Solvent-Contaminated Wipes 

Final Rule: Response to Comments 

Document

June 2013
2

Overview

This Response to Comments 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: Comment 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 

rule, 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: RiskBased 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 Support .................................................................................................................... 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 Variance 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. Enforcement.......................................................................................................................... 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 SolventContaminated 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 Federal 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 Waste 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 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
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 noted 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 solventcontaminated wipes and urged EPA to support alternatives to toxic 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 exemption. 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 believes 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 closed 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 and 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 solvents 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 exclusion 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 concerns 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 containers 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 its 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 solvent-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 commenters 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 management 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 customers, 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 being 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 field 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 EPA 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: Regarding the rule’s impact on business, EPA’s final rule conditionally excludes solventcontaminated 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 expected benefits, such as pollution prevention and waste 

minimization benefits, fire safety benefits, and removing the “waste” label are estimated to be an additional $3.7 to 

$9.9 million per year). Furthermore, in choosing conditions for the final rule exclusions, 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 practically the same conditions for reusable wipes and 

disposable wipes, 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 with 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 solventcontaminated wipes generated in a month. Small shops that generate small quantities of solvent-contaminated wipe 

may qualify for conditionally exempt 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 reduction 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 

generators.

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 requirements 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 non-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. [194] 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 wipes 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 regulators to enforce. EPA notes that this is 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 

solvent-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 has provided definitions in 40 CFR 260.10 to more clearly define 

“solvent-contaminated wipe” and “wipe.” 

(e) COMMENTS: One commenter 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 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 

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, 

trichloroethylene, 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 regulation. 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 SolventContaminated Wipes.” The solvent-contaminated wipes 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 combustors) 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 

potential for mismanagement.

(f) COMMENTS: One commenter provided a link to a newspaper article and expressed concern 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 provides 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 reduce volumes of hazardous waste. Although the EPA believes there will be some recycling benefit to 

the final rule, 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 recycled 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 level, the long-standing issues 

associated with management 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 the 

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 

as local community leadership. Commenters generally felt that the exclusions, especially performance standards, 

appropriately provide flexibility to regulated entities 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 risks 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 swift 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 proposed rule because it would 1) level the regulatory playing field 

between reusable and disposable wipes; 2) establish a sound national consistent policy for storing, transporting, and 

disposing of used wipes; 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 and 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, 309, 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) including 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 this 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 65591). [303]

(a) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenters that support the rulemaking 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 environment; 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-contaminated 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 commenter disagreed, and supported EPA’s regulations that “take into account 

the intended disposition of the wipes. The commenter stated that managing 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 environment. The commenter added that separate 

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 focuses attention on the 

solvent and not the wipe: “It should not make any difference whether the solvent is placed on a laundered or nonlaundered wiping product, as long as they are both under the same regulations and requirements it will allow the 

user to select the most 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 advantage for 

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 risk 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 release 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 both 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:

container labeling during accumulation, storage and transit [316]; more stringent performance standards for 

container closure and design, permit requirements, and accumulation and management timeframes. [330] One 

commenter expressed general support for the proposed exemption 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 sent 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 generators 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 the 

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.” The commenter added that there are a number 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 unnecessary 

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 sufficient 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 (whereas the November 2003 proposed rule proposed that 11 solvents would be 

ineligible for the disposable wipes exclusion, in the final rule only 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 solventcontaminated wipes are being sent to a lined or an unlined landfill.

1.2 General Opposition

(a) COMMENTS: Some commenters generally 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 Arkansas 

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 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. 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 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.

Additionally, EPA has finalized a number of conditions for both exclusions that will ensure the solventcontaminated wipes will be managed 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 comply with certain recordkeeping 

requirements and may not accumulate wipes for longer than 180 days.

 1 Solvent-contaminated wipes could also be sent to hazardous waste 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 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. Under the final rule, the conditions of the exclusion ensure that the solventcontaminated 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. These 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 it 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 solventcontaminated 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 regulates 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 managed 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 support of this analysis, EPA: (a) collected and 

reviewed information from a wide variety of sources to estimate the amount of the solvents contained in 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 demonstrates 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 solvent-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 political contributions from industrial laundries had a bigger impact 

on the proposed rule than concerns for worker or community safety. 

(b) RESPONSE: In response to comments that political contributions from industrial laundries had a big impact on 

the rulemaking, 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 evidence 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 

for 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 what 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 pollution 

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 liquids” 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’ policies 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 solvent 

discharges either through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or, for indirect discharges 

to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (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 that 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 commenters that said that wipes will 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 characteristic 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 in compliance with applicable Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment 

standards. One commenter 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 that are appropriate for universal 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 generating 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 the 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 generators may simply handle disposable wipes as hazardous regardless of the exclusion and manage 

through RCRA permitted treatment, storage and disposal facilities, since the burden of meeting the generator 

conditions for the exclusion clearly outweigh any benefits. The commenter argued that this will certainly not meet 

EPA's goals under the proposed rule of increasing solvent recycling, waste minimization, and pollution prevention 

and 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 this 

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 observed to be too 

complicated. 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 complexity 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 possible 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 different conditions for 

reusable and disposable wipes, it is very complicated and makes it difficult 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 handwringing 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 regulations. 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, for 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 proposed 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, where authorized states have defined “no free liquids” using a different standard, generators in those 

states must meet the state standard for purposes of meeting the “no free liquids” condition. This ensures that the 

final rule complements existing state policies and thus, does not place an unnecessary burden on states and the 

regulated community to change existing practices. Of course, the authorized state standard must be 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 solventcontaminated wipes eligible for the exclusion for disposable wipes. Because the risks from release 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 both exclusions, EPA has reduced the burden of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially for 

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 performance 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 wipes 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 have 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 

use rhetoric that laundered wipes are reused and therefore are being recycled. However this is not the case and 

different standards should not be applied. [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 

the 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 wipe, given 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. Because the risks from 

release 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. 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 

burden of implementation and compliance of the rule, especially for facilities that use both types of wipes. 

EPA acknowledges commenters that stated that reusable wipes have an equal impact on the environment as 

disposable wipes. 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 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 handled 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 solventcontaminated 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 treatment 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. This 

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 compared 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 disposal 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 

commerce 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 postconsumer 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 disposable. [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 passage 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 disposable wipes should be held to stricter standards than reusable wipes. [199-1008, 199-

1012, 278, 303, 458]

(c) RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that laundering 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 rulemaking. EPA did not collect data 

regarding generated amounts of solid waste from laundering as compared to disposable wipes. 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 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 pose significant risk to human health and 

the environment, when properly managed under the conditions 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 evaluated the Gradient study as part of this rulemaking. However, under the final rule, solventcontaminated 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-contaminated 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 minimize 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 human 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 commenters stated that this lack of national guidance has caused considerable confusion 

regarding the proper management of soiled shop towels and other wipes such as clean up pads or swabs as many of 

the existing state policies have differing requirements from state to state, county to county even township to 

township, many of which are in conflict with one another. The commenters said this rule should clarify and simplify 

the mismatch of regulation currently in existence. A few commenters noted that this rule 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 discussed 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 reduction 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 exclusion 

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 solventcontaminated wipes 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 policy led to different regulatory schemes for both reusable and 

disposable wipes in the EPA regions and states. 

EPA has thus promulgated the rulemaking to provide a consistent regulatory framework 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. Under 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 authorized 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 compliance with the provisions of the final rule in advance of adoption 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; however, 

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 stringent requirements than the final rule are required to modify their 

programs to maintain 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 regulations, as required 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 there 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 questioned

whether solvent recovery for recycling occurs at laundries (as opposed to intra-company handling facilities).[168, 

170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 198, 257, 306, 313, 316, 323, 337]
18

Commenters 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 commenter stated that this rule fails to acknowledge wellestablished 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 waste 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 appropriate 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, 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]

(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 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. It is not the purpose of this rule to solely 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 

environment. Under the final rule, generators of solvent-contaminated wipes must remove free liquid spent solvent

from the wipes. This 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 spent solvent under this provision. 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 cement 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 certain 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 this waste 

stream will simply be relegated to less stringent management practices currently 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 

indefinite future date. The commenter thinks this may occur because the proposed rule does not have adequate 

controls for accumulation time-frames, notification, and reporting activities related to management of solventcontaminated 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 increase national 

consistency if states adopt it. [325, 330] Several commenters expressed concern that, over the last several years, a 

large percentage of facilities generating soiled industrial wipes have modified their practices to eliminate solvents 

that are listed and characteristic 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 final rule does not prohibit generators from reducing the volume and toxicity of the solventcontaminated wipe wastestream. 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, the final rule does not change the incentives for generators to switch to nonhazardous solvents: sufficient incentive still exists as these generators would not have to manage the non-hazardous 

free liquid spent solvent under hazardous waste regulations. Additionally, the 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 solvent-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 

regulators 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 so 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 that 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) Encourage 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) 

Reducing 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 encourages 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 solventcontaminated 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 preventing 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 the

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 and reusable wipes 

does not make sense because the risks from release of the solvent are inherent in both. Therefore, in the final rule, 

EPA has applied 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 are 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.

(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 within 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-contaminated 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 commenters 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 machines. [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 agrees 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 the 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 facility" 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 commenter 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 is 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 this could create an unwarranted inference that wipes from non-industrial 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 agrees 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 issue. 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 other materials, such as rayon, wool, silk, or other materials yet to be developed, 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 required 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" with 

"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: "wipe 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” includes 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 for 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 regulations. [155]

One commenter stated that in 68 FR 65618, the proposed 40 CFR 260.10 “no free liquids” and “solvent extraction” 

definitions refer to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24),” while the correct reference appears to be 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22).In 

addition, the commenter 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 the 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 regulatory exclusion is not only for wipes used in solvent cleaning 

applications, the commenter thinks the term "solvent-contaminated" should be deleted or a definition for this term 

needs to be provided. The commenter believes some confusion currently exists, such as if an industrial wipe used to 

clean up a gasoline spill falls under this regulation or if 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 proposed 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 

definition in those places. The definition of “solvent-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 inappropriate to use that defined term in regulations that 

provide exclusions to solid and hazardous 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-contaminated 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 Wipes 

(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 throughout this rulemaking of the limits on its jurisdiction to only regulate discarded 

materials under RCRA Subtitle C. The commenter believes that only 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 solventcontaminated 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 free 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 contamination 

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 first 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 material 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 chemical 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 releases of hazardous constituents into the 

environment (e.g., through spills). Furthermore, the wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in nonleaking, closed containers, which reduces the possibility the solvents will be released to the environment.

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, generators 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 the 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 noteworthy 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 generator. In some cases, 

hazardous waste reclaimers gain their primary revenue from the fees charged to generators to receive and manage 
23

the hazardous waste and not from the sale of the recycled product. This creates an incentive for the hazardous waste 

reclaimer 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 its 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 processing 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 exclusion 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 “processing” 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 Agency’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 undertaken - 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, conducted by reusable wipe generators under the proposed “no free liquids” condition 

would not increase or contribute meaningfully to the value of reusable wipes. The proposed rule falls far short 

of what EPA has typically required for this criterion to be satisfied. 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 wipes to make them more 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 wipes 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 not 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 wipes are not handled in a commodity-like manner; the ownership of, and 

benefit from, reusable wipes 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 wipes is simply discarded without regulatory controls. A final point differentiating reusable 

wipes 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 recycled 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 wipes, 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 proposed 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 constituent that renders reusable wipes 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 reusable shop towels attached to comment].

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

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

− The proposal fails to regulate reusable wipes 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 wipes containing free liquids in order to 

remove solvent from the wipes sufficient to meet the “no free liquids” test is simply unlawful. Because 

such reusable wipes would not have been initially “reclaimed” prior to shipment to another facility for 

removal of free 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 definition of solid waste for reusable wipes on the basis that they might otherwise 

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

• The commenter stated that EPA cannot lawfully promulgate a final exclusion from the definition of solid 

waste for reusable wipes. Instead, in order to furnish reusable wipes 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 environment. EPA should impose upon reusable wipes 

the same set of regulatory conditions it decides to promulgate 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 specifically apply the criteria found in 40 CFR 260.31(c) to 

solvent-contaminated wipes being laundered or dry cleaned. Rather, the Agency presented the concept of the partial 

reclamation variance 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.

As 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 activities.” While the spent solvent removed from solvent-contaminated wipes 

in the form of free liquid may 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 that solventcontaminated 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 reclamation variance regulatory criteria. However, EPA notes that under the final rule, generators 

must ensure that reusable solvent-contaminated wipes contain no free liquids as determined using the Paint 

Filter Liquids 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 solvent-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-contaminated wipes have 

recognized value in that 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, generators 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.

• EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the importance of labeling reusable wipes, as is typical for other 

raw materials and commodities. Therefore, under the final 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 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, the solvent-contaminated wipes 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 dry 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 that 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, corrosivity, or reactivity because of wastes with which they are cocontaminated would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion (68 FR 65602). Thus, solventcontaminated wipes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic for metals would not be eligible for the 

conditional exclusions. This is because we did not evaluate risks posed by solvent-contaminated wipes that 

exhibit characteristics due to co-contaminants, other than ignitability. EPA has finalized this provision in 

the final rule.

• Although the final rule 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 commenter notes that EPA’s proposed conditions for container transport 

suggest that solvents will escape from containers. [351]

(b) RESPONSE: EPA does not agree that the solvent-contaminated wipe itself is necessarily a solid waste because 

the residuals (solvents) 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 discarded. 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 release 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 solventcontaminated wipes being laundered or dry cleaned. Rather, the Agency presented the concept of the partial 

reclamation variance 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 that reusable wipes 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 benefits 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 removed 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 are not solid 

wastes under the final rule conditional exclusion, the final rule should not impact how 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 not 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 intracompany 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 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 control 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 offsite. [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 environment, 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, solventcontaminated 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 controlling 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 exclusion 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 disposal 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 hazardous 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 that 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 analysis; (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) COMMENTS: 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, removing 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 disposal over recovery, and because states may not adopt it 

because it does not adequately consider the risks of disposal, and/or it conflicts with state law or environmental 

objectives. [325]

(b) RESPONSE: EPA has made a number of changes in final rule to improve the enforceability 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 provides 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 be 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 disposal, 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 between $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 environmental 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 solventcontaminated towels destined 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 should 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 to 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 be 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-contaminated 

wipes do not pose significant risks to human health and the environment when disposed in composite-lined landfills. 

Therefore, EPA finds that 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 wipes 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 solventcontaminated 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 

requirements 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 under 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 “weigh” 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 disposable 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 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 methods 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 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 the exclusion may not apply to a solventcontaminated 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 solvent-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 wipes 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 use 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 that 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 with 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 65619. 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 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.

(f) COMMENTS: One commenter requested that 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 generators of disposable wipes have their wipes 

transported to treatment facilities that utilize heat recovery (e.g. cement kilns). Licensed, permitted hazardous waste 

treatment facilities provide 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 being managed by generators that use a permitted hazardous waste treatment facility 

continue to meet the conditional exclusion from the regulatory definition 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 regulatory 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 solventcontaminated wipes to hazardous waste permitted facilities regulated under 40 CFR parts 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, solventcontaminated wipes being disposed must contain no free liquids. EPA agrees that wipes sent to permitted facilities 

must meet the conditions 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 nonleaking, 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 identified 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 rule. [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 conditions 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 comprehensive 

evaluation of risk and is more appropriate for a national-level listing decision compared to the DRAS model. The 

DRAS 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 purpose. 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 on 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 

presented 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 comment 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 applicability 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 suggested 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 

hazardous waste characteristic. 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 exclusions 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 commenter 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-

F005 codes are identified in § 261.31(a) as being ignitable and toxic only. The commenter added that none are also 

identified as exhibiting the characteristics of corrosivity or reactivity and that neither the proposal nor the Technical 

Background Document contains discussion of why these wipes may be corrosive or reactive. The commenter 

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 environment. 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 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.

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 exclusions. 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-leaking 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. The 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 exhibiting 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. Because 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 presence 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 nonhazardous wipes. One commenter expressed concern that states 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 commenters noted that solvent-contaminated wipes which do not meet 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 or characteristic waste 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 nonprohibited solvents and 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 belives 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 and 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 due to another characteristic). [270, 294, 311, 331, 332, 338, 

366, 358]

(b) RESPONSE: EPA agrees that the solvent-contaminated wipe exclusions would only apply to wipes that would 

otherwise be hazardous waste. 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 solvents 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 not otherwise regulatory hazardous wastes.

EPA 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 contain 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 less 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 established 

for trichloroethylene at § 261.24 (and thus would not be characteristically hazardous for trichlorethylene), would not 

be hazardous waste due to the presence of trichloroethylene. Therefore, these wipes may be managed under the 

disposable wipe exclusion.

(c) COMMENTS: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposal would allow hazardous waste spill cleanup 

residues to go into Subtitle D landfills or wastewater treatment 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 hazardous 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 the 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 thus 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 the proposed language only addresses wipes that contain an 

F-listed solvent, a corresponding spilled P- or U-listed commercial chemical product, or wipes that exhibit a 

characteristic of hazardous waste when that characteristic results from the F-listed solvent or corresponding P- or Ulisted commercial chemical product. They stated that the proposed language fails to take into account that 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 waste 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 wipes 

may be contaminated with P- and U-listed solvents that did not result from a spill 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 means 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)(19). 

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 fails the ignitability characteristic due to use of the solvent would 

be exempted from the definition of solid waste. The commenter asserts that this inconsistency will make it 

extremely difficult to be sure that wipe recycling operations are being performed in strict accordance with these 

RCRA regulations. The commenter added that this 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 regulatory 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 this 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 treatment sludge subject to EPA or state regulation. 

The commenter added that as for improperly disposing of spent solvents (or other hazardous wastes) by mixing them 

in with wipes and then sending the wipes to a laundering facility, as EPA states in the Memorandum of February 14, 

1994, this is clearly not allowed under the federal regulations. Further, the commenter added that solvent 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 have 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 proposed § 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 commenter suggested EPA clarify the regulatory text to 

correct the inadvertent exclusion of contaminated wipes exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability due to being “cocontaminated with ignitable waste.” The regulatory text should be amended, in pertinent part, to provide: “... when 

they [the wipes] contain an F-listed 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 characteristic 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 the 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 liquid 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 language 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 the 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 concern that these 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 

qualify for the exclusion for these ten (or any) solvents. [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 contribute any significant loading to landfills. The Agency believes such waste would 

be an 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 in 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 states EPA should not include 

tetrachloroethylene in the scope of the final exclusion 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 that 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 “dry 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 since 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 landfill 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 solvents 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 generators retain the burden of determining whether any waste stream is characteristically 

hazardous and are obligated to manage those waste streams as hazardous. [267]

One commenter stated that it is extremely difficult to ensure that prohibited wipes will not be disposed of at 

landfills. The commenter argued that there is no practical way for landfill operators to distinguish between wipes 

contaminated with methyl ethyl ketone and those contaminated with ethyl benzene without testing, which would be 

an insupportable burden. The commenter thinks one 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 state 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 it is very difficult to achieve zero concentrations, and products being cleaned with solvent 

wipes may actually contain the solvents at below these levels without the knowledge of the generator. The 

commenter added that industry 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 characteristically hazardous for methyl ethyl ketone but 

would be a F005 listed waste. Yet, the commenter added, under the 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 suggested 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 disposed 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 document 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 the 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 solventcontaminated 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 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, 

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, laboratory 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 of 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 contaminated 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 final rule on its 2012 final risk analysis, 

which has been both peer and publicly reviewed. Additionally, EPA is not finalizing the “dry” standard for solventcontaminated wipes being disposed. Please see section 5.4.3 for more information on this issue.

Regarding the 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 identification 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 2012 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, solventcontaminated 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 final 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 trichloroethylene 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 

provided 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 solventcontaminated wipes that exhibit the characteristic of ignitability are eligible for the exclusion because it would be 

difficult to determine whether the ignitability characteristic was 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-trichloroethane 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 solventcontaminated 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, solvent-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 finds 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 Filter 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 waste 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 

assumptions and parameters used in the toxic characteristic to establish a universal 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 solvents 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 use with solvents.” The commenter added that there 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 its 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 landfilling of disposable wipes and 

laundry sludge provided a “no free liquids” test based on a hand-wringing 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 commenters 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 analysis rather than apply the toxic characteristic

regulations to determine whether solvent-contaminated wipes can be disposed as solid wastes in MSWLFs. 
39

Therefore, wipes contaminated with benzene; chlorobenzene; o-,m-,p-creosols; methyl ethyl ketone; and/or 

tetrachloroethylene 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, solvent-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 disposal of solventcontaminated wipes and laundry sludge in MSWLFs. 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 published. 

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 comprehensive 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 waste.

The risk analysis for the 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 below 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-contaminated 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 ineligible 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 facilities 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-contaminated wipes.
40

(b) COMMENTS: Other commenters generally supported EPA’s proposed conditions. One commenter was 

generally supportive except for the “dry condition.” [156, 346]

(b) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenter who did not support the “dry” condition 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 landfills 

(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 in the case 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 represents an 

additional regulatory burden that is not justified based on previous Agency rulemakings or the risk analysis 

conducted by the Agency. The commenter argued imposition 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 conditions are necessary 

beyond that the wipe must not contain free liquids. EPA finds that the management conditions in the final rule are 

necessary to protect human health and the environment. The closed container standard ensures that solventcontaminated 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 solventcontaminated 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 order to ensure solventcontaminated 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 illegally 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 includes conditions designed to address potential risks during handling. Solventcontaminated 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 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. Additionally, the containers must be labeled “Excluded Solvent-contaminated Wipes” 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, solventcontaminated wipes must 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. The 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 additional 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 

to 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 course, 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 general comments that support the same transportation, container, 

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 the wipes meet the dry standard. [246, 

324, 354, 362, 684]

(a) RESPONSE: The Agency agrees with the comments because 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 solventcontaminated 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 compliance 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 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]

(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 the 

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 practices that would meet this condition include placing a sticker on a drum or a bag or preprinted 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 wipes. Some commenters recommended allowing selfsealing lids, drawstrings, zippers, or fastening devices, etc. and addressing conditions for containers used without 

sealed lids in transportation. One commenter suggests that containers designed to minimize releases 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 stated

that generators should be required to accumulate wipes in containers 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 supported the proposed conditions if the wipes 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 industry 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 protecting worker health and allows 

manufacturers to decide which design best suits their particular situation. The commenters also said closed sealed 

containers (such as impermeable drums with “screw-on” lids) would have a significant adverse economic impact on

laundries. [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 management 

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, instead 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 protection 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 exposure 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 adequately 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 management 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 basis 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 environment. [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 “closed” 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. Instead,

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 solventcontaminated 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 are 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 container (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 clamped 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 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 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 

always 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-leaking, 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 comply 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 between the fitted lid 

and the rim, except when it is necessary to add or remove solvent-contaminated wipes. Moreover, EPA’s nonleaking, 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 business 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 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 for 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, particularly 

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 disposed 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 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. 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 onsite to certain storage or processing 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 

transportation of wipes should not be limited 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 and 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 

inappropriate and unnecessary. [155, 264, 278, 301, 303, 312, 329, 338, 358]

(d) RESPONSE: For reasons explained 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 understands 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. 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. 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 is 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 requiring a closed container 

for transportation assumes wipes with no free liquids pose the same risk as solvent-contaminated wipes, which is 

counter to the underlying position of the proposed action. The commenter argued that solvent-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 plastic 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 even “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 these issues 

are especially 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 contained 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 the 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, cinched bags and would minimize evaporative loss. [358]

(f) RESPONSE: Under the final rule, the generator may choose how to accumulate, store, and transport solventcontaminated wipes provided that the generator meets the conditions of the final rule. 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. 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 sufficient protection to human 

health because OSHA standards are not enforceable at a large class of wipes users. The other commenter sees 

requirements under DOT and OSHA regulations to be sufficient and the appropriate regulatory authorities. [328, 

349]

(g) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with commenters that argued 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 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. 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 reduce 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 underscoring 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 duplicative to existing requirements with other existing regulations, for example, the San Diego County 

Air Pollution Control 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) RESPONSE: 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 attempted 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 that 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 explosive vapor mixtures can occur. [193, 350]

(i) RESPONSE: EPA understands 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 must 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 

the solvent-contaminated wipe does not contain free liquid spent solvent, which remains subject 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 wipes 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 covered container standard and is instead requiring that solventcontaminated 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 rule 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 appropriate to rely solely on OSHA regulations.

(k) COMMENTS: One commenter stated that although presumably 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 gained 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 ignitable characteristic waste (D003)). [280]

(k) RESPONSE: EPA agrees that relying solely on OSHA standards to address proper management of solventcontaminated wipes could 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 the final rule is not intended to impact how OSHA regulations apply to solventcontaminated wipes. 

(l) COMMENTS: 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 containing free liquid. Further, cloth or plastic bags are not designed to 

adequately resist failures during normal handling practices and cloth bags are permeable and do not restrict 

volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors and should not be used as containers 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, 

after a series of stakeholder meetings, cloth and plastic bags are now accepted in the proposed rulemaking.[193, 246, 

297, 330] However, several commenters agreed that plastic and cloth bags are suitable containers for storage and 

transportation, 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 can 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 not support cloth laundry bags.[266, 294, 348] Several 

commenters disagreed with the use of plastic or cloth bags in the storage or transportation of wipes and stated that 

such bags are not adequately protective of human health and the environment and also cited 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 allow 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 solventcontaminated wipes. However, the Agency believes that what is most important is the protectiveness of containers, 

not the specific materials they are made of. Thus, the closed container condition in the final rule is a performancebased 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. 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 meet 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. Cloth 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 destroyed 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 defining “no free liquids” by 

placing two containers adjacent to one another to transfer wipes from one container to the other and, if they drip 

liquid during transfer, or if there are free liquids in the bottom of the container, they would not meet the condition. 

The commenter thinks generators 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 solventcontaminated reusable wipes, any such condition should apply equally to both types of materials. Two commenters 

also supported meeting DOT packaging requirements for transport of wipes 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 labeling 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 equivalent 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 workers 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 eliminate potential questions during transportation and at any 

receiving facility about the types of 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 handled 

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, emergency 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.

EPA 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 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 reduce risk of adverse effects to workers. 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’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 commingling of solvents in containers.

(o) COMMENTS: One commenter expressed concern regarding how the regulations for hazardous contaminated 

wipes might affect non-hazardous contaminated wipes. The commenter argued that disposal sites will find it 

difficult to distinguish, and non-hazardous solvent-contaminated wipes will likely be required to follow the new 

regulations as a result. The commenter believes this would mean that generators would no longer be allowed to comingle 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. Nonhazardous wipes are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations and therefore the conditions in the final rule do 

not apply. EPA has no evidence that disposal sites will require different practices for non-hazardous solventcontaminated 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 the 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 ensures 

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) COMMENTS: One commenter had concerns that the language in the proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(ii) does not 

adequately identify controls during transportation that are necessary to prevent the 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 the rule must have regulatory language that gives 

more defined parameters to the proper management methods for minimizing loss of these solvents during 

transportation. The commenter said that, at 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 parts 173, 178, and 179. 

Additionally, rather than reinvent a management standard for these materials, the ETC suggests that EPA use the 

standards already in place for the management of fugitive emissions from containers, as outlined in 40 CFR 

265.1087(c) – Container Level 1 standards. [288]

(q) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenter’s concerns 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 sufficient 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 the proposed language in 40 CFR part 261.4[b][19][iii] states containers must be labeled “Exempt 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” One commenter recommends EPA require containers to be labeled “Exempt 

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-contaminated 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 preferable 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 “excluded 

solvent-contaminated rags,” “wipes contaminated with toluene,” “excluded 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 this 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 the environment or human health. [191, 

283, 286, 287, 311]

Many 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 on 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 

equally 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 generators 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 contaminated 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, workers, and the general 

public. [283, 288, 323] Another 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 accumulate or transport wipes excluded from the definition of solid 

waste and not being disposed do not and requested 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 facilities and would complicate use of pre-printed labels or 

pre-printed bags. EPA does not agree with implementing a flexible labeling 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 also 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 “Solvent-Contaminated” is a term more familiar to the regulated community and to state and federal 

enforcement personnel 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. This condition addresses 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: EPA 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 requiring additional language on the containers regarding the specific properties 

of the 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 and 

labeling is repetitive 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. Additional 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 which 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. It is important to require labeling for reusable and disposable 

wipes during accumulation, storage, and at the handling 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 free 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 present 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 wipes 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 of 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 business 

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 transportation 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 whether 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 liquids 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 solvent 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 solventcontaminated wipe with other non-hazardous 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 

would 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 spill, 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 subpart 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 solventcontaminated 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 proposed, with no limits on accumulation, because 

disposable wipes exhibit no greater potential for excess accumulation than any other “solid” waste. The commenter 

said there 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 comments state that adding a “1-year,” “90-day,” or any other limitation is unnecessary and would add 

needless 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 those disposables that will qualify under this 

exemption will now be included in the regular shipments of solid waste, which typically occur on a weekly basis. 

Several commenters 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 that includes a specified schedule 

for pickup of soiled wipes and delivery of laundered wipes. [266, 281, 325, 346]

Two commenters argued that other regulations are already in place for accumulation time limits at generator 

facilities, such as municipal and state fire prevention codes that may adequately regulate storage of wipes that 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 permissible 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 

necessary. [267, 328]

One commenter stated that an accumulation time limit is burdensome because an 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 amount of 

excluded waste material, finalizing the proposal would provide additional incentive to dispose of the solventcontaminated industrial wipes in a timely manner, thus, an accumulation condition 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 the 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 generators should be able to delegate handing the solvent removal to on-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 more 

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 environment. 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 

risk for fire 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 than 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 

wipes. The commenter added that filled 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 this 

would require handling facilities 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 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 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 to 

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 greatest 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 and disposable wipes meeting the conditions of the final rule may be 

discarded with a facility’s other solid waste trash, which is likely collected on a frequent basis. Therefore, the 

accumulation limit of 180 days is more than sufficient to enable facilities to send their solvent-contaminated wipes 

for cleaning or disposal and thus additional accumulation time is not necessary. EPA also disagrees with 

commenters that argued that filled containers should be shipped within 90 days and that wipes should be processed 

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 solventcontaminated wipes. EPA finds it is more straightforward to establish one standard accumulation limit which is 

easier to implement 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 date 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 wipe is placed in the container). Generators taking advantage of the 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. 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 solvent-contaminated wipes containing 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 not necessary if solventcontaminated 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 

accumulated 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 solventcontaminated 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 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 may 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 

difficult 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 legal 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, under 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 solvent 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 conditions, 

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 freeflowing 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 facilities 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 requirements 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 applicable 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 limits 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 

hazardous 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 manual cleaning of electronic components, which 

generates a large number of wipes daily. The commenter stated that requiring the operator to remove a cover to 

deposit each wipe during the manual cleaning process interrupts the workflow as much as having to open and close a 

latched or secured container. The commenter said that disposable 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 pertinent 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 wipes 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 covers 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 excluding 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 implementing agency find disposable wipes that are being overaccumulated. [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 recycled, namely the 

speculative accumulation criteria. The commenter stated that additional accumulation time limits would be 

inconsistent with existing recycling exclusions from hazardous waste and subject the generator to unnecessary 

burdens and shorter accumulation 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 will 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 and disposable wipes exclusions. However, EPA has determined that applying 

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

accumulation 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. Therefore 

under the final rule, a 180-day accumulation 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 accumulate 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 transportation 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 

containers 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 containers 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 contaminated wipes, and including labeling with starting accumulation times indicated to ensure 

enforceability. The commenter thinks the other storage conditions under subpart I of part 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 

language 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 practices when circumstances make it difficult to cover the container 

between each wipe. [199-1019, 246, 266, 288, 328, 330, 358]

(f) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the comments in support of imposing certain management conditions in the final 

rule. EPA has finalized 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 each 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 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 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 solventcontaminated wipes. This type of standard would be burdensome to implement and enforce and is not necessary to 

protect human health and the environment 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 for 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 response 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 specifics 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 solventcontaminated wipes contain no free liquids 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 said 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 methods 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 solvent-contaminated wipes. A container need only be sealed when 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 not 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-loaded lid or 

an impermeable bag.

(h) COMMENTS: One commenter objected to EPA’s characterization, on p. 65595, of full RCRA control under 

subpart I as requiring ‘that containers be closed (i.e. sealed) during accumulation,’ which the commenter stated is 

not an accurate representation of subpart I criteria. The commenter believes EPA’s attempt to redefine the subpart I 

closed criteria into the subpart 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 SQGs). 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 regulations 

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 this 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 generators to accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous 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, solventcontaminated 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 an 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 there is little risk of prolonged accumulation at 

generators’ facilities. [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 facility 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) pickup 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 generators’ choice of type of wipe.

(k) COMMENTS: One commenter noted that for reusable 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 transportation 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 

Solvent-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 “Excluded SolventContaminated 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 creates an unnecessary burden. Many 

commenters stated that the use of covered containers complements 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 generators to come up with 

innovative and cost-efficient ways of storing these materials, while ensuring human health and the environment 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 this creates an unnecessary burden on the generator and 

that the 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 

defining a closed container as only being “closed” if a lid is screwed on, as EPA is proposing, unnecessarily 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 range 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 the 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 Launderable Industrial Wipes,” and the accumulation start 

date, so that compliance with speculative accumulation requirements may be effectively checked during inspections 

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 therefore, EPA is not finalizing the proposed covered container standard. Instead 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 disagrees with commenters that the 

closed container 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 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 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 incentive 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 that 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 Solvent-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 liquids” 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 laundry; (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 of several options (e.g. either five grams per wipe 

measured by testing or by calculation from business 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 free 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 changes 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 final 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 proposed 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 position 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 being 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 been clarified in the final rule regulatory language.

5.4.1 Free Liquids

(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 combustion 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 

shipments 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 significant doubt that the standard can be met routinely. The commenter 

stated descriptions for solvent removal techniques other than centrifuging indicate that large amounts of solvents 

remain on the wipes. [288]

A few commenters generally supported the “no free liquids” condition in the proposed rule and stated that the 

condition is appropriate for handling and transporting wipes to a laundry, 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 upon 

itself 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 altering 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 criterion necessary. [459] 

Many commenters supported 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 

commenter argues that if 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, not 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 container 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” condition will be met from the point of 

generation 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 accumulate 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 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.” 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 

user 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 does 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 requiring “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, which 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 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 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 within 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 performed, the wipe would pass. Furthermore, this 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 contaminated 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 solvent 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 municipal solid 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 

information on this issue.

(b) COMMENTS: One commenter stated that generators should be allowed to accumulate free liquids along with 

the wipes and retain the exclusion, as “over-handling” of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) 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 generators should be able to delegate handing 

the solvent removal to on-site or offsite and third party entities better suited to undertake the solvent removal 

process. [303]

(b) RESPONSE: Solvent-contaminated wipes may contain free liquids during accumulation and storage but cannot 

contain free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal. Additionally, EPA has not finalized the “no free liquids 

when wrung” condition, which reduces any unintended consequences of increased solvent exposure from handwringing. However, EPA has chosen not to finalize the provision allowing intra-company or inter-company transfers 

for purposes of solvent extraction. We do not agree with allowing the off-site transfer of saturated solventcontaminated wipes because this would increase the potential for release of the solvent to the environment.

Additionally, 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 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 than 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 final 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 for 

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. Additionally, 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 going 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, instead of the 

common sense management conditions that facilities already employ. The commenter said that there are existing 

viable state regulatory programs and there is no need to create additional but unnecessary compliance costs, which 

might make the provision 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 

contingent on laboratory testing. 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 solventcontaminated 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 within five minutes, the material is deemed to 

contain free liquids. 

Generators do not have to conduct this test for every solvent-contaminated wipe. Generators must ensure that if the 

Paint Filter Liquids Test was performed, the solvent-contaminated wipe would pass. In order to meet the 

performance standard, 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, generators 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 remove 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 wipes, 

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 ensures 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 

wipes 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) RESPONSE: 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 occurrences 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 meaning 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 liquids” and simply clarifies how it is to be determined whether solventcontaminated wipes 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 commenter believes this approach would be consistent with 

other existing sections of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations that prohibit the presence of free liquids. The 

commenter thinks one or more technologies (i.e., quantitative and reproducible compliance tests) should be specified 

as criteria for demonstrating the absence or presence of free liquids as this would minimize misunderstandings and 

confusion over whether compliance has been achieved and would be consistent with other RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations applicable to containerized 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 supported 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. The 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 suggestion that the final regulations should specify criteria for determining 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.” Commenters 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 difficult 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 requirement that indicates 

actual compliance. [246, 280, 358] 

A few commenters 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 generators 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 the regulations should require some 

form of solvent extraction method 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 commenter 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 sentence of the proposed definition “wipes that have been subjected to solvent extraction are presumed to 

contain no free liquids” should be used as a criterion for demonstrating whether or not free liquids are 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 definition 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 free 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 meet 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 performancebased 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 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. 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 liquids 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 capable of achieving between 76 percent and 99 percent solvent 

removal. The commenter 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 environment. [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 solvent 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, particularly 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. The commenter added that the observer is not 

required to have training or certification, which is in stark contrast to a parallel 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 both 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 generators 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, 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, 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 whether 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 liquids” 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 Filter Liquids Test to define “no free liquids” because it should not be difficult 

to conduct and typically provides clear results.

(m) COMMENTS: One commenter 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 solventcontaminated wipes contain no free liquids 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 Wrung

(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 effective 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 described the numerous benefits derived from hand-wringing and how these outweigh any burden 

associated with this regulation and advocated that the regulations be applied to reusable as well as disposable 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 it would adequately address the documented worker and 

workplace safety and health risk concerns that EPA’s proposed regulatory conditions do not, it is easy 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 argued that this assertion fails to account for the minimal amount of time 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 the air during the laundering handling process. The commenter said 

that EPA fails to account for the additional amount of time the wipes 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 wipes to the air that are “hand-held” under 

EPA’s proposed “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 already 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, in 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 “hand-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 

states 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 reusable 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 solvent 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 hand 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 health 

risks posed by fires during transport and storage and handling of contaminated wipes. The commenter said that 

substantially 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 such 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 sufficient 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 that 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. They 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 be 

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 grams “dry” standard and in favor of handwringing. These commenters 

argued that hand wringing to ensure nothing is dripping makes more sense than the five grams standard and that it is 

an easy test to perform and also recovers and recycles more solvent. One commenter pointed out that one person 

may be able to apply greater pressure than another person resulting in varying amounts of solvent removed. [199-

1002, 345] One commenter stated that the five grams per wipe condition is neither performance based nor easy to 

understand. The commenter stated that most facilities will not have the separation equipment or the measuring and 

analyzing 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 upon 

handling and disposal and that wringing 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 

wipes. The commenter said this standard is preferable to the five gram limit on solvents for disposable wipes sent to 

the landfill. [299]

The commenter also stated that the adoption of a uniform hand-wringing performance standard for all solvent 

contaminated wipes would be easy to implement and would substantially further EPA’s objectives of increasing 

consistency in the regulations governing wipes across the United States. 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 calculations 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 WRINGING: 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 significant 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, that 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 applies 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 process. The commenters believes that imposing additional requirements would place 

additional and unnecessary burdens on generators. [246, 262, 358]

Several commenters opposed the condition because requiring wringing will significantly increase workers’ exposure 

to the contaminated material on the wipes. The commenters believe that requiring 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 excessive solvent. The commenters added that this 

extra step unnecessarily exposes the wipe and its removed solvent to potential mishandling, increasing the risk to 

employees as well as increasing the threat 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 developing a simplified approach for compliance determination under the new regulation. [305] 

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 sufficient 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 

attainment of the prohibition. [266] One commenter submitted a comment that 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 manual 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 would conflict with the current requirements for proper handling of solvent-laden rags in the 

Aerospace NESHAP. The commenter added that hand wringing of solvent wipes could increase solvent emissions to 

the atmosphere and increase the potential for employee exposure to solvent vapors. The commenter said that hand 

wringing would necessarily occur in close proximity to the workers' breathing zone and increase the concentration 

of solvent vapors in the breathing zone, therefore, requiring 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 the 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 subjective a standard and invites regulatory confusion (for example, “when wrung” is dependent on 

the size and strength of the individual doing the wringing). 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 consistently 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. For 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. EPA 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. Moreover, 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). 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 solventcontaminated 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 Paint 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 finalize 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 its “no free liquids” condition will ensure adequate removal of free liquid spent solvent from the wipes. Once 

free 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 solvent for recycling that can then be recycled. EPA also notes that the commenter 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 hand-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 determined 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 removed 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 increase 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 

handling 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 comply 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 solvent-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 acknowledges 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 who 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 compliance 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. Solvent-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: EPA is not finalizing the “no free liquids when wrung” condition in order to avoid increased 

worker exposure to solvents. 

5.4.3 Dry Condition

(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 standard 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 

comply 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; (10) “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 imposition of a “dry” management condition on reusable towels. [348]

(a) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with commenters that opposed the “dry” condition for disposable 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 liners; (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-liner 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-contaminated 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 inventory 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 their 

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 consider either removing the five gram limit for 

solvents on disposable wipes sent 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 

disposable 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 stated 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 argued 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-contaminated wipes that 

are sent to landfills. 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 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 

disposal 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 trichloroethylene, 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 landfills. 

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 has 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 MSWLFs without 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 

means 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 wipes 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 contingent 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-toenergy 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 

results 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 that 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” condition 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 largely 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 five grams of the solvent versus other liquids or contaminants 

on 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 costprohibitive; (6) additional 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 future, 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 broad 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 considered 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” 

rather 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 disposable 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 technologies are expensive and may not 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 standard, 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 that a determination 

that no disposable wipes meeting a “hand-wrung” performance standard need be subject to a landfill prohibition or 

five grams/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 from 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 that industrial wipes used to remove 

liquid hazardous solvent residue from the bottom of a RCRA “empty” container could lawfully disposed of in a nonhazardous waste landfill even if the wipes were saturated with the hazardous solvent. Two other commenters agreed 

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 liquid 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 because 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” container 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 subpart C (see 45 FR 78529, November 25, 1980, “[C]ontainer cleaning facilities which 

handle only “empty” containers are not currently subject to regulation unless they generate a waste that meets one of 

the 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, but 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) COMMENTS: 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 clarify 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 

demonstrating compliance with the five grams 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 computation 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 is 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 

sufficient; 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 RCRA computation records, EPA is not requiring further recordkeeping for solventcontaminated 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 remains 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 identified in the 2003 

proposed regulation and how this standard was considered in the overall risk assessment and two management 

options. The commenter said that any management option proposed must take into account the amount of solvent 

that would be remaining on a towel as this will greatly reduce any risk associated with environmental contamination. 

[458]

(i) RESPONSE: In the 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 the 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 wipes 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 regarding 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 evaluate such solvents. Free liquid 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 for weakening the LDRs. The commenter believes that the “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 lined 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 

without 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 equivalent, 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 assumptions 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 landfill. 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 40 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 MSWLFs 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 

containers if the “dry” standard of five grams 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 additional 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 requirements 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 commenters stated that recordkeeping 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 protective 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 recordkeeping procedures already 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 the rule should not impose 

any additional recordkeeping such 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) adequately 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 requiring additional 

recordkeeping would be redundant and could jeopardize use of the exclusion and additional requirements would 

provide little, if any, additional benefit beyond existing 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 generators and handling facilities that manage reusable wipes should not be required to keep 

records on the volume 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 these records should be maintained for three years. The commenters believed 

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 proposed, would allow industries to neglect 

protective measures like routine recordkeeping. [152, 271, 287]

Another commenter stated that generators using disposable wipes should certify that each shipment meets the "dry" 

condition. [358] Several commenters addressed the existing “dry”/ “no free liquids” conditions and stated that 

recordkeeping should be instituted because without such requirements, strong economic incentives could result 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’ 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 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 

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 solventcontaminated 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 appropriate 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 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 solvent. 
78

3) Requiring 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 does 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 condition 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 solventcontaminated wipes managed under the rule meet the “no free liquids” condition.

EPA does not agree that these records will be unnecessarily burdensome; these records would need to be created 

only once, and then updated only if changes occur. Routine 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 

responsible 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 records 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 certification 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 generators 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 solventcontaminated wipes that do not meet 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 Liquids 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 condition at generator facilities, which in turn reduces the occurrence of free 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 waste 

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 to 

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 larger 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 compliance (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 

state, notifying them of the intention to use the exemption, location and accumulation start date, records of the 
79

quantity of wipes generated, where they were sent, and a record of each shipment sent. The commenter stated that 

the 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 they will be laundering hazardous 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 problem 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 the 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 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 hazardous 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. 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 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 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 shipment 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 performance standard would be a recordkeeping requirement that indicates actual compliance.

[246]

(d) RESPONSE: EPA agrees that a recordkeeping approach is more appropriate than specifying a list of 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 via 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 specifically 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 properly 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 this would determine whether or not the wipes contain free 

liquids. The commenter stated that records should be maintained for 3 years. Other commenters did not support 

employee training or certification and stated that EPA indicates that reusable wipes 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 all 

applicable employees are already required to receive OSHA worker right-to-know training that accomplishes 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 would be duplicative of 

other RCRA and OSHA requirements. Additionally, 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 methods 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 exclusion.

(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 result 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 usage. The commenter added that 

records from all the various locations within a facility would then have to be compiled. The commenter believes that 

sampling 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. 

Sampling, 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 in Massachusetts, which has no operating unlined 

landfills, most disposable wipes are generated by businesses with less than twenty employees, and these businesses 

would generally dispose only small quantities at a time. The commenter asserted that such small quantities present 

within much larger volumes of municipal solid waste pose a small risk in lined landfills, all of which meet 40 CFR 

part 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 published, 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 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 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-theart 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 that 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 solventcontaminated 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 wipe 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, where 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 there is no such accountability for 

disposable wipes, and this places a greater burden 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 any 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 thousands of generators that may send wipes to be disposed at landfills and 

incinerators. EPA has made changes in the final rule that address the commenter’s concerns to ensure greater 

accountability by the generator for ensuring that disposable wipes contain 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 and 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 the “no free 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 by 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 the Universal Waste provisions under 40 CFR part 273 

provide protections not afforded by EPA’s proposed rule, including traceability and enforceability. [288]

(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 burden 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 disposal 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 use 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 disposal 

practices. [313]
82

(d) RESPONSE: The Agency agrees with these commenters and, based on the Agency’s findings that solventcontaminated 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 industrial 

laundry or a dry cleaner whose discharge, if any, is regulated under sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of the

CWA; and an exclusion from the definition 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 solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be laundered or dry 

cleaned on-site or shipped directly to a laundry or dry cleaner. The commenter argued that the 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 industrial wipes handling facilities, as proposed, could potentially handle 

unlimited quantities of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes with virtually no regulatory controls or restrictions.

The commenter pointed out that laundries, 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. Allowing 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 as 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 discriminate 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 rule 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 suggested that EPA consider placing a five gram 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) RESPONSE: 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 landfills; 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 process, potentially compromising state waters. The commenter argued 

that efforts 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 that 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 solventcontaminated 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 solventcontaminated 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.

(e) COMMENTS: Two commenters recommended that the rule require wastewater discharges from industrial 

laundries be sent to either a POTW or a point source discharge subject to NPDES permitting. The commenter stated 

that discharges to groundwater via septic systems or other means should be prohibited. The commenter added that 

this would allow treatment of toxics remaining in discharges and allow the POTW to respond to problem dischargers 

under their existing authority. A third commenter recommended 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 wipes 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 information in the record for the rulemaking, EPA decided not to promulgate national categorical 

pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries point source category because industrial laundry discharges to 

POTWs do not present a national problem warranting additional national regulation under the CWA (64 FR 45076).

EPA determined 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 toxic pound equivalents removed under a rule with the first cutoff and 

determined that the amount of pounds removed is also insignificant and does not 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 facility 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 45077). 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 waste contaminated wipes. The commenter argue that toxic 

organic contaminants from laundering facilities will likely be present in the sludge at the POTW and that sludge 

destined for composting, land spreading or landfills should be accurately characterized and 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 laundry or dry-cleaning process are newly generated wastes and therefore

subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262 and all applicable RCRA hazardous waste 

requirements, if applicable.

(g) COMMENTS: Several commenters opposed limiting the 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 the 

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 

technology prior to washing instead. [246, 262, 264, 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 processing 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 the 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 amount 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 seem 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 combustor 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 other 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 exclusion 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 solventcontaminated wipes are newly generated wastes subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 262

and any applicable hazardous waste requirements. 

EPA acknowledges comments regarding treatment of laundry sludge and concerns that treatment methods do not 

destroy or eliminate hazardous constituents. 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 composite-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 solvent landfill loadings calculated for the 

sludges generated by laundries. (See the revised document, “Landfill Loadings Calculations For SolventContaminated 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 and 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 use of vapor recovery technologies to reduce the solvent in wipes 

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 meet 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 the 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 there 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 collection 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 communication 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 must 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, solvent-contaminated wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in closed containers that are 

labeled “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” The closed container condition is designed to reduce solvent 

emissions or spills of free liquid solvent, which 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 properly 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 that 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 commenter said EPA currently recognizes contracts as valid documentation at 40 CFR 262.20(e) in the 

rules for SQGs with tolling arrangements and that this 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 solventcontaminated 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.

These records would need to be created only once, and then updated only if changes occur. Routine business 

records, such as contracts and invoices, may meet the documentation requirements of (1) and (2), so no additional 

documents should 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 management approach should the EPA deem additional controls 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 applicable 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 composite-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 solvent landfill loadings calculated for the sludges generated by laundries (see 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 chemical 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 going 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 that 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 combustor 

facilities receiving large quantities of such wipes could be burning significant quantities 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 stated 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 with CO 

monitoring conditions in subpart 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 risk in management of wipes in 

municipal solid waste combustors. [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 sent 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 waste 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 arrive 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 industrial solid waste 

incinerators (68 FR 65602).

The NSPS, which are promulgated under section 129 of the CAA, require that municipal 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, sulfur 

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 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. Generators 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 not 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 combustors 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 wipes as a secondary 

fuel and a source of energy recovery. Disposable 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. Generators 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 solvent-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 their respective 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, solventcontaminated 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 applicable 

hazardous waste regulations. 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 solvent 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 require that 

the operator collect one sample of combustion residue each quarter in which solvent-contaminated wipes are 

processed and during the burning of such wipes. The commenter said the sample should be collected and analyzed 

for the F-solvent LDR constituents 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 toxicity characteristic. The commenter believes this 

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 demonstrate 

compliance with the F-solvent constituent LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR part 268, the 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 solventcontaminated wipes are newly-generated wastes subject to waste identification requirements of 40 CFR 261 and 
89

262. Because the ash generated from combustion is newly generated 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 actively 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 the waste generators 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 rule, generators 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 proposal, 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 for 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-contaminated 

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, based on the Agency’s risk analysis, to be disposed in landfills without a liner; solventcontaminated 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 conditions 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 liquids” 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 commenter’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: Several 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 minimum 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 disposable 

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. 

However, based on other comments5 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 demonstrates 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 conditions are necessary beyond that the wipe must not 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 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 solventcontaminated 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.

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 example, 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 non-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 contamination. 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 transporting 

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 landfills.

 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 solventcontaminated 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 commenter stated that 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 the 1984 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) requires that hazardous solvent constituents be treated using 

Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT) prior to land disposal and the treatment standards in part 268 

reflect this BDAT level of treatment. This commenter believed that hand wringing, mechanical wringing, 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 to 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 applicable 

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 

assumptions 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 system 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, in 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 waste 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 disposal at a solid waste landfill should be limited to direct 

deliveries to the landfill and that these containers should not be mixed in with other solid wastes. [323]
92

(f) RESPONSE: The Agency does not agree that disposal in non-hazardous landfills will cause the problems cited

because of the following reasons: (1) the exclusions are only applicable to the solvent-contaminated wipes 

themselves and free liquid 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 MSWLFs 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 does not apply to the handling of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. Another commenter 

opposed the alternatives for management of laundry sludge presented in the NODA, including 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 laundry 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 definition 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 need to include the provision cited for the sludge and 

thus has not included the provision in the final regulation. Any residuals generated from cleaning solventcontaminated 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 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 nominally 

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 this 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 the 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 wipes that either do not meet the five gram solvent standard or contain any of the ineligible 

solvents. The commenter thinks this 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 transferring 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 replaced the condition that solvent-contaminated wipes going to landfills 

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 and 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 handlers must do if 

they receive wipes with free liquids. The final rule requires that free liquids be managed according to the hazardous 

waste regulations, as appropriate. Thus, any liquid spent solvent that is discovered upon receipt must be managed as

hazardous 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 generator 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) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenter that disposable 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 regulations 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 container 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. 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. 

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 hazardous 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-licensed landfills 

which must meet design and operating criteria that are substantively the same as or stringent than those imposed on 

hazardous waste landfills in 40 CFR part 264. The commenter stated that these 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 assurance, 

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 barring 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 human 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. 

Under 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 

required to meet design 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 solvent-contaminated wipes included under the final rule can be safely 

disposed. (Note that, in 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 part 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 the first option (which has serious potential negative effects on human health and the environment. The

commenter believes that the second option is more protective, but 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 eliminate from the risk analysis ten compounds that they determined are “not used as 

industrial wipes,” essentially ignores the practical possibility that these compounds could end up in landfills through 

spill cleanup wipes. This commenter thinks that EPA should address the risk concerns it identified for 

tetrachloroethylene and to develop alternative management approaches accordingly. The commenter stated that 

neither option [in the NODA] provides the level of protection or resource conservation/energy recovery benefits that 

accrue from burning these wastes as fuel 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 minimize solvent content of wipes but that a delisting 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 keep such an 

unsound practice from growing as a “waste minimization” method. The commenter believes that solvents that 

currently are removed from wipes and rags for alternative management may in the future increasingly be left in the 

rags, thus increasing the risk impact beyond what EPA has evaluated in the NODA. The commenter argued that if 

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 more 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 Agency 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 analysis 

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. Regarding 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. Furthermore, the final rule directs all solvent-contaminated 

wipes to be sent to MSWLFs 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 with 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 content 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 quantity 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 cement 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 these excluded wipes 

will end up in a lined or unlined landfill, EPA’s risk evaluation should be based on unlined landfills. The commenter 

finds it hard to believe that most generators will have the ability, much less the incentive to actually separate wipes 

according to levels of contamination and send them to different places for landfilling. The commenter stated that if 

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: part 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 landfills in the other subparts of part 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 implementation 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 those 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 both 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 landfills 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 

regulatory exclusions that support use of unlined MSWLFs or nonhazardous waste landfills for the co-disposal of 

solvent-contaminated wipes 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 hazardous waste that would allow solventcontaminated 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 tetrachloroethylene 

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 that, while EPA is considering 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 warranted. [455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 464]

(n) RESPONSE: EPA agrees with those commenters that supported the second option, which is that all solventcontaminated wipes can only be sent to landfills operating under the 40 CFR part 258 standards (or to hazardous 

waste landfills operating under parts 264 or 265). This represents the most straightforward approach and imposes the 

least burden for compliance, implementation, and enforcement. 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. 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 solid waste trash; (2) a part 257 nonhazardous 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 indication 

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, especially 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 commenters who indicated that all solvent-contaminated wipes can be safely disposed in 

unlined landfills. The revised risk analysis presented in the 2009 was appropriately conservative, and 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 hazardous 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 contaminated 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 demonstrates 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 cleaning 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 hazardous 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 playing 

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 this option further encourages the use of solvents by the printing industry that 

would not be classified as hazardous waste thereby reducing risk to the environment 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, which is what the NODA indicated.) Under the final rule, EPA is allowing solventcontaminated wipes to be sent to landfills 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 least 

burden for compliance, implementation, and enforcement. 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. 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 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.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's belief that the option of using Subtitle D landfills encourages the use of nonhazardous 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 Free Liquids Received 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 hazardous 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 hazardous waste 

classification criteria. The commenters agree with the approach of maintaining the exclusion for the generator that 

meets the conditions of the exclusion at the point of generation and allowing the receiving facility to take the 

appropriate corrective 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. One commenter stated that with the very weak tracking, labeling, and recordkeeping provisions of 

the rule, subsequent handlers will not likely be able to track the original generator or to properly identify the source 

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 wipes 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 properly as a hazardous waste. [265] Another 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 the 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 generator). 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 inconsistent 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 the 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 Agency 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 waste regulations designed to protect human 

health and the environment. 

In addition, EPA agrees with those commenters who suggested that containers with liquid hazardous waste should 

only be transported by licensed hazardous waste transporters to permitted 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 the 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 the 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-contaminated 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 

approach taken in the final rule is to include conditions that will minimize the occurrence of free liquids. This 

includes: (1) defining 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 method for 

meeting this condition. These conditions enable consistent implementation of the “no free liquids” standard, which 

reduces the likelihood that free liquids will be generated 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 maintain 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 soiled 

wipes that have associated free liquid should not be conditionally excluded, and should be managed as a regulated 

hazardous waste. The commenter believes that laundries 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 disposed 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-contaminated wipes containing free liquids upon arrival at the destination 

facility should automatically lose the exclusion. This is because, though 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 according 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, apply to handling facilities managing free liquid spent solvent. Free 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, training, 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 generator 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 extraction 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 in an effort to lower these costs, the generator will modify 

its behavior if this situation occurs often. The commenter stated that solvent 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 free 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 problem. 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 treatment or disposal facility. The commenter suggested that the 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 permitted hazardous waste facilities. A 

commenter also suggested that the 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 received and 

payment of costs associated with management and disposal as hazardous waste is needed. [322, 331]

(d) RESPONSE: The final rule is designed to minimize the frequency of free liquids occurring during transport. This 

includes: (1) defining 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 method for 

meeting this condition. These conditions 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 

liquids as hazardous waste on to the generator and thus the 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 responsible 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 containing free liquids is not necessary. Under the final rule, free 

liquid spent solvent must be managed according to the hazardous waste regulations, as appropriate, which includes 

using hazardous waste transporters and permitted hazardous waste facilities. Thus, 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 

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.

(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 commenters. (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 event 

that free liquids are generated during the course of transportation, such as from percolation or compression of the 

solvent-contaminated wipes. EPA notes that, if the generator complies with the conditions of the final rule, free 

liquids during transport should 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 could qualify for CESQG status. CESQGs are not required 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 laundries 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 requirements.

(f) COMMENTS: One commenter recommended 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 this 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 treatment at 

Subtitle C facilities. The commenter stated that the universal waste regulatory program promotes the proper 

management standards, as well as notice and tracking and provides an optimum balance between no permitting or 

regulatory controls and full RCRA permits. The commenter noted that the universal waste provisions have worked 

well for pesticides, batteries, mercury thermostats and lamps and that all 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 the final rule are not solid and hazardous wastes and disposable 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 

conditions (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 liquid spent 

solvent is being 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 that if 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 additional 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 instances 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 containing 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 hazardous 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 

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 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 process for meeting condition) so that solventcontaminated 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 receive a shipment of solvent-contaminated 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 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.

(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 contrast, 

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 commenter suggested that these 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 free 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/Requirements

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 solvents do not pose a significant environmental threat. However, the commenter believes that 

the rule as drafted would 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 the 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, transporters, 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 recordkeeping, 

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 pre-printed labels or bags in order to reduce labor burden.

For 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 under 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 although 

EPA has stated as much in various guidance documents 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 having such a provision 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 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. 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 needed.

(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 requirements 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 liquids” 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 the 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 available to local, state or federal regulatory personnel upon 

request. [331]

(d) RESPONSE: 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 suggestion that the final rule require generators to evaluate nonhazardous 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: Several commenters supported EPA’s proposal that wipes that are hazardous due to cocontaminants should not be eligible for the exclusion. Some commenters argued that the 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 the background 

document makes clear that EPA simply did not collect the 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 the 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 generators, 

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 reactivity 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 cocontaminants. The commenter argued that limiting the proposed exclusion for reusable wipes only to solventcontaminated wipes may unnecessarily prevent the legitimate recycling of large numbers of wipes. Also, the 

commenter added that all industrial laundry waste streams and all contaminants (whether they are solvents or cocontaminants) 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 the environment 

for all the contaminants that are laundered and removed from reusable shop towels. The commenter believes that the 

handling of contaminants removed during the laundering of the towel is a separate issue that is governed effectively 

by existing 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-contaminants, 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 the 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 chemical 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 other 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 regarding 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, are 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 is 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 ignitableonly 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 those 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 the 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 facilities. 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. Additionally, 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. Therefore, 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 possible 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 has 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 cocontaminated with other listed hazardous waste, or that exhibit the hazardous characteristics of corrosivity, toxicity, 

or reactivity due to co-contaminants 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-contaminated 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 laundering.” 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 solvent-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 removed 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 materials and process that generated the solventcontaminated wipes. Therefore, EPA does not agree that laundries will incur significant compliance costs as a result 

of the approach to co-contaminants included in this rulemaking.

Regarding commenters who supported allowing wipes with co-contaminants to be eligible for the exclusions under 

some circumstances. EPA does not agree with (1) allowing co-contaminated wipes to be eligible if the generators 

are using a hazardous waste treatment facility because EPA has not 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 can 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 it 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 also 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 that the “dry” standard of 5 grams set by EPA for disposables 

destined for landfills is sufficiently protective, even if co-contaminants are present. [193, 278, 320, 459]

Several commenters opposed the regulation of co-contaminated wipes because these regulations conflict with 

existing state regulations. The commenter mentioned that current regulatory policies in a significant number of 
105

states do not distinguish between solvents and other contaminants the wipe may contain. The commenter stated a

significant number of states 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 clarifies that the final solid waste exclusion equally applies to co-contaminants on 

reusable shop towels, the commenter believes that the many states that do not distinguish between solvents and cocontaminants could be faced with an unintentional federal mandate to create new regulations for co-contaminants. 

The commenter argued that the five gram limit set by the Agency for disposables destined for landfills is sufficiently 

stringent. The commenter added that if EPA fails to amend the scope of both the hazardous 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 worded 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 

it 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 be laundered when appropriate. [155, 278, 281, 348]

(b) RESPONSE: EPA disagrees with comments arguing that not including wipes with co-contaminants in the final 

rule would 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. Solvent-contaminated 

wipes not eligible 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 cocontaminants are present because the five gram limit was only applicable to solvent, and not to co-contaminants, 

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 terms of their approach to cocontaminants. These states must ensure that their regulations are as stringent as the federal program. However, EPA 

does not expect that the approach to co-contaminants in the final rule will significantly impact existing operations. 

This is because the 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. Additionally, 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 conjunction with the regulatory agency (i.e., EPA region or state).

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 does not believe that this additional 

analysis will pose significant burden, as generators may use knowledge, as well as testing, to verify presence of cocontaminants. EPA acknowledges the commenter 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 some owners of 

precious metal-bearing wipes may classify 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 the 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 waste, 

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 precious metal-bearing 
106

industrial wipes are very much like a byproduct, 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 wipes 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 reclamation 

would not be excluded under the final rule unless the wipes were being laundered, 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 classify the wipes as hazardous waste in consideration of their F001-F005 solvent 

content.

7. Intra- and Inter-Company Transfers

(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 solventcontaminated industrial wipes. Commenters stated that allowing 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, encourage generators to 

remove solvents prior to transport. Commenters said providing 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 solvent 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 65601 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 “intracompany” 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 intra-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 third-party organizations that 

specialize in management and recovery of solvents. These 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 

reclamation 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 rule include language that allows companies to self-transport used wipes and other 

materials to one central location for processing. They believe this practice should be allowed for both 

reusable as well as disposable wipes and other materials and should recognize 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. The commenter stated that the 

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 recordkeeping provisions, including a one-time notification and recordkeeping 

provisions for intra-company transfer. The commenter added that if inter-company transfer is promulgated, 

EPA should require compliance with RCRA rules for the shipment between companies 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 that are applicable. [331] This commenter also suggested that a note 
107

be added to the regulation 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 regulations, if applicable. [331] 

Two commenters stated that there should be no distance limit, 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 confirm 

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 that solvent mixtures would be recovered by third party processors 

since 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 marketable 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 adequately 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 transporting 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 exclusion for intra-company transfers of solventcontaminated 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-company" 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 disposing 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 solvent-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 modified 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 proposed that the Agency change "intra-company transfer of industrial wipes" to "intracompany 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 recovery process for the purpose of removing 

sufficient solvent to ensure that the wipes contain no free liquids or less than 5 grams of solvent as 

appropriate." [155]

One commenter stated that it is not clear from the language whether the transportation must occur 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 or 

operated installations. [155]

One commenter suggested that the proposed regulation 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 wipes as a means of avoiding regulation 

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 allowable 

if the reusable wipes were stored and transported in closed, impermeable containers. In this case, the 

commenter thinks that speculative accumulation rules should apply. [328]

Another commenter stated that they are opposed to the requirement that the intra-company "receiving 

facility" has a solvent extraction and/or recovery process. The commenter asserted that such 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 need 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: EPA 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. 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 designed to 

minimize the amount of free liquids during transport, thereby reducing the risks posed by transport of containers of 

solvent-contaminated wipes containing 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 costprohibitive and that generators 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 2003, 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 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). In response to the commenter that stated that additional conditions, such as tracking 

and recordkeeping, should be required for intra-company transfers, 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 acknowledge commenters’ suggestions that EPA consider opportunities to use thirdparty 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 comment 

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 allowed 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 mixtures 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 comments 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 solvent-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 wipes 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 requiring that solvent-contaminated wipes be transported in nonleaking, 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 established for exotic 

solvents. [246, 358] Three commenters opposed special conditions for wipes contaminated with exotic solvents, 

specifically the use of water to prevent spontaneous combustion. The commenter felt that the 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 this would result 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 

other hazardous constituents, promoting releases at the landfill or laundry. The commenter further stated that once 

the added water is removed to meet the exclusion requirements, the underlying ignitable waste could still be present 

and still subject to combustion. [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. 

[287]

Three commenters supported the addition of a provision allowing the use of water or other appropriate firesuppressing agents for both disposable and reusable wipes that are at risk of spontaneous combustion. The 

commenter stated that many fires have been attributed to spontaneous combustion due to the improper 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 and rag spontaneous combustion due to exotic solvents. The commenter feels that this approach also 

serves to underscore the need for EPA to maintain as much flexibility as possible in developing a rule with such farreaching applicability. [271, 320, 346]

Another commenter suggested that EPA’s use of the term “exotic” solvents to describe citrus-based solvents is a 

misnomer. The commenter stated that citrus-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 citrus-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 exotic 

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 spontaneous 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 transport for cleaning or disposal, then EPA believes they 

should not be eligible for the final rule exclusions. This is because, as commenters noted, the presence of free liquid 

water could increase the risk of solvent release at downstream facilities. Furthermore, this 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 minimize 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 solvents 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 commenters 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 rulemaking. 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 the 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 definition 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 generator make a correct hazardous waste 

determination. 

9. State Authorization

(a) COMMENTS: The majority of commenters generally stated that the 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 if this rule is promulgated, not only will there then be a consistent national approach, companies with multi-state 

operations could have one 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 making this a national policy 

would force multi-state companies to comply with a single regulation and play fairly. One commenter stated that the 

development 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 this situation has resulted in 

inconsistencies, re-work, additional potential for non-compliance, and administrative waste at regulated facilities. 

The commenter argued it is clear that federal 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 while 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 national 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 that 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 state 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 operates 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 modifications 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 solventcontaminated 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 Section 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 under Section 3006(g) of RCRA, requirements imposed under 

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 promulgated state regulations. They stated that EPA should issue a Federal Register notice 

indicating that until these exclusions 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 hazardous 

waste if the wiper either contains listed waste, or is otherwise mixed with hazardous waste. Whether or not a used 

wiper contains listed hazardous waste, is mixed with listed hazardous waste, only exhibits a characteristic of 

hazardous waste, or is not a waste at all, is dependent on site-specific factor(s); this is not a new policy. As a result, 

any determinations or interpretations regarding this diverse and variable wastestream should be made by the 

regulatory agency (i.e., EPA Region or State) implementing the RCRA program for a particular State.” 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 and 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 reusable 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 authorized states. This deferral has resulted in 

the development of various state programs for reusable wipes. Therefore, authorized states whose programs include 

less stringent requirements than the final rule are required to modify their programs to maintain consistency 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 the Agency can 

help provide states the assurances they need to implement the changes. Commenters believe that EPA should 

consider issuing guidance to EPA Regional Offices and states recommending 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 and 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 guidance issued promptly to its regions and all the states and through a notice in the 

Federal Register to make the regulated community and the rest of the public aware of this 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 conditions of the final rule are met. One commenter stated that EPA needs to provide incentives for 

authorized states to adopt the rule when finalized. Without states’ adoption, the commenter believes the rule will not 

fulfill its intended purpose of providing 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 burden 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 adopts 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) COMMENTS: 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 create unnecessary confusion 
113

for states and the regulated community by inappropriately covering both reusable and disposable wipes in the same 

regulatory and preamble sections. The commenter believes that separate and distinct final regulatory and preamble 

language will provide states with the needed structure to pursue efficiently separate 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 solvent-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 

organizations 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 the proposed approach is 

unfair because it would impose liability on entities that have no culpability whatsoever in the alleged violation. The 

commenter asserted that such a standard would be contrary to RCRA, 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 assertion that a RCRA-authorized state 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 disposed of, reclaimed, or reused.” [155, 303, 320, 346] Another commenter suggested that 

the EPA should harmonize its 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 final 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. Thus, 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 solvent-contaminated wipes are being managed appropriately throughout 

the disposition of the wipes. However, as with any violation, EPA and authorized states have a wide range of 

enforcement mechanisms available that range in severity. In addition, EPA and authorized 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, but 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 proposed 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 solventcontaminated wipes can be disposed 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 certification and/or recordkeeping. 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 certification 

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 generator, 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 this 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 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 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 solventcontaminated 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 appropriate 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 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 solvent. 

3) Requiring 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 condition 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 solventcontaminated wipes managed under 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 

the conditions of the exclusion and provide an adequate mechanism for traceability 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 by generators and downstream 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. [288]

(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 compliance 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 or 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 solvent-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 commenter 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 states 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 there are numerous car repair 

shops, etc., and that they use these products regularly. While these shops may think that they are CESQGs, this 

commenter suggested that many actually would trigger the SQG threshold. It is this commenter’s belief that this 

issue 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 these consumer products, sold 

to the general public, contain concentrations of the target chemicals that are generally acceptable for use. The 

commenter stated that the 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. Regarding 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, regions, 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 SolventContaminated 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 facilities 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 University 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 economic-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, academic 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 

assumes that they are all managed as a hazardous waste. The commenter stated that in 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 proposal 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 disposable solventcontaminated wipes and has updated “State Policy Baseline” described in the RIA accordingly. The revised state 

policy baseline is as follows:

• Massachusetts is the only state 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 Dakota, West Virginia, and Maine) regulate reusable solventcontaminated 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, generators 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 background document did not adequately account for 

increased 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 existing 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 generally require that industrial laundry discharges go to a POTW or 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, under 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 could be accounted for by higher POTW fees. Additionally, under the final rule, reusable solventcontaminated wipes must meet the same general conditions – no free liquids and must be sent to laundries regulated 

under the CWA—as exist currently. Thus significant increases in solvent 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 

fugitive emissions and releases of free liquids during transportation and at handling facilities, landfills, and nonhazardous waste combustion facilities. [288]

(d) RESPONSE: Under the final rule, generators are required to: (1) accumulate, store, and/or transport solventcontaminated wipes in non-leaking, closed containers and (2) ensure that the solvent-contaminated wipes 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 assumed that there will be no significant fugitive 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 

worker 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 exempted 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) RESPONSE: Workers at MSWLFs and combustion facilities are required to comply with OSHA’s occupational 

health and safety standards, which are found at 29 CFR part 1910. Among other things, these standards provide both 

general and specific requirements for the management 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 already required to comply with OSHA’s 

occupational health and safety standards. In the RIA for the final rule, we assumed that existing safety and training 

programs for the management of excluded solvent-contaminated wipes are adequate. 

(g) COMMENTS: One commenter states that the economic background document did not adequately account for 

exposure injuries at MSWLFs and combustion facilities. [288]

(g) RESPONSE: EPA is unaware of any basis for estimating the injuries anticipated by the commenter. Any 

estimate would be highly speculative. In the RIA for the final rule, we assumed 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 document did not adequately account for 

liner 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 addition, 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 landfill 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 Appendix 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 implement 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 container 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 compliance 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), 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. 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, currently 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 waste and generators will have more options for managing their solventcontaminated 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 CFR 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 continue 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 subject 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 finds 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 solventcontaminated 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 the only state that has a conditional exemption for solvent-contaminated disposable wipes. As a result, solventcontaminated disposable wipes generated in that state that meet the specified conditions are considered non-hazardous wastes and 

therefore, may be managed at non-hazardous waste management facilities.
119

(k) RESPONSE: In the RIA for the final rule, we estimated 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 wipes; (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 similar recordkeeping requirements. Under the final rule, 

solvent-contaminated wipes would not be considered hazardous waste, provided that specified conditions are met. 

As a result, use of the hazardous waste manifest would not be necessary. This will result in a cost savings to 

generators and handlers of solvent-contaminated wipes, as well as state 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 the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule, we assumed that, 

when considering the type of container to be used for accumulating, storing, and/or transporting solventcontaminated wipes (e.g., plastic bags, metal containers), generators will opt for the least costly options: the use of 

plastic bags. We use this same assumption in the RIA for the final rule. For purposes of the analysis, the cost of a 

34-gallon plastic bag is estimated 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” condition evaluation. [288]

(m) RESPONSE: The “dry” condition was not included in the final rule. Generators must meet the “no free liquids”

standard. In the RIA for the final rule, we estimated 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 state policies, the majority of 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 generally 

meet specified conditions, which include that the wipes contain “no free liquids.” Therefore, in the economic 

background document originally developed for the proposed rule we assumed that, for generators of reusable 

solvent-contaminated wipes, there are no incremental costs for removing free liquids under the rule. We used the 

same assumption in the RIA for the final rule. 

In the case of disposable solvent-contaminated wipes, generators often do not employ any solvent extraction 

technologies prior to shipping the materials off-site due to the fact that most states regulate disposable solventcontaminated 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 assumed that, for generators of disposable solventcontaminated 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/nsn2.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 document originally developed for the 

proposed rule.
120

To estimate costs associated with the removal of “free liquids” 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 solventcontaminated disposable wipes. To estimate the number of containers needed to comply with this 

requirement, the analysis takes the annual number of solvent-contaminated disposable wipes with “free 

liquids” per facility and divided it by the loading capacity of a 34-gallon plastic bag. Based on this 

calculation, EPA estimates that each LQG facility will need 86 containers with “free 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 argued 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 this amounts 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 into account the following costs: 

hazardous waste incineration costs, ash hazardous waste landfill costs, municipal combustor costs, non-hazardous 

waste landfill costs, and ash non-hazardous waste landfill cost. Therefore, the net savings of $32,971,000 per year 

covered more than hazardous waste incineration costs.

In estimating hazardous waste incineration costs, as outlined in the economic background document for the 

proposed rule, we used hazardous waste incineration unit cost data ($/drum) from a September 2000 national cost 

survey conducted by the Environmental Technology Council. In particular, we used the average of the hazardous 

waste incineration costs for drummed halogen organics ($200/drum) and drummed non-halogen organics 

($98/drum): $149/drum (i.e., (200 + 98)/2).10 In the economic background document we assumed that, on average, 

facilities use 34-gallon containers and that each of these containers is filled with 124 pounds of disposable solventcontaminated wipes. As a result, the hazardous waste incineration cost used in the economic background document 

is $1.20 per pound (i.e., $149 per container /124 pounds per container), not $2.95 per pound as stated 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 

generated solvent-contaminated wipes had “free liquids”, while only 50 percent of non-printer facilities that generated solventcontaminated 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 state agencies for conducting inspections at laundry facilities that opt to comply with the 

exclusion requirements applicable to reusable solvent-contaminated wipes. However, under existing state policies, 

45 states provide regulatory relief for reusable solvent-contaminated wipes, as long as certain basic conditions are 

met. Therefore, inspections to verify compliance with exclusion requirements should already be taking place. In the

RIA for the final rule, we assumed that there will be no incremental costs to state 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 solvent-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 “Full 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 million assumed for 

launderers, 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 states 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 excluded from solid waste 

classification. As a result, reusable solvent-contaminated wipes could realize cachet value from having the “waste” 

label removed. 

In estimating this benefit in the economic background document originally developed for the proposed rule, EPA 

assumed that 50 percent of the states 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 Kunreuther, 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 relied 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 Impact 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, the 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 proposed rule, we assumed that 

facilities will decant containers with solvent-contaminated wipes in order to capture excess solvents. We also 

assumed that facilities that use solvent extraction technologies (e.g., centrifuge) may reuse the captured solvent, 

thereby realizing cost savings from avoided solvent extraction costs and avoided purchase of virgin solvent. In the 
122

RIA for the final rule, we used the same assumptions used in the economic background document, but clarified that 

facilities are assumed to use 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 characteristic 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 environmental

benefit of $8 million to $36.4 million per year with very little justification provided, which is simply to claim that 

captured “free liquids” solvents will reduce the demand for virgin solvents, thereby reducing air, land or surface 

water impacts from the production of these solvents. This commenter believed that this cost was 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 Technical Background Document). In addition, this 

commenter noted 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 estimated incremental 

environmental and human health benefits resulting from the potential effects of avoiding future purchases of virgin 

solvents if captured spent solvent “free liquids” are recycled. In the economic background document we did not 

estimate 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 indicated 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 regulations. 

The final rule, however, excludes disposable wipes from hazardous waste requirements, provided the solventcontaminated wipes contain no free liquids. Therefore, the final rule provides a strong economic incentive for 

generators to remove free liquid 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-contaminated 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 more 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 benefits, in the economic background document we used

dollar values for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction health benefits that EPA applied in three 

rulemakings promulgated in 1997, 1998, and 2000. In the RIA for the final rule we updated the unit values in the 

economic background document to current dollars, and used 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 confusion 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 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).

Additionally, in 1999, during consideration of national pretreatment standards for laundries, 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 determined 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. Furthermore, 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 prevent 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 estimated potential fire safety benefits.

EPA recognizes that generators and handlers may 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 finds 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 training costs are assumed 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 satisfy the terms of the exemption and, therefore, the 

training costs are understated by a factor of 20. [288]

 11 U.S. EPA. Technical Background 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 generators of solvent-contaminated wipes will need to read the rule and familiarize 

employees 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 assumed that, on average, one person at an SQG facility and three people at an LQG facility will receive 

instruction 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 rule requirements). In the RIA for the final rule, we 

relied on these same assumptions. In addition, we assumed that an additional 15 minutes per person will be required 

to become familiar with implementation procedures/practices needed to meet the conditions 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 according 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-contaminated 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 applied, 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 

underestimated. [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 amount 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 of 

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 solventcontaminated 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 estimates 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 nonprinter 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 appear 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 August 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 the 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 facilities. We 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 

managing 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 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 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.

To estimate the cost savings from managing 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 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.

* On average, an LQG facility removes about 0.46 gallons of free liquids from each 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 solvent 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 Economics 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 for 

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 savings 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 requires 

management 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 

solvents due to storage in non-covered containers.

(y) COMMENTS: One commenter argued that the 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 and that the 

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 there 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.” 68 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 managed by 

industrial laundries and that EPA has not evaluated the impact 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 the loss of hazardous waste taxes on states that are forced to adopt the 

exemption has also not been evaluated and the complication of enforcement cases resulting from a state that chooses 

not to adopt the exemption, bordered 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 Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. [288]

(y) RESPONSE: The final rule will not trigger a quantitative analysis under Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 

(UMRA) because 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 state policies, the majority of the states provide regulatory relief for reusable solvent-contaminated 

wipes, as long as certain basic conditions are met. One of the general state conditions 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 POTW. In 

addition, under 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 could be accounted for by higher POTW fees. In addition, under the final rule, reusable solventcontaminated 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 cleaner. EPA anticipates this condition will reduce any 

potential impacts to POTWs.

In regards to the impact of the final rule on state programs, in the RIA for the final rule we employed the following 

assumptions:
127

• Because the final rule is less stringent than the existing Federal regulations (i.e., it will exclude certain 

materials now regulated under RCRA Subtitle C), authorized states will not be required to adopt it. The 

analysis assumes that, prior to adopting the final rule, authorized states will evaluate whether adoption of 

the final rule is appropriate for their state taking into account issues such as implementation, taxes, and 

enforcement. 

• Although adoption of the final rule by some of the authorized states might result in loss of hazardous waste 

taxes, authorized states likely will experience savings from not regulating disposable solvent-contaminated 

wipes as hazardous waste. In the analysis we assumed that any losses in tax revenues are proportional to 

and offset by the savings to states 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 wipes 

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 solventcontaminated 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 regulation; 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 nation, 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 as 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 the 

company moved rather than comply with regulations. The commenter provides other similar examples of such 

conduct 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 asserted that Coyne Textile Services is another industrial laundry company that 

neglects basic safety measures for its workers. The commenter added that when EPA’s own consultants for this 

rulemaking conducted their on-site evaluations, they found such violations. [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 

conditional 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 environment. 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 solvent-contaminated shop towels present at 

laundry facilities. The commenter mentioned safety concerns resulting from solvent-soiled shop towels including

vapor release and chemical exposure resulting in nausea, headaches, and extreme dizziness. Additionally, 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 needs 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 stated and provided examples of dozens of industrial laundries across the country that 

have violated local pretreatment limits and suggested that the EPA should require that the transportation of solventcontaminated industrial wipes to laundries prevent loss, not just minimize 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 that 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 misinformation 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 collected in plastic garbage bags and sometimes

plastic grocery bags; (2) often, 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 liquid from the 

shop towels would soak through the gloves and get on workers’ hands and that sometimes workers were rushed and 

wore no gloves at all; (3) workers could not help but be in contact with whatever chemical was on the wipes, but did 

not know what chemical it was they were in contact with; (4) vapors from the wipes once in the truck were 

overpowering and there was nothing to protect the workers from this exposure; (5) none 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 from being in contact with them; (6) different towels contaminated with different solvents were mixed together; 

(7) Cintas never told the workers anything about protecting themselves from dangerous chemicals; (8) Cintas never 

gave the workers any training about how to handle contaminated shop towels or about the danger related to being in 

contact with these towels; (9) some protective gear was available, but workers were never told to use it and (10) 

given all the hazards posed by the solvents, Cintas once gave the commenter papers to give to the customer asking 

them to control the amount of solvent on the towels, but 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 into 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 considered by facilities and that workers are not exposed to 

unsafe levels of solvents. These commenters said that industrial 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 several industrial laundries have conducted comprehensive worker 

exposure studies and included the results in an attachment to their comments. The commenter believes that existing 

industry 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 stated 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, MSDS sheets, and training. [199-1017] Another 

commenter stated that their company has gathered best practices over the years for managing shop towels that 

include adequate consideration for worker safety. [199-1018]

Another commenter stated that concern for employees’ safety is demonstrated in service agreements with customers 

that state, “customer agrees to notify company, 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.” They 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 campaign 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 environmental 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 the 

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 allowed laundries to decrease water use, energy consumption and wastewater 

pollutant content. The commenter believes that these environmentally beneficial results exceed the likely results of a 

“command and control” approach through more regulation. [348]

(b) RESPONSE: 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 of solvent, which could pose risks to workers of the type described by the comments. Based on 

comments received, EPA has further strengthened the conditions for management of solvent-contaminated 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 loss to the environment,” under 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 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. This condition is designed 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 SolventContaminated 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.

Additionally, 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. 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, 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 conditions 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 the minimal solvents that are still present after 

meeting the no free liquid standard are effectively removed during sequential stages. The commenter further stated 

that industrial laundries examine the characteristics of wastewater sludge and other solid waste generated by their 

waste water treatment systems as required. The commenter believes that reusable 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 compliance, 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 

hazardous wastes. In the case of solvent-contaminated wipes, EPA is deregulating both reusable solventcontaminated 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.

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 definition of hazardous waste, rather than the definition of solid waste.

(a) COMMENTS: Several commenters supported EPA’s alternative Option 1. Several commenters said there is no 

logical basis to exclude reusable wipes from solid waste regulation 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 and disposable wipes to be treated differently, this 

giving an unwarranted preferential treatment for reusable wipes. The commenters believe that reusable wipes and 

disposable wipes should be required to have the same labeling and transportation requirements. One commenter 

stated 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 this 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 they 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 of solvent contaminated wipes, 

compared to the disposal of solvent wipes. The commenter said that reusable wipes are being managed in unregulated units with a great deal of employee handling, with emissions to surrounding communities, and with direct 

release 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 public 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 the 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 requiring 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 said the use of 

reusable towels fosters pollution prevention. The commenter added that many 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 separate 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 make the provision of reusable shop towels too 

expensive for some customers, and possibly too 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 hazardous waste exclusion). EPA finds that given the nature of the solventcontaminated wipe, the inherent economic value of the wipe, and the characteristics of the reusable wipe market, 

reusable wipes managed under the final rule exclusion are not solid wastes. (See the Agency’s basis for the 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 

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 pose significant risk to human health and the 

environment. Furthermore, reusable wipes 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 

waste 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 same 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 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 loss to the environment,” under 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 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. 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 “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. This label enables all entities to properly manage the 

container, for example, ensuring the container is protected from potential ignition sources. 

Additionally, EPA has strengthened the “no free liquids” condition by requiring the use of an EPA methods test 

(Paint Filter Liquids Test) to determine whether the condition is 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 and fires.
132

Lastly, 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 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 contaminated with certain solvents were ineligible for land disposal, whereas all solventcontaminated 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 solvent-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 option, 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 

introducing 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 uncertainty in the risk analysis suggests the five-gram criterion is not yet 

precise enough to change the regulatory approach. [246, 271, 281, 305, 328]

Two commenters supported a single set of conditions for disposable wipes, since this would simplify the 

regulations 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, if a wipe meets all of the hazardous waste exclusion requirements, then it should be allowed to be discarded 

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 solvent-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 must 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 

risk analysis, which was peer reviewed and published 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, only 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. Therefore, 

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-contaminated 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 disposable wipes meeting the conditions of the 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. In 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 commenters stated that on page 65619 of the proposed rule, a 

new exclusion is being added as § 261.4(a)(22); in paragraph (a)(22)(iii) a reference 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 the 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 wipes is now § 261.4(a)(26).

(b) COMMENTS: A few commenters stated that in footnote 7, after the word "higher," the text should read, "except 

any mixture having components with flashpoints of 110F (37.8C) or higher." [135, 193, 271] 

(b) RESPONSE: EPA agrees that the correct definition of flammable liquid in footnote 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 does 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 the 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 move 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 important requirement and, to be more visible to users, should stand alone. EPA has 

incorporated 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 waste for disposable wipes at § 261.4(b)(18)(iv).
134

(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, treatment, transportation and disposal [40 CFR part 266, subpart N]. The commenter stated that it 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) COMMENTS: 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 definitions unique to the proposed exclusions 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 that differ from 

those in 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 and are explicit to solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, some of which are 

destined for recycling. The commenter recommended that EPA consider relocating the final regulations in their 

entirety to part 266, “Standards for Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous 

Waste Management Facilities.” The commenter believes that this approach would be consistent with EPA’s intended 

use of part 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 regulation would be more appropriately 

placed in 40 CFR part 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 appropriately 

located at §§ 261.4(a) and (b) respectively. 

(g) COMMENTS: One commenter stated that, on p. 65600 (third column), EPA indicates that solvent removed from 

excluded wipes can ‘regain’ a listed hazardous waste designation (“Therefore, the generating 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 from 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 wipes to be disposed of as non-listed waste. Because it 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 requested 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 solventcontaminated wipes are hazardous waste solvents and 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 wastes, 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 would have no effect on the allowance of crossindustry 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 number 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). EPA 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 solvent 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 waste 

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 making 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 commingled with a wipe 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 regulations. 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 commenter 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 commenter stated that some generators 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 argued that the federal 

register notice did not provide a regulatory explanation as to why wipes 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 

presents 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 hazardous 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 the contained-in policy applies to environmental media and thus does not apply 

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. Residuals, such as laundry sludge or ash, generated from the laundering or combustion of solventcontaminated 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, the LDRs do not apply to solvent-contaminated wipes because the wipes are not hazardous 

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 hazardous 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 solvents listed as hazardous wastes F001 through F005. The solvent-contaminated wipes 

exclusions 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 wastewater 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 implemented by the industrial laundry trade associations, and 2) defer the issue to the Office of 

Solid Waste which was working on a rule 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 this 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 Environmental 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 wipes 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 complained about. [194]

(d) RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges this comment but does not have information on Massachusetts’ program with 

which to evaluate these statements.

(e) COMMENTS: One commenter expressed support for California Assembly Bill 2732, by California 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 requirements 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, EPA 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 

environment. 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 these 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 industrial 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) enforcement would be easier; (5) disposable and recyclable wipes may be handled in the 

same manner up to the point of receipt at the destination 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 applicability 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 

program; (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 unnecessarily, increase the costs of the rule without providing 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, solvent-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 demonstrating 

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 know 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 relationship of the two rules. 
138

As noted in the final rule preamble for the part 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 

hazardous; 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 hazardous would be subject to the part 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 the 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 not 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 

commenter 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 definition of a used oil? The commenter wants to know could it still be disposed of in a 

landfill, or would it continue to be subject to regulation under part 279? [271]

(g) RESPONSE: In developing the 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 as 

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 than 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-contaminants are also not eligible 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 mixture 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 hazardous 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 LargeSized 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 requiring 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 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 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 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. 
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 hazardous 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 inaccurately 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 essentially 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. Perhaps, 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-F005 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 information do not describe free liquid spent solvent listed under F001-F005, as these wastes present 

different characteristics and risk profiles. Revisiting the concept of the F001-F005 listing is not in the scope of the 

rulemaking. 

(k) COMMENTS: Several commenters 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, and several also supported EPA’s proposed 

language that solvent removal technologies and equipment are not subject to RCRA treatment standards, which 

should lead to more solvent recovery and reuse. [199-1011, 267, 320, 346]

(k) RESPONSE: Under the final rule, free liquids removed from solvent-contaminated wipes must be collected and 

managed according to the applicable hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273 and may count 

towards determining monthly generator status. Generators 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 § 261.6(c), 

which exempts the recycling process itself from certain hazardous waste requirements. Additionally, EPA 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 RCRA 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.