# Solvent

**- Contaminated Wipes**  **Final Rule: Response to Comments Document** 

**June 2013**

### 2 

## Overview

This Response to Comme nts Document contains the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ’s responses to comments received on the 2003 Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes proposed rule (68 FR 65586, November 20, 2003).

There are two attachments to this document:

• Attachment A: Index of Commenters on the 2003 Proposed Rule

• Attachment B: Com ment Excerpts on 2003 Proposed Rule


## Response to Comments on Risk Analysis

EPA has prepared separate response to comments documents that contain the Agency’s responses to comment on the 2003 risk screening analysis, used in developing the 2003 proposed

ru le, and on the 2009 revised risk analysis, presented in a 2009 NODA (74 FR 55163, October 27, 2009). These documents , which are located in Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2003

- 0004 for this rulemaking, include:

• Response to Comments on the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes 2003 Risk Screening Analysis

• Response to Comments on the 2003 Proposal on the Landfill Loadings Calculations for Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes

• Response to Comments on the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes 2009 Risk Analysis: Risk

Based Mass Loading Limits

• Response to Comments on the 2009 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on the Landfill Loadings Calculations for Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.

### 3 

## Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 5
1. General Comments

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6
1.1 General Su pport

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 1.2 General Opposition

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 1.2.1 Proposed Rule Is Not Protective Enough

................................ ................................ ..... 12 1.2.2 Proposed Rule Is Too Burdensome

................................ ................................ .............. 13 1.3 Parity Between Regulations for Reusable and Disposable Wipes

................................ ...... 14 1.4 National Applicability

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 16 1.5 Goals of Rule or General Regulations for Laundries

................................ .......................... 17 1.6 Regulatory Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20 2. Basis for Solid Waste Exclusion for Reusable Wipes

................................ .............................. 22 2.1 Applicability of Partial Reclamation Varianc e Criteria

................................ ...................... 23 2.2 Support Basis for Exclusion of Reusables from Solid Waste Definition

........................... 26 3. Basis for Hazardous Waste Exclusion for Disposable Wipes

................................ .................. 28 4. Scope and Applicability of Rule

................................ ................................ ............................... 31
5. Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 39
5.1 Containers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 5.2 Labeling

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 49
5.3 Accumulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 5.4 Condition of Wipes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 59 5.4.1 Free Liquids

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 60 5.4.2 No Free Liquids When Wrung

................................ ................................ ..................... 66 5.4.3 Dry Condition

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 71 5.5 Recordkeeping

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 76 5.6 Handling Facilities

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 80
5.6.1 Laundries

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 82
5.6.2 Combustors

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 87
5.6.3 Landfills

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 89 5.7 Free Liquids Received by Handlers

................................ ................................ .................... 96 5.8 Other Conditions/Requirements

................................ ................................ ........................ 101
6. Co

- contaminants

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 102

7. Intra

- and Inter

- Company Transfers

................................ ................................ ....................... 106
8. Exotic Solvents

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 109

### 4 9. State Authorization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 110
10. Enfo rcement

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 113 11. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and Other Executive Orders

................................ ......... 116
12. Environmental/Worker Health Record of Industrial Laundries

................................ ............ 127 13. Alternative Option 1: Exclude Reusables and Disposables from Hazardous Waste Definition

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 130 14. Alternative Option 2: Exclude Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes being Combusted and Solvent

Contaminated Wipes being Landfilled Under a Single Set of Conditions

................................ . 132 15. Clarifications and Typographical Errors

................................ ................................ ............... 133
16. Miscellaneous

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 136

### 5 

## List of Acronyms

BDAT Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology CAA Clean Air Act CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DRAS Delisting Risk Assessment Software ELLR Estimated Landfill Loading Rate EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Fe deral Register HMIS Hazardous Materials Information System HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 IG Inspector General LDR Land Disposal Restrictions LQG Large Quantity Generator MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MSWLF Municipal Solid Wast e Landfill NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFPA National Fire Protection Association NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NODA Notice of Data Availability NSPS New Source Performance Standard OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works RB

- MLL Risk

- Based Mass Loading Limit RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis SQG Small Quantity Generator TCLP T oxicity Characteristic Leaching P rocedure UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act VOC V olatile Organic C ompounds

### 6 

## 1. General Comments

Several commenters submitted general comments on EPA's proposed conditional exclusions and regulation of solvents in general.

(a ) COMMENTS : Some commenters expressed general concerns that regulations regarding solvents on wipes or towel disposal should be sufficiently stringent. [199

- 1006, 240, 245] Another commenter note d that after 30 years under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) trying to keep solvents out of landfills, this rule would allow solvents to be disposed of in landfills. [199

- 1019] One commenter expressed concern about the use of solvent

contaminated wipes and urged EPA to support alternatives to tox ic solvents. [245] One commenter provided general information about hazardous waste management practices in the aerospace industry, and noted that while EPA talks about a streamlined regulatory scheme, continued restrictions seem more like hazardous waste regulation rather than a conditional exempt ion . The commenter noted that the proposed requirements must provide adequate and equal levels of occupational and environmental protection for both disposables and reusables. [355] Another commented specifically on residues (rags/wipes or other absorbents) from hazardous waste spills, stating that these need to be treated more carefully to fully protect human health and the environment and must be handled in the Subtitle C system. [277]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA believe s the rule strikes an appropriate balance between providing regulatory relief for solvent

- contaminated wipes that is appropriate to the risks posed by the wipes and maintaining protection of human health and the environment through conditions, such as clos ed containers, labeling, no free liquids, and recordkeeping. EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) does not pose significant risks to human health a nd the environment. Additionally, because the final rule only excludes solvent

- contaminated wipes, and not the hazardous
waste free liquid spent solvent, EPA believes the rule does not discourage generators from using less toxic solvents. Recovered spent s olvents may be recycled or disposed under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. Furthermore, regarding concerns about wipes used to clean

- up spills, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes used after a spill are only eligible for the ex clusion if they do not contain other listed hazardous wastes or do not contain other contaminants that exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. These requirements, along with the conditions of the exclusion, adequately address c oncerns regarding the risks from wipes used to clean

- up spills.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter urged the adoption of the options that EPA had previously rejected, including more comprehensive collection, recycling of toxic solvents of factories, closing cont ainers for transporting solvent soaked towels and better training of workers about the chemical hazards of shop towels solvents. [199

- 1006]

(b) RESPONSE : In finalizing the rule, EPA considered many of the options which the Agency requested comment on in i ts 2003 proposal and 2009 NODA . Some of these options, such as closed containers, are included in the final rule. Although the final rule may encourage collection and recycling of spent solvents, the intent of the final rule is to address management of sol vent

- contaminated wipes and thus specific provisions for spent solvents were not considered. Additionally, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations primarily address worker safety and thus the final rule does not require specific training of workers. For more information regarding other conditions EPA considered for the final rule, see section 5 of this document.

(c) COMMENTS : Several c ommenters discussed the general impacts that the rule might have on businesses. One commenter recognized EPA's efforts to stay mindful of implementation costs. [294] Another commenter discussed the role shop towels play in their business, and that manageme nt conditions sufficiently protect workers and the environment; a solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing would cause significant additional compliance costs that might make the provision of reusable shop towels too expensive for some custome rs, and possibly too expensive for all customers, potentially leading to employee lay

- offs. [326] One commenter supported the idea of using common sense to accomplish the intent of the regulation while not needlessly over

- controlling the disposal of benign substances or material, and stated that the quantities of such materials that qualify for disposal under this proposed rule will represent a significant new waste volume. Consequently, and in a practical sense, the commenter

### 7 said rule in fact acknowledges that some of these wastes are bein g processed by landfills and waste

- to

- energy facilities at present. [255] Other commenters stated that elaborate testing would be impractical [326], and that the requirements must be capable of being determined in the fie ld by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysis or specialized equipment. [355] Another commenter agreed that small shops generating small quantities of contaminated wipes do not pose a significant environmental threat, and asked for EP A to reconsider ways to provide relief for small generators, perhaps by excluding some number or volume of wipes per month, as the rule as drafted would be too cumbersome for small shops, regulators and disposal facilities to implement. The commenter added that the main beneficiaries would be suppliers of disposable wipes and large companies (with environmental staff or consultants) who use them, with the burdens borne by subtitle D landfill operators. [265] Another commenter stated that the proposal could have unintended consequences, in that disposal and treatment sites could decide to treat all solvent

- contaminated wipes the same way which would place a significant new burden on companies now using what are non

- hazardous wipes. [162]

(c) RESPONSE : Regard ing the rule’s impact on business, EPA’s final rule conditionally excludes solvent

contaminated wipes from full Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations and is estimated to reduce compliance costs for industry by a net $18 million per year (other annual expe cted benefits, such as pollution prevention and waste minimization benefits, fire safety benefits, and removing the “waste” label are es timated to be an additional $3.7 to $9.9 million per year). Furthermore, in choosing conditions for the final rule exclu sions, EPA considered options that would reduce implementation burden on industry. For example, EPA chose not to finalize its proposed “dry” standard (each wipe must contain less than 5 grams of solvent) for wipes going to landfills because of the numerous comments from industry that argued the standard was burdensome to implement. Another example includes how EPA chose to determine whether a wipe contains free liquids. Instead of specifying a list of solvent extraction technologies, which may be expensive and unnecessary for some businesses, EPA chose to maintain a performance standard and rely on the Paint Filter Liquids test because it is relatively inexpensive and easy to perform and is already being used by many states. The final rule includes practical ly the same conditions for reusable wipes and disposable wipe s, avoiding the need for generators to create separate systems for managing different types of wipes. These conditions are protective of human health and the environment.

EPA does not agree wit h the comment that said disposable wipes managed under the rule represent a significant new waste volume.

EPA does not agree with providing an exclusion for small businesses based on the volume or number of solvent

contaminated wipes generated in a month. Small shops that generate small quantities of solvent

- contaminated wipe
may qualify for conditionally exem pt small quantity generator (CESQG) status, which exempts these generators from many hazardous waste regulations. Furthermore, EPA notes that the final rule streamlines federal regulation of reusable and disposable wipes, resulting in an overall burden red uction for all generators.

EPA disagrees that burden of the final rule will be borne by subtitle D landfill operators. By allowing disposable wipes to be sent to MSWLFs , these landfill operators stand to increase their business from disposable wipe
genera tors.

EPA disagrees with the comment that disposal and treatment sites could decide to treat all solvent

- contaminated wipes the same way, thus placing a significant burden on companies now using non

- hazardous wipes. Nothing in the final rule changes the requirem ents for treatment and disposal facilities managing solvent

- contaminated wipes and EPA does not understand the commenter’s particular concern. EPA disagrees with the commenter that stated the final rule may have unintended consequences on companies using n on

- hazardous solvents. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must remove free liquid spent solvent from the wipes and must manage the free liquid spent solvent according to the hazardous waste regulations, as applicable. Therefore, sufficient incentive remains for companies to use non

- hazardous solvents as these generators do not have to manage the free liquid spent solvent as hazardous wastes.

(d) COMMENTS : Two commenters discussed the wording of the proposal. One commenter stated that some of the regulatory semantics in the preamble are too much for most of the regulated community to grasp and for regulators to enforce; e.g. “reusable” wipes that reach end of life/are taken out of service become “disposable” and lose exemption. [1 94] Another commenter stated that the wording of the proposed regulation is broad enough to allow more than one interpretation that could result in subsequent challenges by the generator or EPA. For example, the

### 8 commenter said not all industrial wipes are the same size, weight, or density and that w ipes that are larger will be capable of absorbing more solvent than smaller wipes. The commenter added that the EPA inspector checking industrial wipes at the generator facility will find it difficult to quantify the amount of solvent in each industrial wipe. [345]

(d) RESPONSE : We disagree that using the phrase “reusable wipes” and “disposable wipes” in the preamble is too much for the regulated community to grasp and regulat ors to enforce. EPA notes that this i s the only comment it received that argued that the wording is confusing. Reusable wipes are solvent

- contaminated wipes sent for cleaning and disposable wipes are solvent

- contaminated wipes sent for disposal (either by landfilling or incineration). A solve nt

- contaminated wipe that was once reusable (and thus used, cleaned, and returned for use) can, at the end of its life, be sent for disposal and thus become a disposable wipe. At that point, if the wipe must be managed in compliance with the conditions for disposable wipes, it would be eligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste when disposed. EPA notes that it ha s provided definitions in 40 CFR 260.10 to more clearly define “solvent

- contaminated wipe” and “wipe.”

(e ) COMMENTS : One c ommenter took exception to the proposal and its risk screening analysis, which focused on the potential impacts of the expected handling scenarios, rather than rigorous mismanagement scenarios as in prior exemptions from RCRA. The commenter stated that EPA needs to conduct a sufficient analysis identifying the potential impacts these conditionally exempted wastes could have on human health and the environment should they be mismanaged. [323]

(e ) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters who said that EPA should focus on the potential impacts of rigorous mismanagement scenarios as opposed to expected handling scenarios. See the response to comments on the risk analysis for more information on this issue. Since the November 2003 proposal was publish ed, and in response to adverse public comments on the risk screening analysis that supported the November 2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a more comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. This risk analysis was subjected to external peer review, presented for public comment in a 2009 NODA, and revised where appropriate in response to these reviews. In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collecte d and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a state

- of

- the

- art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk analysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively. The final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in lined MSWLFs . As a result of the revised risk assessment, only one solvent, trichloro ethylene, was found to present significant risk in a composite lined landfill and is ineligible for the wipes exclusion.

The final rule requires certain conditions to be met for reusable and disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes to be excluded from regula tion. Specifically, the wipes, when accumulated, stored, and transported, must be contained in

non

- leaking, closed containers that can contain free liquids and the containers must be labeled “Excluded Solvent

Contaminated Wipes.” The solvent

- contaminated w ipes may not be accumulated for more than 180 days prior to being sent for cleaning or disposal. At the point of transport for cleaning or disposal, the solvent

- contaminated wipes and their containers must not contain free liquids. In addition, generators must maintain documentation that they are managing excluded solvent

- contaminated wipes as required and keep that documentation at their sites. Lastly, the solvent

- contaminated wipes must be managed by facilities (laundries, landfills, and c ombustors) that are subject to specified standards in order for the wipes to be eligible for the conditional exclusions under the final rule. Taking into account all of the available information , the Agency finds that these conditions in the final rule address the potenti al for mismanagement.

(f

) COMMENTS : One commenter provided a link to a newspaper article and expressed conc ern about EPA’s actions. [239]

(f

) RESPONSE : The news article submitted by the commenter is no longer available on the website and cannot be evaluated by EPA.

### 9 (g ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that this proposal is simply another attempt by EPA to use redefinition to create “reductions” in hazardous waste volumes and/or to “increase” the amount of recycling. If EPA’s real goal is to increase recycling, the commenter stated that the Agency cannot simply assume, without verifiable support, a positive correlation between the quantity of industrial secondary material that will be recycled and its regulatory
status. The commenter added that EPA pro vides no information beyond unsubstantiated industry claims to back up its belief that exemption from RCRA will yield an increase in legitimate recycling. Absent such substantiation, the commenter believes EPA has no basis for proceeding with this type of rulemaking. [323]

(g ) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated this proposal is attempt to redefine hazardous waste in order to red uce volumes of hazardous waste. Although the EPA believes there will be some recycling benefit to the final rul e, this was not the basis for the rulemaking. Instead, the exclusions are based on EPA’s authority under RCRA and whether solvent

- contaminated wipes pose significant risks to human health and the environment under certain management conditions. EPA agrees that, generally, there may be a positive correlation between the quantity of hazardous secondary material that will be rec y cled and its regulatory status in that recycling can be encouraged through streamlined regulations. However, under the final rule, the conditions for reusable wipes and disposable wipes are practically the same. Additionally, EPA disagrees that EPA has no basis for proceeding with this type of rulemaking.



### 1.1 **General Support**

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters were generally supportive of EPA’s proposed conditional exclusions. Commenters expressed general support for EPA’s effort to resolve, at the federal le vel, the long

- standing issues associated with mana gement of solvent

- contaminated wipes. Some commenters felt that the proposal would support the use of reusable wipes and prevent disposable wipes from being sent to landfills; one commenter noted that in th e absence of this regulation, a company substituting disposable wipes for reusables could send as many as one million disposable wipes to a landfill per week. Many companies wrote to say that the exclusion for reusable wipes would allow their companies to continue their traditions of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling as well

a s local community leadership. Commenters generally felt that the exclusions, especially performance standards, appropriately provide flexibility to regulated ent ities while protecting human health and environment, as well as encouraging solvent recovery and recycling. One commenter expressed support for “the widest variety of treatment and disposal options proposed by EPA because they do not pose any significant r isks to health or the environment, and because a wide variety of options will reduce the possibility of illegal or environmentally adverse disposal practices by others.” Many commenters expressed a desire for sw ift finalization of the rule. [180, 184, 194, 199

- 1001, 199

- 1002, 199

- 1008, 199

- 1009, 199

- 1011, 199

- 1015, 199

- 1016, 257, 263, 267, 268, 278, 279, 294, 298, 308, 313, 314, 315, 317, 320, 321, 329, 333, 334, 335, 339, 344, 345, 346, 353, 357, 366, 458, 461]

Many commenters expressed support for the p roposed rule because it would 1) level the regulatory playing field between reusable and disposable wipe s; 2) establish a sound national consistent policy for storing, transport ing, and disposing of used wipe s; and 3) ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment while making it easier for wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance. Some commenters added that the rule will also help facilitate recycling of used solvents and facilitate pollution prevention a nd waste minimization opportunities. Commenters generally felt that compliance would increase and compliance costs would decrease due to increased regulatory flexibility and reduced regulatory uncertainty. [158, 160, 166, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 187, 188, 189, 190, 195, 197, 198, 199

- 1011, 264, 281, 291, 299, 306, 312]

Many commenters stated that industry needs the regulatory relief in the proposed exclusions, and described the importance of reusable shop towels in their businesses. [137, 142, 3 09, 310, 327, 343] Some commenters expressed support for the exclusion for reusable wipes, but did not express an opinion on the rule as a whole or the exclusion for disposables. [199

- 1017, 319 ]

Another comment applauded EPA for adhering to three critical concepts in the development of this proposed approach: 1) including practical methods and performance standards as an effective alternative to prescriptive requirements; 2) emphasizing consistent application and enforcement of regulations; and 3) includin g incentives for pollution prevention. [191] One commenter also expressed support for EPA’s development of an exclusion from the

### 10 definition of solid waste for reusable wipes that are going to be legitimately reclaimed and reused. The comments argued that t his approach is essential for EPA to meet the stated goal “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 ” (68 FR 65 591). [303]

(a ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees wi th the commenters that support the rule making and has, therefore, finalized the rule largely as proposed, with some modifications. EPA also agrees with commenters that believe performance standards provide flexibility to regulated entities while protecting human health and the en vironment; where appropriate, EPA has retained performance standards in the final rule. EPA also agrees with commenters who believe the rule establishes a consistent national policy for managing solvent

- cont aminated wipes and that the rule provides adequate protection of human health and the environment. Additionally, EPA agrees that net compliance costs of the rule will decrease due to the increased regulatory flexibility and reduced regulatory uncertainty.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter also noted that the rule does not require solvent removal before laundering or disposal. [199

- 1003, 177] Another comment er disagreed, and supported EPA’s regulations that “take into account the intended disposition of the wipes. The commenter stated that m anaging the different environmental impacts of recycling and disposal as two discrete regulatory schemes is imperative for encouraging and supporting recycling efforts while ensuring protection of human health and the environmen t. The commenter added that s eparate approaches address the "resource conservation" aspects of the RCRA program

- encouraging less wasteful practices and improving re

- use rates.” [303] Another commenter stated that EPA’s proposals properly focus es attentio n on the solvent and not the wipe : “It should not make any difference whether the solvent is placed on a laundered or non

laundered wiping product, as long as they are both under the same regulations and requirements it will allow the user to select the mo st appropriate product for the application. ” [360]

(b ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the final rule focuses appropriately on the disposition of the spent solvents. The final rule does require that free liquid spent solvent be removed prior to laundering or disposal. Additionally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that supported different regulatory schemes in order to encourage recycling of solvent

- contaminated wipes. In its final rule, EPA does not intend to provide a regulatory ad vantage fo r either type of wipe. The rule is promulgated based on EPA’s RCRA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. This authority regulates materials based on whether the material is discarded and, if discarded, whether the material poses significant ris k to human health and the environment. Under the final rule, the conditions of the exclusion ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are managed appropriately and are therefore protective of human health and the environment. Because the risks from relea se of the solvent are inherent in both reusable and disposable wipes, it makes sense to apply the same conditions during accumulation, transportation, and management of both types of wipes. Furthermore, by finalizing practically the same conditions for bot h exclusions, EPA has reduced the burden of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially for facilities that use both types of wipes.

(c ) COMMENTS : Two commenters expressed support for the exclusions with the addition of certain provisions:
conta iner labeling during accumulation, storage and transit [316] ; more stringent performance standards for container closure and design, permit requirements, and accumulation an d management timeframes. [330] One commenter expressed general support for the prop osed exemptio n for reusable wipes, but expressed support for increased stringency for performance standards for container closure and design, permit requirements, and limits on accumulation and management timeframes. [330]

(c ) RESPONSE : EPA has revised the final rule exclusions to include: labeling for containers during accumulation, storage, and transport; a more stringent “closed” container standard (as compared to the proposed “covered” standard); requirements that solvent

- contaminated wipes must be s ent to handling facilities that are regulated under their respective Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), or RCRA regulations; an accumulation time limit for generators storing solvent

- contaminated wipes on

- site; and recordkeeping requirements for g enerators of solvent

- contaminated wipes. Regarding the exclusion for disposable wipes, EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and th e environment when sent to a composite

- lined landfill

. Additionally, the conditions in the final rule, including the above revisions, ensure that solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes will be managed appropriately.

(d ) COMMENTS : In a comment on the October 2009 NODA , one commenter stated that, “given the overall

### 11 conclusions from the revised risk analysis, the information presented in these comments and in the administrative record, ... the Agency has more than enough information to quickly move forward with rulemaking that provides an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for non

- laundered solvent

- contaminated wipes with conditions that differ from those outlined in the proposed rule and that allow co

- disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge containing any of the solvents analyzed by EPA other than PCE [tetrachloroethylene] (and perhaps TCE [trichloroethylene] ) in unlined non

- hazardous or municipal landfills.” The commenter stated that this approach would “significantly reduce the unnecessary cost and complexity associated with characterizing, segregating and managing solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge for disposal, while still providing adequate protection to human health and the environment.” Th e commenter added that th ere are a nu mber of functioning landfills in the United States that operate with both unlined and lined areas, and this management method would allow generators to use these landfills for co

- disposal of wipes and laundry sludge without special, burdensome and unnecess ary disposal requirements to ensure that certain solvent

- contaminated waste is disposed of in the lined portion of the landfill. [464]

(d ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the information presented in the risk analysis published in the October 2009 NODA is suffi cient to support finalizing conditions that differ from the November 2003 proposal regarding certain solvents. Based on the 2012 final risk analysis, EPA has expanded the scope of solvent

- contaminated wipes eligible for the disposable wipes exclusion (wher eas the November 2003 proposed rule proposed that 11 solvents would be ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion, in the final rule o nly one solvent, trichloroethylene, remains ineligible for the final rule.) Additionally, disposable wipes may be sent to lined MSWLFs operating under the 40 CFR part 258 standards. 1 This represents the most straightforward approach , is protective of human health and the environment, and imposes the least burden for compliance and implementation . Under this approach, generators will not need to keep track of which excluded wipes are contaminated with which solvents and whether those solvent

contaminated wipes are being sent to a lined or an unlined landfill.



### 1.2 **General Oppos ition** 

(a) COMMENTS : Some commenters genera lly opposed EPA’s proposed rule.[138, 207, 247, 330] One commenter cited the RTI study, which recommends that further risk analysis could be undertaken. [247] Another commenter argued that EPA has not adequately considered the risks to human health and the environment, and that many of the supporting objectives EPA rationalized as an outcome of implementation of the proposed rule are unlikely to be achieved. The commenter added that the proposed conditional exclusion is in contradiction with current Arkansa s law and environmental objectives. [330]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with commenters that argued EPA has not adequately considered the risks to human health and the environment. Since the November 2003 proposal was published, and in response to adverse public comments on the risk screening analysis that s upported the November 2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. This risk analysis was subjected to extern al peer review, presented for public comment, and revised where appropriate. In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a
state

- of

- the

- art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk an alysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively.

Additionally, EPA has finalized a number of conditions for both exclusions that will ensure the solvent

contaminated wipes will be manag ed appropriately. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be managed in closed, labeled containers and cannot contain free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal. Additionally, facilities that generate solvent

- contaminated wipes must comp ly with certain recordkeeping requirements and may not accumulate wipes for longer than 180 days.

1 Solvent

- contaminated wipes could also be sent to hazardous wa ste landfills operating under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.

### 12 EPA believes that its supporting objectives of the rule will be achieved. EPA’s primary goal of this rulemaking is to provide a consistent national policy fo r solvent

- contaminated wipes that is appropriate to the level of risk posed by these wipes in a way that maintains protection of human health and the environment, while reducing overall compliance costs for industry. Under the final rule, the conditions of the exclusion ensure that the solvent

contaminated wipes are managed appropriately and are therefore protective of human health and the environment.

Furthermore, we note that authorized states (such as Arkansas) may be more stringent than the federal program and thus authorized states may choose not to adopt the exclusion for disposable wipes.



### 1.2.1 **Proposed Rule Is Not Protective Enough**

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters argued that the proposed rule is not protective enough of human health and the environment and should be strengthened. The se commenter believe that the lack of federal controls over an estimated 1.5 million tons of waste generated across the country is not in the public’s best interest. These commenters argued that i t would create broad, unprecedented exemptions to the RCRA’s definition of solid waste, and is, in their estimations, illegal. The commenter think EPA should more carefully consider the potential risks like cancer, and not focus on the short

- term economic gains to industry.

(a) RESPONSE : EPA’s primary goal of this rulemaking is to provide a consistent national policy for solvent

contaminated wipes that is appropriate to the level of risk posed by these wipes in a way that maintains protection of human health and the environment, while reducing overall compliance costs for industry, many of which are small businesses. The final rule is promulgated based on EPA’s RCRA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. This authority reg ulates materials based on whether they are discarded and, if discarded, whether the materials pose significant risk to human health and the environment. Under the final rule, the conditions of the exclusion ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are ma naged appropriately and are therefore protective of human health and the environment.

EPA disagrees that the final rule is not in the public’s best interest and that EPA has not considered the potential risks , like cancer, from solvent

- contaminated wipes. First

, EPA has conducted a revised risk analysis that was peer reviewed in 2008 and published for public comment in 2009. In s upport of this analysis, EPA: (a ) collected and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained i n the wastes of concern, (b) used a state

- of

- the

- art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (c) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk analysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively. The final risk analysis demo nstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when managed under reduced requirements. Second, EPA has added conditions to the two exclusions in order to ensure that solven t

- contaminated wipes are managed safely and appropriately, including labeling, an accumulation time limit, and recordkeeping. EPA thus believes that the final rule is protective of human health and the environment.

(b) COMMENTS : Some commenters said that pol itical contributions from industrial laundries had a bigger impact on the proposed rule than concerns for worker or community safety.

(b) RESPONSE : In response to comment s that political contributions from industrial laundries had a big impact on the rulemak ing, we note that many of these comments were in response to a 2004 Washington Post article that implied that EPA was developing a rule in exchange for campaign contributions from an industrial laundry. A subsequent investigation by EPA’s Inspector General (IG) concluded that EPA met all legal and internal requirements for rulemaking when it developed the industrial wipes proposed rule. The IG did not find that the timing of any decisions coincided with external political events, nor did the IG find evidenc e that EPA staff were directly or indirectly influenced by external political events, including actions by campaign contributors. EPA’s Office of Inspector General, “ Rulemaking on Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes .” Report No. 2006

- P

- 00001, October 4, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20051004

- 2006

- P

- 00001.pdf

(c) COMMENTS : Commenters expressed particular concern for children and workers, as well as for the potential fo r water pollution when laundries wash dirty towels without first removing excess solvents. Some commenters

### 13 specifically noted the lack of stringent requirements for containers, transport, labeling, worker training, and recordkeeping, and stated that there is no reasonable assurance that industry will comply with EPA’s intent in this proposal, given their record of mismanagement of waste water issues involving shop towel contaminants. Another commenter stated that the proposed conditions do not represent wha t is considered safe management practices in the industry, given that many wipes are soaked in solvent and filthy with contamination from equipment.

(c) RESPONSE : The Agency has developed conditions in the final rule that address concerns about water pollutio n and worker safety. Under the final rule exclusions, solvent

- contaminated wipes must not contain free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal, which should minimize the amount of excess solvent in wipes prior to cleaning by laundries. This “no free liq uids” condition is determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Methods Test 9095B) and thus is more objective and easier to implement and enforce than the proposed standard. This “no free liquids” condition is also consistent with many states’ policie s and industry practices for reusable wipes. Removing the free liquids reduces the risk of solvent release from the wipes, such as through spills or leaks. The final rule also includes more protective conditions as compared to the proposed rule, including recordkeeping, labeling, an accumulation limit, and a strengthened container standard. Regarding commenters who were concerned about solvents discharged into waterways

, as explained in the proposed rule, the regulations under the CWA effectively control so lvent discharges either through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or, for indirect discharges to P ublicly O wned T reatment W ork s (POTW) , under the National Pretreatment Program. To eliminate confusion regarding how the CWA applies to solvent discharges from laundries and dry cleaners, we are clarifying in the regulatory language that we are allowing reusable wipes tha t meet the conditions of the final rule be sent to laundries and dry cleaners whose discharges, if any, are regulated under sections 301 (effluent discharge restrictions) and 402 (permitting requirements) or section 307 (indirect discharge to a POTW of the CWA).

Given the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule, EPA disagrees with commenter s that said that wipes w ill be soaked in solvent. Additionally, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated with listed waste other than the spent solvents or with waste that results in the solvent

- contaminated wipe exhibiting a toxic, reactive, or corrosive characteristi c of hazardous waste, are ineligible for the final rule. Furthermore, EPA has finalized conditions in the final rule that are generally consistent with current industry practice and many state programs.

(d) COMMENTS : Many commenters expressed opposition to any conditional exclusion from hazardous waste regulation at all. One commenter suggested that EPA should instead develop a proposed rule based on the Universal Waste Rule with streamlined but protective conditions for accumulation, storage, transport, and handling of both reusable and disposable solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes, and for final disposal of wipes in combustion facilities and Subtitle C landfills i n compliance with applicable Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards. One com menter stated that so many conditions would be necessary to allow solvent

- contaminated wipes to be handled under conditional exclusions that they ought to be handled instead under the universal waste rule ( within the RCRA system ) with flexible standards th at are appropriate for univers al hazardous waste.

(d) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that reusable wipes should be managed under the universal waste standards. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes and EPA, based on the definition of solid waste and based on its final risk analysis, believes that reusable and disposable wipes managed under the final rule exclusions are not solid and hazardous wastes. Additionally, managing solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous wastes under the universal waste regulations may, as some commenters argued, increase burden on facilities gene rating and managing reusable wipes as a result of state solid waste program requirements and fees

. Additionally, the final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and t he environment when disposed in lined MSWLFs

.
[149, 199

- 1019, 152, 181, 182, 183, 192, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 , 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 276, 288, 297, 300, 322, 323, 331, 351, 363, 364, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380]



### 1.2.2 **Proposed Rule Is Too Burdensome**

### 14 (a ) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed the rule because it is too burdensome to implement. The commenter believes g enerators may simply handle disposable wipes as hazardous regardless of the exclusion and manage through RCRA permitted treatment, storage and disposal f acilities, since the burden of meeting the generator conditions for the exclusion clearly outweigh any benefits. The commenter argued that t his will certainly not meet EPA's goals under the pr oposed rule of increasing solvent recycling, waste minimizat ion, and pollution prevention

a nd it will not reduce compliance costs and the burdens associated with the RCRA regulations for generators in the least. The commenter thinks a uniform rule for both reusable and disposable wipes, based on a technically and economically feasible approach, is the only way for EPA to realize its goals with the rulemaking. [320] Several of the commenters noted that the rule, as proposed, is too complicated and confusing. The commenters argue that t his level of complexity is unnecessary considering that potential environmental and health risks are the same for all kinds of wiping materials. Commenters highlighted different aspects of the rule that they ob served to be too

c omplicated. One commenter identified the different conditions that exist for shop towels compared with rags and wipes. [263] Other commenters identified the different requirements for wipes sent to a laundry vs. a landfill vs. an incinerator as the source of this comple xity and confusion. [324, 362] Another commenter urged the EPA to keep the rule as simple as possible so as not to lose touch with the purpose. [199

- 1003] Several other commenters focused their comments on how the rule should be as clear as p ossible to understand and as easy as possible to implement [199

- 1002], as well as inexpensive. [199

- 1008, 458] Many commenters advocated simplifying the rule and making it easier to both understand and implement. Because the proposed rule includes these di fferent conditions for reusable and disposable wipes, it is very complicated and makes it diff icult for business to comply. [148, 158, 159, 168, 170, 172, 178, 186, 194, 197, 257 , 272, 301, 324, 348, 354, 362] One commenter noted that a universal hand

wrin ging performance would assist in clarifying the content of current ambiguous aspects of the rule, like, for example, state solvent extraction requirements. [283]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees that the rule is too burdensome. In fact, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are managed according to the conditions in the final rule are not hazardous wastes and thus generators do not need to meet the more stringent hazardous waste regulation s. For example, solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under the final rule exclusions do not have to be manifested when being sent off

- site and may be sent to non

- hazardous waste handling facilities.

EPA has also further reduced burden in the final rule, fo r example, by not finalizing the “dry” condition for wipes going to landfills and requiring these wipes to meet the “no free liquids” standard that is used for wipes going to laundries and combustors. This serves to reduce some of the complexity in the pro posed rule, which had proposed that disposable wipes meet a “dry” standard that specified wipes could not contain more than five grams of solvent each. However, w here authorized states have defined “no free liquids” using a different standard, generators i n those states must meet the state standard for purposes of meeting the “no free liquids” cond ition. This ensures that the final rule complements existing state policies and thus, does not place an unnecessary burden on states and the regulated community t o change existing practices. Of course, the authorized state standard must b e no less stringent than the final rule definition of “no free liquids.” Additionally, EPA’s container standard allows for flexibility during accumulation (i.e., containers do not have to be sealed) and EPA has expanded the scope of solvent

contaminated wipes eligible for the exclusion for disposable wipes. B ecause the risks from release of the solvent are inherent in both reusable and disposable wipes, it makes sense to apply the s ame conditions during accumulation, transportation, and management of both types of wipes. Furthermore, by finalizing practically the same conditions for both exclusions, EPA has reduced the burden of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially f or facilities that use both types of wipes. EPA believes that the final rule reflects an appropriate balance between protection of human health and the environment and minimization of burden on facilities. EPA believes that a universal hand

- wringing perfor mance condition would be difficult to implement and enforce. For more information on this issue, see section 5.4.2.



### 1.3 **Parity Between Regulations for Reusable and Disposable Wipes**

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters submitted general statements arguing that there should not be different conditions for reusable wipes going to laundries and disposable wipe s going to landfills. These commenters supported establishing equitable exclusions and a single set of rules for reusable and disposable wipes . Some commenters stated that reusable wipes have an equal impact on the environment just as disposable wipes , as laundry

### 15 sludge from the shop towels ends up in a landfill, and therefore it is not justifiable to ha v e a separate set of standards. [148, 158, 166,176, 187, 188, 189, 199

- 1002, 199

- 1003, 283, 288, 301, 320, 336, 341, 354, 362, 459]

One commenter additionally emphasized that parity is also a concern at the state level, where this dichotomy of standards is the result of lobbying by the industrial laundry associations and their members at the state level; they

u se rhetoric that laundered wipe s are reused and therefore are being recycled. However this is not the case and different standards should not be appl ied. [199

- 1003]

Some commenters that generally support equitable exclusions and one set of rules for disposable and reusable wipes state that EPA’s data proves that the potential risks at landfills from the sludge of industrial launderers is the same as
t he potential risk of disposable wipes disposed in landfills. [199

- 1001, 257, 261, 283, 324, 341]

Another commenter asserted that users should be able to decide which industrial wiping product is best for their application based on the performance of the w ipe , give n that EPA’s research clearly indicates that there are no environmental benefits for reusable wipes compared to disposable wipes. [199

- 1003]

(a) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, the conditions of the exclusion ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are managed appropriately and are therefore protective of human health and the environment. B ecause the risks from release of the solvent are inherent in both reusable and di sposable wipes, it makes sense to apply the same conditions during accumulation, transportation, and management of both types of wipes. The conditions ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are being managed appropriately, regardless of whether they ar e being laundered or disposed. Furthermore, by finalizing practically the same conditions for both exclusions, EPA has reduced the burden of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially for facilities that use both types of wipes.

EPA acknowledg es commenters that stated that reusable wipes have an equal impact on the environment as disposable wipes. EPA did not evaluate th e lifecycle differences in environmental impact (e.g., water use, energy use) between reusable wipes and disposable wipes as p art of the rulemaking.

EPA agrees with commenters that its 2012 final risk analysis demonstrates that both solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge may be disposed in composite

- lined landfills without posing significant risk to human health and the environment. The one exception to this is for solvent

- contaminated wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene, as these wipes were found to exceed EPA’s target risk criteria. Thus, these wipes are ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion.

(b ) COMMENTS : Several commenters supporting equitable regulations for disposable and reusable wipes discussed specific requirements that should be the same for both kinds of wipes. Some commenters specifically mentioned that both disposable and reusable wipes should have the same container, labeling and transportation requirements [199

- 1002, 166, 173, 174, 177, 198, 301, 324, 354, 362], and others said that both types of wipes should be subject to a limited list of chemicals that must be hand led as hazardous wastes. [299, 354, 362]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA has finalized conditions for the two exclusions that include the same container standard, accumulation time limit, recordkeeping, labeling, and “no free liquids” standard. Regarding the scope of solven t

contaminated wipes eligible for the two exclusions, there is only one difference: Solvent

- contaminated wipes that are hazardous waste due to the presence of trichloroethylene are not eligible for the exclusion for disposable wipes. This is because EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with trichloroethylene may pose a significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in a lined landfill.

(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that to the extent EPA’s preferential tr eatment toward reusable wipes is based on the results of EPA’s risk screening analyses or some notion that reusable wipes are preferred because they are “recycled” and involve less generation of solid and hazardous waste, it is unjustified and misguided. T his commenter noted an analysis conducted by EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Lockheed Martin Environmental Systems and Technologies, which concluded that reusable wipes generate 88.4 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 reusable wipes laundered com pared to 67.8 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 nonwoven shop towels disposed and 74 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 paper towels disposed. The commenter argued that the study concluded the laundering process actually generates more solid waste than does dis posal of disposable wipes, and the environmental management of reusable wipes presents risks such as movement into groundwater that are not

### 16 present with disposable wipes. Based on the Gradient study, the commenter said reusable wipes also place back into

c ommerce recycled materials that contain much higher concentrations of metals in “virgin” wipes, which are handled by workers. The commenter also be noted that “disposable” wipes are manufactured from pre

- and post

consumer textile materials. The commenter cited a 1999 Life Cycle Analysis that rated disposable wipes preferable
to reusable wipes on two of three parameters analyzed. The same commenter urged EPA to refer to the two kinds of wipes as laundered and nonlaundered, rather than reusable and disposabl e. [283]

Several commenters argued that a single set of regulations would level the economic playing field. The commenters argued the proposal to establish different regulations for the two kinds of wipes is an unfair advantage for rental laundries. The commenters believe p assage of the rule in this form would negatively impact the business of disposable wiping products. Conversely, the commenters argue that a single set of conditions would create greater competition between reusable and disposable wiping fields, resulting in use of the most appropriate product based on performance and cost.[195, 199

- 1002, 299, 302, 360]

A few commenters argued against parity, and supported separate regulatory schemes for reusable and disposable wipes to support recycling efforts while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. These commenters argued that d isposable wipes should be held to stricter standards than reusable wipes. [199

- 1008, 199

- 1012, 278, 303, 458]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges that launde ring of reusable wipes generates sludge that is then disposed of as solid or hazardous waste

. EPA did not evaluate the lifecycle differences in environmental impact (e.g., water use, energy use) between reusable wipes and disposable wipes as part of the ru lemaking

. EPA did not collect data regarding generated amounts of solid waste from laundering as compared to disposable wipes. EPA’s fi nal rule does not intend to provide a regulatory advantage for either type of wipe and, instead, is promulgated based on EPA’s RCRA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. In the case of solvent

- contaminated wipes, EPA is deregulating both reusab le solvent

- contaminated wipes, because these wipes are not being discarded, and disposable wipes, because EPA’s risk analysis demonstrates that these wipes do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment , when properly managed under the co nditions of the final rule. EPA notes that under the final rule, reusable wipes may only go to laundries or dry cleaners whose discharge, if any, is regulated under the CWA , which addresses potential for solvent release to groundwater.

EPA has not evaluat ed the Gradient study as part of this rulemaking. However, under the final rule, solvent

contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated (such as with metals) with listed waste other than the spent solvents or with waste that results in the solvent

- contaminate d wipe exhibiting a toxic, reactive, or corrosive characteristic of hazardous waste, are ineligible for the final rule. Additionally, conditions of the final rule (closed containers that are labeled) along with other applicable OSHA regulations should mini mize potential risk to worker safety.

EPA finds that referring to the two types of solvent

- contaminated wipes as “reusable” and “disposable” is appropriate and does not agree with using the terms “laundered” and “non

- laundered.”



### 1.4 **National Applicability**

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters generally agreed that a national policy for enforcement should be put into place for this rule. A few commenters point out that states should be encouraged to adopt this rule and that it would be in their benefit to do so in terms of enhanced protection of huma n health and the environment. In addition to the need for national regulation, several commenters also discussed the variability of current guidelines and how this has affected them. These co mmenters stated that t his lack of national guidance has caused considerable confusion regarding the proper management of soile d shop towels and other wipe s such as clean up pads or swabs as many of the existing state policies have differing requirements fr om state to state, county to county even township to township, many of which are in conflict with one another. The commenters said t his rule should clarify and simplify the mismatch of regulation currently in existence. A few commenters noted that this rul e does establish a more level playing field between state regulations and makes progress towards the creation of a consistent national standard. [199

- 1002, 199

- 1003, 199

- 1008, 199

- 1011, 294, 299, 458]

### 17 Some commenters expressed support for the rule and dis cussed the proposed rule’s relationship to state policies. One state commenter expressed support for reusable wipes and commented that its state, like many states, has had a policy in place for many years allowing generators to send such wipes to non

- permitted industrial laundries without manifests, and does not require industrial laundries to obtain state hazardous waste transporter permits in order to haul these wipes to their facilities for cleaning. [271] Two commenters stated that existing state laws include exclusions similar to those proposed and noted that they have been successful. [316, 319] Other commenters said that the proposal would serve to codify existing state practice. [199

- 1008, 199

- 1011]

A comment from an industry association expressed support for the proposal and for continuing to launder reusable wipes, as well as the proposed management conditions. The commenter reported results from a member survey that showed that significant waste re duction efforts addressing solvent

- contaminated wipes are already in place, and existing management conditions are similar to those proposed by EPA. [313]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who support the exclusion for reusable wipes because the exc lusion and its conditions are in line with many existing states’ policies as well as current industry practices. In the early 1990s, EPA developed a policy that deferred determinations and interpretations regarding the regulation of solvent

contaminated wi pes to the states authorized to implement the federal hazardous waste program or to the EPA region where a state is not authorized (see “Industrial Wipers and Shop Towels under the Hazardous Waste Regulations,” Michael Shapiro, February 14, 1994)

. This pol icy led to different regulatory schemes for both reusable and disposable wipes in the EPA regions and states.

EPA has thus promulgated the rule making to provide a consistent regulatory framework for solvent

- contaminated wipes that is appropriate to the le vel of risk posed by these wipes in a way that maintains protection of h uman health and the environment

. U nder RCRA section 3006, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the authorized state program operates in lieu of the federal regulations.

The final rule includes requirements and conditions that are less stringent than those required under the base RCRA hazardous waste program. Thus, states with an auth orized RCRA program, except as described below, are not required to adopt the conditional exclusions. States may, through implementation of state waiver authorities or other state laws, allow complianc e with the provisions of the final rule in advance of a doption or authorization. Of course, states cannot implement requirements that are less stringent than the federal requirements in the final rule.

The conditional exclusion for reusable wipes is generally consistent with many of the states’ policies; ho wever, some conditions required by the final rule may be more stringent than some existing state programs. As a result, authorized states whose programs include less str ingent requirements than the final rule are required to modify their programs to mainta in consistency with the federal program per the provisions of 40 CFR 271.21(e). In addition, any states that delineate their program for reusable wipes in guidance documents or interpretive letters will need to promulgate enforceable re gulations, as requir ed by § 271.7. The current state requirements remain in place until the state adopts the equivalent to these federal requirements.



### 1.5 **Goals of Rule or General Regulations for Laundries**

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters stated that the proposed rule does not in fact further EPA’s stated goals, which include the establishment of a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent removal and recycling prior to disposal or laundering, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. The commenter stated that t here are no actual provisions in the rule for solvent removal/recycling. One commenter said that EPA should emphasize the importance of solvent removal, so “there is no question that the regulation promotes segregation of liquid solvents for appropriate management.” One commenter was concerned that allowing the disposal of industrial wipes encourages incineration and landfill disposal instead of reuse, while another commenter felt that energy recovery in cement kilns should be encouraged over land disposal. Another commenter question ed whether solvent recovery for recycling occurs at laundries (as opposed to intra

- company handling facilities).[168, 170, 171, 1 73, 174, 178, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 198, 257, 306, 313, 316, 323, 337]

### 18 C ommenters argued that the rule does not create incentives for innovation, pollution prevention, recycling, and the use of less hazardous substitutes for F

- listed solvents. One comm enter stated that this rule fails to acknowledge well

established recycling options such as energy recovery in cement kilns and the associated benefits. Instead of increasing the amount of hazardous waste recycling, this proposal, would exempt hazardous wa ste from Subtitle C merely by changing its label. EPA should develop a rule that acknowledges and incorporates existing recycling options such as energy recovery in cement kilns and maintains a reasonable regulatory regime that will continue to
ensure appr opriate management of these hazardous wastes. In addition, EPA's proposed approach must be technically supported, proven to be environmentally safe, and provide adequate tracking measures. [149, 199

- 1019, 152, 181, 182, 183, 192, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 2 05, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 276, 288, 297, 30 0, 322, 323, 331, 351, 363, 364, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA’s primary goal of the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes rulemaking is to provide a consistent national policy for solvent

- contaminated wipes that is a ppropriate to the level of risk posed by these wipes in a way that maintains protection of human health and the environment, while reducing overall compliance costs for industry, many of which are small businesses. I t is not the purpose of this rule to sol ely create incentives for innovation or pollution prevention. EPA’s authority extends to regulating solid and hazardous wastes based on whether a material is discarded and, if discarded, whether the material poses significant risk to human health and the

e nvironment. U nder the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminate d wipes must remove free liquid spent solvent from the wipes . T his free liquid spent solvent is available to be recycled at the generator facility within their allowed accumulation period (e.g., 90 or 180 days) without a RCRA permit under the provisions of 40 CFR 261.6(c), which exempts the recycling process itself from certain hazardous waste requirements. Therefore, the final rule does not change the incentives for generators to switch to non

- hazardous solvents: sufficient incentive still exists as these generators would not have to manage the free liquid spent solvent under hazardous waste regulations. Laundries or dry cleaners may also recycle free liquid spe nt solvent under this provisi on. EPA confirms that solvent

- contaminated wipes may continue to be sent to RCRA hazardous waste combustors, boilers, and industrial furnaces (as well as hazardous waste landfills) regulated under 40 CFR parts 264, 265, or 266 subpart H, which includes cem ent kilns that are operating under these regulations. To further clarify this point, we have added these citations to the final regulatory language for this exclusion.

EPA acknowledges the commenter who questioned whether solvent recovery was occurring at laundries as opposed to intra

- company handling facilities. EPA does not have data regarding the frequency of solvent recovery at laundries.

(b) COMMENTS : Two commenters argued that the proposal does not accomplish EPA’s stated objective of resolving cert ain issues associated with the management of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes. The commenter believes that the proposal will not encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities because it does not discourage the generation or encourage the reduction in toxicity of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes. While the universe of hazardous waste will be reduced by the proposed conditional exclusion, the commenter thinks the volume and toxicity of the waste stream will not change significantly. The commenter stated that t his waste stream will simply be relegated to less stringent management practices cu rrently applicable to non

- hazardous wastes. The commenter argued that EPA offers no convincing support for the claim that the proposed rule will significantly impact recycling rates of solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes. In addition, the commenter believes that the proposed rule may make it easier for generators and handlers to mismanage solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes and evade regulation by storing contaminated wipes in lieu of disposal while claiming intent to dispose at an indef inite future date. The commenter thinks t his may occur because the proposed rule does not have adequate controls for accumulation time

- frames, notification, and reporting activities related to management of solvent

contaminated industrial wipes. Regarding costs, the commenter said that EPA has not adequately evaluated whether there are any cost impacts to regulators implementing other programs under CWA, CAA, OSHA , Department of Transportation (DOT) , RCRA C and RCRA D. The commenter added that this proposal will only in crease national consistency if s tates adopt it. [325, 330] Several commenters expressed concern that, over the last several years, a large percentage of facilities genera ting soiled industrial wipe s have modified their practices to eliminate s olvents that are listed and charac teristic hazardous wastes. These commenters think this proposal may provide incentives for

### 19 facilities to switch from less toxic solvents to those that are characteristic or hazardous waste. [325, 330, 337]

(b) RESPONSE : The f inal rule does not prohibit generators from reducing the volume and toxicity of the solvent

contaminated wipe wastestream. U nder the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminate d wipes must remove free liquid spent solvent from the wipes and must manage t he free liquid spent solvent according to the hazardous waste regulations, as applicable. Th erefore, the final rule does not change the incentives for generators to switch to non

hazardous solvents: sufficient incentive still exists as these generators would not have to manage the non

- hazardous free liquid spent solvent under hazardous waste regulations. Add itionally, t he final rule requires that free liquid spent solvent be removed from solvent

- contaminated wipes and thus increases the potential to capture and recycle spent solvent “free liquids. ” To address commenters concerned with indefinite storage of so lvent

- contaminated wipes, EPA has established an accumulation time limit in the final rule and is requiring recordkeeping to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are not being stored in lieu of disposal. EPA disagrees that evaluation of costs to
regu lators implementing other programs, such as DOT, OSHA, and CWA, are necessary because the final rule does not impact how existing entities are regulated under these statutes. EPA acknowledges that the final rule will increase national consistency only in s o much as states adopt the rule; however, the final rule represents an improvement over the existing policy and provides a solid foundation that will facilitate consistency in state
programs.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter submitted four guiding principles t hat EPA should use to revise and simplify the proposed rule: ( 1) Where potential risks to human health and the environment do not exist, do not apply regulatory conditions; ( 2) Where equivalent risks exist, apply equivalent regulatory conditions; ( 3) Encou rage solvent recovery and recycling at the point of generation; ( 4) Acknowledge that launderer sludge is a solid waste that is the direct result of the use of reusable wipes. [257] Another commenter supported a different set of guiding policies: ( a) Reduci ng the need to generate waste wipes; ( b) Reducing the quantity or toxicity of solvents used with wipes; ( c) Recovering and reusing solvents used with wipes; ( d) Reusing wipes that can be laundered; ( e) Burning wipes for energy recovery when they cannot be reused; and ( f) Properly disposing waste wipes. [294]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenters’ guiding principles and has incorporated several of these in the final rulemaking. EPA has only applied regulatory conditions where they are necessary to address risks to human health and the environment. Where risks apply to both reusable and disposable wipes, EPA has applied the same regulatory conditions to both types of wipes. EPA e ncourages solvent recovery and reuse. Compliance with the “no free liquids” condition will make free liquid spent solvent available for recycling by the generator. EPA has stated that laundry sludge is a newly generated waste that is subject to RCRA solid and hazardous waste regulation, as applicable. EPA agrees with the need to reduce generation of solvent

- contaminated wipes, including the quantity and toxicity of solvents used with the wipes. EPA agrees with the various options for managing solvent

contam inated wipes: reuse, burning for energy recovery, and proper disposal.

(d) COMMENTS : One commenter expressed strong support for EPA’s goal of resource conservation and stated that reusable shop towels meet this goal by recycling, saving energy and prevent ing depletion of natural resources. [348] Other commenters said EPA’s proposed goals, especially having a clear and consistent national policy, were fundamentally compromised by having two sets of requirements for disposable and reusable wipes and that t he proposal should be about solvents, not wipes. [199

- 1001]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that resource conservation is served through the reuse and recycling of materials such as wipes. We also agree that two sets of requirements for disposable a nd reusable wipes does not make sense b ecause the risks from release of the solvent are inherent in both . Therefore, in the final rule, EPA has applied t he same conditions during accumulation, transportation, and management of both types of wipes. The conditions ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are being managed appropriately, regardless of whether they are being laundered or disposed. Furthermore, by finalizing practically the same conditions for both exclusions, EPA has reduced the burde n of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially for facilities that use both types of wipes.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter said that worker safety is not an appropriate goal under RCRA, and should instead be handled under OSHA; it is simply not w ithin the scope of EPA's legal authority to police OSHA workplace exposure standards at an individual manufacturing or laundering facility. [348]

### 20 (e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that worker safety should be primarily handled under OSHA; however, under RCRA, EPA must ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed and certain conditions under the final rule are crafted to address releases of the solvent, which may pose a risk to workers. For example, under the final rule exclusions, solvent

- contaminate d wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” This reduces the risk of adverse affects to workers from solvent emissions or spills of free liquid solvent.

(f) COMMENTS : Two co mmenters expressed support for options EPA considered in 2000, which would have prevented solvents from entering the waste water stream and protecting workers by requiring towels to remain in closed containers throughout the transportation to the washing m achines. [199

- 1006, 199

- 1013]

(f) RESPONSE : The final rule specifies that solvent

- contaminated wipes must contain no free liquids when sent to a laundry or dry cleaner. This serves to reduce the amount of solvents entering the wastestream. Furthermore, the rule clarifies that laundries or dry cleaners receiving solvent

- contaminated wipes under the rule must be regulated under the CWA, which effectively controls solvent discharges either through the NPDES program or, for indirect discharges to POTWs, under the National Pretreatment Program. Additionally, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be managed in closed containers during accumulation, storage, transportation, and management.



### 1.6 **Regulatory Definitions**

(a) COMMENTS : Two commenters recommended that EPA not define "disposable industrial wipe," since the term is not used within the context of the rule, only within the preamble discussion. Another commenter suggested removing both "reusable industrial wipe" and "disposable industrial wipe.'' The commenter thinks the proposed regulatory language is clear as to which requirements apply when industrial wipes are intended to be disposed, as opposed to when they are intended to be laundered or dry cleaned for reuse. [ 155, 184, 311]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agree s with commenters that said “disposable industrial wipe” and “reusable industrial wipe” do not need to be defined in the regulations because these terms are only used in the preamble to t he November 2003 proposed rule, as well as the preamble to the final rule, and are not used in the regulatory language. We have thus deleted these definitions from the final rule regulations.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that the definition of the term "industrial wipes handling fa cility" is potentially problematic because it may be interpreted as referring to a "facility" as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, and because it could also be interpreted to apply to generators removing solvent from their own wipes. In the final rule, the comment er thinks EPA should be aware of these potential problems, should ensure the final rule does not inadvertently place requirements on generating entities intended for intermediate handlers, and should use a term other than "facility". [155]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA i s not finalizing the proposed intra

- company transfer provision in the final rule and is thus not finalizing the definition of “industrial wipes handling facility” as part of that provision.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that the proposed exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22) and (b)(19), and the proposed new definitions in 40 CFR 260.10, 68 FR 65618

- 19, repeatedly use the word “industrial” when referring to wipes. The commenter believes t his could create an unwarranted inference that wipes from non

- industr ial sources, such as laboratories, educational institutions, or government entities, do not qualify for the exclusion. The commenter suggested that EPA delete “industrial” from the proposed definitions in § 260.10 and the exclusions in §§ 261.4(a)(22) and (b)(19). Alternatively, the commenter thinks EPA could explain in the preamble to the final rule that any entity, not just industrial entities, may qualify for the exclusions. [155]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA agree s with the commenter stating that the term “industrial ” should be deleted from “industrial wipe.” We did not intend to make “non

- industrial” entities, such as laboratories, academic institutions, and government agencies, ineligible for these conditional exclusions and agree that the term “industrial” confuses this is sue. In the final rule we, therefore, refer to “solvent

- contaminated wipe” or simply “wipe” and have deleted all references to “industrial” wipe.

### 21 (d) COMMENTS : Three commenters noted that EPA’s definition of wipes was narrow in regard to material: the definition appears to be restricted to “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...." this restrictive language may be read to limit the proposed rule's applicability to industrial wipes comprised of wood pulp, cotton, and polyester materials. The commenter believes that o ther materials, such as rayon, wool, silk, or other materials yet to be develope d, may be considered ineligible and that EPA has not provided an explanation of why it has limited the composition of industrial wipes. If the definition remains as proposed, the commenter argued that a generator may be re quired to restrict industrial wipe composition (and potentially increase costs) without any increased environmental benefit to secure a conditional exemption. One of the commenters recommended that EPA should replace the definition of "industrial wipe" wit h "wipes" such as to include non

- industrial wipes within the scope of the exclusion, and the term should be broadly defined to include paper and fabric wipes of all compositions as well as cotton tipped swabs. The commenter offered

a revised definition: "w ipe means woven or non

- woven wipes made of wood pulp, fabric, or cotton including paper towels, shop towels, rags, and swabs. Wipes of all kinds...." [155, 193, 303]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with comments that suggested simplifying the definition of “wipe.” The final definition of “wipe” include s several types of material and we have added “other material” to include materials not specifically listed or potential future materials. We also have deleted the word “industrial” from “industrial wipe” to clarify that EPA did not intend to make “non

- industrial” entities, such as laboratories, academic institutions, and government agencies, ineligible for these conditional exclusions

.
(e) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not consistently refer to affected regulatory sections. Within the preamble, the commenter noted that reference is made to the hazardous waste provisions within the CFR beginning with 40 CFR part 260, whereas the proposed rule refers to it as beginning with 40 CFR part 261. The commenter said that the title of the proposed rule refers to part 260, and changes are proposed for part 260. The commenter suggested that EPA review the rule and preamble f or consistency with regard to the references to the hazardous waste provisions within the CFR. The commenter pointed out that the hazardous waste regulations are commonly referred to as beginning with part 260, which contains the first hazardous waste regu lations. [155]

One commenter stated that in 68 FR 65618, the proposed 40 CFR 260.10 “no free liquids” and “solvent extraction” definition s refer to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24),” while t he correct reference appears to be 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22).In addition, the comme nter noted that on 68 FR 65619, proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(iii) has a reference to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(iv) ,” and that t he correct reference appears to be 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iv). [262]

(e) RESPONSE : The references in the final rule have been updated and corrected.

(f

) COMMENTS : Two commenters requested more clarity on the term "solvent

- contaminated," which is used frequently within the regulation. If the regulator y exclusion is not only for wipes used in solvent cleaning applications, the commenter think s the term "solvent

- contaminated" should be deleted or a definition for this term needs to be provided. The commenter believes s ome confusion currently exists, such as if an industrial wipe used to clean up a gasoline spill falls under this regulation or i f the exclusion is strictly for wipes used in solvent cleaning applications. The commenter wants the phrase "solvent

- contaminated industrial wipe" added to the definitions section. If this phrase is defined, the commenter argues that the language in propos ed 261.4(a)(22) and (b)( 19) that describes solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes can be removed and replaced with the phrase "solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes." [165, 311]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the comments that suggested adding a definition of “solvent

- contaminated wipe” to the regulations. This definition simplifies the exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) and (b)(18) because these exclusions can now simply refer to the term “solvent

- contaminated wipe” without having to duplicate the entire defini tion in those places. The definition of “solve nt

- contaminated wipe” in the final rule is generally consistent with the regulatory language EPA proposed in November 2003 at §§ 261.4(a)(22) and 261.4(b)(19), with some modifications.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested using the term “generating entity” rather than "generator," as “generator” already is a long

- standing defined term in 40 CFR 260.10 that applies only to an entity managing

### 22 hazardous waste. This commenter believed it was inappropriat e to use that defined term in regulations that provide exclusions to solid and haz ardous waste regulation. [155]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with the commenter that suggested not using the term “generator.” Free liquids removed from the solvent

- contam inated wipes and its containers (a requirement of the exclusions) must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations. EPA therefore believes that the use of generator is appropriate.



## 2. Basis for Solid Waste Exclusion for Reusable Wi **pes**

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter generally supported EPA’s approach to defining whether or not a shop towel, rag, or wipe is reusable or disposable based on its handling and method of disposal. Another commenter stated that EPA must remain cognizant throughou t this rulemaking of the limits on its jurisdiction to only regulate discarded materials under RCRA Subtitle C. The commenter believes that o nly the solvents in the laundry sludge, and not the reusable shop towel itself, fall within EPA's RCRA jurisdiction . [320, 461]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that supports EPA’s approach to defining whether a solvent

contaminated wipe is a solid waste or not based on its handling and disposition. EPA also agrees with the commenter that EPA’s regulations must reflect its authority under RCRA. EPA also agrees that f ree liquid spent solvent itself remains solid waste and thus, is subject to the applicable hazardous waste regulations under RCRA Subtitle C upon removal from the solvent

- contaminated wipe and/or from the container holding the wipes.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter discussed EPA's characterization that a used wipe is predominantly a product that needs servicing (i.e., solvent removal) before it can be used, and no discard occurs until after the conta mination is removed from the wipe (p. 65593, second and third columns). Except when used to clean up unused solvent spills, the ‘servicing’ needed by a used industrial wipe is more than simply the removal of solvent, but also the removal of contaminants fi rst cleaned from the item that had been wiped. As such, these ‘dirty’ industrial wipes meet the 261.1(c)(1) “spent materials” definition, and qualify as a 261.2(a)(2)(ii) discarded material because it is recycled by being reclaimed, per 261.2(c)(3). Hence, we believe it is incorrect to state that “no discard occurs until after the contamination is removed from the wipe” because the used wipe itself is a discarded material before the laundering/servicing takes place. [193]

(b) RESPONSE : Under RCRA, for a ma terial to be regulated as a hazardous waste, it must first be a solid waste. There are three key considerations specific to solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes that demonstrate they are not solid wastes.

The first consideration is the physical and chemic al characteristics of the solvent

- contaminated wipe. Under the final rule conditional exclusion, reusable wipes must have no free liquids at the point of transport by the generator for cleaning. This “no free liquids” standard minimizes the potential for r eleases of hazardous constituents into the environment (e.g., through spills). Furthermore, the wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

leaking, closed containers, which reduces the possibility the solvents will be released to the environ ment.

The second consideration is that the solvent

- contaminated wipes have recognized value. Laundries own the wipes and routinely count the soiled wipes received from their customers. If a wipe is missing, the customer is charged a fee. Therefore, genera tors have an economic incentive to manage dirty wipes appropriately and ensure they are returned to the laundry or dry cleaner. The contaminated wipes are thus managed as valuable commodities throughout their lifecycles.

The third consideration includes t he characteristics of the recycling market for reusable wipes. Reusable wipes are typically managed under service contacts, in which a customer contracts with a laundry or dry cleaner for the service of clean wipes. This type of business model is noteworth y because it differs from traditional hazardous waste recycling markets in which a reclaimer is typically paid by a generator to receive and manage the hazardous secondary materials and is not typically paid to send the recycled product back to the generat or. In some cases, hazardous waste reclaimers gain their primary revenue from the fees charged to generators to receive and manage

### 2 3 the hazardous waste and not from the sale of the recycled product. This creates an incentive for the hazardous waste reclaime r to overaccumulate materials, which increases the possibility of mismanagement of the hazardous wastes. However, this incentive does not exist for laundries and dry cleaners managing solvent

- contaminated wipes because the laundry or dry cleaner derives it s primary revenue from the service of clean wipes back to the customer. There is thus no economic incentive for a laundry or dry cleaner to overaccumulate solvent

- contaminated wipes.



### 2.1 Applicability of Partial Reclamation Variance Criteria

(a) COMMENTS : Three commenters stated that EPA did not properly account for the six factors set forth in the “partial reclamation” exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c): (1) the degree of processing the material has undergone and the degree of further processin g that is required; (2) the value of the material after it has been reclaimed; (3) the degree to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material; (4) the extent to which an end market for the reclaimed material is guaranteed; (5) the extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss; and (6) other relevant factors.

[199

- 1003, 283, 351]

One commenter stated that EPA has failed to adequately consider the first, second, third, fifth and sixth factors, and its proposed exclusio n is consequently unlawful. [283]

• Regarding the first factor, the commenter stated that EPA unlawfully failed to consider that its “no free liquids” condition does not mandate any initial “proce ssing” of solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes by wipe generators and will leave most, if not all, of the solvent on reusable wipes to be “processed” by industrial launderers. “Substantial” partial reclamation is not typically performed now by wipe generators and would not be required under the A gency’s proposed conditions for the solid waste exclusion. In fact, EPA’s proposal would not mandate any processing of reusable wipes by wipe generators. As such, the first factor under 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(a)

- regarding the degree of initial processing und ertaken

- has not been met. EPA has failed to evaluate the “degree of processing” reusable wipes would undergo under its proposed “no free liquids” condition. Had it done so, the Agency could only have reasonably concluded that the tentative “test” it has proposed would not mandate any processing and that to the extent such processing nonetheless occurred, it would hardly comport with “ensuring” that (i) “wipes going to reclamation have low levels of solvent consistent with [the partial reclamation] factor

, ” or, (ii) consistent with EPA’s application of that factor, wipes have been subjected to “substantial” reclamation

.

• Regarding the second factor, the same commenter stated that EPA unlawfully failed to consider that the initial “reclamation,” if any, cond ucted by reusable wipe generators under the proposed “no free liquids” condition would not increase or contribute m eaningfully to the value of reusable wipes. T he proposed rule falls far short of what EPA has typically required for this criterion to be sat isfied. The Agency does not merely require a minimal incremental increase in value but rather the addition of significant value, as demonstrated, for example, by the willingness of subsequent reclaimers to pay for the partially reclaimed materials. Instead of adding economic value to reusable wipe s to make them mo re attractive to laundries, reusable wipe generators simply pay launderers for (as EPA puts it) the “service” of removing the hazardous waste to render it nonhazardous

.

• Regarding the third factor, the commenter stated that under EPA’s proposed conditions, reusable wipe s sent for laundering would not be analogous to “raw materials,” i.e., “commodities.” There are two reasons why solvent

- soiled reusable wipes are not like an “analogous raw material” under the conditions of EPA’s proposed exclusion: (i) they would be minimally “processed,” if at all, such that they would contain so much solvent that the value of the wipe is extremely limited without substantial further processing, and (ii) they would n ot be handled to prevent, or even “minimize,” loss. In addition, the Agency fails to account for the fact that raw materials or commodities are typically labeled when they are transported in commerce. Also , the

### 24 record indicates that reusable wipe s are not handled in a commodity

- like manner; the ownersh ip of, and benefit from, reusable wipe s by industrial laundries does not ensure that these wipes are treated as valuable commodities and in a “responsible manner.” While industrial laundries have an incentive to ensure that wipes are reused, they have no incentive to ensure that the solvents in the wipes are reused; it is not a legitimate basis to grant an exclusion from the definition of solid waste when the hazardous constituent of concern to EPA in those wip es is simply discarded without regulatory controls. A fi nal point differentiating reusable wipe s from analogous raw materials is that shop towels contain levels of metals not found in analogous raw materials that do not contribute to the function or value of the resulting re cycled product (commenter cites Gradient study and several precedents).

• Regarding the fifth factor, the commenter stated that EPA unlawfully failed to consider that its proposed transport “container” requirement for reusable wipe s, when coupled with its proposed “no free liquids” test, will fail to “minimize” loss of solvent during the handling of those wipes. EPA recognizes that plastic and cloth bags might allow liquid solvent to leak even if no free liquids are present, and yet has pr oposed a “no free liquids” test that it knows will result in free liquids in containers, a condition that the Agency acknowledges in turn (albeit implicitly) will result in loss of solvent from containers. Consequently, EPA’s proposal (i) is arbitrary and capricious in light of the Agency’s requirement for other solid waste exclusions that releases of hazardous constituents be “prevented ,” and (ii) ensures that the “minimize loss” factor in the 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) test for determining if an exclusion from the definition of solid waste is warranted will not be met.

• Regarding the sixth factor (other relevant factors), EPA has failed to adequately consider:

− That none of the solvent

- the constit uent that renders reusable wipe s hazardous in the first place

- is

necessarily reclaimed by either the generator or the launderer under EPA’s proposal.

− The significance of the presence of hazardous metals that are RCRA hazardous constituents in reusable

industrial wipes [study on potential exposure to metals in reusab le shop towels attached to comment].

• The commenter cited several other reasons that EPA’s proposed exclusion is unlawful:

− The proposal fails to req uire partial reclamation by reusable wipe generators.

− The proposal fails to regulate reusable wipe s as hazardous waste after they are generated but before they

are initially reclaimed.

− In the absence of a lawful alternative rationale supporting such a provision, proposed 40 C.F.R. §

261.4(a)(22)(iv) providing for intra

- company transfers of reusable wipe s co ntaining free liquids in order to remove solvent from the wipes sufficient to meet the “no free liquids” test is si mply unlawful. Because such reusable wipe s would not have been initially “reclaimed” prior to shipment to another facility for removal of fre e liquids, the exclusion for “partially reclaimed” materials could not lawfully apply to such shipment and management of these materials prior to shipment.

− An exclusion from the de finition of solid waste for reusable wipe s on the basis that they might othe rwise

become subject to state solid waste fees would be equally unlawful.

• The commenter stated that EPA cannot lawfully promulgate a final exclusion from the de finition of solid waste for reusable wipe s. I nstead, in order to furnish reusable wipe s the regulatory relief EPA seeks to provide, it must establish an exclusion from the definition of hazardous, rather than solid, waste. In that way, the Agency would not need to satisfy the tests required to grant a solid waste variance for “partially reclaimed ” materials but instead can establish those exclusion conditions that, in EPA’s judgment, are needed to adequately protect human health and the environm ent. EPA should impose upon reusable wipe s the same set of regulatory conditions it decides to promulgat e for disposable wipes conditionally excluded from the definition of hazardous waste.

(a) RESPONSE : In response to comments on the application of the partial reclamation variance criteria to reusable wipes, it was not EPA’s intention in the proposal to sp ecifically apply the criteria found in 40 CFR 260.31(c) to solvent

- contaminated wipes being laundered or dry cleaned. Rather, the Agency present ed the concept of the partial reclamation va riance as a general framework for determining whether reusable wipes are “commodity

- like.” The

### 25 proposal then lists the three considerations underpinning our position that reusable wipes are “commodity

- like” and thus, not solid wastes. These considerations remain the basis for the solid waste exclusion in the final rule.

A s stated in RCRA section 1004(27), “solid waste” is defined as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material * * * resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural a ctivities.” While the spent solvent removed from solvent

- contaminated w ipes in the form of free liquid m ay be solid and hazardous waste , the reusable wipes are not if managed according to the conditions in the final rule . In the November 2003 proposed rule , EPA used the “commodity

- like” criteria as a general framework for explaining why solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes are not solid wastes when they meet the conditions of the exclusion, and those same considerations remain valid, including (1) the fact t hat solvent

contaminated wipes can be processed to remove free liquids, (2) the fact that the wipes are managed as valuable commodities throughout their lifecycle, and (3) the fact that ownership of the wipes remains the same throughout the process (68 FR 65593, November 20, 2003). However, the Agency did not intend to imply that the solid waste exclusion for solvent

- contaminated wipes was based directly on the partial reclamation variance regulatory criteria. The decision to finalize the exclusion is based on the considerations discussed above.

In response to comments specific to aspects of the proposal:

• EPA does not mandate “processing” of the reusable wipes because the final rule is not based directly on the partial reclamati on variance regulatory crite ria . However, EPA notes that under the final rule, g enerators must ensure that reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids as determined using the Paint Filter Liquid s Test (EPA methods test 9095B) prior to sending the wipes for laundering. This is a performance

- based condition and thus generators may use any of a range of methods to remove solvent from the wipe such as centrifuging, mechanical

- wringing, screen

- bottom drums, microwave technology, and vacuum extractors. To ensure that the sol vent

- contaminated wipes meet the standard, generators may conduct sampling or use knowledge regarding how much solvent is present in each wipe. Additionally, generators must document their process for meeting the no free liquids condition

.

• EPA disagrees with the commenter that stated that reusable wipes are not valuable and would not be handled to prevent or “minimize” loss. On the contrary, reusable solvent

- contaminat ed wipes have recognized value in that l aundries own the wipes and routine ly count the soiled wipes received from their customers. If a wipe is missing, the customer is charged a fee. Therefore, generators have an economic incentive to manage dirty wipes appropriately and ensure they are returned to the laundry or dry cleaner. T he contaminated wipes are thus managed as valuable commodities throughout their lifecycles.

• EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the importance of labeling reusable wipes, as is typical for other raw materials and commodities. Therefore, under the fina l rule, reusable wipes (as well as disposable wipes) must be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” in order to communicate the contents to facility employees, transporters, emergency personnel, inspectors as well as other downstream handlers.

• EPA does not agree with the commenter who stated that “it is not a legitimate basis to grant an exclusion from the definition of solid waste when the hazardous constituent of concern is discarded without regulatory controls.” EPA’s long

- standing policy reg arding legitimate recycling does not require that 100% of the hazardous secondary material be reclaimed in order to be legitimately recycled. In addition, as a condition of the exclusion, at the point of transport for cleaning, the solvent

- contaminated wip es and their containers must contain no free liquids as defined in 40 CFR 260.10. Free liquid spent solvent must be managed under the applicable hazardous waste regulations and thus are not discarded without regulatory controls

. Furthermore, laundry and dr y cleaner discharges are regulated under the CWA, which ensures that the solvents removed from solvent

- contaminated wipes during the cleaning process are properly managed to avoid adverse affects on human health and the environment. To reduce confusion, we are clarifying in the regulatory language that reusable wipes (that meet the conditions of the final rule) must be sent to laundries and dry cleaners whose discharges, if any, are regulated under the applicable provisions of the CWA.

• EPA agrees with the commenter that the proposed covered container standard would not be adequate to minimize loss of solvent during the management of the solvent

- contaminated wipes. Therefore, EPA has

### 26 strengthened the container standard and is requiring in the final rule tha t solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed, non

- leaking containers. This container standard will reduce the possibility of solvent release to the environment.

• EPA disagrees with the commenter that stated that EPA has failed to adequately consider the significance of the presence of hazardous metals in reusable wipes. In its 2003 proposal, EPA proposed that wipes that exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corr osivity, or reactivity because of wastes with which they are co

contaminated would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion (68 FR 65602). Thus, solvent

contaminated wipes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic for metals would not be eligible for t he conditional exclusions. This is because w e did not evaluate risks posed by solvent

- contaminated wipes that exhibit characteristic s due to co

- contaminants, other than ignitability. EPA has finalized this provision in the final rule.

• Although the final r ule is not based directly on the partial reclamation variance regulatory criteria, EPA notes that it is not finalizing its proposed intra

- company provision for reasons stated in Section 7 below.

• EPA also notes that it is not excluding reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste on the basis that they might otherwise become subject to state solid waste fees, as the commenter believes.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that the basis for the exclusion is fundamentally flawed because the focus of EPA ’s regulatory analysis should be on the solvent waste, not the fact that the wipes are reused after they have been cleaned. In addition, EPA has failed to adhere to all the factors in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c): the record does not demonstrate that substantial reclamation takes place; the no free liquids test does not meet the processing test (the rule does not require any processing at all); the value of the reclaimed material does not increase; and the material is not handled in a way to minimize loss. The com menter notes that EPA’s proposed conditions for container transport suggest that solvents will escape from containers. [351]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA do es not agree that the solvent

- contaminated wipe itself is necessarily a solid waste because the residuals (sol vents) from the reclamation process will eventually be discarded. EPA’s long

- standing policy regarding legitimate recycling does not require that 100% of the hazardous secondary material be reclaimed in order to be legitimately recycled. In addition, as a condition of the exclusion, at the point of transport for cleaning or disposal, the solvent

- contaminated wipes and their containers must contain no free liquids as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, thus helping to ensure that free liquid solvents are not being dis carded. Furthermore, EPA has strengthened the container standard from the proposal; solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed, non

- leaking containers. This container standard will reduce the possibility of solvent re lease to the environment. In response to comments on the application of the partial reclamation variance criteria to reusable wipes, it was not EPA’s intention in the proposal to specifically apply the criteria found in § 260.31(c) to solvent

contaminated wipes being laundered or dry cleaned. Rather, the Agency present ed the concept of the partial reclamation va riance as a general framework for determining whether reusable wipes are “commodity

- like.”



### 2.2 Support Basis for Exclusion of Reusables from Solid **Waste Definition**

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters wrote to specifically support EPA’s conclusion that reusable wipes are commodity

- like and should not be regulated as solid waste, as opposed to disposable wipes that are discarded. One commenter noted th at reusable wipe s meet the three criteria EPA relied on in its rulemaking, “[t]he first factor is that reusable towels are partially reclaimed by laundry customers before they are returned for laundering (e.g., laundries encourage their customers to remove excess solvent so that no free liquids are present). The second factor is that reusable towels are “handled throughout the laundering or reuse process as valuable commodities because the laundry benef its from their use and reuse.” As detailed in the March 9, 2004

, public hearing testimony of Jim Buik of The Roscoe Company, laundry customers are financially responsible for the towels in their possession

- if a shop towel is lost or destroyed, the customer pays to replace it. The third factor is that because the towels are owned by the same entity throughout the use and reuse process, laundries have an incentive to ensure that they are reused and not discarded. Reusable towels are not just a commodity; they are one of the primary assets that laundries invest in to generate profits, and can more properly be described as capital goods. EPA’s proposal will also appropriately

### 27 protect human health and the environment, encourage recycling, and is consistent with some state laws. In many cases the contaminants are re moved for reuse, and that process is properly governed by other existing regulations. If reusable wipes were excluded only from the definition of hazardous waste, they would be subject to state solid waste laws and could be subject to state solid waste fees. One commenter supported the exclusion as long as wipes are not abandoned. [155, 199

- 1012, 199

- 1017, 246, 262, 264, 267, 280, 286, 304, 314, 317, 338, 343, 346, 348, 358]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those commenters that argued that EPA should exclude reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste as the Agency proposed in the November 2003 proposed rule. Given the nature of the solvent

- contaminated wipe, the inherent economic value of the wipe, and the characteristics of the reusable wipe market, reusable wipes managed under the final rule are not solid wastes. Because reusable wipes ar e not solid wastes under the final rule conditional exclusion, the final rule should not impact ho w state solid waste programs currently apply to generators and handlers of solvent

- contaminated wipes.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that, since inter

- industry handling is necessary to promote recycling of reusable wipes, the proposed rule should no t contain limits on inter

- industry recycling, regardless of the outcome of the “Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste” proposed rule. [262]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA has decided not to finalize the provision allowing intra

- company or inter

- company transfers of solvent

- contaminated wipes for solvent extraction. Although we acknowledge commenters’ arguments that intra

company transfers may allow smaller facilities access to solvent extraction equipment and technologies and therefore increase solvent reuse, we n ote that, since this rule was proposed in November 2003, EPA has addressed appropriate regulation of intra

- company reclamation by promulgating 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), which allows off

- site transfers of hazardous secondary materials being reclaimed under the c ontrol of the generator, provided certain conditions are met. Therefore, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes that wish to transfer their wipes within the same company for the purposes of reclamation may use this exclusion, promulgated in October 2008 (73 FR 64668).

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter supported a broader exclusion that would also exclude solvents reclaimed off

site. [304]

(c) RESPONSE : Appropriate regulation of spent solvent reclaimed off

- site has been addressed in a separate 2008 Definition of Solid Waste final rule (73 FR 64668) and in a 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 44094).

(d) COMMENTS : A more narrow exemption would negatively impact businesses that use and launder shop towels, would increase untreated releases of solvents into the environmen t, and reduce recycling. [199

- 1018, 314, 317, 343, 348]

(d) RESPONSE : Facilities operating under the solid waste exclusion for reusable wipes must ensure that wipes contain no free liquids at the point of being sent for cleaning on

- site or transported off

- site for cleaning. This condition serves to reduce the amount of solvent contained in the wipes when sent for cleaning, while also encouraging reuse of the solvents by making the free liquid more available for recycling. Additionally, solvent

contaminated wipes must go to laundries or dry cleaners whose discharge, if any, is regulated under the CWA, which addresses any potential releases to surface waters.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA’s proposed exclusion is fully consistent with the contro lling case law construing RCRA’s definition of “solid waste,” including American Mining Congress v. EPA , 824 F.2d 1177, 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1987) and Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA , 208 F.3d 1047, 1051

- 52 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The proposed exclusio n of reusable shop towels from the RCRA solid waste definition is consistent with federal RCRA jurisprudence

- unlike disposable rags, reusable shop towels are not disposed of, thrown away or abandoned and, therefore, are not part of the nation’s waste dis posal problem. In addition, the proposed exclusion is consistent with the logic of existing exclusions from the solid waste definition. [199

- 1017, 348]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the solid waste exclusion for reusable wipes is consistent with RCRA case law on the definition of solid waste.

### 28 

## 3. Basis for Hazardous Waste Exclusion for Disposable Wipes

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter supported EPA’s proposed exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable wipes; treating disposable wipes as hazard ous waste is burdensome and unnecessary. [312] Another commenter supported the goal of the exclusion as an attempt to simplify waste management, but felt that the rule as written does not significantly improve the regulatory working environment. [328]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter who supported the basis of hazardous waste exclusion for disposable wipes as discussed in the proposal. Regarding the commenter that felt the rule does not significantly improve the working environment, EPA notes tha t it has made improvements to the final rule that address this commenter’s concerns, including: (1) eliminating the impractical “dry” standard for disposable wipes; (2) allowing more solvents to be eligible for the exclusion based on EPA’s final risk analy sis; (3) establishing an accumulation time limit and labeling for both reusable and disposable wipes; and (4) not finalizing the intra

- company provision, which would have allowed off

- site transport of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids.

(b) CO MMENTS : One commenter wrote on behalf of a task force in which the minority supported the exclusion if some changes were made to the enforceability and implementation provisions , including prohibiting inter

- company transfer of solvent

- contaminated wipes, r emoving the “dry” standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills, and establishing an accumulation limit for disposable wipes. A majority opposed the exclusion for various reasons, including because it sets a precedent promoting dispo sal over r ecovery, and because s tates may not adopt it because it does not adequately consider the risks of disp osal, and/or it conflicts with s tate law or environmental objectives. [325]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA has made a number of changes in final rule to improve the enfor ceability and implementation of the exclusion, including: (1) not finalizing the intra

- company provision, which would have allowed off

- site transport of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids; (2) eliminating the impractical “dry” standard for disposable wipes; and (3) establishing an accumulation time limit for both reusable and disposable wipes. Additionally, facilities using the exclusion must keep records that document where the wipes will be sent for disposal and how the facility is meeting the accumulation time limit and no free liquids conditions. Additionally, EPA is using the Paint Filter Liquids Test to determine when solvent

- contaminated wipes contain free liquids. This test is inexpensive and relatively easy to conduct and generally p rovides clear results. This test improves the objectivity of the condition, making it easier to implement and enforce. EPA has also not finalized the proposed “dry” standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills, as commenters argued it would b e impossible to ensure that each wipe contain no more than five grams of solvent. Regarding commenters who argued that the disposable wipes exclusion does not promote recycling, we note that, because wipes must contain no free liquids when sent for disposa l, EPA believes that this will, in fact, encourage reuse of the free liquid solvent, since it will be made more available for recycling. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) , we estimate the pollution prevention and waste minimization benefits to be bet ween $0.21 million and $0.96 million per year for the disposable wipes exclusion. Regarding the risks of disposal, since publication of the 2003 proposal, EPA has conducted a robust peer reviewed risk analysis, published in 2009, that demonstrates that the solvent

- contaminated wipes and sludge from laundries do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when disposed. The Agency believes that the changes made in the final rule will align the rule more closely with state law and environme ntal objectives.

(c) COMMENTS : Several commenters opposed the proposed exclusion. Two commenters stated that the proposed exclusion would compromise the effectiveness of the land disposal restrictions (LDRs)

. The exclusion of solvent

contaminated towels desti ned for disposal will likely result in putting wastes in landfills in conflict with the land disposal requirements. Under the proposal there will be no ability to enforce the LDRs . Additional reasons for opposition include the following: 1) generators shou ld not be allowed to burn disposable wipes contaminated with F

- listed hazardous wastes in combustors or other facilities not regulated by the standards of RCRA subtitle C; 2) employees, regulatory officials and downstream handlers should not be required t o weigh used wipes because handling of soiled wipes should be minimized to prevent exposure; 3) the proposed exclusion runs counter to the principle of environmental management that recycling is always preferred to disposal; 4) disposable wipes would not b e subject to speculative accumulation requirements; and 5) there is a lack of accountability for disposable wipes in that no one will check containers for free liquids as laundries will for reusable wipes when they open containers and remove the wipes

. [271, 331]

### 29 (c) RESPONSE : Based on EPA’s final risk analysis , the Agency has determined that certain solvent

- conta minated wipes do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when disposed in composite

- lined landfills. Therefore, EPA finds t hat disposable wipes are not hazardous wastes from the point of generation, provided the conditions of the final 261.4(b)(18) exclusion are met. Because the LDR regulations apply only to hazardous wastes, they are not applicable to solvent

- contaminated wip es that meet the conditions of the exclusion. Additionally, EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that the solvent

- contaminated wipes and sludge from laundries do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment. EPA also requires generators to document where the solvent

contaminated wipes are being sent to ensure that the conditions of the rule are being met. In response to the reasons for opposition: 1) As explained in the 2003 proposal, EPA has promulgated revised air emission control
requ irements under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for municipal waste combustors and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators, which provide a level of protection comparable to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous waste incinerators (68 FR 65602). Under the NSPS, municipal waste combustors and other combustion facilities must comply with emission standards, including those that address dioxin and furan emissions. To be clear that wipes may be sent only to combustors that meet these standards, we have revised the regulatory language to allow disposable wipes (that meet the conditions of the final rule) to be sent to municipal waste combustors and other combustion facilities that are regulated u nder the NSPS in section 129 of the CAA; 2) EPA has not finalized the proposed “dry” standard (each wipes must contain no more than five grams of solvent each) for solvent

- contaminated wipes being disposed in a landfill, thus facilities will not have to “w eigh” wipes in order to meet the exclusion; 3) Regarding commenters who argued that the disposable wipes exclusion does not promote recycling, we note that, because wipes must contain no free liquids when sent for disposal, EPA believes that this will, in fact, encourage reuse of the free liquid spent solvent, since it will be made more available for recycling. In the RIA , we estimate the pollution prevention and waste minimization benefits to be between $0.21 million and $0.96 million per year for the disp osable wipes exclusion; 4) EPA has added an accumulation time limit for disposable (and reusable) wipes in the final rule. Facilities may not accumulate and store solvent

- contaminated wipes for more than 180 days; and 5) EPA has made a few changes in the f inal rule to improve accountability and to enable better compliance monitoring of solvent

- contaminated wipes with the “no free liquids” condition. For example, EPA is determining “no free liquids” using an EPA methods test (the Paint Filter Liquids Test) a nd is requiring generators to document the process by which they will meet the “no free liquids” standard. EPA believes these changes are sufficient for ensuring consistent and proper implementation with the “no free liquids” condition for disposable wipes

.
(d) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that the mandate to comply with RCRA LDR treatment standards is determined at the point a hazardous waste is generated, not at the point of treatment or disposal. On page 65595 of the preamble to the proposed rule (col. 1, sec. V.B.2.a), EPA states “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 .” This statement suggests that t he exclusion may not apply to a solvent

contaminated industrial wipe until some point after the wipe is generated, depending on the meaning of the phrase “discarded by the generator.” The commenter requests that the notice of final rulemaking explain more fully the meaning of the phrase “discarded by the generator,” especially as it relates to the point of generation for disposable wipes and to the need to address compliance with the LDR treatment standards. [184]

(d) RESPONSE : The Agency has clarified that so lvent

- contaminated disposable wipes managed under the final rule exclusion “are not hazardous wastes from the point of generation” of the wipes. Because the LDR regulations apply only to hazardous wastes, they are not applicable to solvent

- contaminated wip es that meet the conditions of the exclusion.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the proposed regulatory text for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste is much narrower than the scope described in the Preamble and Background Document. The commenter stated that the proposed regulatory text for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste encompasses less than the applicable scope described in Part III. Summary of Proposed Changes, page 65589; Section III. C, Who Would Be Affected , page 65590; paragraph V.A., Scope of Solvents Covered, page 65593; and throughout, “Technical Background Document: Proposed Exclusions from the Definition of Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste for Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes,” August 20, 2003. The commenter stated that the scope of the hazardous waste exclusion as presented in the Preamble, page 65593, ought to cover: (1) industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) due to u se with

### 30 solvents, [both listed and non

- listed]; (2) industrial wipes contaminated with F001

- F005 spent solvents, or comparable P

- and U

- listed commercial chemical products that have been spilled and cleaned up; and (3) industrial wipes used with solvents th at are co

- contaminated with a material that makes them characteristically hazardous for ignitability. [155]

(e) RESPONSE : In the preamble to the 2003 proposed rule, EPA discussed that solvent

- contaminated wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to co

- contaminants are not eligible for the hazardous waste exclusion, unless the characteristic is ignitability. Specifically, EPA proposed that wipes that would exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of wastes wi th which they are co

- contaminated would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion. On the other hand, because the 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 conditions (68 FR 65602). However, EPA had not made this clear in the proposed regulatory language on 68 FR 65 619. Under the final rule, EPA has finalized and made clear that the definition of solvent

- contaminated wipe includes wipes that are co

- contaminated with other contaminants that exhibit only the characteristic of ignitability. Specifically, the final rule includes wipes that (1) contain one or more of the F001 through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding P

- or U

- listed solvents found in § 261.33; (2) exhibit a hazardous characteristic found in part 261 subpart C when that characterist ic results from a solvent listed in part 261; and/or (3) exhibit only the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability found in § 261.21 due to the presence of one or more solvents that are not listed in part 261.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter requested th at EPA add language to the proposed rule to extend the conditional exclusion from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste to wipes that are being managed by generators that use a licensed, permitted hazardous waste treatment facility, as many generato rs of dis posable wipes have their wipes transported to treatment facilities that utilize heat recovery (e.g. cement kilns). Licensed, permitted hazardous waste treatment facilities pr ovide the greatest protection of human health and the environment. The proposed rule provides for the use of non

- hazardous waste landfills as well as municipal and other non

- hazardous waste combustion facilities, but does not specifically address the use of permitted treatment facilities . Generators who choose to use permitted treatment facilities should qualify for the conditional exclusion.

Additionally, EPA should clarify in the rule that disposable wipes that do not meet the five grams of solvent per wipe condition, but that are bei ng managed by generators that use a permitted hazardous waste treatment facility continue to meet the conditional exclusion from the regulatory defi nition of hazardous waste, and disposable 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, but that are being managed by generators that use a permitted hazardous waste treatment facility continue to meet the conditional exclusion from the regulato ry definition of hazardous waste. [279]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who argued that solvent

- contaminated wipes should also be allowed to go to hazardous waste permitted facilities under the exclusion because the hazardous waste regulations provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. EPA has explicitly allowed transport of excluded solvent

contaminated wipes to hazardous waste permitted facilities regulated under 40 CFR part s 264 or 265 in the final rule regulatory text.

EPA has not finalized the proposed “dry” standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to landfills. Instead, solvent

contaminated wipes being disposed must contain no free liquids. EPA agrees that wipes sent to permitted facilities must meet the condition s of the exclusion, for example, the no free liquids condition. Solvent

- contaminated wipes, when managed under the exclusion, do not have to meet certain hazardous waste requirements, such as a manifest or tank and container standards. Thus, the conditions of the disposable wipes exclusion, such as transport in non

leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes,” must apply in order to address potential risks from solvent emissions and to adequately protect human health and the environment.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that the proposed conditional exclusion for solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes that are destined for disposal is analogous in many ways to delisting a specific waste stream. The risk implications are virtually identical because most delisting reviews consider disposal in a municipal landfill as a
worst

- case management scenario for the delisted waste stream. Therefore, EPA should consider applying similar

### 31 criteria to both risk evaluations, specifically the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) program for evaluating the risk of disposing a delisted waste in a municipal landfill. When this model is used to evaluate risk associated with the disposal of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes, the outcome appears to be inconsistent with the conclusions of EPA's risk screening analysis, and may indicate a significant risk associated with disposal of solvent contaminated industrial wipes in a municipal landfill, even when limited to just the solvents identif ied in Table 5. EPA should review the results of applying the DRAS model to the disposal of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes and reconcile any variation in conclusions between it and the risk screening analysis model used in support of the proposed ru le. [325]

(g) RESPONSE : The DRAS model was designed to evaluate delisting petitions submitted under 40 CFR 260.22 to determine the potential risks arising from land disposal of a specific wastestream. Thus, the delisting process uses characterizations and volumes of waste generated by a particular generator. Rather than performing additional modeling with the DRAS delisting model, which is designed for case

- specific analyses, EPA developed the revised, robust risk analysis using models that reflect conditi ons at landfills nationally and updated estimates of the quantity of solvents on wipes and in laundry sludge. The revised risk analysis is included in the docket for the final rule. The revised risk analysis used a state

- of the art landfill model, national

- level datasets, and a probabilistic national

- level modeling approach to develop the Risk

- Based Mass Loading Limits (RB

- MLL) and Estimated Landfill Loading Rates ( ELLRs ) . The Agency believes that the revised risk analysis is a more up

- to

- date and comprehen sive evaluation of risk and is more appropriate for a national

- level listing decision compared to the DRAS model. The DRA S model uses leaching data (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) ) as input for the model. The revised risk analysis uses a new landfill model (LFCR) rather than TCLP leachate data for modeling solvent releases, which presents several advantages. EPA needed to perform a comprehensive national

- level assessment and the limited TCLP data available were not adequate for that purpo se. The RB

- MLL methodology allowed EPA to capture a broad variety of conditions needed to back

- calculate acceptable levels of solvents for a national rule. In addition, the model allowed EPA to consider the potential risk for many solvent chemicals based o n their properties and transport characteristics, regardless of whether empirical release data such as TCLP were available. Finally, the revised risk analysis models disposal in a composite

- lined landfill, an option not included in the DRAS model. EPA
pres ented the revised risk analysis for peer review and has responded to the peer review comments. EPA has also responded to public comments on the draft revised risk analysis presented in the 2009 NODA; see the docket for “Response to Comments on the Solvent Contaminated Wipes 2009 Risk Analysis: Risk

- Based Mass Loading Limits.”

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the most current risk data should be used to codify the hazardous waste exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(B). [155]

(h) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the most current risk data should be used in determining whether to finalize the hazardous waste exclusion for disposable wipes. The final rule is based on EPA’s final risk analysis, which was peer reviewed in 2008 and published for public comm ent in 2009 and which also incorporates EPA’s most recent health benchmarks for trichloroethylene (published in 2011) and for tetrachloroethylene (published in 2012).



## 4. Scope and Applicability of Rule

Many commenters discussed the scope and applicabilit y of EPA's proposed exclusions from the solid waste and hazardous waste definitions.

(a) COMMENTS :

One commenter generally agreed with EPA’s proposed scope.

Several commenters suggested broadening the scope of the proposed exclusions. One commenter sug gested that the rule should apply to industrial wipes contaminated with aqueous

- based solvents. Two commenters suggested broadening the rule to include all reusable wipes contaminated with a listed hazardous waste or that exhibit a h azardous waste characte ristic. Another commenter stated that the proposal should also exclude the solvent itself from the definition of solid waste, when legitimately reclaimed and recycled.

### 32 Several commenters supported broadening the exclusi ons generally, or the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste specifically, to include related items such as sponges, personal protective equipment such as gloves, aprons, chemical suits and other personal devices, shirts, coveralls, work uniforms, floor mats and other textiles , and mop heads and other woven/nonwoven materials used to remove solvent from floors. One commenter supported exempting consumer products used for maintenance activities from the rule. As an example, the commenter mentioned that spray cans of degreasers, etc., often contain one of the F001

- F005 listed hazardous wastes or a characteristic hazardous waste.

One commenter stated that including in the scope of the exemption wipes exhibiting the characteristics of corrosivity and reactivity is improper. The co mmenter noted that the proposal focuses on solvents included in the F001

- F005 listings as well as the corresponding P

- and U

- listed commercial chemical products , but that the F001

- F00 5 codes are identified in § 261.31 (a) as being ignitable and toxic only. The commenter added that n one are also identified as exhibiting the characteristics of co rrosivity or reactivity and that neither the proposal nor th e Technical Background Document contains discussion of wh y these wipes may be corrosive or reactive . The co mmenter suggested that EPA modify its proposal to state that if the materials that contaminate the wipes are corrosive or reactive the exemption does not apply

.
[136, 155, 167, 311, 193, 266, 288, 298, 303, 313, 318, 320, 323, 325, 338, 346, 347, 365]

(a ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenters who support the scope of the rule

. This scope is appropriate because it reflects the universe of materials EPA evaluated and for which conditions are developed in order to be protective of human health and the env ironment. EPA evaluated wipes that (1) contain one or more of the F001 through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding P

- or U

- listed solvents found in § 261.33; (2) exhibit a hazardous characteristic found in part 261 subpart C when th at characteristic results from a solvent listed in part 261; and/or (3) exhibit only the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability found in § 261.21 due to the presence of one or more solvents that are not listed in part 261.

EPA notes that solvent

- contaminated wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of co

- contaminants that are other listed hazardous waste or that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (other than ignitability) are not eligible for the conditional exclus ions. However, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated with ignitable

- only wastes

are eligible for the conditional exclusion. This is because solvents are often ignitable and, as a practical matter, it would be difficult to distinguish between those solvent

- contaminated wipes that are ignitable due to the solvent from those that are ignitable due to a non

- solvent co

- contaminant. And such a distinction is unnecessary because the conditions of the exclusion (e.g., no free liquids and closed, non

- l eaking containers) address the issue of ignitibility no matter what the source.

EPA disagrees with comments that suggest broadening the exclusion to all reusable wipes, extending the exclusion to the solvent itself, or including materials beyond wipes

. Th e solvent

- contaminated wipes exclusion was based on a risk analysis of solvent

- contaminated wipes, and thus would not be applicable to other listed wastes or to free liquid spent solvent. Moreover, the conditions in the rule were developed after extensive study of the management practices specific to solvent

- contaminated wipes, and it is beyond the scope of the rulemaking to include other types of materials, such as personal protective equipment or spray cans.

EPA agrees with comments that argue solvent

- contaminated wipes exhibiti ng the characteristic of corrosivity or reactivity should not be eligible for the exclusion . This is because EPA’s risk analysis evaluated only F001 through F005 solvents, which do not include reactive and corrosive solvents. Be cause EPA has not evaluated the risks of reactive and corrosive solvents, it would be inappropriate to address wipes contaminated with these solvents in the final rule . Therefore, EPA has clarified in the final rule regulatory definition of “Solvent

- contaminated wipe” in 40 CFR 260.10 that the exclusion is limited to solvent

- contaminated wipes that either contain a listed hazardous waste solvent, exhibit a characteristic due to the pres ence of the solvent, or exhibit the characteristic of ignitibility.

(b) COMMENTS : Several commenters requested that EPA clarify that the scope of the rule does not apply to non

hazardous wipes. One co mmenter expressed concern that s tates might interpret the scope too broadly when implementing the inclusion, and requested that EPA provide examples and clarify that the conditional exclusion does not apply to disposable solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes that are not hazardous waste at the time of generation. Two commenter s noted that solvent

- contaminated wipes which do not me et either the D001 ignitable

### 33 liquids or solids criteria and are not contaminated with a listed solvent currently do not fall under the jurisdiction of the RCRA solid or hazardous waste regulations due to the lack of applicable listed o r characteristic wast e codes. Two commenters requested that EPA clarify the difference between paint materials that contain spent solvents and spent solvents that contaminate wipes in this rule, specifically that if the paint contains a listed solvent, the contaminated wipe is not potentially RCRA

- regulated unless it exhibits the characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e.

, ignitability ). Another commenter requested clarification regarding the list of 11 solvents prohibited from being disposed of in a land disposal facility when the waste is a mixture. If the solvent in use is a mixture of non

prohibited solvents a nd prohibited solvents (i.e. 3% methyl ethyl ketone , 4% 1,1,1,trichlorethane, and 3% Isobutanol) that meets the F

- listing requirements of 10% or more, the commenter beli ves a trigger for the restriction should be established based on the percentage of the prohibited solvent. Another commenter suggested that where the proposed rule for disposable wipes indicates the list of prohibited solvents in § 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(B), the regulation provide clarification as to whether wipes containing the prohibited solvents may be disposed in the case where the solvents present have limits established under § 261.24 an d are below the corresponding toxic characteristic regulatory level. In this case, the commenter believes the wipes may not meet the definition of hazardous waste in the first place (unless hazardous d ue to another characteristic). [270, 294, 311, 331, 332, 338, 366, 358]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the solvent

- contaminate d wipe exclusions would only apply to wipes that would otherwise be hazardous wast e. This would include wipes that (1) contain one or more of the F001 through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding P

- or U

- listed sol vents found in § 261.33; (2) exhibit a hazardous characteristic found in part 261 subpart C when that characteristic results from a solvent listed in part 261; and/or (3) exhibit only the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability found in § 261.21 due to the presence of one or more solvents that are not listed in part 261. The current language in § 261.1(b)(1) makes it clear that the definition of solid waste in part 261 does not apply to materials that are n ot otherwise regulatory hazardous wastes.

EP A clarifies that the final rule only extends to wipes that, after use or after cleaning up a spill, contain one or more F001 through F005 listed solvents or ignitable only non

- listed solvents. The scope of the rule does not extend to paint materials that c ontain spent solvents.

Based on EPA’s final risk analysis, wipes that are hazardous waste due to the presence of trichloroethylene are ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion. Wipes, however, that are contaminated with a solvent mixture that includes les s than 10% of trichloroethylene (and thus would not meet the hazardous waste listing description for trichloroethylene F001 or F002 at § 261.31) and which do not exceed the toxicity characteristic levels establis hed for trichloroethylene at § 261.24 (and thus would not be characteristically hazardous for trichlorethylene)

, would not be hazardous waste due to the presence of trich loroethylene. Therefore, these wipes may be managed under the disposable wipe exclusion.

(c) COMMENTS : Two commenters expressed concern that the proposal would allo w hazardous waste spill cleanup residues to go into Subtitle D landfills or wastewater treat ment systems, instead of being handled under the RCRA Subtitle C system. The commenter stated that a generator would only need to use ‘wipes’ as absorbents for hazardous chemical spill cleanups to exempt both the absorbents and the absorbed chemical waste materials from solid waste or ha zardous waste determinations. [277, 323]

(c) RESPONSE : Wipes used as absorbents in hazardous waste spill clean

- ups would only be eligible for the exclusion if they meet th e conditions of the exclusion. In other words, it would be limited to solvent

- contaminated wipes that meet the no free liquids standard and are managed according to the conditions of the rule. Such wipes would be indistinguishable from the other wipes eligible for these exclusions and t hus EPA believes it is appropriate to regulate them the same as other solvent

- contaminated wipes.

(d) COMMENTS : Five commenters stated that EPA’s stated purpose, that the exclusion include “industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic ... due to use with solvents” (page 65589), is not accomplished by the wording of proposed § 261.4(a)(22). The commenters added that t he proposed language only addresses wipes that contain an F

- listed solvent, a corresponding spilled P

- or U

- listed commercial chemica l product, or wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste when that characteristic results from the F

- listed solvent or corresponding P

- or U

listed commercial chemical product. They stated that t he proposed language fails to take into account t hat a solvent may exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste without being listed as a hazardous waste. The commenters argue

### 34 that EPA should modify proposed § 261.4(a)(22) by making specific mention of solvent that exhibits a characteristic of hazardous w aste but is not listed as hazardous waste to clarify this point

. One commenter also suggested removing the word “spilled” in relation to P

- and U

- listed solvents because wipe s may be contaminated with P

- and U

- listed solvents that did not result from a sp ill but would be similar to those from spills. Another commenter stated that it is not clear what is meant by a “corresponding” spilled P

- and U

- listed commercial chemical product within the context of the exclusion. The commenter asked if this mean s that the P

- or U

- material needs to have a corresponding solvent before the wipe is exempted? The commenter wants EPA to clarify exactly what is and what is not covered under the exclusion proposed as §§ 261.4(a)(22) and 261.4(b)(1 9).

Another commenter stated that, under the proposed regulatory language, a wipe contaminated with a non

- F

- listed solvent which fails the characteristic for ignitability must be handled as a hazardous waste, but an identical wipe contaminated with an F

- listed solvent which also fail s the ignitability characteristic due to use of the solvent would be exempted from the definition of solid waste. The commenter asserts that t his inconsistency will make it extremely difficult to be sure that wipe recycling operations are being performed i n strict accordance with these RCRA regulations. The commenter added that t his approach would require wipe segregation and would be too burdensome to make the solid waste exemption useful in industrial settings. The commenter thinks a more appropriate regu latory framework would be to exempt industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry where the laundry’s industrial wastewater discharges are subject to regulation under section 402 of the CWA , as amended. The commenter stated that t his is the same as the industrial wastewater discharge exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2). The commenter mentioned that the outputs of the industrial laundry process would then be reusable wipes, wastewater subject to the CWA, and ultimately, a wastewater trea tment sludge subject to EPA or s tate regulation. The commenter added that a s for improperly disposing of spent solvents (or other hazardous wast es) by mixing them in with wipes and then sending the wipe s to a laundering facility, as EPA states in the Memorandum of Febr uary 14, 1994, this is clearly not allowed under the federal regulations. Further, the commenter added that s olvent extracted prior to laundering would still be subject to RCRA.

Two commenters requested that EPA amend the regulatory language of 40 CFR 261 .2(b)(19) to include wipes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability due to co

- contaminants in the exclusion so that it is consistent with the preamble discussion. Another commenter noted that the first paragraph on page 65586 suggests that that wipes that are characteristically hazardous due to substances not originating from the solvent also qualify for the proposed exclusions, but the proposed §§ 261.4(a)(22) and (b)(19) both state that any hazardous waste characteristics that the industrial wipes ha ve may only derive from the solvent itself, not from use of the solvent.

Two commenters discussed the regulatory text pertaining to wipes that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic through contamination. One commenter stated that EPA should reword prop osed § 261.4(a)(22) to explicitly state that the exclusion does not extend to wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste (other than ignitability) as a result of contamination from non

- solvent material picked up through use. The commenter said EPA explains that this is its intent in the preamble to the proposal (page 65589), but the language as proposed in § 261.4(a)(22) does not make that immediately obvious. Similarly, another comment er suggested EPA clarify the regulatory text to correct the inadvertent exclusion of contaminated wipes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability due to being “co

contaminated with ignitable waste.” The regulatory text should be amended, in pertinent part, to provide: “... when they [the wipes] contain an F

- lis ted spent solvent, a corresponding spilled P

- or U

- listed commercial chemical product, or exhibit the hazardous characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity due to contamination by any spent solvent, or exhibit the hazardous waste c haracteristic of ignitability due to contamination by an ignitable waste...”

[155, 193, 264, 283, 286, 287, 298, 311, 337, 346]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with comments requesting revisions to the regulatory text to better describe the intended scope of th e exclusion and has revised the language accordingly. In the final rule, EPA has added a regulatory definition of “Solvent

- Contaminated Wipe” which now clearly states that

Solvent

- contaminated wipe means a wipe that, after use or after cleaning up a spill , either (1) contains one or more of the F001 through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding P

- or U

- listed solvents found in 40 CFR 261.33; (2) exhibits a hazardous characteristic found in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C when that

### 35 characteristic results from a solvent listed in 40 CFR part 261; and/or (3) exhibits only the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability found in 40 CFR 261.21 due to the presence of one or more solvents that are not listed in 40 CFR part 261. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that contain listed hazardous waste other than solvents, or exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity due to contaminants other than solvents, are not eligible for the exclusions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) and 261.4( b)(18).

Additionally, EPA agrees with the commenter who stated that reusable wipes should be sent to a laundry whose wastewater discharges are subject to regulation under section 402 of the CWA. EPA has, therefore, made this a condition of the exclusion for reusable wipes. See section 5.6.1 for more information on this issue. EPA also agrees with the commenter that stated that improperly disposing of spent solvents by mixing them in with wipes and sending the wipes along with the free liquid spent solvent to a laundering facility is clearly not allowed. EPA notes that a condition of the reusable wipes exclusion is that the wipes contain no free liquids when sent for cleaning. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must remove free l iquid spent solvent from the wipes and the container holding the wipes and must manage the free liquid spent solvent according to the hazardous waste regulations, as applicable.

EPA agrees with commenters that requested that EPA amend the regulatory langu age to include wipes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability due to co

- contaminants in the exclusion so that it is consistent with the preamble discussion. EPA’s definition of “solvent

- contaminated wipe” (repeated above) makes this change to the regulations.

(e) COMMENTS : Regarding EPA’s request for comments in t he NODA on the elimination of ten compounds from the risk analysis based on a literature review, site visits and other factors (74 FR 55165, col 3), one commenter expressed conce rn that t hese solvents would be exempt even though a risk analysis was not performed. Even though these compounds are not used with wipes, the commenter believes that wipes used during spill cleanups should not qualif y for the exclusion for these ten (or any) solve nts. [448]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA notes that ten compounds were eliminated from the risk analysis because our analysis indicated that these chemicals were unlikely to be used as solvents with wipes. The use of these solvents is severely restricted ( because they are ozone depleting substances), or the available information showed that the solvent had no known use with wipes. The commenter did not provide any information to show that wipes used for a spill cleanup of these ten chemicals would contribut e any significant loading to landfills. The Agency believes such waste would be a n extremely minor component of solvent contaminated wipes disposed. EPA disagrees that barring these solvents from the exclusion is necessary since they would not be present i n volumes that would pose significant risk to human health or the environment.

(f

) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that wipes contaminated with solvents in Table 1 that are transferred to incinerators may ultimately end up in landfills. Another commenter to the NODA state s EPA should not include tetrachloroethylene in the scope of the final exclusi on and that special alternative management conditions for tetrachloroethylene are warranted. [246, 265, 266, 312, 331, 448]

Several commenters opposed EPA’s proposed ban of certain solvents going to municipal or other non

- hazardous unlined landfills. Two commenters stated tha t it makes no sense to ban them from land disposal, if they are permitted to be laundered, where traces are sure to be discharged and end up in landfilled sludges. Another commenter said that segregating solvents overly complicates the proposal. One commenter specifically opposed the ban for chemicals that were not found to pose a significant risk under EPA’s risk screening analysis. Another commenter said that EPA's risk screening analysis for wipes destined for land disposal is unduly conservative and cannot justifiably be used to either prohibit any solvent

- contaminated wipes from the land disposal option under the proposed conditional exclusion or to impose the “dr y standard” on disposal wipes. [194, 199, 273, 320, 328, 330, 336, 346 , 357 ]

One commenter stated that tetrachloroethylene

- containing laundry sludge should not be prohibited from being disposed of in lined or unlined landfills. [461]

Four commenters strongly recommended that methyl ethyl ketone , be removed from Table 1 si nce EPA’s own risk assessment does not justify its inclusion. The commenters said methyl ethyl ketone exhibits low toxicity and its solvent extraction efficiency should be 99% instead of 90%. [199

- 1011, 281, 320, 340]

### 36 One commenter supported allowing land fill disposal of disposable industrial wipes contaminated with solvents that were not found by EPA’s risk screening analysis to pose a significant risk, providing the waste does not exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste. The commenter said s olvents in Table 4 that were not found to pose a significant risk in EPA’s risk screening analysis, even though they may exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, will pose even less risk in the “dry” state when they contain “trace” amounts, or less than a percentage of the named solvents. The commenter added that g enerators retain the burden of determining whether any waste stream is characteristically hazardous and are obligated to manage tho se waste streams as hazardous. [267]

One commenter stated that it is extrem ely difficult to ensure that prohibited wi pes will not be disposed of at landfills. The commenter argued that t here is no practical way for landfill operators to distinguish bet ween wipes contaminated with methyl ethyl ketone and those contaminated with et hyl benzene without testing, which would be an insupportable burden. The commenter thinks o ne way to address this problem would be to require generators to certify the condition of their wipes destined for disposal, including a statement that the wipes do not contain a prohibited solvent. [265]

One commenter questioned EPA’s conclusion that wipes containing 1,1,1

- trichloroethane or 1,1,2

- trichloroethane pose no significant risk when “dry.”[265]

Five commenters suggested that EPA recognize and clearly stat e de minimus levels for solvents in Table 1. For those solvents without a toxicity characteristic, the commenters think that EPA should develop a de minimis concentration because i t is very difficult to achieve zero concentrations, and products being clean ed with solvent wipes may actually contain the solvents at below these levels without the knowledge of the generator. The commenter added that i ndustry will have to complete additional expensive testing to be sure their wipes and rags do not contain any of the 11 solvents. Also, if the Table 1 list is separate and in addition to any waste considerations associated with F, P, or U listed wastes, the commenter believes this creates a confusing situation for the generator. The commenter stated that a wipe that was used with a solvent that contained 0.01% methyl ethyl ketone and 11% toluene would not meet the F003 listing and would not be char acteristically hazardous for methyl ethyl ketone but would be a F005 listed waste. Yet, the commenter added, under t he conditions of the exclusion it could not be land disposed merely because it contained methyl ethyl ketone

. The commenter stated that a generator may not be aware that a product removed with a disposable wipe contains one of the prohibited solvents. Also

, the commenter thinks this approach is inconsistent with EPA allowing RCRA empty containers that can contain one or more of these 11 solvents (usually within mixtures) to be landfilled as long as the RCRA empty container standards are met. A commenter sug gested that the management procedures used to minimize free liquids in wipes be consistent with the RCRA

- empty approach and are sufficient to prevent environmentally significant amounts of these solvents from being dispos ed in non

- hazardous landfills. [199

- 1011, 278, 320, 328, 340, 347]

Two commenters requested that the Agency specifically clarify the use of the Table 1 chemical restrictions, and suggested that the Agency include a statement that those 11 chemicals are ineligible for landfill disposal but retain eligibility for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste if incinerated or processed for reuse through a laundering service. [332, 366]

Another commenter asked if generators would be required to conduct laboratory analysis of wipes to do cument that they do not contain these constituents in order to meet this exclusion. [337]

(f

) RESPONSE : Based on the 2012 final risk analysis, wipes contaminated with only one of the solvents listed in Table 1 of the 2003 proposal remain ineligible for th e disposable wipes exclusions. EPA revised the risk assessment and included the revised results in the October 2008 NODA

. Since the November 2003 proposal was published, and in response to adverse public comments on the risk screening analysis that supported the November 2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a more comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. This risk analysis was subjected to external peer review, presented for public comment in a 2009 NODA, and revised where appropriate in response to these reviews . In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a state

- of

- the

- art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk analysis used conservative

### 37 assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfi ll disposal were assessed protectively. The final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in lined MSWLFs . As a result of the revised risk assessment, only one solvent, trichloroethylene, was found to present significant risk in a composite lined landfill and is ineligible for the wipes exclusion.

Under the final rule, generators are not required to conduct laboratory analysis of wipes to document that they do not contain these constituents and may rely on generator knowledge. However, generators are required to meet the conditions of the exclusion and are responsible for conducting proper hazardous waste determinations. In some cases, l aboratory analysis may be necessary to assure compliance.

EPA does not agree with the commenter who noted that wipes contaminated with solvents that are transferred to incinerators may ultimately end up in landfills. EPA notes that combustors are capable o f destroying the solvent, as described in Section IV.F.11 of the Technical Background Document (68 FR 65602). Additionally, any residuals generated from incinerators are a new point of generation and therefore subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR parts 261 and 262 and all applicable RCRA hazardous waste requirements.

EPA does not agree that special alternative management conditions for tetrachloroethylene are warranted because EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contam inated with tetrachloroethylene do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in a landfill with a composite liner.

EPA agrees with the commenter who said that segregating solvents overly complicates the proposal. Under the final rule, segregation is not necessary given the conditions of the final rule (e.g., solvent

- contaminated wipes must be
sent to MSWLFs regulated under part 258 (including the liner standards in § 258.40).

EPA agrees with the commenter who said that its 2003 risk screening analysis cannot be used to determine whether certain solvent

- contaminated wipes can be eligible for the disposable wipes exclusion. As described previously, EPA has subsequently revised its risk analysis. Therefore, it is basing the fin al rule on its 2012 final risk analysis, which has been both peer and publicly reviewed. Additionally, EPA is not finalizing the “dry” standard for solvent

contaminated wipes being disposed. Please see section 5.4.3 for more information on this issue.

Rega rding t he commenter who stated that tetrachloroethylene

- containing laundry sludge should not be prohibited from being disposed in lined or unlined landfills, EPA notes that laundry sludge is a new point of generation and therefore subject to waste identifi cation requirements of parts 261 and 262 and all applicable RCRA hazardous waste requirements. However, EPA notes that tetrachloroethylene

- containing solvent

- contaminated wipes are eligible for the final rule exclusion for disposable wipes based on EPA’s 2 012 final risk analysis.

EPA notes that wipes contaminated with methyl ethyl ketone are eligible for the final rule exclusion for disposable wipes based on the results of EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis.

EPA agrees with the commenter that supported allowing landfill disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes that were not found by EPA’s risk analysis to pose significant risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, solvent

contaminated wipes that were found not to exceed target risk criteria in EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis are eligible for the final rule exclusion for disposable wipes. In addition, EPA agrees with the commenter that solvents that are characteristically toxic but are found not to exceed target risk criteria should be eligible for the fina l rule exclusion. EPA agrees that generators retain the burden of making a hazardous waste determination, as well as ensuring that conditions of a solid waste or hazardous waste exclusion are being met.

EPA acknowledges the commenter who stated that is it extremely difficult to ensure that prohibited wipes will not be disposed of in MSWLFs . However, rather than prohibit 11 solvents, as the 2003 proposed rule proposed to do, EPA’s final rule only prohibits wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of tri chloroethylene from being disposed in MSWLFs based on its 2012 final risk analysis. EPA believes that this thus reduces the difficulty for generators. Additionally, under the final rule, generators must maintain records that include the name and address of the landfill where the solvent

- contaminated wipes will be managed, which will help to ensure effective compliance monitoring of the rule.

### 38 EPA generally agrees with the commenter who supported allowing landfill disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes provid ed the wipes did not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes that exhibit a characteristic of reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity due to contaminants other than the listed solvents are not eligible for the disposable wipes exclusion. However, EPA has determined that solvent

contaminated wipes that exhibit the characteristic of ignitability are eligible for the exclusion because it would be difficult to determine whether the ignitability characteristic w as due to the solvent or to a contaminant and because the conditions of the final rule (closed containers, no free liquids) address potential risk from ignitable wastes.

EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis demonstrated that wipes containing the solvent 1,1,2

- tr ichloroethane did not exceed target risk criteria when disposed in a landfill with a composite liner. Thus, these solvent

- contaminated wipes are eligible for the exclusion for disposable wipes. We eliminated 1,1,1

- trichloroethane from the 2009 revised risk analysis and 2012 final risk analysis because this solvent is not used widely on wipes. For a detailed discussion, see the “Landfill Loadings Calculations for Disposed Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes and Laundry Sludge Managed in Municipal Landfills,” Section 1.2.

EPA does not agree with commenters who suggest EPA should develop a de minimis concentrations for solvents in Table 1 of the 2003 proposed rule. Based on the 2012 final risk analysis, only wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene are ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion. However, EPA agrees that solvent

contaminated wipes that do not meet the listing for trichloroethylene ( mixture includes less than 10% of trichloroethylene) and do not exceed the toxicity characteristic levels established for trichloroethylene at § 261.24 would not be hazardous waste due to trichloroethylene. Therefore, these wipes may be managed under the disposable wipe exclusion. Furthermore, EPA notes that, under the final rule, solven t

- contaminated wipes and the container containing the wipes must not contain free liquids when sent for disposal to a MSWLF . EPA believes that this condition is sufficient to prevent environmentally significant amounts of solvent from being disposed.

EPA f inds that the RCRA empty container standard is unsuitable for use in the solvent

- contaminated wipes rule, particularly for determining whether a single wipe contains free liquids or not. Instead, EPA is basing its “no free liquids” condition on the Paint F ilter Liquids Test.

(g ) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed banning solvents that exhibit the toxicity characteristic if it can be demonstrated that the used rag is “dry” (i.e., less than 5 grams solvent/rag). One commenter stated that wipes containing the six “characteristically toxic” solvents that EPA has prohibited from land disposal even though they do not exceed the risk screening levels established by EPA should be eligible for land disposal if they contain “no free liquids .” The commenter stated that EPA cannot base risk assessment for purposes of determining whether waste is hazardous under RCRA on assumption that wast e would be disposed of in unlined landfills when waste in question is being disposed of in lined landfills, nor can EPA apply the results from application of the more general assumptio ns and parameters used in the toxic characteristic to establish a univer sal hazardous waste characteristic rather than the results from a waste

- specific, landfill

- specific risk screening analysis that EPA itself acknowledges uses a “number of conservative factors .” The commenter said EPA’s proposal to prohibit these six solven ts from landfill disposal on this basis is simply at odds with EPA’s stated intent to encompass within the relief provided by this rule, wipes that “exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) due
to u se with solvents.” The commenter added that t here is no reasonable basis to employ toxic characteristic results to prohibit these six solvents from landfilling when a more waste

- specific and waste management scenario

- specific risk analysis shows that wipes containing these six solvents do not warrant that prohibition. Even if such a basis existed, the commenter thinks EPA certainly has the discretion to conclude that it s more tailored risk screening analysis provides an ample foundation for not prohibiting these particular solvent constituents from landfilling, so that the Agency can promulgate a final rule that treats all solvents alike and authorizes landf illing of disposable wipe s and laundry sludge provided a “no free liquids” test based on a hand

- wringi ng performance standard is met. [283, 347]

One commenter supported the prohibition of all solvents that exhibit the characteristic of toxicity from being sent to municipal or other non

- hazardous waste landfills. [358]

(g ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those c ommenters who argued that wipes contaminated with solvents that are included in the toxicity characteristic regulations in 40 CFR 261.34 should not be eliminated from the conditional exclusions. We have decided to use the results of the final risk a nalysis rather than apply the toxic characteristic regulations to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes can be disposed as solid wastes in MSWLF s.

### 39 Therefore, wipes contaminated with benzene; chlorobenzene; o

- ,m

- ,p

- creosols; methyl ethyl ketone ; and/or
tetr achloroethylene are eligible for the conditional exclusion for disposable wipes provided they meet the conditions of the exclusion. EPA, however, is not finalizing the “dry” standard it proposed for solvent

- contaminated wipes being disposed; instead, solve nt

- contaminated wipes being disposed must contain no free liquids as demonstrated by the Paint Filter Liquids Test. See section 5.4 for more information on this issue.

The Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from d isposal of solvent

contaminated w ipes and laundry sludge in MSWLF s. This revised risk analysis was subjected to external peer review and presented for public comment in a NODA (October 27, 2009; 74 FR 55163). In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information (e.g., current industry practices, state programs, landfill loadings) from a wide variety of sources (site visits, data collected by EPA for RCRA and other regulatory programs, public comments, and other available information); (2 ) used probabilistic methods to characterize the variability and uncertainty associated with the risk modeling; (3) developed and used a state

- of

- the

- art landfill model and examined the exposure pathways that pose the greatest potential risk; (4) included updated information for various input parameters, when such information was provided in the comments; and (5) recalculated the potential risks by using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity benchmarks made available after the October 2009 NODA was publ ished.

The revised risk analysis presented in the October 2009 NODA included a variety of conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively. Furthermore, our evaluation was based on the risks at the upper end of the risk distributions, i.e., the 90th percentile in the probabilistic analyses. Therefore, we are confident that the solvents present in the wipes and sludge would not present a significant risk. The final risk analysis represents a comprehen sive characterization of the risk posed by these solvent

- contaminated wipes and, therefore, EPA concludes that this is appropriate information to use in determining whether solvent

- contaminated wipes should be excluded from the definition of hazardous wast e.

The risk analysis for t he six solvents that are also toxic characteristic chemicals (benzene, chlorobenzene, cresols, methyl ethyl ketone , tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene) indicated that five of the chemicals present risks at levels well b elo w the target risk criteria. The one solvent that presents risks above the target risk criteria is trichloroethylene, therefore wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene are ineligible for the conditional exclusion for disposable wipes.

EPA does not agree with the commenter that the argued that “no free liquids” should be based on a hand

- wringing performance standard. Instead, EPA’s final rule requires that solvent

- contaminat ed wipes contain no free liquids based on the Paint Filter Liquids Test. See section 5.4.2 for more information on this issue.

Lastly, EPA does not agree with the one commenter that supported the prohibition of all solvents that exhibit the characteristic of toxicity from being sent to municipal or other non

- hazardous waste landfills. As described above, EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis demonstrates that disposal of wipes contaminated with five solvents that exhibit the characteristic of toxicity do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in a landfill with a composite liner. Wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene, which did exceed target risk criteria in EPA’s 2012 final risk analysis, are ineligi ble for the exclusion for disposable wipes.



## 5. Conditions

(a) COMMENTS : Two commenters stated that EPA’s proposed conditions are not stringent enough, as industries will be able to neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle towels, and routine recordkeeping by facilit ies that generate the toxics. [152, 364]

(a ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenters that some of the proposed rule conditions were not stringent enough to protect human health and the environment

. In response to these comments EPA has added labeling and recordkeeping requirements and has strengthened the container standard and established an accumulation time limit for all solvent

- co ntaminated wipes.

### 40 (b) COMMENTS : Other commenters generally sup ported EPA ’s proposed conditions. One commenter was generally supportive ex cept for the “dry condition.” [156, 346]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter who did not support the “dry” co ndition for wipes that are sent to landfills because it is impractical and unnecessary to protect human health and the environment. In response to public comments, EPA has not finalized the “dry” standard; solvent

- contaminated wipes that are sent to landfi lls (and for cleaning) must instead meet the “no free liquids” condition. EPA has also finalized many of the conditions that were proposed in 2003, including the container standard, and labeling.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that non

- terne plated used oil filters are analogous to solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes. The commenter stated that i n the c ase of filters, 40 CFR 261.4(b) (13) allows for direct disposal as a solid waste if management standards regarding the removal of oil from the filter are met. Similarly, the commenter believes that if contaminants are removed from the shop towel, no other conditions should be necessary. The commenter thinks the additional labeling and container requirements imposed for disposable wipes represent s an additional regulatory burden that is not justified based on previous Agency rulemakings or the risk analysis conducted by the Agency. The commenter argued i mposition of the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases. [281]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with the commenter that argued that no additional condi tions are necessary beyond that the wipe must no t contain free liquids. EPA finds that the management conditions in the final rule are necessary to protect human health and the environment. T he closed container standard ensures that solvent

contaminated wipes, or the solvent contained in the wipes, are not released to the environment. Closed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of f ires, for example, by securing the solvent

contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources. Labeling is important to communicate the contents of the container to facility personnel, motor carrier inspectors, transporters, emerge ncy personnel, downstream handlers, and state and EPA enforcement to ensure the container is properly managed and, for example, protected from potential ignition sources. An accumulation time limit is necessary in order to ensure solvent

contaminated wipes , and any free liquid spent solvent, are not being stored indefinitely. This condition also decreases the maximum amount of time that solvent

- contaminated wipes are managed on

- site, which further decreases the risk of adverse affects to human health, such as from fires and volatilization. Finally, recordkeeping is necessary to enable compliance monitoring of the conditions of the exclusion.

(d) COMMENTS : One comment noted at least one laundry truck fire traced to wipes (possibly a result of waste solvent i llegally disposed in wipes), and requested that EPA address managing wipes to consider the potential for fire hazards, such as spontaneous combustion or accidental ignition in storage, transit, laundry, or landfills. [294]

(d) RESPONSE : The final rule inc ludes conditions designed to address potential risks during handling. Solvent

contaminated wipes must be managed in non

- leaking, closed containers , which ensures that the solvents are unlikely to be released to the environment. Closed containers serve to m inimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition

sources. Additionally, the containers must be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- contaminated W ipes” in order to communicate the contents to facility personnel, motor carriers, emergency personnel, downstream handlers and state and EPA inspectors, who can then ensure the containers are appropriately managed. Furthermore, solvent

contaminated wipes m ust contain no free liquids at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which further reduces the possibility of fires during transport or at destination facility.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that Illinois EPA and industry have developed a viable environmentally sound program for managing used shop towels from pickup at the generator through the laundering process, which ensures protection of workers and the environment. Th e commenter stated that a solid waste exclusion contingent on testing by a lab or by the generator rather than the common sense management conditions already employed would totally undermine the existing viable state regulatory program and create additiona l but unnecessary compliance costs. [199

- 1018]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter’s concerns about the importance of a common sense approach to a solvent quantity standard to ensure that the final rule is easy to comply with and implement. Thus, the final rule

### 41 includes a “no free liquids” standard that uses the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which is relatively inexpensive and easy to conduct and does not require laboratory analysis. The majority of states currently use the Paint Filter Liquids Test
t o determine whether reusable wipes contain no free liquids. Furthermore, if an authorized state specifies a different standard or test method for determining no free liquids, generators must meet that standard in lieu of the Paint Filter Liquids Test. Of c ourse, the authorized state standard must be no less stringent than the final rule definition of “no free liquids.”



### 5.1 **Containers**

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters submitted gene ral comments that support the same transportation, contain er, and labeling requirements for both reusable and disposable wipes

. One commenter added that transportation requirements should be the same for all wipes regardless of whether or not th e wipes meet the dry standard. [246, 324, 354, 362, 684]

( a ) RESPONSE : The Agency agre es with the comments b ecause the risks from release of solvent from wipes are the same for both reusable and disposable wipes, thus it makes sense to apply the same conditions during accumulation, transportation, and management of both types of wipes. The conditions in the final rule ensure that the solvent

contaminated wipes are being managed appropriately, regardless of whether they are being laundered or disposed. Furthermore, by finalizing conditions that are as similar as possible for both exclusions, EPA has reduced the burden of compl iance with the rule, especially for facilities that use both types of wipes.

(b) COMMENTS : In contrast, one commenter noted that for reusable wipes, the handling processes are well defined already. For disposable wipes, the commenter thinks c learly defined t ransportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling and handling of excluded wipes. The commenter also stated that labeling containers that are not made of imperm eable materials may be difficult. [305]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that clearly defined transportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling, and handling of both reusable and disposable wipes. To address this in t he final rule, EPA is requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” Closed containers must be able to contain free liquids, should they occur. Examples of labeling prac tices that would meet this condition include placing a sticker on a drum or a bag or pre

printed labels on bags.

(c) COMMENTS : Several commenters requested additional guidance on what constitutes a container that is “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment.” Commenters inquired if containers such as cardboard boxes or plastic bags would meet this condition , and asked for additional details on how to demonstrate an adequate level of protection in transporting and storing wipe s. Some commenters recommended allowing self

sealing lids, drawstrings, zipper s, or fastening devices, etc. and address ing conditions for containers used without sealed lids in transportation. One commenter suggests that containers designed to minimize rel eases to the environment should include those that are covered but not closed, and that there should be no requirement to segregate excluded wipes from other materials that are being sent to the same destination. Another commenter state d that generators sh ould be required to accumulate wipes in containe rs that minimize evaporation. Two commenters requested more information on specific types of containers that would meet the transportation requirements. [141, 184, 246, 288, 353, 358, 459] One commenter suppo rted the proposed conditions if the wipe s are stored in closed, impermeable containers. [328]

Several commenters also supported the proposed provision of the regulations that states that containers should be designed and managed so as to minimize the loss to the environment. The commenters argued the proposed performance

- based standards provide ind ustry with the needed flexibility to handle reusable towels in a safe and efficient manner. The commenters added that this also will allow the industry to continue to use the different techniques and equipment that have demonstrated effectiveness in protec ting worker health and allows manufacturers to decide which design best suits their particular situation. The commenters also said c losed sealed containers (such as impermeable drums with “screw

- on” lids) would have a significant adverse economic impact on laundr ies. [279, 304, 348, 357, 358]

### 42 Several commenters generally disagreed with the level of stringency of the proposed container regulations. These commenters stated that the proposed regulations for types of containers are too weak and allowed poor ma nagement practices such as containers covered with plywood or cardboard to constitute a “closed” container. [152, 288, 322, 199

- 1019] The majority of commenters supported storage and transportation of wipes in non

- leaking, closed, and sealed containers, in stead of covered containers, and requested that “closed” containers be required in the final rule. Many commenters emphasized that for a container to be “closed” and therefore suitable for storage and transport, it must be nonporous and impermeable with a lid that seals. This does not include cloth or plastic bags or simply placing a plywood cover over the container. Some commenters suggested that containers currently on the market with sealable lids or springs that would provide a satisfactory level of pro tection should be considered “closed.” [199

- 1019, 265, 271, 286, 305, 323, 325, 337, 364] One commenter stated that closed containers should be used during storage and that the existing standards for performance testing are not sufficient to prevent exposu re to the solvent. [330] Several commenters stated that the proposed performance standards are inadequate. They should only be acceptable for wrung, non

- saturated wipes or the approach should not be utilized unless the standard is tested and proven to be a dequately protective of worker safety and the environment. [194, 305] Another commenter recommended that EPA consider management practices designed to minimize the amount of solvent applied to each wipe as an alternative method of complying with the manage ment practices when circumstances make it difficult to cover the container, and that generators should be required to accumulate wipes in containers that minimize evaporation. [358] Several commenters supported the proposed container regulations on the bas is that the alternative “closed” container regulations are overly burdensome and would be costly and complicated to comply with, especially considering that DOT requirements are already in place and ensure that hazardous materials are not released to the e nvironment. [246, 320, 357]

Another commenter stated that covered containers should be used before and after storage and for accumulation and argued that containers in storage are less likely to tip over; consequently, there is less need that they be “clo sed” than in transport. [283]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA finds that the proposed container standard “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment,” is too subjective and did not thus did not include this provision in the final rule. Inste ad, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be transported in closed containers that can contain free liquids, should they occur. This is the same standard that applies for solvent

- contaminated wipes being accumulated and stored and thus simplifies implementation of the rule.

In response to commenters’ request for types of containers that would meet the closed container standard, EPA has incorporated more specific language into the final rule and preamble. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The container must be able to contain free liquids, should liquids occur. When the container is full, or when the solvent

contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the container is being transported, the container must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficiently to prevent leaks and emissions . (Covered, rather than closed, containers ar e not acceptable.) The closed container condition in the final rule is a performance

- based standard and thus, facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific processes. For example, solvent

- contaminated wipes can be accumulated in an open

- head drum or open top contain er (e.g., where the entire lid is removable and typically secured with a ring and bolts or a snap ring) . The container would be considered closed when the cover makes complete contact between the fitted lid and the rim, even though the rings are not clampe d or bolted. A tight seal minimizes emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (however, generators should be aware that the seals on containers can erode because of time and use, and should be checked periodically for wear and replaced as necessary). After accumulation and during transportation, this same container must be sealed in order to meet the closed container standard and thus, the rings must be clamped or bolted to the container. Containers with covers opened by a foot pedal (e.g., flip

- top or spring loaded lid) or with a self

- closing swinging door could also be appropriate. Bags can be used, provided they meet the closed container standard. EPA considers bags closed when the neck of the bag is tightly bound and sealed to the extent necessary t o keep the solvent

- contaminated wipes and associated air emissions inside the container. The bag must be able to contain liquids and must be non

- leaking. (Of course, a bag leaving a trail of liquid on the ground does not meet the closed container standard. ) Under the final rule, cardboard boxes would likely not meet the definition of a closed container because the boxes would likely not contain free liquids, should they occur.

### 43 In response to comments that support the proposed covered standard, EPA does not agree that covered containers are adequate for protecting human health and the environment. In the proposal, EPA explained that plywood over a container would meet the covered container standard; however, EPA acknowledges that this scenario would not alwa ys prevent releases, especially if the container was accidentally overturned. Therefore, EPA is not finalizing the proposed covered container standard and is instead requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- l eaking, closed containers, such as containers with a spring

- loaded lid or an impermeable bag. EPA does not agree with commenters who supported the covered standard because the “closed” standard would be overly burdensome, too costly or too complicated to c omply with. The closed container standard is defined to allow for flexibility during accumulation of solvent

- contaminated wipes; during accumulation, a closed container does not need to be sealed and is considered closed when there is complete contact betw een the fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent

- contaminated wipes. Moreover, EPA’s non

leaking, closed container standard remains a performance

- based standard, which many commenters supported because it provides genera tors the flexibility to meet the standard in a way that best suits their business without increasing compliance costs. The closed container standard should not be overly burdensome since several trade associations and laundries already encourage their memb ers and customers to use closed or sealed containers during storage and transportation of solvent

- contaminated wipes. EPA believes that the container standard in the final rule

–
non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled

– are adequately protective fo r human health and the environment and serve to minimize evaporation. Moreover, alternative methods of complying with the container standard based on minimizing the amount of solvent applied to each wipe would be difficult to implement and enforce, particu larly since certain industry processes require use of varying quantities of solvent. EPA encourages the use of best management practices that minimize solvent usage.

In response to comments regarding there be no requirement to segregate excluded wipes form other materials that are being sent to the same destination, EPA agrees that solvent

- contaminated wipes in containers that meet the container standard may be dispose d along with the generator ’s other solid waste.

EPA disagrees with commenters who support covered containers for storage and accumulation. Managing wipes in

non

- leaking, closed containers ensures that the solvents are unlikely to be released to the enviro nment. Closed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources. EPA also does not agree that there is less of a need to close containers during storage because it is less likely a container will tip over at a generator’s site. Containers can overturn at a generator’s facility, for example, while containers are being moved on

site to certain storage or processi ng areas.

(d) COMMENTS : Many commenters were concerned about EPA’s definition of closed container to mean a container with a lid that screws on to the top and must be sealed to be considered closed. They stated that
t ransportation of wipes should not be l imited to “closed” containers under this definition. Some commenters suggested this is inconsistent with other regulatory interpretations under RCRA. Rather, the commenter said “covered containers” are adequate for the purpose of the proposed exclusions an d provide for minimal exposure to the environment and the addition of the alternative provision of a closed container in the preamble to this rule is i nappropriate and unnecessary. [155, 264, 278, 301, 303, 312, 329, 338, 358]

(d) RESPONSE : For reasons ex plained above and in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has not finalized the proposed covered container standard and instead is requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored and transported in closed containers. However, EPA understand s commenters’ concerns regarding EPA’s description of a closed container in the preamble to the proposed rule. In the final rule, EPA has clarified how it considers a container to be closed. During accumulation, a closed container does not necessarily mean a sealed container. Instead, when solvent

- contaminated wipes are being accumulated, the container is considered closed when there is complete contact between the fitted lid and the rim. EPA considers bags closed when the neck of the bag is tightly bound and sealed to the extent necessary to keep the solvent

- contaminated wipes and associated air emissions inside the container. The bag must be able to contain liquids and must be non

- leaking. W hen the container is full, o r when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the container is being transported, the container must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficient ly to prevent leaks and emissions

. The closed container standard in the final rule distinguishes between accumulation and transportation and also addresses different types of containers, such as

### 44 drums and bags. Furthermore, this closed container standard i s more consistent with RCRA interpretations of closed containers, including the “ Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) and 265.173(a): Closed Containers ” Robert Dellinger, December 3, 2009.

(e) COMMENTS : Several commenters stated that wipes that meet the “dry” or “no free liquid” conditions do not need additional requirements for labeling and containers. The commenter posited that r equiring a closed container for transportation assumes wipes with no free liquids pose the same risk as solvent

- contaminated wipes, wh ich is counter to the underlying position of the proposed action. The commenter argued that s olvent

- contaminated industrial wipes that contain no free liquid have shown minimal potential for environmental and health and safety impacts and so should not be containerized any differently from municipal waste. The commenter added that one type of container might be appropriate for one condition and not appropriate for all. The commenter said p lastic or cloth bags should be allowed. [267, 280, 312, 320, 332, 366 ]

One commenter supported requiring wipes meeting the “dry” condition to also meet the transportation requirements for disposable wipes. The commenter said e ven “dry” wipes may contain as much as 5 percent, or 50,000 ppm of solvents, which is sufficient to produce significant solvent vapors to pose fire and/or worker exposure hazards. The commenter added that marking requirements are important to allow for the proper identification of these materials by hazardous waste inspectors and emergency response officials, so that they may be fully appraised as to the nature of the material and its possible hazards. Since these wipes are likely to be transported in fiber or metal drums, the commenter said unmarked containers could leave inspectors and emergency response officials with no option but to conclude that such containers hold bulk chemicals (rather than mere wipes). The commenter argued that t hese issues
are esp ecially important since there is no requirement in the proposed rule for the use of manifests or other shipping papers. [271]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters that argued that disposable wipes with “no free liquids” do not need to be labeled or c ontained during transportation (and agrees with the commenter that such requirements are necessary). The objective of the closed container is to address concerns regarding exposure to volatile organic emissions from solvents contained in the wipes and to prevent a spill if the container is over turned

. Labeling is needed to ensure that facility employees, emergency response personnel, motor carrier inspectors, downstream transporters and handlers, and state and EPA enforcement are aware of t he contents of these containers and thus can ensure that containers are properly managed, for example, storing the container away from potential ignition

sources. The closed container condition in the final rule is a performance

- based standard and thus, facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific processes. Bags can be used, provided they meet the closed container standard. EPA considers bags closed when the neck of the bag is tightly bound and sealed to the extent necessary to keep the solvent

- contaminated wipes and associated air emissions inside the container. The bag must be able to contain liquids and must be non

- leaking. For EPA’s response to comments regarding the proposed “dry” standard, see section 5.4.3.

( f) COMMENTS : One commenter requested guidance on the use of a self

- contained compactor, such as a RamJet RJ

- 250 for disposal of solvent

- containing wipes. This commenter believes the self

- contained compactor is consistent with the description of closed, cin ched bags and would minimize evaporative loss. [358]

(f) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, the generator may choose how to accumulate, store, and transport solvent

contaminated wipes provided that the generator meets the conditions of the final rule. The cl osed container condition in the final rule is a performance

- based standard and thus, facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific processes

. A RamJet may be used, provided it meets the container standard in the final rule.

(g) COMMENTS : Two commenters agreed that wipes should be transported in closed containers. However, one of these commenters did not view relying solely on OSHA regulations as providing suffici ent protection to human health because OSHA standards are not enfor ceable at a large class of wipes users. The other commenter sees requirements under DOT and OSHA regulations to be sufficient and the approp riate regulatory authorities. [328, 349]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters that argu ed that solvent

- contaminated wipes should be transported in closed containers and has, thus finalized this standard in the final rule. Furthermore, EPA agrees that worker safety

### 45 should be primarily addressed by OSHA; however, under RCRA, EPA must ensure th at the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed to protect human health and the environment and certain conditions in the final rule are crafted to minimize releases of solvent, which could pose a risk to workers. For example, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” This condition is designed to reduce solvent emissions or spills of free liquid solvent, which will also re duce risk of adverse effects to workers. Furthermore, although the final rule does not impact how DOT regulations apply to packaging and labeling of solvent

- contaminated wipes containers, EPA has determined that it is not appropriate to rely solely on DOT regulations in lieu of a RCRA container standard. EPA agrees that transportation safety is primarily addressed by DOT; however, under RCRA, EPA must ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed to protect human health and the environment and thus, certain conditions, such as the closed container standard, are crafted to minimize releases of solvent to the environment. Additionally, DOT's regulations would not apply during accumulation and storage of the solvent

- contaminated wipes, thus un derscoring the need for a container standard in the final rule.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter asserted that the requirement for disposal of industrial wipes in covered containers is duplica tive to existing requirements with other existing regulations, for e xample, the San Diego County Air Pollution C ontrol District Rule 67.17. The commenter asks EPA to recognize such existing standards, where they exist, as an acceptable manner of demonstrating compliance with the proposed management practices. [358]

(h) RE SPONSE : EPA’s conditional exclusions are RCRA federal exclusions. States that are authorized to implement the RCRA program may differ in their regulations, as long as they are no less stringent than the federal regulations. In the final rule, EPA has attem pted to finalize conditions that are consistent with many current state programs and industry practices, such as determining no free liquids using the Paint Filter Liquids Test or another authorized state standard.

(i) COMMENTS : Two commenters recommend t hat EPA consider the possibility of spontaneous combustion of the contaminated wipes. These comments recommend the EPA consider alternative containers for wet wipes, since combustion has been known to occur when solvent saturated rags are placed in closed containers, where the formation of explos ive vapor mixtures can occur. [193, 350]

(i) RESPONSE : EPA understand s from commenters that generators and handlers may sometimes wet wipes contaminated with solvents to prevent spontaneous fires from occurring. Although we agree that wetting wipes may be appropriate for managing the risk of spontaneous combustion, we do not agree that these wipes should be subject to different standards than other solvent

- contaminated wipes. If wipes contaminated with solvents mu st be wetted to the point that they would not pass a “no free liquids” test at the point of transport, then they should not be eligible for the conditional exclusion promulgated in the final rule because they would not meet the underlying rationale that th e solvent

- contaminated wipe does not contain free liquid spent solvent, which remains subjec t to hazardous waste regulation . This approach is consistent with that for any solvent

- contaminated wipe that would not pass the “no free liquids” test at the point of transport

. (j) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that it is sensible to accumulate all solvent wipes in covered containers and maintains that containers should be required to be covered. The commenter added that w ipes destined for disposal at a MSWLF or other non

- hazardous waste landfill should be allowed to be managed along with other solid wastes and consistent with OSHA standards for covered containers, which state that “Combustible waste material and residues in a building or unit operating area shall be kept to a minimum, stored in covered metal receptacles and disposed of daily.” [155]

(j) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with the commenter that it is sensible to accumulate solvent

- contaminated wipes in a covered container because such a container is not sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. EPA is not finalizing the proposed cove red container standard and is instead requiring that solvent

contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers, such as containers with a spring

- loaded lid or an impermeable bag. Furthermore, although the final ru le does not impact how OSHA regulations apply to solvent

- contaminated wipes, EPA has determined that to protect human health and the environment, it is not appropriat e to rely solely on OSHA regulations.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that although pr esumably it would not be difficult to implement OSHA

### 46 standards relative to solvent contaminated rags generated at industrial plants that are required to implement standards for flammable or combustible liquids, this commenter believes that any advantage ga ined by utilizing this option would be outweighed by time spent addressing specific applicability issues ( e.g., use and handling of flammable and combustible liquids incidental to the principle business and differing definitions of flammable liquid and ign ita ble characteristic waste (D003))

. [280]

(k) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that relying solely on OSHA standards to address proper management of solvent

contaminated wipes c ould include its own set of challenges. Thus, EPA finds that finalizing a closed container standard in the final rule will ease compliance and will adequately protect human health and the environment. However, EPA notes that t he final rule is not intended to impact how OSHA regulations apply to solvent

contaminated wipes.

(l) COMMENT S : Many commenters had concerns related to the use of cloth or plastic bags as containers in the transport and storage of solvent

- contaminated wipes. A few commenters noted that EPA has stated that cloth bags are not likely to minimize loss for wipes conta ining free liquid

. Further, cloth or plastic bags are not designed to adequately resist failures during normal handling practices and c loth bags are permeable and do not restrict volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors and should not be used as conta iners for hazardous wipes. One commenter also disagreed with the use of cloth and plastic bags as containers and further stated that EPA originally said that it would not accept the use of cloth bags in its definition of “closed containers. ” The commenter stated that,

a fter a series of stakeholder meetings, cloth and plastic bags are now accept ed in the proposed rulemaking.[193, 246, 297, 330] However, several commenters agreed that plastic and cloth bags are suitable containers for storage and transportati on, and cited various reasons: 1) free liquids are easily detectable in these containers, and the generator, transporter or inspector does not need to unload the container to determine if free liquids are present and if they are present, immediate action c an be taken; and 2) laundry trucks are designed for use with cloth or plastic bags, and requiring the use of drums or similar containers would seriously affect the capacity of trucks and the ability of laundries to serve their customers in a cost

- effective manner. Another commenter supported the use of plastic bags or covered drums for storage and transportation, but did no t support cloth laundry bags. [266, 294, 348] Several commenters disagreed with the use of plastic or cloth bags in the storage or transp ortation of wi pes and stated that such bags are not adequately protective of human healt h and the environment and also c ited various reasons why such bags are inappropriate, such as their tendency to be affected by residual solvents that could destroy the material or their tendency to a llow the escape of volatiles. [199

- 1019, 271, 288, 328, 331, 351, 358]

(l) RESPONSE : The Agency recognizes that there are arguments for and against the use of bags to contain solvent

contaminated wipes. However, the Agency b elieves that what is most important is the protectiveness of containers, not the specific materials they are made of. Thus, t he closed container condition in the final rule is a performance

based standard and facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific
processes. Like other containers, b ags can be used, provided they meet the closed container standard , which is that solvent

- contaminated wipes, when accumulated, stored, and transported, are contained in n on

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The containers must be able to contain free liquids, should free liquids occur. EPA considers bags closed when the neck of the bag is tightly bound and sealed to the extent necessary to keep the solvent

- contaminated wipes and associated air emissions inside the container. The bag must be able to contain liquids and must be non

- leaking. (Of course, a bag leaving a trail of liquid on the ground does not mee t the container standard.) Bags composed of various types of material may be used as long as they meet the container standard. The final rule does not mandate use of drums or similar containers for storage or transportation

. EPA acknowledges comments that stated that cloth and plastic bags may enable easy detection of free liquids. C loth and plastic bags may be used, provided the bags meet the container standard under the rule. Additionally, bags that are incompatible with solvents, and thus would be destro yed by the solvent

- contaminated wipes and thus allow the escape of volatiles would not meet the container standard, as these bags would not be considered non

- leaking and closed.

(m) COMMENTS : One commenter disagreed with EPA’s proposed approach for defini ng “no free liquids” by placing two containers adjacent to one another to transfer wipes f rom one container to the other and, i f they drip liquid during transfer, or if there are free liquids in the bottom of the container, they would not meet the conditio n. The commenter thinks g enerators should be responsible for recovering as much solvent from the wipes as is practicable before shipping them off

- site. [194]

### 47 (m) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the proposed approach for determining “no free liquids” was not practicable for ensuring that free liquids are removed from wipes. Under the final rule

, “no free liquids” is determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which is a more objective standard and will enable consistent implementation of the condition. Generators must take steps to remove free liquid spent solvent from the wipes before sending the wipes for cleaning or disposal. The generator is also required to document the process used to satisfy the “no free liquids” condition.

(n) COMMENTS : Three commenters submitted general comments in support of labeling requirements as a way to avoid potential safety threats to workers and harm to the environment

. [152, 281, 351] Two commenters opposed additional requirements for containers or labeling as unnecessary given the existing DOT regulations. Under DOT’s Hazardous Materials Transportation Program, commenters said all hazardous materials shipped must be properly labeled and placarded. Commenters think EPA should defer to DOT shipping requirements for the proper labeling of these containers, but if EPA decides to establish a labeling requirement for disposable wipes and solvent

contaminated reusable wipes , any suc h condition should apply equally to both types of materials. Two commenters also supported meeting DOT packaging requirements for transport of wip es for disposal or combustion. [266, 281, 314, 464]

Several commenters submitted comments that DOT’s Hazardous Materials Transportation Program requires all hazardous materials shipped to be properly labeled and placarded and additional requirements by the EPA are unnecessary. The commenter thinks EPA should defer to DOT shipping requirements for the proper labeli ng of these containers. [199

- 1008, 278, 281, 320, 332, 366]

Several commenters stated that the regulations for containers in the proposed rule are inconsistent with DOT requirements and request that EPA change the rule’s language to provide protection equ ivalent to the “leak proof” standards laid out by DOT, or require that containers meet DOT standards. One commenter requested that the rule state that reusable wipe containers should “prevent ,” rather than “minimize ” releases to the environment. [273, 283, 286, 288]

One commenter disagreed with the lack of requirements for labeling containers in transportation and states that this needs to be changed since the materials have solvents on them so work ers know what they’re handling. [263]

Several commenters supported the proposed labeling requirements for disposable wipes to allow identification of containers by emergency response personnel and handlers. Some commenters stated that labeling containers would provide a universal means of identification and elim inate potential questions during transportation and at any receiving facility about the types o f materials in the containers. [246, 271, 305, 349, 358] One commenter supported labeling for disposable wipes, and also supported a label requirement to clarify that other types of wastes are not to be placed in the container to avoid comingling of solvents. [342] One commenter supported labeling reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes on the basis that it is more important to label reusable wipes as they will be han dled

more by workers during and after transit. [273]

(n) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who supported labeling requirements to avoid potential safety threats to workers and any potential harm to the environment, to assist facility employees, emergen cy response personnel, downstream handlers, and state and EPA inspectors, as well as transporters and motor carrier inspectors identify the contents of the containers, and to avoid commingling of other types of wastes with the solvent

- contaminated wipes. E PA agrees with commenters that the labeling requirement should apply for both reusable and disposable wipes and has thus finalized a labeling requirement for both. Under RCRA, EPA must ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed to prot ect human health and the environment and certain conditions in the final rule are crafted to minimize releases of solvent, which could pose a risk to workers. For example, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and tr ansported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” This condition is designed to reduce solvent emissions or spills of free liquid solvent, which will also reduce risk of adverse effects to workers. Although the final ru le does not impact how DOT regulations apply to packaging and labeling of solvent

- contaminated wipes containers , EPA has determined that it is not appropriate to rely solely on DOT regulations in lieu of a RCRA container standard. EPA’s requirement that the containers be labeled during accumulation, storage, and transportation is necessary for implementation and enforcement of the regulation.

### 48 EPA did not finalize the proposed language that containers be “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment” because we determined the language was too subjective to ensure consistent implementation. EPA also believes that replacing "minimize" with "prevent" would not solve this issue. Instead, EPA chose to finalize a more objective contained standard (see response to comment (c) in this section).

The final rule does not prohibit commin gling of solvents in containers.

(o) COMMENTS : One commenter expressed concern regarding how the regula tions for hazardous contaminated wipes might affect non

- hazardous contaminated wipes. The commenter argued that d isposal sites will find it difficult to disting uish, and non

- hazardous solvent

- contaminated wipes will likely be required to follow the new regulations as a result. The commenter believes t his would mean that generators would no longer be allowed to co

mingle wipes with plant trash and they will have to be transported in sealed drums which significantly increase the cost and limit disposal options. [162]

(o) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that the final rule will have a negative impact on non

- hazardous wipes. Non

hazardous wipes are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations and therefore the conditions in the final rule do not apply. EPA has no evidenc e that disposal sites will require different practices for non

- hazardous solvent

contaminated wipes as a result of the final rule. The final rule does not mandate that solvent

- contaminated wipes be managed in sealed drums. The closed container condition in today’s rule is a performance

- based standard and facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific processes. Like other containers, bags can be used, provided they meet the closed container standard, which is that solvent

- contaminated wipes, when accumulated, stored, and transported, are contained in non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The containers must be able to contain free liquids, should free liquids

occur.

(p) COMMENTS : One commenter requested additional guidance as to whether solvent

- contaminated wipes may be air

- dried before disposal. The commenter believes that air drying is commonly used as a way to make sure there are no free liquids prior to disposal. However, the commenter said t he resulting emissions are not considered, nor is the fire safety issue. [143]

(p ) RESPONSE : The Agency agrees with commenters’ concerns about risks from air

- drying . The conditions in the final rule are designed to address these risks. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers. Managing wipes in non

- leaking, closed containers ensure s that the solvents are unlikely to be released to the environment. Closed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources. Air

- drying solvent

- contaminated wipes in a way that does not meet the conditions of the final rule, for example, storing solvent

- contaminated wipes in an uncontained pile, would render those wipes ineligible for the exclusions.

(q) COM MENTS : One commenter had concerns tha t the language in the proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(ii) does not adequately identify controls during transportation that are necessary to prevent th e loss of these solvents to the environment, either directly as liquids or indirectly as fugitive emissions, because the proposed language leaves too much room for varying interpretations. The commenter stated that t he rule must have regulatory language that gives more defined parameters to the proper management methods for mi nimizing loss of these solvents during transportation. The commenter said that, a t a minimum, for materials that are regulated by the DOT , these materials must be transported in containers that meet the applicable provision of 49 CFR p arts 173, 178, and 17 9. Additionally, rather than reinvent a management standard for these materials, the ETC suggests that EPA use the
sta ndards already in place for the management of fugitive emissions from con tainers, as outlined in 40 CFR 265.1087(c)

– Container Level 1 st andards. [288]

(q) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter’s c oncerns regarding the proposed container standard and agrees that is too subjective and may lead to varying interpretations. Therefore, EPA did not finalize the proposed container standard and, instead, is requiring the same closed container standard for accumulation, storage , and transportation of wipes. This standard is more objective and straightforward and will assist implementation for the thousands of facilities that may use the exclusion. EPA notes that the final rule is not intended to impact how DOT standards would apply. Additionally, EPA disagrees that 40 CFR 265.1087(c), which applies to interim status hazardous waste

### 49 treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, is an appropriate container standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes. This is because solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under the conditions of today's rule are excluded from hazardous waste requirements. Furthermore, EPA finds that the closed container standard is sufficie nt and adequate for protecting human health and the environment and that additional requirements, such as those found in § 265.1087(c) are not necessary.



### 5.2 **Labeling**

( a ) COMMENTS : Several commenters supporting a labeling requirement suggested revisions to the proposed labeling language. One commenter stated that the label should include information on the identity of the generator so that the responsible party can be identified if the "no free liquids" requirement is violated. Two commenters discussed the difference between the preamble, which proposes “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” as the label, while t he proposed language in 40 CFR p art 261.4[b][19][iii] states containers must be labeled “Exempt Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes .” One commenter recomm ends EPA require containers to be labeled “Ex empt Solvent

- contaminated Wipes. ” Two commenters suggested potential language if the EPA does establish labeling requirement so that it applies to both types of wipes. One commenter suggested, “Solvent

- contamina ted industrial wipes, if transported offsite, must be transported in containers labeled “Exempt Solvent

- Soiled Wipes.” The commenter stated that the term “Solvent

- Soiled ,” rather than “Solvent

- Contaminated” may be viewed as less pejorative and therefore pr eferable for both disposable and reusable wipes. Another commenter recommended changing the “Excluded Solvent Contaminated Wipes" in the proposal to a more flexible phrase, such as “ excl uded solvent

- contaminated rags,” “ w ipes contaminated with toluene,” “e xcluded rags contaminated with solvents," etc. One commenter also stated that use of the words “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” may not be explicit enough for workers and downstream handlers of this waste to understand the implications of managing thi s waste stream, while another commenter stated that the introduction of specific terminology is confusing and reduces the likelihood of compliance with no corresponding increase in protection of th e environment or human health. [191, 283, 286, 287, 311]

M any commenters submitted general statements that both reusable and disposable wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements and that they disagree with the proposed version of the rule that places labeling and transportation requirements o n disposable wipes that do not apply to reusable wipes . If EPA decides to establish a labeling requirement for disposable wipes and solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes , any such condition apply equal ly to both types of materials. [148, 159, 168, 170, 176, 178, 186, 187, 188, 189, 198, 199

- 1009, 257, 299, 306, 324, 354, 459, 464] Several commenters disapproved of dissimilar treatment of reusable and disposable wipes and additionally stated that if it is important enough for employees of disposable wipe gener ators to know what a container holds so they can properly handle the container not as common trash, it is equally important for employees of reusable wipes generators to have the same information. Some commenters emphasized that prior to laundering, the co ntaminated wipes present the same hazards that exist for disposable wipes routed to landfills and combustion units. Therefore, the same labeling must be required as a warning to intermediate handlers, wor kers, and the general public. [283, 288, 323] Anothe r commenter disagreed with the proposal that containers accumulating or transporting wipes excluded from the definition of hazardous waste to combustion facilities, non

- landfill disposal facilities, and landfills require marking but containers used to accu mulate or transport wipes excluded from the definition of solid waste and not being disposed do not and request ed that no such distinction be made. [328]

(a ) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated reusable and disposable wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” EPA estimates that over 90,000 facilities may take advantage of the final rule exclusions so it is important that EPA finalize a labeling condition that is standardized, easily implemented, and relatively inexpensive. EPA understands the one commenter’s concern regarding tracing each container back to the generator in the event that the “no free liquids” condition has been violated; however, EPA believes these instances are likely to be rare, since generators must comply with the “no free liquids” condition to qualify for the exclusions. Adding the generator’s name to the label would increase the burden on these thousands of faciliti es and would complicate use of pre

- printed labels or
pre

- printed bags. EPA does not agree with implementing a flexible label ing requirement because it will increase inconsistency and potentially lead to confusion among the many entities that may handle the wipes (e.g., facility personnel, motor carrier inspectors, downstream transporters and handlers, emergency personnel and state and EPA

### 50 enforcement). Therefore, EPA finds that using “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes,” as proposed, is appropriate.

EPA a lso acknowledges that the preamble to the 2003 proposed rule discussed the proposed label for disposable wipes to be “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes,” while the proposed regulatory language stated the label would be “Exempt Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes. ” This inconsistency was an unintentional oversight. The final rule requires the label to read “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.”

Regarding the comment that suggested the label “Solvent

- Soiled,” rather than “Solvent

- Contaminated,” EPA believes that “S olvent

- Contaminated” is a term more familiar to the regulated community and to state and federal enforcement pe rsonnel and thus more clearly communicates the contents and potential hazards of the wipes.

EPA agrees that the labeling requirement should be applied to both disposable and reusable wipes. Concerns regarding air emissions and potential fire risk apply to all solvent

- contaminated wipes regardless of their ultimate disposition. T his condition addr esses comments that urged EPA to adopt the same labeling standard for both types of wipes in order to ease implementation and understanding of the regulations, especially for facilities that use both reusable and disposable wipes.

(b ) COMMENTS : One commenter recommended marking containers as toxic, ignitable, flammable and/or combustible, as applicable, to provide downstream transporters and handlers with relevant information about the hazards posed by the contaminated wipes. [331]

(b ) RESPONSE : E PA believes that the label worded “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes,” is sufficient to communicate the contents of the container . The labeling requirement in conjunction with other conditions established in the final rule, including the closed container standard and the requirement that wipes contain no free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal, are adequate to protect against any potential adverse impacts. Furthermore, EPA estimates that over 90,000 facilities may take advantage of the final rule exclusions so it is important that EPA finalize a labeling condition that can be easily standardized, easily implemented and relatively inexpensive. EPA does not believe r equiring additional language on the containers regarding the specific properties of t he solvent contained in the wipes is necessary

.
(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed labeling requirements for transportation because contractual arrangements between the generator and the laundry will result in pertinent knowledge of the reusable wipes an d labeling is rep etitive and unnecessary. [267] Two commenters opposed the labeling of reusable wipes, since existing procedures at industrial laundries necessitate the identification of all soiled goods at all times. Additiona l labeling would be redundant . [278, 305] Another commenter addressed labeling for both reusable and disposable wipes and stated that for reusable wipes, industrial laundries already are well aware of the solvents and other materials their customers use in significant concentrations w hich end up on soiled shop towels and labeling would be repetitive. For disposable wipes, the commenter argued it was necessary to ensure that transporters and disposal facilities are aware that disposable wipes entering their facilities contain hazardous solvents. [348]

Several commenters submitted comments that opposed the labeling of disposable wipes and stated that it was unnecessary given the handwringing/no free liquids provisions already set forth in the regulation. Once solvent has been removed by hand wringing, the wipe should no longer be considered a hazardous waste. Generators should be able to dispose of wrung wipes in mixed trash. The 5 gram standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating no substantial hazard to human health and the environment. The associated costs of special accumulation containers are significant regulatory obstacles, particularly for small operators.[191 , 199

- 1008, 261, 278, 280, 320, 347]

(c ) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters who believe labeling is unnecessary or redundant because the generator and laundry know what is in the container. I t is important to require labeling for reusable and disposable wipes during accumulation, storage, and at the h andling facility in order to communicate the contents to facility employees and downstream handlers, such as laundries and disposal facilities, but also to emergency response personnel and state and EPA inspectors, as well as transporters and motor carrier inspectors. EPA believes that the labeling requirement in the final rule, which includes “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes,” is sufficiently

### 51 explicit to enable appropriate handling of the container while simple enough to be consistently implemented by thousands of businesses.

Regarding the commenter who argued that labeling is unnecessary given the no free liquid provision in the rule, EPA notes that solvent

- contaminated wipes may be accumulated and stored with free liquids and must only meet the “no f ree liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal. Thus, EPA believes labeling is necessary, particularly during accumulation and storage. After the free liquid spent solvent has been removed from the wipes, the wipes may still pre sent potential hazards, such as from volatilization of the solvents, and thus EPA believes labeling continues to be necessary.

Solvent

- contaminated wipes managed in compliance with the conditions of the exclusion are not hazardous wastes. Disposable wipe s meeting the conditions of the final rule may be discarded with a facility’s other solid waste trash. EPA has not finalized the 5 gram “dry” standard for disposable wipes because this standard would be difficult to implement and enforce. Additionally, as noted by commenters, setting a firm quantitative limit on the amount of solvent in each wipe does not take into account the diverse sizes and types of wipes in the marketplace. For example, it’s possible that some wipes could contain less than five grams o f solvent and still have free liquids. EPA’s non

- leaking, closed container standard remains a performance

- based standard, which many commenters supported because it provides generators the flexibility to meet the standard in a way that best suits their bus iness without increasing compliance costs. The closed container standard should not be overly burdensome since several trade associations and laundries already encourage their members and customers to use closed or sealed containers during storage and tran sportation of solvent

- contaminated wipes. See section 5.1 for more information on this issue.

(d ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that while a labeling requirement may not be necessary, they also are not opposed to a requirement that would describe whethe r or not the wipes are saturated, non

- saturated, or wrung out. [194]

(d ) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, once a solvent

- contaminated wipe is sent for transport, there must be “no free liquids” in the container. Therefore, requiring a label for “saturated” or “non

- saturated” wipes would be overly burdensome because the generator would have to change the label during management of the solvent

- contaminated wipe. A “wrung out” label would not be applicable because EPA did not finalize the “no free l iquids when wrung” standard.

(e ) COMMENTS : One commenter requested that EPA provide additional information regarding: 1) the differences between current labeling requirements for a disposable solvent

- contaminated wipe, containing a negligible amount of so lvent prior to use [less than 1.5 grams of solvent per wipe] that has been characterized as a non

- hazardous waste and the proposed labeling requirements; and 2) the impacts that commingling the non

- hazardous waste solvent

contaminated wipe with other non

- h azardous solid wastes has on the labeling requirements. [358]

(e ) RESPONSE : A disposable solvent

- contaminated wipe that has been determined to be non

- hazardous waste (for example, the wipe was not contaminated with a listed hazardous waste solvent or did not meet a characteristic of hazardous waste) would not have any labeling requirements under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. This is different from the final rule requirements which apply to solvent

- contaminated disposable and reusable wipes that

wou ld be hazardous wastes if not for the final rule exclusions. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The scope of the final rule includes wipes that, after use or after cleaning up after a spi ll, are contaminated with certain solvents (F001 through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding P

- or U

- listed solvents found in § 261.33 or wipes contaminated with solvents that exhibit a hazardous characteristic found in part 261 sub part C) and that would otherwise be regulated as hazardous waste. Non

- hazardous solvent

- contaminated wipes are already not subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations and thus would not need to be managed under the final rule exclusions. However, if non

- hazardous solvent

contaminated wipes were commingled with excluded disposable or reusable wipes, then the combined amount of solvent

- contaminated wipes would have to be managed under the conditions of the exclusion, including labeling.



### 5.3 **Accumulation**

### 52 Several commenters discussed EPA’s proposed accumulation standards.

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters supported the rule as pro posed , with no limits on accumulation, because disposable wipes exhibit no greater potential for excess accumulation than any other “solid” waste. The commenter said t here are no accumulation time limits for “solid” wastes under RCRA, so there should not be accumulation for disposable wipes either. Similarly, the commenter said that if disposable wipes are excluded from the definition of “hazardous waste,” they should also be excluded from strict hazardous waste management requirements. Some of these comme nts state that adding a “1

- year,” “90

- day,” or any other limitation is unnecessary and would add

ne edless administrative burden. [155, 262, 268, 304, 312, 320, 329, 349, 357]

Similarly, several commenters argued that accumulation time limits are unnecessary because facilities already have efficient waste management practices in place that would be undermined by this regulation. For example, the commenter stated disposables that are currently considered a hazardous waste must be shipped out under the time frames that are specified by the regulation. The commenter argued that t hose disposables that will qualify under this exemption will now be included in the regular shipments of solid waste, which typica lly occur on a weekly basis. Several commenter s stated that for reusables specifically, no time limits on accumulation are necessary, since there are typically always contractual agreements between the generator and the laundry tha t includes a specified schedule for pickup of soiled wipes an d delivery of laundered wipes. [ 266, 281, 325, 346]

Two commenters argued that other regulations are already in place for accumulation time limits at generator fac ilities, such as municipal and s tate fire prevention codes that may adequately regulate storage of wipes t hat would be exempt from RCRA. [194, 278]

Two commenters opposed an accumulation time limit for wipes in containers that do not expose employees to vapors exceeding the relevant pe rmissible exposure limits, provided the spent wipes also meet the “no free liquids” or “dry” conditions. If the wipes are in non

- leaking, RCRA

- closed containers at a generator’s facility, the commenter thinks this is an acceptable accumulation practice and the addition of an accumulation time limit is not

nece ssary. [267, 328]

One commenter s tated that an accumu lation time limit is burdensome because a n accumulation time limit means that generators would have to mark containers with the accumulation start date and track the time limits on each container, ensuring that it does not exceed the applicable time limit or else become subject to the full extent of RCRA regulation. [357] Another commenter stated that because the firm generates a relatively small amo unt of excluded waste material, finalizing the proposal would provide additional incentive to dispose of the solvent

contaminated indust rial wipes in a timely manner, t hus, an accumulation co ndition is not necessary. [280]

Two commenters generally agreed with the proposed elimination of the accumulation time limit, but suggested that if one is needed, one year would be more appropriate than 90 or 180 days. Another commenter stated that a practical reason to allow generators to accumulate free liquids along with th e wipes is that “over

- handling” of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emissions. The commenter stated that g enerators should be able to delegate handing the solvent removal to o n

- site or offsite and third party entities better suited to undertake the solvent removal process. [303, 332, 366] One commenter stated that spent wipes meeting the proposed conditions of “no free liquid” or “dry” should not have accumulation time limits m ore restrictive than universal waste. [267]

Several commenters supported limits on accumulation to reduce excessively long accumulation times and quantities that could be potential hazards in the workplace, thereby protecting worker safety and the environ ment. Some commenters stated that by not having an accumulation time limit, generators may over accumulate wipes in an effort to avoid expending the resources necessary to get the disposable wipes to the disposal facility, thereby increasing the ri sk for f ire and other hazards. [246, 305, 323, 325, 358] Several commenters proposed specific time limits on accumulation. Two commenters supported establishing a finite accumulation period for reusable wipes destined for laundering or dry cleaning for no longer t han 180 days. [325, 330]

Another commenter proposed an accumulation limit of 90 days for large quantity generators (LQGs) and a limit of at least 180 days for small quantity generators (SQGs) for any full 55

- gallon size container of solvent contaminated

w ipes. The commenter added that f illed containers should be shipped for treatment within 90 days of becoming full,

### 53 and. wipes should be processed within a specific period [i.e. within 7 days of receipt]. The commenter said t his would require handling facili ties to mark a received date on all contaminated wipes. [ 331]

One commenter supported an accumulation time limit so that periodic, documented disposal of wipes could be ensured. This commenter also stated that the accumulation period could be 180 days, or could be determined by a maximum volume amount, such as four 55

- gallon drums. [265]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters who believed accumulation time limits for solvent

- contaminated wipes are not necessary. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are being accumulated may contain free liquids or free liquids may occur, for example, from percol ation or compression of wipes in a container. Thus, in the absence of accumulation limits, generators may have an incentive to store solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids indefinitely in order to avoid potential hazardous waste disposal costs of the free liquid spent solvent. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA is establishing an accumulation time limit in order to prevent long

- term storage in lieu of disposal. EPA is allowing solvent

- contaminated wipes to be accumulated by the generator for up t o 180

- days from the start date of accumulation for each container prior to being sent for cleaning or disposal.

The 180

- day accumulation time limit is what is currently required for SQGs under 40 CFR 262.34 and thus, provides the g reatest flexibility, as compared to the more stringent 90

- day accumulation time limit for LQGs

. This condition also decreases the maximum amount of time that solvent

- contaminated wipes are managed on

- site, which further decreases the risk of adverse affects to human health, such as from fires and volatilization. EPA disagrees with commenters who supported a one year accumulation period (which is also the accumulation period for universal wastes) because this would increase the amount of time solvent

- contaminated wipes could be accumulated thereby increasing the risk of potential adverse impacts. Additionally, reusable wipes are routinely picked up by laundries on a periodic (e.g., weekly) basis an d disposable wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule may be discarded with a facility’s other solid waste trash, which is likel y collected on a frequent basis. Therefore, the accumulation limit of 180 days is more than sufficient to enable facilitie s to send their solvent

- contaminated wipes for cleaning or disposal and thus additional accumulation time is not necessary. EPA also disagrees with
commenter s that argued that filled containers should be shipped within 90 days and that wipes should be proc essed within a specific period (i.e., within seven days), because this would be more restrictive than the current hazardous waste requirements for SQGs

. Rather than establishing accumulation time limits based on generator status (for example, 90 days for LQGs and 180 days for SQGs ) EPA chose to establish a flat 180

- day accumulation time limit for all facilities generating solvent

contaminated wipes. EPA finds it is more straightforward to establish one standard accumulation limit which is easier to implem ent by the tens of thousands of facilities that generate solvent

- contaminated wipes.

EPA does not agree that an accumulation time limit is burdensome. Under the final rule, generators can use routine business records to ensure the accumulation time limit is being met. This documentation can take one of many forms, such as a service contract or invoice from the laundry, dry cleaner, or solid waste hauler which describes the frequency of scheduled delivery and pick

- up of wipes; a log that lists the start da te of accumulation for each container of solvent

- contaminated wipes; or labels on each container which include the start date of accumulation (i.e., the date the first solvent

- contaminated w ipe is placed in the container). Generators taking advantage of th e final rule conditional exclusion likely already have contractual arrangements with handlers that schedule periodic (e.g., weekly) pickup of solvent

- contaminated wipes and disposable wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule can be discarded with other solid waste trash, thus the accumulation time limit should not present an undue burden for facilities.

EPA disagrees with commenters who supported generators sending wipes with free liquids offsite for solvent extraction. W ipes containing free liquids inherently present greater risk of environmental release than wipes containing no free liquids and the conditions of the final rule are not designed to address the risks posed by transport of solvent

- contaminated wipes contai ning free liquids.

Although other regulations, such as municipal and state fire prevention codes, may also provide for accumulation time limits, EPA does not agree with relying on these codes in lieu of an accumulation time limit in the final rule. These codes can vary widely across municipalities, whereas the accumulation time limit in the final rule applies to all generators managing solvent

- contaminated wipes under the rule.

### 54 EPA disagrees with commenters who argued that an accumulation time limit is n ot necessary if solvent

contaminated wipes are stored in containers that prevent exposure of employees to vapors of if the wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition. As discussed above, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are being

accum ulated may contain free liquids or free liquids may occur, for example, from percolation or compression of wipes in a container. Thus, in the absence of accumulation limits, generators may have an incentive to store solvent

contaminated wipes containing fr ee liquids indefinitely in order to avoid potential hazardous waste disposal costs of the free liquid spent solvent. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA is establishing an accumulation time limit in order to prevent long

- term storage in lieu of disposal.

EPA agrees that a practical reason to allow generators to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes is that “over handling,” such as hand

- wringing, could increase worker exposure to fugitive emissions. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes ma y be accumulated with free liquids, however, the wipes must meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter supported EPA's alternative proposal to defer to OSHA regulations on workplace safety for the proper storage of solvent

- contaminated wipes on site at a generator's facility. The commenter believes OSHA regulations are specifically designed to address potential risks to workers, and establishing two sets of guidelines designed to protect worker safety concerning the proper storage of solvent

- contaminated wipes is a recipe for unnecessary duplication and regulatory inconsistencies. [346] Another commenter supported the option, and stated that no further regulatory language is needed to address this issue. [281]

Several commenters opposed this option. One commenter stated that OSHA and RCRA have fundamentally different purposes, and should not be considered interchangeable. The commenter added that the OSHA accumulation time provisions may be inappropriate for this case, since they primarily address the potential for spontaneous heating of flammable/combustible liquids and waste materials, rather than the potential for releases of hazardous material. Reasons that other commenters gave include that OSHA and DOT standards are confusing and diffi cult to comply with, that they do not work well with how the wipes are handled at point of use, and they do not give a clear reasonable method for the affected industries to handle these products; OSHA regulations may not apply to all generators managing disposable wipes; OSHA regulations contain fewer protective provisions than those proposed by EPA; and under OSHA, the general public has no leg al means to make a complaint. [184, 246, 265, 271, 288, 305, 328, 358]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that worker safety is primarily addressed by OSHA and that transportation safety is primarily addressed by DOT; however, un der RCRA, EPA must ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed from cradle

- to

- grave to protect human health and the environment and thus, certain conditions, such as the closed container standard, are crafted to minimize releases of sol vent to the environment. For example, certain conditions under the final rule designed to protect human health and the environment may also minimize risks to workers, such as those crafted to minimize releases of solvent. EPA has determined that RCRA condi tions, such as closed containers, recordkeeping, accumulation time limit, no free liquids, and labeling are required in order to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Furthermore, OSHA regulations may not cover every workplace covered by the RCRA regulations and, as a result, there would be gaps in regulatory coverage if EPA relied strictly on deferring to OSHA regulations. For example, the OSHA container standards may not apply at workplaces whose solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no fre e

flowing liquids or when wipes are contaminated with non

- flammable solvents . Additionally
, federal OSHA standards do not apply to public sector employees.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter recommended that EPA allow laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facili ties that choose to remove free liquids and manage them as hazardous waste to temporarily accumulate the solvents without having a RCRA hazardous waste permit. If liquids removed from a wipe must be managed according to 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270

, the commenter thinks that could be interpreted to mean that the facility would need to have a permit if accumulation times for generators in § 262.34 are exceeded. However, the commenter posited that the facility removing the solvent meets the definition of “generator” as defined in § 260.10, so the final rule should clarify that laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facilities that choose to manage solvents as hazardous waste

### 55 become the generator and as such are subject to generator accumulation requirem ents of § 262.34. [155]

(c) RESPONSE : During accumulation by the generator, solvent

- contaminated wipes may contain free liquids and still be excluded from solid or hazardous waste regulation under the final rule. However, free liquids must be removed from the wipes prior to being sent for cleaning or disposal, which must occur within 180 days from the start date of accumulation. When the free liquids are removed from the wipes or from the container holding the wipes, the free liquids are subject to the app licable hazardous waste regulations that apply to any new point of generation. The person removing the free liquids, including generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes, or handling facilities, such as a laundry, would be subject to the accumulation time li mits under 40 CFR 262.34 starting from the point the free liquids were removed. If the generator or handling facility manages the free liquid according to the applicable generator regulations under 40 CFR part 262, the generator or handling facility would not need a hazardo us waste permit. EPA has made it clear in the preamble to the final rule that free liquids must be removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or containers and must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations found in parts 260 through 273 and may count towards the handling facility’s generator status.

(d) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed the condition for accumulation of disposable and reusable wipes in covered containers. The commenter used the example of the manu al cleaning of electronic components, which generates a large number of wipes daily. The commenter stated that r equiring the operator to remove a cover to deposit each wipe during the manual cleaning process interrupts the workflow as much as having to ope n and close a latched or secured container. The commenter said that d isposable wipes containing a negligible amount of solvents may be reused at the discretion of the operator, and accumulation during the operator’s work shift should be governed by pertine nt permissible exposure limits. The commenter argued that the operator makes the decision to dispose of the wipes at shift end, at which time container requirements will not impede the industrial process. The commenter added that w ipes that are dry or have no free liquids do not pose the same risks as saturated wipes. [267]

(d) RESPONSE : The exclusions for reusable and disposable wipes only apply to solvent

- contaminated wipes that are no longer being used and must either be cleaned or disposed. EPA agrees that a wipe that is still in use does not need to be managed under the exclusions. Once use of the solvent

- contaminated wipe is completed, in order to be excluded from hazardous waste regulation, it must be managed in compliance with the conditions of the exclusions, which includes management in a closed container. This container standard is performance

- based and thus, facilities have flexibility in determining how best to meet this standard based on their specific processes. For example, containers with co vers opened by a foot pedal (e.g., flip

- top or spring loaded lid) or with a self

- closing swinging door could be appropriate. EPA also agrees that wipes that contain no free liquids do not pose the same risks as saturated wipes, which is why EPA is excludin g solvent

- contaminated wipes that meet the conditions of the final rule (including the “no free liquids” condition) from RCRA hazardous waste regulation.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that it is a serious problem with the proposed rule that disposable wipes would not be subject to speculative accumulation requirements, while reusable wipes would be, and it provides no avenue for enforcement action should an implementin g agency find disposable wipes that are being over

accumulated. [271] Another commenter stated that reusable wipes that are excluded from the definition of solid waste should have the same management standard as other excluded hazardous wastes that are rec ycled, namely the speculative accumulation criteria. The commenter stated that a dditional accumulation time limits would be inconsistent with existing recycling exclusions from hazardous waste and subject the gen erator to unnecessary burdens a nd shorter ac cumulation time limits may promote disposal over recycling since economically sized batches for recycling could not be accumulated. [262] One commenter stated specifically that excluded reusable wipes do not need an accumulation time limit because they wil l be subject to the speculative accumulation provisions, similar to excluded materials recycled under RCRA. [264]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that an accumulation time limit is needed to prevent over accumulation under both the reusable a nd disposable wipes exclusions. However, EPA has determined that a pplying speculative accumulation limits, which is consistent with how other hazardous secondary materials excluded from the definition of solid waste are managed, is not appropriate. Solvent

- contaminated wipes may contain free liquids during accumulation and applying speculative accumulation limits to the final rule exclusions would have allowed generators to accumulate solvent

- contaminated wipes, and the associated spent free liquid solvent, for up to a year. This amount of time would likely have increased the quantity of free liquid spent solvent managed onsite and thus, may increase adverse affects to human health, such as from fires and volatilization. In addition, the speculative

### 56 accumula tion time limit generally defines when product

- like materials have been abandoned (or discarded). This construct is not appropriate for solvent

- contaminated wipes which are to be sent for cleaning or disposal. Theref ore under the final rule, a 180

- day accu mulation time limit was promulgated for both disposable and reusable wipes to prevent over accumulation.

(f) COMMENTS : Other commenters had recommendations for accumulation conditions. One commenter suggested that generators should be required to accumula te wipes in containers that minimize evaporation. Another commenter suggested that EPA set a limit on the amount of solvent contaminated wipes that can be accumulated by a generator at any one time, to be determined considering both the cost of transportat ion and the risk posed from long term storage of solvent contaminated wipes. Several commenters said that EPA needs to do more to prevent long

- term storage in lieu of disposal; one commenter stated that EPA needs to distinguish between closed and sealed

co ntainers for purposes of accumulation and storage ; wipes that are in storage waiting to be picked up should be stored properly in sealed containers for some limited time period such as 90 days and with some regular inspection period or self

- inspections of at least once a week to ensure that the container s are not leaking or that they do not pose some kind of a fire hazard. Another commenter recommended that solvent

- contaminated wipes be managed in closed containers during accumulation, and that the proposed performance standard for covering containers is not adequate to prevent unnecessary volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors. Another commenter stated that most of the basic standards in 40 CFR 262.34 for generator accumulation should apply, limiting the amount of time for storage of solvent contam inated wipes, and including labeling with starting accumulation times indicated to ensure enforceability. The commenter thinks the other storage conditions under subpart I of p art 265 must also apply at the generator site, including maintaining containers in good condition, keeping containers closed, performing inspections for deterioration and leaks, and keeping containers 50 feet from the property line. Without reasonable safeguards on storage practices and accumulation times, the commenter believes there will be no incentive for generators to move contaminated wipes to treatment or final disposal. Another commenter stated that speculative accumulation requirements should apply, along with some recordkeeping requirements, but no additional regulatory langu age is required, as § 261

. 2 ( f ) adequately addresses the issue. Another commenter recommended that EPA consider management practices designed to minimize the amount of solvent applied to each wipe as an alternative method of complying with the management pr actices when circumstances make it difficult to cover th e container between each wipe. [199

- 1019, 246, 266, 288, 328, 330, 358]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA agr ees with the comments in support of imposing certain management conditions in the final rule. EPA has fina lized a closed container standard for both reusable and disposable wipes. The container must also be able to contain free liquids, should they occur. This container requirement serves to address potential risks from volatilization of solvents.

EPA agrees with establishing an accumulation time limit in order to prevent long

- term storage in lieu of disposal. Therefore, EPA is allowing solvent

- contaminated wipes to be accumulated by the generator for up to 180

- days from the start date of accumulation for eac h container prior to being sent for cleaning or disposal.

EPA also agrees with distinguishing between closed and sealed containers for purposes of accumulation and storage, which is consistent with EPA’s policy on closed containers (see “Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) and 265.173(a): Closed Containers” Robert Dellinger, December 3, 2009). In the final rule, during accumulation, a container is considered closed when there is complete contact between th e fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent

- contaminated wipes. When the container is full, or when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the container is being transported, the container must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficiently to prevent leaks and emissions.

EPA agrees that proposed covered standard is inadequate for addressing exposure from solvent emissions or from potential spills of free liquid spent solvent, for example, in cases where the container is accidentally overturned. EPA, therefore, has not finalized the proposed covered standard and is instead requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be managed in closed containers that can contain free liquids, should they occur.

EPA disagrees with the comment that suggested setting an accumulation limit based on the amount of solvent

contaminated wipes. This type of standard would be burdensome to implement and enforce and is not necessary to protect human health and the environme nt since the solvent

- contaminated wipes must be managed in closed

### 57 containers. Additionally, the 180

- day accumulation limit ensures that the wipes will be sent for cleaning or disposal as the exclusion intended and will not be stored in lieu of disposal.

EPA finds that the conditions of the final rule, including closed containers, labeling, accumulation time limit, recordkeeping, and no free liquids, are appropriate for ensuring that solvent

- contaminated wipes can be safely accumulated, stored, and sent fo r cleaning or disposal. EPA does not agree with adding further conditions, such as additional hazardous waste requirements in 40 CFR 262.34 or under subpart I of part 265, requiring regular inspections, or requiring that containers must be kept 50 ft from the property line, as these are not necessary for protection of human health and the environment and would increase regulatory burden on facilities managing solvent

- contaminated wipes.

EPA does not agree with applying speculative accumulation. See respon se to comment (e).

EPA disagrees with the commenter that suggested limiting the amount of solvent placed on each wipe. The amount of solvent placed on a wipe is dictated by numerous variables, including the type, size and absorbency of the wipe and the sp ecifics of the industrial process the solvent is being used for. It would thus be impossible to establish a maximum limit that would be appropriate across thousands of generators. Instead, EPA is requiring that solvent

contaminated wipes contain no free li quids when sent for cleaning or disposal.

EPA disagrees that no additional regulatory language is needed because § 261.2(f) addresses the issue. 40 CFR 261.2(f) requires respondents in actions to enforce regulations implementing subtitle C of RCRA to demonstrate that a certain material is not a solid waste or is conditionally exempt from regulation. This provision, however, does not address under what conditions a hazardous secondary material is excluded from regulation.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter sa id that it is not logical for EPA to claim that it is impractical to force the laundries to open and seal the container each time a wipe is discarded, but then claim that they will use performance standards that allow companies to be innovative in their me thods for protecting workers against solvents. Another commenter said that a number of provisions in the rule, such as accumulating soaked rages in a container covered with a piece of plywood or cardboard, do not reflect industry safe management practices. [199

- 1019, 240]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that it is impractical to require generators (the comment references “laundries” but EPA assumes the commenter meant generators, as these entities would be accumulating wipes) to seal and unseal a container every time a wipe must be placed inside. Therefore, under the final rule, during accumulation, a container is considered closed when there is complete contact between the fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove sol vent

- contaminated wipes. A container need only be sealed w hen the container is full, or when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the container is being transported. EPA also agrees that the proposed covered standard is n ot adequate. Therefore, EPA is not finalizing the proposed covered container standard and is instead requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers, such as containers with a spring

- loade d lid or an impermeable bag.

(h ) COMMENTS : One commenter objected to EPA’s characterization, on p. 655 95, of full RCRA control under

s ubpart I as requiring ‘that containers be closed (i.e. sealed) during accumulation,’ which the commenter stated is
not an accu rate representation of s ubpart I criteria. The commenter believes EPA’s attempt to redefine the s ubp art I closed criteria into the s ubpart CC sealed criteria via a parenthetical reference in the preamble to this rulemaking is inappropriate and should be deleted in a future Federal Register (FR) notice. [338]

(h ) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges the commenter who argued that EPA’s characterization of subpart I in the proposed rule was not accurate. In the final rule, EPA has distinguished between closed and sealed for purposes of accumulation and storage, consistent with EPA’s policy on closed containers (see “Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) and 265.173(a): Closed Containers” Robert Dellinger, December 3, 2009). The final rule does not reference § 262.34 and does not restate the parenthetical language on p.65595.

(i ) COMMENTS : There was one comment on EPA’s proposal to establish a storage time limit for disposable wipes at a generating facility, as specified in 40 CFR 262.34 (i.e., 90 days for LQGs and 180 days for SQG s) . However,

### 58 the commenter believes the proposed rule and the regulatory language are not clear on whether all the regulations regarding storage time limits specified in § 262.34 would apply, specifically, the satellite accumulation regulat ions outlined in § 262.34(c). The commenter stated that managing disposable solvent

- or chemical

- contaminated wipes and shop towels under the satellite accumulation regulations would address EPA’s concern for proper management, but requests EPA clarify thi s issue. [318]

(i) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.34, including the satellite accumulation regulations, do not apply to excluded solvent

- contaminated wipes. This is because the satellite accumulation regulations allow genera tors to accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardo us waste or one quart of acute hazardous waste at or near the point of generation without a permit and without complying with the accumulation time limits in the hazardous waste generator regulations (i.e. , 90/180 days). Under the final rule, solvent

contaminated wipes must be managed according to the specific conditions in §§ 261.4(a)(26) and 261.4(b)(18), which includes a condition that generators must accumulate reusable or disposable wipes for no more than180 days prior to sending the wipes for cleaning or disposal. This 180

- day clock begins at the start date of accumulation for each container (i.e., the date the first solvent

- contaminated wipe is placed in the container). Thus, generators cannot manage excluded solvent

- contaminated wipes under the satellite accumulation regulations since these regulations would not trigger a start date of accumulation until the 55 gallons or one quart volume had been reached. Generators who choose to manage their solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste and in compliance with the hazardous waste regulations may, of course, take advantage of the satellite accumulation regulations in § 262.34.

(j) COMMENTS : Several commenters disagreed with the assertion that having no accumulation time limits would encourage irresponsible waste management practices by generators, and instead argued that a n accumulation time limit would provide an economic disincentive for the use of reusable wipes and undermine EPA’s stated intent of encouraging pollution prevention. The commenters argued t here is little risk of prolonged accumulation a t generators’ facili ties. [191, 279, 336]

(j) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters who argued an accumulation time limit would provide an economic disincentive for use of reusable wipes. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes may be stored at the generator’s fac ility for up to 180 days. Generators taking advantage of the final rule conditional exclusion likely already have contractual arrangements with handling facilities (laundries, dry cleaners , incinerators, landfills) that schedule periodic (e.g., weekly) pic kup of solvent

- contaminated wipes and thus, this accumulation time limit should not present an undue burden to generators. In addition, as the 180

- day accumulation time limit is applicable to both reusable and disposable wipes, it should not influence gene rators’ choice of type of wipe.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that for re usable wipes, the handling processes are well defined already. For disposable wipes, one commenter stated that clearly defined transportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling and handling of excluded wipes. The commenter also stated that labeling containers that are not made of impermeable materials may be difficult. [305]

(k) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with this commenter who believed clearly defined tra nsportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling, and handling of excluded wipes. Therefore, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes being transported must be managed in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solven t

- Contaminated Wipes.” Closed containers must be able to contain liquids, should they occur. Examples of labeling include a sticker placed on a drum or a bag or pre

- printed bags with the label “Exclu ded Solvent

Contaminated Wipes

. ”

(l) COMMENTS : The majority of commenters supported the use of covered containers for the collection and accumulation of wipes instead of closed containers, which they claim create s an unnecessary burden. Many commenters stated that the use of covered containers compleme nts current manufacturing practices and provides the required level of environmental protection and safeguards against fugitive emissions and workplace hazards. Some commenters stated that this flexible standard is preferable because it also encourages gen erators to come up with innovative and cost

- efficient ways of storing these materials, while ensuring human health and the environ ment are adequately protected. [266, 278, 279, 281, 303, 304, 305, 312, 331, 349, 357]

One commenter supported a requirement for covered containers rather than closed, sealed containers and also opposed speculative accumulation provisions, since existing contracts with laundering services will ensure that

### 59 wipes and rags will be picked up and laundered on a regular basis. [320]

Another commenter opposed requiring sealing, latching, etc. of a cover on a container that will be frequently opened and closed as wipes are used. The commenter stated that t his creates an unnecessary burden on the generator and that t he proposed flexible standard is appropriate for wipes. [262]

One commenter stated the EPA is inappropriately trying to define the term “closed

. ” The commenter argued that d efining a closed container as only being “closed” if a lid is scre wed on, as EPA is pr oposing, unneces sarily limits the wide variety of containers that could be used to hold or transport used wipes. [262]

Another commenter stated that EPA has appropriately not defined what constitutes a “non

- leaking covered container,” but instead has recognized that a ra nge of devices can meet this performance standard. Given the large numbers of entities likely to operate under the conditional exclusions, the commenter believes this is the only practical way to implement this condition. [346]

Two commenters supported th e proposed conditions’ focus on preventing leaking containers, which would indicate the presence of free liquids, and reducing emissions from containers. One of these commenters additionally supported labeling containers with the words “Excluded Launderabl e Industrial Wipes,” and the accumulation start date, so that compliance with speculative accumulation requirements may be effectively checked during inspect ions by enforcement agencies. [266, 271]

(l ) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with commenters who supported the proposed covered container standard. EPA acknowledges that this approach would not always prevent releases, especially if the container was accidentally overturned, and t herefore, EPA is not finalizing the proposed covered container standard

. I nstead the final rule requires that solvent

- contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers, such as containers with a spring

- loaded lid or an impermeable bag. EPA also dis agrees with commenters that the closed contain er standard creates an unnecessary burden. The closed container standard is defined to allow for flexibility during accumulation of solvent

- contaminated wipes; during accumulation, a closed container does not need to be sealed and is considered closed when there is complete contact between the fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent

- contaminated wipes. Then, when the container is full, or when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the co ntainer is being transported, the container must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficiently to prevent leaks and emissions.

EPA generally agrees with the commenter who argued that existing contracts with laundering services will ensure that solvent

- contaminated wipes will be cleaned on a regular basis. However, given that free liquid spent solvent may be accumulated along with solvent

- contaminated wipes, and thus an ince ntive exists for generators to store the wipes along with the spent solvent in lieu of removing the solvent and managing it as hazardous waste, EPA believes that an accumulation time limit is necessary for the final rule

. EPA agrees with the commenter tha t said EPA has appropriately recognized that a range of devices can meet the closed container performance standard.

EPA agrees with commenters that supported a labeling condition and thus the final rule requires that containers be labeled “Excluded Solven t

- Contaminated Wipes.” EPA also agrees with requiring records that demonstrate compliance with the accumulation time limit. (However, under the final rule, generators can use routine business records, including labels, to demonstrate this compliance.)



### 5.4 **Condition of Wipes**

(a) COMMENTS : Three commenters generally discussed the proposed condition of wipes eligible for the exclusions from the definitions of solid waste and hazardous waste. One commenter stated that the definitions of “dry” and “no free li quids” seem unnecessarily complicated, and recommended instead three management options: ( 1) send the wipes to an industrial laundry under the conditions of the commenter’s agreement with the laun dry; (2) send the wipes to a waste

- to

- energy facility or lined landfill with a certification that the wipes: (a) are in an acceptable “dry”

### 60 disposal condition, which could be demonstrated by any one o f several options (e.g. either five grams per wipe measured by testing or by calculation from busine ss records; or proper use of some type of centrifuge or mechanical equipment that wrings the wipes dry and recovers the solvent, or, for SQGs only, “hand wrung”); and (b) contain no prohibited solvents; or (3) send the wipes to a solvent recovery facility with a hazardous waste permit. [265]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA has simplified the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule. First, EPA has not finalized the “dry” condition for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills; these wipes must meet the same “no fre e liquids” condition as wipes going to laundries, dry cleaners, or combustors. Second, EPA has made the “no free liquids” condition more objective in that it is determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Methods Test 9095B). EPA believes these cha nges in the final rule will ensure more consistent and appropriate implementation of the condition and thus reduce the risk that free liquid spent solvent will be transported and managed outside of RCRA hazardous waste controls. EPA notes that, under the f inal rule, solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes may be sent to a laundry or dry cleaner, provided the conditions of the exclusion are met. Additionally, solvent

- contaminated wipes may be sent under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations to a solvent recovery facility with a hazardous waste permit. However, these wipes would not be eligible for the final rule exclusion because these wipes would not meet the “no free liquids” condition.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that EPA change the language of propo sed 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A) and (B) so that the provisions also apply at the point when the wipes are discarded (i.e., pre

- transport, when the generator has placed them in a positio n to be picked up for transport ). [286]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with this commenter that the “no free liquids” condition should apply at the point the wipes are bein g sent for cleaning or disposal in order to reduce the possibility that free liquids will be inadvertently generated after leaving the generator facility. This has b een clarified in the final rule regulatory language.



### 5.4.1 **Free L iquids** 

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters generally discussed EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition. One commenter supported a solvent removal standard instead of a “no free liquids” or “no free liquids when wrung” approach, because it is unlikely that sufficient solvent will be removed to ensure that no free liquids are in a container of wipes when sent off

- site for disposal, and the rule as proposed prohibits the disposal or combusti on of free liquids by disposal facilities. Another commenter asked that the rule be rewritten to make sure that excess solvents are removed, while another commenter stated that free liquids should be totally excluded from off

- site sh ipments of contaminated wipes. [266, 330, 364] Another commenter cited EPA‘s Technical Background Document to illustrate that the “no free liquids” criterion is weak, ineffective, and will not be protective of human health and the environment, as there is sign ificant doubt that the standard can be met routi nely. The commenter stated d escriptions for solvent removal techniques other than centrifuging indicate that large amounts of solvents remain on the wipes. [288]

A few commenters generally supported th e “no free liquids” condi tion in the proposed rule and stated that the condition is appropriate for handling and transporting wipes to a lau ndry, dry cleaner, or handler. [246, 320, 355, 358]

Some commenters discussed how “no free liquids” should be determined. Several of these commenters stated that no change is necessary in how “no free liquids” is determined and that the proposed flexible performance

- based "no free liquids" standard is very similar to that which one industrial laundry company has voluntarily imposed u pon itsel f for over 10 years. Thus, the commenter believes it will be easy to comply with and contains no complicated testing or measurement requirements. The commenter believes that a ltering the exemption by instituting a “no free liquids when wrung” condition or requiring a test would cause an unnecessary burden. [267, 328, 305, 348] One commenter supported the current definition of “no free liquids,” as the current definition is consistent with definitions under 40 C.F.R. 260.10 and easy for users to understand, inexpensive to perform, and simple enough to avoid confusion or misinterpretation. [348] One commenter argued that EPA should simply require that there be no visible signs of free

- flowing solvent remaining in or on the material and this is the only criteri on necessary. [459] Many commenters support ed the proposed “no free liquid” drip test (wipes may not drip when they are held or if

### 61 there is no free liquid in the bottom of the containers) and asserted that this standard by itself is sufficient

. The
comment er argues that i f a wipe dripped during transfer or there was free liquid in the accumulation container that should be de facto evidence the wipes contain free liquids. Commenters stated that many states and laundries already use this practice

. [305, 328, 332, 366]

Two commenters suggested revisions to the current definition of “no free liquids.” One commenter stated that the standard that "no liquid solvent may drip" is too weak and that EPA should require that wipes be wrung, and then, after wringing, no t drip. The other commenter stated that EPA should revise the proposed definition from “ no liquid solvent may drip from industrial wipes, and there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the wipes” to read “there is not liquid solvent in the contain er being used for transporting the wipes.” [286, 347] Conversely, several commenters argued that the proposed standards are too weak. They stated that the rule, as proposed, does not provide adequate and uniform assurances that the “no free liquids” condit ion will be met from the point of generatio n to final reuse or disposal and that it relies on weak criteria, with no objective means of verification. [288] The commenters listed several conditions they believe make the rule criteria too weak, for example, checking the bottom portion of screen

- bottomed drums for liquids is not an appropriate way to verify compliance with the "no free liquids" standard. The test can appear to be satisfied at the point of generation, but overtime, free liquids may separate and accumu late in the container bottom. [348] One commenter stated that the proposed language “other similarly effective method” is too vague. The rule must be strengthened to read “other similarly effective method that is demonstrated in a one

- time test to a chieve a minimum 70% removal efficiency or the less than 5 grams criterion on test wipes saturated with 2 times the dry weight of solvent.” EPA must require that any other method of extraction be demonstrated to be effective by performing a one

- time test, and the test report must be kept on file. [288]

Some commenters specifically suggested or acknowledged using the Paint Filter Liquids Test in order to reduce confusion over whether compliance has been achieved. [184, 280, 313, 283, 279, 350] Two commenters argued specifically that the Paint Filter Liquids Test would be too burdensome. [332, 366] Two commenters stated that if a test is required, then it must be easy to perform. The no drip “test” must be able to be performed by any solvent wipe

use r without recourse to laboratory analysis or specialized equipment. [355, 366]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who support the general concept of a “no free liquids” standard to ensure protection of human health and the environment and, therefore , EPA has finalized the condition for both the exclusion for reusable and disposable wipes. EPA agrees that this will ease implementation of the rule as this standard is currently being used by industry.

EPA also agrees with commenters that opposed the proposed approach that the “no free liquids” condition could be determined by simply holding up a wipe for a short period of time and seeing if free liquids dripped from the wipe. EPA agrees with commenters who believe this standard is too subjective and d oes not support consistent implementation and enforcement

. EPA understands commenters who argued that the proposed “no free liquids” criterion was weak and ineffective and may not be protective of human health and the environment. For example, simply requi ring “visible” signs of free liquids could mean many things to different people, for example, whether a wipe must be observed for two seconds or two minutes. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA has strengthened the “no free liquids” condition in three ways: (1) the condition is determined using an EPA Methods Test, which makes the standard more objective and easier to implement and enforce; (2) the solvent

- contaminated wipes must not contain free liquids at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal, wh ich ensures that all liquids are removed prior to be transported off

- site, including liquids that may form due to percolation during accumulation and storage; and (3) generators must document their process for meeting the “no free liquids” condition, which enables effective compliance monitoring of this key condition.

EPA has determined that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW

- 846, Method 9095B) is most appropriate to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. This test was specif ically chosen because it is currently being used by the majority of states to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes contain free liquids and is also the test used to implement the restrictions on disposal of free liquids in the MSWLF regulations (40 CFR 258.28). The test is also simple and inexpensive to perform and typically produces clear results. It includes placing a predetermined amount of material in a paint filter and if any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter with in five minutes, the material is deemed to contain free liquids. EPA notes that generators do not have to conduct the Paint Filter Liquids Test for every solvent

- contaminated wipe. Rather, generators must ensure that if

### 62 the Paint Filter Liquids Test was pe rformed, the wipe would pass. Furthermore, t his test does not require specialized equipment or laboratory analysis , which addresses some commenters’ concerns.

The revised risk assessment published in the 2009 NODA estimated amounts of solvent contained on wipes as a result of normal industrial use. Estimated solvent loadings did not take into account the proposed “dry” or the proposed “no free liquids” standard. For most solvents, EPA used empirical data from measurements of the amount of solvents found on disposed wipes; for other solvents the Agency used data on the amount of solvent applied to the wipes and made conservative assumptions of the fraction that remains in the disposed wipes. The results of the final risk analysis demonstrate that wipes conta minated with certain solvents and laundry sludge may be sent to lined landfills without posing significant risks to human health and the environment. 2 Because target risk thresholds in the risk analysis were not exceeded when accounting for levels of solve nt contained in wipes, EPA finds that the “no free liquids” condition as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test is sufficient to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment. This "no free liquids" condition reduces human exposure to free liquid spent solvent during transport and handling, and final disposition of the wipes and ensures that solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids in compliance with the mu nicipal soli d waste regulations. This requirement also addresses concerns regarding downstream discharges and emissions from the solvent

- contaminated wipes.

EPA did consider whether to require a “no free liquids when wrung” condition. See section 5.4.3 for more infor mation on this issue.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that generators should be allowed to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes and retain th e exclusion, as “over

- handling” of the solvent by the generator (i.e. han dwringing) could cause a loss of solvent through increased fugitive emissions. The commenter stated that increased worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also result and that g enerators should be able to delegate handing the solvent removal to on

- site or offsi te and third party entities better suited to undertake the solvent removal process. [303]

(b) RESPONSE : Solvent

- contaminated wipes may contain free liquids d uring accumulation and storage but cannot contain free liquids when sent for cle aning or disposal . Additionally, EPA has not finalized the “no free liquids when wrung” condition, which reduces any unintended consequences of increased solvent exposure from hand

wringing. However, EPA has chosen not to finalize the provision allowing intra

- company or in ter

- company transfers for purposes of solvent extraction. We do not agree with allowing the off

- site transfer of saturated solvent

contaminated wipes because this would increase the potential for release of the solvent to the environment. Additionally, wip es containing free liquids inherently present greater risk of environmental release than wipes containing no free liquids and the conditions of the final rule are not designed to address the risks posed by transport of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter generally supported some of EPA’s proposed conditions, including storage in covered, non

- leaking containers, transportation in cloth or plastic bags, and “no free liquids.” [312]

( c ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that conditions are needed and has made some changes to the final rule to further improve protection of human health and the environment. The final rule requires conditions similar to the proposed rule, which includes storage in closed (rather t han covered) , non

- leaking containers and wipes must contain no free liquids when being sent off

- site. Solvent

- contaminated wipes may be transported in cloth or plastic bags as long as those bags meet the performance

- based closed container standard in the f inal rule.

(d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that a differentiation between “dry” and “no free liquids” is warranted if meeting the more stringent criteria of "dry" allows more flexibility in the management approach for "dry" wipes. [338]

(d) RESPONSE : In the November 2003 proposal, EPA had requested comment on whether solvent

- contaminated wipes meeting the “dry” condition should be required to meet the transportation requirements. The rationale for not

2 The one exception is for wipes contaminated with trichloroethylene, which were determined to exceed target risk thresholds fo r disposal in lined landfills. Wipes contaminated with trichloroethylene are thus ineligible for the final rule exclusion for disposable wipes.

### 63 specifying transportation standards would be that the level of solvents would be insignificant if the wipes were to contain less than five grams of solvent each. However, numerous other commenters have argued against the “dry” standard because it would be too difficult to implement and enforce. Additiona lly, the five gram limit does not take into account the size and absorbency of the wipe

– some wipes may have no more than five grams of solvent but contain free liquids. Therefore, EPA has not finalized the “dry” condition for solvent

- contaminated wipes g oing to landfills; instead, these wipes must meet the “no free liquids” condition, which is the same for wipes going to laundries, dry cleaners, and combustors.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed a solid waste exclusion contingent on a lab or testing, in stead of the common sense management conditions that facilities already employ. The commenter said that t here are existing viable state regulatory programs and there is no need to create additional but unnecessary compliance costs, which might make the pro vision of reusable shop towels too expensive for some customers and possibly too expensive for all customers. [199

- 1018]

(e ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the solid waste exclusion for reusable wipes should not be contin g ent on laboratory t esting. Instead, EPA has determined that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW

- 846, Method 9095B) is most appropriate to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. This test was specifically chosen because it is currently being used by the majority of states to determine whether solvent

contaminated wipes contain free liquids and is also the test used to implement the restrictions on disposal of free liquids in the MSWLF regulations (40 CFR 258.28). The test is also simple and inexpen sive to perform and typically produces clear results. It includes placing a predetermined amount of material in a paint filter and if any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter within five minutes, the material is deemed to contai n free liquids.

G enerators do not have to conduct this test for every solvent

- contaminated wipe. G enerators must ensure that if the Paint Filter Liquids Test was performed, the solvent

- contaminated wipe would pass. In order to meet the performance standa rd, generators may use any of a range of methods to remove solvent from the wipe such as centrifuging, mechanical

- wringing, screen

- bottom drums, microwave technology, and vacuum extractors. To ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the standard, g enerators may conduct testing or use knowledge regarding how much solvent is present in each wipe. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that have been subject to advanced solvent extraction processes, such as centrifuges, or any other similarly effective method to r emove solvent from the wipes, are likely to meet this standard.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter supported "no free liquids" as the only condition for shipping reusable wipes. [267]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with the commenter that argued the “no free liquids” condition should be the only condition for solvent

- contaminated wipes being cleaned and reused. Other conditions, such as the closed container condition and labeling ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes, and the solvent contained in the wipe s, are not being released to the environment. Additionally, recordkeeping documents a generator’s intentions to meet the conditions of the exclusion and enables compliance monitoring by regulatory authorities. Furthermore, the accumulation time limit ensur es that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are being sent for cleaning or disposal as intended by the exclusion and are not being stored indefinitely.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter stated a concern about the percolation of liquids between the time when the wipe s arrive at the disposal site and when the facility introduces them into the process, but supported the proposed options of either the handler removing the liquids or returning the container to the generator [with the wipes and free liquids]. [320]

(g ) RE SPONSE : Because the wipes must meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal, it is not likely that free liquids will be generated through percolation during transport. Available information suggests that such occ urrences would be rare. However, if free liquids are discovered by the handling facility, than the handling facility must manage the free liquids according to applicable hazardous waste regulations.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter also stated that since the definition of “free liquids” is already provided in 40 CFR 260.10, EPA should delete the proposed definition of “no free liquids” from the final rule. [184]

### 64 (h) RESPONSE : The existing definition of free liquids in 40 CFR 260.10 defines free liquids as mea ning liquids which readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure. EPA’s definition of “no free liquids,” uses the term “free liq uids” and simply clarifies how it is to be determined whether solvent

contaminated w ipes contain free liquids. EPA sees no conflict with the two definitions.

(i) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that the final regulations should specify criteria for determining whether free liquids, as already defined in 40 CFR 260.10, are absent from wipes, rather than creating a separate new definition for the phrase “no free liquids.” The co mmenter believes t his approach would be consistent with other existing sections of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations that prohibit the presence of free liquids. The commenter thinks o ne or more technolog ies ( i.e., quantitative an d reproducible complianc e tests) should be specified as criteria for demonstrating the absenc e or presence of free liquids as t his would minimize misunderstandings and confusion over whether compliance has been achieved and would be consistent with other RCRA hazardous waste
regu lations applicable to contain erized hazardous wastes. [184] Other commenters also supported EPA specifying technical standards to ensure that the wipes meet this "no free liquids" condition. [313, 337]

(i) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters that support ed specifying a technical standard that is also consistent with other parts of the regulations and has determined that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW

- 846, Method 9095B) is most appropriate to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. T he Paint Filter Liquids Test is used in many places in the regulations. We agree that this reproducible compliance test will minimize misunderstandings and confusion over whether compliance has been achieved. EPA does agree with the commenter’s s uggestion that the final regulations should specify criteria for de termining whether free liquids, which we have done in the definition of “no free liquids” in the final rule at 40 CFR 260.10. EPA finds that it is easier to codify one definition of “no free liquids” in the regulations to be used for both exclusions.

(j ) COMMENTS : Several commenters submitted comments that opposed specifying technology to use to demonstrate “no free liquids.” Comme nters stated that the agency should not specify a list of technologies that would be considered to meet the condition if a generator could simply use the technology to meet the condition in name, but not in fact. The commenter believes that the more diffic ult or expensive the option, the less likely regulated entities will implement the option. One commenter suggested that a simple visual test would be sufficient. Another suggested that an alternative to a specified technology would be a recordkeeping requi rement tha t indicates actual compliance. [246, 280, 358]

A few commenter s stated that the final rule could include a discussion of what technologies may be appropriately used to remove free liquids from wipes, but no technologies should be specified. The second commenter additionally commented that the EPA should retain, in this list of options, the option of demonstrating compliance through “process knowledge.” [287, 346] Another commenter recommended that EPA include generator knowledge as an option in conducting the practical test to determine “no free liquids.” The commenter feels that g enerators who track their solvent use should be able to utilize their process knowledge to determine if their wipes contain no free liquids and if a list of acceptable technologies is developed to meet the condition, the list should include generator knowledge. [279] One commenter stated that the proposed language “other similarly effective method” is too vague. The commenter wants the rule must be strengthened to read “ other similarly effective method that is demonstrated in

a one

- time test to achieve a minimum 70% removal efficiency or the less than 5 grams criterion on test wipes saturated with 2 times the dry weight of solvent.” The commenter wants EPA to require that any other method of extraction be demonstrated to be effective by performing a one

- time test, and the test report must be kept on file. [288]

Another commenter suggested that EPA explore compactor technology to compress solvents from rags for collection in a separate drum, and apply it as part of the solvent extraction definition. [288] One commenter supported an exemption from requiring the technology standard if it can be demonstrated that no free liquids are removed through wringing out the wipes. [337 ] One commenter believed that t he regulations should require some form of solvent extraction metho d be used on industrial towels because the proposed regulations do not require users of industrial towels to do anything to remove solvents from the towels after they have been used. The commenter believed the best way to prevent the 20,000,000 gallons (or more) of solvents from going into the municipal water treatment system is to prevent it from leaving users’ facilities in the first place. [273]

### 65 Another commenter supported the option of a technology test in for meeting no free liquids [i.e., by wringing or other suitable technology]. The com menter thinks that a technology

- based test is the simplest way for a small business to implement the standard. The commenter also opposed exempting saturated wipes that are transported to a company under the same or other ownership for solvent reclamation. [194] One other commenter stated that the last sente nce of the proposed definition “w ipes that have been subjected to solvent extraction are presum ed to contain no free liquids” should be used as a criterion for demonstrating whether or not free liquids a re present in solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes. [184]

(j) RESPONSE : In the November 2003 proposal, EPA had proposed that solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids “or must have been treated by solvent extraction.” EPA then proposed a definit ion of solvent extraction to mean “an advanced extraction process such as mechanical wringers, centrifuges, or any other similarly effective method to remove solvent from industrial wipes.” Other commenters urged EPA to more clearly define when the “no fre e liquids” condition has been met, such as with a list of acceptable technologies. However, EPA does not agree with requiring specific solvent extraction technologies because such specific technologies may not be necessary under certain circumstances to me et the condition and may impose unnecessary cost on businesses. Furthermore, technologies evolve over time and the list could quickly become obsolete. Instead, to address commenters’ concerns regarding clarity of the condition, EPA has chosen to finalize a more objective performance

based standard that is based on an EPA methods test. Because this test typically provides clear results regarding whether a solvent

- contaminated wipe contains no free liquids, it is not necessary for EPA to further define a list of solvent extraction technologies.

The “no free liquids” condition is a performance

- based standard, which allows generators flexibility in choosing any of a range of methods to remove solvent from the wipe . Such methods include centrifuging, mechanical

- wringing,

screen

- bottom drums, microwave technology, and vacuum extractors. To ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the standard, generators may conduct sampling or use knowledge regarding how much solvent is present in each wipe. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must document the process used to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal. Generators are not required to document the effectiveness of the method used (beyond that the method will meet the “no free liquids” condition) through testing but are not precluded from doing so. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that have been subject to advanced solvent extracti on processes, such as centrifuges, or any other similarly effective method to remove solvent from the wipes, are likely to meet this standard. Additionally, generators must document how they are meeting the “no free liquids” condition

. To reduce confusion, we have deleted the definition of “solvent extraction” from the final rule and have eliminated any reference to this term in the definition of no free liquids.

Additionally, EPA agrees with the commenter that solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free l iquids should not be transported off

- site as this would increase the potential for release of solvent to the environment. Therefore , EPA has not finalized its proposed provision allowing intra

- company transfers.

(k ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA should require processing of the wipes to remove a substantial percentage of the waste solvent before it is returned to the laundry. The commenter stated that the EPA’s Technical Background Document shows that centrifuging is capa ble of achieving between 76 percent and 99 percent solvent removal. The c ommenter wants EPA to require that the generators remove as much solvent as technically possible to avoid worker exposure and dissemination of hazardous waste throughout the environme nt. [351]

(k) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree with the commenter that specifying a specific percentage of the waste solvent that must be removed before it is returned to the laundry is appropriate . Because of the variety of types, sizes, and absorbencies of wipes and the varying amounts of sol vent used on wipes, it would not be possible to identify a percentage of solvent removed that would be applicable to all wipes. Furthermore, requiring certain technologies would impose unnecessary costs on businesses, pa rticularly those businesses that use small amounts of solvent such that the wipe would pass the no free liquids condition without any processing.

(l) COMMENTS : Two commenters stated that generator knowledge is too weak to be used as criteria in determining “no free liquids.” They state that unless such knowledge is based on use of a graduated dispenser or an efficient extraction technique like centrifuging, it is impossible to “know” that free liquids are absent. Also, the commenter said this requirement would be based upon mere observation with no requirement or obligation to technically verify

### 66 that an adequate level of solvent extraction has in fact occurred. Th e commenter added that the observer is not required to have training or certification, which is in stark contrast to a parall el requirement under the CAA. [288, 323]

(l) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the proposed “no free liquids” standard was too subjective and that it would be difficult to know whether the condition is met. EPA has thus defined the “no free liquids” condition to be determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Methods Test 9095B). This test typically provides clear results and allows b oth the regulated community and the regulatory authorities to technically verify whether the condition has been met. EPA finds that the changes to the final rule will ensure more consistent and appropriate implementation of this condition. EPA notes that g enerators do not have to conduct the Paint Filter Liquids Test for every solvent

- contaminated wipe. Rather, generators must ensure that if the Paint Filter Liquids Test was performed, the wipe would pass.

In order to meet the performance standard, genera tors may use any of a range of methods to remove solvent from the wipe such as centrifuging, mechanical

- wringing, screen

- bottom drums, microwave technology, and vacuum extractors. To ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the standard, generators may conduct sampling or use knowledge regarding how much solvent is present in each wipe. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that have been subject to advanced solvent extraction processes, such as centrifuges, or any other similarly effective method to

remove solvent from the wipes, are likely to meet this standard. Additionally, generators must document how they are meeting the “no free liquids” condition.

EPA does not agree with the commenter that said generator knowledge is too weak to use to determine whet her the solvent

- contaminated wipe contains no free liquids. In many cases, generators are very familiar with their processes and ingredients, including the quantity of solvent used. Furthermore, the final rule defines an objective standard for “no free liq uids” which will ensure proper implementation and enforcement of this standard. EPA does not agree with requiring generators to have training or certification to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. In fact, EPA chose the Paint Fi lter Liquids Test to define “no free liquids” because it should not be difficult to conduct and typically provides clear results.

(m ) COMMENTS : One comm enter requested clarification regarding frequency of sampling for the “no free liquids” standard. [347]

(m) RESPONSE : EPA is not requiring a specific frequency of sampling in order to comply with the “no free liquids” condition. Generators may choose to conduct sampling as is appropriate to ensure that their solvent

contaminated wipes contain no free liqui ds when sent for cleaning or disposal.

(n) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that the generator be allowed to add an absorbent to the wipes container to manage any free liquid that might percolate out of the wipes. [340]

(n ) RESPONSE : In the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must not contain free liquids at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal. Thus, EPA believes the likelihood that properly managed wipes will have sufficient solvent to percolate out during transport to be rare. If absorbents are necessary, this may be a sign that sufficient amounts of free liquids are not being removed and the solvent

- contaminated wipes may not meet the “no free liquids” condition. Additionally, free liquids must be managed according to applicable hazardous waste regulations, whether absorbent is used or not.



### 5.4.2 **No Free Liquids When W rung** 

(a) COMMENTS SUPPORTING WRINGING : Many commenters generally supported a “no dripping when hand wrung" performance standard for both disposable wipes and reusable wipes. Commenters stated that this would help the environment by ensuring that users reclaim as much solvent as practically possible. Additional reasons submitted in support of hand wringing include: 1) handwringing serves as an effectiv e waste minimization incentive

- the less solvent a generator uses, the less solvent will need to be extracted from a wipe and managed as a hazardous waste; 2 ) hand wringing is already the standard used for “oily” rags and is universally understood; 3 ) hand wringing

### 67 ensures that the greatest amount of solvent will be recovered for the least amount of cost to the generator and that solvent on reusable and disposable wipes will be recovered and recycled or treated properly. [148, 159, 176, 185, 194, 246, 257, 261, 277, 286, 324, 354, 358, 360, 362]

One commenter des cribed the numerous benefits derived from hand

- wringing and how these outweigh any burden

assoc iated with this regulation and advocated that the regulations be applied to reusable as well as disposa ble wipes. This commenter asserted that handwringing would fulfill the determination of EPA’s Office of Water that the most effective and cost

- efficient way to minimize the significant amount of hazardous solvent entering our nation’s waterways through the industrial laundering process is through solvent reduction by wipes generators. The commenter believes that the regulation would also substantially further EPA’s own policy objectives of resource conservation and recovery and establish a level regulatory playing field for those wipe generators who already engage in such practices. The commenter added that i t would adequately address the documented worker and workplace safety and health risk concerns that EPA’s proposed regulatory conditions do not, i t is e asy to understand and implement, should pose no additional meaningful cost

, and can readily be applied consistently. [283]

The same commenter also argued against the assertion that hand

- wringing would expose wipes to the air more than is necessary. They a rgued that this assertion fails to account for the minimal amount of tim e it takes to hand

- wring a wipe , and the fact that the substantial amount of solvent removed by handwringing is then not available for evaporation when the wipes are later exposed to t he air during the laundering handling process. The commenter said that EPA fails to account for the add itional amount of time the wipe s will be exposed to the air due to the need to address the free solvents that will inevitably accumulate at the bottom of containers. The commenter believes the argument fails to balance the significant benefits achieved by the substantial amount of solvent that can be extracted by hand

- wringing and fails to account for the comparable exposure of wipe s to the air that are “h and

- held” under EPA’s propose d “no free liquids” test. [283]

The commenter also argued that handwringing is already a common practice among states and regulatory entities and is therefore an appropriate standard. The commenter said that EPA believes that as a matter of practice and/or state regulatory policies, hand

- wringing of solvent contaminated wipes is already largely occurring. Given that belief, the commenter thinks EPA should codify that practice and ensure that it is being implemented uniformly by all generators. The commenter believes EPA’s proposed rule should be based on the “no free liquids” management conditions applicable to reusable wipes under existing state “regulatory” policies. Given that position, and the large number of states that alr eady require hand

- wringing or its functional equivalent, the commenter argued that a federal rule that uniformly mandates in all states salutary solvent removal practices that are already generally endorsed should be enforced. The commenter stated that, i n practice, at least half the states already recognize the benefits of achieving more solvent extraction than would be accomplished by EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition. The commenter added that only a limited number of states actually impose a “ha nd

- wringing” regulatory requirement, and some states merely recommend other forms of aggressive solvent extraction. If a hand wringing requirement were imposed, the commenter believes it would ensure more meaningful solvent extraction practices that many

s tates and regulatory entities already support. [283]

One commenter stated that in order to achieve the environmental protection and resource conservation and recovery goals of RCRA and this rulemaking, the proposed rule should be amended to require a “hand

- wringing” performance standard for all wipes subject to this rule. EPA’s tentative determination not to require substantial solvent extraction from solvent contaminated wipes renders EPA’s proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reu sable wipes unlawful. Adoption of a hand

- wringing performance standard would materially advance OSWER’s resource conservation and recovery goals. As EPA itself has acknowledged, removing solvents at the source via hand

- wringing is a proven method to reduce the introduction of solv ent into the environment. [283] Another commenter supported additional conditions that will result in generators increasing their amounts of solvent recovery and recycling. At a minimum, the commenter said that EPA should require h and wringing of industrial wipes to remove and capture residual solvent in the wipes, especially given the fire hazards at industrial laundries. [272]

One commenter asserted that the hand wringing requirement would effectively address the environmental he alth risks posed by fires during transport and storage and handling of contaminated wipes. The commenter said that

s ubstantially reducing the amount of solvent in wipes with a hand

- wringing performance standard would clearly reduce the likelihood of direct contact with, and vaporization or spontaneous combustion of, solvent remaining in

### 68 the wipes. The commenter added that s uch a standard would also reduce the likelihood of free solvents in the bottom of containers which occurs when pressure from wipes near the top of a container “squeeze liquid” from wipes on the bottom of containers. [283] Another commenter argued that a handwringing is the preferable performance standard measure, since a non

- dripping wipe when placed in a container may still have sufficien t solvent to settle out during transport, whereas a wrung wipe will likely not. Centrifuging and gravimetric methods seem unworkable based on the myriad of operations and settings where wipes are generated. [349]

One commenter argued against the view that hand

- wringing would be “burdensome.” The commenter said t hat is not the proper issue for EPA’s consideration and the appropriate question under RCRA is whether the regulatory requirements at issue are needed to protect human health and the environment and , if so, whether the same level of protection can be achieved at lower cost. T hey argued that while relying on simple “hand

- holding” to determine if “no free liquids” are present in wipes being transported offsite would presumably be less costly, it will b e insufficient as a legal matter because it will fail to support a lawful exclusion from the definition of solid waste and be insufficient to protect against the risks attendant to current handling of solvent contaminated reusable wipes, thereby rendering it inadequate to sustain an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste as well. [283]

Some commenters argued against the five g rams “dry” standard and in favor of handwringing. These commenters argued that hand wringing to ensure nothing is dripp ing makes more sense than the five grams standard and that i t is an easy test to perform and also recover s and recycle s more solvent. One commenter pointed out t hat one person may be able to apply greater pressure than another person resulting in varying amou nts of solvent removed. [199

- 1002, 345] O ne commenter stated that the five grams per wipe condition is neither performance based nor easy to understand. The commenter stated that m ost facilities will not have the separation equipment or the measuring and

a nalyzing equipment to process or determine if a wipe has more or less than five grams contained in it. The commenter argued that a wrung wipe will essentially be “dry” relative to producing any free liquid discharge up on handling and disposal and that wrin ging at the generating point will facilitate recovery and reuse of solvent at its point of use. The commenter believes a “no free liquids when wrung” condition would meet the objective of being performance

- based and easy to understand and implement. [262] Another commenter recommended that EPA define “dry” by hand wringing to achieve the requirement for no free liquids for both reusable and disposable solvent laden wipe s. The commenter said t his standard is preferable to the five gram limit on solvents for disposable wipe s sent to the landfill. [299]

The commenter also stated that the adoption of a uniform hand

- wringing performance standard for all solvent contaminated wi pes would be easy to implement and would substantially further EPA’s objectives of incr easing consistency in the regulations governing wipes across the United State s. Unlike with EPA’s proposed five gram limit for disposable wipes

, the commenter said a hand

- wringing standard would not require wipe generators to locate, purchase, and operate comparatively complex solvent extraction systems like centrifuges, or engage in burdensome sampling or calculat ions to determine whether the five gram limit has been met. The commenter added the rule would not be costly since many states already require as a policy matter hand

- wringing wipes or its functional equivalent and it would be equitable and help create a level regulatory playing field. [283]

(b ) COMMENTS OPPOSING WRIN G ING : Several commenters opposed the “no free liquids when wrung” condition for a variety of reasons. Two commenters generally opposed this as a condition for exclusion of reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste. One commenter stated that this option would be very similar to the “Massachusetts One Drop” test, which has signif icant flaws. [184, 348] Several commenters agreed with the stated concerns in the preamble, including that handwringing would constitute a substantial change from current state policies, that contaminated wipes would be more exposed under this condition, t hat the condition would greatly increase burden on generators, and that “ no free liquids when wrung” standard is very subjective in that whether or not free liquids are produced depends on precisely how much force one ap plies when wringing the wipes.[184, 264, 271, 346] Several commenters stated that the condition is excessive and unnecessary, as many laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facilities already have technology in place at laundries to remove solvents from towels as a first step in the laundry p rocess. The commenters believes that i mposing additional requirements would place additional and unne cessary burdens on generators. [246, 262, 358]

Several commenters opposed the condition because requiring wringing will significantly increase workers’ ex posure to the contaminated material on the wipes. The commenters believe that r equiring each wipe to be wrung would unnecessarily expose the employees to solvents whether wringing is accomplished at the work station or upon

### 69 consolidation for storage prior to shipping off site for disposal. The commenters thing the “when wrung” requirement necessitates the additional step in the handling of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes with each wipe being tested by hand wringing to verify that it does not contain e xcessive solvent. The commenters added that t his extra step unnecessarily exposes the wipe and its removed solvent to potential mishandling, increasing the risk to employees as well as increasing the thre at to the ambient environment. [267, 328, 329, 355] One commenter stated that altering the “no free liquids” condition by instituting a “when wrung” condition could create confusion by allowing subjective interpretation of the term “wrung .” The commenter thinks this ambiguity would defeat the purpose of dev eloping a simplified approach for compliance determination under the new regulation. [3 05]

Another commenter stated that they do not support either the "no free liquids" or "no free liquids when wrung" approaches because both are unlikely to remove suffi cient solvent to ensure that no free liquids are in a container of wipes when sent off

- site for disposal. They propose that a new solvent removal standard be instituted that supports attai nment of the prohibition. [266] One commenter submitted a comment th at recommended the addition of wording that clarifies “no free liquids when mechanically wrung” in order to prevent excess handling of free liquids. The commenter thinks m anual wringing of wipes should not be encouraged. [331]

One commenter stated that a test that requires wringing or centrifuging wipes after use but before depositing them in a closed container w ould conflict with the current requirements for proper handling of solvent

- laden rags in the Aerospace NESHAP. The commenter added that hand wring ing of solvent wipes could increase solvent emissions to the atmosphere and increase the potential for employee exposure to solvent vapors. The commenter said that h and wringing would necessarily occur in close proximity to the workers' breathing zone and increase the concentration of solven t vapors in the breathing zone, therefore, r equiring this kind of test would not therefore be appropriate. [366 ]

(a , b ) RESPONSE : Under RCRA, EPA must balance its goals to conserve resources with protecting human health and the environment from mismanagement of wastes

. EPA agrees with commenters that the rule provides an incentive to minimize waste in that the less solvent a generator uses, the less solvent will need to be extracted from the wipe. Additionally, by requiring the removal of free liquid spent solvent from t he wipe, the rule encourages resource conservation in that greater amounts of spent solvent will be available for recycling.

EPA agrees with commenters who opposed the “no free liquids when wrung” condition. EPA agrees that a “no free liquids when wrung” condition could potentially increase workers’ exposure to solvents. Additionally , “when wrung” is too s ubjective a standard and invites regulatory confusion (for example, “when wrung” is dependent on the size and strength of the individual doing the wring ing). Thus, EPA has not finalized this condition in the final rule.

However, EPA agrees that simple “hand

- holding” to determine whether a wipe contains no free liquids is not adequate. EPA’s proposed standard was not objective enough to be implemented con sistently across many facilities and may not have been adequately effective in removing free liquids. Therefore, EPA has made changes to the “no free liquids” standard to address commenters’ concerns regarding the subjectivity of the proposed condition. Fo r the final rule exclusions, EPA is determining “no free liquids” must be determined using an EPA methods test, the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which typically provides clear results and enables consistent implementation and enforcement of the condition. EP A finds that the Paint Filter Liquids Test is adequate for determining that solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids as this test requires that a wipe, contained in a paint filter, not drip any liquid solvent for a period of five minutes. Moreove r, t his test was specifically chosen because it is currently being used by the majority of states to determine whether solvent

- contaminated wipes contain free liquids and is also the test used to implement the restrictions on disposal of free liquids in th e MSWLF regulations (40 CFR 258.28). Furthermore, EPA is requiring this standard to be applied at the point that solvent

- contaminated wipes are being sent for cleaning and disposal, thus ensuring that any free liquids that formed during accumulation and storage of the solvent

contaminated wipes be removed and managed prior to being sent off

- site. EPA notes that generators do not have to conduct the Paint Filter Liquids Test for every solvent

- contaminated wipes. Rather, generators must ensure that if the P aint Filter Liquids Test was performed, the wipe would pass.

### 70 Furthermore, EPA agrees with commenters that the five gram limit for disposable wipes that are sent to landfills would be impossible to implement and enforce. Therefore, EPA has not chosen to fi nalize this requirement in the final rule. Instead, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are sent to landfills must meet the same “no free liquids” condition for wipes that are sent to laundries, dry cleaners, and combustors.

In conclusion, the final rule “no free liquids” condition provides waste minimization and pollution prevention benefits, while avoiding the unnecessary exposure to solvents associated with the “when wrung” alternative standard.

EPA acknowledges commenters that stated that handwringing is a common practice among states. EPA agrees that requiring a “no free liquids” condition that is consistent with many states’ policies would ease implementation and compliance monitoring. However, EPA disagrees, for reasons stated above, with requiring “no free liquids when wrung.” Instead, EPA is determining “no free liquids” based on the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which many states currently use in their state programs.

EPA disagrees with the commenter who argued that EPA’s tentative determination not to require substantial solvent extraction from solvent

- contaminated wipes renders EPA’s exclusion for reusable wipes unlawful. EPA believes that i ts “no free liquids” condition will ensure adequate removal of free liquid spent solvent from the wipes. Once fr ee liquid spent solvent is removed from the wipes, it must be managed in compliance with the applicable hazardous waste regulations. Nothing in the final rule changes this requirement.

In response to the commenter that supported additional conditions that will result in generators increasing their amount of solvent recovery and recycling, EPA notes that its “no free liquids” condition requires generators to

recover free liquid spent s olvent for recycling that can then be recycled. EPA also notes that the c ommenter did not suggest specific conditions.

EPA acknowledges comments regarding the likelihood of free solvents in the bottom of containers, which can occur from non

- dripping wipes that are compressed by the total weight of the wipes in the containers. EPA is addressing this issue by applying the “no free liquids” condition at the point the wipes are sent for cleaning or disposal. Additionally, both the wipes and the container containing the wipes must not contain free liquids. This ensures that any free liquid spent solvent that occurs as a result of compression during accumulation and storage of the wipes is removed prior to the wipes being sent for cleaning or disposal.

EPA agrees with the commenter that said the appropriate question under RCRA is whether the regulatory requirements at issue are needed to protect human health and the environment. EPA believes the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule achieves this end. EPA agrees that simple h and

- holding, as proposed in November 2003, is not adequate to demonstrate that sufficient spent solvent has been removed. However, EPA believes the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule, as demonstrated by the Paint Filter Liquids Test, is adequate for supporting an exclusion from the definition of solid waste.

EPA does not agree with the comment that argued that a wrung wipe will essentially be “dry

. ” EPA does agree wringing at the generating point will facilitate recovery and reuse of solvent. However, for reasons already stated, EPA has determ ined the “no free liquids when wrung” is not appropriate for the final rule. Instead, the “no free liquids” condition when wipes are sent for cleaning or disposal as determined in the final rule will ensure that sufficient free liquid spent solvent is remo ved from the wipe , without prescribing the extraction method, and also serves to encourage recovery and reuse of the solvent.

EPA agrees that adoption of a uniform performance standard for all solvent

- contaminated wipes would ease implementation and incre ase consistency across the United States. EPA believes its “no free liquids” condition

, (demonstrated by the Paint Filter Liquids Test) in the final rule achieves this end.

EPA acknowledges the commenter that stated that the “no free liquids when wrung” is similar to the “Massachusetts One Drop” test, which the commenter believed has significant flaws.EPA notes that the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule is already being used by many states and is based on an objective test method, which should ease implementation and compliance with the condition.

### 71 EPA disagrees that a “no free liquids” condition is excessive and unnecessary, regardless of whether laundries and han dling facilities have technology in place to remove solvents from wipes. EPA believes that free liquid spent solvent must be removed by the generator at the point of the wipes being sent for cleaning or disposal so as to minimize the potential for release of the solvent to the environment during transport for cleaning or disposal. Furthermore, EPA does not believe that this condition places additional and unnecessary burdens on generators. Only generators taking advantage of the exclusion are required to co mply with the final rule. Otherwise, they will have to comply with the full hazardous waste regulatory scheme, as applicable.

EPA acknowledges the commenter who believed the “when wrung” condition necessitates the additional step in the handling of solven t

- contaminated wipes with each wipe being tested by hand

- wringing. For reasons stated above, EPA has not finalized the “no free liquids when wrung” condition in the final rule and thus generators need not hand

- wring each solvent

- contaminated wipe.

EPA ack nowledges the commenter who believed the “no free liquids” or “no free liquids when wrung” approaches, as described in the proposal, were unlikely to remove sufficient solvent from the wipes. EPA has thus strengthened the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule by basing the condition on meeting the Paint Filter Liquids Test and requiring the condition be met at the point the wipes are sent for cleaning or disposal. EPA believes that the final rule condition is adequate to ensure that no free liquids are in a container when sent off

- site. EPA does not agree that requiring that “no free liquids when mechanically wrung” is necessary as the performance standard does not mandate an particular method of solvent extraction.

EPA acknowledges the commenter w ho stated that a test that requires wringing or centrifuging wipes after use but before depositing them in a closed container would conflict with the current requirements in the Aerospace NESHAP. The generator must ensure that its operation is in complianc e with all applicable environmental regulations. Under the final rule, generators can use any method to remove spent solvent from the wipes and are not required to wring or centrifuge wipes. S olvent

- contaminated wipes must meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning and disposal (and not prior to being accumulated and stored by the generator).

(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter agreed with the provision that generators should be allowed to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes and retain the exclusion based on the argument that excessive handwringing could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emissions and therefore maybe not reduce the amount of solvent to be ultimately recovered. [303]

(c ) RESPONSE : EP A is not finalizing the “no free liquids when wrung” condition in order to avoid increased worker exposure to solvents

.



### 5.4.3 **Dry C ondition** 

(a) COMMENTS : Many commenters opposed EPA’s “dry” condition (wipes must contain less than five grams solvent) for disposal of wipes in municipal or other non

– hazardous landfills and supported the use of the “no free liquids” (or “no free liquids when wrung”) standard for all disposable wipes. One commenter opposed the standard because it is only placed only on disposable wipes. Another specifically opposed the inclusion of the 14 noncarcinogenic chemicals in Category 1 of Table 6. Other reasons that the five grams stan dard was opposed include: ( 1) determination of weight of residual solvent is impractical; ( 2) it is unrealistic to expect someone to be able to distinguish between solvent and other substances on a wipe; ( 3) the standard is impractical and too hard to
comp ly with, and may lead to generators not taking advantage of the exemption; ( 4) in some states (such as Massachusetts), there are no unlined landfills; ( 5) purchasing an advanced solvent extraction process is not economically feasible for small generators, and such technologies are hard to find; ( 6) EPA’s risk assessment shows landfill risks are comparable to sludge risks from reusable wipes; ( 7) EPA’s revised risk assessment shows the five grams standard is not needed; ( 8) EPA can only regulate solid wastes as hazardous wastes under RCRA Section 3001 if they pose a substantial hazard, which these wipes do not; (9) “no free liquids” may be more protective than the five grams standard; (1 0) “no free liquids” would prevent generators from air drying wipes to meet the dry standard; ( 11) the five grams standard does not allow for wipes of different sizes and mass; ( 12) determining compliance through inventory records will not work because of evaporative losses, is inconsistent with how RCRA is applied in similar situations, and could lead to generators including dry wipes to bring down the average; ( 13)

### 72 some generators may not know which wipes are destined for landfills; and ( 14) a performance standard would be
more cost

- effective for generators. [155, 172, 191, 194, 199

- 1009, 261, 264, 268, 279, 280, 283, 286, 287, 298, 303, 304, 312, 313, 316, 318, 320, 321, 328, 331, 336, 340, 345, 346, 350, 357, 459, 464] Another commenter opposed the impos ition of a “dry” management condition on reusable towels. [348]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters that opposed the “dry” condition for dis posable wipes going to landfills because it would be impossible to implement and enforce. Thus, EPA has not finalized the “dry” standard in the final rule

. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that are sent to landfills must instead contain no free liquids.

EPA agrees with the commenter who opposed the standard because it is only placed on disposable wipes. In the final rule, the “no free liquids” condition is the same for both reusable and disposable wipes.

EPA acknowledges the comment that opposed the inclusion of the 14 noncarcinogenic chemicals in Category 1 of Table 6. Since the November 2003 proposed rule, EPA has revised its risk analysis. The final rule is based on the results of its 2012 final risk analysis, which demonstrates that 19 of 20 solvents evaluated do not pose significant risk when disposed in a lined landfill.

(1) EPA agrees that determination of weight of residual solvent (e.g., 5 grams of solvent) is impractical; (2) EPA agrees that it would be difficult to distinguish between weight of solvent and other substances on a wipes; (3) EPA agrees that the “dry” standard is impractical and difficult to comply with and may lead to generators not taking advantage of the exclusion; (4) EPA acknowledges that in some states, there are no lined landfills. EPA’s final rule is based on its final risk analysis, which takes into account landfills with composite l iners; (5) EPA agrees that purchase of an advanced solvent extraction process may not be economically feasible for small generators; (6) EPA ’s 2012 final risk analysis evaluated both disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in composite

- li ner landfills and the final rule is based on these results; (7) EPA agrees that its 2012 final risk analysis, which estimated landfill loading of solvent

- contaminated wipes, demonstrates that the five gram limit is not needed; (8) EPA agrees that solvent

- c ontaminated wipes that meet the conditions of the final rule are not hazardous wastes; (9) EPA agrees that, in certain cases(such as based on the size of the wipe), the “no free liquids” condition would be more protective than the five gram “dry” condition ; (10) EPA’s closed container condition prevents air drying of wipes; (11) EPA agrees that the five gram condition does not account for wipes of different sizes and mass; (12) EPA agrees that determining compliance with the “dry” condition through inventor y records would be difficult and could encourage greater use of wipes; (13) EPA does not agree that generators would not know whether their wipes were destined for landfills. Under the final rule, generators must know and document where they are sending th eir wipes to be cleaned or disposed; and (14) EPA agrees that a performance standard would be more effective for generators. EPA’s “no free liquids” condition in the final rule achieves this end.

(b) COMMENTS : Several commenters stated that EPA should con sider either removing the five gram limit for solvents on disposable wipe s sen t to landfills, or placing a five gram limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered. [158, 160, 170, 171, 174, 175, 178, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 198, 273, 291] Six commenters supported different standards for wipes going to a landfill versus reusable wipes and those going to solvent reclamation. One commenter stated that the “primary” or direct limit on the amount of solvents allowed on dispo sable wipes exempted by this rule is the only practical way to assure soiled disposable wipes do not contain excessive levels of solvents and that excessive levels of solvents are not sent to municipal or non

- hazardous waste landfills. Another commenter st ated that a differentiation between “dry” and “no free liquids” is warranted if qualification to the more stringent criteria of "dry" provides more flexibility in the management approach for "dry" wipes. [246, 303, 305, 338, 348, 358] Another commenter arg ued that wipes meeting the “no free liquids” condition should be allowed to go to municipal or other non

- hazardous waste landfills without being required to meet the “dry'” condition. [194]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who oppose the five gram limit for solvent

- contamina ted wipes that are sent to landfills

. Since the November 2003 proposal was published, and i n response to adverse public comments on the risk screening analysis that supported the November 2003 proposal, t he Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. The risk analysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill dispos al were assessed protectively. The results of the final risk analysis demonstrate that solvent

- contaminated wipes do not pose significant risk when disposed in lined landfills (with the exception of wipes that are hazardous

### 73 due to the presence of trichloro ethylene, which are not eligible for the exclusion from hazardous waste). The final risk analysis, along with the conditions of the exclusions, such as the “no free liquids” condition, address commenters’ concerns about excessive levels of solvents in land fills.

EPA acknowledges the comment that urged EPA to consider either removing the five gram limit for disposable wipes sent to landfills or to require this same standard for reusable wipes. EPA has not finalized the five gram limit for disposable wipes. Additionally, EPA is requiring both disposable and reusable wipes to meet the same “no free liquids” condition. EPA does not agree with commenters who supported different standards for wipes going to a landfill versus wipes going to a laundry because it h as determined that different standards are not necessary and would complicate implementation and compliance. Furthermore, EPA agrees with the commenter that argued that wipes meeting the “no free liquids” condition should be allowed to be sent to MSWLF s wi thout being required to meet the “dry” condition.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the five grams standard is not enforceable, as the rule has provided no

me ans for a generator to measure five grams, and given the preponderance of evidence in the docket that wipes extracted using means available to users result in solvent residuals in wipes as high as 75 grams. [288]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the proposed five gram limit for disposable wip es being land disposed would be difficult to measure and enforce. EPA has thus not finalized this requirement in the final rule.

(d ) COMMENTS : Another commenter stated that once a wipe is dry , the risk is insignificant and the applicability of any conting ent management standards should cease. Generating facilities should be free to manage their dry wipes as they see fit without any contingent management standards in place to qualify for the exclusion. [338]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees that the risk posed by a wipe meeting the “dry” condition is insignificant and that further management standards are not needed. Solvent

- contaminated wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule, including the no free liquids condition, may be sent to MSWLFs and solid waste combustors, including waste

- to

energy facilities. These other conditions, such as labeling and containment, are necessary to address the risk of potential release of the solvent

- contaminated wipes and subsequent potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter recommended omitting the phrase “or must have been treated by solvent extraction” from the final regulations, as the final regulatory text is inconsistent as to whether solvent extraction

res ults in a wipe that is “dry” or contains “no free liquids .” [184]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the phrase “or must have been treated by solvent extraction” is confusing and would need further clarification (for example, a list of specific technologies th at would meet this standard). EPA has not codified this language in the regulations.

(f) COMMENTS : Several commenters stated that there may be significant problems verifying the five grams condition. One commenter noted that the use of “no free liquids” c ondition would be much simpler. Issues the commenter identified include: ( 1) the lack of a size restriction would allow each piece of cloth in absorbent “pigs/socks/sausages” to legally have five grams of solvent; ( 2) waste screening at landfills is largel y visual, and it may be difficult to verify that concentrations are less than five grams, or that there is no contamination from banned solvents; ( 3) it would be very difficult to distinguish f ive grams of the solvent versus other liquids or contaminants

o n the wipe; ( 4) solvent extraction, business records, or sampling will not work for the paint and coatings industry because wipes are not tied to a specific process; ( 5) centrifuges or other high

- performance technologies are cost

prohibitive; ( 6) additiona l reclamation technology may trigger additional RCRA recordkeeping and recording requirements, permitting analysis, and emission reduction analyses and possible standards under the CAA . Two commenters recommended that EPA specify the high

- extraction technologies that can be used in order to presume that the five grams standard is attained. In order to allow for the use of new and innovative technologies that may be developed in the futu re, the commenter believes a process should be included in the rule that would allow the use of an alternate extraction technology following EPA evaluation and approval. However, another commenter supported leaving the definition of solvent extraction broa d enough to accommodate new solvent extraction technologies without additional specific rulemaking or approvals.[193, 255, 266, 313, 320, 325, 345, 347] One commenter supported EPA’s approach that using advanced solvent

- extraction technologies will be cons idered to have met the

### 74 “dry” condition,” but added that the “no free liquids” is equivalent to the five grams standard. Another commenter supported the five grams standard but asked that EPA confirm in the final rule that it is a determination of “dry”
rat her than an approximation of risk. [303, 347] One commenter supported the use of an average, if EPA must use a quantitative standard. [303]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters that argued the “dry” condition for dis posable wipes going to landfills would be impossible to implement and enforce. In addition, as noted by commenters, setting a firm quantitative limit on the amount of solvent in each wipe does not take into account the diverse sizes and types of wipes in the marketplace. For example, it’s possible that some wipes could contain less than five grams of solvent and still have free liquids. Furthermore, specifying a list of technologies that could be used to achieve the standard would not be practical. Some t echnologies are expensive and may n ot always be necessary depending on the type of wipe and the amount of solvent used. Furthermore, technology changes over time and thus, specifying a list in the regulations may unnecessarily preclude newer technologies. Based on these reasons, EPA has not finalized the “dry” standard in the final rule.

EPA acknowledges the comment that stated that additional reclamation technology may trigger additional requirements under RCRA recordkeeping and the CAA. EPA is not requiring reclamation technology to be used to comply with the final rule.

EPA has not finalized the “dry” condition in the final rule and is instead finalizing the “no free liquids” condition for both reusable and disposable wipes. The “no free liquids” condition is a performance

- based sta ndard, which generators can use solvent

- extraction technologies to meet.

(g ) COMMENTS : One commenter supported the use of a universal “no drip” standard. If unrinsed, “empty” containers pose no risk to human health or the environment, the commenter argued that wipes used to clean out empty containers pose no risk, even for the 11 banned solvents. [318] One commenter stated t hat a determination that no disposable wipes meeting a “hand

- wrung” performance standard need be subjec t to a landfill prohibition or five g rams /solvent extraction condition is consistent with EPA’s RCRA “Empty Container” rule for hazardous wastes. Although 40 C.F.R. § 261.7 does not directly address the RCRA regulatory status of waste residues in “empty” containers if they are removed f rom the containers and handled separately, the commenter believes that EPA has subsequently clarified that hazardous waste residues removed from “empty” containers are not subject to hazardous waste regulation upon removal. As such, the commenter argues th at industrial wipes used to remove liquid hazardous solvent residue from the bottom of a RCRA “empty” container could lawfully disposed of in a non

hazardous waste landfill even if the wipes were saturated with the hazardous solvent. Two other commenters a greed that the empty container rule was analogous, and one also stated that the non

- terne plated used oil filter regulation similarly allowed for disposal without special requirements. [283, 320, 346]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA’s “no free liquids” condition is to be determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test, which in effect measures whether a wipe drips l iquid over a five minute period and is a more objective, uniform, and enforceable standard than a “no drip” standard. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that “ hazardous waste residues removed from “empty” containers are not subject to hazardous waste regulation upon removal.” The empty container provision at 40 CFR 261.7 does not exempt wipes saturated with solvents from RCRA “empty” containers b ecause such wipes are not a waste “remaining in” an “empty” container. Indeed, while § 261.7 exempts residue remaining in an “empty” container from Subtitle C regulation, the Agency also has made it clear that when residue is removed from an “empty” contai ner the residue is subject to full regulation under Subtitle C if the removal or subsequent management of the residue generates a new hazardous waste that exhibits any of the characteristics identified in part 261 s ubpart C (see 45 FR 78529, November 25, 1 980, “[C]ontainer cleaning facilities which handle only “empty” containers are not currently subject to regulation unless they generate a waste that meets one of
t he characteristics in Subpart D ”). Finally, it also should be noted that if the container was cleaned with a solvent that would be a listed hazardous waste when discarded, then the residues from an “empty” container would be considered a listed hazardous waste. This is not due to the nature of the waste being removed from the “empty” container, bu t rather because of the nature of the cleaning agent. 3 Thus solvent

- contaminated wipes used to clean containers must meet the conditions of the final rule, such as “no free liquids,” in order to be excluded from

3 See 2004 EPA memo from Robert Springer, Director, Office of Solid Waste to Casey Coles, Hogan and Hartson, LLP, “Policy On The Management Of Rinsate From Empty Containers,” April 12, 2004. RCRA Online # 14708.

### 75 hazardous waste regulation. EPA acknowledges commenters who stated that the non

- terne plated used oil filter regulation similarly allowed disposal without special requirements. However, that regulation is not applicable to solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under the final rule exclusions.

(h ) COMM ENTS : One commenter offered two alternatives to determine if a wipe is “dry”: ( 1) if the wipe is wrung using hand pressure; or ( 2) analysis on a representative sample once a year by a certified independent laboratory. Another commenter asked that EPA clari fy that generators can determine the sampling frequency required to adequately characterize their wipes, as well as that once the generator has characterized its wipes for purpose of the dem onstrating compliance with the five g ram s limit, the generator can continue to rely on this data unless there is a process change involving (a) the increased use of solvent, or (b) a change in the method by which solvent wipes are generated. The commenter also asked EPA to confirm in the final rule that separate RCRA com putation records do not need to be maintained. Another commenter objected to the idea that rough guesstimates of the volumes of solvents and rags will be sufficient, rather than mandating solvent removal technology. [199

- 1019, 345, 347]

(h) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree to use hand

- wringing to determine if a wipe is dry. See section 5.4.2 for more information on this issue. EPA is not requiring any frequency of sampling in order to comply with the “no free liquids” condition and generators may choose to conduct sampling as is appropriate for the solvent

- contaminated wipes they generate. EPA agrees that once a generator has verified that its wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition, the generator can likely continue to rely on this data provided there i s no change in the process or amounts of solvent used. Generators must also document how they are meeting the “no free liquids” condition. Additionally, EPA agrees with the commenter who argued that rough guesstimates of the volumes of solvents is not suff icient; EPA therefore has not finalized the five gram limit in the final rule. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that are sent to landfills must instead contain no free liquids, which is determined using an objective EPA methods test. Regarding the comment on RCR A computation records, EPA is not requiring further recordkeeping for solvent

contaminated wipes beyond the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule; however, free liquid spent solvent removed from the wipes or from the container holding the wipes rema ins subject to applicable hazardous waste regulation.

(i ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that in the October 27 2009 NODA, it is unclear if EPA is revising its position regarding the proposed “dry” standard of five grams of solvent per towel that was iden tified in the 2003 proposed regulation and how this standard was considered in the overall risk assessment and two management options. The commenter said that a ny management option proposed must take into account the amount of solvent that would be remaini ng on a towel as this will greatly reduce any risk associated with environmental contamination. [458]

(i) RESPONSE : In t he revised risk assessment published in the 2009 NODA , EPA used estimated amounts of solvent contained on wipes as a result of normal industrial use. Estimated solvent loadings did not take into account the proposed “dry” standard. For most solvents, EPA used empirical data from measurements of the amount of solvents found on disposed wipes; for other solvents the Agency used data on the amount of solvent applied to the wipes and made conservative assumptions of the fraction that remains in the disposed wipes

. Therefore, EPA’s management option did take into account th e amount of solvent that would be remaining on the wipe.

(j ) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested two criteria: that the wipes contain no free liquids, and that the wipes do not exhibit the toxicity characteristic. If a "no free liquids" criterion is adopted

, the commenter thinks EPA would also have to add requirements analogous to those of proposed 261.4(b)(19)(viii) that define necessary responses when free liquids are found in containers at a receiving facility. [286]

(j) RESPONSE : Solvent

- contaminated wi pes that exhibit a characteristic due to the listed solvent contained in the wipes are eligible for the exclusion based on EPA’s final risk analysis and the conditions of the exclusion (such as the container standard and labeling, which address concerns re garding ignitability). However, solvent

- contaminated wipes that exhibit a characteristic other than ignitability due to solvents or other contaminants are not eligible for the exclusion because EPA’s risk analysis did not evalu ate such solvents. Free liqui d spent solvent received at the handler must be removed and are subject to applicable hazardous waste regulations.

(k ) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed the five grams standard as not sufficiently protective, and stated that it sets a dangerous precedent fo r weakening the LDRs

. The commenter believes that t he “five grams of solvent per

### 76 wipe” standard in the proposed rule would certainly exceed the corresponding LDR standards for wipes being disposed of under the current rules. The commenter said EPA should either remove the landfill option for disposable wipes (leaving only the combustor option for disposal), or reduce the standards to numbers that are more in line with the LDRs. If EPA does not pursue either of these options, the commenter thinks it should at least specify that wipes be disposed of only in li ned Subtitle D landfills. The commenter added that industrial solvents that pose “insignificant” risk when meeting the “no free liquids” standard should not be disposed of in solid waste landfills withou t meeting the “dry” condition. [271] Another commenter opposed the five grams standard as insufficiently protective, as wipes thought to be dry can still contain up to 75 grams of solvent per wipe or as much as 10 gallons of solvent per 55 gallon drum equi valent, and stated that wipes meeting the “dry” condition should still have to meet transportation requirements. [288]

(k ) RESPONSE : Since the 2003 proposal was published, EPA has conducted a revised risk analysis that was peer reviewed and published for public comment in 2009. As part of this analysis, EPA used empirical data from measurements of the amount of solvents found on disposed wipes; for other solvents the Agency used data on the amount of solvent applied to the wipes and made conservative assum ptions on the fraction that remains in the disposed wipes. The results of the final risk analysis demonstrate that wipes contaminated with 19 of 20 listed solvents do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when disposed in a lined l andfill. One solvent, trichloroethylene, did exceed target risk thresholds and is thus ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion. Additionally, EPA is requiring that all solvent

- contaminated wipes be sent to MSWLFs that meet the liner requirements in 4 0 CFR 258.40. Moreover, solvent

- contaminated wipes must meet additional conditions, including container standard and labeling. EPA thus believes the final rule is sufficiently protective. EPA further notes that disposable wipes managed in compliance with the conditions of the final rule are not hazardous wastes and thus LDR standards do not apply. EPA disagrees with the commenter that solvent

- contaminated wipes should not be disposed in MSW LFs without meeting the “dry” condition. For reasons stated above, EPA has not finalized the “dry” condition for the final rule and is instead requiring disposable wipes to meet the “no free liquids” condition. EPA agrees with the commenter who opposed the five gram standard as insufficiently protective; a wipe could meet the “dry” condition but still contain free liquid spent solvent based on the differing sizes and mass of the wipe. EPA agrees that disposable wipes meeting the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule must still meet transportation requirements (e.g., be transported in closed containers).

(l ) COMMENTS : One commenter specifically opposed the requirement for holding wipes in separately labeled
conta iners if the “dry” standard of five gr ams is met. [278]

(l ) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with the commenter that argued labeling for solvent

- contaminated wipes is not necessary. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” Labeling of the containers is necessary in order to communicate the contents of the container to facility personnel, motor carriers, emergency personnel, downstream handlers, and state and EPA inspectors. Labeling ensures that the container will be properly managed (for example, properly secured from potential ignition sources).



### 5.5 **Recordkeeping**

(a) COMMENTS : Some commenters opposed any additi onal recordkeeping requirements, arguing that they would be unnecessary

, increase the administrative burden of implementation

, and would impose unnecessary burdens on generators without providing any additional environmental benefit. [303, 304] Several commenters opposed additional recordkeeping requireme nts because EPA has not demonstrated an environmental benefit from added recordkeeping

. In order to justify these requirements, the commenter stated that EPA must verify the associated environmental benefit. [278, 281, 329] Two commenter s stated that recor dkeeping requirements like those to rebut speculative accumulation, or other RCRA

- type conditions, are unnecessarily burdensome for a commodity that does not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. [267, 305]

Many commenters stated that the prot ective conditions of the proposed rule or state regulations are sufficient, including the “no free liquids” standard, and no additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements are necessary. For example, commenters stated that record keeping procedures alre ady exist at industrial laundries as part of the service provided to the laundries’ customers and in some cases the recordkeeping regulations would be duplicative

### 77 of already existing requirements under DOT and OSHA. Those commenters believe that t he rule s hould not impose any additional record keeping s uch as one

- time, certification of compliance with the conditions of the exclusion, or certification that employees are trained adequately to manage wipes. Commenters stated that existing 40 CFR 261.2(f) adequa tely states the generator’s obligation to document that material is not a waste or is exempt from regulation . Also, commenters were concerned because failure to manage wipes properly would be a violation of the hazardous waste management regulations, and it is not clear how adding the burden of keeping records would augment the management procedures proposed in this rule. Commenters thought that requiri ng additional recordkeeping would be redundant and could jeopardize use of the exclusion and additional requirements would provide little, if any, additional benefit beyond exi sting regulatory requirements. [155, 262, 264, 267, 268, 278, 305, 320, 346, 348, 358]

One commenter specified that any additional recordkeeping requirements should be considered only for the maintenance of records for non

- compliant wipes that do not meet the dry or “no free liquids” condition. Otherwise, the commenter felt generator s and handling facilities that manage reusable wipe s should not be required to keep records on the vol ume of wipes generated. [246]

Several commenters generally supported additional recordkeeping requirements to the proposed action. They advocated keeping basic information including the number or volume of industrial wipes generated, the name and address of the facility where the industrial wipes were sent, the date of the shipments, and the quantity of the shipments. The commenters stated that t hese recor ds should b e maintained for three years. The commenters believe d that the recordkeeping requirements would not be overly burdensome to generators and could easily be maintained as part of existing standard business records . They stated that the rule, as pr oposed, would allow industries to neglect protective measures like routine recordkeeping

. [152, 271, 287]

Another commenter stated that generat ors using disposable wipe s should certify that each shipment me ets the "dry" condition. [358] Several commenters addressed the existing “dry”/ “no free liquids” co nditions and stated that record keeping should be instituted because without such requirements, strong economic incentives could resul t in waste mismanagement. [351]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA recognizes that there are arguments for and against including recordkeeping as a condition of the exclusions. EPA agrees with those commenters that supported recordkeeping requirements to ensure protection of human health and the environment, but in response to commenters’ conc erns about the burden of recordkeeping, has made the requirements as simple and easy to comply with as possible. Thus, the Agency has taken a balanced and practical approach in finalizing recordkeeping requirements for the exclusions. The recordkeeping req uirements in the final rule enable compliance monitoring, which is critical to ensure the exclusions work as intended and thus will not have adverse impacts on human health and the environment. EPA has also taken steps to minimize regulatory burden on faci lities, for example, noting where standard industry recordkeeping, such as invoices, would meet the recordkeeping requirements in the final rule. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must document three pieces of information: (1) the name and address of the handling facility (i.e., laundry, dry cleaner, landfill, or combustor); (2) that the 180

- day accumulation time limit is being met; and (3) the description of the process the generator is using to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal.

1) The purpose of requiring the name and address of the handling facility is to ensure that the solvent

contaminated wipes are being managed in compliance with t he conditional exclusion (e.g., for reusable wipes, that they are sent for cleaning and, for disposable wipes, that they are sent to an appropriate landfill or combustor).

2) Documenting the accumulation time limit is important to enable regulatory authorit ies to monitor compliance with the condition and to ensure that solvent

- contaminated wipes are not stored indefinitely in lieu of sending the solvent

- contaminated wipes to be cleaned or disposed. This condition is particularly important because the solvent

- contaminated wipes can be accumulated with free liquids under the exclusion. Thus, there may be an incentive for a generator to store such wipes indefinitely in order to avoid the hazardous waste disposal costs associated with the free liquid spent solven t.

### 78 3) R equiring the description of the process the generator is using to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids is critical for assisting implementation and compliance monitoring of this key condition of the final rule. The final rule only extends to the solvent

- contaminated wipe and the conditional exclusions do es not apply to any free liquid spent solvent, which would continue to be subject to the hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate. It is therefore imperative that the c ondition of “no free liquids” be met. In order to ensure that this condition is properly implemented, it is appropriate to require documentation of the process, methodology, and/or knowledge that is being used to ensure the solvent

contaminated wipes manag ed under the rule meet the “no free liquids” condition.

EPA does not agree that these records will be unnecessarily burdensome; t hese records would need to be created only once, and then updated only if changes occur. R outine business records, such as contracts and invoices, would meet the documentation requirements of (1) and (2), so no additional documents would be required. Number (3) simply documents the procedure that a facility would use to meet the “no free liquids” condition. EPA believes that

r esponsible businesses would create this documentation any way in order to communicate compliance procedures to facility employees and for training purposes.

Other recordkeeping requirements, such as records of volumes of wipes, are not necessary to ensure compliance with the exclusions and thus we did not include these requirements in the final rule. Additionally, we note that free liquid spent solvent generated would still be subject to applicable hazardous waste regulations, including biennial reporting. EPA also believes that r ecords of shipments are also unnecessary as long as the generator documents the name and address of the laundry, dry cleaner, combustor, or landfill where the solvent

- contaminated wipes are being sent. This documentation then would only have to be updated in the event the name or address of the destination facility changed and serves to keep paperwork burden to a minimum. We also agree with the commenter that urged EPA not to require a one

- time certification of compliance or a certi fication of training because EPA believes the certification of compliance is duplicative of the final rule recordkeeping requirements and the certification of training may be duplicative of existing OSHA requirements. Additionally, we do not agree that gen erators should have to certify that each shipment of wipes meets the “dry” or “no free liquids” condition because we believe changes to the final rule (determining no free liquids with an EPA methods test, documenting the process for meeting the condition) already meet the objective of ensuring compliance with the condition and further recordkeeping would be duplicative.

EPA does not agree with the commenter who suggested that recordkeeping be considered only for the solvent

contaminated wipes that do not m eet the “dry” standard or “no free liquids” condition. This is because EPA has made changes to the final rule to improve accountability for the “no free liquids” condition . EPA is determining “no free liquids” using an EPA methods test ( the Paint Filter Li quids Test) and is requiring generators to document the process by which they will meet the “no free liquids” standard. which enables more consistent compliance monitoring of the co ndition at generator facilities, which in turn reduces the occurrence of fr ee liquids in violation of the exclusion. Additionally, free liquid spent solvent must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations and thus is subject to all applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the hazardous was te rules. For these reasons, EPA does not believe further recordkeeping specific to wipes failing the “no free liquids” condition is necessary.

The environmental benefit of these recordkeeping requirements stem from their ability to enable states and EPA t o monitor compliance with the conditions of the exclusion. These recordkeeping requirements enable regulatory enforcement to ensure that the conditions (e.g., no free liquids) are being properly implemented and can catch, and correct, problems before large r environmental problems can occur. Additionally, effective compliance monitoring serves as a deterrent to facilities that may have an economic incentive to flout the conditions of the exclusions.

EPA does not agree with commenters that stated the existing 40 CFR 261.2(f) is sufficient for ensuring documentation of the conditions of the exclusion. This provision may only be exercised by respondents to enforcement actions and thus is limited in its ability to allow inspectors to proactively monitor complianc e (e.g., an inspector would have to take enforcement action before documentation was provided, rather than use the documentation to determine whether an enforcement action is necessary).

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that recordkeeping should include one

- time notification to EPA and/or the

s tate, notifying them of the intention to use the exemption, location and acc umulation start date, records of the

### 79 quantity of wipes generated, where they were sent, and a record of each shipment sent. The commenter s tated that
t he generator should certify that each shipment of wipes met the “no free liquids” requirement. [288] Some commenters submitted statements in support of laundries submitting one

- time notifications to state authorities or the EPA stating that the y will be laundering hazardou s wipes under this exclusion. [193, 286]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA did not finalize a one

- time notification requirement for the tens of thousands of entities estimated to use the final rule exclusions because such a notification would greatly increase burden on the states who must receive and process the notifications.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that at a minimum, EPA should require facilities to immediately contact the generator so that the generator understands that a proble m exists, keep a log of the amount and generator’s name so that the biennial hazardous waste reports can be properly accounted, and periodically report (e.g., every six months) to the state agency lists of generators from which free liquids are received. [ 323] One commenter submitted a comment that stated laundries should be required to keep a log of every load that they receive that fails the no free liquid or drip

- free requirements. The commenter believes that t he log should include, at a minimum, the name of the generator, the date of shipment, the nature and volume of the free solvents, the amount of the shipment, and what the laundry did with the free solvent and wipes. [193]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA is convinced that requiring a log or notification to the generator, state or EPA region by a handler (e.g., laundry) that receives solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids is not necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment . First, under the final rule, free liquid spent solvent m ust be managed according to the hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate. Thus, any liquid spent solvent that is discovered upon receipt, for example, by a laundry, must be managed as h azardous waste, if applicable. Under the final rule, handlers are no t allowed to send back shipments of free liquid waste to the generator as was proposed in November 2003. This creates a strong incentive for generators to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition prior to sending the wipes to a handler because the generator is likely to incur a fee imposed by the handling facility for the hazardous waste disposal of the free liquid spent solvent wastes. Additionally, in t he final rule we have more clearly defined “no free liquids” usin g a performance standard based on the Paint Filter Liquids Test. This test provides a more objective definition than the November 2003 proposed definition, which specified only that no liquid solvent could drip from the wipe. T he final rule strengthens the “no free liquids” condition sufficiently so that solvent

- contaminated wipes meeting the standard are not likely to produce (as a result of compression, gravity, or percolation) free liquids in transit.

Secondly, if a handling facility did receive a shipm ent of solvent

- contaminated wipes that contained free liquid spent solvent, the spent solvent would become subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the hazardous waste regulations as appropriate to the amount of hazardous waste generated in that month by the handling facility. EPA finds that any additional reporting requirements would be duplicative of what is already required under the hazardous waste regulations.

(d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that an alternative to a specified list of acceptable technologies for testing the wipes for the perform ance standard would be a record keeping requirement that indicates actual compliance. [246]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that a recordkeeping approach is more appropriate than specifying a list o f acceptable technologies. A recordkeeping approach is flexible because it allows generators to use whatever approach works best for them, while still ensuring that the “no free liquids” standard is met by enabling compliance monitoring of the condition vi a documentation. Thus, EPA is requiring that generators document the process they use to meet the “no free liquids” condition. A list of technologies used would be included as part of this documentation requirement.

(e) COMMENTS : Several commenters specif ically addressed employee certification or training requirements. One commenter stated that it is reasonable that a facility train the appropriate employees (those who would be expected to “generate” the majority of the solvent

- contaminated wipes) to prope r ly manage wipes and suggested that instead of a certification that goes with each shipment of wipes, a quarterly inspection should be done of some of the containers at the facility

. The commenter believes that t his would determine whether or not the wipes contain free liquids. The commenter stated that r ecords should be maintained for 3 years. Other commenters did not support employee training or certification and stated that E PA indicates that reusable wipe s are a commodity and not a

### 80 waste, so if no waste is generated, requiring RCRA generator training makes no sense. The commenter stated that a ll applicable employees are already required to receive OSHA worker right

- to

- know training that ac complishes the same goal. [155, 312, 342]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA is not requiring any specific training requirements (and therefore agrees with commenters that did not support employee training or certification) because EPA believes these requirements wou ld be duplicative of other RCRA and OSHA requirements. Addit ionally, EPA has made a few changes in the final rule to improve accountability and to enable better compliance monitoring of solvent

- contaminated wipes with the “no free liquids” condition. For example, EPA is determining “no free liquids” using an EPA me thods test ( the Paint Filter Liquids Test) and is requiring generators to document the process by which they will meet the “no free liquids” standard. EPA believes these changes are sufficient for ensuring consistent and proper implementation with the “no free liquids” condition and thus, it is not necessary to require further certification or periodic inspections of containers. Under the final rule, recordkeeping must be kept at the generating facility throughout the time it is operating under the exclusio n.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter addressed the three methods for tracking and recordkeeping proposed by EPA in order to met the proposed “dry” standard for disposable wipes. This commenter said the proposed recordkeeping does not represent normal business records and would resu lt in each location within the facility being required to keep records of the wipes used with solvents. Because not all wipes are used with solvents, the commenter stated that additional records would need to be compiled in order to demonstrate proof of us age. The commenter added that

r ecords from all the various locations within a facility would then have to be compiled. The commenter believes that

s ampling would result in more worker and environmental exposure then current requirements under the hazardous waste rules. [312]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA has not finalized the “dry” standard for disposable wipes that are sent to landfills; disposable wipes instead must meet the “no free liquids” conditions which is determined using the Paint Filter Liquids Test. Sampli ng, although not required under the final rule, may be used to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal. In order to avoid adverse impacts to human health and the environment, sampling should be conducted using proper personal protective equipment and safety procedures.



### 5.6 **Handling Facilities**

Several commenters discussed EPA’s proposed conditions for handling facilities.

(a ) COMMENTS : One commenter believes that EPA has overstated the risk of land

- disposing non

- saturated solvent contaminated wipes in this context. The commenter stated that i n Massachusetts, which has no operating unlined landfills, most disposable wipes are generated by businesses with less than twenty employees, and these bus inesses would generally dispose only small quantities at a time. The commenter asserted that s uch small quantities present within much larger volumes of municipal solid waste pose a small risk in lined landf ills, all of which meet 40 CFR
p art 258 standards . [194]

(a ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the 2003 risk screening analysis, which provided the basis for the November 2003 proposed rule, did not adequately evaluate risk from solvent

- contaminated wipes. EPA agrees with the commenter that the risk analysis should account for lined landfills, such as is used at MSWLFs , and should provide a more accurate estimate of landfill loading based on quantities of solvent

- contaminated wipes being disposed. Since the November 2003 proposal was publishe d, and in response to adverse public comments on the risk screening analysis that supported the November 2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundr y sludge in lined and unlined landfills. This risk analysis was subjected to external peer review, presented for public comment in a 2009 NODA, and revised where appropriate. In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information from a w ide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a state

- of

- the

art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk analysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively. The

### 81 final risk analysis demonstrates th at wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in lined MSWLFs

. Based on the 2012 final risk analysis, EPA agrees with the commenter that estimated quantities of solvent

contaminated wipes disposed in composite

- lined landfills do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment (with the exception of wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene, which are not eligible for the disposable w ipe exclusion). Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes being land disposed must go to MSWLFs meeting the 40 CFR part 258 standards.

(b ) COMMENTS : One commenter noted the lack of accountability for disposable wipes, as opposed to reusable wipes, w here laundries can be expected to notice free liquids and send them back to the generator, rather than assume responsibility for their management. The commenter posited that t here is no such accountability for disposable wipes, and this places a greater bu rden on enforcement agencies to police handlers of disposable wipes to ensure compliance with the solvent content standards for such wipes. The commenter added that because wipes are such a common waste, generated at hundreds if not thousands of sites in a ny given state, it is not practical for enforcement agencies to provide the level of accountability necessary to ensure that large amounts of solvents are not inappropriately landfilled or incinerated. [271]

(b ) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges the commenter that stated that, for reusable wipes, laundries can be expected to notice free liquids and, thus, manage the free liquids as hazardous waste, but this accountability may not translate for disposable wipes, particularly for th ousands of generators that may send wipes to be disposed at landfills and incinerators. EPA has made changes in the final rule that a ddress the commenter’s concerns to ensure greater accountability by the generator for ensuring that disposable wipes contai n no free liquids. Specifically, free liquid spent solvent must be removed from the wipes container before the wipes are sent for cleaning or disposal. Compliance with this condition should reduce the amount of spent solvent sent to disposal facilities. In the November 2003 proposed rule, disposable wipes sent to landfills had to meet a “dry” standard (i.e., each wipe could not contain more than five grams of solvent). However, based on commenters’ arguments that this standard was impossible to implement an d enforce, EPA has not finalized this standard. Instead, disposable wipes sent to landfills must not contain free liquids, which is the same standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to laundries and combustors. Additionally, compliance with th e “no fre e liquids” standard must be verified using an EPA methods test (the Paint Filter Liquids Test), which enables more consistent compliance monitoring of the condition at generator facilities. Furthermore, EPA is requiring generators to document the process b y which they will meet the “no free liquids” standard. Therefore, the final rule ensures greater accountability for the “no free liquids” condition as compared to the proposed rule.

(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed EPA’s proposed management conditions , and recommended the application of the Universal Waste framework to all solvent contaminated wipes going to launderers or disposal facilities and to intermediate handling facilities because t he Universal Waste provisions under 40 CFR p art 273 provide pro tections not afforded by EPA’s proposed rule, including traceability and enforceability. [2 88]

(c ) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that solvent

- contaminated wipes should be managed under the universal waste standards. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes and EPA believes that solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under today’s exclusion are not hazardous wastes. Additionally, managing solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous wastes under the universal waste regulations may, as some commenters argued, increase bur den on facilities generating and managing solvent

- contaminated wipes as a result of state solid waste program requirements.

(d ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA should allow laundering, combustion in commercial boilers and incinerators, and dispo sal in landfills. [313] One commenter stated that businesses in Maine are already sending rags used with hazardous waste and non

- hazardous waste solvents for treatment or disposal through laundering, on

- site and off

- site incineration in multi

- fuel boilers , and even land disposal. The commenter is not aware of any adverse health or environmental impacts from these practices; federal and state regulatory programs are in place to ensure these management options are protective. The commenter recommended the us e of the widest variety of treatment and disposal options proposed by EPA because they do not pose any significant risks to health or the environment, and because a wide variety of options will reduce the possibility of illegal or environmentally adverse d isposal practices. [313]

### 82 (d ) RESPONSE : The Age ncy agrees with these commenters and, based on the Agency’s findings that solvent

contaminated wipes do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when managed under certain conditions, EPA has finalized an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes sent to an industri al laundry or a dry cleaner whose discharge , if any, is regulated under sections 301 and 402 or sec tion 307 of the CWA ; and an exclusion from the definitio n of hazardous waste for disposable wipes sent to a MSWLF that is regulated under 40 CFR part 258, including § 258.40, or a hazardous waste landfill regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 265; or a municipal waste combustor or other combustion facility that is regulated under section 129 of the CAA or a hazardous waste combustor regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 265, or a hazardous waste boiler or industrial furnace regulated under 40 CFR part 266 subpart H.

(e ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that s olvent

- contaminated industrial wipes must be laundered or dry cleaned on

- site or shipped directly to a laundry or dry cleaner. The commenter argued that t he use of an industrial wipes handling facility should not be allowed, except for facilities with RCRA hazardous waste management permits. The commenter is concerned that i ndustrial wipes handling facilities, as proposed, could potentially handle unlimited quantities of solvent

- contaminated industrial w ipes with virtually no regulatory controls or restrictions. The commenter pointed out that l aundries, on the other hand, ordinarily operate under CWA regulations. [330]

(e ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the proposed provisions for industrial wipes handling facilities (i.e., a facility that removes solvents from wipes prior to sending them to a laundry or dry

- cleaner) were not adequately protective of human health and the environment. All owing transport of wipes saturated with free liquid spent solvent would increase risk of exposure due to volatilization and spills of the liquid spent solvent. The Agency has decided that, for protection of human health and the environment, solvent

- contaminated wipes must not contain free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal. Therefore, EPA has not finalized the provision allowing industrial wipes handling facilities. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes containing no free liquids must be sent to laundries or dry

- cleaners whose discharge, if any, is regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of the CWA.



### 5.6.1 **Laundries**

Many commenters discussed EPA’s proposed conditions for industrial laundries.

(a) COMMENTS : Four commenters generally agreed with EPA’s approach to require proper management conditions at laundries. [272, 305, 348, 358] Another commenter agreed with EPA’s approach for industrial laundries. [305]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters who support requiring proper management conditions at laundries.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter also described industry best practices , which include procedures and infrastructure, such a s ventilation systems to protect workers handling soiled shop towels, to imposing rental conditions on customers including a “no free liquids” requirement for returned shop towels, and also comprehensive employee training so that route drivers can discrimi nate whether or not to accept a load of soiled shop towels . [343]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges this comment that these industry best practices complement the conditions in the final rule in order to protect human health and the environment. The final rul e exclusion for reusable wipes requires that solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal and thus is consistent with this industry best practice.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter suggest ed that EPA co nsider placing a five g ram limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered. Another commenter said that EPA should either remove the five
gram limit for disposables or apply it to reusable wipes as well. [168, 173]

(c) RE SPONSE : The Agency is convinced by arguments that the proposed five gram limit on solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to landfills would be impossible to implement and enforce. EPA is thus not finalizing the five gram limit for disposable wipes sent to landfil ls; instead, these wipes must not contain free liquids, which is the same standard used for reusable wipes sent for cleaning and disposable wipes sent to combustors.

### 83 (d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the requirements for the management of reusable wipes going to industrial laundry facilities are not strong enough to avoid the unnecessary shifting of contaminated solvents from one media to another through the laundering pro cess, potentially compromising s tate waters. The commenter argued that e fforts to remove excess contaminated solvents from the reusable wipes prior to their washing through centrifuging, pressing, or other solvent extraction technology should be encouraged, if not required. [193]

(d) RESPONSE : The final rule includes three changes t hat address this concern . (1) EPA has strengthened the “no free liquids” condition by requiring the use of the EPA Paint Filter Liquids Test to demonstrate that solvent

contaminated wipes contain no free liquids when sent for cleaning and disposal; (2) EPA is requiring the generator to document its process for meeting the condition, which will ensure more consistent compliance with the condition and thus limit the amount of inadvertent free liquids sent to laundries; and (3) To eliminate confusion regarding how the CWA applies to solvent discharges from laundries, the Agency has clarified in the final rule that solvent

contaminated wipes must be sent to laundries and dry cleaners whose discharges, if any, are regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 3 07 of the CWA.

(e) COMMENTS : Two commenters recommended that the rule require wastewater discharges from industria l laundries be sent to either a POTW or a point source discharge subject to NPDES permitting. The commenter stated that d ischarges to groundw ater via septic systems or other means should be prohibited. The commenter added that
t his would allow treatment of toxics remaining in discharges and allow the POTW to respond to problem dischargers under their existing authority. A third commenter recomm ended that such laundries be required to have a CWA permit with specific discharge limits for F

- listed solvents and perform monthly monitoring for compliance with those limits (with the monitoring samples collected during times when solvent contaminated wi pes are being laundered). [193, 287, 331]

(e) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that solvent

- contaminated wipes should not be sent to laundries or dry cleaners that discharge outside of the controls of the CWA. Therefore, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be sent to laundries or dry

- cleaners whose discharge , if any, is regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of the CWA. Laundries whose discharge is not regulated under the CWA cannot be used by generators taking advantage of the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes. A NPDES permit under CWA will generally specific an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge. Additionally, the permit will require the facility to sample its discharges and notify EPA and the state regulatory agency of these results.

In 1997, EPA had considered pretreatment standards for laundries; however, in 1999, after careful consideration of all of the inf ormation in the record for the rulemaking, EPA decided not to promulgate national categorical pretreatment sta ndards for the industrial laundries point source category because industrial laundry discharges to P OTWs do not present a national problem warranting additional national regulation under the CWA (64 FR 45076)

. EPA determined that there is insignificant pas s through of total pounds or toxic pound equivalents of pollutants discharged to POTWs by industrial laundries such that national categorical pretreatment standards are not warranted. EPA also exa mined the total pounds and toxic pound equivalents removed u nder a rule with the first cutoff and determined that the amount of pounds removed is also insignificant and does n ot warrant national regulation. EPA has little, if any, record evidence that POTWs are currently having pass through or interference problems due to industrial laundry effluent. In the event that a particular industrial laundry could create a local problem, EPA believes the existing pretreatment program is fully adequate to control these discharges at the local level (64 FR 45077)

.

EPA further believes that the most effective way to address organic wastes from certain solvents in the discharges to POTWs is reduce their use or toxicity in the customer facilities in the first place or to remove them before washing, either at the customer’s facili ty or at the laundry. In the 1999 withdrawal of the proposed rule, EPA noted that its Office of Solid Waste is planning to conduct a rulemaking to address certain organic solvents found mainly in shop and/or printer towels before they are washed (64 FR 450 77) . Thus, the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes final rule completes this task by requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal.

### 84 (f) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that generators should only be able to send wipes to industrial laundries that perform waste determinations and manage wastes pursuant to RCRA requirements for all sludge residuals, or waste liquids generated from laundering hazardous was te contaminated wipes. The commenter argue that t oxic organic contaminants from laundering facilities will likely be pre sent in the sludge at the POTW and that s ludge destined for composting, land spreading or landfills should be accurately characterized a nd managed according to representative sample analysis. [331]

(f) RESPONSE : Laundries are required under RCRA to make solid and hazardous waste determinations the same as any other generator and therefore EPA does not need to add a specific requirement in the final rule. Any residuals or sludge generated from the industrial laundr y or dry

- cleaning process are new ly generated wastes and therefore subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262 and all applicable RC RA hazardous waste requirements, if applicable.

(g) COMMENTS : Several commenters opposed limiting t he number of shop towels, or the maximum amount of solvent or concentrations on shop towels that launderers or dry cleaners can accept. The commenters argue that t he requirements are unnecessary and burdensome, would adversely impact businesses, and could have the unintended effect of limiting laundering at facilities that meet strict environmental requirements. One commenter generally stated that there are no significant risks associated with the management and processing by laundries of shop towels soiled with solvents or other contaminants. Another commenter also opposed a limit on the distance between a generator and the recycling or laundry facility. Two commenters recommended requiring solvent recovery techn ology prior to washing instead. [246, 262, 26 4, 267, 278, 279, 305, 312, 328, 346, 348, 358]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the majority of commenters who argued that a limit on the maximum amount of solvent, or the concentration of solvent on a wipe, or a numerical limit on the number of shop towels laundries or dry cleaners can accept on an annual basis is not necessary

. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes going to laundries must contain no free liquids as demonstrated by EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test. Compliance with this condition should reduce the amount of solvent being sent to laundries and subsequently discharged.

EPA believes that management and p rocessing by laundries of solvent

- contaminated wipes in compliance with the final rule and other applicable regulations, such as DOT and OSHA regulations, do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment.

EPA does not agree with limiting t he distance between a generator and a laundry. The conditions of the final rule (e.g., closed container, “no free liquids”) are sufficient to protect human health and the environment during transportation.

If free liquid spent solvent is found in the wipes container before laundering, the laundry must remove the free liquids and manage them under the applicable hazardous waste management regulations. If generators have complied with the “no free liquids” condition in the final rule, this will minimize the a mount of spent solvent in the wipes container.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that the proposed rule preamble does not appear to specifically address the issue of whether or not the wastewater treatment sludges generated by facilities that launder wipes contaminated with F001

- F005 solvents would be classified as hazardous wastes under the “derived from” rule. However, the commenter pointed out EPA does state in section V.B.13 of the preamble that the derived

- from rule does not apply to the ash derived from the burning of such wipes. The commenter added it would s eem that a straightforward assessment of the proposed rule would lead one to draw the same conclusion for laundry sludge, since it was technically not derived from a hazardous waste (but rather from an excluded waste). The commenter said EPA should clarify this issue. The commenter further stated the “derived

- from” rule should be made to apply to such sludges, to ensure that they are not inappropriately disposed of without first being properly treated to meet LDR standards. The commenter believes c ombustor residues are not as much of a concern in this regard, since the vast majority of the organic content of such sludges would have been destroyed during combustion. However, the commenter argued that laundry sludges typically have had very little treatment ot her than oil/water separation, pH adjustment, flocculation, or other basic wastewater treatment methods that serve only to separate the sludges from the dischargeable wastewaters, and do not actually destroy or eliminate hazardous constituents. In lieu of strict application of the LDRs to laundry sludge, the commenter wants EPA to consider a special set of standards for such

### 85 sludges (e.g., an alternative LDR treatment standard such as those already codified in 40 CFR 268.46 and 268.49, or a specific set of standards written directly into the exclusion itself), to ensure that such sludges containing large amounts of solvents are not disposed of in solid waste landfills. [271]

(h) RESPONSE : Solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes managed under the final rule exclu sion are not solid and hazardous wastes. Therefore, the derived

- from rule does not apply to residuals, such as sludge, resulting from the laundering process. This same principle applies to disposable wipes, which are not hazardous wastes when managed under the final rule. Any residuals generated from laundering, dry cleaning or combustion of the solvent

contaminated wipes are newly generated wastes subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262 and any applicable hazardous waste requirem ents.

EPA acknowledges comments regarding treatment of laundry sludge and concerns that treatment methods do not destroy or eliminate hazardous constituents. S ince the 2003 proposal was published, EPA has conducted a more robust risk analysis that was pee r reviewed and published for public comment in 2009. The risk analysis evaluated levels of solvent contained in laundry sludge and found no significant risk to human health and the environment when the sludge was disposed in a composite

- lined landfill. Add itionally, the 2012 final risk analysis includes updated information for various input parameters for reusable wipes that were gathered from surveys and submitted in comments by a trade association. Using the updated data lowered the solvent landfill loadi ngs calculated for the sludges generated by laundries. (See the revised document, “Landfill Loadings Calculations For Solvent

Contaminated Wipes, July 2011” in the docket.) Based on the results of the 2012 final risk analysis, EPA believes there is no need to establish a special set of standards (such as an LDR treatment standard) for laundry sludge under the final rule. However, EPA notes that any residuals or sludge generated from the industrial laundry or dry

- cleaning process are newly generated wastes a nd therefore subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262 and all applicable RCRA hazardous waste requirements, including the LDR standards, if applicable.

EPA disagrees that the “derived

- from” rule should be made to apply to laundry sludge. Under the final rule, reusable wipes are not solid and hazardous wastes when managed in compliance with the exclusion. Because the wipes are not hazardous wastes, the “derived

- from” rule does not apply.

(i) COMMENTS : One commenter supported the us e of vapor recovery technologies to reduce the solvent in w ipes prior to laundering. [294]

(i) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, generators may use any number of methods to remove free liquid solvent from wipes in order to mee t the no free liquids condition

. (j) COMMENTS : Two commenters discussed the impacts of the conditions on laundry workers. One commenter stated that it should be mandatory that the laundry companies themselves establish norms to protect the health of their workers from the dangers of th e chemicals in these towels, not only in air, but also in the bags that are lifted and touched by workers. Another commenter stated that there is no indication that the driver collecting the reusable wipes is provided adequate safety information, since the re is no requirement for generators to supply this information to the laundries. The commenter thinks EPA should require: (1) information pertaining to what hazardous chemicals are in the wipes be supplied to the laundries; (2) a posting at the wipe collec tion area identifying the hazards posed by the hazardous chemicals (information can be taken from the chemical’s material safety data sheet (MSDS) ) : (3) thoroughly documented and frequent training of personnel; and (4) application of the hazard communicati on standard to laundry drivers, just as the hazard communication standards apply to facilities that must train contractors working on an employer’s site. [322, 323]

(j) RESPONSE : Although worker safety is primarily addressed under OSHA, under RCRA, EPA mu st ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed to protect human health and the environment and certain conditions in the final rule are crafted to minimize releases of solvent, which could pose a risk to workers. Under the final rule, s olvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed containers that are labeled “Excluded So lvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The closed container condition is designed to reduce solvent emissions or spills of free liquid solvent, whi ch will also reduce risk of adverse effects to workers. Labeling communicates the contents of the container to facility staff, emergency personnel, motor carriers, downstream handlers, and EPA and state enforcement personnel and enables all entities to pro perly manage the container, for example, by ensuring the container is protected from potential ignition sources.

### 86 EPA does not agree with establishing conditions for worker safety, beyond that of the final rule (e.g., closed containers, “no free liquids”) . Worker safety is primarily addressed under OSHA. EPA also does not agree with requiring additional safety information that generators must provide to transporters. Laundries and other handlers can include conditions in their contracts with generators tha t require the type of safety information the commenter seeks.

EPA does not agree that there is no indication of the potential hazards of the solvent

- contaminated wipes to the driver collecting reusable wipes. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” in order to communicate the contents of the containers to transporters.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that EPA should recognize preexisting paperwork if documentation is needed. The comme nter said EPA currently recognizes contracts as valid documentation at 40 CFR 262.20 ( e ) in the rules for SQGs with tolling arrangements and that t his is a good case to emulate in order to facilitate paperwork reduction. [350]

(k) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those commenters that supported recordkeeping requirements and has taken a balanced and practical approach in finalizing recordkeeping requirements for the exclusions. The recordkeeping requirements in the final rule enable compliance monitoring, which is critical to ensure the exclusions work as intended and thus will not have adverse impacts on human health and the environment. EPA has also taken steps to minimize regulatory burden on facilities, for example, noting where standard industry recordkeeping, such as invoices, would meet the recordkeeping requirements in the final rule. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

contaminated wipes must document three pieces of information: (1) the name and address of the handling facility (i.e., laundry, dry c leaner, landfill, or combustor); (2) that the 180

- day accumulation time limit is being met; and (3) the description of the process the generator is using to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being se nt for cleaning or disposal.

These records would need to be created only once, and then updated only if changes occur. R outine business records, such as contracts and invoices, may meet the documentation requirements of (1) and ( 2), so no additional docume nts sh ould be required. Documentation requirement (3) simply documents the procedure that a facility would use to meet the “no free liquids” condition. EPA believes that responsible businesses would create this documentation any way in order to communicate compliance procedures to facility employees and for training
purposes.

(l) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that, while the conditions in the 2003 proposal are sufficient to protect human health and the environment, the disposal of laundry sludge containing solvents of concern to lined landfills would be the most effective alternative managemen t approach should the EPA deem additional co ntrols necessary for tetrachloroethylene . [461]

(l) RESPONSE : Any residuals, such as sludge, generated from the industrial laundry process is subject to the waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262 . Should the sludge be found to be a hazardous waste, the industrial laundry must manage that sludge in accordance with all ap plicable regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273. Since the 2003 proposal was published, EPA has conducted a more robust risk analysis that was peer reviewed and published for public comment in 2009. The risk analysis evaluated levels of solvent contained in laundry sludge and found no significant risk to human health and the environment when the sludge was disposed in a composit e

- lined landfill.

Additionally, the 2012 final risk analysis includes updated information for various input parameters for reusable wipes that were gathered from surveys and submitted in comments by a trade association. Using the updated data lowered the s olvent landfill loadings calculated for the sludges generated by laundries (s ee the revised document, “Landfill Loadings Calculations For Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes, July 2011” in the docket.) , which were sufficient to reduce the combined risk results for tetrachloroethylene in a composite

- lined landfill . Furthermore, EPA issued a new health assessment for tetrachloroethylene in February 2012

. As a result of incorporating the revised reference values for tetrachloroethylene, the combined risks for this chem ical in a composite

- lined unit dropped significantly, such that the risks were well below the target risk criteria. Thus, the results for tetrachloroethylene, which now include the revised landfill loadings and reflect the updated reference value, indicate that including this solvent in

### 87 the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes would not present a significant risk if the solvent

- contaminated wipes and sludges are disposed in a composite

- lined landfill.

(m) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed conditional exclusions for wipes shipped to industrial laundries or other facilities that utilize a leachfield or similar subsurface disposal system. [331]

(m ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that solvent

- contaminated wipes should not be sent to laundries or other facilities that utilize a leachfield of similar subsurface disposal system that is not regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of CWA.



### 5.6.2 **Combustors**

Several commenters discussed EPA’s proposed conditions for wipes goi ng to disposal in combustors.

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of disposing solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes in municipal waste combustors or other combustor facilities. [330] One commenter noted that the proposed rule would allow the burning of F001

- and F002

- contaminated wipes meeting the “no free liquids” standard in combustors. However, the commenter said nowhere in the relevant sections of the preamble does EPA indicate tha t it has considered the possibility that such disposal may generate dioxins that may be released in the combustors’ stack gases or “residue” streams of such facilities (i.e., bottom ash, fly ash, air pollution control residues, etc.). The commenter stated that solvents associated with the F001 and F002 listings are all halogenated solvents, which are commonly known to be dioxin precursors. The commenter argued c ombustor facilities receiving large quantities of such wipes could be burning significant quantit ies of halogenated solvents, and could therefore constitute a significant source of dioxin emissions. The commenter suggested that EPA document that it has evaluated the appropriateness of allowing such wipes to be incinerated. [271] Another
commenter stat ed that EPA must specify minimum standards for solvent wipes burned in municipal solid waste combustors, including 1) a minimum temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit must be maintained to ensure destruction and minimize dioxin formation; 2) burning should not be allowed in units that fail to comply wi th CO monitoring conditions in s ubpart O or fail emissions standards under their air permits; 3) regulations to prevent fugitive emission from wipes prior to combustion, which is the largest source of ri sk in management of wipes in municipal solid waste combustor s. [288]

(a) RESPONSE : In the November 2003 proposed rule, we proposed that solvent

- contaminated wipes that meet the proposed conditions of the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste may be s ent to municipal and other

non

- hazardous waste combustors. The Agency explained that allowing combustion of solvent

- contaminated wipes in municipal waste combustors and other non

- hazardous waste combustion units, such as commercial and industrial solid was te incinerators (circumstances when the wipes are used a fuel are included), is a viable alternative for managing conditionally

- excluded wipes. First, combustion facility owners/operators would be screening wipes contaminated with hazardous solvents that a rrive at their facilities to ensure they do not violate local permit conditions. In addition, these combustors are capable of destroying the solvent, as described in Section IV.F.11 of the Technical Background Document (68 FR 65602). We explained that EPA has promulgated revised air emission standard requirements under the NSPS for municipal waste combustors and commercial and indus trial solid waste incinerators (68 FR 65602).

The NSPS , which are promulgated under section 129 of the CAA, require that muni cipal waste combustors and other solid waste combustion facilities comply with numerical emission limitations and performance standards that address emissions of dioxin and furans, as well as other air pollutants, such as mercury, particulate matter, sulfu r dioxide, nitrogen oxides, semi

- volatile metals, lead, cadmium, hydrogen chloride, and carbon monoxide. We are clarifying in the regulatory language that disposable wipes that meet t he conditions of the final rule may be sent to municipal waste combustors and other combustion facilities that are regulated under the NSPS in section 129 of the CAA. G enerators may also continue to send solvent

- contaminated wipes to a hazardous waste combustor regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 265, or a hazardous waste boiler and industrial furnace regulated under 40 CFR part 266 subpart H which addresses control of dioxin and furan emissions

. Because CAA regulations address air emissions from municipal solid waste combustors, EPA does no t agree with the commenters’ suggestion to add standards for solvent wipes burned in municipal solid waste combustors to this final rule promulgated under RCRA.

### 88 (b) COMMENTS : Several commenters supported allowing municipal and other non

- hazardous waste c ombustors to burn solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes, which may facilitate recycling in cases where the combustor facilities use solvent

- contaminated wipes as a secondary fuel and recover the energy. If it has already been determined that these solvents do not pose a significant risk and are deemed non

- hazardous, the commenter said it should not matter who handles or disposes of them. Several commenters supported burning contaminated wipes for energy recovery. Two commenters suggested that EPA do more to promote energy recovery. [267, 294, 323, 346, 448, 464]

(b) RESPONSE : The Agency agrees with commenters who supported allowing wipes to be sent to municipal and other non

- hazardous waste combustors and those who support the use of solvent

- contaminated wip es as a secondary fuel and a source of energy recovery

. D isposable wipes that meet the conditions of the final rule may be sent to municipal waste combustors and other combustion facilities that are regulated under the NSPS in section 129 of the CAA. G enerators may also continue to send solvent

- contaminated wipes to a hazardous waste combustor regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 265, or a hazardous waste boiler and industrial furnace regulated under 40 CFR part 266 subpart H

, which includes cement kilns that are operating under these regulations.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that said it should not matter who handles or disposes solvent

- contaminated wipes. Because there is potential for s olvent

- contaminated wipes to contribute hazardous constituents to downstream residuals from waste treatment processes, such as laundry sludge, wastewater, air emissions, and combustor ash

, EPA is requiring that generators can only send solvent

- contaminated wipes to handling facilities that are regulated under the ir r espective CWA, CAA, and RCRA regulations.

EPA acknowledges comments that EPA do more to promote energy recovery. Nothing in the final rule prohibits generators from pursuing energy recovery options, consistent with the applicable regulatory requirements.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that wipes may be delivered to incinerators with free liquids, and be dumped in a pit or bin without inspection, resulting in fugitive emissions and fire risk. [199

- 1019]

(c) RESPONSE : Regarding fugitive emissions from wipes prior to combustion, under the final rule, solvent

contaminated wipes must not contain free liquids when transported to a municipal waste combustor or other combustion facility. EPA has clarified this standard by requiring generators to demonstrate compliance with the “no free liquids” condition using the Paint Filter Liquids Test. The use of this test enables proper implementation of the “no free liquids” condition and, combined with the requirement that generators document how they are meeting this condition, should minimize the possibility of free liquids occurring after the solvent

- contaminated wipes leave the generator. If, however, free liquids do reach the combustor, they must be removed and managed under the applicab le hazardous waste regulati ons. Additionally, EPA is requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled as “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” This container standard will prevent release of the sol vent to the air or through spills while being managed by the combustor.

(d) COMMENTS : Two commenters supported the proposal that treatment residuals from solvent

- contaminated wipes are newly

- generated wastes subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262, under which knowledge of the wastes received or generated, coupled with knowledge of the capabilities of the combustor facility or testing is adequate for characterizing the waste. [267, 346] One commenter stated that the rule must r equire that the operator collect one sample of combustion residu e each quarter in which solvent

- contaminated wipes are processed and during the burning of such wipes. The commenter said t he sample should be collected and analyzed for the F

- solvent LDR cons tituents to meet the LDR standards for the F

- solvent constituents in order to be managed as an exempt non

- hazardous waste. The commenter added that the ash generated from the burning of solvent contaminated wipes must also be tested for the hazardous toxi city characteristic. The commenter believes t his testing is justified as the ash characteristics can vary. The commenter said that because a hazardous waste incinerator performing the same treatment of the same solvent

- contaminated wipes is required to dem onstrate compliance with the F

- solvent constituent LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR p art 268, t he same should also be true of any other type of combustor in order to ensure compliance with LDR treatment standards. [288]

(d) RESPONSE : The Agency agrees with the commenters who stated that treatment residuals from solvent

contaminated wipes are newly

- generated wastes subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and

### 89 262 . Because the ash generated from combustion is new ly ge nerated waste , the waste is not subject to LDR standards , unless the ash is a hazardous waste due to one of the hazardous waste characteristics, or if the ash is derived from other listed hazardous wastes managed by the combustion facility.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed all of EPA’s proposed conditional exclusions to allow incineration or landfill disposal of disposable industrial wipes because such a system is not practical in Vermont. The commenter stated that Vermont’s solid waste haulers activel y participate in regional solid waste “spot markets” to the extent that in various parts of the state, on any given day, any particular load of solid waste may end up either at a landfill or at
a waste

- to

- energy facility. The commenter said t he waste gener ators in these areas, for example, would have no assurance that their more heavily contaminated wipes “containing no free liquids” would actually be incinerated. [316]

(e) RESPONSE : Under the final rul e, generator s are allowed to send their F

- listed solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes to either MSWLFs operating under 40 CFR part 258 or combustors regulated under section 129 of the CAA

. Given that these types of landfills and combustors are ubiquitous, the Agency believes that the rule should not greatly impact solid waste haulers who participate in regional solid waste “spot markets.”



### 5.6.3 **Landfills**

In the Agency’s November 2003 pro posal, EPA proposed to allow solvent

- contaminated wipes to be disposed in either a MSWLF or another non

- hazardous waste landfill that meets the standards under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B. 4 In conjunction, EPA also proposed to make 11 solvents ineligible fo r the exclusion because these solvents are included in the TC or because they failed EPA’s risk screening analysis for the November 2003 proposed rule. In EPA’s October 2009 NODA, which requested comment on EPA’s revised risk analysis for the solvent

- conta minated wipes rulemaking, EPA also requested comment on two additional approaches for managing disposable wipes. The first approach would allow the disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes that did not exceed target risk criteria for an unlined landfill, bas ed on the Agency’s risk analysis, to be disposed in landfills without a liner; solvent

contaminated wipes that did exceed target risk criteria for an unlined landfill could only be disposed in a lined landfill. The second approach would direct all excluded solvent

- contaminated wipes, including those that could safely be disposed in an unlined landfill, be sent to a Subtitle D MSWLF subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b) (74 FR 55167

– 8).

Several commenters discussed EPA's proposed conditi ons for landfills as summarized below.

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested either removing the five gram standard for disposable wipes sent to landfills, or placing the same standard on reusable wipes. [173]

(a ) RESPONSE : EPA has not finalized the “dry” standard (i.e., wipes must contain no more than five grams of solvent each) because we find it would be impossible to implement and enforce. Additionally, EPA finds, based on its final risk analysis, that the “no free liquid s” condition is sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. Therefore, under the final rule, both reusable and disposable wipes must contain no free liquids prior to being sent for cleaning or disposal. Furthermore, we agree with the comme nter’s point that reusable and disposable wipes should have the same conditions

. EPA finds many of the conditions in the final rule, closed containers, accumulation time limit, recordkeeping, no free liquids, and labeling, are necessary for both disposable and reusable wipes in order to protect human health and the environment. As an additional benefit, having the same conditions for both exclusions eases implementation and compliance, particularly for facilities that use both types of wipes.

(b) COMMENTS : Se veral commenters supported direct disposal of wipes that meet the dry standard into landfills. Three commenters stated that the case of disposable wipe is similar to that of empty containers and non

- terne plated

4 The 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF regulations include design standards, groundwater monitoring, and other specific management standards. The part 257 Subpart B Non

- Municipal Non

- Hazardous Waste Disposal Unit regulations establish minim um federal criteria, such as location restrictions and groundwater monitoring, but do not require liners or other design and management standards (although states may require additional standards).

### 90 used oil filters, both of which are allowed direct disposal without additional labeling or container requirements. The commenter believes that the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases. The commenter also believes that the five gram standard is sufficiently protective , and extra container regulations would be burdensome and contrary to the goal of the rule (to simplify requirements and exclude properly managed wipes from hazardous waste regulations). One commenter asked if there is evidence to document that mixing disp osable wipes with other trash poses a greater fire hazard than keeping them separate. [199

- 1008, 278, 281, 313, 350]

( b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the general approach of minimizing the amount of solvent contained in the wipes prior to land disposal.

H owever, based on other comments 5 and on EPA’s final risk analysis, EPA has decided to replace the “dry” standard with “no free liquids” because we find that the “dry” standard would be impossible to implement and enforce. Furthermore, EPA’s risk analysis d emonstrates that “no free liquids” will be sufficient for protecting human health and the environment when certain solvent

- contaminated wipes are disposed in composite

- lined landfills.

EPA does not agree that no additional condi tions are necessary beyond that the wipe must no t contain free liquids. Specifically, the closed container standard ensures that solvent

- contaminated wipes, or the solvent contained in the wipes, are not released to the environment. Closed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources. Labeling is important to communicate the contents of the container to facility personnel,
motor carrier inspectors, transporters, emergency personnel, downstream handlers, and state and EPA enforcement to ensure the container is properly managed and, for example, protected from potential ignition sources. An accumulation time limit is necessary in or der to ensure solvent

- contaminated wipes, and any free liquid spent solvent, are not being stored indefinitely. This condition also decreases the maximum amount of time that solvent

contaminated wipes are managed on

- site, which further decreases the risk o f adverse affects to human health, such as from fires and volatilization. Finally, recordkeeping is necessary to enable compliance monitoring of the conditions of the exclusion.

EPA has no data that mixing disposable wipes with other trash poses a greater fire hazard than keeping them separate. However, in order to protect human health and the environment, EPA finds that conditions, such as closed containers and no free liquids will minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for exam ple, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of disposing solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes in no n

- municipal non

- hazardous waste landfills that have substantially reduced protections than even municipal landfills. One commenter opposed landfilling ignitable wastes and solvents
at non

- hazardous landfills, due to concerns of fires and groundwater contam ination. Two commenters stated that disposal to landfills should be minimized; reusable wipes or disposal with energy recovery is preferable. [265, 319, 325] However, another commenter supported landfilling industrial wipes over incinerating them or transp orting them to Canada. [167]

(c) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes may be sent to landfills that are regulated under the 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF regulations and therefore, cannot be sent to non

- municipal non

- hazardous waste landfills . EPA has evaluated potential ecological risks in its final risk analysis and found that disposal of certain solvent

- contaminated wipes in composite

- lined landfills do not present significant risks to human health and the environment. See responses on this issue in Section 2.3.4 of the document Response to Comments on the Solvent Contaminated Wipes 2003 Risk Screening Analysis , in the docket for the final rule. Thus, the conditional exclusion in the final rule requires that the wipes are disposed in MSWLFs

, which are subject to regulations controlling releases to the environment (e.g., liner requirements).

Regarding ignitable wastes, the final exclusion includes conditions designed to minimize risk from ignitable wastes ( e.g., no free liquids and closed, non

- leaking containers) . The revised risk analysis presented in the 2009 NODA included robust modeling of potential groundwater releases, and the conditions of the final rule address potential groundwater releases by requiring disposal in composite

- lined l andfills.

5 See Section 5.4.3 of this document.

### 91 EPA recognizes there are different benefits to different management methods and it is appropriate to specify conditions that are protective of human health and the environment for each management method and let generators choose, based on site

- specific conditions, which method is best for their situation. EPA confirms that solvent

contaminated wipes may continue to be sent to RCRA hazardous waste combustors, boilers, and industrial furnaces (as well as hazardous waste landfills) regulated under 40 CFR parts 264, 265, or 266 subpart H. This includes cement kilns , which combusts these wastes for energy recovery . To further clarify this point, we have added these citations to the final regulatory language for this exclusion.

(d) COMMENTS : One comm enter stated t hat the “no free liquids” and five gram criteria are ineffective, and will lead to violations of the LDR treatment standards 40 CFR part 268. This commenter went on to say that t he 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) requires tha t hazardous solvent constituents be treated using Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT) prior to land disposal and t he treatment standards in part 268 reflect this BDAT level of treatment. This commenter believed that h and wringing, mechanical wri nging, screening and other techniques discussed in EPA’s Technical Background Document to this proposed rule are not BDAT, and result in releasable amounts of solvents. Therefore, this commenter argued that EPA has proposed a shell game of first exempting the waste, and then bypassing HSWA controls because the waste is arbitrarily and inappropriately claimed to be non

- hazardous. This commenter believed the rule must prohibit disposal of solvent contaminated wipes in landfills unless the treatment standards in part 268 are met prior to land disposal. [288]

(d) RESPONSE : The Agency finds that the “no free liquids” criterion and the other conditions of the exclusion will be effective in protecting human health and the environment. As explained in the preamble t o the final rule, EPA has determined that the disposed wipes that meet the conditions of the exclusion are not hazardous waste from the point of generation. Therefore, the regulations governing hazardous waste, including the LDR standards are not applicabl e to these wastes.

We disagree with the commenter who stated that EPA is arbitrarily and inappropriately excluding disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes. On the contrary, The Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. This risk analysis was subjected to external peer review, presented for public comment, and revised where appropriate. In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a state

- of

- the

- art landfill modeling to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks by using the most up

- to

- date human health toxicity values available. The risk analysis used conservative
assump tions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed the proposed conditional exclusions allowing incineration or landfill disposal of disposable industrial wipes because such a syste m is not practical in Vermont

. CESQG hazardous wastes are already banned from municipal solid waste landfill disposal in Vermont and other states. The commenter believes that this would be a huge step backwards for our hazardous waste management program, i n particular, since seven of Vermont’s ten National Priority List sites are landfills with industrial solvent contamination issues. [316]

(e ) RESPONSE : States are not required to adopt the disposable wipes exclusion and could choose to retain hazardous waste requirements for disposable wipes. The final rule requires that disposal be in a composite

- lined landfill and combustion in a permitted municipal was te combustor. After fully considering the potential risks, the Agency believes that management of solvent

- contaminated wipes under the specific conditions required in the exclusion is protective of human health and the environment. Note that this rule will not change any applicable state regulations for non

- hazardous landfills; those rules will remain in effect.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that if solvent

- contaminated wipes are transported in properly labeled plastic bags mixed in with other trash, the bag may rip when picked up in a compacting truck, releasing the contents, and preventing a determination of the presence of free liquids. In addition, the commenter stated that this would introduce land

- banned solvents into landfills and likely would necessitate and exacerbate future cleanups at municipal landfills. The commenter also believes that d isposal at a solid waste landfill should be limited to dir ect deliveries to the landfill and that t hese containers should not be mixed in with other solid wastes. [323]

### 92 (f) RESPONSE : The Agency does not agree that disposal in non

- hazardous landfill s will cause the problems cited because of the following reasons: (1) t he exclusions are only applicable to the solven t

- contaminated wipes themselves and f ree liq uid solvent must be removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipe and from the container holding the wipes prior to disposal

. This condition is demonstrated using the Paint Filter Liquids Test and the process must be documented by the generator ; (2) the final rule requires that solvent

- contaminated wipes only be
sent to MSWLF s that comply with 40 CFR part 258 requirements , including liner requirements; and (3) EPA’s risk analysis demonstrates that certain solvent

- contaminated wipes may be disposed in composite

- lined landfills without significant risk to human health and the environment. Thus, although EPA acknowledges the potential that a bag may be ripped during the normal course of transportation, EPA finds that the no free liquids condition coupled with the requirement that solvent

- contaminated wipes be sent only to MSWLFs meeting liner requirements, adequately addresses concerns regarding ripped bags.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the provision in proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(vii) that laundry or dry cleaning sludge from wipes may be disposed of in solid waste landfills if the sludge does not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic should not be a condition of the exclusion. The commenter stated that this condition is not appropriate because it do es not apply to the handling of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes. Another commenter opposed the alternatives for management of laundry sludge presented in the NODA, inclu ding prohibiting disposal of tetrachloroethylene

- containing laundry sludge in unlined landfills, or requiring all sludge containing any solvent with a potential risk to be disposed of only in a lined landfill. (74 Fed. Reg. at 55,167

- 68). Based on more accurate data and assumptions associated with laund ry operations, the commenter thought that neither alternative is warranted for laundry sludge. [184]

(g) RESPONSE : The final rule conditionally excludes solvent

- contaminated wipes that are cleaned and reused from the d efinition of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.4 from the point of generation. Therefore, the sludge generated from laundering these wipes will not be subject to an F

- solvent listing under § 261.32 (provided no other F

- listed wastes are mixed with the sludge). The Agency agrees that there is no nee d to include the provision cited for the sludge and thus has not included the provision in the final regulation. Any residuals generated from cleaning solvent

contaminated wipes (e.g., wastewater treatment sludge) that exhibit a hazardous characteristic ac cording to subpart C of part 261 (including the toxicity characteristic for tetrachloroethylene ) must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste requirements of parts 260 through 273. This is consistent with the way the existing hazardous waste regulations apply to any waste stream.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that emissions through the landfill cover are unlikely to change with the receipt of solvent

- contaminated wipes, but it is possible that in

- situ concentrations of VOCs might nomina lly increase, potentially enough to raise the value of non

- methane organic compounds under an NSPS Tier 2 emissions field test program. The commenter stated that t his scenario could result in a site now under the 50 mg per annum emissions threshold for non

- methane organic compounds to exceed this threshold with the receipt of such materials, with the consequence that a landfill gas collection and control system might have to be installed at an earlier date than would otherwise be the case at a given site. [ 255]

(h) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that emissions through the landfill cover are unlikely to change with the receipt of solvent

- contaminated wipes because the conditions of the exclusion (e.g., no free liquids) are designed to minimize the amount of solvent that go to landfills. Therefore , in

- situ concentrations of VOCs should not increase at landfills as a result of th e final rule . Also, as indicated by the landfill model EPA used, the solvents should be subject to biodegradation in the landfill units and, thus, the amount of solvent over time should be relatively small compared to the total volume of waste accepted by the landfill.

(i) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that section 261.4(b)(19)(iv) does not indicate what a landfill should do if it receives disposable wipe s that either do not meet the five gram solvent standard or contain any of the ineligible solvents. Th e commenter thinks t his section should include language similar to that in sections 261.4(a)(22)(vi) and 261.4(b)(19)(viii), specifying the steps that must be taken. In addition, the commenter wants the list of options to be expanded to include transferrin g the wipes to another facility which is capable of removing the free liquids, and sending the wipes as fully

- regulated hazardous wastes to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. [271]

### 93 (i) RESPONSE : In the final rule, we have replace d the condition that solvent

- contaminated wipes going to la ndfills must contain less than five grams of solvent with a requirement that wipes must contain no free liquids. At the point of transport for cleaning or disposal, the solvent

- contaminated wipes a nd their containers must contain no free liquids as defined in 40 CFR 260.10. In response to the commenter’s concerns about wipes that are received with solvents above the limit, EPA does not believe that special language is necessary to specify what handl ers must do if they receive wipes with free liquids. The final rule requires that free liquid s be managed according to the hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate. Thus, any liquid spent solvent t hat is discovered upon receipt must be managed as hazard ous waste, if applicable, and the arrangement options available are the same as those for any hazardous waste under the hazardous waste regulations. Under the final rule, handlers are not allowed to send back shipments containing free liquids to the genera tor as was proposed in November 2003.

(j ) COMMENTS : One commenter concurred with the proposal to allow generators of solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes to store them in non

- leaking covered containers at the point of generation. However, the
commenter stated that wipes that contained no free liquid and destined for a municipal or non

- hazardous waste landfill, should be allowed to be transferred to a common dumpster that is routinely picked up by a contracted solid waste management entity. [280]

(j ) RES PONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that d isposable wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule may be discarded with a facility’s other solid waste trash. During accumulation, wipes may contain free liquids or free liquids may occur, for example, from percolation or compression of the solvent

- contaminated wipes in a container. These free liquids, upon removal from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or from the container holding the wipes, must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulati ons found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273. However, under the conditional exclusion, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” The conta iner must be able to contain free liquids should free liquids occur (e.g., from percolation and compression of the wipes). Managing reusable wipes in non

- leaking, closed containers ensures that the solvents are unlikely to be released to the environment. C losed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ignition sources. After accumulation and during transportation, the container must be sealed in order to meet the closed container standard.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter urged EPA to allow disposal of all solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes in lined landfills meeting the minimum design and operating parameters of hazard ous waste landfills. The commenter stated that EPA apparently concluded that the only alternative to an unlined municipal landfill is a licensed hazardous waste landfill; however, in Maine and other states, non

- municipal wastes may be disposed in state

- lic ensed landfills which must meet design and operating criteria that are substantively the same as or stringent than those imposed on ha zardous waste landfills in 40 CFR p art 264. The commenter stated that t hese requirements include location standards, waste analysis plans, or other limits on acceptable wastes, liners, leachate collection, detection and assessment monitoring, comprehensive parameters for sampling and analyses, corrective action, financial ass urance, closure, and the like. Accordingly, the commenter believes that where there is no substantive difference between the handling and disposal of industrial wipes in hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste landfills, EPA has no rational basis for barrin g disposal in non

- hazardous waste landfills, and must allow that alternative. [313]

(k) RESPONSE : The 2009 revised risk analysis modeled both an unlined and composite

- lined landfill scenario to assess the full range of potential risks. The Agency found that disposal in composite

- lined landfills was a necessary condition for the exclusion to adequately protect h uman health and the environment. Under the final conditional exclusion for solvent contaminated disposable wipes, the wipes may be sent for disposal to a MSWLF regulated under 40 CFR part 258 (including § 258.40), or to a hazardous waste landfill regulated under parts 264 or 265. U nder the conditional exclusion, solvent

- contaminated wipes are not allowed to be disposed in other types of landfills, such as non

- hazardous waste industrial landfills operating under part 257, because these landfills are not
requ ired to meet des ign standards, such as liners. Landfills operating under the part 258 MSWLF standards must comply with design standards, groundwater monitoring, leachate collection, and other specific management standards. These standards ensure that the s olvent

- contaminated wipes included under the final rule can be safely disposed. (Note that, i n order for this exclusion to be effective in states that are authorized to administer the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program ( such as Maine ) , the authorized state must modify their program to adopt the new federal regulation. )

### 94 EPA did not evaluate the various state programs for non

- hazardous municipal landfills that may be different than the federal p art 257 requirements as part of this rulemaking . Thus, the conditional exclusion has been designed based on the federal requirements that are the minimal standard. Because the final rule is less stringent than the existing federal regulations (i.e., it will exclude certain hazardous secondary materials from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations), authorized states are not required to adopt the exclusions. Thus, authorized states may evaluate whether adoption of the final rule is appropriate for their state.

(l) COMMENTS : One commenter opposed both of EPA’s management options in the NODA. The commenter believes t he first option (which has serious potential negative effects on human health and the environment. The commenter believes that the second option is more protective, bu t has the following drawbacks: inadequate landfill requirements, lack of oversight, potential for abuse, and senseless waste of energy resources. Also, the commenter stated that EPA’s decision to eli minate from the risk analysis ten compounds that they det ermined are “not used as industrial wipes,” essentially ignores the practical possibility that these compounds could end up i n landfills through spill clean up wipes. This commenter thinks that EPA should address the risk concerns it identified for tetrachl oroethylene and to develop alternative management approaches accordingly. The commenter stated that

n either option [in the NODA] provides the level of protection or resource conservation/energy recovery benefits that accrue from burning these wastes as fue l in energy recovery units and that neither the first nor second proposed option limits how solvent

- loaded a wipe can become. The commenter stated that currently generators of rags and wipes are encouraged to min imize solvent content of wipes but that a de listing will encourage an increase in the solvent

- to

- wipe ratios. The commenters stated that the exclusion implies that solvent diluted with a rag somehow constitutes reduced risks. The commenter also said that the rule provides no basis for how EPA will k eep such an unsound practice from growing as a “waste minimization” method. The commenter believes that s olvents that currently are removed from wipes and rags for alternative management may in the future increasingly be left in the rags, thus increasing t he risk impact beyond what EPA has evaluated in the NODA. The commenter argued that i f generators have the option to either drain the rags and send the solvent to energy recovery or leave the solvent in the rags (and perhaps dilute the solvent by adding mo re rags), generators will choose the least costly option. They will simply use more rags and landfill them rather than collect solvents and send them for energy recovery. [448]

(l) RESPONSE : In the revised risk analysis presented in the 2009 NODA, the Age ncy conducted a robust risk evaluation that demonstrates the solvent

- contaminated wipes included under the exclusion for disposable wipes do not exceed target risk thresholds when disposed in a composite

- lined landfill. Furthermore, the revised risk analys is used conservative assumptions for the amount of the solvents that may be disposed in landfills including an assumption that use of disposable wipes may increase in the future, thus the overall risk analysis used for the final rule is protective. Regardi ng tetrachloroethylene, EPA notes that the results of the final risk analysis demonstrate that wipes contaminated with tetrachloroethylene may be disposed in composite

- lined landfills without posing significant risk to human health and the environment. Fur thermore, the final rule directs all solvent

- contaminated wipes to be sent to MSWLF s meeting liner requirements in 40 CFR part 258. Solvent

- contaminated wipes containing no free liquids present a different risk profile from free liquid spent solvent. Free liquid spent solvent has a higher likelihood to be released to the environment, such as through spills, fires, or volatilization. In any case, EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that the amounts of the solvents likely to be in contaminated wipes do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in composite

- lined landfills.

EPA eliminated ten listed solvents from the risk analysis because our analysis indicated that these chemicals were unlikely to be used as solvents wit h wipes. The use of these solvents is severely restricted (due to being ozone depleting substances), or the available information showed that the solvent had no known use with wipes. The commenter did not provide any information to show that wipes used for a spill clean

- up of these ten chemicals would contribute any significant loading to landfills. Such waste would likely be a minor component of solvent contaminated wipes disposed. The Agency also finds that generators will continue to minimize solvent con tent of wipes because the final rule requires that the solvent

- contaminated wipes and their containers must contain no free liquids when transported. Therefore, the generator will have incentive to avoid generation of liquids and to minimize the overall qu antity of solvent contaminated wipes. Thus, EPA finds no basis in the commenter's argument that the rule will increase the use of solvent as a "waste minimization" method. Nothing in the final rule prohibits generators from sending solvent

- contaminated wipes to RCRA hazardous waste combustors, boilers, and industrial furnaces (as well as hazardous waste landfills) regulated under parts 264, 265, or 266 subpart H; including c ement kilns that are

### 95 operating under these regulations. To further clarify this point, we have added these citations to the final regulatory language for this exclusion.

(m) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that, given insufficient knowledge about whether t hese excluded wipes will end up in a lined or unlined landfill, EPA’s risk evaluation should be based on unlined landfills. The commenter finds i t hard to believe that most generators will have the ability, much less the incentive to actually separate wipe s according to levels of contamination and send them to different places for landfilling. The commenter stated that i f all the wastes are required to go to a landfill with a composite liner, then at least it would make the generator’s job more manageable ( and decrease potential land disposal abuse) and make remaining oversight efforts, recordkeeping and reporting somewhat easier. Another concern the commenter raised is that it appears these wastes will be sent to landfills meeting only certain requirements in The Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria: p art 258. For composite lined landfills, the NODA references a “...Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in 40 CFR 258.40 (a)(2) and (b)....” The commenter believes it would be negligent to omit some of the important requirements for land fills in the other subparts of p art 258. [448]

(m) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that it should consider unlined landfills and has thus evaluated both lined and unlined landfills in the risk analysis for the final rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that said separating wipes going to lined or unlined landfills according to type of solvent contamination would complicate i mplementation and enforcement. Therefore, EPA is requiring all solvent contaminated wipes to go to lined landfills. This will be simpler for generators to implement and will make recordkeeping and oversight easier. Additionally, this option ensures that th ose solvent

- contaminated wipes that exceed EPA’s target risk criteria for an unlined landfill will not be discarded in such a landfill. The final rule requires that the solvent

- contaminated wipes are sent for landfill disposal must go to a MSWLF regulated under 40 CFR part 258, including § 258.40, or to a hazardous waste landfill regulated under parts 264 or 265.

(n) COMMENTS : Several commenters supported one or both of EPA’s management approaches outlined in the NODA. Two commenters supported allowing bo th of the management approaches outlined in the NODA. One commenter supported the first option, as presenting a strong balance between cost effectiveness and environmental protection. Two commenters supported the second option, as long as the eligible land fills are easy to identify, and opposed separate management guidelines for wipes containing tetrachloroethylene. Another commenter stated that EPA should account for the over

- conservatism in its risk analysis and adopt a management method and appropriate

r egulatory exclusions that support use of unlined MSWLFs or nonhazardous waste landfills for the co

- dispos al of solvent

- contaminated wipe s and laundry sludge for all the solvents covered by the proposed rule , with the exceptions of tetrachloroethylene and, perhaps, trichloroethylene

. The commenter believes that a properly conducted risk assessment, performed in a manner consistent with standard EPA risk assessment methodology, provides a sound basis for conditional exclusions from the definition of haz ardous waste that would allow solvent

contaminated wipes and laundry sludge to be co

- disposed in unlined municipal landfills or unlined non

- hazardous waste landfills without the need for prohibition of land disposal of any covered solvent ( except tetrachlo roethylene and perhaps trichloroethylene ), a five

- gram limit on solvent mass, or any active extraction of solvents from wipes and shop towels except as necessary to meet the “no free liquids” test described in the proposed rule. Another commenter stated th at, while EPA is conside ring prohibiting disposal of tetrachloroethylene

- containing laundry sludge in unlined landfills, or requiring all sludge containing any solvent with a potential risk to be disposed of only in a lined landfill, neither option is warr anted. [455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 464]

(n) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those commenters that supported the second option, which is that all solvent

contaminated wipes can only be sent to landfill s operating under the 40 CFR part 258 standards (or to haz ardous waste landfills operating under parts 264 or 265). This represents the most straightforward approach and imposes the least burden for compliance, implement ation, and enforce ment . Under this approach, generators will not need to keep track of which e xcluded wipes are contaminated with which solvents and whether those solvent

- contaminated wipes are being sent to a lined or an unlined landfill. Although this approach could in theory narrow the disposal options for a generator, the benefits of simplicity and ease of compliance, implementation, and oversight of the approach outweigh the concern. This is because : (1) generators are likely already using one or more of the 1,908 MSWLFs that operate under the part 258 standards for disposal of their other soli d waste trash; (2) a part 257 non

hazardous waste landfill may not accept solvent

- contaminated wipes as these landfills are often set up for specific purposes, such as for large quantities of construction and demolition waste; and, (3) we do not have any i ndication that there is a significant cost advantage for using a part 257 non

- hazardous waste landfill as compared to a part 258

### 96 MSWLF. Any potential benefit gained from allowing the use of a non

- hazardous waste landfill is likely to be insignificant, espe cially in light of the increased complexity for implementation and compliance monitoring that would be required to ensure that certain solvent

- contaminated wipes were being sent to the appropriate landfill.

The Agency disagrees with co mmenters who indicat ed that all solven t

- contaminated wipes can be safely disposed in unlined landfills. The revised risk analysis presented in the 2009 was appropriately conservative, an d the final risk analysis demonstrates that eight solvents would pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in an unlined landfill. Thus, EPA is requiring all solvent

- contaminated wipes (with the exception of wipes that are haz ardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene) to be disposed in MSWLFs meeting requirements listed in part 258, including liner requirements. Responses to the specific comments on this risk analysis are addressed in the document Response to Comments on the Solvent Contaminated Wipes 2009 Risk Analysis: Risk

- Based Mass Loading Limits which is in the docket for the final rule.

Additionally, regarding tetrachloroethylene, EPA notes that the results of the final risk analysis demonstrate that wipes contamin ated with tetrachloroethylene may be disposed in composite

- lined landfills without posing significant risk to human health and the environment. Thus, wipes containing tetrachloroethylene are eligible for the final rule. However, EPA’s final risk analysis d emonstrates that wipes containing trichloroethylene exceed EPA’s target risk criteria and thus wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of trichloroethylene are not eligible for the final rule.

Regarding laundry sludge, any residuals generated from cl eaning solvent

- contaminated wipes (e.g., wastewater treatment sludge) that exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to subpart C of part 261 (including the toxicity characteristic for tetrachloroethylene ) must be managed according to the applicable haz ardous waste requirements of parts 260 through 273. This is consistent with the way the existing hazardous waste regulations apply to any waste
stream.

(o) COMMENTS : One commenter supported EPA’s efforts to develop a regulation that establishes a level pl aying field for the handling of both disposable and reusable industrial wipes, in particular the management option to allow contaminated towels and wipes to be disposed into a Subtitle C [sic] landfill as outlined by the Agency in their NODA

. The commenter believes that t his option further encourages the use of solvents by the printing industry that would not be classified as hazardous waste thereby reducing risk to the envir onment and public health. [448]

(o) RESPONSE : The Agency agrees with the commenter’s preferred management option to allow contaminated towels and wipes to be disposed into a Subtitle D landfill as outlined in the NODA. (We assume that commenter meant a “Subtitle D” landfill, whic h is what the NODA indicated.) Under the fina l rule, EPA is allowing solvent

contaminated wipes to b e sent to landfill s operating under the 40 CFR part 258 standards (or to hazardous waste landfills regulated under parts 264 or 265)

. This represents the most straightforward approach and imposes the l east burden for compliance, implement ation, and enforce ment . Under this approach, generators will not need to keep track of which excluded wipes are contaminated with which solvents and whether those solvent

- contaminated wipes are being sent to a lined o r an unlined landfill. This reduces the risk that solvents will be mistakenly sent to landfills that are not sufficient for protection of human health and the environment.

EPA agrees with the commenter’s point that reusable and disposable wipes should have the same conditions. EPA finds that many of the conditions in the final rule, closed containers, accumulation time limit, recordkeeping, no free liquids, and labeling, are necessary for both disposable and reusable wipes in order to protect human health a nd the environment. As an additional benefit, having the same conditions for both exclusions eases implementation and compliance, particularly for facilities that use both types of wipes.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's belief that the option of using Subtitle D landfills encourages the use of non

hazardous solvents by the printing industry. The final rule only excludes solvent

- contaminated wipes and does not exclude the free liquid spent solvent, which must be managed according to applicable hazardous waste regulations



### 5.7 **Fre e Liquids R**  **eceived by Handlers**

### 97 Commenters discussed how handling facilities should manage free liquids if found in containers they receive from generators and whether or not handlers should then be required to notify regulatory authorities. EPA proposed that, if free liquids are in containers that arrive at a laundry, dry cleaner, combustor, or other industrial wipes handling facility, that the receiving facility must either (1) remove the free liquids and manage them as hazardou s waste; or (2) return the closed container with the wipes and free liquid to the generator.

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters supported the proposed conditions for managing free liquids found in containers received by handlers, and stated that containers holding wipes and free liquids should be allowed to be sent back to the generator without using a hazardous waste manifest or the free liquid should be removed by the receiving facility and managed as a hazardous waste, provided the removed liquid meets ha zardous waste classification criteria . The commenters agree with the approach of maintaining the exclusion for the generator that meets the conditions of the exclusion at th e point of generation and allowing the receiving facility to take the
ap propriate c orrective measures. [262, 264, 288, 320, 346, 348]

Another group of commenters, however, opposed the proposed approach for handlers’ management of free liquids. They stated that the two proposed options are not protective enough and do not account for all the possible scenarios that may occur. On e commenter stated that with the very weak tracking, labeling, and recordkeeping provisions of the rule, subsequent handler s will not likely be able to track the original generator or to properly identify the sourc e of free liquid

. As a result, the commenter believes that the handler may not be able to determine whether free liquid is hazardous waste, and will therefore not dispose of the free liquid and wip es in the proper manner. [288] One commenter opposed allowing a handler who discovers free liquids to be allowed to return the container with the wipes and free liquid to the generator; instead, the handler should be required to remove the free liquid and manage it proper ly as a hazardous waste. [265] Ano the r commenter stated that the proposed options would not account for a scenario in which the generator refuses to accept the returned wipes, or goes out of business after sending the wipes to the receiving facility, if the receiving facility does not have th e ability to remove the free liquids. The commenter suggested including the following two additional options for receiving facilities : (1) transferring the wipes to another facility which is capable of removing the free liquids; and, (2) sending the wipes as fully

- regulated hazardous wastes to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. [271]

(a) RESPONSE : The final rule requires handlers to manage the free liquids according to all applicable hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273. The wipes themselves may remain under the exclusion provided that the conditions of the exclusion were met by the generator (e.g., the solvent

- contaminated wipes and the container contained no free liquids at the point of transport by the gene rator). We do not agree with commenters that argue the handling facility should not be responsible for removing free liquids and that the containers with free liquids should be allowed to be shipped back to the generator. This approach would be inconsisten t with the requirements for managing hazardous waste as the hazardous waste spent solvents would be shipped without the protective hazardous waste controls (e.g., manifest) which have been determined necessary and designed to protect of human health and th e environment for this activity. This approach would also increase the time the free liquids spend in transit, and the possibility of their release, since the generator would likely have to send them off

- site again for their ultimate disposition. The Agenc y believes that facilities in the business of managing materials that may, although infrequently, include free liquid hazardous waste spent solvents should be prepared to manage such solvent
wastes as hazardous waste in compliance with the RCRA hazardous w aste regulations designed to protect human health and the environment.

In addition, EPA agrees with those commenters who suggested t hat containers with liquid hazardous waste should only be transported by licensed hazardous waste transporters to permitte d hazardous waste facilities and thus should not be allowed to be shipped to generators because these generators may refuse to accept the waste or may have gone out of business. EPA also agrees with the commenter that noted that subsequent handlers may not be able to track the original generator or to properly identify the source of the free liquid. These reasons further underlie EPA’s decision not to allow containers with free liquids to be shipped back to the generator.

In regards to the comment that th e handler may not be able to determine whether the free liquid is hazardous waste, EPA notes that the final rule requires all solvent

- contaminated wipes to be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” This label serves to communicate the contents of t he container, including the potential hazardous nature of any free liquid spent solvent, to downstream handlers.

### 98 Handling facilities may transfer solvent

- contaminated wipes with free liquids to another facility which is capable of removing the free liquids as long as the free liquid spent solvent is transported and managed according to applicable hazardous waste regulations, such as manifesting, and the other facility is an appropriate hazardous waste destination facility. Additionally, the solvent

- c ontaminated wipes may also be transported off

- site as hazardous waste to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility.

Because it is impossible to guarantee that free liquids will never arise in a container of wipes during transport, the
app roach taken in the final rule is to include conditions th at will minimize the occurrence of free liquids

. This includes: (1) d efining the “no free liquids” condition for wipes using EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test; (2) applying the “no free liquids” condit ion at the point of transport; and (3) requiring generators to document their me thod for meeting this condition. These conditions enable consistent implementation of the “no free liquids” standard, which reduces the likelihood that free liquids will be gen erated during transport. However, if free liquids are nevertheless observed in a container at the handling facility, for example, as a result of percolation or compression during transport, EPA agrees with commenters that supported EPA’s proposal to mainta in the conditional exclusion for the solvent

- contaminated wipes if the generator has complied with the conditions of the final rule.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be revised so that laundries can accept only soiled wipes that are not saturated and that do not have associated free liquid. The commenter argued that s oiled wipes that have associated free liquid should not be conditionally excluded, and should be managed as a regulated hazardous waste. The commenter believes that l aundries accepting soiled wipes should be required to maintain records regarding the receipt of free liquids, should provide personnel training, and have a free liquids/solvent management plan in place to ensure that free liquids are managed and disp osed of as hazardous waste. [331]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that solvent

- contaminated wipes must contain no free liquids at the point of transport by generators to laundries under the final rule exclusion. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that do not meet this condition, and thus contain free liquids at the point of transport, would not be excluded and would be subject to applicable hazardous waste regulations.

However, EPA does not agree that solvent

- contamina ted wipes containing free liquids upon arrival at the destination facility should automatically lose the exclusion. This is because, t hough rare, free liquids may inadvertently make their way to the handing facility as a result of compression, gravity, or percolation effects on the wipes during transport, despite the generator meeting the no free liquids condition at the point of transport. In this case, free liquids must be removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or containers and must be managed accor ding to the applicable hazardous waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273; however, solvent

- contaminated wipes would still remain subject to the conditional exclusion provided the generator complied with the conditions of the exclusion.

EPA does not find it necessary to require further records, training, or planning regarding the potential receipt of free liquids under the reusable wipes exclusion because it would be duplicative of hazardous waste requirements which, under the final rule, ap ply to handling facilities managing free liquid spent solvent. F ree liquids must be managed according to all applicable hazardous waste regulations in parts 260 through 273 and thus laundries would be subject to the applicable hazardous waste reporting, tr aining, and planning requirements as appropriate to their generator
status.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter recommended that the Agency revise the text to state clearly what specific container requirements apply to the return of the wipes and liquid to the g enerator when rejected due to the presence of free liquids, since this is unclear in the current version. [155]

(c) RESPONSE : The final rule does not allow containers of free liquid spent solvent to be returned to the generator because this would be inconsistent with the requirements for managing hazardous waste as the hazardous waste solvents would be shipped without the protective hazardous waste controls (e.g., manifest) which have been determined necessary and designed to protect of human health and the environment for this activity. To make the requirements for management of free liquid spent solvent clear, EPA has added into the final regulatory text: “ Free liquids removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or from the container holding the wipes must be managed according to the applicable regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.”

### 99 (d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that in situations where a handling facility receives a container with free liquids and is not a solvent extract ion facility, the generating facility may contractually incur additional charges irrespective of whether the container is returned or whether the container and its contents are managed by the receiver as hazardous waste. The commenter believes that i n an e ffort to lower these costs, the generator will modify its behavior if this situation occurs often. The commenter stated that s olvent contained in the reusable wipe is already subject to 40 CFR part 261 and must be managed according to parts 260 through 268 . [267] Several commenters suggested various approaches for addressing f ree liquids received by handlers . One commenter suggested that EPA change the rules to force customers to take more of these solvents out of the towels so that this will not be a probl em. Another commenter recommended revising the proposed regulation so that generators are responsible for costs incurred to ship containers found to contain liquid hazardous wastes directly from the receiving facility to a licensed hazardous waste treatmen t or disposal facility. The commenter suggested that t he receiving facility could also be required to manage the free hazardous waste liquids as hazardous waste and these should only be transported by licensed hazardous waste transporters to licensed or pe rmitted hazardous waste facilities. A commenter also suggested that t he receiving facility or laundry should also be required to document the receipt of wipe containers and contact the generator, notifying them that free hazardous waste liquids were receiv ed and payment of costs associated with management and disposal as hazardous waste is neede d. [322, 331]

(d) RESPONSE : The final rule is designed to minimize the frequency of free liquids occurring during transport . This includes: (1) d efining the “no free liquids” condition for wipes using EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test; (2) applying the “no free liquids” condition at the point of transport; and (3) requiring generators to document their me thod for meeting this condition. These conditi ons enable consistent implementation of the “no free liquids” standard, which reduces the likelihood that free liquids will be generated during transport. If the generator complies with the conditions of the final rule, free liquids during transport should be a very rare occurrence.

Additionally, we agree with commenters who stated that generators have an economic incentive to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. Handling facilities will likely pass any costs to manage the free l iquids as hazardous waste on to the generator and thus t he final rule provides a strong incentive for generators to meet the “no free liquids” condition. Given this, EPA does not find it necessary to require in the regulations that generators be responsibl e for costs because the market likely already provides sufficient disincentive.

Furthermore, EPA finds that requiring a log or notification to the generator, state or EPA region by a handler (e.g., laundry) that receives solvent

- contaminated wipes contain ing free liquids is not necessary. U nder the final rule, free liquid spent solvent must be managed according to the hazardous wa ste regulations, as appropriate, which includes using hazardous waste transporters and permitted hazardous waste facilities. Thu s, any liquid spent solvent that is discovered upon receipt, for example, by a laundry, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the hazardous waste regulations as appropriate to the amount of hazardous waste generated in that

mo nth by the handling facility. EPA finds that any additional reporting requirements would be duplicative of what is already required under the hazardous waste regulations.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter requested that EPA further discuss the following issues: (1) does the generator lose the exclusion and become liable for an illegal shipment of hazardous waste? (2) does the recipient of the shipment become a generator of hazardous waste, whom perhaps has not obtained a RCRA generator number, if they return the container to the original generator? (3) must the recipient return the shipment containing free liquids to the operator per RCRA hazardous waste requirements? [347]

(e) RESPONSE : The final rule is designed to address the situations discussed by commenter s. (1) Provided that the generator has met the conditions of the exclusion, including the no free liquids condition at the point of transport of solvent

- contaminated wipes off

- site to a handling facility, the generator would not lose the exclusion in the e vent that free liquids are generated during the course of transportation, such as from percolation or compression of t he solvent

- contaminated wipes. EPA notes that, i f the generator complies with the conditions of the final rule, free liquids during transp ort sh ould be a very rare occurrence. (2) The person removing the free liquids, including handling facilities, such as a laundry, must comply with applicable hazardous waste regulations that would apply to any new point of generation. If the amount of free liquid that would be generated during transportation is small and thus the handling facilities c ould qualify for CESQG status. CESQGs are not requ ired to obtain an EPA ID number. (3) Returning the container to the original generator is not allowed under the final rule. The handler would have to ship the free liquid spent solvent to an appropriate handler as allowed under the hazardous waste regulations. EPA

### 100 notes that l aundries or dry cleaners may also recycle free liquid spent solvent within their allowed accumulation period (e.g., 90 or 180 days) without a RCRA permit under the provisions of 40 CFR 261.6(c), which exempts the recycling process itself from certain hazardous waste r equirements.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter reco mmended that EPA define solvent

- contaminated wipes still containing free liquid as Universal Waste, and require that they be managed in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 273. The commenter argues that t h is will allow EPA to track where the free liquid solvents may have been separated, and ensure that the separated solvents are properly classified as RCRA hazardous waste and sent to proper treatmen t at Subtitle C facilities. The commenter state d that the u niversal waste regulatory program promotes the proper management standards, as well as notice and tracking and provides an optimum balance between no permitting or regulatory cont rols and full RCRA permits. The commenter note d that the universal waste prov isions have worked well for pesticides, batteries, mercury thermostats and lamps and that a ll of these waste streams are as widely generated as solvent wipes. [288]

(f) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that solvent

- contaminated wipes should be managed under the universal waste standards. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes and, as is explained in the preamble to the final rule, EPA finds that reusable wipes managed under t he final rule are not solid and hazardous wastes and dis posable wipes are not hazardous wastes. Thus, the conditional exclusion regulatory approach taken in the final rule is more appropriate than the hazardous waste regulatory approach. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must meet certain conditi ons (e.g., no free liquids, closed containers, labeling) and thus EPA finds that the conditional exclusions strike an appropriate balance between full RCRA Subtitle C regulation and an exclusion with no controls to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Furthermore, free liquid spent solvent is subject to the applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the hazardous waste regulations. This reporting and recordkeeping enables EPA to track where the free liqui d spent solvent is be ing sent.

(g) COMMENTS : Several commenters opposed notification requirements and stated that if the generator receives the drums after being returned by the laundry, they are responsible for managing the liquids appropriately. These commenters believe th at i f the laundry decides to manage the liquids as hazardous waste, they are responsible for the management of a hazardous waste. [155, 184, 305, 346, 348]

Conversely, several commenters supported the inclusion of notification requirements in the proposed rule. One commenter stated that without a notification requirement, it will be extremely difficult for regulatory authorities to identify persons who violate the "no free liquids" provision of the exclusion. A notification requirement would also provide a dditional incentive for the receiving facility to be diligent in assuring that the "no free liquids" requirement is met, either through close monitoring of materials before they leave the site of generation, or through cancellation of service contracts in inst ances of repeated violations. [193, 246, 286, 358]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with comments arguing that requiring a log or notification to the generator, state or EPA region by a handler (e.g., laundry) that receives solvent

- contaminated wipes containi ng free liquids is not necessary. First, under the final rule, free liquid spent solvent must be managed according to the hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate. Thus, any liquid spent solvent that is discovered upon receipt, for example, by a laundry

, must be managed as h azardous waste, if applicable. Under the final rule, handlers are not allowed to send back shipments of free liquid waste to the generator as was proposed in November 2003

. Because, under the final rule, handlers are required to manage free liquids as hazardous waste, this will likely result in handlers charging generators a fee to cover the costs of managing any free liquids received by the handler. This creates a strong in centive for generators to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition prior to sending the wipes to a handler because the generator is likely to incur a fee imposed by the handling facility for the hazardous waste dispos al of the free liquid spent solvent wastes. Additionally, in the final rule we have more clearly defined “no free liquids” using a performance standard based on the Paint Filter Liquids Test. This test provides a

more objective definition than the November 2003 proposed definition, which specified only that no liquid solvent could drip from the wipe. The final rule strengthens the “no free liquids” condition (e.g., uses Paint Filter Liquids Test, applies at the point of transport, generators must document p rocess for meeting condition) so that solvent

contaminated wipes meeting the standard are not likely to produce (as a result of compression, gravity , or percolation) free liquids in transit.

### 101 Secondly, under the final rule, if a handling facility did recei ve a shipment of solvent

- c ontaminated wipes that contain free liquid spent solvent, the spent solvent will be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the hazardous waste regulations as appropriate to the amount of hazardous waste generat ed in that month by the handling facility. EPA finds that any additional reporting requirements would be duplicative of what is already required under the hazardous waste regulations.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iv) (B) would require liquids recovered from a solvent extraction process at an industrial wipes handling facility to be managed in accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, regardless of whether such liquids would be discarded or recycled. In cont rast, proposed § 261.4(a)(22)(iii) would require that liquids recovered from an onsite solvent extraction process at a generator facility be managed in accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations only if such liquids would be discarded. The commen ter suggested that t hese two sections should be harmonized in the final regulations. Similarly, the commenter suggested harmonizing the proposed §§ 261.4(b)( 19)(vi)(B) and 261.4(b)( 19)(v). [184]

(h) RESPONSE : EPA has ensured that the language regarding f ree liquids removed from the wipes is consistent throughout the regulatory text. EPA has added into the final regulatory text at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26)(iv) and § 261.4(b)(18)(iv): “ Free liquids removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or from the container holding the wipes must be managed according to the applicable regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.”



### 5.8 **Other Conditions/R equirements** 

Several commenters discussed additional conditions or requirements proposed or discussed by EPA in the proposed rule.

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter suggested that small shops generating small quantities of wipes contaminated with hazardous waste sol vents do not pose a significant environmental threat. However, the commenter believes that the rule as drafted wo uld be too cumbersome for small shops, regulators and disposal facilities to implement. This commenter urged EPA to reconsider ways to provide relief for small generators, perhaps by excluding some number or volume of wipes per month. [265]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA has made many changes from the proposed rule in order to make the requirements as simple and easy to comply with as possible for the thousands of businesses that may use the exclusion while, at the same time, ensuring that the management of t he wipes is protective of human health and the environment. For example, EPA has eliminated the proposed dry condition, finalized a more objective no free liquids standard, required a performance

- based container standard consistent for all generators, tran sporters, and handlers, and has allowed more solvent

- contaminated wipes to be eligible for the final rule based on the final risk analysis. These changes should reduce the implementation burden on generators. Furthermore, additional requirements, such as r ecordkeeping, accumulation time limit, and labeling, were all designed to minimize burden on generators as much as possible, while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. For example, we expect that existing business records will meet the recordkeeping requirements under the final rule, the 180

- day accumulation time limit was chosen because it allows flexibility for SQGs while ensuring protection of human health and the environment, and labeling was standardized to allow generators to use p re

- printed labels or bags in order to reduce labor burden.

F or those generators that generate only a small amount of solvent

- contaminated wipes and could be classified as a CESQG, these generators may choose to manage their solvent

- contaminated wipes unde r the CESQG hazardous waste requirements , rather than the conditions of the exclusion.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter supported a clear regulatory prohibition on air drying, to make it clear that this practice is inappropriate and unlawful (for both disposable and reusable wipes). The commenter said that a lthough EPA has stated as much in various guidance do cuments over the years, there is no specific requirement in RCRA that enforcement agencies can readily point to when air

- drying is observed in the field in order to compel the facility to stop the practice. The commenter believes that h aving such a provisi on in this rule (or in some other appropriate section of the RCRA regulations) would be of great help in responding to such situations. [271]

### 102 (b) RESPONSE : Air

- drying solvent

- contaminated wipes in a way that does not meet the conditions of the final rule, for example, storing wipes in an uncontained pile, is not allowed. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers. Managing wipes in non

- leaking, closed containers ensures th at the solvents are unlikely to be released to the environment. Closed containers serve to minimize emissions, prevent spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for example, by securing the solvent

- contaminated wipes from potentially incompatible wastes or ign ition sources. Additionally, air

- drying solvent

- contaminated wipes may violate certain OSHA standards.

EPA finds that the closed container condition in the final rule adequately addresses concerns regarding air

- drying and thus no other requirement is neede d.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter supported forcing laundries to train drivers and laundry workers about the OSHA and EPA rules so that they can help EPA make sure the rules are enforced. [322]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA finds that requiring training is not necessary under the final rule exclusions. For example, under RCRA, free liquid spent solvent that is removed from solvent

- contaminated wipes by generators must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations, which already require training requir ements for small and large quantity generators. Thus, training requirements under the final rule for managing free liquid spent solvent would be duplicative. Furthermore, EPA is requiring generators to document their process for meeting the “no free liquid s” condition and thus, the final rule already requires documentation which could be used for training purposes. Finally, OSHA training requirements apply as appropriate

.
(d) COMMENTS : One commenter supported revising the proposed rule to require that generators evaluate possible use of non

- hazardous or non F

- listed solvents and maintain the results of that evaluation at the facility where the industrial wipes are generated. The commenter suggested that t he evaluation include a list of the substitution products and applications evaluated, results of the evaluation, and any reasons why a non

- hazardous or non

- F listed solvent is not an acceptable substitute, and be made avail able to local, state or federal regulatory personnel upon request. [331]

(d) RESPO NSE : EPA agrees that generators should explore product substitutions and use of non

- hazardous solvents. However , EPA recognizes that business operations will sometimes require the use of F

- listed solvents. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s sugg estion that the final rule require generators to evaluate non

hazardous solvents. EPA finds that the hazardous waste regulatory status of F

- listed solvents provide sufficient incentive for generators to seek non

- hazardous alternatives. Under the final rule , free liquid spent solvent would still need to be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations.



## 6. Co

**- contaminants** 

Several commenters discussed the issue of regulation of co

- contaminants on solvent

- contaminated wipes.

(a) COMMENTS : S everal commenters supported EPA’s proposal that wipes that are hazardous due to co

contaminants should not be eligible for the exclusion

. Some commenters argued that t he proposed rule does not adequately consider co

- contaminants and should do more to consider the health and environmental impact of shop towels containing heavy metals, inks, colors, and other contaminants. The commenter said that t he background document makes clear that EPA simply did not collect th e information needed to assess the risks posed by those materials. One commenter stated that, at a minimum, generators should be required to confirm on an annual basis that no contaminants are present in the process in which the wipe is used by testing for Appendix IX constituents for each type of process used. The commenter added that t he test should include analysis for metals constituents and also testing for the toxicity characteristic. Commenters said that EPA must be clear in the final rule that gener ators, after solvent extraction, should conduct the TCLP test on the wipes without any airing or ventilation period. One commenter requested that EPA identify typical co

- contaminants and determine if risks from co

- contaminant toxicity, corrosivity, and rea ctivity can be managed by the conditions (or modified conditions) of the exclusion. [168, 266, 295, 199

- 1019, 288]

### 103 Other commenters stated that reusable wipes should be eligible for the exclusion regardless of the presence of co

contaminants. The commente r argued that l imit ing the proposed exclusion for reusable wipes only to solvent

contaminated wipes may unnecessarily prevent the legitimate recycling of large numbers of wipes. Also, the commenter added that all industrial laundry waste streams and all co ntaminants (whether they are solvents or co

contaminants) on reusable shop towels are already subject to regulation under the CWA and RCRA. The commenter stated that EPA has previously determined that the existing regulations are adequately protective of t he environment for all the contaminants that are laundered and removed from reusable shop towels. The commenter believes that t he handling of contaminants removed during the laundering of the towel is a separate issue that is governed effectively by existi ng regulations. The commenter added that the presence of a co

- contaminant has absolutely no bearing on whether laundries treat their towels as valuable commodities (or capital goods). If the proposed regulation excludes reusable wipes because of co

- contami nants, the commenter believes that generators and laundries will be saddled with the task of verifying (1) the presence of co

- contaminants, and (2) determining whether the co

- contaminants void the solid waste exclusion because of the RCRA mixture rule. The commenter feels that t he costs associated with verifying the existence and nature of non

- solvent contaminants on soiled reusable towels would result in most industrial laundries simply dropping shop towels from their business line because compliance costs would greatly outweigh the revenue shop towels generate. [271, 348]

Several commenters supported allowing wipes with co

- contaminants to be eligible for the exclusions under some circumstances, including 1) if the wipes are being managed by generators that use a licensed, commercial hazardous waste treatment facility; 2) for wipes that exhibit characteristics of ignitability and toxicity due to contamination from solvents addressed within the revised risk analysis; and 3) for wipes co

- contaminated with a ch emical in Table 4 that was not found to pose a significant risk in EPA’s risk screening analysis. [267, 279, 464]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenters that solvent

- contaminated wipes that are hazardous due to the presence of co

- contaminants that are o ther listed hazardous waste or that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (other than ignitability) should not be eligible for the conditional exclusions. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the provision regard ing co

- contaminants as discussed in the preamble to the 2003 proposed rule. That is, wipes contaminated with non

- solvent listed waste (for example, as a result of a hazardous waste spill clean

- up) or that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic other than ignitability due to a non

- solvent contaminant

, a re not eligible for the conditional exclusions. EPA agrees with commenters that we did not evaluate the risks posed by wipes that are contaminated with other listed hazardous wastes, or from laundry sludge generated from cleaning such wipes, and thus, it i s not appropriate to exclude them from hazardous waste regulation in this rulemaking. Likewise, we did not evaluate risks posed by solvent

- contaminated wipes that exhibit a characteristic due to constituents other than one of the solvents (e.g., co

- contaminant metals) . Thus these wipes are also not included in the conditional exclusions (with one exception for ignitable

- only wastes discussed below ).

We agree with commenters who argued that solvent

- contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated with ignitable

only wastes should be eligible for the conditional exclusion. Because solvents are often ignitable, as a practical matter it would be difficult to distinguish between those solvent

- contaminated wipes that are ignitable due to the solvent from tho se that are ignitable due to a non

- solvent co

- contaminant. In addition, such a distinction is unnecessary because the conditions of the exclusion (e.g., no free liquids and closed, non

- leaking containers) address the issue of ignitibility no matter what th e source.

EPA does not agree with adding a provision to the final rule that requires generators to test annually for contaminants, such as testing for Appendix IX constituents, because this approach would likely result in unnecessary burden for many facili ties. For example, requiring annual testing would needlessly increase costs for many generators that could more efficiently evaluate co

- contaminants by applying their knowledge of the materials and process used to generate the solvent

- contaminated wipe . Ad ditionally, requiring annual testing for generators whose process and materials remain static over time would result in unnecessary costs to industry and would not be consistent with how hazardous waste determinations are made under 40 CFR 262.11. Therefor e, to determine whether co

- contaminants are contained in solvent

- contaminated wipes, generators may use either process knowledge or may test for co

- contaminants according to the methods set forth in subpart C of part 261.

In some cases, metals are possibl e co

- contaminants in solvent

- contaminant wipes. As required in the regulations at § 261.11, in these cases generators may use process knowledge or testing for specific metals to confirm if the wipes exhibit the toxicity characteristic for the metals listed in § 261.24.

### 104 Under the scope of this rulemaking, EPA only evaluated the hazardous characteristics of listed solvents contained in wipes and thus did not evaluate other characteristics (besides ignitability) as a result of co

- contaminants. Therefore, EPA h as limited the scope of solvent

- contaminated wipes eligible for the final rule accordingly.

In regards to the comments on reusable wipes, EPA does not agree with allowing reusable wipes that are co

contaminated with other listed hazardous waste, or that exhibit the hazardous characteristics of corrosivity, toxicity, or reactivity due to co

- contam inants other than solvents, to be eligible for the final rule because EPA did not evaluate these hazards under the scope of this rulemaking. Thus, because EPA cannot verify whether the conditions of the final rule are appropriate for co

- contaminated wipes, it must ensure protection of human health and the environment by limiting the scope of the exclusion to only those hazardous secondary materials and characteristics the Agency has evaluated, even if this may potentially limit some reuse of solvent

- contami nated wipes under the exclusion.

EPA also does not agree with the commenter that who stated that “EPA has previously determined that the existing regulations are adequately protective of the environment for all the contaminants removed during the launderin g.” In fact, prior to the final rule, EPA had not previously promulgated an exclusion for reusable wipes from hazardous
waste regulation. EPA also does not have any data regarding whether the presence of a co

- contaminant has any bearing on whether the solv ent

- contaminated wipe is treated as a valuable commodity. Determining this would require a separate evaluation of co

- contaminated wipes, which EPA did not undertake as part of this rulemaking.

EPA agrees with the comment that the handling of contaminants r emoved during the laundering of the towel is governed under existing regulations. Any sludges or wastewaters created by the laundering process must be managed under the applicable CWA and RCRA regulations.

Under the final rule, generators, not laundries, are responsible for determining whether their solvent

- contaminated wipes are eligible for the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes. Generators can make this determination more efficiently because they have knowledge of the materi als and process that generated the solvent

contaminated wipes. Therefore, EPA does not agree that laundries wi ll incur significant compliance costs as a result of the approach to co

- contaminants included in this rulemaking.

Regarding commenters who support ed allowing wipes with co

- contaminants to be eligible for the exclusions under

s ome circumstances. EPA does not agree with (1) allowing co

- contaminated wipes to be eligible if the generators are using a hazardous waste treatmen t facility because EPA has no t considered during this rulemaking whether the conditions of the exclusion would ensure protection of human health and the environment during accumulation

, storage, and transportation of various co

- contaminated wipes. However, EPA agrees with allowing (2) wipes that exhibit the characteristic of ignitability and toxicity due to the solvents addressed within the final risk analysis and (3) wipes contaminated with a solvent in Table 4 of the preamble to the proposed rule that did not present significant risk to human health and the environment as demonstrated by EPA’s final risk analysis to be eligible for the final rule. EPA has thus structured the regulatory definition of solvent

- contaminated wipe to include these wipes. EPA also notes that the exclusion ca n apply to (eligible) solvent

- contaminated wipes going to hazardous waste facilities. The solvent

- contaminated wipes can be managed under the conditions of the exclusion, allowing the generator to take advantage of reduced requirements during accumulation and storage.

(b) COMMENTS : Two commenters stated that EPA’s proposed treatment of co

- contaminants could seriously limit the availability of the proposed exclusion. In effect, the commenter argued that EPA proposes an exclusion and then effectively bars its use, for example, in industries such as paint and coatings, where solvent containing wipes are used to clean up spills that may contain other listed materials or characteristically hazardous materials

. The commenter stated that i t is inevitable that solvent containing rags and wipes will contain co

- contaminants, since it is inherent for cleaning residues to adhere to wipes and rags. The commenter believed that EPA should reconsider the exclusion to als o apply to wipes acquiring a hazardous waste characteristic during legitimate usages. Another commenter encouraged EPA to clearly state in the final rule that the proposed exclusion applies to all wipes, regardless of co

- contamination. A commenter stated t hat t he “dry” standard of 5 grams set by EPA for disposables destined for landfills is sufficiently protective, even i f co

- contaminants are present. [193, 278, 320, 459]

Several commenters opposed the regulation of co

- contaminated wipes because these regu lations conflict w ith existing s tate regulations. The commenter mentioned that c urrent regulatory policies in a significant number of

### 105 states do not distinguish between solvents and other contaminants the wipe may co ntain. The commenter stated a significant number of s tates that exclude reusable towels from either the definition of solid waste or from regulation as a hazardous waste exclude from their respective regulations properly managed reusable towels regardless of contamination type. Unless EPA clarifi es that the final solid waste exclusion equally applies to co

- contaminants on reusable shop towels, the commenter believes that the many s tates that do not dist inguish between solvents and co

contaminants could be faced with an unintentional federal mandat e to create new regula tions for co

- contaminants. The commenter argued that t he five g ram limit set by the Agency for disposables destined for landfills is sufficiently stringent. The commenter added that i f EPA fails to amend the scope of both the hazardou s waste and solid waste exclusion, then the generators will be required to verify the presence of co

- contaminants and whether or not the presence of co

- contaminants voids the exclusion. As generators are not required to conduct this type of analysis under current state policy or regulations, the commenter believes that this is an additional regulatory burden that voids the intent of the Agency’s goal to promote waste reduction and recycling. One commenter stated that, unless the final rule is carefully word ed to avoid imposing a prohibition, the Federal rule may inadvertently place restrictions on reuse of wipes contaminated by constituents not addressed in this rule. The commenter suggested that i t would be better to provide the proposed Federal exclusion, yet let the states retain discretion as to whether or not to allow wipes with other types of contaminants to b e laundered when appropriate. [155, 278, 281, 348]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA disagrees with comments arguing that not including wipes with co

- contaminant s in the final rule w ould seriously limit the availability of the exclusion

. The exclusion focused on solvent

- contaminated wipes because they are a large volume waste routinely generated by a large number of generators. S olvent

- contaminated wipes not eligi ble for the rule include wipes that contain listed hazardous waste other than solvents, or exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity due to contaminants other than solvents.

EPA does not agree that solvent

- contaminated wipes that contain other hazardous waste or that acquire a hazardous waste characteristic (other than ignitability) should be eligible for the exclusions because EPA did not evaluate these hazards under the scope of this rulemaking. EPA also does not agree that the “ dry” standard of five grams of solvent that was proposed by EPA for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills would be sufficiently protective if co

contaminants are present because the five gram limit was only applicable to solvent, and not to co

- cont aminants, such as other listed hazardous waste. As stated above, EPA’s rulemaking only focused on solvent

- contaminated wipes and did not evaluate other types of co

- contaminants.

EPA acknowledges that some state programs may differ from the final rule in t erms of their approach to co

contaminants. These states must ensure that their regulations are as s tringent as the federal program . However, EPA does not expect that the approach to co

- contaminants in the final rule will significant ly impact existing opera tions. This is because t he presence of co

- contaminants (e.g., metals) would have to exceed regulatory levels established in the toxicity, corrosivity, and reactivity characteristic regulations in 40 CFR part 261 in order to prevent use of the exclusion

. Ad ditionally, it is unlikely that large quantities of wipes contain listed hazardous waste other than the solvent. Determinations of how co

- contaminants affect the regulatory status of wipes would depend on case

- specific factors and should be made in conjunc tion with the regulato ry agency (i.e., EPA region or s tate).

EPA agrees with the commenter that said that generators will be required to verify the presence of co

- contaminants and whether or not the presence of co

- contaminants voids the exclusion. EPA doe s not believe that this additional analysis will pose significant burden, as generators may use knowledge, as well as testing, to verify presence of co

contaminants. EPA acknowledges the comment er who stated that the federal rule may inadvertently place restrictions on reuse of wipes contaminated by constituents other than solvent. EPA notes that the final rule addresses co

- contaminants in a manner protective of human health and the environment.

(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that in their industry, precious metal

- bearing wipes are never discarded, but are instead always sent to a refiner for precious metal reclamation. The commenter added that s ome owners of precious metal

- bearing wipes may cla ssify them as hazardous waste, in consideration of their F001

- F005 solvent content, which complicates the reclamation process, and makes it more expensive, without bringing about any improvement in protection of the environment. The commenter approves of t he proposed conditional exemptions; however, EPA’s proposals may not encompass the precious metal reclamation activity, and should be revised so they do. If the Agency believes that precious metal

- bearing wipes should nevertheless be classified as solid wa ste, the commenter believes that the proposed exclusion of wipes from classification as hazardous waste when combusted should apply to their reclamation processes. The commenter argued that p recious metal

- bearing

### 106 industrial wipes are very much like a bypro duct, and when reclaimed they should not be classified differently from other byproducts. If EPA removes a classification of wipes as listed hazardous waste, the commenter asserted that it should remove that without regard to any characteristics if the wip es are going to be reclaimed. [156]

(c) RESPONSE : Wipes being sent to precious metal recovery are eligible for the streamlined regulations under 40 CFR 266.70. However, solvent

- contaminated wipes containing precious metals that are sent for metal reclamati on would not be excluded under the fin al rule unless the wipes were being laund ered, disposed, or combusted in accordance with the final rule. Therefore, some owners of precious metal

- bearing wipes that are sent for metals reclamation may continue to class ify the wipes as hazardous waste in consideration of their F001

- F005 solvent
content.



## 7. Intra

**- and Inter** 

**- Company T**  **ransfer s** 

(a) COMMENTS : Some commenters generally opposed allowing the transfer of wipes containing free liquids under the exclusions and stated that EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of managing solvent

contaminated industrial wipes. Commenters stated that a llowing transport of excluded wipes with free liquids will not necessarily significantly increase solvent recycling. Commenters added that the movement of these wastes is much different than the movement of similar wastes that are fully RCRA

- regulated. Commenters believe EPA should promote measures that minimize the use of solvents or, as the proposed rule does, encoura ge generators to remove solvents prior to transport. Commenters said p roviding an exclusion that allows the transport of towels with free liquids may in reality encourage the overuse and potentially improper disposal of solvents. Commenters argued that s ol vent extraction technologies are not costly and do not require permitting at the generator site. They noted that if EPA decides to promulgate the allowance for intra

- company transfers, then the minimum recordkeeping and notification provisions at 68 FR 656 01 must apply. [193, 288, 328, 330, 348]

Other commenters supported intra

- company transfers of free liquids and stated that this increases the capability of a company to recover solvents. One commenter stated that EPA should employ a broad definition of “ intra

company” facility to include facilities of all parent, subsidiary and affiliate companies as well. [ 184, 246, 266, 337, 342, 349, 357, 358] Other commenters suggested the same broad definition for “inter

- company.” [262, 264] Commenters asserted that i ntra

- company transfers will allow smaller facilities to use solvent extraction equipment or technologies in

- place at larger facilities, thus increasing the feasibility of solvent reuse and decreasing off

- site disposal costs. [267] One commenter supported intra

- company transfer for both reusable and disposable wipes, provided that the receiving facility has a solvent

- extraction and/or

- recovery process. [184] Many commenters suggested EPA consider opportunities to utilize the expertise and efficiencies of t hird

- party organizations that specialize in management and recovery of solvents. The se commenters said the risks during transportation do not change simply based on the ownership of the destination and a broader approach would allow third

- party solvent

rec lamation operations specializing in these types of processes to offer the equivalent to on

- site recovery services. [155, 303, 320]

Some commenters stated the need for one central processing location for the contaminated wipes and suggested the proposed ru le include language that allows companies to self

- transport used wipes and other materials to one central location for processing. They believe t his practice should be allowed for both reusable as well as disposable wipes and other materials and should rec ognize that intra

- company transport of excluded solvent wipes is also allowed for the purpose of consolidating these for laundering, dry cleaning, or disposal. [155, 278, 281]

One commenter additionally stated that no distance limits should be applied. Th e commenter stated that t he additional conditions discussed in Section V. B.9.b. should be included, as proper tracking and record keeping on the ultimate placement of recovered solvents is vital to control of the system. [246] One commenter supported reco rd keeping provisions, including a o ne

- time notification and record keeping provisions for intra

- company transfer. The commenter added that i f inter

- company transfer is promulgated, EPA should require compliance with RCRA rules for the shipment between compa nies and a reporting system that notifies the state of these activities. The commenter added that the generator facility should comply with any state specific standards tha t are applicable. [331] This commenter also suggested that a note

### 107 be added to the re gulation as a reminder to generators that offsite transfer of solvent

- contaminated wipes may be regulated under the DOT regulations, and they must comply with these re gulations, if applicable. [331] Two commenters stated that there should be no distance li mit, that additional provisions for recordkeeping should be added (one commenter suggests designating wipes as Universal Wastes) and that wipes sent to a third party should not be eligible for the exemption. [271, 358] One commenter requested that EPA conf irm that intra

- company transfers are permitted even if they involve interstate transfers. [347]

One commenter that opposed inter

- company transfer stated support for intra

- company transfers. In intercompany transfers, the commenter believes it is likely tha t solvent mixtures would be recovered by third party processors

s ince they would process solvent

- contaminated wipes from a number of generators using diverse solvents and it would be difficult to further reclaim such solvent mixtures into usable and market able solvent products. By contrast, the commenter asserted that intra

- company wipe handling facilities have control over the types of solvents, used in the wipes and therefore, it is likely that the solvent recovered from the wipes can be further recovered to gain a reusable product. [325] Two commenters specified that the exemption should be limited to intra

- company transfers and not apply to inter

- company transfer. They stated that allowing such transfers between different companies would not be adequatel y protective because of the potential for the receiving company to be inadequately informed or knowledgeable about the nature of the items that are being sent by the other company and that communication is likely to be better between the entities transport ing and receiving the waste if they are in one company, as would oversight over the entire generation, transportation, and recovery system to ensure the solvents are being recovered. [286, 287]

One commenter stated that extending the proposed conditional e xclusion for intra

- company transfers of solvent

contaminated disposable and reusable wipes containing free liquids to inter

- company transfers would further encourage solvent recovery. [184]

One commenter recommended that the rule define the term "intra

- com pany" to clarify that intra

- department transfers of wipes between properties owned by the Federal government are allowed, regardless of whether these installations are used for treating, storing, or dispo sing of hazardous waste. [155] Another commenter suggested that the proposed definition of the term “intra

- company transfer of industrial wipes” be simplified and harmonized with other proposed definitions, as follows: “Intra

- company transfer of industrial wipes means the offsite transportation of solven t

- contaminated industrial wipes from a generator facility to a separate industrial wipes handling facility owned by the same generator.” [184]

One commenter also stated that the proposed 40 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(v) and the proposed § 261.4(b)(19)(vi) paragraphs are potentially contradictory because an intra

- company transfer of solvent containing wipes may involve transportation to a site meeting the definition of an "industrial wipes handling facility ." The commenter recommended that (b)(19)(v) should be modifie d to state: "When transported to a... 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 paragraph (b)(19)(vi)." [155]

One commenter pro posed that the Agency change "intra

- company transfer of industrial wipes" to "intra

company transfer of wipes" and define as offsite transportation of wipes to another facility owned or operated by the same entity that has a solvent extraction and/or recov ery 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." [155]

One commenter stated that it is not clear from the language whether the transportation must o ccur in
company

- owned vehicles using company employees. If this is so, the commenter believes it is possible that third

- party organizations that specialize in solvent removal and transportation could provide less expensive and safer transportation of wipes with free liquids in specifically designed and dedicated vehicles and EPA should consider allowing third parties to transport wipes with free liquids between company owned o r operated installations. [155]

One commenter suggested that the proposed regulati on include a prohibition against intentional mixing of liquid waste solvent with rags. They stated that this would help minimize the amount of free liquids present,

### 108 as well as prevent generators from mixing liquid waste solvent with wipe s as a means of avo iding regula tion at a generator site. [311]

One commenter stated that, although they do not believe a significant increase in recycling will occur by allowing such movement between facilities, the sole purpose of consolidation makes this condition allowabl e if the reusable wipe s were stored and transported in closed, impermeable containers. In this case, the commenter thinks that speculative accumul ation rules should apply. [328]

Another commenter stated that they are opposed to the requirement that the int ra

- company "receiving facility" has a solvent extraction and/or recovery process. The commenter asserted that s uch processes may be completely unnecessary and therefore there is no reason to retain this condition in the intra

- company consolidation option. The commenter also urged EPA to keep the qualifying conditions for intra

- company consolidation activities to a minimum, since intra

- company consolidation practices would involve a high degree of controls and incentives to prevent spills and there is no nee d to establish requirements concerning notifications to regulatory authorities, or requiring the retention of business records designating where and how such transfers occurred. [346]

(a) RESPONSE : E PA has chosen not to finalize a provision allowing intra

- company or inter

- company transfers of industrial wipes containing free liquids for solvent extraction. We agree with those commenters who argued that allowing the off

- site transfer of saturated solvent

- contaminated wipes would not be protective of human health and the environment

. We agree that EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks associated with managing saturated solvent

- contaminated wipes. W ipes containing free liquids inherently present greater risk of envir onmental release than wipes co ntaining no free liquids and the conditions of the final rule are designed to minimize the amount of free liquids during transport, thereby reducing the risks posed by transport of containers of solvent

- contaminated wipes cont aining free liquids. We agree with the commenter that encouraged EPA to promote measures that encourage generators to remove solvents prior to transport. The conditional exclusions require generators to remove free liquid spent solvent before the wipes are transported for cleaning or disposal. Additionally, EPA is requiring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be transported in non

- leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” Closed containers must be able to contain liquids

, should they occur. The final rule further requires that the free liquid spent solvent be managed in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste regulations. EPA agrees that many solvent extraction technologies are not cost

prohibitive and that generat ors may conduct solvent extraction without a RCRA permit.

Although we acknowledge commenters’ arguments that intra

- company transfers may allow smaller facilities access to solvent extraction equipment and technologies and therefore increase solvent reuse, we note that, since this rule was proposed in November 200 3, EPA has finalized 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23), which allows off

- site transfers of hazardous secondary materials being reclaimed under the control of the generator, provided certain conditions are met. Therefore, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes that wis h to transfer their solvent

- contaminated wipes within the same company for the purposes of solvent reclamation may use this exclusion, promulgated in October 2008 (73 FR 64668). In response to the commenter that stated that additional conditions, such as t racking and recordkeeping, should be required for intra

- company transfer s , we note that the exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) requires both the generator and the solvent reclaimer (within the same company) to notify their regulatory authority. We also ackno wledge commenters’ suggestions that EPA consider opportunities to use third

party expertise and efficiencies in recovery of solvents; transfer of hazardous waste for recycling to third parties. However, EPA has determined that these types of transfers are not appropriate under the final rule. Hazardous secondary materials managed under this exclusion must also meet applicable DOT regulations. Regarding the commenter that suggested designating wipes as universal wastes, please see EPA’s response to this comm ent under section 16, response (f).

EPA acknowledges comments regarding the need for one central processing location; however, as stated previously, wipes containing free liquids inherently present greater risk of environmental release than wipes containing no free liquids and the conditions of the final rule are not designed to address the risks posed by transport of containers of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids. Therefore, off

- site transport of containers of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids is not allowe d under the exclusions. (Of course, solvent

- contaminated wipes may be collected at a central processing location on

- site.)

### 109 We acknowledge commenters that opposed inter

- company transfer because it may present difficulty in reclaiming various solvent mixtu res sent by various generators and because it involved transfer of responsibility between multiple parties. As described above, EPA is not finalizing a provision allowing inter

- company or intra

- company transfers under the final rule.

EPA acknowledges comm ents regarding the definition of “intra

- company” and “industrial wipes handling facility.” However, for reasons stated above, EPA has not finalized a provision allowing intra

- company transfer of solvent

- contaminated wipes containing free liquids under the final rule. However, EPA has finalized another exclusion, § 261.4(a)(23), which allows off

- site transfers of hazardous secondary materials being reclaimed under the control of the generator, provided certain conditions are met. Therefore, generators of sol vent

- contaminated wipes that wish to transfer their solvent

- contaminated wipes within the same company for the purposes of solvent reclamation may use this exclusion, promulgated in October 2008 (73 FR 64668). See part 260 for the regulatory definition of hazardous secondary material generated and reclaimed under the control of the generator for purposes of using this exclusion.

EPA does not agree that the final rule should include a prohibition against adding extra wipes to absorb free liquid spent solvent as to meet the “no free liquids” condition because this would be difficult to monitor and enforce. However, under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must remove free liquid spent solvent from the wipes and the container holding the w ipes and must manage the free liquid spent solvent according to the hazardous waste regulations, as applicable.

EPA also agrees with the commenter that reusable wipes should be stored and transported in closed containers. Under the final rule, EPA is requi ring that solvent

- contaminated wipes be transported in non

leaking, closed containers that are labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes.” Closed containers must be able to contain liquids, should they occur.



## 8. Exotic Solvents

(a) COMMENTS : Some commenters stated generally that no special conditions should be est ablished for exotic solvents. [246, 358] Three commenters opposed special conditions for wipes contaminated with exotic solvents

, specifically the use of water to prevent spontaneous combu stion. The commenter felt that t he rule’s exclusions should not apply to wipes that contain free liquid, even when the free liquid results from intentionally wetting down the wipe to prevent spontaneous combustion. The commenter believed that t his would re sult in an increased possibility of abuse and make the free liquids condition meaningless, making it possible for other RCRA

- regulated solvents to be present in substantial quantities. The commenter added that the presence of free water could mobilize othe r hazardous constituents, promoting releases at the landfill or laundry. The commenter further stated that o nce the added water is removed to meet the exclusion requirements, the underlying ignitable waste could still be present

an d still subject to combus tion. [193, 288, 328] Another commenter stated that exotic solvents should not be included in the proposed exclusions from the definitions of solid and hazardous waste due to the potential hazards. [2 87]

Three commenters supported the addition of a provisi on allowing the use of water or other appropriate fire

suppressing agents for both disposable and reusable wipes that are at risk of spontaneous combustion. The commenter stated that m any fires have been attributed to spontaneous combustion due to the impr oper storage of vegetable based oils and other solvents and one common method is to add water to rags being stored in containers. Therefore, the commenter believes that EPA should give special consideration to the use of water to mitigate potential wipe an d rag spontaneous combustion due to exotic solvents. The commenter feels that t his approach also serves to underscore the need for EPA to maintain as much flexibility as possible in developing a rule with su ch far

reaching applicability. [271, 320, 346]

A nother commenter suggested that EPA’s use of the term “exotic” solvents to describe citrus

- based solvents is a misnomer. The commenter stated that c itrus

- based solvents biodegrade rapidly enough to generate significant quantities of heat, however industrial laundries have long been aware of this concern and take steps appropriate to minimize the chances of spontaneous combustion by wetting down towels soiled with citrus

- based solvents. The

### 110 commenter asserted that c itrus

- based solvents are not RCRA

- regulated, and as long as they are not commingled with other RCRA regulated solvents, the wetting of towels containing citrus

- based solvents to the point at which the towels contain free liquids is not of regulatory concern. The commenter requests that EPA clarify this point in the final regulation. [348]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with commenter that stated that no special conditions should be established for e xotic solvents. EPA recognizes that generators and handlers may sometimes wet down wipes contaminated with exotic solvents to prevent spontaneous fires from occurring. Although wetting these wipes may be appropriate for managing the on

- site risk of spontan eous combustion, we do not agree that these wipes should be allowed special consideration under the final rule exclusions. If wipes contaminated with solvents must be wetted to the point where they would not pass a “no free liquids” test at the point of tr ansport for cleaning or disposal, then EPA believes they should not be eligible for the final rule exclusions. This is because, as commenter s noted , the presence of free liquid water could increase the risk of solvent release at downstream facilities. Furt hermore, t his approach is consistent with wipes containing F

- listed solvents that would not pass the “no free liquids” test at the point of transport. The rationale for this approach is the same as for wipes contaminated with hazardous waste solvents: to m inimize release of solvents to the environment. While EPA supports generators’ choices to use less toxic solvents, we encourage generators to work with their suppliers to understand and become aware of any potential hazards that could arise from using solv ents in conjunction with wipes, and to appropriately manage them.

EPA acknowledges the comment that disagreed with EPA’s use of the term “exotic.” However, EPA finds it necessary to continue to use the term “exotic” in the final rule as to ensure clarity and consistency with the 2003 proposed rule. EPA agrees with commen ters that stated wipes contaminated with exotic solvents that do not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic and which are not listed hazardous wastes are not subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulation and are thus, outside the scope of the final rulemaki ng. In some cases, however, although the solvent may not exhibit a hazardous characteristic based on its flash point, a wipe contaminated with that solvent may be hazardous because it can oxidize and spontaneously combust. EPA did not intend to imply in th e November 2003 proposal that wipes contaminated with these solvents would not exhibit the ignitability characteristic under RCRA regulation. EPA considers wastes that can spontaneously combust at any point in their management to potentially meet the defin ition of ignitibility under 40 CFR 261.21(a)(2). Generators are responsible for making a hazardous waste determination for their wastestream. EPA has stated this in the preamble to the final rule.

(b) COMMENTS : Regarding the characterization of flammable exotic solvents, one commenter recommended that EPA could use the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) or HMIS (Hazardous Materials Information System) ratings for flammability or physical data on the MSDS to target ignitable (D003) solvents. [280]

(b) RESPONSE : Under the RCRA regulations, the generator is responsible for making a solid and hazardous waste determination under 40 CFR 261.2 and § 262.11 . EPA agrees that the NFPA or HMIS ratings for flammability or physical data on the MSDS may help a g enerator make a correct hazardous waste determination.



## 9. State Authorization

(a) COMMENTS : The majority of commenters generally stated that th e rule should be mandatory for all 50 states and these states should adopt the rule as soon as possible. Two commenters supported national regulations because currently firms must deal with confusing rules set forth by state, county, or local authorities. The commenter said that i f this rule is promulgated, not only will there then be a c onsistent national approach, companies with multi

- state operations could have o ne uniform policy for wipe disposal. One commenter stated that the rule is taking a long time to promulgate (19 years) and should be passed as soon as possible, since the small business community and the states have been looking for national policy on this issue. A commenter said that m aking this a national policy would force multi

- state companies to comply with a sing le regulation and play fairly. One commenter stated that the d evelopment of clear and consistent management standards has been impossible for companies with manufacturing facilities located in a variety of states and EPA Regions. The commenter added that t his situation has resulted in inconsistencies, re

- work, additi onal potential for non

- compliance, and administrative waste at regulated facilities. The commenter argued it is clear that f ederal standards applicable to solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes are

### 111 needed. [148, 158, 159, 160, 168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 178, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 198, 199

- 1002, 257, 261, 291, 306, 336, 338, 360]

One commenter stated that because this regulation is not specifically authorized under HSWA , it will not be effective automatically in all states. Another commenter said that w hile they disagree with EPA’s determination that the rule is de

- regulatory, they understand that states do not have to adopt the exclusion because they can be more stringent than federal regulation. To insure that this regulation achieves the desired natio nal consistency goal for the management of industrial wipes, the commenter believes that EPA should upon promulgation of the rule make all reasonable efforts to get all states to adopt the conditional exclusion for wipes. [264 , 320 ]

One commenter stated th at EPA should allow states to adopt the federal rule with modifications since EPA’s solvent wipes proposal is overly complex and would be a setback to some state programs. Similarly, another commenter stated that EPA should not interfere with existing stat e programs. To the extent that an existing state program is already in place and equally protective as EPA’s proposed exclusions, the commenter thinks the Agency should retain the discretion to authorize such programs to continue in place. [194 , 346 ]

(a) RESPONSE : Although we acknowledge there would be some benefits to consistent regulations acros the country, EPA does not agree that we should require the rule be implemented in all 50 states. Under RCRA section 3006, EPA may authorize states to administer the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the state program ope rates in lieu of the federal regulations. Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal program (see 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. Because the rule finalizes conditional exclusions from the definition of solid and hazardous waste, it is less stringent than previous federal regulations and thus, EPA cannot mandate that the rule become effective in all 50 states. EPA does believe that the rule will improve management of solvent

- contaminated wipes and therefore strongly encourages states to adopt the rule as quickly as possible.

Although the solvent

- contaminated wipes rulemaking has taken a number of years to complete, this time was necessary to sufficiently gather and analyze data and information, such as the risk analysis, in order to promulgate a rulemaking appropriate for solvent

- contaminated wipes.

EPA agrees with commenters that states may adopt the federal rule with m odifications provided their state programs are at least as stringent as the federal program per the provisions of § 271.21(e). This will allow states to maintain some consistency with their current policies, some of which have been in effect for many years . For example, we specifically allow authorized states to specify a different standard or test method for determining that solvent

contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. Where an authorized state standard exists, generators must meet that standard in lieu of the Paint Filter Liquids test for purposes of meeting the “no free liquids” condition. Of course, the authorized state standard must be no less stringent than the final rule definition of “no free liquids.”

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that S ection 3001(e)(2) of RCRA, a HSWA provision, directed EPA to determine whether to list solvent wastes as hazardous wastes. As such, the commenter argued that to the extent solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes are to be classified under the rule as listed hazardous wastes by virtue of the presence of listed solvents if the conditions of the exclusion are not met, authority for this regulation clearly derives from HSWA. The commenter further argued that u nder Section 3006(g) of RCRA, requirements imposed und er HSWA that are more stringent than existing RCRA regulatory provisions take effect “immediately” in all states, regardless of whether those states are authorized to carry out their own hazardous waste regulatory programs in lieu of the federal program. [ 283]

The commenter also stated that EPA needs to clarify that states must amend their RCRA

- authorized hazardous waste regulations as necessary to ensure that at least all the conditions of the final exclusion for reusable wipes are provided for in duly pro mulgated state regulations. They stated that EPA should issue a Federal Register notice indicating that until these ex clusions are promulgated, reusable and disposable solvent contaminated wipes must be managed in all states as hazardous wastes. If, on the other hand, EPA’s position is that these wastes are not currently classified as solid and hazardous wastes under RCRA, then the commenter asserted that the Agency’s rule is really

### 112 an “entry” mechanism for solvent wastes promulgated under the authority of HSWA and, once finalized, immediately effective in all states. [283]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that the final rule establishes for the first time that solvent

- contaminated wipes are solid and hazardous wastes. In fact, in a 1994 memo , discussed in the November 2003 proposal ( see “Industrial Wipers and Shop Towels under the Hazardous Waste Regulations,” Michael Shapiro, February 14, 1994 , RCRA Online Number 11813), EPA discussed the issue and stated that a “wiper can only be defined as listed hazardo us 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 factor( s); this is not a new policy. As a result, any determinations or interpretations regarding this diverse and variabl e wastestream should be made by the regulato ry agency (i.e., EPA Region or S tate) implem enting the RCRA program for a particular State.” Clearly, solvent

- contaminated wipes have been subject to solid and hazardous waste determinations under the existing hazardous waste regulations

. Because the final rule amends the definition of solid waste a nd the definition of hazardous waste, the final rule is promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001

- 3010 and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and is thus not a HSWA rule subject to 3006(g) of RCRA.

In response to the argument that re usable wipes must be managed as hazardous wastes unless and until the state adopts the conditional exclusion, the 1994 memo cited above describes the Agency’s policy of deferring waste determinations for solvent

- contaminated wipes to EPA regions and author ized states. This deferral has resulted in the development of various state programs for reusab le wipes. Therefore , authorized states whose programs include less stringent requirements than the final rule are required to modify their programs to maintain c onsistency with the federal program per the provisions of 40 CFR 271.21(e). In addition, any states that document their program for reusable wipes in guidance documents or interpretive letters will need to promulgate enforceable regulations, as required by § 271.21(a). Because the final rule is a non

- HSWA rule, the current state requirements remain in place until the state adopts requirements equivalent to these federal requirements.

(c) COMMENTS : Several commenters stated that the EPA must work closely with states so that th e Agency can help provide s tates the assurances they need to implement the changes. Commenters believe that EPA should consider issuing guidance to EPA Regional Offices and states reco mmending that states amend their more stringent requirements to parallel the federal government’s revisions. One commenter argues that EPA must direct its Regions and authorized states to consider disposable wipes subject to such controls now, and unless a nd until the exclusions EPA intends to finalize are made effective in RCRA

- authorized and unauthorized states. The commenter believes that EPA should do so in g uidance issued promptly to its regions and all the s tates and through a notice in the Federal Re gister to make the regulated community and the rest of the public aware of t his clarification of position. [283, 347, 353]

A few commenters also submitted comments stating that incentives and clarification must also be given to the states so that the con ditions of the final rule are met. One commenter stated that EPA needs to pro vide incentives for authorized s tates to adopt the ru le when finalized. Without s tates’ adoption, the commenter believes the rule will not fulfill its intended purpose of providin g nationwide consistency and will only add to the confusion about management of this wastestream in the regulated community. [340]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that states should be encouraged to adopt the rule as soon as is practical to reduce regulatory burd en on businesses and maximize national consistency, while maintaining protection of human health and the environment. EPA will work closely with the states and provide guidance and support regarding this final rule.

The disposable wipes exclusion will be in effect in those states whose RCRA programs are administered by the EPA regions (e.g., Alaska and Iowa). However, EPA will not consider disposable wipes subject to the exclusion in states with authorized programs unless and until the authorized state ado pts the exclusion. Additionally, EPA considers the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes final rule, as published in the Federal Register, to provide sufficient public notice of its position regarding the management of solvent

- contaminated wipes.

(d) COMMENT S : One commenter stated that EPA needs to provide clarification on reusable versus disposable wipes in the final regulations and preamble, as the proposed preamble and regulations cr eate unnecessary confusion

### 113 for s tates and the regulated community by inappropriat ely covering both reusable and disposable wipes in the same regulatory and preamble sections. The commenter believes that s eparate and distinct final regulatory and preamble language will provide s tates with the needed structure to pursue efficiently separ ate evaluation and adoption tracks for the different disposable wipe and reusable shop towel portions of the regulations. [348]

(d) RESPONSE : In the final rule, EPA has explained the differences between the 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) exclusion for reusable solven t

- contaminated wipes from the definition of solid waste and the § 261.4(b)(18) exclusion for disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. The Agency has structured both the regulation and the preamble to be clear about the applicability requirements of the exclusions for the two types of wipes.



## 10. Enforcement

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters opposed the proposed approach that if any condition of the exclusion is not met at any point in the management of the material, then the material loses the exclusion and is deemed a hazardous waste back to the point of generation. Commenters argued that EPA should not develop regulations that hold all organiz ations in the management of industrial wipes responsible for actions taken by others later in the management process. Material mismanaged should be declared hazardous waste at the point of mismanagement and the offending handler should become the generator of the hazardous waste. Commenters stated that t he proposed approach is unfair because it would impose liability on entities that have no culpability whatsoever in the alleged violation. The commenter asserted that s uch a standard would be contrary to RCR A, since RCRA requires a material to be discarded before it is considered a waste, and some degree of fault. Some commenters also stated concern about EPA’s as sertion that a RCRA

- authorized s tate or EPA could choose to bring an enforcement action “for all violations of the hazardous waste requirements occurring from the time the industrial wipes are generated through the time they are finally dispo sed of, reclaimed, or reused.” [155, 303, 320, 346] Another commenter suggested that the EPA should harmonize i ts compliance and enforcement sections and clarify that there is no obligation for a laundry to test or analyze soiled towels. At a minimum, the commenter wants EPA to clearly state in the final regulations that the party responsible for the non

- compliance will be the party liable for any penalties or remedies. [340] One commenter agreed with the proposed conditional exclusion approach and stated that primary responsibility for the management of soiled reusable shop towels lies with the generator, since the generator is in the best position (from both a control and a knowledge standpoint) to remove free liquids from each towel. [348]

(a) RESPONSE : Under RCRA, EPA can exclude certain materials from the definition of solid waste or hazardous waste. Under the f inal rule, EPA is excluding solvent

- contaminated wipes based on conditions which determine what makes a solvent

- contaminated wipe not a solid or hazardous waste. Because the RCRA regulatory classification of the solvent

- contaminated wipes is predicated on certain conditions, if a condition is violated, then the material may be solid and hazardous waste under RCRA. This reflects the fundamental operation of a conditional exclusion.

Because the generator has generated the solvent

- contaminated wipes and controls the disposition of such wipes, it is the generator’s responsibility to ensure that their solvent

- contaminated wipes are sent to entities that will properly manage the wipes. Th us, EPA agrees that primary responsibility for the management of solvent

- contaminated wipes lies with the generator. Maintaining primary liability with the generator reinforces this concept and provides an incentive for generators to ensure that their solv ent

- contaminated wipes are being managed appropriately throughout the disposition of the wipes. However, a s with any violation, EPA and authorized states have a wide range of enforcement mechanisms available that range in severity. In addition, EPA and aut horized states have flexibility in applying these mechanisms to the various responsible parties as appropriate to the specific 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.

Under the final rule, if free liquids were somehow generated during transportation due to percolation and compression of the solvent

- contaminated wipes or during storage at the handling facility prior to processing, then the free liquid spent solvent must be removed by the handling facility and managed according to applicable

### 114 hazardous waste regulations. The handling facility would be considered the generator of the free liquids in this case as well, b ut the solvent

- contaminated wipes would still be excluded from regulation.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the proposed conditional exclusion approach will be problematic, because inspectors will not be able to determine what chemicals are on the wipes and which disposal option applies to any particular wipe. [265]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA has made changes in the final rule that reduce the burden on inspectors. Based on the final risk analysis, only one solvent, tricholorethylene, remains ineligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable wipes. Therefore, under the final rule, inspectors will only have to ensure that one solvent is not being managed under the exclusion (as compared to the 11 ineligible solvents in the prop osed rule). Additionally, all solvent

- contaminated wipes being land disposed must be sent to MSWLFs , which simplifies compliance monitoring because it avoids the need for inspectors to keep track of whether certain solvent

contaminated wipes can be dispose d in either lined or unlined landfills, based on EPA’s final risk analysis.

(c) COMMENTS : Two commenters submitted comments stating that in order to be enforceable, the proposed regulation needs additional requirements for certi fication and/or recordkeepi ng. One commenter stated that although they agree that EPA’s proposed conditional exclusion approach creates an incentive for generators and handlers to comply with the conditions of the exemption, without equally strong recordkeeping, notification and cer tification provisions, this policy is not enforceable. Without the traceability afforded by the full RCRA labeling, recordkeeping, and manifesting, the commenter stated that the proposed rule relies strictly on the diligence and honor of the handlers and g enerator, with no means to enforce if they fail. [288] Another commenter proposed the use of a requirement for a generator to sign a certification statement indicating specific conditions being met, as part of the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. The commenter felt that t his may promote more facilities to manage this waste stream rather than potential handlers and disposers declining management due to potential liability. [280]

(c) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those commenters that supported recordkeeping requirements to enable effective compliance monitoring, but in response to other commenters’ concerns about the burden of recordkeeping, has made the requirements as simple and easy to comply with as possible. Thus, the Agency has taken a bal anced and practical approach in finalizing recordkeeping requirements for the exclusions. The recordkeeping requirements in the final rule enable compliance monitoring, which is critical to ensure the exclusions work as intended and thus will not have adve rse impacts on human health and the environment. EPA has also taken steps to minimize regulatory burden on facilities, for example, noting where standard industry recordkeeping, such as invoices, would meet the recordkeeping requirements in the final rule. Under the final rule, generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes must document three pieces of information: (1) the name and address of the handling facility (i.e., laundry, dry cleaner, landfill, or combustor); (2) that the 180

- day accumulation time limit is being met; and (3) the description of the process the generator is using to ensure the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the “no free liquids” condition at the point of being sent for cleaning or disposal.

1) The purpose of requiring the name and address o f the handling facility is to ensure that the solvent

contaminated wipes are being managed in compliance with the conditional exclusion (e.g., for reusable wipes, that they are sent for cleaning and, for disposable wipes, that they are sent to an appropria te landfill or combustor).

2) Documenting the accumulation time limit is important to enable regulatory authorities to monitor compliance with the condition and to ensure that solvent

- contaminated wipes are not stored indefinitely in lieu of sending the sol vent

- contaminated wipes to be cleaned or disposed. This condition is particularly important because the solvent

- contaminated wipes can be accumulated with free liquids under the exclusion. Thus, there may be an incentive for a generator to store such wipes indefinitely in order to avoid the hazardous waste disposal costs associated with the free liquid spent solvent.

3) R equiring the description of the process the generator is using to ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids is critical for assisting implementation and compliance monitoring of this key condition of the final rule. The final rule only extends to the solvent

- contaminated wipe and the conditional exclusions do not include any free liquid spent solvent, which would continue to be subject to the

### 115 hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate. It is therefore imperative that the condi tion of “no free liquids” be met. In order to ensure that this condition is properly implemented, it is appropriate to require documentation of the process, methodology, and/or knowledge that is being used to ensure the solvent

contaminated wipes managed u nder the final rule meet the “no free liquids” condition.

EPA believes that the three recordkeeping requirements above are sufficient for ensuring that a generator is meeting
t he conditions of the exclusion and provide an adequate mechanism for traceabili ty and enforcement. Additional recordkeeping, such as a separate signed certification statement

, is not necessary.

(d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the rule is not enforceable and relies upon a weak self

- implementing and subjective interpretation b y generators and d ownstream handlers that solvent

- contaminated wipes are free of liquid . The commenter stated that the proposed rule will result in even more noncompliance, as EPA is proposing even weaker controls than currently required by many states. [2 88]

(d) RESPONSE : EPA has incorporated changes in the final rule to improve the enforceability of the rule. These changes include: (1) EPA is requiring generators to keep records (see above response in this section), which enables inspectors to monitor co mpliance with conditions for accumulation limits, no free liquids, and ultimate disposition of the wipes; (2) EPA has not finalized the proposed “dry” standard, which had required each wipe to contain less than 5 grams of solvent, because commenters argued it was impossible to implement and enforce; (3) the final rule defines “no free liquids” using an objective EPA methods test (Paint Filter Liquids Test), which enables inspectors to produce clear results regarding whether solvent

- contaminated wipes pass o r fail this condition; (4) EPA has not finalized the proposed condition that solvent

- contaminated wipes be transported in containers “that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment”; instead, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be transported in closed containers, which is the same container standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes being accumulated and stored. This reduces variability of interpretations among facilities and inspectors; and (5) EPA is requiring containers of solv ent

- contaminated wipes to be labeled “Excluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” in order to communicate the contents of the container to state and EPA inspectors.

Because of the changes in the final rule to improve enforceability, EPA disagrees with the commen ter who stated that the rule will result in even more noncompliance. Additionally, EPA notes that RCRA section 3009 allows authorized states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal program (see 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized stat es may require more stringent requirements than the final rule.

(e ) COMMENTS : One commenter expressed concern about including in the hazardous waste mix wipes contaminated as a result of the use of consumer products. The commenter stated that t here are numerous car repair shops, etc., and that they use these products regularly. Whi le these shops may think that they are CESQGs, this
commenter suggest ed that man y actually would trigger the SQG threshold. It is this commenter’s belief that this iss ue would not be on the radar screen for these small businesses, yet they would be in jeopardy of violating federal rules by virtue of their use of "over

- the

- counter" products. The commenter stated that t hese consumer products, sold to the general public, c ontain concentrations of the target chemicals that are generally acceptable for use. The commenter stated that t he reality is that the trace concentrations of these target chemicals that ultimately would reach a lined municipal landfill (after evaporation during use and dilution in the waste management process) would not threaten the environment. [365]

(e) RESPONSE : All industrial entities and all solvent products , including “consumer products,” are subject to the same RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Reg arding generator status, it is each facility’s responsibility to ensure compliance with RCRA regulations, including counting hazardous waste generated for purposes of determining applicability of specific RCRA requirements. States, r egions, EPA, and trade associations all conduct outreach to assist with awareness of the regulations. The final rule exclusions will apply the same to all industrial entities and solvent products.

EPA agrees with this commenter that certain solvent

- contaminated wipes do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in lined landfills, based on EPA’s final risk analysis , which took into account a number of variables affecting solvent loading. (See the “Landfill Loading Calculations for Solvent

Con taminated Wipes, January 2012.)

### 116 

## 11. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) **and Other Executive Orders**

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter believed that EPA should have included the College and University Sector as an “economic sub

- sector” during the data acquisition phase for this proposed rulemaking because the proposed rule indicated that the number of wipes used at those fa cilities varied “from 50 to 6,000” wipes per facility per day. However, this commenter believes that, because the academic calendar is less than 160 days per year, a more appropriate estimate for the number of wipes generated within the College and Univers ity Sector is 0 to 40 wipes daily, with an estimated average of less than 15 wipes per day. [191]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA did not factor in the number of wipes used by colleges and universities in the final RIA, because the total number of wipes used by this ec onomic

- sector is negligible compared to the other 13 economic sub

- sectors. As the commenter stated, the average number of wipes used per day would not amount to more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds or 0.11 ton) of hazardous waste in a month. Therefore, acad emic entities would likely be CESQGs , which may already operate under reduced RCRA requirements and thus would not be affected by the final rule.

(b) COMMENTS : One commenter disagrees with EPA’s economic impact analysis for disposable wipes since it

assu mes that they are all managed as a hazardous waste. The commenter stated that i n Massachusetts disposable wipes that meet the one

- drop standard when wrung may be laundered, landfilled, or sent to a combustion facility. This commenter argued that the propos al would have an adverse economic impact on generators and manufacturers of disposable wipes, since the rule would explicitly regulate a waste stream that has been conditionally exempted in Massachusetts for the last ten years. [194]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA has confirmed that Massachusetts has a conditional exemption for disposab le solvent

contaminated wipes and has updated “State Policy Baseline” described in the RIA accordingly. The revised state policy baseline is as follows :

• Massachusetts is the only s tat e that conditionally excludes disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes.

• Forty

- five states provide regulatory relief for reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, provided certain conditions are met (e.g., no free liquids)

• Five states (Arkansas, Idaho, South Dakot a, West Virginia, and Maine) regulate reusable solvent

contaminated wipes as hazardous waste.

This baseline is the point relative to which the incremental costs and benefits of the final rule are compared. Therefore, in the RIA for the final rule, generato rs of disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes that are located in Massachusetts incur incremental costs in complying with additional conditions in EPA’s final rule (e.g., closed containers, labeling).

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter believes the economic backgro und document did not adequately account for i ncreased solvent loadings to Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) systems and to water discharges , as a result of more solvent wipes being managed by launderers under the final rule

. [288]

(c) RESPONSE: Under e xisting state policies, most state programs consider laundering to be a form of recycling and exclude reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes from RCRA regulation based on the state agency’s interpretation of the definition of solid waste. Other states provide conditional exclusions from the hazardous waste regulations for reusable wipes. In either case, to meet the exclusion, the solvent

- contaminated wipes must meet specified conditions, which general ly require that industrial laundry discharges go to a POTW o r are otherwise permitted under the CWA

, and that the solvent

- contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. Industrial laundries typically perform some type of wastewater treatment in order to meet their permit conditions from the local POTW. In addition, un der the CWA , local POTWs have the authority to set local limits for individual indirect dischargers. POTWs also can increase fees on users based on the type/volume of their wastes. Therefore, any increase in solvent loadings c ould be accounted for by higher POTW fees. Additionally, under the final rule, reusable solvent

contaminated wipes must meet the same general conditions

– no free liquids and must be sent to laundries regulated under the CWA

— as exist currently

. T hus significant increases in solven t loadings to local POTWs are not expected as a result of the final rule.

### 117 (d) COMMENTS : One commenter believes that the economic background document did not adequately account for f ugitive emissions and releases of free liquids during transportation and at handling facilities, landfills, and non

hazardous waste combustion facilities. [288]

(d) RESPONSE : Under the final rul e, generators are required to: (1) accumulate, store, and/or transport solvent

contaminated wipes in non

- leaking, closed containers and ( 2) ensure that the solvent

- contaminated wi pes contain “no free liquids.” These conditions are intended to prevent fugitive emissions and releases of free liquids. Therefore, in the RIA for the final rule we assume d that there will be no significant fugitiv e emissions or releases of free liquids during transportation or at handling facilities, landfills, and non

- hazardous waste combustion facilities.

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter believes that the economic background document did not adequately account for

wor ker exposure and health. This commenter argued that solvent

- contaminated wipes previously managed by highly regulated and RCRA permitted hazardous waste treatment facilities, with rigorous and extensive worker safety and protection programs, will now be ex empted and managed by landfill and combustion units that are equipped to manage household garbage and that these workers are not trained nor equipped to handle and protect themselves from fumes associated with solvent

- contaminated wipes. [288]

(e) RESPONS E : Workers at MSWLFs and combustion facilities are required to comply with OSHA’s occupational health and safety standa rds, which are found at 29 CFR p art 1910. Among other things, these standards provide both general and specific requirements for the mana gement of hazardous materials. Furthermore, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be stored in non

- leaking, closed containers which address potential risks to human health and the environment from solvent releases.

(f) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document did not adequately account for implementation of safety and training programs at municipal landfill and combustion facilities. [288]

(f) RESPONSE : Workers at MSWLFs and combustion facilities are alread y required to comply with OSHA’s occupational health and safety standards. In the RIA for the final rule

, we assume d that existing safety and training programs for the management of excluded solvent

- contaminated wipes are adequate.

(g) COMMENTS: One comme nter states that the economic background document did not adequately account for

e xposure injuries at MSWLFs and combustion facilities. [288]

(g) RESPONSE : EPA is unaware of any basis for estimating the injuries anticipated by the commenter. Any estimat e w ould be highly speculative. In the RIA for the final rule

, we assume d that facilities comply with all OSHA requirements and that any injuries would not be attributable to the final rule.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background docum ent did not adequately account for l iner failure or solvent release from a MSWLF

. [288]

(h) RESPONSE : To address comments received in response to the 2003 proposal, EPA revised the risk analysis and developed a landfill model to simulate the dominant release mechanisms from a landfill, including vapor diffusion, advection, and leaching. The revised analysis included liner leakage rates that are based on empirical data that reflect conditions measured for actual landfills with synthetic liners. In addit ion, the landfill source model accounts for potential liner leakage by diffusion through the geomembrane. As a result, the approach used in the revised risk analysis provides a reasonable representation of anticipated behaviors and supports the development of protective risk

- based mass loading levels (RB

- MLL). Given the low concentrations resulting from the application of the protective RB

- MLLs, it is unlikely that liner impacts will be significant. In general, solvent concentrations are much lower in a lan dfill setting than levels known to lead decreased liner integrity. [ Footnote : As an EPA

- sponsored study indicates, the published leachate chemistry data show that leachate from MSWLFs contains only trace concentrations of synthetic organic chemicals (see A ppendix E to Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems , EPA/600/R

- 02/099, December 2002).]

Furthermore, the final rule does not incorporate hand wringing or the proposed no

- drip standard. Instead, the final rule requires that the solvent

- contaminated wipes and their containers must contain no free liquids at the point of

### 118 transport for disposal as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test (EPA Methods Test 9095B). This test is also the test used to implemen t the restrictions on disposal of free liquids in the MSWLF regulations (40 CFR 258.28). In addition, generators must document how they are meeting the “no free liquids” condition, and any free liquids removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or the con tainer holding the wipes must be managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations. Therefore, these restrictions on free liquids will further ensure that there is no significant impact of solvents on the liner systems.

(i) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document did not adequately account for impact to state programs, arguing that if a given state chooses not to adopt the rule, but bordering states do, the annual cost of complications added to the complia nce monitoring programs has not been addressed. In addition, this commenter argued that states that currently regulate disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste will lose generation fees and taxes and that this revenue loss to states has not been addressed in the economic analysis. [288]

(i) RESPONSE : Because the final rule is less stringent than the existing Federal regulations (i.e., it will exclude certain hazardous secondary materials from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations), au thorized states are not required to adopt the exclusions. Thus, authorized states may evaluate whether adoption of the final rule is appropriate for their state. Adoption of the final rule by some of the authorized states might result in loss of hazardous waste taxes for those states; however, these states would also likely realize savings from not regulating disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste (e.g., reduction in manifests and biennial reports submitted to and processed by the state). Therefore, in the RIA for the final rule, we assumed that there will be no net impact to state programs.

(j) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document did not adequately account for impact to the commercial hazardous waste treatment industry and the service market that currently packages and properly manages these wipes also has not been evaluated. This commenter argued that because all states currently regulate disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste, curre ntly these wipes are being treated at commercial permitted facilities equipped and trained to properly manage these wipes, therefore, the loss of this revenue from treatment of solvent

- contaminated wipes should be factored into the economic impact analysis

. [288]

(j) RESPONSE : Currently, solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes are being managed at hazardous waste management facilities in 49 States. 6 Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes will be excluded from the definition of hazardous w aste and generators will have more options for managing their solvent

contaminated disposable wipes, if specified conditions are met. In particular, generators will be able to send their solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes to MSWLFs regulated under 40 CF R part 258 and solid waste combustion facilities regulated under Section 129 of the CAA

.
However, EPA does not find that the final rule will cause a significant impact to the hazardous waste management industry. Under the final rule, generators may contin ue to send their solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes to hazardous waste management facilities, such as hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste combustion facilities regulated under parts 264 or 265. Additionally, because disposable wipes are not su bject to the hazardous waste standards, generators will realize cost savings from using hazardous waste management facilities because generators can avoid hazardous waste hauler fees and manifest fees. Therefore, especially in light of existing contractual arrangements with these facilities, EPA find s it is likely that many generators will continue to use hazardous waste facilities as they do currently, but at a lesser cost under the rule. Furthermore, EPA estimates that solvent

contaminated wipes only make up about 0.02% of the total amount of hazardous wastes managed by landfills, incineration, and energy recovery.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document does not assume any tracking paperwork or recordkeeping. [288]

6 Massachusetts is t he only state that has a conditional exemption for solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes. As a result, solvent

contaminated disposable wipes generated in that state that meet the specified conditions are considered non

- hazardous wastes and therefore, may b e managed at non

- hazardous waste management facilities.

### 119 (k) RES PONSE : In the RIA for the final rule

, we estimate d costs associated with the recordkeeping requirements applicable to generators of solvent

- contaminated wipes. These recordkeeping requirements include: (1) name and address of the laundry, landfill, or combustor that is receiving the solvent

- contaminated w ipes; (2) documentation that the accumulation time limit is being met; and (3) a description of the process the generator is using to ensure solvent

- contaminated wipes contain “no free liquids” at the point of being transported for cleaning or disposal.

In estimating costs associated with recordkeeping requirements, the analysis relies on hourly burden assumptions used in other ICR Supporting Statements that contain simil ar recordkeeping requirements. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes would n ot be considered hazardous waste, provided that specified conditions are met. As a result, use of the hazardous waste ma nifest would not be necessary. This will result in a cost savings to generators and handlers of solvent

- contaminated wipes, as well as s tate agencies.

(l) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document should not assume plastic bags for major fraction of wipes . [288]

(l) RESPONSE : In t he economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule

, we assum e d that, when considering the type of container to be used for accumulating, storing, and/or transporting solvent

contaminated wipes (e.g., plastic bags, metal containers), generators will opt for the least costly options: the use of plastic bags. We use t his same assumption in the RIA for the final ru le. For purposes of the analysis, the cost of a 34

- gallon plastic bag is estimat ed to be $0.30 (2011 dollars). This cost is based on the current market price for heavy duty clear trash bags (high resistant to punctures and tears; handles dry and wet loads up to 75 pounds), and includes shipping, handling, and sales tax. 7
, 8

(m) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document only estimates $0.32 per user per year assumed for “dry” conditio n evaluation

. [288]

(m) RESPONSE : The “dry” cond ition was not included in the final rule. Generators must meet the “no free liquids” standard. In the RIA for the final rule

, we estimate d the costs associated with the “no free liquids” standard.

(n) COMMENTS : One commenter states that the economic background document only estimates $0.16 to $5.66 per year per disposable wipe user assumed to deal with “free liquid” issues, and $0 per year per reusable wipe user. [288]

(n) RESPONSE : Under existing stat e policies, the majority of s tate programs consider laundering to be a form of recycling and exclude reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes fro m RCRA regulation based on the s tate agency’s interpretation of the def inition of solid waste. Other s tates provide conditional exclusions from the hazardous waste regulations for reusable wipes. In either case, to meet the exclusion, the solvent

- contaminated wipes must generally meet specified conditions, which include that the wi pes contain “no free liquids.” Therefor e, in the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule we assume d that, for generators of reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, there are no incr emental costs for removing f ree liquids under the rule. We used the same assumption i n the RIA for the final rule.

In the case of disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes, genera tors often do not employ any solvent extraction technologies prior to shipping the materials off

- site due to the fact that most s tates regulate disposable solvent

c ontaminated wipes as hazardous wastes, regardless of the amount of solvent present in the wipes. Therefore, in the economic background document for the proposed rule we assume d that, for generators of disposable solvent

contaminated wipes, there are incremental costs for removing free liquids under the rule. We used the same assumption in the RIA for the final rule.

7 Current market price for heavy duty clear trash bags (i.e., box of 125 bags at $32.95) was obtained at: http://www.2kstore.com/gragr/jwod/ns n2.htm , last accessed on October 26, 2011.
8 Container costs were estimated using the following equation: [Retail price] + [8% shipping and handling cost] + [6% sales tax ] = [Retail price] x 1.14. This equation was obtained from the economic background doc ument originally developed for the proposed rule.

### 120 To estimate costs associated with the removal of “free liquid s” from containers, the analysis employs the following assumptions:

• On average, each LQG facility generates 98,256 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with “free liquids” per year; each SQG facility generates 14,475 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with “free liquids” per
year. 9 EPA estimates that, on average, each 34

- gallon plastic bag has a loading capacity of 1,144 solvent

contaminated disposable wipes. To estimate the number of containers needed to comply with this requirement, the analysis take s the annual number of solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with “free liquids” per facility and divided it by the loading capaci ty of a 34

- gallon plastic bag. Based on this calculation, EPA estimates that each LQG facility will need 86 containers with “f ree liquids” per year (i.e., 98,256 wipes with “free liquids” per year / 1,144 wipes per container); each SQG facility will have 13 containers with “free liquids” per year (i.e., 14,475 wipes with “free liquids” per year / 1,144 wipes per container).

• Each designated person (i.e., janitorial or cleaning

- level employee) is estimated to take about five minutes (or 0.08 hours) to remove “free liquids” from a container.

• This activity is expected to be conducted by a janitorial/cleaning

- level employee, making $ 17.59 per hour (2011 dollars).

Based on the data and assumptions above, the cost of the rule requirement to remove free liquids is estimated to be $18 per year for each SQG facility and $121 per year at each LGG facility.

(o) COMMENTS : One commenter a rgued that the economic background document inflates the avoided Subtitle C disposal cost for disposable wipes. This commenter stated that the net savings of $32,971,000 per year equates to $0.13 per disposable solvent

- contaminated wipe and thus t his amoun ts to $2.95/lb which is inflated. Additionally, this commenter noted that solvent

- contaminated wipe incineration is currently in the average range of $0.50 to $0.70/lb. [288]

(o) RESPONSE : In estimating avoided cost for disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes, per the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule we took int o account the following costs: hazardous waste incineration costs, ash hazardous waste landfill cost s , municipal combustor cost s , non

- hazardous waste landfill cost s , and ash non

- hazardous waste landfill cost. Therefore, the net savings of $32,971,000 per year covered more than haz ardous waste incineration costs

. In estimating hazardous waste incineration costs, as outlined in the economic background document f or the proposed rule

, we used hazardous waste incineration unit cost data ($/drum) from a September 2000 national cost survey conducted by the Env ironmental Technology Council. In particular, we used the average of the hazardous waste incineration costs fo r drummed halogen organics ($200/drum) and drummed non

- halogen organics ($98/drum): $149/dru m (i.e., (200 + 98)/2). 10 In the economic background document we assume d that, on average, facilities use 34

- gallon containers and that each of these containers is f illed with 124 pounds of disposab le solvent

contaminated wipes. As a result, the hazardous waste incineration cost used in the economic background document is $1.20 per po und (i.e., $149 per container / 124 pounds per container), not $2.95 per pound as stat ed by the
commenter.

(p) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that $380,000 per year of costs is assumed to state agencies to verify RCRA exclusion for solvent

- contaminated wipes managed by launderers, yet 46 out of 50 states currently exempt

9 These estimates are based on the annual number of solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes and the number of generators of solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes. During EPA’s site visits in 1996 and 1997, EPA observed that all printer facilities that generat ed solvent

- contaminated wipes had “free liquids”, while only 50 percent of non

- printer facilities that generated solvent

contaminated wipes had “free liquids.”
10 Data obtained from 2003 proposed RIA. Based on hazardous waste incineration unit cost data ($/ drum) from a September 2000 national cost survey conducted by the Environmental Technology Council. 2003 cost was updated to 2011 levels using the following data source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

### 121 the laundering process from RCRA (see Table 6 of Technical Background Document) and thus it is not clear what these costs are for, if the launderers are currently exempt. [288]

(p) RESPONSE : In the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule

, we estimated incremental costs to s tate agencies for conducting inspections at laundry facilities that opt to comply with the exclusion requirements applicable to reusab le solvent

- contaminated wipes. However, under existing state policies, 45 s tates provi de regulatory relief for reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, as long as cer tain basic conditions are
met. Therefore, inspections to verify compliance with exclusion requirements s hould already be taking place. In the RIA for the final rule

, we assume d tha t there w ill be no incremental costs to s tate agencies for conducting inspections to verify compliance with exclusion requirements. As such, the costs at issue in this comment are no longer a part of the cost analyses for the final rule.

(q) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that the estimated $46 to $92 million per year savings are projected for launderers, for avoided cost of managing their sludge as derived

- from waste in Subtitle C Landfills, yet currently 46 of 50 states consider launderers and reusable s olvent

- contaminated wipes exempt from RCRA. [288]

(q) RESPONSE : The $46 to $92 million per year savings referenced by the commenter is associated with the alternative baseline, i.e., the “F ull RCRA Subtitle C Baseline.” This alternative baseline is not included in the RIA for the final rule. The RIA for the final rule only evaluates costs in relation to the “State Policy Baseline.”

(r) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that the estimated benefit of $3.4 million to $6.9 mill ion assumed for launder er s, from avoided hazardous waste “stigma” is arbitrary, with no clear basis, and it is also not valid because 46 out of 50 states already exempt launderers from RCRA. [288]

(r) RESPONSE : Although 45 s tates provide regulatory relief for reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, as long as certain basic conditions are met, not all of them exclude reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes from the definition of solid waste. Under the final rule, reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes will be exclude d fr om solid waste classification. As a result, reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes could re alize cachet value from having the “waste” label removed.

In estimating this benefit in the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rul e, EPA assumed that 50 percent of the s tates currently exclude reusable solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes from “hazardous waste” classification, but not from “solid waste” classification. EPA does not have specific data regarding the extent of positive amplification that may be caused by removing solid waste classification nor its impacts on the reusable wipe market. However, EPA used empirical findings from a study that measured changes in property values in James Flynn, Paul Slovic, & Howard K unreuther, Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology , Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, 2001, 416 pp

, to estimate the benefits of avoided waste stigma to be 10% of product value. Since there is uncertainty associated with estimating the loss in product value associated with “waste” stigma, EPA has assumed a range of product value loss from 5% to 10%

.

In the RIA for the final rule we relie d on the assumptions used in the economic background document for the proposed rule in estimating benefits from removing the “waste” label

.
(s) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that the economic background document did not account for costs for solvent extraction other than decanting and hand wringing. This commenter says that EPA justifies this by stating that in the case of a centrifuge, sufficient funds will be recovered from the sale of the recovered solvent (see footnote (c) on page 19 of Economic I mpact Report), yet other solvent extraction techniques are not as efficient and may not recover sufficient useable solvent. Also, this commenter says the recovered solvents likely have co

- contaminants and must be further purified for sale and, therefore, t he Economic Impact Analysis is flawed in not assuming any cost for solvent extraction, which will have to be performed on each wipe to meet the “no free liquids” criterion.

(s) RESPONSE : In the economic background document originally developed for the pro posed rule

, we assume d that facilities will decant containers with solvent

- contaminated wipes in ord er to capture excess solvents. We also

assume d that facilities that use solvent extraction te chnologies (e.g., centrifuge ) may reuse the captured solvent,
t hereby realizing cost savings from avoided solvent extraction costs and avoid ed purchase of virgin solvent. In the

### 122 RIA for the final rule

, we use d the same assumptions used in the economic background document, but clarifie d that facilities are assumed to u se costlier solvent extraction technologies only to the extent that doing so is economically beneficial (and, therefore, that the costs of such technologies will be offset by associated savings).

Note that, under the final rule, wipes that exhibit a char acteristic other than ignitability due to constituents other than the exempt F

- listed solvents (i.e., wipes with co

- contaminants) cannot take advantage of the exemption/exclusion. Therefore, facilities are not expected to incur additional costs for further purifying the solvents for sale.

(t) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that EPA arbitrarily assumes a net human health and environment al benefit of $8 million to $36.4 million per year with very little justification provided, which is simply to claim that

c aptured “free liquids” solvents will reduce the demand for virgin solvents, thereby reducing air, land or surface water impacts from the production of these s olvents. This commenter believed that this cost wa s not appropriate to

assume since the amount of “free liquid” recovered will be insignificant given that EPA is condoning poor solvent extraction techniques with very low efficiencies (see Table 10 of T echnical Background Document). In addition, this
commenter note d that the “free liquid” recovered will contain co

- contaminants and will have to be further refined and thus the net reductions in air emissions cannot be assumed. Further, this commenter argues that the negative environmental impacts to POTWs and increased potential for releases of solvent to surface waters discussed above need to be addressed. [288]

(t) RESPONSE : In the economic background document originally developed for the 2003 proposed rule

, we have incorporated more discussion to increase the transparency in the final 2012 RIA. We estimate d incremental environmental and human health benefits resulting from the potential effects of avoiding future purchases of virgin solvents if captured spent solvent “free l iquids” are recycled. In the economic background document we did not estimat e the potential environmental benefit of capturing (removing) the annual solvent quantities from loading either into the air, land, or surface waters (via evaporation/volatilization, spills/leakages, or laundry effluent wastewaters), but we indicate d that these benefits may be significant.

Disposable wipes are currently regulated as hazardous waste and, although some generators could be removing free liquids from disposable wipes, generators are not required to do so under the existing hazardous waste reg ulations. The final rule, however, excludes disposable wipes from hazardous waste requirements, provided the solvent

contaminated wipes contain no free liquids. Therefore, the final rule provides a strong economic incentive for generators to remove free li quid spent solvent, which is then made available to be recycled.

Furthermore, under the hazardous waste regulations, LQGs have only 90 days to accumulate solvent

- contaminated wipes. However, under the final rule, generators may accumulate solvent

- contami nated wipes, along with free liquids, for up to 180 days. Longer accumulation periods increase the potential for a generator to accumulate sufficient amounts of spent solvent to make recycling economically feasible.

Lastly, because EPA estimates that mor e solvent recycling will occur under the final rule, it is reasonable to assume that associated VOC reduction benefits will also occur as a result of the pollution prevention and waste minimization impacts. In estimating environmental and human health bene fits, in the economic background document we use d dollar values for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction health benefits that EPA applied in three rulemakings promul gated in 1997, 1998, and 2000. In the RIA for the final rule we update d the unit values in the economic background document to current dollars, and use d them in the analysis.

In response to concerns regarding the environmental impacts to POTWs and increased potential for releases of solvent to surface waters, as explained in the proposed rule, the regulations under the CWA effectively control and impose enforceable limits on solvent discharges to waterways either through the NPDES or, for indirect discharges to POTWs, under the National Pretreatment Program. To eliminate confusio n regarding how the CWA applies to solvent discharges from laundries and dry cleaners, we are clarifying in the regulatory language that reusable wipes that meet the conditions of the final rule may only be sent to laundries and dry cleaners whose discharg es, if any, are regulated under sections 301 (effluent discharge restrictions) and 402 (permitting requirements) or section 307 (indirect discharge to a POTW of the CWA).

Additionally, in 1999, during consideration of national pretreatment standards for l aundries, EPA determined that industrial laundry discharges to POTWs do not present a national problem warranting additional national regulation

### 123 under the CWA (64 FR 45076). EPA found that there is insignificant pass through of total pounds or toxic pound equivalents of pollutants discharged to POTWs by industrial laundries such that national categorical pretreatment standards are not warranted. EPA also examined the total pounds and total pound equivalents removed under a rule with the first cutoff and det ermined that the amount of pounds removed is also insignificant and does not warrant national regulation. EPA has little, if any, recorded evidence that POTWs are currently having pass through or interference problems due to industrial laundry effluent. Fu rthermore, under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes going to laundries must contain no free liquids as demonstrated by EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test. This condition reduces the amount of solvent being sent to laundries and subsequently discharged . Therefore, in the event that a particular industrial laundry could create a local problem, EPA believes the existing pretreatment program is fully adequate to control these discharges at the local level (64 FR 45077).

(u) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that EPA arbitrarily assigns a cost benefit of $9.2 million per year for reduced fire incidents, yet there is nothing in the proposed rule that allows one to conclude that fire incidents will be reduced. To the contrary, this commenter stated, without any accumulation time and storage limits, no fugitive emission controls and with poor solvent extraction efficiencies, the risk of fire incidents from this proposed rule is greater, not less. This commenter argued that the wetting of wipes presumably to preven t spontaneous combustion, will actually increase the risk of spontaneous combustion. [288]

(u) RESPONSE : For purposes of the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule, fire safety benefits took the form of potential effects of avoiding structure

- related fires attributed to spontaneous ignition of “oily wipes” (i.e., wipes that have been used to clean surfaces, parts, accessories, and equipment). In estimating fire safety benefits, we used annual cost information on structure

- related fires attributed to spontaneous ignition of “oily wipes” from data compiled during the development of the technical background document. 11

EPA anticipates that the final rule will result in wipe

- related fire safety benefits as a result of several specific rule conditions:

• Wipes must be stored in closed, non

‐ leaking containers. This condition ensures that the wipes are contained and are not exposed to the environment (and potential ignition sources).

• Wipes must be labeled "Exempt Solvent Contaminated Wipes ." This condition ensures that the generator, transporter, and handler are aware of the contents of the containers and can handle them appropriately (e.g., not store the wipes next to an open flame).

• Wipes must contain "no free liquids." Because “no free liquid” spent solvent is present, the potential for wipes contributing to starting a fire is reduced.

Therefore, in the RIA for the final rule EPA estimate d potential fire safety benefits.

EPA recognizes that generators and handlers ma y sometimes wet down wipes contaminated with exotic solvents to prevent spontaneous fires from occurring; however, these wipes would have to be managed under the conditions of the final rule in order to be excluded from hazardous waste regulation. EPA find s that the conditions of the final rule, including closed containers and no free liquids at the point of transport for cleaning, are sufficient to reduce fire risk for reusable wipes.

(v) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that RCRA t raining costs are assume d to apply only in the case of transfers of wipes to other handlers (see page 27 of EIA), and EPA assumes that only five percent of wipe generators will have to provide RCRA training. This commenter argued that all wipe generators will need to continue to provide RCRA training on the rule itself, and the necessary workplace practices that must be employed to assure that wipes contain “no free liquids” and/or less than five grams, and satis fy the terms of the exemption and, t herefore, the training costs are understated by a factor of 20. [288]

11 U.S. EPA. Technical Backg round Document

- Proposed Exclusions from the Definition of Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste for Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes . August 20, 2003.

### 124 (v) RESPONSE : The commenter’s assertion that the costs of the rule are underestimated by a factor of 20 is based on the assumption that all wipe generators will need to provide RCRA training. This assumption is incorrect; the rule does not require additional RCRA training to comply with the exemption/exclusion requirements. For the final 2012 RIA we assume all g enerators of solvent

- contaminated wipes will need to read the rule and familiarize

e mployees with the rule requirements and implementation procedures/practices in order to meet the conditions of the exemption/exclusion. However, in the economic background document originally developed for the 2003 proposed rule we assume d that, on average , one person at a n SQG facility and three people at an LQG facility will receive instruc tion on the rule requirements. This includes 15 minutes to read the rule and 30 minutes to disseminate eligibility requirements (i.e., familiarize employees with the ru le requirements). In the RIA for the final rule

, we reli ed on these same assumptions. In addition, we assume d that an additional 15 minutes per person will be required to become familiar with implementation procedures/practices needed to meet the condition s of the exemption/exclusion. EPA believes that these assumptions represent reasonable expectations of the amount of time facility personnel will need to read the rule and familiarize themselves with the rule requirements and implementation procedures.

( w) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that a ccording to footnote (b) on page 47 in the economic background document developed for the proposed rule , only 12.5% of the weight of the wipe is assumed to be the amount of solvent for non

- printer reusable solvent

- co ntaminated wipes, and 50% for printer reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes. Yet the Technical Background Document (Docket Doc. 0003) indicates that as high as seven times and on average three times the weight of the wipe represents the amount of solvent app lied, in contrast to the above amounts of 0.125 to 0.5 times the weight of the wipe. The underestimation of solvent usage biases the costs of compliance with the proposed rule low for users and launderers, as the management costs for free solvents are unde restimated. [288]

(w) RESPONSE : The commenter is correct in his first point that the 2003 economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule used an estimate for the proportion of the weight of non

- printer contaminated wipes made up by solvent that was different than the estimate from the Technical Background Document (TBD). However, the commenter is incorrect in characterizing the average amo unt of solvents in wipes from the TBD, and is also incorrect that the “underestimation of solvent usage biases the compliance costs low since the management costs for free solvents are underestimated.” As we explain below, the estimates of the percentage o f solvent in each wipe were not used to estimate the amount and management costs for free solvents.

The RIA for the proposed rule assumed that the solvent/wet wipe ratio, i.e., the proportion of the weight of solvent

contaminated wipes made up by solvent , was 50% for printer reusable wipes and 12.5% for non

- printer reusable wipes. The TBD estimated that the solvent/wet wipe ratio was 50% for printer reusable wipes (same as the RIA) and was 33% for non

- printer reusable wipes. 12 These estimates from the TBD of the solvent/wet wipe ratio were used in the final RIA to estimate the total pounds of (dry) wipes that industrial laundries and dry cleaners process annually, so the RIA and the TBD are now consistent on that point.

Another way to express the ratio e stimates above (the solvent/wet wipe ratio) is the way they were expressed in the TSD, i.e., the solvent/dry wipe ratio. For printer reusable wipes that ratio is 1.0 for printer facilities and 0.5 for non

printer facilities. The commenter’s statement that “ the Technical Background Document (Docket Doc. 0003) indicates that as high as seven times and on average three times the weight of the wipe represents the amount of solvent applied ” mischaracterizes the information in the TSD. The TSD states that most of the facilities that EPA visited had small amounts of solvent in each wipe (i.e., the solvent/wipe ratio ranges from 0.1 to 1). A few observed facilities had a ratio between 2 and 3, and one facility had a ratio of 7. However, the higher ratios did not app ear to be representative of typical solvent

- to

- wipe weight ratios.

In response to the commenter’s assertion that EPA’s “underestimation of solvent usage biases the compliance costs low since the management costs for free solvents are underestimated,” we disagree because we did not use the ratios

12 Using the latest available data from the Technical Background Document (Docket 0003) published on Augu st 20, 2003, we estimated that the weight of a dry wipe is 25 grams (page 102). Furthermore, the technical background document assumed that wipes from printer facilities contain 25 grams of solvent, whereas wipes from non

- printer facilities contain only 12 .5 grams of solvent (page 102). Combining these two elements together would appear that 50% of the weight of used wipe is assumed to be the amount of solvent for printer wipes (i.e., 25/(25+25)), and 33% for non

- printer wipes (i.e., 12.5/(12.5+25)).

### 125 of solvents to wipes in th e RIA to calculate the costs and cost savings associated with removing and managing free liquids. Instead, we used information from the 2003 RIA on the amount of solvent

- contaminated free liquids removed from containers at printer and non

- printer facilitie s. W e also assumed that generators and handlers in states that have exclusions for solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes are already in compliance with the “no free liquids” standard. Therefore, the removal of free liquids from containers and the management of free liquids from containers do not apply to generators of solvent

- contaminated reusable wipes. However, generators of solvent contaminated disposable wipes will incur costs to remove free liquids from containers and will experience cost savings from

ma naging free liquids as a result of the final rule requirement that disposable wipes contain no free liquids

. The following factors were used to calculate the costs to remove free liquids:

* There are 35 LQG s that generate disposable wipes and 5,398 SQGs that generate disposable wipes in the

US. * An LQG facility generates about 98,256 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with free liquids per

year. * An SQG facility generates about 14,475 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with free liquids per

year

. * A 34

- gallon plastic bag could hold up 1,144 wipes. * It will take about five minutes for a cleaning

- level employee, making $17.59 per hour to remove free

liquids from a container.

The following equation was used to calculate the total costs to remove free liquids:

{A x [(B/C) x (DxE)]}+ {F x [(G/C) x (DxE)]},

where A is the number of LQGs; B is the number of wipes that an LQG generates annually; C is the number of wipes that a 34

- gallon plastic bag could hold; D is the amount of time for a cleaning level employee to remove free liquids; E is the hourly wage rate for a cleaning level; F is the number of SQGs; G is the number of wipes that an SQG generates annually. The total costs to remove free liquids are $104,524.

T o estimate the cost savings from manag ing free liquids, the following factors are used:

* There are 35 LQGs that generate disposable wipes and 5,398 SQGs that generate disposable wipes in the

US. * An LQG facility generates about 98,256 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with free l iquids per

year. * An SQG facility generates about 14,475 solvent

- contaminated disposable wipes with free liquids per

year.
* A 34

- gallon plastic bag could hold up 1,144 wipes. * On average, an LQG facility removes about 0.46 gallons of free liquids from e ach 34

- gallon plastic bag

of solvent

- contaminated wipes; an SQG facility removes about 0.96 gallons of free liquids from each 34

- gallon plastic bag of solvent

- contaminated wipes. 13 * The least expensive method used to manage free liquids is the use of solv ent recovery. The net cost

savings to manage free liquids as hazardous waste through solvent recovery is about $1.88 per gallon. 14

The following equation was used to calculate the total cost savings to manage free liquids:

{A x {[(B/C) x D] x E}} + {F x {[(G/C) x H] x E}},

where A is the number of LQGs; B is the number of wipes that an LQG generates annually; C is the number of wipes that a 34

- gallon plastic bag could hold; D is the amount of free liquids removed from a 34

- gallon plastic bag from an LQG facility; E is the net cost savings to manage free liquids; F is the number of SQGs; G is the number of

13 Eco nomics Background Document

- Estimate of National Economic Impact for Conditional Exclusion of Solvent Industrial Wipes from RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulation . US EPA, July 17, 2003. p. 153), adjusted for a 34

- gallon container.
14 To calculate net cost savings to manage free liquids, we subtracted the unit price for solvent recovery from the unit price f or virgin solvent in order to reflect the resale or reuse net value of recycled solvent.

### 126 wipes that an SQG generates annually; and H is the amount of free liquids removed from a 34

- gallon plastic bag from an SQG facility. The total cost savi ngs associated from managing free liquid is $ 125,869

. The net impact from removing and managing free liquids results in cost savings of $21,345.

(x) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that footnote (d ) on page 47 in the economic background document developed for the proposed rule assumes that 25 percent to 40 percent of the solvents are evaporated from the wipes before they undergo laundering, due to storage in non

- covered containers. Yet the proposed rule require s

ma nagement in closed containers. This assumed loss of solvent further biases the compliance costs low, as the amount of free solvent to manage will be low. [288]

(x) RESPONSE : The commenter is correct in pointing out that the rule requires accumulation, storage, and transport of storage of solvent

- contaminated wipes in covered containers, thereby eliminating evaporation of solvent from the wipes. Therefore, for the revised RIA done for the final rule, EPA did not assume there was any evaporation of solve nts due to storage in non

- covered containers.

(y) COMMENTS : One commenter argued that t he proposed rule, if finalized, will create a patchwork in which disposable wipes will be regulated differently depending upon what an authorized state decides to do a nd that th e discontinuity created in the RCRA regulation of solvent contaminated wipes, will add further complications to enforcement actions, and will create issues for states that continue to manage these waste as hazardous. This commenter stated that t h ere will be many complications including manifesting at the border of a state that does not recognize the exemption, varying tax issues and reporting issues.

Besides creating issues with state programs, this commenter argued that the proposed rule can be considered an Unfunded Mandate, the impact of which has not been evaluated and addressed by EPA and that EPA incorrectly concludes that the proposed rule “contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.” 6 8 FR 65616. This commenter argues that the proposed rule will likely create even higher loadings on POTWs, due to increase in solvent contaminants due to more solvent contaminated wipes ma naged by industrial laundries and that EPA has not evaluated the imp act of the proposed rule on a state program that is forced to adopt the rule, or on a state program that chooses not to adopt the rule, but is bordered by a state that does adopt it. Additionally, this commenter notes that t he loss of hazardous waste taxes on states that are forced to adopt the exempti on has also not been evaluated and the complication of enforcement cases resulting from a state that chooses not to adopt the exemption, border ed by a state that does

, has not been evaluated. This commenter believes that EPA has totally missed these issues, and must go back and evaluated these relative to the Title II of the Unfu nded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. [288]

(y) RESPONSE : The final rule will not trigger a quantitative analysis under Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) bec ause it generates net savings. A qualitative analysis of the potential impacts of the rule in relation to UMRA has been included in the RIA for the final rule. This analysis was not included in the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule.

Under existing s tate policies, the majority of the s tates provide regulatory relief for reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, as long as cer tain basic conditions are met. One of the general state conditi ons is that the industrial laundry discharges to a POTW or is otherwise permitted under the CWA

. Industrial laundries typically perform some type of wastewater treatment in order to ensure compliance with pretreatment standards established by the local POT W. In addition, under the CWA , local POTWs have the authority to set local limits for in dividual indirect dischargers. POTWs also can increase fees on users based on the type/volume of their wastes

. Therefore, any increase in solvent loadings c ould be acco unted for by higher POTW fees. In addition, under the final rule, reusable solvent

contaminated wipes must contain “no free liquids” at the point of being laundered or dry cleaned on

- site or at the point of being transported off

- site to a laundry or dry cl eaner. EPA anticipates this condition will reduce any potential impacts to POTWs.

In regards to t he impact of the final rule on s tate programs, in the RIA for the final rule we employ ed the following assumptions:

### 127 • Because the final rule is less stringent than the existing Federal regulations (i.e., it will exclude certain materials now reg ulated under RCRA Subtitle C), authorized s tates wil l not be required to adopt it. The analysis assumes that, pri or to adopting the final rule, authorized s tates will evaluate whether adoption of the final rule is appropriate for their s tate taking into account issues such as implementation, taxes, and enforcement.

• Although adoption of the final rule by some of the authorized s tates might result in loss of hazardous w aste taxes, authorized s tates likely will experience savings from not regulating disposable solvent

- contamin ated wipes as hazardous waste. In the analysis we assume d that any losses in tax revenues are proportional t o and offset by the savings to s tates in regulating the disposable solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous
waste.

• RCRA allows authorized states to be more stringent than the federal program and thus state

- to

- state differences in regulations of certain hazardous wastes are inherent in the RCRA program. However, we assume that any complications from interstate transfers under the final rule will be negligible. This is because, if a generator were to send his reusable or disposable wipes to another state that had not adopted the exclusion (and thus this state regulated solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste), the w ipes would have to go to a facility operating under the applicable hazardous waste regulations (e.g., a hazardous waste permitted facility). Thus, there is an economic incentive for a generator to send his solvent

contaminated wipes to facilities in states that have adopted the exclusion. Additionally, (1) we assume the vast majority of states will adopt the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes, given that 45 states already currently exclude reusable wipes from hazardous waste reg ulation; and (2) generators of disposable wipes will likely utilize local MSWLFs or combustors because generators are likely using these facilities to dispose of their other solid waste trash, because these facilities are fairly ubiquitous across the natio n, and because local facilities will likely minimize transportation costs.



## 12. **Environmental/Worker Health Record of Industrial Laundries**

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters asserted that industrial laundries pose risks to human health and the environment a s well as to worker health and safety. One commenter noted that the Cintas Corporation, following the enforcement efforts and lawsuit by Connecticut DEP for 250 violations of the CWA , stopped processing shop towels in Connecticut and moved its shop towel operations to its plant in Massachusetts. The commenter stated that t he company moved rather than comply with regulations. The commenter provides other similar examples of such conduc t by Cintas, as well as its disregard for the safety of its employees and its consistent violations of OSHA standards. The commenter went on to say that Cintas has been cited for over 140 violations of OSHA standards in the last 20 years. The commenter ass erted that Coyne Textile Services is another industrial laundry company that neglects basic safety measures for its workers. The commenter added that w hen EPA’s own consultants for this rulemaking conducted their on

- site evaluations, they found such violat ions. [199

- 1006, 199

- 1013, 297]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA believes that the final rule will serve to establish consistent federal regulations regarding the management of solvent

- contaminated wipes, including solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to laundries. The condit ional exclusion, which includes container requirements, accumulation limits, recordkeeping, no free liquids, and labeling is designed to ensure that solvent

- contaminated wipes are properly managed and do not pose significant risks to human health and the e nvironment. While EPA appreciates the commenters’ statements about the compliance status of the identified companies, it has no independent knowledge to address the allegations made therein.

(b) COMMENTS : Two commenters generally discussed the risk that so lvent

- contaminated shop towels present at laundry facilities. The commenter mentioned s afety concerns resulting from so lvent

- soiled shop towels including vapor release and chemical exposure resulting in nausea, headaches, and extreme dizziness. Addit ionall y , the
commenters noted that in a five

- year period, there was an average of 147 fires per year in industrial laundries. The commenters stated that these indicators demonstrate that solvents on reusable industrial wipes present a significant risk to workers at industrial laundries that need s to be addressed by the rule. [263, 272] One commenter stated that the regulations are not strong enough in the proposed form and that local enforcement would be inefficient to

### 128 implement regulation. They state d and provid ed examples of dozens of industrial laundries across the country that have violated local pretreatment limits and suggest ed that the EPA should require that the transportation of solvent

contaminated industrial wipes to laundries prevent loss, not just min imize loss. [351]

Two commenters discussed existing regulations and their concern that EPA’s exemption will open up or not address loopholes in other federal hazardous waste regulations, for example OSHA regulations on chemical safety in laundry industry t hat are not sufficiently protective. The commenters argue that EPA’s regulation risks public, as well as workers’, safety in this regard. [199

- 1006, 297] Several of the comments submitted were individual workers’ testimonies of mistreatment and misinformat ion while working for an industrial laundry facility. One Cintas employee discussed his experience handling saturated wipes in containers and bags that did not sufficiently protect him from exposure. He stated that (1) he would often find the wipes collect ed in plastic garbage bags and sometimes plastic grocery bags; (2) o ften, there were too many shop towels in the bags and the bags would break or overflow, the shop towels would fall on the floor of the truck when removing the wipes from the bags, and liqu id from the shop towels would soak through the gl oves and get on workers’ hands and that s ometimes workers were ru shed and wore no gloves at all; (3) w orkers could not help but be in contact with whatever chemical was on the wipes, but did not know what ch emical it was they were in contact with; (4) v apors from the wipes once in the truck were overpowering and there was nothing to protect the workers from this exposure; (5) n one of the bags that the dirty towels were in had warnings about the types of chemicals contained inside or about the possible dangers there could be f rom being in contact with them; (6) d ifferent towels contaminated with differen t solvents were mixed together; (7) Cintas never told the workers anything about protecting thems elves f rom dangerous chemicals; (8) Cintas never gave the workers any training about how to handle contaminated shop towels or about the danger related to bein g in contact with these towels; (9) s ome protective gear was available, but wor kers were never told to u se it and (10)
g iven all the hazards posed by the solvents, Cintas once gave the commenter papers to give to the customer asking them to control the am ount of solvent on the towels, b ut the customers overlooked these warnings and Cintas never responded by telling him to refuse to take these dangerous loads from customers. [322]

Two commenters that submitted written testimonies stated that they were ultimately forced to quit Cintas due to the mistreatment of workers. One commenter testified that he developed serious health problems while working for Cintas. Despite repeated doctor’s letters, the commenter said that Cintas denied the condition was work

- related and refused to admit that it was a case requiring workers compensation, forcing the commenter to go i nto debt due to medical bills. He stated that after the company did not offer him work in a less hazardous position, he was essentially forced to quit. Another commenter testified that he hurt himself on the job and rather than being taken to the hospital for care, he was told to go to the cafeteria to rest. A few months later they accused him of stealing a shirt and they fired him since it is not in their interest to have injured workers. [322, 356]

Two commenters stated that laundry workers’ health is con sidered by facilities and that workers are not exposed to unsafe levels of solvents. These commenters said that i ndustrial laundries conduct routine sampling of air and wastewater to insure that the concentration of solvents and other regulated substances are well within acceptable limits. The commenter also mentioned that s everal industrial laundries have conducted compreh ensive worker exposure studies and included the results in an attachment to their comments

. The commenter believes that e xisting industr y practices and regulatory responsibilities under state law and OSHA adequately and comprehensively address worker exposure concerns associated with solvent vapors and liquid solvents in the industrial laundry workplace. [199

- 1016, 348] Another commenter s tated that OSHA plays the role of protecting employees from unsafe working conditions and has established comprehensive permissible exposure limits as well as requirements to inform employees of chemical hazards via container labels, MSD S sheets, and train ing. [199

- 1017] Another commenter stated that their company has gathered best practices over the years for managing shop towels that include adequate consideratio n for worker safety. [199

- 1018]

Another commenter stated that concern for employees’ safety is demonstrated in service agreemen ts with customers that state, “customer agrees to notify c ompany, in writing, of any hazardous waste materials that may be picked up by the company in the soiled garments or other textiles serviced under this agreement.” Th ey stated that they have not been made aware of a single incident where an employee has incurred physical harm as a result of their responsibilities servicing shop towels

. This commenter also said that Cintas is the current target of a union organizing cam paign and is the frequent victim of allegations and other efforts to generate negative publicity. The commenter suggested the workers’ union agenda be taken into consideration. [359 ]

### 129 Another commenter stated that industrial laundries exercise responsible e nvironmental practices and because of effective management controls and the comprehensive universe of regulatory and policy requirements, reusable shop towels are already properly managed from the laundry to the customer and back and properly qualify for t he proposed solid waste exclusion. [348] This commenter also submitted a comment that discussed Laundry ESP, which facilitates cooperation on critical environmental matters across industries. The commenter stated that LaundryESP is successful and has allow ed laundries to decrease water use, energy consumption and wastewater pollutant content. The commenter believes that t hese environmentally beneficial results exceed the likely results of a “command and control” approach through more regulation. [348]

(b) R ESPONSE : While EPA appreciates the commenters’ statements about their experience working in the industry laundry facility, it has no independent knowledge to address the factual allegations made therein or to consider union agendas. Although worker safety is primarily addressed by statutes and regulations implemented by OSHA, under RCRA, EPA agrees with commenters who said that reusable wipes present potential risk to workers and must be properly managed to protect human health and the environment. Certain conditions of the final rule are crafted to minimize releases o f solvent, which could pose risk s to workers of the type described by the comments . Based on comments received, EPA has further strengthened the conditions for management of solvent

- co ntaminated wipes to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

For example, instead of the proposed requirement to manage solvent

- contaminated wipes in covered containers or “containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize l oss to the environment,” u nder the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers

. The containers must be able to contain free liquids, should free liquids occur. During accumulation, a container is considered closed when there is complete contact between the fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent

- contaminated wipes. When the container is full, or when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer bei ng accumulated, or when the container is being transported, the container must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficiently to prevent leaks and emissions

. This condition is de signed to reduce solvent emissions or spills of free liquid spent solvent, which will also reduce risk of adverse effects to workers.

In the proposed rule, EPA did not require reusable wipe containers to be labeled. However, EPA is convinced by commenters’ arguments and, therefore, in the final rule, is requiring all containers to be labeled “Excluded Solvent

Contaminated Wipes” to communicate the contents of the container to facility staff, emergency personnel, motor carriers, downstream handlers, and EPA and state enforcement. Labeling enables all entities to properly manage the container, for example, ensuring the container is protected from potential ignition sources and that workers are protected from exposure to the solvent

- contaminated wipes.

Addition ally, EPA has strengthened the “no free liquids” condition by requiring use of an EPA methods test (Paint Filter Liquids Test) to determine whether the condition has been met and requiring the generator to document its process for meeting the condition. Th is will ensure more consistent compliance with the condition and thus limit the amount of free liquids sent to laundries, which reduces risk from fugitive emissions, fires, and worker exposure.

Furthermore, the final rule does not impact how other statutes (e.g., OSHA) may apply to laundries; EPA therefore does not agree that the rule will open up loopholes in other regulations.

EPA does agree with the commenter who stated that reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, when properly managed according to the cond itions of the exclusion, are not solid wastes. EPA also acknowledges the commenter who believes the LaundryESP program produces environmentally beneficial results.

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that industrial laundries actually provide environmental benefits by decreasing natural resource consumption, saving energy, and providing effective pollution management and prevention compared to home laundering. The commenter argued t he minimal solvents that are still present after meeting the no free liquid standard are effectively removed during sequential stages. The commenter further stated that i ndustrial laundries exami ne the characteristics of waste water sludge and other solid was te generated by their waste water treatment systems as required. The commenter believes that r eusable shop towels and the materials found on reusables after use are handled in a more environmentally sensitive way than disposal wipes and rags and

### 130 EPA should create regulatory incentives to permit reuse, recovery, and recycling of reusable towels through the environmentally beneficial services provided by laundries. [199

- 1015]

(c) RESPONSE : The Agency acknowledges commenters’ opinions about environmental compl iance, safety, worker protection, and environmental impacts of laundry facilities. EPA’s final rule does not intend to provide a regulatory advantage for either type of wipe and, instead, is promulgated based on EPA’s RCRA authority to regulate solid and h azardous wastes. In the case of solvent

- contaminated wipes, EPA is deregulating both reusable solvent

contaminated wipes, because these wipes are not being discarded, and disposable wipes, because EPA’s risk analysis demonstrates that these wipes do not po se significant risk to human health and the environment.



## 13. **Alternative Option 1: Exclude Reusables and Disposables from**  **Hazardous Waste Definition**

In the November 2003 proposed rule, EPA requested comment on an alternative approach to exclude reusable wipes from the definit ion of hazardous waste, rather than the definition of solid waste.

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters supported EPA’s alt ernative Option 1. Several commenters said there is no logical basis to exclude reusable wipes from solid waste re gulation when laundering of these towels produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste, and all shop towels ultimately end up in a landfill. Two commenters stated that there is no reason for reusable wipes an d disposable wipe s t o be treated differently, this giving an unwarranted preferential treatment for reusable wipes

. The commenters believe that r eusable wipes and disposable wipes should be required to have the same labeling and transportation requirements. One commenter
stat ed that New York’s current policy for reusable wipes is to only exclude them from the definition of hazardous waste when certain conditions are met. The commenter said that t his has not presented any serious problems, and retaining their status as a solid waste is intuitively more in keeping with the nature of these “dirty rags.” Another commenter stated that providing an exclusion from solid waste regulation for reusable wipes will encourage generators to shift from disposable wipes to reusable wipes so th ey can report a reduction in the amount of solid waste they are generating, when in fact they will be generating more solid waste. [148, 158, 159, 160, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 176, 178, 185, 190, 193, 194, 198, 199

- 1001, 199

- 1003, 199

- 1009, 257, 261, 265, 273, 278, 281, 288, 299, 302, 306, 323, 324, 349, 354, 362]

Another commenter stated that that there has been substantially more public health impact (worker injury) and environmental releases (water discharge violations) associated with the laundering o f solvent contaminated wipes, compared to the disposal of solvent wipes. The commenter said that r eusable wipes are being managed in un

regulated units with a great deal of employee handling, with emissions to surrounding communities, and with direct relea se of solvent constituents into POTW plants and water discharges where further exposure of the public will occur. In contrast, the commenter argued that disposable wipes are sent to either secure landfill units or to combustion devices with more limited pu blic access, and in some cases, with less employee handling required. Given these more frequent incidents of worker exposure and environmental releases, the commenter felt that the scope of the exemption of reusable solvent wipes needs to be reconsidered. [288]

Other commenters disagreed with EPA’s alternative Option 1. They stated that reusable wipes are commodities, not solid wastes. The commenter felt that t he way in which a reusable towel is handled by the industrial laundry industry is not consistent with the definition of “waste .” The commenter argued that r equiring laundries and generators to handle the towel as waste would defeat the purpose of promoting recycling, not only within the industrial laundry arena, but with other materials that are currently reused on a consistent basis. Further, the commenter s aid the use of reusable towels fosters pollution prevention. The commenter added that m any states (as outlined in many P

- 2 documents) encourage the use of reusable towels to reduce waste generation. The commenter suggested that EPA should establish separat e exclusions for reusable and disposable wipes. Other commenters stated that Option 1 would totally undermine the existing viable state regulatory program and create additional, but unnecessary, compliance costs. These additional compliance costs might mak e the provision of reusable shop towels too expensive for some customers, and possibly to o expensive for all customers. [155, 246, 271, 305, 307, 308, 315,

### 131 328, 329, 334, 335, 339, 344, 358, 361]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with those commenters that argued that EPA should exclude reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste as the Agency proposed in the November 2003 proposed rule (and consequently, disagrees with those commenters that argued for a hazardou s waste exclusion). EPA finds that g iven the nature of the solvent

contaminated wipe, the inherent economic value of the wipe, and the characteristics of the reusable wipe market, reusable wipes managed under t he final rule exclusion are not solid wastes. (See the Agency’s basis for t he solid waste exclusion in section VI.B. of the preamble to the final rule.) EPA, therefore, does not agree with commenters who argued solvent

- contaminated wipes are solid wastes or that solid waste classification is inherent simply because the wipes are dirty and must be laundered.

EPA acknowledges that laundering of reusable wipes generates sludge that is then disposed of as solid or hazardous waste just as disposable wipes are their own generated waste that must be disposed . EPA’s final rule does not intend to provide a regulatory advantage for either type of wipe and, instead, is promulgated based on EPA’s RCRA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. In the case of solvent

- contaminated wipes, EPA is deregulating b oth reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes, because these wipes are not being discarded, and disposable wipes, because EPA’s risk analysis demonstrates that these wipes do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment. Furthermore, reusable wi pes are excluded from the definition of solid waste only as long as they are sent for laundering. Once wipes can no longer be laundered and must be disposed, such as in a landfill, these wipes would be considered solid wastes and must be managed under the disposable wipes exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste.

EPA notes that the final solid waste exclusion for reusable wipes results in the least interference with individual state programs. It is consistent with those states that already exclude reusable wipes from the definition of solid

w aste and therefore will not undermine these existing programs or create unnecessary costs related to solid waste classification for facilities within these states . Additionally, under RCRA, authorized states can be more stringent than the federal program. Thus, states that currently exclude reusable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste may continue to do so, provided the conditional exclusion is as stringent as the final rule. The sam e applies for those states that wish to manage reusable wipes as hazardous waste.

In regards to comments on worker safety and impacts to the environment, EPA has strengthened the conditions for handlers to ensure protection of human health and the environ ment.

For example, instead of the proposed requirement to manage solvent

- contaminated wipes in covered containers or “containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment,” u nder the final rule, solvent

- contaminated w ipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non

- leaking, closed containers

. The containers must be able to contain free liquids, should free liquids occur. During accumulation, a container is considered closed when there is complete contact betwee n the fitted lid and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent

- contaminated wipes. When the container is full, or when the solvent

- contaminated wipes are no longer being accumulated, or when the container is being transported, the conta iner must be sealed with all lids properly and securely affixed to the container and all openings tightly bound or closed sufficiently to prevent leaks and emissions

. This condition is designed to reduce solvent emissions or spills of free liquid solvent, which will also reduce risk of adverse effects to workers.

EPA did not propose that containers of reusable wipes be labeled. However, EPA is convinced by commenters’ arguments and, therefore, in the final rule, is requiring all containers to be labeled “Ex cluded Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes” to communicate the contents of the container to facility staff, emergency personnel, motor carriers, downstream handlers, and EPA and state enforcement. This label enables all entities to properly manage the container, fo r example, ensuring the container is protected from potential ignition sources.

Additionally, EPA has strengthened the “no free liquids” condition by requiring the use of a n EPA methods test (Paint Filter Liquids Test) to determine whether the condition i s met and by requiring the generator to document its process for meeting the condition. This will ensure more consistent compliance with the condition and thus limit the amount of free liquids sent to laundries, which reduces risk from fugitive emissions a nd fires.

### 132 Lastly, t o eliminate confusion regarding how the CWA applies to solvent discharges from laundries, the Agency has clarified in the final rule that solvent

- contaminated wipes must be sent to laundries and dry cleaners whose discharges, if any, are regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of the CWA.



## 14. **Alternative Option 2: Exclude Solvent** 

**- Contaminated Wipes being**  **Combusted and Solvent**

**- Contaminated Wipes being Landfilled Under**  **a Single Set of Conditions** 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA proposed different conditions for solvent

- contaminated wipes being sent to a landfill for disposal compared to solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to a combustor for disposal. These differences included: (1) wipes contaminate d with certain solvents were ineligible for land disposal, whereas all solvent

contaminated wipes could be sent to a combustor; and (2) solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills must be “dry” (e.g., contain less than five grams of solvent), whereas sol vent

- contaminated wipes going to combustors must contain no free liquids.

EPA requested comment on an alternative option that would provide an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for all disposable wipes (both wipes being combusted and wipes being landfilled) under the same conditions, for example solvent

- contaminated wipes would not need to be “dry” prior to landfill disposal; rather, they would be required to meet no free liquids.

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters opposed EPA ’s alternative op tion , where solvent

- contaminated wipes being combusted and solvent

- contaminated wipes being land disposed would be subject to the same set of conditions to be eligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. Commenters believed that i ntro ducing disposable wipes that were not “dry” into a municipal or non

- hazardous landfill would increase the quantities of solvents being disposed and thereby greatly reduce the effectiveness of the regulation. One commenter noted that the considerable uncert ainty in the risk analysis suggests the five

- gram criterion is not yet precise enough to c hange the regulatory approach. [246, 271, 281, 305, 328]

Two commenters supported a single set of conditions for disposable wipes, since this would simplify the
regu lations for generators, transporters, and disposal facilities. One commenter suggested that EPA could limit the solvent

- contaminated rags for disposal to the 16 solvent constituents that passed the risk screening analysis and require that they contain “no free liquid.” The other commenter stated that it seems unnecessarily burdensome to have special procedures for the management of rags that qualify as exempt from the rule. The commenter stated that, i f a wipe meets all of the hazardous waste exclusion requirements, then it should be allowed to be d iscarded in the regular trash. [280, 365]

(a) RESPONSE : The two main differences in EPA’s proposed conditions for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to combustors as compared to the proposed conditions for solve nt

- contaminated wipes going to landfills included: (1) wipes contaminated with certain solvents were ineligible for land disposal, whereas all solvent

- contaminated wipes could be sent to a combustor; and (2) solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills mu st be “dry” (e.g., contain less than five grams of solvent), whereas solvent

- contaminated wipes going to combustors must contain no free liquids.

Regarding difference (1), since the November 2003 proposed rule was published, EPA has conducted a revised ris k analysis, which was peer reviewed and publi shed for public comment in 2009. The final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with 19 of the 20 listed solvents evaluated pose no significant risk when disposed in lined landfills. Therefore, onl y one solvent, down from the proposed list of 11 solvents, is ineligible to be disposed under the final rule. (Wipes contaminated with trichloroethylene were found to exceed target risk criteria and thus are ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion.)

Regarding difference (2), EPA agrees with comments that argued EPA’s proposed “dry” standard (i.e., each wipe could not contain more than five grams of solvent) for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills would be impossible to implement and enforce . Additionally, EPA’s final risk analysis demonstrates that the no free liquids

### 133 condition ensures that certain solvent

- contaminated wipes being land disposed do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, EPA has not finalized the dry standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to landfills. Instead, solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to landfills must not contain free liquids, which is the same standard for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to combustors (as well as for solvent

- contaminated wipes going to laundries and dry cleaners).

Thus, given the above considerations, EPA finds that one conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste is necessary for disposable wipes going to combustors and disposable wipes going to landfills. Additionally, EPA agrees with the commenter that the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for disposable wipes should be limited to only those solvents that do not exceed EPA’s target risk criteria in its final risk analysis. Therefor e, because wipes contaminated with trichloroethylene were found to exceed target risk criteria, these wipes are ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion.

Therefore, in the final rule, both solvent

- contaminated wipes sent to landfills and solvent

- conta minated wipes sent to combustors are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste under the same storage, labeling, no free liquids, accumulation, and recordkeeping conditions.

Additionally, EPA agrees that d isposable wipes meeting the conditions of th e final rule may be discarded with a facility’s other solid waste trash.



## 15. **Clarifications and Typographical Errors**

(a) COMMENTS : Several commenters noted what appear to be typographical errors in the preamble or suggested regulatory text. Two commenters noted an error on p. 65618 of the proposed rule. I n the definitions of “no free liquids” and “solvent extraction,” the reference is to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) ,” but it appears the correct reference should be to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(22).” [133, 264] Two commenter s stated that on page 65619 of the proposed rule, a new exclusion is bein g added as § 261.4(a)(22); i n paragraph (a)(22)(iii) a refe rence is made to another paragraph which reads "...except as stated in paragraph (a)(24)(iv) of this section." This appears to be a typographic error and should have read "...except as stated in paragraph (a)(22)(iv)." [134 , 155 ]

(a) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that t he correct citation should have been “40 CFR 261.4(a)(22).” However, in the final rule, the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wip es is now § 261.4(a)(26).

(b) COMMENTS : A few commenter s stated that in footnote 7, after the word "higher," the text should read, "except any mixture having components with flashp oints of 110F (37.8C) or higher." [135, 193 , 271 ]

(b ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees that the correct definition of flammable liquid in foot note 7 should have read “Flammable liquids are defined as any liquid having a flash point below 100 °F. (37.8 °C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 100 °F. (37.8 °C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.” (EPA notes that this footnote do es not appear in the final rule preamble. )

(c) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that the requirement to manage liquids removed from the wipes as hazardous waste resides in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(v), which begins with transportation requirements. The commenter stated that t he requirement that liquids removed must be managed as hazardous waste is an important requirement and should stand alone. The commenter suggested that EPA create a new § 261.4(b)(19)(vi) that states “Any liquids removed from industrial wipes prior to transportation for disposal shall be managed as hazardous waste under the provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.” The commenter also recommended that EPA m ove the current proposed Section (vi) through (xi) (which is improperly numbered); it should be (x)) to a new (vii) through (xi). [155]

(c ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the requirement to manage liquids removed from the wipes as hazardous waste is an imp ortant requirement and, to be more visible to users, should stand alone. EPA has incorpo rated this into the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26)(iv ) and into the exclusion from the definition of hazardous w aste for disposable wipes at § 261.4(b)(18)(iv ).

### 1 34 (d) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19), section (xi) follows section (viii); EPA should correctly renumber this section (ix). [155]

( d ) RESPONSE : EPA agrees with the commenter that the proposed rule sections were numbered incorrectly. The section 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(xi) in the proposed rule should have been numbered § 261.4(b)(19)(ix).

(e) COMMENTS : One commenter asked for clarification on the relationship between the proposed conditional exclusions from the regulatory definitions of hazardous and solid waste for solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes and the existing conditional exclusions from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste for low

- level mixed waste storage, trea tment, transportation and disposal [40 CFR part 266, s ubpart N]. The commenter stated that i t may be possible for some solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes to qualify for both conditional exclusions. [184]

(e) RESPONSE : If the solvent

- contaminated wipes meet the conditions of the exclusion, the wipes are not hazardous wastes and thus would not meet the RCRA definition of mixed waste (which means a waste that contains both RCRA hazardous waste and source, special nuclear, or by

- product materials subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) under 40 CFR part 266 subpart N. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that include low

- level radioactive waste, however, may be subject other requirements as specified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(f) COMME NTS : One commenter noted that EPA’s proposed regulatory language goes beyond simply stating conditions that must be met by the waste generator in order to qualify for the exclusions. The commenter pointed out that d efinitions unique to the proposed exclusi ons are provided; management standards for generators are provided that vary depending on the intended destination of the excluded wipes; and management standards are provided for receiving facilities. The commenter felt that the result is a fairly complex set of regulatory standards th at differ from those in 40 CFR p arts 264 or 265 and are explicit to solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes, some of which are destine d for recycling

. The commenter recommended that EPA consider relocating the final regulations in their entirety to p art 266, “Standards for Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.” The commenter believes that t his approach would be consist ent with EPA’s intended use of p art 266, i.e., for tailored management standards [48 FR 14472 (April 4, 1983) ] and would facilitate access to the standards by the regulated community. [184]

(f

) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that the solvent

- contaminated wipe r egulation would be more appropriately placed in 40 CFR p art 266. Rather, the rulemaking involves an exclusion from the definition of solid waste (for reusables) and an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste (for disposables), which are more appro priately located at §§ 261.4(a) and (b) respectively.

(g) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that, on p. 65600 (third column)

, EPA indicates that sol vent removed from excluded wipe s can ‘regain’ a lis ted hazardous waste designation (“Therefore, the generatin g facility would be required to determine whether the solvent removed from the industrial wipe...is listed as a hazardous waste or exhibits a characteristic....”)

. However, the commenter pointed out on p. 65603 (first column) that EPA suggests that ash fro m the burning of excluded industrial wipes cannot be F

- listed hazardous waste because the industrial wipes were never a hazardous waste. Additionally, the commenter stated that 261.4(a)(22)(vii) allows laundry sludges derived from the cleaning of solvent w ipes to be disposed of as non

- listed waste. Because i t appears to be inconsistent to state that solvent derived from excluded wipes can be F

- listed hazardous waste, but that ash and laundry sludges derived from excluded wipes cannot, and the commenter requ est ed clarification. Also, the commenter felt that it is unclear whether solvents leaked during transportation would ‘reacquire’ F

- listing (see p. 65596, third column). [193]

(g) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, the conditional exclusions are only applicable to the contaminated wipes themselves and do not apply to free liquid spent solvent (i.e., free liquid spent solvent removed from solvent

contaminated wipes are hazardous waste solvents an d are not excluded under the final rule ). As a condition of the exclusions, free liquids must be removed at the point of transport from the generator to a laundry, landfill or combustor. Because the free liquid spent solvents are simply being removed from the wipes and are not excluded under the final rule, these free liquid spent solvents remain subject to the F001

- F005 listings under 40 CFR 261.31. Free liquid solvent leaked during transportation remains listed hazardous waste as well.

### 135 On the other hand, downstream residuals resulting from treatment or disposal of the excluded wipes , such as laundry sludge or ash, are newly generated wastes. Because solvent

- contaminated wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule exclusions are not hazardous waste s , the mixture and derived from rules do not apply to these downstream residuals. Therefore, the ash or laundry sludge would not be subject to the F001

- F005 solvent listings under 40 CFR 261.31 and would instead be subject to the waste determination requirements of parts 261 and 262 , just as is required of any newly generated waste.

(h) COMMENTS : One commenter asked EPA to clarify if

, in the definition of solid waste rule

, EPA excludes only materials that remain within the generating industry, that position woul d have no effect on the allowance of cross

industry transfers for purposes of this industrial wipes exclusion. [264]

(h ) RESPONSE : The Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rule and the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes rule are two separate rulemaking efforts. The DSW rule does not impact how solvent

- contaminated wipes may be transferred (cross

- industry) to appropriate laundries, combustors, and landfills in accordance with the final rule exclusions.

Around the same time EPA proposed the solvent

- contaminated wipes rule, EPA had also proposed revisions to the definition of solid waste to exclude hazardous secondary materials that were generated and reclaimed in a continuous process within the same industry (68 FR 61558, October 28, 2003). However, in response to a nu mber of adverse comments on the 2003 DSW proposal, EPA decided to restructure its approach and in March 2007, proposed instead two exclusions from the definition of solid waste, one exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator and one exclusion for hazardous secondary materials transferred to another person for reclamation (72 FR 14172, March 26, 2007). EPA went on to finalize this second proposal in a final rule in October 2008 (73 FR 64668, October 30, 2008). EP A has since proposed revisions to the final rule (76 FR 44094, July 22, 2011).

(i) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that, in some state/regions, whether or not industrial wipes have been regulated as a listed hazardous waste has depended on whether the solv ent was applied to the wipe before use or whether the solvent was applied to equipment before being wiped. To provide much needed consistency for any wipes that may not meet either of the proposed exclusions, and therefore, remain subject to hazardous wast e regulations, the commenter requested that EPA clarify this issue as a matter of federal policy, to avoid the potential waste determination problems in the field and the associated transaction costs. [264]

(i) RESPONSE : Under the final rule, EPA is not m aking a distinction between whether solvents were applied to the wipe before use or applied first to the equipment before being wiped. EPA finds that any solvent that, when discarded, would be a listed hazardous waste and that is then com m ingled with a wip e would render the entire solvent

- contaminated wipe a listed hazardous waste. Those solvent

- contaminated wipes must then be managed in compliance with the conditions of the final rule exclusions or must be managed according to applicable hazardous
waste re gulations. Under the final rule exclusions, free liquids removed from the solvent

- contaminated wipes or from the container holding the wipes must be managed according to the applicable regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.

(j) COMMENTS : One c ommenter requested that EPA should clearly state, in the preamble to the final rule, the legal basis for jurisdiction over wipes contaminated with listed solvents before they release them from their jurisdiction through a conditional exclusion. The comment er stated that s ome gene rators have argued that solvent

- contaminated wipes are not listed hazardous waste, but rather manufacturing wastes, and are not included in the listing description for spent solvents. In addition, the commenter asserted that the contained

- in policy does not cause the wipes to be listed because the policy was developed to address environmental media and the mixture rule does not apply because the resulting waste was not the mixing of two separate waste streams. The commenter a rgued that the federal register notice did not provide a regula tory explanation as to why wipe s contaminated with listed solvents must be managed as listed hazardous waste. The commenter also noted that EPA’s use of policy to regulate hazardous waste
prese nts difficulty for Ohio because state laws prohibit applying policies as if they are rules. [266]

(j) RESPONSE : Under RCRA , for a solid waste to be a hazardous waste, it must either be listed as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261 subpart D or exhibit a hazardous characteristic under part 261 subpart C. Secondary materials can also become hazardous wastes if they contain listed hazardous wastes. Thus, wipes contaminated with solvents that are listed hazardous wastes when discarded become listed hazardo us wastes themselves. When wipes

### 136 are contaminated with solvents that are not listed hazardous wastes when discarded, the contaminated wipe is regulated as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. EPA has clearly stated this in the preamble to the final rule.

EPA agrees with the commenter that t he contained

- in policy applies to environmental media and thus does not appl y to solvent

- contaminated wipes. However, the mixture rule may apply in cases where hazardous waste is mixed with

non

- hazardous solid waste.

EPA notes that the final rule codifies its policy regarding solvent

- contaminated wipes into the federal regulations and that the final rule will allow states to formally adopt the policy into their own state regulations.

(k) COMMENTS : One commenter suggests that EPA explain in the final rule preamble the relationship or interaction the final rule will have on the applicability of the derived from rule and the LDRs with regards to solvent

- contaminated wipes. [266]

(k ) RESPONSE : The derived from rule applies to hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal processes. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes are not hazardous wastes provided the conditions of the exclusion are met. Therefore, the derived from rule does not apply to solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under the final rule exclusions

. R esiduals, such as laundry sludge or ash, generated from the laundering or combustion of solvent

contaminated wipes are new wastes and, if hazardous, must be managed according to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 273. This is consistent with the way the existing hazardous waste regulations apply to any
waste stream. Similarly, t he LDRs do not apply to solvent

- contaminated wipes because the wipes are not ha zardous wastes provided the conditions of the exclusion are met.



## 16. Miscellaneous

(a) COMMENTS : One commenter requested that EPA consider excluding wipes contaminated with various types of fuel from cleaning up fuel spills from the definition of hazard ous waste. Many of these are contaminated with low levels of benzene that pose little risk to human health or the environment. [139]

(a) RESPONSE : In developing the solvent

- contaminated wipes rule EPA only evaluated wipes that were contaminated with solve nts listed as hazardous wastes F001 through F005. The solvent

- contaminated wipes exclusion s are based on a risk analysis tailored to solvent

- contaminated wipes, and thus would not be applicable to other wastes , such as fuels

.
(b) COMMENTS : One commenter requested a 60

- day extension of the comment period. [140]

(b) RESPONSE : EPA granted two 30

- day extensions (60 days total) of the comment period.

(c ) COMMENTS : One commenter said that EPA's 1997 proposed rule would have required industrial laundry facilities to meet national was tewater pretreatment standards. The commenter stated that EPA did not issue a final rule on this significant source of pollution, but chose instead to utilize two alternatives: 1) the LaundryESP Program, a voluntary program i mplemented by the industrial laundry trade associations, and 2) defer the issue to the Office of Soli d Waste which was working on a r ule to prevent solvents from entering the industrial laundering process. [185]

(c ) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges that the Agency did not issue national wastewater pretreatment standards for laundries, choosing instead to defer the issue to the Solvent

- Contaminated Wipes rulemaking. Under the final rule, solvent

- contaminated wipes must contain no free liquids as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test. Compliance with t his condition should reduce the amount of solvent contained in the wipes going to laundries , which further reduces the solvent in wastewaters discharged to POTWs.

(d ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA’s statement that the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) printer industry stakeholders complained about regulatory confusion pertaining to solvent contaminated wipes is not relevant to Massachusetts, as the Massachusetts Department of E nvironmental Protection (MADEP) worked closely

### 137 with the printers trade association to design and implement the Environmental Results Program for printers, and has not received negative feedback from the trade association on MADEP’s solvent

- contaminated wip es policy. The commenter stated that MADEP's policy is clear and effective and has addressed the “ambiguity of the rules and regulations applicable to the disposable and reusable solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes,” which the printing industry CSI had c omplained about. [194]

(d ) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges this comment but does not have information on Massachusetts’ program with which to evaluate th ese statements.

(e ) COMMENTS : One commenter expressed support for California Assembly Bill 2732, by Califo rnia State Assembly Member Mervyn Dymally, which seeks to give workers better protection against toxic chemicals in the workplace. The commenter noted that firms often use shop towels rather than disposable wipes because of the absence of regulatory requir ements for shop towels, even though shop towels are often problematic due to the presence of residues, metal chips and contaminants from previous users. [263]

(e ) RESPONSE : Although not specifically designed to address worker safety, in the final rule, EP A is requiring closed containers, labeling, recordkeeping, no free liquids, and accumulation limits in order to ensure that reusable wipes are properly managed in order to address potential risk from the wipes and to protect human health and the environmen t. EPA also notes that the final rule establishes similar management conditions for both disposable and reusable wipes, thus RCRA regulations will be more similar for the two types of wipes. This should address the commenter’s concern that some firms have been compelled to use reusable wipes, because of the reduced regulatory requirements, even though the se wipes may not be the best fit for the type of process employed by the firm.

(f

) COMMENTS : One commenter recommended that EPA consider listing industria l wipes as universal waste in lieu of its proposed exclusions from the definition of solid and hazardous waste because of the following advantages: ( 1) the regulated community is familiar with the universal waste system, so compliance rates would be higher ; ( 2) wipes meet the criteria for universal waste, and such a designation would cover all wipes, not just those that would otherwise be RCRA

- regulated; ( 3) all facilities in the handling chain would have appropriate management standards; ( 4) e nforcement would be easier; ( 5) d isposable and recyclable wipes may be handled in the same manner up to the point of receipt at the destinati on facility; 6) no need for arbitrary “dry” or “no free liquids” standards for most handlers; ( 7) no need for list of banned solvents; ( 8) can accommodate wipes that are hazardous for constituents other than solvents (e.g. TCLP metals or non

- solvent listed waste); ( 9) laundry sludges would be “derived

- from” hazardous wastes; ( 10) would remove the potential applicabilit y of solid waste permitting requirements for some handling facilities and companies engaging in intra

- company transfers; ( 11) the compliance history of laundries justifies a more structured approach with additional requirements like the universal waste
pro gram; ( 12) facilities could stabilize exotic solvents or other solvents prone to spontaneous combustion; ( 13) related materials could be included. [271]

( f

) RESPONSE : EPA does not agree that solvent

- contaminated wipes should be managed under the universal waste standards. Although the universal waste regulations may be familiar (as any existing regulation is familiar compared to a new regulation) and may standardize certain hazardous waste requirements, EPA finds that this approach would greatly, and unnec essarily, increase the costs of the rule without prov iding sufficient environmental benefit. Under the universal waste regulations, solvent

- contaminated wipes would be considered hazardous wastes and thus must be
sent to a hazardous waste facility subject to regulation in 40 CFR 264 and 265. This would effectively preclude solvent

- contaminated wipes from being sent to industrial laundries without a RCRA storage permit and would run contrary to current practice in the vast majority of states. Additionally, s olvent

- contaminated wipes could only be sent to hazardous waste combustors and landfills, which is contrary to EPA’s findings and risk analysis which demonstrate that certain solvent

- contaminated wipes may be disposed in MSWLFs without posing a risk to human health and the environment. Costs for industrial laundries would further increase as a result of having to manage laundry sludge as a hazardous waste by virtue of the derived

- from rule, despite EPA’s risk analysis demonstrati ng that laundry sludge does not pose significant risk when disposed in MSWLFs.

(g ) COMMENTS : One commenter requested clarification on the relationship of this rule to the federal used oil regulations of 40 CFR 279. In particular, the commenter wanted to k now would the proposed rule supersede the used oil rules, would the used oil rules supersede the proposed rule, or would neither rule supersede the other? Also, the commenter wanted to know what the effect is of the Used Oil Recycling Act on the relationsh ip of the two rules.

### 138 As noted in t he final rule preamble for the p art 279 used oil regulations, the commenter said that the used oil regulations operate under dual authority: namely, (1) under RCRA, for those used oils that may be characteristically hazard ous; and, (2) under UORA for both characteristically hazardous and non

- characteristically

- hazardous used oils. As a result of this dual authority, the commenter believes wipes that are contaminated with used oils that are not characteristically haz ardous would be subject to the p art 279 regulations. Therefore, although there may be an easy call to be made for wipes that are contaminated with used oils that are characteristically hazardous, say, due to lead contamination (i.e., they would not eligible for t he proposed exclusion), the commenter argued that there is no easy call for used oils that are not characteristically hazardous, or that are characteristically hazardous only due to the presence of a solvent. In addition, the commenter stated that it is no t clear what the regulatory status of removed liquids would be if the liquids consist of both solvents and used oil. For example, if a wipe that is characteristically hazardous for the solvent methyl ethyl ketone , and is also contaminated with used oil, is processed to remove liquids, the commenter asked would the language of the proposed rule require the removed liquid to be managed as a hazardous waste, even though it might qualify as a used oil under the “used oil mixture rule” of § 279.10(b)? The

commen ter added that proposed § 261.4(a)(22)(vii) states that sludge from industrial laundries “may be disposed of in solid waste landfills if it does not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.” But , the commenter asked, what if this sludge meets the definiti on of a used oil? The commenter wants to know c ould it still be disposed of in a landfill, or would it continue to be subject to regulation under p art 279? [271]

(g ) RESPONSE : In developing t he solvent

- contaminated wipes rule , EPA only evaluated wipes that were contaminated with solvents listed as hazardous wastes F001 through F005 and conducted a risk analysis tailored to solvent

- contaminated wipes. The solvent

- contaminated wipes rule thus is not applicable to other wastes, such a s fuels, and does not supersede or impact the Used Oil Recycling Act or federal used oil regulations under 40 CFR 279. The regulations are independent of each other. Solvent

- contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated with listed hazardous waste, other tha n solvents, are not eligible for the exclusion. Additionally, solvent

- contaminated wipes that are co

- contaminated with other non

- listed hazardous waste that exhibit a hazardous characteristic (other than ignitability) due to co

- contaminant s are also not el igible for the exclusion. Laundry sludges are a new point of waste generation and would be regulated according to the applicable RCRA regulations found in parts 260 through 273

.

Under § 279.10(b), if a used oil is mixed with listed hazardous waste, the mi xture must be regulated as hazardous waste. Thus, in the commenter’s example, if a wipe contains the solvent methyl ethyl ketone , which is a listed hazardous waste (F005), and is also contaminated with used oil, the free liquid mixture must be regulated as hazardous waste and cannot be regulated under the used oil regulations. Furthermore, if a used oil is mixed with a solvent that exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the free liquid mixture must be regulated as a hazardous waste if it itself exhibits a haz ardous characteristic as a result of the solvent.

With respect to the commenter’s question on laundry sludge, we note that the definition of used oil in § 279.1 is “any oil that has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil, that has been used and as a result of such use is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities.” Laundry sludge, thus, does not meet the definition of used oil and would not be subject to regulation under part 279.

(h ) COMMENTS : One commenter discussed the assumptions that EPA used for evaluating potential risks at landfills in the Technical Background document. For disposable industrial wipes, EPA used high

- end parameter assumptions. For reusable industrial wipes, EPA used central tendency assumptions. Interestingly, when a Large

Sized Laundry (high

- end parameter) was evaluated (Table 23, p.133), the exact same number of solvents

– 6

– was found to be ineligible for the reusable industrial wipes as was found to be ineligible for the disposable industrial wipes. Yet, EPA is r equiring that disposable industrial wipes meet a 5 gram limit and EPA is not requiring any condition of this nature for reusable industrial wipes. [272]

(h ) RESPONSE : Since the November 2003 proposal was published, and in response to adverse public commen ts on the risk screening analysis that supported the November 2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a comprehensive risk analysis to estimate the potential risk from disposal of solvent

- contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in lined and unlined landfills. Th is risk analysis was subjected to external peer review, presented for public comment in a 2009 NODA, and revised where appropriate. In support of this analysis, EPA: (1) collected and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amou nt of the solvents contained in the wastes of concern, (2) used a
state

- of

- the

- art landfill model to examine potential risks posed by possible releases from landfills to the air and groundwater, and (3) calculated the potential risks using the most up

- to

- d ate human health toxicity values available.

### 139 The risk analysis used conservative assumptions to ensure that potential risks from landfill disposal were assessed protectively. The final risk analysis demonstrates that wipes contaminated with certain hazardou s solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when disposed in lined MSWLFs

. The final rule also finalizes the no free liquids condition using the Paint Filter Liquids Test for both reusable and disposable wipes.

(i ) COMMENTS : One commenter noted that in Table 6 of the Technical Background document, Maine’s current regulatory status for wipes is inaccurat ely described because Maine regulates all F

- listed solvent contaminated wipes as hazardous wastes. [331]

(i ) RESPONSE : EPA acknowledges this comment and has noted this in the preamble to the final rule as well as in the RIA.

(j ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that EPA should be wary of compromising its current regulatory structures through its intervention in what is essentia lly an industrial wipes market share issue, because essentially the same narrow arguments it has made to support conditional exclusions for disposable industrial wipes can be advanced to support comparable exclusions for granular absorbent materials. Perha ps, after almost a quarter century of regulatory experience, the commenter believes it may be more appropriate for EPA to revisit the whole concept of the F001

- F0 05 listing of spent solvents and consider regulating these materials on the basis of their physical properties and toxicity characteristics. [316]

(j ) RESPONSE : The final rule is based on data and information specific to solvent

- contaminated wipes, including management of solvent

- contaminated wipes and EPA’s final risk analysis evaluating wipes contaminated with listed solvents and laundry sludge. Therefore, EPA does not agree with the commenter who said that the final rule arguments can be simply extended to support exclusions for other types of hazardous waste. Furthermore

, These data and info rmation do not describe free liquid spent solvent listed under F001

- F005, as these wastes present different characteristics and risk profiles. R evisiting the concept of the F001

- F005 listing is not in the scope of the rulemaking.

(k ) COMMENTS : Several co mmenters discussed the regulatory status of removed solvents. The commenters supported EPA’s explanation in the proposal that solvent removed from an industrial wipe and reused without reclamation would not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste, an d several also supported EPA’s proposed language that solvent removal technologies and equipment are not subject to RCRA treatment standards, which should lead to mor e solvent recovery and reuse. [199

- 1011, 267, 320, 346]

(k ) RESPONSE : Under the final rul e, f ree liquids removed from solvent

- contaminated wipes must be collected and managed according to the applicab le hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273 and may count towards determining monthly generator status. Generators may also re cycle free liquid spent solvent within their allowed accumulation period (e.g., 90 or 180 days) without a RCRA permit under the provisions of § 261.6(c), which exempts the recycling process itself from certain hazardous waste requirements. Additionally, EP A confirms that, under the final rule, solvent extraction conducted to remove solvent from solvent

- contaminated wipes managed under the final rule is not subject to RCRA hazardous waste treatment standards because the solvent

- contaminated wipes are not RCR A hazardous wastes.

(l ) COMMENTS : One commenter stated that it is expected that EPA will re

- propose a rule which would allow industry to comment on any of the conditions that would be used to exclude solvent

- contaminated wipes from the RCRA definitions of solid and hazardous waste. [462]

(l ) RESPONSE : On November 20, 2003, EPA proposed to exclude solvent

- contaminated wipes from RCRA hazardous waste requirements (68 FR 65586). In the proposal, EPA requested comment on a number of conditions it

was considering for the exclusions. EPA does not agree that a re

- proposal is necessary.