes.
For
example,
at
many
laundries,
the
wipes
are
sent
through
a
counting
machine
first,
before
they
are
cleaned,
to
record
how
many
wipes
the
generator
has
sent
to
be
cleaned.
In
this
example,
wipes
would
enter
the
handling
process
when
they
are
counted.

We
are
proposing
today
that,
to
qualify
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
industrial
wipes,
the
wipes
would
have
to
be
stored
either
(
a)
in
containers
that
are
designed,

constructed
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment
that
would
meet
the
transportation
condition
in
today's
proposal,
or
(
b)
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
that
would
meet
the
generator
accumulation
conditions
in
today's
proposal.
From
site
visits,
we
expect
that
at
the
laundries,
the
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
will
generally
remain
in
the
containers
in
which
they
were
transported.
However,
in
the
case
where
a
facility
chooses
to
transfer
the
industrial
wipes
into
another
container
before
the
wipes
enter
the
handling
process,
we
are
proposing
that
industrial
wipes
meeting
the
generator
condition,
placement
in
a
non­
leaking
covered
container,
would
also
maintain
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.

Handling
facilities
would
also
not
be
allowed
to
mismanage
free
liquids.
For
example,
an
industrial
laundry
may
not
introduce
free
liquids
into
their
laundering
process.
A
shipment
of
industrial
wipes
would
be
considered
to
contain
free
liquids
either
if
solvent
drips
from
the
wipes
or
if
there
are
free
liquids
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
of
wipes.
Facilities
that
happen
to
receive
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
in
containers
with
free
liquids
(
unless
they
are
being
transported
intra­
company)
would
be
required
to
either
(
a)
return
the
container
(
with
the
wipes
and
liquid)
to
the
user
as
soon
as
practicable
(
e.
g.,
with
the
next
scheduled
delivery),
or
(
b)

recover
and
properly
manage
any
liquid
solvent
that
arrives
at
the
facility
under
federal
or
state
hazardous
waste
regulations.
When
returning
the
wipes
and
liquids
to
the
user,
the
laundry
would
have
to
transport
them
in
the
containers
that
meet
the
original
shipment
conditions,
but
would
not
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
77
be
required
to
use
a
hazardous
waste
manifest.

The
conditions
of
this
proposal
would
require
a
laundry
or
handling
facility
to
take
necessary
steps
to
return
the
wipes
to
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion,
as
described
above.
The
mismanagement
of
free
liquid
solvents
by
the
laundry,
either
by
illegal
disposal,
by
adding
them
to
the
wash,
or
other
means,
would
be
a
violation
of
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion.
If
the
exclusion
is
not
maintained
by
either
of
the
ways
described
above,
we
would
consider
the
wipes
and
solvent
to
be
a
solid
waste
and
possibly
a
hazardous
waste
and
would
consider
the
laundry
to
be
mismanaging
the
wipes
and/
or
free
liquids.
In
addition,
because
the
generator
is
originally
responsible
for
the
existence
of
the
free
liquids
in
wipes,
it
would
also
be
potentially
responsible
for
wipes
having
lost
the
exclusion
at
the
handler
despite
the
wipes
being
out
of
the
generator's
control
at
that
moment.

The
objective
of
this
condition
is
to
address
situations
where
free
liquids
arrive
at
a
handling
facility
such
as
an
industrial
launderer,
either
(
a)
because
of
percolation
and
gravity
effects
during
transportation,
causing
the
solvents
to
sink
and
saturate
the
wipes
at
the
bottom
of
any
given
container;
or
(
b)
because
of
mismanagement
of
the
wipes
by
the
generator.
We
believe
that
over
time
this
approach
will
ensure
that
wipes
are
handled
in
the
most
efficient
manner
possible
to
minimize
the
need
to
return
wipes
and
free
liquids
to
users'
facilities.

V.
C.
9.
b.
Request
for
Comment
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
above
conditions
for
reusable
industrial
wipes
managed
at
handling
facilities
to
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
whether
laundries
receiving
shipments
of
wipes
that
contain
free
liquids
should
be
required
to
submit
a
notification
to
the
state
or
EPA
region
implementing
RCRA
to
inform
them
that
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition,
and
therefore
a
condition
of
the
exclusion,
had
not
been
met.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
14Three
years
is
the
standard
period
of
time
that
EPA
usually
requires
for
the
maintenance
of
records
78
V.
D.
Recordkeeping
EPA
is
not
proposing
any
specific
recordkeeping
requirements
for
either
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
disposable
industrial
wipes
or
for
the
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
reusable
industrial
wipes,
since
40
CFR
261.2(
f)
already
requires
persons
to
provide
appropriate
documentation
that
would
demonstrate
that
the
industrial
wipes
are
not
a
solid
waste,
or
are
excluded
from
the
hazardous
waste
regulations.

Nevertheless,
we
are
considering
whether
specific
recordkeeping
requirements
should
be
included
in
the
conditions
to
qualify
for
the
exclusions
proposed
today
for
the
purpose
of
improving
implementation
by
the
relevant
regulatory
authority.
We
are
asking
for
comment
on
a
number
of
related
issues.
For
example,
should
EPA
require
generators
to
keep
basic
information,

such
as
the
number
or
volume
of
industrial
wipes
generated,
where
the
industrial
wipes
were
sent,

and
how
many
shipments
were
sent
off­
site?
In
addition,
should
EPA
require
generators
to
certify
that
their
shipments
of
industrial
wipes
meet
either
the
"
no
free
liquids"
or
the
"
dry"
condition,
as
appropriate,
and
maintain
those
records
for
three
years?
14
Finally,
should
EPA
require
that
the
generators
certify
that
their
employees
are
adequately
trained
to
manage
wipes
stored
and
handled
on­
site
through
compliance
with
generator
employee
training
and
emergency
response
requirements
in
40
CRF
Part
262.
Should
those
records
be
maintained
for
three
years
if
such
requirements
were
ultimately
promulgated?
We
request
information
on
whether
the
certification
could
easily
be
added
onto
regular
business
records
such
as
a
transporter's
pick­
up
sheets
or
shipping
papers.
In
addition,
would
such
a
provision
increase
the
likelihood
that
generators
would
ensure
that
the
processes,
techniques
or
technologies
they
use
would
meet
the
applicable
"
no
free
liquids"
or
"
dry"
condition?

EPA
also
seeks
comment
on
whether
industrial
laundries,
dry
cleaners,
and
industrial
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
79
wipes
handling
and
disposal
facilities
should
be
required
to
certify
the
condition
of
wipes
that
arrive
at
their
facility,
such
as
whether
or
not
they
contain
free
liquids.
If
the
wipes
contain
free
liquids,
should
handlers
be
required
to
record
what
steps
they
took
to
address
this
problem
(
such
as
documenting
whether
they
removed
the
free
liquids
and
properly
managed
the
solvents
or
returned
the
saturated
wipes
and
free
liquids
to
the
generator)
and
maintain
these
records
for
three
years?
In
addition,
EPA
seeks
comment
on
whether,
when
returning
industrial
wipes
to
their
customers,
handlers
should
be
required
to
use
a
"
streamlined"
manifest
to
reflect
the
type
of
solvents
enclosed,
the
weight
or
volume
of
the
free
liquids,
the
date
and
destination
of
the
shipment,
and
acknowledgment
of
receipt
by
the
generator.

Finally,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
inclusion
of
these
recordkeeping
requirements
in
the
rule
would
improve
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
the
rule
and,
therefore,

improve
implementation
of
the
provisions
of
the
rule.

V.
E.
Enforcement
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
reusable
industrial
wipes
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and
disposable
industrial
wipes
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
if
certain
accumulation,
transportation,
and
handling
conditions
are
met.
The
party
operating
under
either
conditional
exclusion
will
be
responsible
for
maintaining
the
exclusion
by
ensuring
that
all
the
conditions
are
met.
In
the
event
that
a
condition
is
not
met,
the
party
managing
the
wipes
at
that
time
will
need
to
remedy
the
situation
as
soon
as
possible
in
order
not
to
jeopardize
the
exclusion.
Facilities
taking
advantage
of
the
exclusion
that
fail
to
meet
one
or
more
of
its
conditions
may
be
subject
to
enforcement
action,
and
the
wipes
may
be
considered
to
be
hazardous
waste
from
the
point
of
their
generation
(
i.
e.,
from
the
point
when
the
generator
had
finished
using
them).
EPA
could
choose
to
bring
an
enforcement
action
under
RCRA
§
3008(
a)

for
all
violations
of
the
hazardous
waste
requirements
occurring
from
the
time
the
industrial
wipes
are
generated
through
the
time
they
are
finally
disposed
of,
reclaimed,
or
reused.
States
could
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
80
choose
to
enforce
for
violations
of
state
hazardous
waste
requirements
under
state
authorities.

EPA
believes
that
this
approach,
which
treats
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
that
do
not
conform
to
the
conditions
of
the
exclusions
as
either
solid
waste
or
hazardous
waste
from
their
point
of
generation,
provides
generators,
disposers,
and
other
handlers
with
an
incentive
to
handle
the
industrial
wipes
in
a
manner
that
prevents
the
loss
of
the
exclusion.
It
also
encourages
each
person
to
take
appropriate
steps
to
see
that
others
in
the
management
chain
handle
the
industrial
wipes
so
that
they
are
legitimately
disposed
of,
reclaimed,
or
reused.

For
example,
if
a
laundry
operating
under
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
receives
a
barrel
of
reusable
industrial
wipes
containing
free
liquids
and
mixes
them
with
other
industrial
wipes
without
removing
the
free
liquids,
then
those
industrial
wipes
would
not
be
excluded.
Likewise,
if
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
disposes
of
industrial
wipes
containing
a
prohibited
solvent
such
as
trichloroethylene,
the
disposables
would
not
be
excluded.
In
both
cases,

EPA
and
an
authorized
state
could
choose
to
bring
an
enforcement
action
against
those
in
the
management
chain,
including
the
generator,
transporter,
and/
or
receiving
facility,
for
violations
of
applicable
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements.
In
these
cases,
the
material
would
be
a
hazardous
waste
from
the
time
the
generator
first
generated
it.

As
with
any
violation,
EPA
and
authorized
states
would
have
enforcement
mechanisms
available
that
range
in
severity.
In
addition,
EPA
and
authorized
states
would
have
flexibility
in
applying
these
mechanisms
to
the
various
responsible
parties.
Enforcing
agencies
would
use
their
discretion
to
select
the
enforcement
mechanisms
and
the
parties
that
are
appropriate
to
a
specific
case
and
its
factual
circumstances.
Some
of
the
enforcement
mechanisms
include
sending
a
notice
of
violation,
ordering
that
the
situation
be
remedied,
or
assessing
fines
or
other
penalties
as
appropriate.

Generators
and
recycling,
disposal,
or
handling
facilities
claiming
the
exclusion
must
be
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
81
able
to
demonstrate
to
the
appropriate
regulatory
agency
that
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
are
being
met.
In
an
enforcement
action,
the
facility
claiming
the
exclusion
bears
the
burden
of
proof
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
261.2(
f),
to
demonstrate
conformance
with
the
conditions
specified
in
the
regulation.
For
disposable
industrial
wipes,
the
burden
of
proof
falls
on
the
generator,
commercial
transporter,
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
municipal
waste
combustor,
combustion
facility,
or
handling
facility
claiming
the
exclusion,
and
for
reusable
industrial
wipes,
it
falls
on
the
generator,

laundry,
dry
cleaner,
or
handling
facility
claiming
the
exclusion.

Additionally,
the
exclusions
in
today's
rule
would
not
affect
the
obligation
to
promptly
respond
to
and
remediate
any
releases
that
may
occur
of
solvents
and
wipes
managed
within
the
exclusion.
If,
for
example,
a
hazardous
solvent
is
spilled
or
released,
then
the
solvent
would
be
discarded.
Any
management
of
the
released
material
not
in
compliance
with
the
applicable
federal
and
state
hazardous
waste
requirements
could
result
in
an
enforcement
action.
For
example,
a
person
who
spilled
or
released
a
hazardous
solvent,
and
failed
to
immediately
clean
it
up,
could
potentially
be
subject
to
enforcement
for
illegal
disposal
of
the
waste.
The
waste
could
also
potentially
be
addressed
through
enforcement
orders,
such
as
orders
under
RCRA
§
3013
and
7003.

V.
F.
Alternative
Options
to
the
Approach
in
Today's
Proposed
Rule
The
approach
taken
in
today's
proposed
rule,
the
exclusion
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
disposable
wipes
and
the
exclusion
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste
for
reusable
wipes,
is
one
of
a
few
that
EPA
is
considering.
The
others
are
described
below.

V.
F.
1.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
Disposable
and
Reusable
Solvent­

Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
We
are
considering
an
option
that
would
exclude
reusable
industrial
wipes
from
the
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
82
regulatory
definition
of
hazardous
waste
rather
than
exclude
them
from
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste,
using
the
same
conditions
as
those
specified
in
today's
proposed
rule.
This
approach
would
not
differentiate
the
regulatory
status
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
whether
they
are
being
sent
for
recycling
or
for
disposal.

Under
this
approach,
the
provisions
of
the
rule
concerning
disposable
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
would
remain
the
same
as
in
today's
proposed
option.
For
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
the
conditions
for
complying
with
the
rule
would
be
the
same
as
in
today's
proposed
option,
but
the
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
would
remain
solid
wastes
(
though
not
hazardous
wastes)
when
the
conditions
were
met.

Some
stakeholders,
particularly
laundries
and
other
handlers
of
reusable
wipes,
are
strongly
opposed
to
this
option.
They
believe
that
they
manage
a
commodity
rather
than
a
waste
and
argue
that
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
would
inappropriately
classify
them
under
the
regulatory
definition
of
solid
waste.
These
stakeholders
are
also
concerned
that
if
contaminated
wipes
being
laundered
and
reused
were
to
be
considered
a
solid
waste
by
EPA,
they
may
become
subject
to
state
solid
waste
fees
if
states
were
to
decide
to
collect
such
fees.

EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
this
option
relative
to
today's
proposal.

V.
E.
2.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
All
Disposable
Solvent­

Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Under
a
Single
Set
of
Conditions
An
additional
option
we
are
considering
would
provide
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
all
disposable
wipes
under
the
same
conditions.
The
option
affects
only
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
proposed
today;
all
provisions
for
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
described
in
Section
V.
C.
would
remain
the
same.
Under
this
option,
the
Agency
would
not
differentiate
between
wipes
managed
in
municipal
and
other
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
83
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
or
non­
landfill
facilities
 
the
conditions
necessary
for
industrial
wipes
to
obtain
an
exclusion
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
would
be
the
same
for
both
types
of
management.
For
example,
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
would
not
need
to
be
"
dry"
prior
to
landfill
disposal;
rather,
they
would
be
required
to
contain
no
free
liquids.

We
are
carefully
considering
this
option,
since
it
would
be
simpler
and
easier
to
implement
and
would
simplify
the
regulations
for
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
industrial
wipes.
However,
we
are
concerned
with
this
option
because
it
would
allow
solvents
that
may
pose
an
environmental
and
human
health
risk
to
be
placed
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
without
meeting
the
5­
gram
condition
(
i.
e.,
the
"
dry"
condition)
that
would
reduce
risks.
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
this
approach
and
on
the
assumptions
we
used
in
our
landfill
risk
screening
analyses.
Specifically,
are
there
assumptions
or
parameters
that
should
be
modified
to
reflect
a
more
accurate
estimate
of
the
level
of
risk
posed
by
contaminated
wipes
in
landfills?

VI.
Additional
Benefit
of
the
Proposed
Rule:
Fostering
Pollution
Prevention
In
addition
to
regulatory
reform
in
response
to
stakeholder
concerns,
we
believe
this
proposed
rule
will
foster
pollution
prevention
and
recycling
opportunities
by
encouraging
users
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
who
desire
less
stringent
management
requirements
to
use
alternative
solvents,
use
less
solvent,
or
remove
solvents
to
achieve
the
"
no
free
liquids"
or
"
dry"
conditions.

For
instance,
generators
desiring
to
dispose
of
wipes
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
must
use
solvents
other
than
the
11
specified
F­
listed
spent
solvents
and
must
reduce
the
amount
of
solvent
which
is
contained
in
them
to
a
"
dry"
state.
In
many
instances,
reduction
and/
or
substitution
can
result
in
overall
cost
savings
to
a
company.
In
a
recent
study,
the
Chemical
Strategies
Partnership
found
that
the
cost
of
managing
chemicals
ranges
from
$
1
to
$
10
for
every
dollar
of
chemical
purchased.
These
management
costs
include
liability,
safety
training,

compliance
efforts,
and
collection
and
disposal
costs
that
would
not
accrue
to
the
company
if
they
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
15See
Chemical
Strategies
Partnership
Manual,
Tools
for
Optimizing
Chemical
Management.
Copies
can
be
obtained
by
email
at:
inquiry@
csp.
sfex.
com
or
www.
chemicalstrategies.
org.

84
were
purchasing
a
non­
hazardous
solvent.
15
A
company
could
also
achieve
savings
if
they
were
to
reduce
the
amount
of
solvent
they
use
to
meet
the
conditions
of
this
proposed
rule.

EPA
strongly
encourages
companies
to
examine
the
feasibility
of
using
less
solvent
and/
or
substituting
non­
hazardous
solvents
for
hazardous
solvents.
Various
industry
and
government
sources
might
be
able
to
assist
in
identifying
alternative
sources.
(
See,
for
instance,
EPA's
Design
for
the
Environment
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
dfe
or
contact
your
EPA
region
or
state
for
technical
assistance.)

This
proposed
rule
would
also
have
the
potential
to
increase
pollution
prevention
because
it
may
increase
the
incentive
to
control
the
amount
of
solvent
applied
to
industrial
wipes.
For
example,
the
use
of
less
solvent
might
make
it
easier
to
meet
the
conditions
of
either
exclusion.
In
addition,
generators
using
significant
amounts
of
solvent
on
their
disposable
wipes
would
need
to
extract
the
solvent
using
an
advanced
solvent­
extraction
process
in
order
to
meet
the
proposed
"
dry"
or
"
no
free
liquids"
conditions,
increasing
the
likelihood
of
additional
solvent
reuse
and
recovery.
Opportunities
already
exist
in
the
marketplace
to
recover
and
reuse
the
extracted
solvent
by
either
establishing
an
on­
site
solvent­
extraction
process
or
by
sending
the
industrial
wipes
to
an
off­
site
solvent­
extraction
facility.
Technologies
have
emerged
that
primarily
dry
clean
contaminated
materials
and,
once
dry
cleaned,
recover
excess
spent
solvents
through
reclamation.

Such
technologies
may
offer
alternatives
to
generators
for
recycling
or
reusing
both
the
spent
solvents
and
the
used
industrial
wipes.
In
many
instances,
use
of
these
technologies
can
result
not
only
in
opportunities
to
reduce
pollution,
but
also
to
reduce
disposal
costs.

VII.
Risk
Screening
Analysis
VII.
A.
Introduction
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
85
The
discussion
below
summarizes
the
Agency's
risk
screening
analysis
for
disposable
and
reusable
industrial
wipes.
For
specifics
regarding
the
risk
analysis
or
details
on
how
it
was
conducted,
please
see
the
background
documents
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposed
rulemaking,

particularly
the
risk
screening
assessment
document,
"
Estimating
Risk
from
Disposal
of
Solvent
Contaminated
Shop
Towels
and
Wipes
in
Municipal
Landfills,"
March
1999.

As
previously
stated,
several
stakeholders
have
argued
that
disposing
of
industrial
wipes
containing
small
amounts
of
solvent
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
would
not
pose
a
substantial
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
have
submitted
rulemaking
petitions
to
the
Agency
on
this
matter.
Similarly,
they
argued
that
disposal
of
treatment
residues,
such
as
ash
from
incineration
of
disposable
wipes
and
sludges
from
wastewater
treatment
at
laundries
washing
industrial
wipes,
would
not
pose
a
substantial
hazard.

In
response
to
these
arguments,
EPA
conducted
risk
screening
analyses
for
the
following
scenarios
to
evaluate
the
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment:

°
Direct
landfilling
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
°
Landfilling
of
combustor
ash
generated
from
burning
disposable
industrial
wipes
in
a
municipal
waste
combustion
facility,
and
°
Landfilling
of
industrial
laundry
wastewater
treatment
sludges
generated
from
washing
reusable
industrial
wipes
VII.
B.
What
Analyses
Did
EPA
Do?

EPA
first
estimated
risks
from
exposure
to
the
30
F­
listed
solvents
commonly
used
on
industrial
wipes
assuming
they
were
directly
disposed
of
in
an
unlined
municipal
landfill.
We
looked
at
potential
risks
from
inhalation
of
the
solvents
volatilizing
from
the
landfill,
from
ingestion
of
groundwater
contaminated
by
solvents
leaching
from
the
landfill,
and
from
inhalation
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
86
of
solvent
vapors
released
from
contaminated
groundwater
during
showering
and
other
uses.
We
evaluated
exposure
to
solvents
volatilizing
from
landfills
using
a
partitioning
model
to
determine
solvent
releases
and
an
air
dispersion
model
to
determine
the
air
concentration
at
a
point
of
exposure
75
meters
from
the
landfill.
The
partitioning
model
estimates
what
fraction
of
the
total
mass
of
solvent
degrades,
volatilizes,
leaches,
and
adheres
to
the
material
in
the
landfill.

The
evaluation
of
risks
from
groundwater
incorporated
previous
probabilistic
analyses
of
groundwater
fate
and
transport
to
determine
the
relative
concentrations
of
contaminants
in
the
landfill
leachate
and
at
a
nearby
well.
The
5th
percentile
value
from
the
distribution
of
results,

which
is
a
conservatively
low
ratio
of
leachate
concentration
to
well
concentration
(
i.
e.,
indicates
a
high
well
concentration
relative
to
a
given
leachate
concentration),
was
used
for
the
analysis.

The
results
of
the
probabilistic
groundwater
analyses
were
combined
with
partitioning
model
results,
which
determined
the
initial
leachate
concentrations,
and
with
standard
default
exposure
assumptions,
which
determined
the
exposure
to
individuals
from
the
calculated
well
concentrations.

The
exposure
evaluation
examined
the
sensitivity
of
the
results
to
different
parameters
such
as
the
size
of
the
landfill
and
climatic
conditions.
EPA
determined
that
the
most
sensitive
set
of
conditions
was
exposure
to
children
due
to
releases
to
groundwater
from
a
small
landfill
in
a
wet
climate.
This
worst­
case
scenario
was
used
to
estimate
maximum
allowable
daily
loadings
for
each
solvent,
based
on
not
exceeding
specified
risk
levels.

In
particular,
to
evaluate
risks,
EPA
used
health
benchmarks
from
its
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS),
supplemented
with
other
sources
as
necessary.
Benchmarks
for
noncarcinogenic
solvents
are
presented
as
reference
doses
(
RfD)
for
exposures
through
ingestion
and
as
reference
air
concentrations
(
RfC)
for
exposures
through
inhalation.
These
are
concentrations
which
are
considered
to
be
protective
of
human
health;
therefore,
the
calculated
exposures
were
compared
directly
to
these
values
to
determine
whether
there
was
a
potential
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
87
human
health
risk
for
the
noncarcinogenic
solvents.
For
carcinogens,
IRIS
presents
cancer
slope
factors,
which
are
used
to
calculate
risk
as
a
function
of
exposure
dose.
For
this
analysis,
EPA
used
the
exposure
dose
corresponding
to
a
cancer
risk
of
1
in
100,000
(
10­
5)
as
the
health
benchmark
for
an
acceptable
cancer
risk
level.

We
initially
evaluated
disposal
of
industrial
wipes
from
one
generating
facility
sent
to
one
landfill.
EPA
then
evaluated
various
factors,
such
as
the
number
of
facilities
likely
to
use
one
landfill
for
disposal,
percentage
of
facilities
using
F­
listed
solvents,
and
the
percentage
of
facilities
sending
their
disposable
industrial
wipes
to
landfills
rather
than
combustors
in
order
to
extrapolate
the
results
from
the
initial
analysis
into
results
which
would
be
representative
of
potential
actual
exposures.

EPA's
second
analysis
estimated
risks
from
disposal
of
ash
from
incinerators
burning
disposable
industrial
wipes.
EPA
assumed
that
99.99%
of
the
solvent
was
destroyed
in
the
incinerator
(
with
the
remainder
going
into
the
ash)
to
derive
a
solvent
loading
in
ash
for
each
of
the
30
F­
listed
solvents.
We
then
used
the
same
landfill
analysis
described
above
to
determine
how
much
solvent
would
be
partitioned
to
leachate,
transported
to
the
receiving
well,
and
exposed
to
the
receptor.
As
in
the
above
landfill
analysis,
EPA
then
calculated
what
the
allowable
solvent
loadings
to
an
incinerator
could
be
to
determine
which
listed
solvent
ash
residues
could
safely
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill.

EPA's
third
analysis
was
of
potential
risks
from
disposal
of
sludge
from
wastewater
treatment
at
laundries
which
clean
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
For
this
analysis,
we
used
the
maximum
of
a
very
limited
number
of
wastewater
concentrations
collected
from
industrial
laundries
by
the
Office
of
Water
as
part
of
their
effluent
guidelines
development
process.
We
estimated
the
sludge
concentrations
of
different
solvents
using
a
partitioning
model
to
estimate
the
mass
of
solvent
in
the
wastewater
that
partitions
to
air,
water,
and
sludge.
Since
we
had
wastewater
data
for
only
a
limited
number
of
solvents,
we
extrapolated
that
data
to
the
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
88
other
solvents.
Once
we
had
a
solvent
loading
in
the
sludge
going
to
a
landfill,
we
used
the
same
analysis
described
above
to
estimate
risks.

Finally,
EPA
examined
potential
ecological
risks
by
estimating
solvent
concentrations
in
surface
water
streams
which
are
affected
by
groundwater
contamination
from
landfills
with
solvent
wastes.
These
estimated
concentrations
were
then
compared
to
available
water
quality
criteria.
The
analysis
was
very
conservative
in
that
100%
of
the
solvent
in
groundwater
was
assumed
to
be
discharged
into
a
small
stream;
however,
water
quality
criteria
were
available
for
only
ten
of
the
solvents,
so
the
other
20
were
not
evaluated
for
ecological
risks.
More
information
on
the
analysis
can
be
found
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
this
proposal,
available
in
the
Docket.

VII.
C.
What
Were
the
Results
of
the
Analyses,
and
What
Do
they
Mean?

VII.
C.
1.
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Managed
in
Landfills
The
results
of
the
risk
screening
analysis
for
each
solvent
are
presented
as
a
comparison
of
the
allowable
loading
to
a
landfill
(
based
on
meeting
the
previously
described
risk
thresholds)
with
the
projected
loadings
under
two
possible
conditions:
1)
untreated
industrial
wipes
and,
2)

industrial
wipes
treated
by
a
technique
such
as
centrifuging
which
was
assumed
to
remove
90%
of
the
solvent.
The
detailed
results
are
presented
below
in
Table
8
and
show
that:

°
16
listed
solvent
constituents
would
not
exceed
risk
thresholds,
even
without
treatment,

°
8
additional
listed
solvent
constituents
would
not
exceed
the
risk
thresholds
if
wipes
were
processed
by
solvent
extraction,
and
°
6
remaining
listed
solvent
constituents
would
exceed
the
risk
thresholds
even
if
wipes
were
processed
by
solvent
extraction.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
89
As
indicated
earlier,
there
are
a
number
of
conservative
factors
included
in
the
analysis.

Factors
which
would
tend
to
increase
our
estimate
of
risk
include
the
use
of
the
5th
percentile
value
from
the
distribution
of
ratios
of
leachate
concentrations
to
well
concentrations,
the
assumption
of
a
small
landfill
in
a
wet
climate,
and
the
assumption
that
the
receptor
for
inhalation
risks
is
only
75
meters
from
the
landfill.
On
the
other
hand,
the
use
of
standard
default
exposure
assumptions,
as
well
as
some
of
the
loading
assumptions
were
based
on
best
estimates,
not
conservative
assumptions.
While
EPA
has
not
done
a
comprehensive
sensitivity
analysis
of
all
risk
factors,
the
analysis
is
generally
consistent
with
the
Agency
policy
of
using
high
end
risk
estimates
(
above
the
90th
percentile,
but
on
the
real
risk
distribution)
as
one
factor
in
its
decision
making.

Another
factor
to
note
is
that
there
is
considerable
uncertainty
in
a
large
number
of
the
parameters
used
in
the
analysis.
For
example,
there
was
wide
variability
in
the
estimates
of
how
much
solvent
would
be
on
each
industrial
wipe;
the
estimates
of
how
many
facilities
would
use
a
particular
landfill
were
based
on
general
demographic
data;
and
the
fate
and
transport
models,
as
well
as
some
of
the
health
benchmarks,
have
some
degree
of
uncertainty.
While
the
Agency
has
not
conducted
a
detailed
quantitative
uncertainty
analysis,
it
is
likely
that
the
range
of
the
uncertainty
in
this
risk
analysis
covers
an
order
of
magnitude
or
more.
The
Agency
specifically
solicits
comments
on
the
results
and
the
assumptions
and
decisions
made
in
conducting
the
risk
screening
analysis.
More
information
on
the
analysis
can
be
found
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
this
proposal,
available
in
the
Docket.

Table
8.
Evaluation
of
Solvent­
Contaminated
Disposable
Wipes
for
Landfilling
CAS
No.
Constituent
(
RCRA
Waste
Codes)
Loading
to
meet
the
health
benchmark
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
Assuming
Centrifuging
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Conclusiona
Noncarcinogens
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
CAS
No.
Constituent
(
RCRA
Waste
Codes)
Loading
to
meet
the
health
benchmark
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
Assuming
Centrifuging
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Conclusiona
90
67­
64­
1
Acetone
(
F003)
1.73
4.32
0.432
Centrifuge
required
71­
36­
3
Butanol
(
F003)
1.61
1.88
0.188
Centrifuge
required
75­
15­
0
Carbon
disulfide
(
F005)
0.62
1.03
0.103
Centrifuge
required
108­
90­
7
Chlorobenzeneb
(
F002)
and
(
D021)
0.36
1.03
0.103
Centrifuge
required
108­
94­
1
Cyclohexanone
(
F003)
64.55
1.88
0.188
Acceptable
1319­
77­
3
Cresols
(
F004)
and
(
D026)
b
0.41
1.03
0.103
Centrifuge
Required
75­
71­
8
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(
F001)
2.16
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
95­
50­
1
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
(
F002)
and
(
U070)
12.84
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
141­
78­
6
Ethyl
acetate
(
F003)
16.17
2.26
0.226
Acceptable
100­
41­
4
Ethyl
benzene
(
F003)
11.95
1.88
0.188
Acceptable
60­
29­
7
Ethyl
ether
(
F003)
4.30
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
110­
80­
5
2­
Ethoxyethanol
(
F005)
3.82
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
78­
83­
1
Isobutyl
alcohol
(
F005)
4.31
1.88
0.188
Acceptable
67­
56­
1
Methanol
(
F003)
5.90
3.20
0.320
Acceptable
78­
93­
3
Methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
F005)
(
D035)
0.32
3.67
0.367
Unacceptable
108­
10­
1
Methyl
isobutyl
ketone
(
F003)
0.03
1.03
0.103
Unacceptablec
98­
95­
3
Nitrobenzene
(
F004)
and
(
U169)
0.043
1.03
0.103
Unacceptable
110­
86­
1
Pyridine
(
F005)
(
D038)
0.006
1.03
0.103
Unacceptable
127­
18­
4
Tetrachloroethylene
(
F002)
b
(
D039)
5.83
4.42
0.442
Acceptable
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
CAS
No.
Constituent
(
RCRA
Waste
Codes)
Loading
to
meet
the
health
benchmark
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Loading
Assuming
Centrifuging
(
kg/
day,
per
landfill)
Conclusiona
91
108­
88­
3
Toluene
(
F005)
2.14
5.08
0.508
Centrifuge
required
71­
55­
6
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
(
F002)
15.81
9.02
0.902
Acceptable
76­
13­
1
1,1,2­
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(
F002)
403.37
5.17
0.517
Acceptable
75­
69­
4
Trichlorofluoromethane
(
F002)
and
(
U121)
16.05
3.48
0.348
Acceptable
1330­
20­
7
Xylenes
(
total)
(
F003)
6.18
1.88
0.188
Acceptable
Carcinogens
71­
43­
2
Benzene
(
F005)
(
D018)
b
0.24
1.03
0.103
Centrifuge
required
56­
23­
5
Carbon
tetrachloride
(
F001)
(
D019)
b
3.0
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
75­
09­
2
Methylene
chloride
(
F002)
0.39
9.54
0.954
Unacceptable
79­
46­
9
2­
Nitropropane
(
F005)
0.003
1.03
0.103
Unacceptable
79­
01­
6
Trichloroethylene
(
F002)
(
D040)
b
27.66
1.03
0.103
Acceptable
79­
00­
5
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
(
F002)
0.83
1.03
0.103
Centrifuge
Required
a
For
this
analysis,
the
human
health
benchmarks
were
a
hazard
quotient
of
1
for
a
non­
carcinogen
or
a
carcinogenic
risk
of
10­
5.
Values
above
these
numbers
were
deemed
to
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
b
One
of
those
constituents
which
cannot
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
under
today's
proposal
because
they
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
instead
of
because
of
the
outcome
of
the
risk
screening
analysis.
For
further
discussion,
see
Section
V.
B.
5.
c
Methyl
isobutyl
ketone
is
listed
for
its
characteristic
of
ignitability
and,
therefore,
when
it
is
mixed
with
solid
waste,
is
no
longer
considered
hazardous
waste
unless
it
continues
to
display
its
characteristic.
Therefore,
although
this
risk
screening
analysis
lists
MIBK
as
Unacceptable,
a
wipe
containing
it
can
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
if
it
meets
the
other
conditions.

VII.
C.
2.
Ash
from
Incineration
of
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Managed
in
Landfills
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
16
See
"
8/
15/
02
letter
from
Bourdeau
to
Dellinger;"
"
Assessing
Management
of
Sludge
Generated
by
Industrial
Laundries,"
EPA
OSW,
May
9,
2000;
and
our
final
risk
screening
analysis
document,
"
Estimating
the
Risk
from
the
Disposal
of
Solvent
Contaminated
Shop
Towels
and
Wipes
in
Municipal
Landfills,"
USEPA,
March
1999.

92
Even
though
the
analysis
of
risks
from
disposing
of
incinerator
ash
in
landfills
was
conservative
by
assuming
that
all
of
the
solvent
that
was
not
destroyed
went
into
the
ash
(
as
opposed
to
some
of
it
being
emitted
from
the
stack)
and
that
the
ash
was
from
a
small
combustion
unit
(
meaning
that
a
higher
percentage
of
the
total
amount
of
material
being
burned
consisted
of
wipes),
the
analysis
still
indicated
that
none
of
the
solvents
would
exceed
the
health
benchmarks
if
the
ash
were
disposed
of
in
a
landfill.

VII.
C.
3.
Sludge
from
Wastewater
Treatment
at
Industrial
Laundries
and
Managed
in
Landfills
This
analysis
indicated
that
only
one
constituent,
2­
nitropropane,
would
be
present
in
sludge
at
a
level
which
would
reach
the
allowable
health
benchmark.
Even
for
this
highly
toxic
solvent,
the
loading
in
sludge
(
0.004
kg/
day)
just
barely
exceeded
the
allowable
loading
(
0.0033
kg/
day).
In
this
case,
the
exposure
route
of
concern
is
inhalation
of
the
solvent
which
has
volatilized
from
the
landfill.
For
the
reasons
previously
cited
(
receptor
only
75
meters
from
the
landfill,
selection
of
the
highest
wastewater
concentration
value,
etc.),
we
believe
that
a
more
rigorous
risk
assessment
would
determine
that
2­
nitropropane
would
not
have
exceeded
the
allowable
loading
for
sludge
from
wastewater
treatment.

An
August
15,
2002
letter
from
representatives
of
the
Association
of
Nonwoven
Fabrics
Industry
(
INDA)
and
the
Secondary
Materials
and
Recycled
Textiles
Association
(
SMART)

provides
information
that
suggests
that
the
amount
of
solvent
in
reusable
industrial
wipes
is
substantially
greater
than
the
amount
EPA
used
in
conducting
our
risk
screening
analysis
for
this
proposed
rulemaking.
16
Based
on
this
information,
the
letter
questions
whether
a
specific
concentration
limit
should
be
placed
on
the
amount
of
solvent
remaining
in
reusable
industrial
wipes
rather
than
relying
on
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition.
It
also
suggests
that
most
of
this
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
17
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
is
currently
in
the
process
of
developing
a
new
toxicity
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
which
is
likely
to
result
in
an
increased
level
of
health
effects.

93
solvent
will
end
up
in
the
sludge
that
is
generated
from
the
treatment
of
wastewater
from
industrial
launderers
and
will
present
more
of
a
risk
than
EPA's
risk
screening
assessment
would
indicate.
Accordingly,
the
Agency
is
evaluating
the
issues
raised
in
the
letter
to
determine
if
there
is
a
need
to
impose
additional
conditions
to
address
risks
posed
by
the
disposal
in
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfills
of
sludges
generated
by
industrial
laundries.

VII.
C.
4.
Ecological
Assessment
The
analysis
projected
that
none
of
the
solvents
would
exceed
their
respective
water
quality
criteria
despite
the
conservative
assumptions
that
all
of
the
solvent
released
in
landfill
leachate
would
reach
a
small
stream.

VII.
D.
What
External
Review
was
Done
of
the
Risk
Screening
Analysis?

In
addition
to
conducting
and
reviewing
the
risk
screening
analysis
internal
to
EPA,
three
independent
experts
provided
an
external
peer
review
of
the
analysis
of
risks
from
constituents
once
they
had
been
disposed
of
in
a
landfill.
These
reviewers
did
not
evaluate
the
assumptions
behind
the
loadings
of
solvents
assumed
to
be
sent
to
the
landfill.

These
reviewers
indicated
that
the
analysis
could
over
predict
risk
because
1)
the
partitioning
model
accounts
for
too
little
degradation
in
a
landfill,
2)
degradation
once
a
constituent
leaves
the
landfill
is
not
considered,
and
3)
the
toxicity
of
trichloroethylene17
may
be
overestimated.
On
the
other
hand,
the
reviewers
indicated
that
the
analysis
could
under
predict
risks
because
1)
parameters
other
than
the
ones
for
a
which
a
sensitivity
analysis
was
conducted
could
be
more
sensitive
in
predicting
risk,
2)
effects
from
solubilization
by
organic
compounds
were
not
considered,
3)
additional
exposure
pathways
could
contribute
additional
risk,
and
4)
the
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
94
carcinogenicity
of
tetrachloroethylene
was
not
considered.
The
peer
reviewers
full
comments
are
presented
in
the
docket.
EPA
has
not
yet
addressed
these
comments,
but
will
address
them
in
concert
with
addressing
public
comments
on
the
risk
screening
analysis,
including
the
public's
comments
on
the
peer
reviewers'
comments.

In
addition,
the
Integrated
Waste
Services
Association
commented
on
the
analysis
of
risks
from
ash
disposal.
They
found
the
analysis
overly
conservative;
however,
since
the
analysis
did
not
indicate
any
risks
from
this
waste,
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
necessary
at
this
time
to
further
refine
this
part
of
the
risk
analysis
since
further
refinement
would
not
change
our
general
conclusions.

We
request
comment
on
the
risk
screening
analysis
discussed
in
this
section
of
the
preamble
and
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
xx
of
the
Technical
Background
Document.
In
particular,
we
seek
comment
concerning:

­
the
assumptions
used
in
each
of
these
analyses;
i.
e.,
landfill,
ash
and
sludges
­
the
data
used
in
modeling
risks
­
the
methodology
used
in
each
of
these
analyses
­
conclusions
and
recommendations
­
the
comments
provided
by
the
three
external
peer
reviews
­
or
any
specific
aspect
of
the
risk
screening
analyses.

VIII.
History
and
Relationship
to
Other
Rulemakings
VIII.
A.
Proposed
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Industrial
Laundries
On
December
17,
1997,
EPA
proposed
to
establish
pretreatment
standards
and
effluent
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
18The
proposed
effluent
guidelines
would
have
established
numerical
limitations
that
are
based
on
technology
treatment
of
industrial
laundry
wastewater
for
11
priority
and
non­
conventional
pollutants.
These
standards
were
based
on
a
determination
of
the
degree
to
which
pollutants
pass
through
or
interfere
with
POTWs;
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources;
and
the
best
demonstrated
available
control
technology
for
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources.
The
proposal
also
provided
regulatory
relief
for
facilities
which
launder
less
than
1
million
pounds
of
incoming
laundry
per
calendar
year
and
less
than
255,000
pounds
of
industrial
wipes.

95
limitations
guidelines
(
ELGs)
for
industrial
laundries
(
62
FR
66181).
18
In
conducting
investigations
of
effluents
discharged
from
industrial
laundries
to
support
the
development
of
the
proposed
rulemaking,
EPA
found
that
the
effluent
from
many
industrial
laundries
contain
concentrations
of
solvents
known
from
site
visits
to
be
used
in
conjunction
with
industrial
wipes
identified
as
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes.
Under
the
proposed
effluent
guideline
rule,
EPA
proposed
to
limit
the
discharge
of
certain
pollutants
from
existing
and
new
industrial
laundries
into
U.
S.
waters
and
POTWs.
The
proposed
rule
applied
to
"
any
facility
that
launders
industrial
textile
items
from
off­
site
as
a
business
activity."

On
August
18,
1999,
EPA
published
a
Federal
Register
notice
withdrawing
its
proposed
rule
for
the
industrial
laundry
sector
(
64
FR
45072).
EPA's
primary
basis
for
the
withdrawal
was
that
indirect
discharges
from
industrial
laundries
contain
very
small
amounts
of
toxic
pollutants
that
are
not
removed
by
POTWs.
Comments
on
the
proposed
rule
and
subsequent
data
collection
resulted
in
the
following
conclusions:
(
1)
laundry
discharges
are
not
as
toxic
as
estimated
at
proposal,
(
2)
POTWs
provide
better
treatment
of
the
toxic
pollutants
remaining
in
laundry
discharges
than
estimated
at
proposal,
and
(
3)
many
former
problems
have
been
resolved
by
local
pretreatment
authorities.

EPA
concluded
that
to
the
extent
isolated
problem
discharges
occur,
existing
pretreatment
authority
allows
local
POTWs
to
respond
to
problems
effectively.
Local
POTWs
have
the
authority
to
set
local
limits
for
individual
indirect
dischargers
to
prevent
(
1)
pass
through
of
pollutants
through
the
POTW
into
waters
of
the
U.
S.
and
(
2)
interference
both
with
POTW
operations
and
sludge
disposal
options.
EPA's
pass­
through
analysis
for
the
rulemaking
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
96
determined
that
there
is
not
significant
pass­
through
of
pollutants
from
industrial
laundries
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
also
concluded
that
removing
certain
organic
pollutants
from
industrial
wipes
before
they
are
washed
would
be
a
better
way
to
control
their
presence
in
effluent
discharges.

VIII.
B.
Hazardous
Waste
Listing
Determination
for
Spent
Solvents
Five
hazardous
waste
listings
for
specific
spent
solvents
have
been
promulgated
by
EPA
to
date:
F001,
F002,
F003,
F004,
and
F005.
These
listings
are
found
in
40
CFR
261.31.
The
criteria
used
by
the
Agency
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
waste
is
hazardous
are
explained
in
the
December
31,
1985
Federal
Register
notice
(
50
FR
53316).
This
rule
also
applies
to
P­
and
Ulisted
commercial
chemical
products
that
correspond
with
the
F001­
F005
listings
when
those
products
are
spilled
and,
therefore,
become
waste.

The
December
1985
Federal
Register
notice
amended
the
original
solvent
listings
to
include
spent
solvent
mixtures
when
the
solvent,
before
it
is
used,
contains
10
percent
or
more
of
total
listed
solvents.
In
addition,
the
notice
clarified
that
the
listings
apply
to
"
spent"
solvents
­­

those
that
are
no
longer
fit
for
use
without
being
regenerated,
reclaimed,
or
otherwise
processed,

and
clarified
that
the
listings
cover
only
solvents
used
for
their
solvent
properties
(
i.
e.,
"
to
solubilize
(
dissolve)
or
mobilize
other
constituents").

On
November
19,
1998,
EPA
published
a
determination
not
to
list
as
hazardous
wastes
14
chemicals
that
are
used
as
solvents.
These
14
chemicals
are
cumene,
phenol,
isophorone,

acetonitrile,
furfural,
epichlorohydrin,
methyl
chloride,
ethylene
dibromide,
benzyl
chloride,

pdichlorobenzene
2­
methoxyethanol,
2­
methoxyethanol
acetate,
2­
ethoxyethanol
acetate,
and
cyclohexanol.
EPA
determined
that
waste
solvents
containing
these
chemicals
are
often
hazardous
wastes
because
they
exhibit
a
characteristic
under
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
C,
or
because
they
contain
other
solvent
wastes
that
are
listed
as
hazardous
and,
therefore,
did
not
believe
it
was
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
97
necessary
to
list
them
separately.
However,
in
some
cases,
EPA
determined
that
the
solvent
waste
did
not
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
as
a
hazardous
waste.
For
additional
detail
regarding
the
technical
basis
for
the
decision,
see
63
FR
64371,
November
19,
1998.

IX.
State
Authorization
IX.
A.
Applicability
of
Rule
in
Authorized
States
Under
section
3006
of
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
qualified
states
to
administer
their
own
hazardous
waste
programs
in
lieu
of
the
federal
program
within
the
state
and
to
issue
and
enforce
hazardous
waste
permits.
Following
authorization,
EPA
retains
enforcement
authority
under
sections
3008,
3013,
and
7003
of
RCRA,
although
authorized
states
have
primary
enforcement
responsibility.
The
standards
and
requirements
for
state
authorization
are
found
at
40
CFR
Part
271.

Prior
to
enactment
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA),
a
state
with
final
RCRA
authorization
administered
its
hazardous
waste
program
entirely
in
lieu
of
EPA
administering
the
federal
program
in
that
state.
The
federal
requirements
no
longer
applied
in
the
authorized
state,
and
EPA
could
not
issue
permits
for
any
facilities
in
that
state,
since
only
the
state
was
authorized
to
issue
RCRA
permits.
When
new,
more
stringent
federal
requirements
were
promulgated,
the
state
was
obligated
to
enact
equivalent
authorities
within
specified
time
frames.
However,
the
new
federal
requirements
did
not
take
effect
in
an
authorized
state
until
the
state
adopted
the
federal
requirements
as
state
law.

In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
which
was
added
by
HSWA,
new
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
under
HSWA
authority
take
effect
in
authorized
states
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
states.
EPA
is
directed
by
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
98
the
statute
to
implement
these
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
states,
including
the
issuance
of
permits,
until
the
state
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.
While
states
must
still
adopt
HSWA
related
provisions
as
state
law
to
retain
final
authorization,
EPA
implements
the
HSWA
provisions
in
authorized
states
until
the
states
do
so.

IX.
B.
Effect
on
State
Authorizations
The
proposed
conditional
exclusions
would
not
be
HSWA
regulations.
Therefore,
the
conditional
exclusions
would
not
be
immediately
effective
in
authorized
states.
They
would
be
applicable
only
in
those
states
that
do
not
have
final
authorization
for
the
base
(
non­
HSWA)

portion
of
the
RCRA
program.

Authorized
states
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.

RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
states
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
federal
program
(
see
also
40
CFR
271.1).
Therefore,
authorized
states
may,
but
are
not
required
to,

adopt
federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
previous
federal
regulations.
Today's
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
for
disposable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
is
considered
less
stringent
than
the
existing
federal
regulations
because
it
would
exclude
certain
materials
now
regulated
by
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
Thus,
states,
except
as
described
below,
would
not
be
required
to
adopt
the
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
if
the
proposal
is
finalized.
However,

because
EPA
believes
that
today's
proposal
is
a
better
approach
to
controlling
industrial
wipes,

the
Agency
would
encourage
states
to
adopt
this
rule,
if
promulgated,
as
soon
as
possible.

The
current
federal
policy
with
regard
to
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
has
been
to
defer
the
determination
of
their
regulatory
status
to
the
states
and
EPA
regions.
This
deferral
has
resulted
in
the
development
of
various
state
programs.
Today's
proposal
is
generally
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
99
consistent
with
these
state
policies.
However,
it
is
possible
that
conditions
that
would
be
imposed
by
the
proposed
rule
could
be
more
stringent
than
some
existing
state
programs.
As
a
result,
these
authorized
states
would
be
required
to
modify
their
programs
when
we
promulgate
a
final
rule.

We
seek
comment
on
whether
states
consider
the
conditions
posed
by
today's
proposed
rule
to
be
more
stringent
than
their
current
approaches
to
regulating
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.

X.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
X.
A.
Economic
Analysis
X.
A.
1.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and,
therefore,
subject
to
formal
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
to
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order,
which
include
assessing
the
costs
and
benefits
anticipated
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
regulatory
action.
The
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may
(
1)

have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,

public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)

materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
today's
proposed
rulemaking
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
it
raises
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
and
because
of
its
significance
to
a
large
number
of
interested
stakeholders.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
100
X.
A.
2.
Affected
Economic
Sub­
Sectors
We
estimated
the
potential
national
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposal.
Our
"
Economics
Background
Document"
is
available
for
public
review
and
comment
from
the
RCRA
Docket
(
see
public
access
instructions
at
the
introduction
to
this
notice).
The
document
presents
the
methodology,
detailed
computation
spreadsheets,
and
sources
of
the
data
applied
in
our
economic
analysis.
We
welcome
the
general
public
and
affected
industries
to
provide
us
with
comments
and
questions
about
our
economic
analysis,
in
the
interest
of
improving
the
key
data
elements
and
assumptions.

The
scope
of
the
expected
economic
impacts
modeled
in
our
study
includes
(
i)
potential
cost
savings,
as
well
as
(
ii)
potential
implementation
costs,
for
both
the
"
disposable"
and
"
reusable"
industrial
wipes
markets.
Our
economic
study
models
these
impacts
as
potentially
affecting
seven
economic
sectors
(
manufacturing,
retail
trade,
information,
administrative
services,
other
services,
public
administration,
and
transportation
&
utilities).
These
economic
sectors
consist
of
15
economic
sub­
sectors,
representing
121
industries
which
we
suspect
may
in
part
or
in
whole
generate
or
manage
spent
solvent
industrial
wipes
in
the
U.
S.
economy.
As
enumerated
in
an
introductory
section
of
this
notice,
most
of
the
industries
which
use
industrial
wipes
are
in
the
manufacturing
sector,
and
use
industrial
wipes
primarily
for
degreasing
and
cleaning
operations.

Today's
proposal
could
potentially
affect
13
of
these
15
sub­
sectors
as
generators
of
spent
solvent
industrial
wipes.
These
13
sub­
sectors
consist
of
a
total
of
471,000
facilities,
13.2
million
employees,
and
$
2.7
trillion
in
annual
revenues.
Ninety­
six
percent
of
the
companies
affected
are
small
businesses
and
they
own
83%
of
the
facilities
in
these
sub­
sectors.
We
estimate
that
a
subset
of
215,000
of
these
facilities
use
RCRA­
regulated
solvents
in
conjunction
with
industrial
wiping
operations.
Introducing
an
uncertainty
range
of
50%
to
100%
as
to
how
many
states
may
ultimately
adopt
these
program
changes
and
counting
only
facilities
which
may
be
regulated
as
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
101
"
small
quantity"
or
"
large
quantity"
generators
(
according
to
the
calendar
month
waste
generation
quantity
categories
defined
in
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations
at
40
CFR
262)

produces
an
estimated
range
of
63,000
to
153,000
potentially
affected
spent
solvent
industrial
wipes
generators.

In
addition
to
generators
of
industrial
wipes,
up
to
1,175
industrial
laundries
supply
and
launder
reusable
industrial
wipes,
employing
60,000
workers
and
earning
$
2.9
billion
in
annual
revenue
(
of
which
$
408
million
is
from
the
industrial
wipes
business).
Industrial
launderers
are
primarily
small
businesses
(
94%)
which
operate
47%
of
this
industry's
facilities.
Furthermore,
up
to
10,600
solid
waste
management
establishments
(
which
have
210,000
employees,
earn
$
31
billion
in
annual
revenue,
and
are
95%
small
business
owned)
could
also
be
affected
by
these
proposed
changes.
Introducing
an
uncertainty
range
of
50%
to
100%
for
state
adoption
of
these
changes
produces
an
estimated
range
of
590
to
1,175
industrial
laundries,
and
5,300
to
10,600
solid
waste
management
establishments
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
regulations.
Adding
these
ranges
together
produces
a
total
estimated
count
of
68,000
to
164,000
potentially
affected
solvent
industrial
wipes
generator
and
management
facilities.

X.
A.
2.
a.
Industrial
Wipes
Market
We
estimate
the
size
of
the
U.
S.
industrial
wipes
market
at
9.6
billion
wipes
used
in
2001.

Our
economic
study
characterizes
this
market
as
consisting
of
two
sub­
markets
of
industrial
wipes
products
with
respective
annual
market
share
of
88%
reusable
wipes
(
8.5
billion
uses)
and
12%

disposable
wipes
(
1.1
billion
sold).
In
some
industrial
wiping
operations,
these
two
product
lines
may
be
price­
competitive
substitutes,
but
other
factors
such
as
lint
content,
absorbency,
and
durability
often
outweigh
price
as
a
factor
in
determining
wipes
selection
for
any
particular
industrial
wiping
operation.

X.
A.
2.
b.
Economic
Analysis
Framework
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
102
The
proposed
rule
will
affect
these
two
sub­
markets
differentially
relative
to
the
current
regime
because
of
the
significant
difference
in
the
current
state­
level
and
EPA
regional­
level
regulatory
status
of
each
respective
sub­
market
category.
Spent
disposable
industrial
wipes
are
currently
managed
as
RCRA
hazardous
waste,
whereas
reusable
industrial
wipes
are
not
usually
managed
as
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
or
even
solid
wastes,
depending
on
state
regulations.

Consequently,
an
exclusion
from
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulation
is
expected
to
provide
the
disposable
wipes
market
with
an
annual
net
cost
savings
benefit
relative
to
current
RCRA
regulatory
compliance
costs,
whereas
the
solid
waste
exclusion
will
not
provide
the
reusable
wipes
market
with
similar
economic
benefit,
depending
on
the
extent
of
free
liquid
solvents
captured
and
recycled
from
solvent­
contaminated
reusable
industrial
wipes.

For
the
purpose
of
estimating
this
differential
economic
impact
outcome
and
potential
net
national
economic
effect
on
the
industrial
wipes
market,
our
economic
study
included
modeling
the
anticipated
induced
shift
in
respective
wipes
market
share,
resulting
from
direct
cost
savings
and
direct
implementation
cost
pass­
through
on
the
respective
wipes
prices
(
i.
e.,
on
wipes'
life
cycle
usage
costs,
including
costs
of
spent
wipes
disposal).
In
support
of
modeling
induced
market
impacts,
our
economics
study
presents
the
findings
of
a
meta­
analysis
of
published
ownand
cross­
price
elasticity
of
demand
coefficients,
as
applied
in
our
study
for
purpose
of
simulating
potential
changes
in
wipes'
market
share.
Our
economic
analysis
also
examined
the
potential
composite
outcome
of
direct
and
induced
impacts
of
the
solid
waste
exclusion
on
the
industrial
laundry
industry,
as
suppliers
of
reusable
industrial
wipes.

Because
we
do
not
have
exact
information
for
every
key
data
element
applied,
the
economic
study
presents
a
sensitivity
analysis
over
a
"
lower­
bound",
"
most­
likely",
and
"

upperbound
range
in
numerical
values
assigned
to
key
baseline
and
exclusion
compliance
parameters,

such
as
number
of
facilities
using
solvent
wipes,
percentage
of
solvent
wipes
not
currently
stored
and
transported
in
closed
containers,
percentage
of
solvent
wipes
generated
which
are
not
"
dry"

(
i.
e.,
contain
less
than
five
grams
solvent
per
wipe),
price­
elasticity
of
demand
for
industrial
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
19EPA's
cost
estimates
assumed
that
generators
would
transport
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
to
laundries
in
closed
containers
despite
the
proposed
performance
standard.
If
industry
can
find
cheaper
methods
of
meeting
the
performance
standard,
the
costs
of
reusable
wipes
management
will
be
less
than
this
estimate.

103
wipes,
percentage
of
states
which
may
adopt
the
proposed
exclusions,
and
percentage
of
solvent
wipes
containers
containing
free
liquids.

X.
A.
2.
c.
Impact
Estimation
Findings
The
anticipated
national
net
effect
of
the
proposal
is
to
provide
the
U.
S.
economy
with
$
28
million
to
$
72
million
in
average
annual
net
benefits,
consisting
of
four
impact
components:

(
1)
$
13
million
to
$
20
million
in
annualized
incremental
cost
for
compliance
with
the
conditions
of
the
exclusions
(
e.
g.,
costs
for
purchasing
accumulation
and
transportation
containers
for
used
industrial
wipes);
(
2)
$
40
million
reduction
in
annual
direct
costs
for
RCRA
regulatory
compliance;
(
3)
$
8
million
to
$
36
million
per
year
in
avoided
air
pollution
from
increase
in
capture
of
free
liquid
solvents
from
used
industrial
wipes;
and
(
4)
$
0.3
million
to
$
9
million
per
year
in
avoided
fire
damages
to
facilities
from
spontaneous
combustion
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
Compared
to
annualized
implementation
costs
as
a
numerical
ration,
the
$
8
million
to
$
85
million
in
annualized
total
benefits
represent
a
benefit­
cost
ration
of
2.4
to
6.5.
The
annualized
net
benefits
consist
of
$
33
million
to
$
37
million
to
generators
for
managing
spent
disposable
industrial
wipes
and
an
uncertainty
range
of
$
35
million
in
annual
benefits
to
$
4
million
in
annual
cost
to
generators
managing
reusable
industrial
wipes
(
depending
upon
the
extent
these
costs
may
be
shared
with
industrial
laundries
and
the
extent
of
reuse
of
captured
solvents).
19
The
induced
market
impact
simulated
in
the
economic
analysis
estimates
a
potential
53
percent
to
59
percent
decrease
in
the
life­
cycle
unit
cost
for
using
disposable
industrial
wipes
(
taking
into
account
the
cost
of
new
wipes
purchase
plus
spent
wipes
disposal),
and
a
0
percent
to
17
percent
increase
in
the
effective
unit
cost
of
reusable
wipes,
associated
with
a
potential
induced
reduction
in
reusable
wipes'
national
market
share
of
3
percent
to
15
percent
for
the
fraction
of
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
104
the
industrial
wipes
market
potentially
affected
by
the
exclusions.

For
purpose
of
evaluating
potential
disproportionate
adverse
impacts
on
small
business,

the
economics
study
evaluated
the
extent
to
which
the
incremental
costs
to
the
reusable
market
may
affect
small
industrial
laundries.
Our
study
estimates
that
0
percent
to
3
percent
(
0
to
16)
of
the
275
to
551
affected
industrial
wipes
laundry
establishments
owned
by
small
businesses
may
experience
average
annualized
implementation
cost
impacts
at
or
above
3
percent
of
annual
revenues.

In
addition
to
these
estimates
of
direct
implementation
impacts,
EPA
estimates
$
8
million
to
$
36
million
in
annual
environmental
and
human
health
benefits
associated
with
the
capture
of
free
liquid
solvent
and
$
0.3
million
to
$
9
million
in
annual
benefits
in
avoided
fire
damages
associated
with
spontaneous
combustion
of
solvent
wipes.
Therefore,
we
estimate
$
8
million
to
$
45
million
in
other
benefits.
Comparison
of
the
total
annualized
benefits
to
the
annualized
direct
implementation
costs
yields
$
50
million
to
$
90
million
in
net
benefits
and
a
benefit­
cost
ration
of
7.1
to
15.3.

X.
A.
3.
Economic
Impact
of
Today's
Other
Proposed
Exclusion
Options
For
the
reasons
explained
below
and
in
the
"
Economics
Background
Document,"
we
did
not
prepare
a
separate
quantitative
estimate
of
each
of
the
following
alternative
options,
because
they
are
expected
to
fall
incrementally
within
or
near
the
impact
estimation
range
for
the
main
option.
Below
we
describe
the
potential
impacts
of
each
of
these
options
in
qualitative
terms.

X.
A.
3.
a.
Exclusion
from
the
Definition
of
Hazardous
Waste
for
Disposable
and
Reusable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
This
option
would
exclude
both
disposable
and
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
105
wipes
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
instead
of
making
a
distinction
between
the
types
of
wipes
and
excluding
disposable
industrial
wipes
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
while
excluding
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
No
aspect
of
the
proposed
rule
would
change
for
generators
and
handlers
of
disposable
wipes.

Generators
and
handlers
of
reusable
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
would
be
managing
a
solid
waste
under
this
option,
but
would
be
subject
to
the
same
conditions
as
those
proposed
today
for
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
and,
therefore,
anticipated
net
cost
savings
for
this
option
would
remain
the
same
relative
to
the
main
option
proposed
today.

X.
A.
3.
b.
Exclusion
for
all
Disposable
Solvent­
Contaminated
Industrial
Wipes
Under
a
Single
Set
of
Conditions
This
option
would
not
differentiate
between
disposable
wipes
managed
at
a
landfill
compared
to
a
non­
landfill
facility.
Disposable
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
would
be
excluded
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
provided
the
wipes
were
stored
in
covered
containers
while
onsite
and
so
long
as
the
wipes
do
not
contain
free
liquids
prior
to
sending
them
off­
site
in
closed
containers
that
are
marked
"
Excluded
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes."

Under
this
option,
greater
regulatory
relief
would
occur
for
generators
of
disposable
industrial
wipes
relative
to
the
main
option
because
(
1)
they
would
not
have
to
meet
the
"
dry"

condition
that
is
proposed
under
our
main
option
and
(
2)
they
would
not
have
to
worry
about
the
types
of
solvent
they
used.
Therefore,
some
number
of
generators
would
not
have
to
spend
additional
resources
to
meet
this
"
dry"
condition
(
relative
to
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition),
or
switch
to
other
solvents
if
they
so
desired
to
manage
their
wipes
in
a
municipal
or
other
nonhazardous
waste
landfill.

X.
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
106
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,

44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
prepared
by
EPA
has
been
assigned
EPA
ICR
number
[
insert
EPA
ICR
number].

The
information
requirements
established
for
this
action,
and
identified
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
supporting
today's
proposed
rule,
are
largely
a
self­
implementing
process.
This
process
would
ensure
that:
(
i)
handlers
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
are
held
accountable
to
the
proposed
requirements
of
the
conditional
exclusions;
and
(
ii)
state
inspectors
can
verify
compliance
when
needed.
For
example,
the
proposal
would
require
that
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids
prior
to
being
transported
off­
site
by
generators
for
subsequent
management.
The
conditions
would
also
require
generators
to
properly
label
all
containers
of
wipes
sent
for
disposal.

In
estimating
ICR
burden,
EPA
used
the
current
state
policies
as
the
baseline
since
most
states
have
specific
policies
addressing
these
materials.
ICR
burden
is
reduced
because
generators
of
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
obtain
regulatory
relief
from
existing
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulatory
requirements,
such
as
use
of
a
manifest
in
transporting
these
materials
off­
site
to
a
handling
facility.

EPA
has
carefully
considered
the
burden
imposed
upon
the
regulated
community
by
the
proposed
regulation.
We
estimate
a
burden
savings
of
48,000
hours
and
approximately
$
1.9
million
annually.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
107
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.
The
public
docket
is
available
for
viewing
at
the
RCRA
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,

NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
RCRA
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
0270.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
RCRA­
2003­
0004.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
[
Insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register],
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
[
Insert
date
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
108
X.
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute,
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
the
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
on
small
entities
of
today's
rule,
small
entity
is
defined
as
(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
at
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
We
have
determined
that
about
83
percent
of
the
63,000
to
153,000
establishments
in
the
13
industries
which
use
industrial
wipes
and
which
are
potentially
affected
by
today's
proposed
rulemaking
are
owned
and
operated
by
small
companies.
In
addition,
approximately
47
percent
of
the
1,200
industrial
laundry
establishments
which
supply
reusable
industrial
wipes
are
owned
by
small
companies.
Based
on
the
economic
analysis
summarized
elsewhere
in
this
preamble,
we
have
estimated
that
(
i)
a
relatively
small
proportion
of
potentially
affected
small
businesses
(
i.
e.,
3
percent
or
16
small
industrial
laundries)
may
be
adversely
impacted
by
this
proposed
solid
waste
exclusion
at
or
above
a
3
percent
threshold
of
annual
business
receipts
(
revenues).
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
109
Although
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
nonetheless
has
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
this
rule
on
small
entities.
In
addition
to
the
economic
analysis,
we
conducted
outreach
activities
to
ensure
that
small
business
interests
were
informed
of
our
potential
actions,
and
to
solicit
input
and
comment
from
small
business
interests
during
our
development
of
the
proposal.
We
had
a
number
of
meetings
with
small
business
stakeholders,
including
representatives
of
the
industrial
laundries
trade
associations,

to
discuss
the
formulation
of
this
proposed
rule,
and
to
obtain
small
business
feedback.
In
these
meetings,
stakeholders
expressed
concerns
about
the
implementation
of
this
rule,
and
asked
questions
about
the
conditions
being
considered
for
the
proposed
regulation.

As
part
of
these
outreach
efforts,
the
Agency
held
a
meeting
with
members
of
the
small
business
community
on
August
10,
1998.
Following
EPA's
presentation,
the
stakeholders
attending
the
meeting
discussed
potential
issues
and
concerns
they
envisioned
could
arise
with
regard
to
the
implementation
of
the
Agency's
preliminary
options,
particularly
with
regard
to
the
ability
of
small
businesses
to
comply
with
the
options.
Participants
provided
their
initial
reactions
to
the
preliminary
options,
identified
potential
issues
of
concern
and,
in
some
cases,
offered
potential
changes
or
improvements.
A
summary
of
the
August
10,
1998
meeting
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposed
rulemaking.

We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

X.
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
P.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,

and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
110
with
"
federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.

Before
a
federal
regulatory
agency
such
as
EPA
promulgates
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
agency
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA,
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

Today's
proposed
rule
contains
no
federal
mandates
(
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA)
for
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments.
In
addition,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
Furthermore,
today's
proposed
regulation
will
not
impose
incremental
costs
in
excess
of
$
100
million
to
the
private
sector,
or
to
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate,
in
any
one
year,
as
based
on
the
findings
of
the
"
Economics
Background
Document,"

described
elsewhere
in
this
preamble.

Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
111
X.
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
  
Federalism''
(
64
Federal
Register
43255,
August
10,

1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
proposed
rule
would
provide
a
net
reduction
in
RCRA
regulatory
burden
to
generators
and
handlers
of
solvent
industrial
wipes.
For
the
proposed
exclusions,
both
the
annual
direct
implementation
costs
to
affected
private
sector
entities
and
the
potential
impact
on
annual
state
government
revenues
do
not
exceed
the
"
substantial"
compliance
cost
threshold
defined
in
this
Executive
Order.
This
proposal
would
preempt
state
and
local
law
that
is
less
stringent
for
solvent­
contaminated
wipes.
Under
the
RCRA,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901
to
6992k,

the
relationship
between
the
states
and
the
national
government
with
respect
to
hazardous
waste
management
is
established
for
authorized
state
hazardous
waste
programs,
42
U.
S.
C.
6926
(
section
3006),
and
retention
of
state
authority,
42
U.
S.
C.
6929
(
section
3009).
Under
section
3009
of
RCRA,
states
and
their
political
subdivisions
may
not
impose
requirements
less
stringent
for
hazardous
waste
management
than
the
national
government.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

However,
to
incorporate
the
state
perspective
in
the
proposal,
Agency
personnel
met
with
state
representatives
from
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
112
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
in
July
of
1998
to
review,
discuss
and
obtain
feedback
from
them
on
EPA
thinking
at
the
time.
The
state
representatives
recommended
that
solvent­
contaminated
reusable
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids
when
transported
off­
site
to
an
industrial
laundry
or
dry
cleaner
and
that
the
wipes
be
transported
in
closed
containers
that
meet
DOT
requirements.
Similarly,
most
states
recommended
that
disposable
wipes
continue
to
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
(
hazardous
waste)
regulations.
The
states
continued
to
participate
on
the
workgroup
developing
today's
proposal
and
their
input
was
received
and
considered
throughout
the
regulation
development
process.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
state
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comments
on
this
proposed
rule
from
state
and
local
officials.

X.
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments"
(
65
Federal
Register
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
Tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."

EPA
has
concluded
that
this
proposed
rule
may
have
tribal
implications
to
the
extent
that
generating
facilities
on
tribal
lands
using
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
or
handlers
of
these
materials
located
on
tribal
lands
could
be
affected.
However,
this
proposed
rule
will
neither
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
tribal
governments
nor
preempt
tribal
law.

EPA
did
not
consult
directly
with
representatives
of
Tribal
governments
early
in
the
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
20
"
Representatives
of
Tribal
governments"
include
non­
elected
officials
of
Tribal
governments
and
representative
authorized
national
organizations.

113
process
of
developing
this
regulation.
20
However,
as
described
above,
EPA
did
conduct
an
extensive
outreach
process
with
industry,
including
small
business.
Thus,
we
believe
we
have
captured
concerns
that
also
would
have
been
expressed
by
representatives
of
Tribal
governments.

EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
Tribal
officials.

X.
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
Federal
Register
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,

and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonable
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
EPA
believes
that
to
the
extent
that
this
proposal
will
not
increase
exposure
of
solvents
to
the
public,
adults
or
children.

The
public
is
invited
to
submit
or
identify
peer­
reviewed
studies
and
data,
of
which
the
Agency
may
not
be
aware,
that
assess
results
of
early
life
exposure
to
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
114
X.
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,

or
Use
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
Federal
Register
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

X.
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Pub
L.
No.
104­
113,
§
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

This
proposed
rulemaking
involves
environmental
monitoring
or
measurement
consistent
with
the
Agency's
Performance
Based
Measurement
System
(
PBMS).
EPA
Proposes
not
to
require
the
use
of
specific,
prescribed
analytic
methods.
Rather,
the
Agency
plans
to
allow
the
use
of
any
method
that
meets
the
prescribed
performance
criteria.
The
PBMS
approach
is
intended
to
be
more
flexible
and
cost­
effective
for
the
regulated
community;
it
is
also
intended
to
encourage
innovation
in
analytical
technology
and
improved
data
quality.
EPA
is
not
precluding
the
use
of
any
method,
whether
it
constitutes
a
voluntary
consensus
standard
or
not,
as
long
as
it
meets
the
performance
criteria
specified.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
115
EPA
welcomes
comment
on
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
and,
specifically,

invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
and
to
explain
why
such
standards
should
be
used
in
this
regulation.

APPENDIX
A
I.
General
Description
of
the
Industrial
Wipes
Industry
I.
K.
Types
of
Industrial
Wipes
The
term
"
industrial
wipes"
as
used
in
this
preamble
represents
a
heterogeneous
group
of
products
which
come
in
a
wide
variety
of
types
and
brands
to
meet
a
broad
range
of
application
needs.
The
major
division
is
between
reusable
shop
towels,
which
are
laundered
or
dry
cleaned
and
used
again,
and
disposable
wipes
and
rags
that
are
used
for
a
limited
number
of
applications
and
then
discarded.
Disposable
wipes
include
both
non­
woven
wipes
and
woven
rags.
The
universe
of
materials
affected
by
this
proposed
rule
encompasses
both
reusable
and
disposable
industrial
wipes
which
are
used
by
numerous
industries
in
conjunction
with
solvents
to
clean
surfaces,
parts,
accessories,
and
equipment.
Industrial
wipes
are
distinguished
by
their
respective
composition,
durability,
uses,
and
disposal
methods.

The
Agency
has
chosen
to
use
the
term
"
industrial
wipe"
throughout
the
preamble
for
the
sake
of
simplicity.
However,
because
of
the
many
terms
currently
used
throughout
industry
to
identify
industrial
wipes,
EPA
believes
it
is
helpful
to
provide
an
explanation
of
industry
terms
to
set
forth
the
Agency's
understanding
as
we
developed
this
proposal:

An
industrial
shop
towel
is
a
woven
textile
consisting
of
cotton
or
polyester
blends.
These
materials
are
reusable
items
and
are
generally
laundered
or
dry­
cleaned
a
number
of
times
before
they
have
outlived
their
useful
life
and
must
be
discarded.
Shop
towels
are
rented
by
industrial
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
116
launderers
to
manufacturing,
automotive,
chemical,
and
other
similar
facilities
to
use
for
heavyduty
cleaning
and
wiping.
Soiled
shop
towels
are
either
washed
or
dry­
cleaned
at
commercial
laundry
facilities.

An
industrial
wipe
is
a
non­
woven
towel
consisting
of
wood
pulp,
polyester
blends
or
100
percent
polypropylene.
These
materials
come
in
all
sizes
and
thicknesses.
They
generally
are
designed
for
one
time
use
and
are
used
to
wipe
small
quantities
of
solvents
off
hands,
tools,

equipment,
or
floors.

An
industrial
rag
is
a
non­
homogeneous
material
consisting
of
cotton
or
polyester
blends.

Rags
are
made
from
old
clothing
or
from
cloth
remnants
from
textile
mills,
and
vary
in
size
and
type
of
fabric.

Paper
towels
also
are
sometimes
used
in
conjunction
with
solvents
in
the
workplace.

These
materials
are
made
from
wood
pulp
with
binders.

The
wipe
suitable
for
each
application
depends
on
a
number
of
factors.
The
amount
of
lint
allowed
in
a
task
plays
a
large
role,
because
some
electronic
or
printing
applications
cannot
tolerate
any
lint,
while
other
applications
can
tolerate
large
amounts
of
lint.
Absorbent
capacity
is
also
another
important
factor
in
some
tasks,
while
not
in
others.
Durability
is
important
in
some
tasks,
such
as
those
that
require
heavy
scrubbing,
while
often
not
important
in
tasks
where
lint
or
absorbency
is
more
important.
Durability
does
not
only
refer
to
the
physical
strength
of
the
wipe,

towel,
or
rag,
but
also
to
its
ability
to
withstand
strong
solvents.

III.
B.
Additional
Data
Additional
data
collected
from
site
visits,
literature
searches,
and
industry
include
information
regarding
the
numbers
of
wipes
used
daily,
types
of
solvents
used,
type
of
operation
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
117
(
i.
e.,
whether
cleaning
operations
involve
the
use
of
small
or
considerable
amounts
of
solvent
per
wipe);
preference
for
disposable
versus
reusable
wipes;
and
estimated
total
volumes
of
wipes
used
annually.
A
detailed
discussion
of
these
findings
can
be
found
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
this
proposed
rule
as
well
as
other
documents
supporting
this
rule
that
are
found
in
the
Docket.
Key
findings
include:

°
Number
of
wipes
used
daily
by
a
facility
can
vary
from
50
to
6,000.

°
Many
facilities
appear
to
use
ignitable­
only
solvents
(
D001)
that
could
be
classified
as
characteristically
hazardous
when
the
wipes
no
longer
can
be
used;
most
facilities
also
appear
to
use
solvent
blends
consisting
of
two
or
more
constituents
°
Most
industrial
sectors
appear
to
only
use
a
small
amount
of
solvent
per
wipe:
auto
body
repair;
electronics;
furniture
manufacturers;
fabricated
metals;
and
organic
and
inorganic
chemical
manufacturers.
Conversely,
the
printing
sectors,
automobile
manufacturers,
parts
of
the
military,
and
defense
industries
often
use
large
amounts
of
solvent
on
each
wipe.

°
Using
wipes
sales
and
usage
volume
figures
provided
by
wipes
suppliers
and
industry
users,
coupled
with
US
Bureau
of
Census
counts
of
related
facilities,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
9.6
billion
industrial
wipes
are
used
by
industry
annually
(
88
percent
reusable
wipes
and
12
percent
disposable
wipes)
in
13
different
industries.
EPA
further
estimates
that
approximately
3.8
billion
of
these
industrial
wipes
are
used
in
conjunction
with
solvents
in
industrial
cleaning
and
degreasing
operations.

APPENDIX
B
February
14,
1994
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
118
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Industrial
Wipers
and
Shop
Towels
under
the
Hazardous
Waste
Regulations
FROM:
Michael
Shapiro,
Director
Office
of
Solid
Waste
TO:
Waste
Management
Division
Directors
Regions
I­
X
We
have
received
numerous
questions
about
the
regulatory
status
of
used
industrial
wipers
and
shop
towels
("
wipers")
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)

regulations
from
the
users
and
launderers
of
these
wipers,
and
the
regulatory
agencies
responsible
for
implementing
the
RCRA
regulations.
In
addition,
manufacturers,
marketers
and
users
of
non­
reusable
wipers
i.
e.,
wipers
that
are
not
laundered,
such
as
paper
or
other
on­
textile
products)

have
been
requesting
clarification
on
the
status
of
these
materials
as
well.
The
purpose
of
this
memorandum
is
to
update
you
on
this
issue,
and
to
reaffirm
our
policy
regarding
the
regulatory
status
of
these
materials.

Ongoing
Efforts
There
are
currently
several
activities
within
EPA
that
may
affect
wipers.
The
Definition
of
Solid
Waste
Task
Force,
as
part
of
their
dialogue
with
industry,
environmental
groups,
State
agencies,
and
EPA
Regions,
has
been
evaluating
the
RCRA
regulations
affecting
launderable
and
disposable
wipers.
In
addition,
OSW
has
been
dealing
with
the
issue
of
wipers
as
we
continue
our
efforts
with
the
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule.
As
you
may
recall,
EPA
requested
and
received
comment
on
alternative
approaches
for
addressing
wipers
contaminated
with
listed
solvent
(
May
20,
1992
Federal
Register;
57
FR
21474);
this
proposal
was
later
withdrawn.

Finally,
the
Office
of
Water
will
be
gathering
data
to
support
the
development
of
effluent
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
119
guidelines
for
industrial
launderers,
which
handle
certain
types
of
reusable
wipers.

Status
of
Used
Wipers
Whether
or
not
the
used
wipers
are
hazardous
waste
under
the
RCRA
regulations
has
been
a
recurring
question.
Because
there
are
many
applications
of
wipers,
we
cannot
at
this
time
make
any
generic
statements
that
all
wipers
are
hazardous
waste,
or
that
all
are
not.
A
material
that
is
a
solid
waste
is
by
definition
hazardous
waste
if
it
either
1)
meets
one
of
the
listings
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
D,
or
2)
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
described
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
C.
Because
there
are
no
explicit
listings
for
"
used
wipers"
in
Part
261,
Subpart
D,
a
wiper
can
only
be
defined
as
listed
hazardous
waste
if
the
wiper
either
contains
listed
waste,
or
is
otherwise
mixed
with
hazardous
waste.
Whether
or
not
a
used
wiper
contains
listed
hazardous
waste,
is
mixed
with
listed
hazardous
waste,
only
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste,
or
is
not
a
waste
at
all,
is
dependent
on
site­
specific
factors;
this
is
not
a
new
policy.
As
a
result,
any
determinations
or
interpretations
regarding
this
diverse
and
variable
wastestream
should
be
made
by
the
regulatory
agency
(
i.
e.,
EPA
Region
or
State)
implementing
the
RCRA
program
for
a
particular
State.
This
has
been
our
long­
standing
policy.

One
of
EPA's
concerns
in
determining
whether
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
apply
to
wipers
in
specific
cases
should
be
to
prevent
situations
where
someone
is
improperly
disposing
of
spent
solvents
(
or
other
hazardous
wastes)
by
mixing
them
in
with
wipers,
and
then
sending
the
wipers
to
a
laundering
facility
or
municipal
landfill.
This
activity
is
clearly
not
allowed
under
the
federal
regulations.
However,
wipers
that
merely
pick
up
incidental
amounts
of
solvents
may
be
handled
in
a
number
of
ways.
I
have
enclosed
policy
documents
from
several
States
and
one
EPA
Region
regarding
the
identification
and/
or
management
of
wipers,
that
provide
examples
of
how
some
implementing
agencies
have
developed
workable
approaches
to
this
issue.
If
you
have
additional
information,
or
have
questions,
please
contact
Charlotte
Mooney
or
Ross
Elliott
at
(
202)
260­
8551.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
120
Enclosures
(
4)

cc:
RCRA
Enforcement
Branch
Chiefs,
Regions
I­
X
Regional
Counsel,
Regions
I­
X
List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
260
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Hazardous
materials,
Recycling,
Reporting
and
record
keeping,
Waste
treatment
or
disposal.

40
CFR
Part
261
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
waste,
Recycling,
Reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal.

_______________________________________
_________________

Christine
T.
Whitman,
Administrator
Dated
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
Chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,

parts
260
and
261,
are
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
121
PART
260
 
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM:
GENERAL
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
260
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921­
6927,
6930,
6934,
6935,
6937,
6938,
6939,
and
6974.

Subpart
B
 
Definitions
2.
Section
260.10
is
amended
by
adding
in
alphabetical
order
the
definitions
of
Disposable
industrial
wipe,
Industrial
wipe,
Industrial
wipes
handling
facility,
Intra­
company
transfer
of
industrial
wipes,
No
free
liquids,
Reusable
industrial
wipe,
and
Solvent
extraction
to
read
as
follows:

Section
260.10
Definitions
***********

Disposable
industrial
wipe
means
an
industrial
wipe
that
is
disposed
after
use
without
being
sent
to
a
laundry
or
dry
cleaner
for
cleaning
and
reuse.

***********

Industrial
wipe,
as
used
in
this
subpart,
means
non­
woven
industrial
wipes
made
of
wood
pulp
or
polyester
blends;
industrial
shop
towels,
a
woven
textile
made
of
cotton
or
polyester
blends;
and
industrial
rags,
non­
homogenous
materials
consisting
of
cotton
or
polyester
blends.

Industrial
wipes
of
all
kinds
are
used
for
a
variety
of
purposes,
including
removing
small
quantities
of
solvents
from
machinery
parts,
hands,
tools,
and
the
floor.

***********

Industrial
wipes
handling
facility
means
a
facility
that
removes
solvents
from
industrial
wipes
prior
to
them
being
sent
either
to
a
laundry
or
dry
cleaner
for
cleaning
or
to
a
municipal
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
that
meets
the
standards
under
40
FR
Part
257
Subpart
B,
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
122
municipal
waste
combustor,
or
other
combustion
facility.

**********

Intra­
company
transfer
of
industrial
wipes
means
the
off­
site
transportation
of
industrial
wipes
from
a
generator
facility
to
another
generator­
owned
facility
that
has
a
solvent
extraction
and/
or
recovery
process
for
the
purpose
of
removing
sufficient
solvent
to
ensure
that
the
wipes
contain
no
free
liquids
or
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent,
as
appropriate.

**********

No
free
liquids,
as
used
in
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
24)
and
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
19),
means
that
no
liquid
solvent
may
drip
from
industrial
wipes,
and
that
there
is
no
liquid
solvent
in
the
container
holding
the
wipes.
Wipes
that
have
been
subjected
to
solvent
extraction
are
presumed
to
contain
no
free
liquids.

**********

Reusable
industrial
wipe
means
an
industrial
wipe
that
after
being
used
is
sent
to
a
laundry
or
dry
cleaner
for
cleaning
and
reuse.

***********

Solvent
extraction,
as
used
in
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
24)
and
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
19),
means
an
advanced
extraction
process
such
as
mechanical
wringers,
centrifuges,
or
any
other
similarly
effective
method
to
remove
solvent
from
industrial
wipes.

PART
261
 
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING
OF
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
3.
The
authority
for
part
261
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6921,
6922,
6924(
y),
and
6838.

Subpart
A
 
General
4.
Subpart
261.4(
a)
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
a)(
24)
to
read
as
follows:
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
123
Section
261.4
Exclusions
(
a)
*
*
*

(
24)
Industrial
wipes
that
are
recycled
under
certain
conditions
Industrial
wipes
that
are
sent
to
an
industrial
laundry,
to
a
dry
cleaner
for
cleaning,
or
to
an
industrial
wipes
handling
facility
when
they
contain
an
F­
listed
spent
solvent,
a
corresponding
spilled
P­
or
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
product,
or
when
they
exhibit
the
hazardous
characteristic
of
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity
or
toxicity
when
that
characteristic
results
from
the
F­
listed
spent
solvent
or
corresponding
P­
or
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products,

provided
that
the
conditions
specified
below
are
satisfied
by
the
facility
claiming
the
exclusion:

(
i)
Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
must
be
accumulated,
stored
and
managed
in
nonleaking
covered
containers;

(
ii)
Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
if
transported
off­
site,
must
be
transported
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment;

(
iii)
When
laundered
or
dry
cleaned
on­
site
or
transported
off­
site
to
a
laundry,
dry
cleaner,
or
industrial
wipes
handling
facility,
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
must
contain
no
free
liquids
or
must
have
been
treated
by
solvent
extraction,
except
as
stated
in
261.4(
a)(
24)(
iv)
of
this
part.
Any
liquids
removed
from
the
industrial
wipes
must
be
managed
according
to
the
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270
if
discarded;

(
iv)
Intra­
company
transfer
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
containing
free
liquids
may
occur
provided
that
the
following
conditions
are
satisfied:

(
A)
the
transfer
must
occur
in
order
to
remove
sufficient
solvent
from
the
industrial
wipes
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
124
so
they
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition;
and
(
B)
the
receiving
facility
must
manage
the
extracted
solvent
according
to
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270;

(
v)
Laundries,
dry
cleaners
and
industrial
wipes
handling
facilities
must
manage
the
solventcontaminated
industrial
wipes
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
or
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment
before
the
industrial
wipes
enter
the
handling
process;
and
(
vi)
If
free
liquids
are
in
containers
that
arrive
at
a
laundry,
dry
cleaner,
or
industrial
wipes
handling
facility,
the
receiving
facility
must
either:

(
A)
remove
the
free
liquids
and
manage
them
according
to
the
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270;
or
(
B)
return
the
closed
container
with
the
wipes
and
free
liquids
to
the
generator
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable,
but
no
later
than
the
next
scheduled
delivery.

(
vii)
Industrial
laundries
and
dry
cleaners
may
dispose
of
sludge
from
cleaning
industrial
wipes
in
solid
waste
landfills
if
the
sludge
does
not
exhibit
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic.

***********

5.
Subpart
261.4(
b)
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
b)(
19)
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
261.4
Exclusions
(
b)
*
*
*

(
19)
Industrial
wipes
that
are
discarded
when
managed
under
certain
conditions.
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
125
Industrial
wipes
that
are
sent
for
disposal
to
a
municipal
waste
landfill
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
that
meets
the
standards
under
40
FR
Part
257
Subpart
B,
to
a
municipal
waste
combustor
or
other
combustion
facility,
or
to
an
industrial
wipes
handling
facility
when
they
contain
an
F­
listed
spent
solvent,
a
corresponding
spilled
P­
or
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
product,
or
when
they
exhibit
the
hazardous
characteristics
of
ignitability,
corrosivity,
reactivity,

or
toxicity
when
that
characteristic
results
from
the
F­
listed
spent
solvent
or
corresponding
P­
or
U­
listed
commercial
chemical
products,
providing
that
the
conditions
specified
below
are
satisfied
by
the
facilities
claiming
the
exclusion:

(
i)
Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
must
be
accumulated,
stored,
and
managed
in
nonleaking
covered
containers;

(
ii)
Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
if
transported
off­
site,
must
be
transported
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,
and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment;

(
iii)
Solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes,
if
transported,
must
be
transported
in
containers
labeled
"
Exempt
Solvent­
Contaminated
Wipes;"

(
iv)
When
transported
to
a
municipal
waste
landfill
or
other
non­
hazardous
waste
landfill
that
meets
the
standards
under
40
FR
Part
257
Subpart
B,
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes:

(
A)
must
contain
less
than
5
grams
of
solvent
each,
or
must
have
been
treated
by
solvent
extraction;
and
(
B)
must
not
contain
the
following
solvents:
2­
nitropropane,
nitrobenzene,
methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
MEK),
methylene
chloride,
pyridine,
benzene,
cresols
(
o,
m,
p),
carbon
tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene;

(
v)
When
transported
to
a
municipal
waste
combustor,
other
combustion
facility,
or
industrial
wipes
handling
facility,
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
must
not
contain
free
liquids
or
DRAFT
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE
DELIBERATIVE
126
must
have
been
treated
by
solvent
extraction.
Any
liquids
removed
from
the
wipes
must
be
managed
as
hazardous
wastes
according
to
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270
if
disposed;

(
vi)
Intra­
company
transfer
of
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
containing
free
liquids
can
occur
provided
that
the
following
conditions
are
satisfied:

(
A)
the
transfer
must
occur
in
order
to
remove
sufficient
solvent
from
the
industrial
wipes
so
they
meet
the
5­
gram
condition
or
the
"
no
free
liquids"
condition,
as
appropriate;
and
(
B)
the
receiving
facility
must
manage
the
extracted
solvent
according
to
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270;

(
vii)
Combustion
and
industrial
wipes
handling
facilities
must
manage
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
wipes
in
non­
leaking
covered
containers
or
in
containers
that
are
designed,
constructed,

and
managed
to
minimize
loss
to
the
environment
before
the
industrial
wipes
enter
the
handling
process;
and
(
viii)
If
free
liquids
are
in
containers
that
arrive
at
combustion
and
industrial
wipes
handling
facilities,
the
receiving
facility
must:

(
A)
remove
the
free
liquids
and
manage
them
as
hazardous
wastes
according
to
regulations
found
under
40
CFR
261­
268
and
270;
or
(
B)
return
the
closed
container
with
the
industrial
wipes
and
free
liquid
to
the
generator
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable,
but
no
later
than
the
next
scheduled
delivery;

(
xi)
Combustion
facilities
may
dispose
of
residuals
from
combustion
of
industrial
wipes
in
solid
waste
landfills
if
residuals
do
not
exhibit
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic.
