Appendix B: Comment Excerpts on

2003 Solvent-Contaminated Wipes 

Proposed Rule 

August 2012
2

Contents

1. General Comments...................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 General Support .................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 General Oppose................................................................................................................... 21

1.2.1 Proposed Rule Is Not Protective Enough..................................................................... 21

1.2.2 Proposed Rule Is Too Burdensome.............................................................................. 41

1.3 Parity Between Regulations for Reusable and Disposable Wipes...................................... 41

1.4 Clarity of Proposed Rule or of Existing Regulations.......................................................... 54

1.5 National Applicability......................................................................................................... 55

1.6 Goals of Rule or General Regulations for Laundries.......................................................... 57

1.7 Regulatory Definitions........................................................................................................ 63

2. Basis for Solid Waste Exclusion for Reusable Wipes.............................................................. 65

2.1. Applicability of Partial Reclamation Variance Criteria..................................................... 66

2.2 Support Basis for Exclusion of Reusables from Solid Waste Definition ........................... 76

3. Basis for Hazardous Waste Exemption for Disposable Wipes................................................. 84

4. Scope and Applicability of Rule ............................................................................................... 87

5. Conditions............................................................................................................................... 103

5.1. Containers........................................................................................................................ 104

5.1.1. Proposed Container Regulations Are Not Stringent Enough.................................... 114

5.1.2. Support Container Regulations as Proposed............................................................. 123

5.2. Labeling ........................................................................................................................... 126

5.3. Accumulation................................................................................................................... 136

5.4. Condition of Wipes.......................................................................................................... 154

5.4.1. Free Liquids.............................................................................................................. 155

5.4.2. No Free Liquids When Wrung.................................................................................. 166

5.4.3. Dry Condition ........................................................................................................... 179

5.5. Recordkeeping ................................................................................................................. 199

5.6. Handling Facilities........................................................................................................... 208

5.6.1. Laundries................................................................................................................... 210

5.6.2. Combustors............................................................................................................... 216

5.6.3. Landfills.................................................................................................................... 220

5.7. Free Liquids Received by Handlers................................................................................. 228
3

5.8. Other Conditions/Requirements....................................................................................... 235

6. Co-contaminants..................................................................................................................... 236

7. Intra- and Inter-company transfer........................................................................................... 245

8. Exotic Solvents....................................................................................................................... 256

9. State Authorization ................................................................................................................. 260

10. Enforcement.......................................................................................................................... 268

11. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Other Executive Orders.................................................... 272

12.0. Environmental/Worker Health Record of Industrial Laundries..................................... 276

13.0. Alternative Option 1: Exclude Reusables and Disposables from Hazardous Waste 

Definition ................................................................................................................................ 287

14.0. Alternative Option 2: Exclude Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Being Combusted and 

Wipes being Landfilled Under a Single Set of Conditions..................................................... 298

15.0. Clarifications and Typographical Errors........................................................................ 299

16. Miscellaneous ....................................................................................................................... 302
4

1. General Comments

Docket Number - 162

Comment Key - 709

Submitted by - C. Richard Titus of Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

Comment Text:

If the regulations go into effect as currently written, there is concern 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 nonhazardous wipes.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1405

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

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.

Docket Number - 239

Comment Key - 1248

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Hello, I just finished reading an article about this new law, published in a Russian newspaper, of all places. Here it is: 

http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/04/02/120.html 

If what Chris Floyd writes in his column is true - and I strongly suspect it is - then you, guys, have to be ashamed of yourselves.

Docket Number - 240

Comment Key - 1250

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Why would any company regulate itself if you won’t? If these same companies are complaining about the EPA's current 

standards why would they venture to find new methods, which costs time and money, in safely disposing the towels? If the EPA 

claims that reducing their regulations will save companies millions of dollars, why would they throw away those profits to do 

something they are not required to do?

Docket Number - 245

Comment Key - 1254

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I have heard general information about the Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes. I am not impressed with this idea. I am 

extremely concerned about the very use of such things. There are alternatives to toxic solvents. I expect the EPA to take 

leadership roles in using alternatives, protecting workers and promoting healthy environments.

Docket Number - 255

Comment Key - 967

Submitted by - John H. Skinner of The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 

Comment Text:

In general, SWANA agrees with the strict control of hazardous materials as listed in the referenced sections of the Federal Code. 

However, we concur with the proposed ruling that under certain, tightly controlled circumstances, common sense can be applied

and still accomplish the intent of the regulation while not needlessly over-controlling the disposal of benign substances or 

material. Without any motivation for considering significant new waste streams flowing into landfills or waste-to-energy 

facilities, SWANA does not believe 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 rule in fact acknowledges that some of 

these wastes are being processed by landfills and WTE facilities at present.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1058

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
5

Comment Text:

In summary, FDEP considers that small shops generating small quantities of wipes contaminated with hazardous waste solvents 

do not pose a significant environmental threat. However, the rule as drafted would be too cumbersome for small shops, regulators 

and disposal facilities to implement. The main beneficiaries would be suppliers of disposable wipes and large companies (with

environmental staff or consultants) who use them. The burdens will be borne by subtitle D landfill operators. FDEP urges EPA to 

reconsider ways to provide relief for small generators, perhaps by excluding some number or volume of wipes per month.

Docket Number - 277

Comment Key - 849

Submitted by - Michael G. Fusco of Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Hazardous waste spills often present a variety of threats to human health and the environment. These threats can come from 

contact with the spilled material, from the reactivity of the material, and from the ignitability of the material. These threats are 

significantly greater with a spilled hazardous waste than a known solvent that is used on a rag/wipe for cleaning or some other 

purpose. Since the hazards presented are greater for the spill than with a known solvent used for a known process, spill cleanup 

residues (rags/wipes or other absorbents) need to be treated more carefully to fully protect human health and the environment. 

Therefore, they must be handled in the Subtitle C System.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 938

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The MPCA recognizes the EPA's efforts to stay mindful of implementation costs.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 435

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

The proposal and its risk screening analysis focus on the potential impacts of the expected handling scenarios. Prior exemptions 

from RCRA have focused on reviewing rigorous mismanagement scenarios and have, for example, required passing the TCLP 

test as a criterion for exemption. The non-rigorous analysis used in this proposal is subject to severe abuse. In this case, EPA 

relied only upon a simple risk review. This is inadequate and unacceptable and should not move forward with exemptions from 

RCRA without conducting a sufficient analysis identifying the potential impacts these conditionally exempted wastes could have 

on human health and the environment should they be mismanaged.

Docket Number - 326

Comment Key - 976

Submitted by - Hal Shapiro of Walker Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only makes no sense considering the role shop towels 

play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure the protection of our workers and the environment. A solid 

waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing does not make sense. This would cause significant additional compliance cost 

that might make the provision of reusable shop towels too expensive for some customers, and possibly too expensive for all 

customers. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and would surely lead to employee lay-offs. 

Docket Number - 345

Comment Key - 751

Submitted by - Kyle Pitsor of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Comment Text:

NEMA believes 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 the USEPA. For example, not all industrial wipes are the same size, weight, or 

density. Wipes that are larger will be capable of absorbing more solvent than smaller wipes. More importantly, the USEPA 

inspector checking industrial wipes at the generator facility will find it difficult to quantify the amount of solvent in each 

industrial wipe.

NEMA hopes that the finalized rule will take into consideration these comments, thus giving the affected regulated industries the 

tools they need to provide the consumer with quality products that can compete in a world economy.
6

Docket Number - 355

Comment Key - 224

Submitted by - Robert Peters of The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) 

Comment Text:

When reviewing waste management practices at various aerospace manufacturing, maintenance and repair facilities, four overall 

conditions come into play:

[1] Aerospace facilities that generate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are governed by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. 

[2] While the Agency talks about the desire to provide a relaxed regulatory scheme; the continued need to provide 

containerization, storage limitation, transport restrictions and the like, seem more closely allied with managing the wipers as if 

they were hazardous waste rather than waste that is proposed to be conditionally exempt from solid and hazardous waste rules.

[3] Proposed requirements, no matter the wastes’ designation, must provide adequate and equal (for both disposables and 

reusables) levels of occupational and environmental protection. 

[4] Since the wipe user is the primary point of compliance at the accumulation site, the requirements must be capable of being 

determined in the field. The no drip “test” must be performed by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysis or 

specialized equipment. 

Docket Number – 199 

Comment Key - 1441

Submitted by - Rosa DeLauro of US Congress, CT 3rd District 

Comment Text:

With this rulemaking, I believe EPA has an obligation to protect workers like him, workers who are only trying to do their jobs. 

As such, I believe EPA must reconsider the options that it had previously rejected. Those include 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. These steps are a matter of good environmental stewardship, a matter of 

public health. The very least we can do for a laundry worker, I urge the adoption of them and I would like to again say thank you 

to the EPA and the Office of Solid Waste for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1487

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text: Status: Entered,

After we have spent 30 years under RCRA trying to keep solvents out of landfills, this rule would allow solvents to be disposed 

of in landfills.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1493

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

I think in the end so many conditions would be necessary to allow this material to be handled under conditional exclusion. But 

really it ought to be handled under the universal waste rule kept within the RCRA system but managed under flexible standards

that are appropriate for universal hazardous waste.

1.1 General Support

Docket Number - 137

Comment Key - 1274

Submitted by - Dan Piennette 

Comment Text:

Although I have not read the entire proposed rule anything that gives us in industry some relief from regulations is helpful. These 

rules it seems have never been enforced uniformly and fairly. Excluding towels/rags that are disposed of or laundered from the 

definition of hazardous waste just makes good common sense.
7

Docket Number - 142

Comment Key - 1620

Submitted by - of Uniseal, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Uniseal, Inc. is in favor of the proposed rule to conditionally exclude from Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste for SolventContaminated Industrial Wipes. Implementation of this proposed rule would reduce our hazardous waste by a large percentage, 

which would in turn be a cost reduction. The proposed rule to exclude certain solvent- soaked rags from the definition of 

hazardous waste is sensible, in that those rags contain a very small quantity of solvent, as they are primarily used for small 

cleaning tasks. 

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1576

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will 1) level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for decades; 2) establish a sound national policy for 

storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers; 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.

Docket Number - 160

Comment Key - 764

Submitted by - Louis Buty of Peerless Materials Company 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will 1) level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for decades; 2) establish a sound national policy for 

storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers; 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.

There is parity in the National Football League. There should be parity in the wiping cloth industry. What our industry faces is 

like playing football with the rules of the game being applied to our team only. Could you imagine allowing the other team to

hold or be off sides or get an extra down every possession? Obviously not! But, this is the game we are playing and it is unfair!

Docket Number - 166

Comment Key - 736

Submitted by - Alan Frankhariel of Mercantile Development, Inc. (MDI)

Comment Text:

The EPA's proposed rule will have a significant, positive impact on my small business by leveling the regulatory playing field 

that has long favored laundered shop towels over disposable wipers. My customers will be able to make product choices based on 

wiping performance rather than on unequal and esoteric regulatory compliance.

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 16

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

DuPont manufactures Sontara r spunlace and other nonwoven fabrics and I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly 

as possible because it will 

1) Level the regulatory playing field that has unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for 

decades;

2) establish a sound and responsible national policy for storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers;

3) enable users of wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance. We believe that fair trade 

between competitors is required here; or

4) help facilitate the collection and recycling of used solvents.

[however]... the rule, as proposed, is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. 

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 407

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 
8

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will 1) level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipes for decades; 2) establish a sound national policy for 

storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipes; 3) ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment while 

making it easier for nonwoven wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance; and 4) help 

facilitate the collection and recycling of used solvents.

I urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible. The current regulatory situation has been in effect for far too long, and has 

unnecessarily placed marketing restrictions on my company for decades.

Docket Number - 172

Comment Key - 711

Submitted by - Norman Manning of Leggett & Platt Incorporated 

Comment Text:

We are writing to urge the EPA to finalize this ruling as quickly as possible. Our company, Leggett & Platt, Inc., processes and 

provides disposable knitted and non-woven wiping cloths to a variety of industries. Leggett & Platt has been in the wiping cloth 

business for over 50 years. Over the years, we have experienced instances, we believe, where our products have been unfairly 

judged and rejected because of the current regulations favoring rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers. We believe 

this ruling will assist in allowing our product to be judged on a performance rather than a regulatory compliance basis. It is 

imperative for us that the EPA establish this sound national policy for storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers on a 

level playing field with rental shop towels.

Docket Number - 173

Comment Key - 290

Submitted by - Robert A. Young of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

We urge the EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will level the regulatory playing field that has favored 

rental shop towels over disposable wipers for years. AF&F’s business in this area has declined significantly over the years due 

primarily to the importation and use of foreign shop towels not subject to the hazardous waste restrictions placed on disposable 

wipers By passing this rule you will ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment while making it easier for 

our customers to make a decision based on the traditional factors of price, quality and delivery.

Although AF&F supports this EPA effort, we feel there is more that must be considered before the rule is finalized... It places 

labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 174

Comment Key - 796

Submitted by - Phillip E. Bryson of Polymer Group, Inc. ]

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because It will, 1) establish a sound national policy for 

storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers; and (2) ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment 

while making it easier for wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance. 

Docket Number - 175

Comment Key - 759

Submitted by - Wayne Proctor of Wellman, Inc. 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible so that it will level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily disadvantaged nonwoven disposable industrial wipers relative to laundered wiping products. We believe that 

nonwoven disposable wipes will eliminate the need to launder products containing solvents and other chemicals that may 

endanger our water supply. This rule will help insure adequate protection of human health and the environment while making it 

easier for wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance.

Docket Number - 177

Comment Key - 1651

Submitted by - of Peerless Wiping Cloth Company 

Comment Text:

I do support this EPA effort and realize that several issues must be addressed before the rule is finalized. While I understand that 

these changes will be detailed in comments filed by SMART the primary point to be made is that the rule continues to favor shop 
9

towels over disposable wipers. EPA's stated goals with this &ort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would 

facilitate solvent recycling and could easily be understood by the people who actually use the products. The proposed rule, 

however, does not require solvents to be removed before the shop towels are laundered or disposed of. Also, the proposed version 

of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers, which do not apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 402

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will eliminate a long standing and unnecessary bias 

towards rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers, establish a sound national policy for storing, transporting, and 

disposing of use wipers, and will allow fair competition-by all products based on performance rather than regulatory compliance 

while still ensuring adequate protection of human health and the environment. 

Docket Number - 180

Comment Key - 854

Submitted by - Donna Griesemer of Spic and Span, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Spic and Span, Inc. whole heartedly supports the new rule exempting solvent laden rags and wipes from the hazardous waste 

rules. Recycling these items keeps them out of landfills and when properly handled, wipes can be reused numerous times before 

they have to be replaced. The reclaimed solvent is recycled as well.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 35

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

In general, DOE supports EPA’s effort to resolve, at the federal level, the long-standing issues associated with management of 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 860

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

I urge the EPA to- immediately finalize this rule since it will:

-Set a national policy for storing, transporting and disposing of used wipers that is equitable;

-Protect the environment and human health by facilitating the collection and recycling of used solvents;

-Provide fair competition between rental shop towels 

Docket Number - 188

Comment Key - 893

Submitted by - Robert Dailey of Tranzonic Retail Group 

Comment Text:

I urge the EPA to immediately finalize the rule since it will:

-Set a national policy for storing, transporting and disposing of used wipers that is equitable;

-Protect the environment and human health by facilitating the collection and recycling of used solvents;

-Provide fair competition between rental shop towels and disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 867

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

I urge the EPA to immediateiy finalize this rule since it will:

-Set a national policy for storing, transporting and disposing of used wipers that is equitable;

-Protect the environment and human health by facilitating the collection and recycling of used solvents;

-Provide fair competition between rental shop towels 

Docket Number - 190

Comment Key - 843

Submitted by - George Cotter of Row Clothing 
10

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will 1) level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for decades; 2) establish a sound national policy for 

storing, transporting, and disposing of used wipers; 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; or 4) help facilitate the 

collection and recycling of used solvents.

Docket Number - 191

Comment Key - 65

Submitted by - of The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA) 

Comment Text:

CSHEMA generally supports EPA’s proposed conditional exclusion of solvent contaminated disposable industrial wipes from the 

definition of hazardous waste, and conditional exclusion of solvent contaminated reusable industrial wipes from the definition of 

solid waste. We particularly applaud EPA for adhering to three critical concepts in the development of this proposed approach:

-Inclusion of practical methods and performance standards. CSHEMA agrees with EPA that “one advantage of establishing a 

performance standard... is that the generator may take innovative approaches to meet the performance standard being sought 

rather than having to use a specific design.” (p. 65595) We strongly encourage EPA to continue to promote performance 

standards as an effective alternative to prescriptive requirements. 

-Emphasis on consistent application of regulations. We applaud EPA for noting that to create consistency, the EPA “would 

encourage states to adopt this rule, if promulgated, as soon as possible.” (p. 65612) The inconsistent application and enforcement 

of regulations between and among EPA regions and states continues to be problematic for the college and university sector.

-Incentives for pollution prevention. CSHEMA agrees with EPA that the tiered regulatory scheme proposed in this rulemaking 

would effectively encourage the practice of pollution prevention by the regulated community through the recovery of solvents 

and, where practicable, substitution of less toxic solvents.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1394

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP agrees that solvent-contaminated industrial wipes warrant special consideration to provide an appropriate level of 

regulation. Full RCRA hazardous waste regulation of these materials is not necessary to protect human health and the 

environment. 

Docket Number - 195

Comment Key - 638

Submitted by - Robert Tobin of Industrial Wiper and Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

I would very much like to voice my support and identify myself and my company as members of the Secondary Materials and 

Recycled Textiles Association (“S.M.A.R.T.”) who will be presenting detailed comments in response to your proposal...I further 

support rapid finalization of this proposed rule as it will help to equalize the undeserved regulatory advantage which laundries 

renting shop towels have enjoyed for far too long. I have previously discerned the need to establish a sustainable and intelligent 

national policy for the transportation, storage, and disposal of used wiping materials - furthermore, a policy which provides no 

advantage to any party or industry over any other.

Docket Number - 197

Comment Key - 419

Submitted by - Mark Benezra of Buffalo Industrial Products 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will level the regulatory playing field that has 

unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for decades. I believe that this rule will also ensure 

adequate protection of human health and the environment while making it easier for wiping products to compete on performance 

instead of regulatory compliance.

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 899

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

I am writing to urge EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will ensure adequate protection of human health 

and the environment while making it easier for wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance.
11

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 697

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, Kimberly-Clark submitted a petition to EPA in 1985 to exclude non-laundered 

wipes that were lightly contaminated with hazardous waste solvents from regulation as hazardous waste. The data KimberlyClark submitted to EPA at that time, and in the years since, supports our position that these lightly contaminated wipes do not 

pose a threat to human health or the environment when disposed as non-hazardous solid waste. It is appropriate and encouraging 

to see that EPA is finally addressing this issue. After 19 years of extensive data gathering and outreach, it is time for EPA to 

finalize this Rule and to provide generators with clear direction on how to handle solvent-soiled wipes in a manner that 

appropriately protects human health and the environment. 

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 129

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

Finalize this rule and implement it quickly. We’re glad to see that the EPA is addressing this issue. However, we are very 

concerned that it could take years before the proposed rule actually takes effect to protect AFSCME workers. Prove us wrong!

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 295

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

API generally supports EPA’s proposed rule and applauds the Agency’s efforts 1) to promote national consistency in regulations 

governing industrial wipes, 2) to reduce generators compliance costs and provide greater regulatory flexibility in the management 

of industrial wipes, and 3) to facilitate pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 1518

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

RCI supports the proposed rulemaking to conditionally exempt contaminated industrial disposable and reusable wipes... 

Docket Number - 268

Comment Key - 337

Submitted by - Patricia McCullough of Northeast Utilities System 

Comment Text:

NUSCO supports EPA’s efforts to streamline the management and disposal standards related to solvent-contaminated industrial 

wipes. Through this proposed rule, EPA has recognized the nominal hazards presented by industrial wipes contaminated with de 

minimis amounts of solvents. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1082

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP supports the reduced regulation of launderable wipes, and like many states, has had a policy in place for many years 

allowing generators to send such wipes to non-TSDF-permitted industrial laundries without manifests. CTDEP also does not 

require industrial laundries to obtain state hazardous waste transporter permits in order to haul these wipes to their facilities for 

cleaning. 

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 662

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

Based on the requirements contained in the proposed rule, IPC supports the direction taken by EPA to codify existing state policy 

as the regulatory standard.
12

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 780

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

PING supports the EPA’s proposal to conditionally exclude from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste solventcontaminated industrial wipes going to disposal and combustion, including use as fuel. In addition, PING supports the EPA’s 

proposal to conditionally exclude from the regulatory definition of solid waste solvent-contaminated reusable wipes, shop towels, 

and rags that are sent for laundering or dry cleaning.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 605

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

Since the beginning of this rule making in 1996, it has been the printing and packaging industry’s position that setting a national 

standard for the management and disposal of solvent contaminated towels , wipes and rags will benefit printers, the US EPA, and 

ultimately the environment. A well-crafted rule providing uniformity and consistency across the country will encourage rather 

than discourage pollution prevention. The GAC is pleased that the Agency has opted to address both reusables and disposable 

wipes in this regulatory proposal designed to level the playing field and provide an element of consistency for the industry.

Docket Number - 291

Comment Key - 675

Submitted by - Michael Norboge of Jacob Holm Industries 

Comment Text:

Jacob Holm Industries urges EPA to finalize this rule at the earliest opportunity. It is strongly expected that this rule will have the 

effect of producing a fair and equitable market for disposable industrial wipers, compared to rental shop towels which can 

currently be handled, transported, and laundered without discrimination. Jacob Holm also expects that, provided the rule is 

adequately prepared, it will have the even more important effect of helping to promote the collection and recycling of used 

solvents from the industrial environment.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 931

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The MPCA supports the policy of regulatory relief for those choosing non-hazardous Wipe solvents.

Docket Number - 298

Comment Key - 1611

Submitted by - Lawrence Liden of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

Comment Text:

Therefore, USWAG has long been supportive of EPA’s efforts to establish a more streamlined, practical and cost-effective 

regulatory program for handling these materials. USWAG believes that EPA’s proposal is definitely a step in the right direction. 

We fully agree with EPA’s findings that, from a risk-management perspective, moving forward with the proposed conditional 

exclusions is fully warranted because management of the wipes in accordance with certain minimal, good management practices, 

will ensure that they do not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment and, as such, do not warrant 

hazardous waste regulation. 

USWAG also supports EPA’s attempt to develop management standards that, for the most part, are intended to provide the 

regulated cornmunity with as much flexibility as possible to qualify for the exclusions. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 24

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

...under current hazardous waste management regulations, our non-laundered woven wiping cloths are being discriminated 

against in favor of laundered rental shop towels which are mostly manufactured offshore and imported into the United States by 

the commercial laundries. AF&F’s business in the industrial wiping market has declined significantly over the past 15 years due 

primarily to the importation and use of laundered foreign shop towels not subject to the hazardous waste regulations that are 

placed on non-laundered wiping cloths. There has been a significant migration of our customer base to laundered shop towels in 

order to avoid their “Cradle to Grave” disposal responsibilities.
13

...The generator cannot currently make their purchasing decisions based on the traditional factors of performance, price, quality 

and delivery. Instead they make their purchasing decision based on the ease of avoiding their disposal responsibility under 

current hazardous waste regulations. 

...Industrial facilities tend to use laundered shop towels instead of non-laundered wipers because shop towels are not subject to 

hazardous waste regulations. The non-laundered wipers are being replaced due to the additional cost, liability, and regulatory 

burden associated with current RCRA regulations. This is borne out by the EPA’s own data which shows laundered shop towels 

have an almost 90% percent share of the industrial wiping cloth market even though non-laundered wiping cloths can provide the 

end users with superior performance at a significantly lower cost if hazardous waste disposal costs were removed. 

...American Fiber and Finishing urges the EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will help level the playing 

field that has favored the laundered shop towels over the non-laundered wipers for years. All the research that I have read to date 

confirms that by passing the proposed rule the EPA will ensure the adequate protection of human health and the environment. 

You will further improve the recycling and conservation of hazardous solvents, which are the true culprits of any environmental 

risks associated with all wipers that are utilized with hazardous solvents. The EPA will promote improved compliance at the 

generator through simplifying the regulations, while erasing the inequities, and ambiguities present under current regulations.

...We feel it is critical that that EPA achieve parity between laundered shop towels and unlaundered wipers under the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule, structured toward parity, will foster greater compliance because the rule will be clearly understood and 

easy to implement by the generators. 

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 240

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports EPA proposing regulations that take into account the intended disposition of the wipes. 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. Separate approaches address the 

"resource conservation" aspects of the RCRA program - encouraging less wasteful practices and improving re-use rates.

The Alliance supports EPA in developing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes that are going to be 

legitimately reclaimed and reused. This approach is essential for EPA to meet their 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).

Docket Number - 306

Comment Key - 485

Submitted by - Gregory Roscoe of Colbond Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

In order to level the regulatory playing field that has unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers 

for decades, EPA should finalize this rule as soon as possible. In doing so, it will also ensure adequate protection of human health 

and the environment while making it easier for wiping products to compete on performance instead of regulatory compliance.

Docket Number - 308

Comment Key - 606

Submitted by - James F. Vaudreuil of Huebsch 

Comment Text:

As a small business operating in Eau Claire, WI, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Huebsch Services, a 4th 

generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling as well as local 

community leadership

Docket Number - 309

Comment Key - 416

Submitted by - Nelson Shrager of Budget Uniform Rental Supply 

Comment Text:

We are in support of the EPA's proposed shop towel rule...Without reusable shop towels we would be seriously handicapped in 

the marketplace. If the shop towel product line is not available to our customers (or is too expensive) they may be inclined to find

another source. Such alternate source may supply not only shop towels, but also other textile items such as uniforms or floor
14

mats. The financial impact of losing the revenue stream from shop towels (and other items) would have a disastrous effect on our 

company.

Docket Number - 310

Comment Key - 490

Submitted by - Renee Beethem of Compliance Resources & Technologies, Inc 

Comment Text:

As President of an environmental, health, and safety consulting firm, clients routinely request waste audits to be performed at 

their facility. Many of these clients have solvent contaminated rags as a waste by-product of production. Currently, there is no 

incentive for a business to spend the extra money to implement a reusable rag program for this type of waste stream. Frequently, 

due to economic reasons, the client will choose treatment/landfilling rather than recycling. If this proposal became law, some 

businesses would have an incentive to implement a reusable rag program since it has the potential to reclassify their waste 

generator status. If the waste generator status is reclassified, in most cases the business would financially benefit due to the 

reduction of regulatory requirements. When looking into these types of decisions, for good or for bad, economics plays a

substantial role. As a result, I am in favor of this proposed regulation for it will be a win-win situation for both the environment 

and businesses alike.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 685

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule change will provide much needed clarification and reduce regulatory uncertainty around the management and 

cleaning of these wipes.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 725

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

MPPA member companies support EPA’s proposal as a step in the right direction. It is clear that in developing the federal 

hazardous waste regulations in the early 1980s, the Agency never evaluated whether solvent-contaminated industrial wipes would 

pose the health or environmental risks of the hazardous waste solvents that were explicitly defined as listed hazardous wastes. 

Because hazardous waste regulations are only credible when they are supported by a sound scientific basis and carefully 

considered regulatory policy, the industrial wipes risk analysis undertaken by EPA, and its corrective proposal, are long overdue. 

In particular, MPPA supports EPA’s proposed deregulation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes where alternative 

management would be protective of health and the environment.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 726

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

MPPA conducted a survey of its members to gather information on on-site management and treatment and disposal of industrial 

wipes. MPPA supports the management of industrial wipes in containers that are covered (except when waste is being added), 

and a requirement that prohibits storage and shipment of free liquids with industrial wipes. MPPA’s member companies have 

used solvents and generated solvent-contaminated industrial wipes for a number of decades, without noting adverse effects on 

health or the environment. The proposed storage conditions, foreclosed containers, and “no free liquids” are now in place at 

MPPA member facilities. In its survey, MPPA obtained the following important information from its members:

-Where characteristic or F-listed solvents were used with rags, approximately 80% of the solvents or industrial wipes (or both) 

have already been the subject of waste reduction efforts (e.g., volume reduction, substitution, or other efforts). The fact that many 

non-hazardous waste solvents are also now in use reflects the waste reduction efforts of MPPA members.

-Even where industrial wipes are not hazardous waste, they are kept in closed containers with no free liquids.

-MPPA members support combustion of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes as a non-hazardous waste in an on-site or off-site 

boiler or incinerator.

-Laundering reusable industrial wipes has been and is likely to continue to be a practice of some facilities. MPPA members 

support this option, as well as the option of allowing rags and no free liquids to be disposed of in landfills, consistent with the 

EPA proposal.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 730

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 
15

Comment Text:

MPPA supports 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.

Docket Number - 314

Comment Key - 286

Submitted by - Alan Cobb of Alltex Uniform Rental Service, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The unintended consequences of not adopting the proposed regulation could make reusable wipers economically unattractive to 

our customer, and may result in hundreds of millions of disposable wipers being shipped to landfills weekly from thousands of 

users - the monitoring of which would be a nightmare for state and municipal regulators. Alltex is a relatively small company and 

yet we process 250,000 towels per week. Given it can take 3 to 5 disposable wipers to replace a cloth wiper, consequently 

approximately 1 million disposable wipers per week would be sent to landfills.

In contrast, in the state of New Hampshire the state and municipalities only have 3 or 4 locations which process reusable wipers 

that are currently monitored both by the state and the POTW that they discharge to for compliance.

Docket Number - 315

Comment Key - 466

Submitted by - Richard Spitzfaden of Clean The Uniform Company St. Louis 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in St. Louis, Missouri, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Clean The Uniform 

Company, a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling 

as well as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 969

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

At the outset, I believe it is appropriate to state that the Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program views most favorably 

EPA’s alternative proposal to conditionally exclude from the definition of hazardous waste reusable industrial wipes sent for

laundering or dry cleaning, but with the addition of provisions for container labeling during accumulation, storage and transit. 

Existing Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations already contain a comparable conditional exclusion for reusable 

absorbent material that is contaminated with used oil and sent to a commercial laundering service for cleaning. This type of 

conditional exemption has been well received by our regulated community.

Docket Number - 317

Comment Key - 739

Submitted by - Robert Hager of Miller's Textile Services 

Comment Text:

I am writing this letter in support of the EPA proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of 

solid waste will allow Miller's Textile Service, a Second generation family business, to continue to serve our Midwestern 

customers in an environmentally responsible manner, while continuing to provide the local community with a valuable recycling

service.

Docket Number - 319

Comment Key - 312

Submitted by - Howard M. Zins of American Reusable Textile Association (ARTA) 

Comment Text:

ARTA supports many of the positions taken by both the Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA) and the Uniform and 

Textile Services Association(UTSA)...In general, we believe certain matters bear ARTA’s comments which reinforce the 

perspectives of both the TRSA and the UTSA:

-Reusable industrial wipes (shop towels) should continue to be excluded from solid and hazardous waste regulations. At the state 

level, reusable shop towels have been largely excluded from solid and hazardous waste regulations. The state exemptions are 

based on sound principles and clearly reusable products are not, nor should they be, classified as solid waste.

-Reusable textiles, as a group of products, and specifically reusable shop towels are continually reprocessed and do not require 
16

placement in hazardous waste landfills. To this extent, reusables, in comparison to single use disposables, present a significantly 

diminished environmental challenge to the well being of our Nation’s population.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 355

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA generally supports conditional exclusions under RCRA. Conditional exclusions are appropriate because they address risks 

actually posed by materials instead of a "once-size-fits-all" approach when it comes to managing hazardous materials. 

Conditional exclusions are also beneficial as they target the necessary management scenarios without impacting all management 

systems. Conditional exclusions are especially appropriate for low risk wastes such as solvent contaminated wipes and rags. 

NPCA urges EPA to continue to use this more tailored approach as an alternative to the overbroad regulation under RCRA's 

Subtitle C. In addition, conditional exclusions often lead to greater recycling, waste minimization and pollution prevention 

activities with respect to hazardous secondary materials.

Docket Number - 321

Comment Key - 368

Submitted by - Edward Graves of Ashland, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Ashland generally agrees with and supports EPA’ s proposal to conditionally exclude reusable (recyclable) solvent-bearing 

wipers from the definition of solid waste, provided certain management standards are met. In addition, Ashland supports EPA’s 

proposal to conditionally exclude disposable solvent-bearing wipers destined for disposal (landfill or incineration), provided they 

are managed according to the standards specified in the proposal. Ashland believes this will remove unnecessarily complex 

regulatory compliance requirements from generators of these low volume and low risk by-products and waste materials. 

Furthermore, restricting the amount of solvent allowed to remain on the wipers in order to be eligible for the exclusion, as the 

proposal stipulates, will ensure that there is no environmental impairment or undue risk to human health from managing these 

materials as non-hazardous wastes.

Docket Number - 327

Comment Key - 855

Submitted by - Daniel J. Cohen of STAR Uniform Company 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in Dallas and Fort Worth Texas, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Star Uniform 

Company, Ltd., a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and 

recycling as well as local community leadership.

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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 most customers, and possibly too expensive for all 

customers. If STAR were to lose this significant revenue and subsequent earnings, I will be forced to sell my business. 

Ultimately, most if not all of the jobs in my company would be eliminated by the entity that would purchase STAR. After seventy 

seven consecutive years of successful business operations, I prefer the opportunity to set the stage for the fourth generation of 

family management and leadership.

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 491

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

In general, DP&L supports the proposed rule as a means of promoting a safe and cost effective management alternative to the 

handling of certain solvent-contaminated industrial wipes as hazardous waste or solid waste.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 951

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

Comment Text:

In summary, ADEQ generally supports EPA's proposal for reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. However, EPA 
17

should consider increasing the performance standard for container closure and design. Intermediate industrial wipes handling 

facilities should have RCRA hazardous waste management permits and limits should be placed on accumulation and 

management timeframes for generators, transporters, and reclaiming facilities. ADEQ does not support a conditional exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. ADEQ believes that EPA has not 

adequately considered the risks to human health and the environment which would result from such a conditional exclusion. 

ADEQ is concerned that many of the supporting objectives EPA rationalized as an outcome of implementation of the proposed 

rule are unlikely to be achieved. Further, the proposed conditional exclusion is in contradiction with current Arkansas law and 

environmental objectives.

Docket Number - 333

Comment Key - 462

Submitted by - Jeff Ross of Clean The Uniform Company Highland 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in Highland, Illinois, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Clean The Uniform 

Company, a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling 

as well as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 334

Comment Key - 464

Submitted by - Pat Farris of Clean The Uniform Company O'Fallon 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in O'Fallon, Missouri, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's 

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Clean The Uniform 

Company, a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling 

as well as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 335

Comment Key - 468

Submitted by - Bill Albright of Clean Uniform Company Joplin 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in Webb City, Missouri, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Clean The Uniform 

Company, a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling 

as well as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 339

Comment Key - 515

Submitted by - David Hinkle of Eagle Uniform and Linen supply 

Comment Text:

As a business operating in Lander, Wyoming, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow Eagle Uniform Supply, a 

SECOND generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling as well 

as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 343

Comment Key - 210

Submitted by - Aaron Finkelstein of Ace Uniform 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste will allow our company, Ace Uniform Services, Inc., a third 

generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use and recycling as well as local 

community leadership... Currently, shop towels represent approximately 10% of our company’s overall revenue and thus 

encompass a significant part of our business. Shop towels also have added importance because they frequently constitute the 

initial product purchase of a textile “package” for customers that might ultimately include uniforms, floor mats and other textile 

products. Additionally, if the shop towel component of a customer account becomes too expensive (or unavailable), customers 

may be inclined to satisfy elsewhere their needs for other textiles such as uniforms or floor mats.

Docket Number - 344

Comment Key - 761

Submitted by - Travis Keeler of Overall Laundry Services
18

Comment Text:

As a business operating in the states of Washington and Oregon, I am writing this letter in support of the Environmental 

Protection Agency's proposed shop towel rule. Excluding reusable shop' towels from the definition of solid waste will allow 

Overall, a third generation family business to continue its tradition of environmental responsiblity, resource use and recycling as 

well as local community leadership.

Docket Number - 345

Comment Key - 748

Submitted by - Kyle Pitsor of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Comment Text:

NEMA supports the proposed rule as listed in the Federal Register November 20,2003. Specifically, the use of performance 

standards for on-site management in the proposed rule, permits generators greater flexibility to comply with environmental 

regulations when accumulating, marking, labeling, or disposing of disposable industrial wipes contaminated with small amounts 

of solvents. NEMA agrees with EPA that compliance with the performance standards listed in the proposed regulation minimizes 

the potential environmental impact of spent industrial wipes containing small amounts of solvent.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 281

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on this important rulemaking initiative and urges EPA to move 

forward as soon as possible with promulgation of the final rule.

Docket Number - 353

Comment Key - 315

Submitted by - of American Trucking Association (ATA) 

Comment Text:

ATA commends EPA for its efforts to help clarify the disposal and recycling of used shop wipes. Over the last 18 years, the 

handling of such wipes has caused confusion within our industry and cost our members millions of dollars to comply with the 

regulatory requirements. EPA’s risk screening analysis confirms what industry has contended for quite some time, that is, 

establishing minimal management standards for the handling of shop wipes will result in no substantial hazards being posed to

human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 769

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

At the outset, Phelps Dodge would like to state its support for EPA’s recognition that solvent-contaminated industrial wipes are 

currently subject to “over-regulation," and for EPA’s objectives under the proposed rule to provide for economical and consistent 

regulation of these materials. Phelps Dodge also supports EPA’s objective of encouraging solvent recovery and recycling.

Docket Number - 360

Comment Key - 852

Submitted by - Bernard Brill of The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

The EPA is taking the proper action by focusing attention on the solvent and not the wiper. It should not make any difference

whether the solvent is placed on a laundered or non-laundered wiping product, as long as they are both under the same 

regulations and requirements it will allow the user to select the most appropriate product for the application.

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 287

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

Boeing generally supports the conditional exclusions proposed by the agency.

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1220

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

The GAC continues to support the Agency’s efforts to develop and issue a rule addressing the handling and disposal of solvent 
19

contaminated towels and wipes. This issue has been a significant concern to the printing industry – and industry in general – for 

many years. 

Docket Number - 461

Comment Key - 1643

Submitted by - Charles Sewell of Textile Rental Services of America (TRSA) 

Comment Text:

When more current and robust data are carefully reviewed, it is clear that the level of solvents, including tetrachloroethylene (also 

known as perchloroethylene or "PCE"), likely to be present in laundry sludge is well below an acceptable human health risk 

level. Accordingly, TRSA believes that the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for shop towels, as proposed 

in 2003, is protective of human health and urges EPA to proceed with finalization.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1239

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Again, after the many years that EPA has spent analyzing appropriate regulatory conditions for solvent-contaminated wipes, 

INDA/SMART encourage the Agency to move quickly to publish a revised final wiper rule so that generators may finally have 

the regulatory relief, certainty, and simplicity that is clearly warranted.

...Given the overall conclusions from the revised risk analysis, the information presented in these comments and in the 

administrative record, INDA/SMART believes that 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 NPRM and that allow co-disposal of solvent-contaminated wipes and laundry 

sludge containing any of the solvents analyzed by EPA other than PCE (and perhaps TCE) in unlined non-hazardous or 

municipal landfills.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1647

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Should Quickly Promulgate A Final Wiper Rule Consistent With These Comments In Order To Expedite Warranted 

Benefits To Solvent-Contaminated Wipe Generators. 

Employing the management method described above would clearly further the Agency’s goal of increasing regulatory flexibility 

and simplicity of compliance for the small business owners and other generators subject to this rule [68 FR 65586]. By allowing 

for co-disposal of solvent-contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in unlined municipal or nonhazardous waste landfills, the 

Agency 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. In addition, since there are a number of functioning landfills in the United States that operate with both 

unlined and lined areas, INDA/SMART’s preferred management method would allow generators to use these landfills for codisposal of wipes and laundry sludge without special, burdensome and unnecessary disposal requirements being implemented to 

ensure that certain solvent-contaminated waste is disposed of in the lined portion of the landfill.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1419

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of Secondary Materials That Recycle Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

Finally, this rule has taken 18 years, 18 years to reach this point. The data has been collected. The various constituents have been 

heard. Please don't get bogged down in yet another election season or allow another pressing environmental issue to derail what 

is a long awaited, simple to follow common sense rule that protects human health and the environment. Creating a simple rule 

will increase the rate of compliance while offering the wiper users choices based on performance of the actual wiping product 

rather than on a regulation that favors one product over another. This allows small businesses the ability to compete in the 

marketplace. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1421

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 
20

Comment Text:

Please do not delay this measure any longer and expedite this rule to its final stage. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1429

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text: Status: Entered,

[A]fter 18 years of extensive research, meetings, memos, letters, faxes, e-mails and telephone calls, I encourage you to finish 

your work and finalize this rule as soon as possible. 

...I strongly encourage EPA to finalize your rule that will have one set of conditions for laundered and non-laundered wipes. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1447

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

SGIA has long been supportive of the Agency’s effort to develop and propose a rule addressing the handling of the disposal of 

solvent contaminated rags and wipes...Overall, we feel that the proposed language does indeed create that level playing field.

We also agree with the Agency’s decision to address both reusable and disposables in the proposed language. The inclusion of 

both satisfies a long term goal of the printing industry which is to essentially codify the existing policy regarding handling of 

reusable towels and address the issue of disposal towels and wipes... We do appreciate and support the Agency’s use of a 

performance based approach to the standard. Overall, we find that the requirements set forth can be implemented by the industry. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1455

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

INDA has been actively involved in this issue for more than ten years. And we hope that EPA finalizes this proposed rule as 

quickly as possible. Indeed, based on the fact that more than 18 years of extensive research and outreach have already been 

conducted INDA contents that no further study is necessary and a final rule should be published before the end of this calendar 

year. That said, however, INDA contends that certain aspects of the EPA proposal are unnecessarily complex and confusing and 

we urge the Agency to make several changes before finalizing the rule. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1463

Submitted by - Gary Jones of Graphic Arts Technical Foundation/ Printing Industries of America 

Comment Text:

Additionally GATF/PIA supports the approach offered by the Agency for the handling of reusable shop towels. Today over 90 

percent of the offset lithographic printing industry uses reusable shop towels. They use them for a variety of reasons mainly

production. But they also enjoy the opportunities provided by the state policies that allow companies to recycle towels and to not 

have them counted towards the amount of total hazardous waste generated by the facility.

This practice effectively reduces the amount of waste generated that often may be land filled or incinerated and reduces the total 

cost of disposal that must be absorbed by the facilities. This proposal allows facilities to continue its current practices. The rule 

also achieves our stated goal providing consistency among state agencies. While many states do currently consider reusable 

towels to be hazardous waste, many variations on a theme exist. The language included in the rule effectively codifies the current 

practices, provides facilities with the necessary guidance regarding handling of reusable towels and wipes. GATF/PIA also 

supports the Agency’s decision to address the handling of disposable wipes and rags. For the first time the Agency is providing 

clear direction to the states regarding handling disposal of these types of wipers and will create as with reusable towels a 

consistent level playing field. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1471

Submitted by - David Dunlap of Uniform and Textile Service Association (UTSA) 

Comment Text:

In conclusion, UTSA and TRSA fully support EPA’s proposal to provide a realistic solution for reusable shop towels including 

the former exclusion of properly managed reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste. To reiterate, we strongly 

support this rule as [proposed]. 
21

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1473

Submitted by - Robert Schaffer of Coyne Textile Services/TRSA 

Comment Text:

Although the proposed regulation does not require to the extent they codify their regulation, not required from a worker safety 

perspective to the extent that they codify the regulatory status quo [sic], Coyne supports EPA’s efforts and subject to the joint 

comments and these are the joint comments that will be submitted by UTSA and TRSA later this month.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1477

Submitted by - William Guerry of UTSA/TRSA 

Comment Text:

In conclusion, well established legal and regulatory precedent as well as sound policy compels EPA to finalize the proposed solid 

waste exclusion for reusable shop towels. 

1.2 General Oppose

Docket Number - 138

Comment Key - 1111

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I oppose this rule.

Docket Number - 207

Comment Key - 1119

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I am opposed.

Docket Number - 247

Comment Key - 1255

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

This proposed rule should not be adopted. The RTI study recommends that further risk analysis could be undertaken. There is no 

good reason to adopt this rule. 

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 1650

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

In summary, ADEQ generally supports EPA's proposal for reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. However, EPA 

should consider increasing the performance standard for container closure and design. Intermediate industrial wipes handling 

facilities should have RCRA hazardous waste management permits and limits should be placed on accumulation and 

management timeframes for generators, transporters, and reclaiming facilities. ADEQ does not support a conditional exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. ADEQ believes that EPA has not 

adequately considered the risks to human health and the environment which would result from such a conditional exclusion. 

ADEQ is concerned that many of the supporting objectives EPA rationalized as an outcome of implementation of the proposed 

rule are unlikely to be achieved. Further, the proposed conditional exclusion is in contradiction with current Arkansas law and 

environmental objectives.

1.2.1 Proposed Rule Is Not Protective Enough
22

Docket Number - 149

Comment Key - 1572

Submitted by - Randi Thistlewaite 

Comment Text:

A proposed rule to alter the definition of hazardous waste to eliminate existing federal controls over an estimated 1.5 million tons 

of waste generated across the country is not in the public’s best interest. It would create broad, unprecedented exemptions to the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s definition of solid waste. Materials currently deemed “hazardous wastes” that are 

generated and reused or reclaimed within broad industrial groups will no longer be regulated as wastes.

In place of the current extensive tracking system, which ensures proper handling of hazardous substances from point of origin to 

final treatment, storage, or disposal, the new rule would allow substances to be shipped without federal oversight. The proposed 

changes will save companies money, but will cost our communities. In the text of the rule, the EPA openly admits, that its action 

“is not based on any analysis of health or safety risks.” A more prudent course would be to assess these risks before considering 

any change to existing rules.

De-regulating 1.5 million tons of waste puts corporate desire over our safety, our children’s safety, and the future of our great 

nation. I expect our government to think about long-term consequences, not short-term gains. Eliminating current controls over 

hazardous waste appears to be a short-term gain and it is entirely unacceptable.

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 23

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

I am very concerned that your new draft regulations fail to protect workers, communities and the environment from dangerous 

solvents on shop towels. Solvents pose serious health risks, most heavily for the laundry workers and drivers who often handle 

the towels in cloth bags or other open containers. When solvents escape into the environment, they can cause serious air and 

water pollution in surrounding communities. Please put workers and the environment first by replacing this weak proposal with 

regulations that provide real protections for workers and communities.

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 3

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

Instead of taking the necessary precautions to protect workers and the environment your draft regulations leave the door open for 

industries to send dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents. This allows additional tons of toxins to

spread into local sewage plants, rivers and lakes. 

Docket Number - 181

Comment Key - 1275

Submitted by - Charles Gamez 

Comment Text:

How can anyone in this organization call themselves part of the 'Environmental Protection Agency' when they constantly support 

or advance legislation detrimental to humans and the environment? How long will you go on through life not doing your job? 

Can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say you are doing what is best for the environment? I posed this question on 

'industrial wipes' to my 10 year old daughter and five year old nephew. Guess what? They sided against your decision, too.

Docket Number - 182

Comment Key - 92

Submitted by - Nathan Jaschik of Interfaith Alliance of Rochester 

Comment Text:

On behalf of the Interfaith Alliance of Rochester, a local alliance of the National Interfaith Alliance, with Rochester area 

membership exceeding 150 concerned clergy and laity of many different faith traditions, I have been authorized to express our

concern that your new draft regulations fail to protect workers, communities and the environment from dangerous solvents on 

shop towels. The chemicals pose serious health risks, especially for laundry workers and drivers who have to carry wet wipes in 

cloth bags and open containers without proper safeguards. Instead of taking the necessary precautions to protect workers and the 

environment your draft regulations leave the door open for industries to:

- send dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents, allowing additional tons of toxins to spread into local 

sewage plants, rivers and lakes.

- store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks.
23

- neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle towels, or routine recordkeeping 

by facilities that generate the toxics. Please put workers and the environment first by replacing this weak proposal with 

regulations that provide real protections for workers and communities. Please consider this an official comment.

Docket Number - 183

Comment Key - 1279

Submitted by - Diana E. Robayo 

Comment Text:

As a first generation American I am very concerned with policies that affect workers' health and rights. My family first came to 

the United States over 20 years ago and are now all American citizens. However when they first arrived in this country they were 

forced to accept low-paying jobs because they did not know the language. They were often exploited, paid underneath the 

minimum wage, and had to accept working in hazardous conditions. For personal reasons and because I have witnessed firsthand 

other immigrant workers in these conditions, I am urging you to reconsider the new draft regulations that fail to protect workers, 

communities and the environment from dangerous solvents on shop towels. The chemicals pose serious health risks, especially 

for laundry workers and drivers who have to carry wet wipes in cloth bags and open containers without proper safeguards. 

Instead of taking the necessary precautions to protect workers and the environment your draft regulations leave the door open for 

industries to:

- send dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents, allowing additional tons of toxins to spread into local 

sewage plants, rivers and lakes.

- store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks.

- neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle towels, or routine recordkeeping 

by facilities that generate the toxics.

It is my sincere hope that you do not accept this proposal and put workers' health and rights first.

Docket Number - 192

Comment Key - 1263

Submitted by - Barbara Paschke 

Comment Text:

There are already more than enough toxics and dangers to human health as well as to our small finite planet (which happens to be 

our only home), that we must guard carefully both humans and earth. Your proposed draft regulations deny any regard for both 

people and earth. We must not be short-sighted. I have two small grand children, and I do not want them to have to suffer the 

consequences of a greedy society that fails in foresight. It is not bad policy to consider the 'big picture.'

Docket Number - 200

Comment Key - 95

Submitted by - Craig Etchison of Center for Nonviolent Alternatives 

Comment Text:

I can't believe you're actually going to weaken federal safeguards for handle poison-soaked "shop" towels. That's really doing 

your job--protecting people from environmental poison. Actually, I can believe you are doing this. Cintas--that big industrial 

launderer--will increase profits at the expense of health, but, hey, Cintas chairman, Richard Farmer makes big contributions to 

Bush and the Republicans, and many of us know that government is all about profit and money in the Bush administration. And 

obviously, since Cintas only made $249 million in profits last year, they really should be able to make more. If workers' health is 

put at risk, so what? Workers don't make big contributions to political parties and Mr. Bush. This move on your part is shameful, 

but I'm aware there is no shame, no caring in this administration, so am not surprised. 

Docket Number - 201

Comment Key - 1277

Submitted by - Chris Floyd 

Comment Text:

This "rule" is not science, it's not commerce -- it's politics. It's a political payoff to one of George W. Bush's top fundraisers, 

Richard T. Farmer of Cintas Corp. Last year, Cintas made a profit of $250 million, free and clear. In what way is the industry 

being harmed by safety regulations protecting its workers from exposure to dangerous chemicals? This is nothing but a $30 

million return on the industry's investment in the political fortunes of George W. Bush. We know that Farmer has given the 

Republican Party more than $2 million during the Bush Administration -- and just before this rule was proposed, he had hosted a 

forkover of $1.7 million to Bush's campaign coffers. My lord, they don't even try to hide their political graft anymore. If you are 

truly government officials, servants of the people -- which include the low-paid immigrants and other "unimportant" wage slaves 

laboring in the sweatshops of Mr. Farmer and his fellow shop-towel barons, then I urge you not to strip our fellow citizens of 

these protections.
24

Docket Number - 202

Comment Key - 1113

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

This is an illegal exemption that will allow tons of hazardous solvents and chemicals to be released to the environment, and 

permit extreme exposures to low-wage workers. This represents an extreme risk to human health and the environment due to the 

uncontrolled handling and release of these RCRA chemicals.

There has been no assessment of the human health or environmental risks associated with this rule.

This is simply illegal and is a result of Richard Farmer's contributions to George Bush. EPA should be prepared for multiple 

lawsuits resulting from the illnesses and toxic releases associated with this rule.

Docket Number - 203

Comment Key - 1114

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I am writing to express my absolute disagreement with this proposed rule. Subjecting workers to hazardous material in any form 

is obscene. Our health and well being is supposed to be the EPA's priority, not protecting business interests. Political payoffs are 

an affront to democracy, they place citizens in harm's way. I strongly urge you to oppose this rule. 

Docket Number - 204

Comment Key - 1115

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I strongly urge against adopting this proposal. As an academic with knowledge in the field of scientific ethics I assure you that 

this rule is decidedly unethical. The potential for serious and irrevocable harm is very real, and cannot be disputed. These are 

hazardous solvents being dealt with, and should be treated as such. The risk to laundry workers, the environment and civilian

populations around these plants is very real, and far outweighs any possible benefits from relaxing the rules concerning the 

management of hazardous waste. There is no ethical basis for accepted the proposed alterations; don't let's be heinous now

Docket Number - 205

Comment Key - 1116

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Clearly, the rules governing the handling and disposal of toxic wipes need to be strengthened, not relaxed, as EPA proposes. 

I understand that Richard Farmer's contribution to Pres. Bush's reelection committee has already been processed. As such, why

not surprise your mother and do the right thing? Amend the rules in such ways that the workers receive additional protection.

Docket Number - 206

Comment Key - 1117

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Why do we have the EPA? Is passing a docket like this protecting the environment? I don't see any motives or goals that benefit 

the environment in this deal. What are you people doing. The role of the government is to take responsibility for the well being of 

the nation. This will hurt our nation greatly. You have the power to make a better life for all Americans. This is not the way to do 

it. Is money more important than the well-being of the American people?

Docket Number - 208

Comment Key - 1120

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I am opposed to relaxed standards for disposing of solvent wipes or industrial rags contaminated with various solvents.

Industry and the Government is frequently willing to experiment with public health, usually because of human greed. It seems 

that every day this experiment that has no control group is expanded to greater risk levels.
25

Some solvents are stored in fat cells and accumulate for long periods, others are mutagenic. We can not afford to knowingly and 

willfully increase the level of pollution in our life support system. Particularly with something as toxic as solvents. 

It makes me wonder what would cause the people that are supposed to be protecting our environment, the EPA, to introduce new 

rules to allow increased levels of toxic pollution to be released with less oversight. This questions needs to be answered.

This appears to be yet another assault on the public health by the very organization charged with its protection. 

With terrorist organizations who would like nothing more than to sicken the American population with chemical or biological 

attacks, I find it ironic that we are doing it to ourselves voluntarily. Rule changes like this one are a prime example.

Docket Number - 209

Comment Key - 1122

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I think this is an outrageous scam, specifically, for the workers that will be handling these materials and for those living near or in 

the surrounding areas where the carcinogens and toxins will be displaced. Of course, I'm sure, you all will forget that those most 

in contact with these materials probably can't afford a healthcare plan that will even posture as a decent adversary to these 

chemicals, but that isn't the issue. the issue is that if these chemicals are necessary, they should at least be controlled to a degree 

where nothing is harmed, not the people and especially not the environment. A $30 million commitment by these companies to 

control their waste is a tiny price to pay (relative to their overall profit- a mere $750 million a year for these toxic laundry 

businesses) in comparison to the harm it will cause. Think about who you will hurt with this and not about the pockets you will 

stuff, vote with your heart once and not with your...erm... capital; it might feel good to do good.

Docket Number - 210

Comment Key - 1126

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Fat businessmen, such as Cintas's Richard Farmer shouldn't be able to buy exemption from rules that protect the environment and 

people's health. In September of 2004 Farmerof Cintas Industrial Laundry threw a campaign fundraising bribe fest, and raised 

$1.7 million in a single night for King George III. A few weeks later this rule was proposed which exempts Farmer's industry 

"from federal hazardous and solid waste requirements for shop towels contaminated with toxic chemicals." This means that peon 

laborers, largely immigrant and other dusky-hued low-paid workers are going to run serious risks to their health so that the fat 

likes of Farmer can get fatter. According to EPA's estimates, this will save the industrial laundry industry $30 million a year, a 

third of which is controlled by Cintas - a better return than the Stock Market. 

Cintas's sweatshop operation pulled down $250 million last year alone. This rule will also allow the industry to process 100,000 

tons of toxic solvents - which will then find their way into the rivers, streams and groundwater of the surrounding communities. 

How long will this corruption continue, which makes the robber barons of the late 19th Century and the scandals of Tea Pot 

Dome look like the Golden Age of Philanthropy ? And how much can our earth takes before it takes a last breath and shrugs 

exhausted and dead? Please do not allow this rule change.

Docket Number - 211

Comment Key - 1127

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I am against allowing this conditional exclusion. The rags and wipes must be handled just like any other dangerous hazardous 

waste with protections to the workers who clean the wipes and protections so the solvents used to clean the wipes do not get into 

the environment. 

The workers who clean these wipes are needlessly exposed to dangerous cancer causing materials if the exclusion is allowed. Do 

not put more workers in danger.

Docket Number - 212

Comment Key - 1128

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Please maintain high standards of safety for our laundry workers. Thanks.
26

Docket Number - 213

Comment Key - 1345

Submitted by - Scott Pettay 

Comment Text:

Do not let this go through. Just because Bush got a nice contribution to his campaign a few years ago from Richard Farmer 

doesn't mean you have to roll over and do what Bush says. This will ruin many people’s lives, drive already bloated health care 

prices up, and have a serious impact on our environment. Think about your and our kids' future. Will we be proud of the 

condition we've left this county in when we leave to the next generation? All I know is that it seems like the EPA has been 

spinning out of control since Bush has come into office.

Docket Number - 214

Comment Key - 1129

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

It's far from obvious to me that the financial well-being of a big contributor to the campaign of a major political party is 

important enough to warrant blowing off common-sense safeguards for his otherwise completely helpless employees. I don't see 

that their welfare, or that of anyone else coming into contact with these contaminated rags, is served at all by this exemption.

Docket Number - 215

Comment Key - 1130

Submitted by - Gypsy Gies 

Comment Text:

The job of the EPA is to protect the environment from humans, and humans from the environments we corrupt. To refuse 

protections for lower society/income positions is to wholly fail in this job. The EPA now becomes a joke. There can be absolutely 

no positive rationale for this docket. The EPA now becomes just another mindless, spineless puppet in pocket of wealthy political 

lobbyist and White House anti-Americans policy. If the EPA can no longer be trusted to protect us from the capitalist interests of 

dehumanized Corporate Bodies -- who do we turn to now? Do we have to create an entire other governing body just to watchdog 

the EPA, and double-step you to make you do your Job??

Docket Number - 216

Comment Key - 1132

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

EPA, Do not allow this change of rule to take place. It is more than just a political issue. Poisoning employees and environment 

bear huge social costs which are not burdened to industry but to all the public. DO THE CORRECT THING!!!

Docket Number - 217

Comment Key - 1133

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

What is the possible legitimacy of excepting toxic-waste soaked towels from EPA regulations? Does it benefit the already 

underpaid workers who are responsible for cleaning them? Does it benefit our environment? This kind of move on the part of the 

EPA makes it all to clear that corporate donations to the Bush campaign, such as those toxic-waste disposal giant Cintas has been 

making as of late, are the sole factor driving your organization's decision making process. This all-too-obvious "selling out" to 

corporate interests seriously comprises the EPA's integrity in the public mind, and undermines the integrity of American 

democracy in general. Please do not pass the proposed docket.

Docket Number - 218

Comment Key - 1134

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

The decision to exclude Bush's crony Farmer from normal rules of decency will be considered par for the course for the Bush 

EPA, unfortunately. You must be very proud of yourselves for toeing the line, but what will your grandchildren think?

Docket Number - 219

Comment Key - 1333

Submitted by - Matt Leitch 
27

Comment Text:

This relaxation of rules is resulting from a payoff to the Bush administration from industrial laundries. This fact has been 

documented in the Campaign Money Watch magazine as well as other places. 

Here is one of many links you should check out.

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd04012004.html

Remember, the EPA is here to protect the people. That means all the people. Not just the republican group. 

Docket Number - 220

Comment Key - 1136

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I believe that there should be no exceptions made in the area of Hazardous Waste Management. No conditional exclusions should

be made either. Such exclusions end up hurting a vast majority of us since the resulting air or water (in this case more water than 

air) pollution will affect ground water and adversely affect the health of the industry's workers and the general public. As it is this 

industry has been notorious lax in applying existing environmental rules. This exception issues a license to codify this abuse into 

general practice. I vote "no" on these "Conditional Exclusions".

Docket Number - 221

Comment Key - 1137

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

George W. Bush's many crimes against humanity aren't going unnoticed, and the EPA's complicity in some of them aren't going 

unnoticed, either. "Environmental Protection Agency" is becoming more & more of an ironic title to this organization. Please do 

not let this awful rule pass. It only supports wealthy businessmen who can afford to buy a president. The public knows this. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd04012004.html

Docket Number - 222

Comment Key - 1138

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I cannot believe that the EPA would even consider allowing; 1)workers to handle toxic waste wipes, and 2)that these wipes 

would even be considered recyclable. The effect of handling toxic soaked wipes may not be immediate, like other toxic waste, 

the lasting effects of individuals handling such materials has been well documented as being cancer causing and detrimental to 

the health of those individuals in their long term effect. What happens to the toxic waste that is removed, if in fact it is completely 

removed, is that it ends up being dumped into the soil, lakes and rivers and eventually ends up in our water supply. This proposal 

is bad on its face and in its long term effect and should not even be considered. I say a resounding "NO" to this proposal.

Docket Number - 223

Comment Key - 1344

Submitted by - Sarah Somers 

Comment Text:

This rule would be harmful to workers and harmful to the environment. To whom would it be helpful? Presumably, certain 

businesses that would like to be free of requirements that make it more difficult to dispose of harmful solvents. I understand that 

at least one of the businesses that will save millions of dollars because of this rule is a massive contributor to President Bush's 

reelection campaign. That makes this rule all the more reprehensible. 

Docket Number - 224

Comment Key - 1140

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I would just like to voice that I, as a citizen, am not in agreement with these proposed changes in this docket. These Industrial 

Wipes should not be excluded from the listing and identification of Hazardous Waste. The EPA should uphold concern for me 

and my fellow citizens (including workers who have to handle such wipes) and the environment that is affected by the handling

of such wipes. Instead of relaxing such rules and regulations, they should be tightened. Thank you for your time in reading this.
28

Docket Number - 225

Comment Key - 1141

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

First off, you should change your name to the Ensuring Pollution Agency. You are marvelous soldiers for the Bush Crime Cabal 

and their scum Republican lackeys in their relentless drive to destroy our democracy so they can continue to enrich themselves by 

destroying everyone else. EPA is a TRAITOR to the American people, enforcing criminal Bush's agenda against the American 

people, and the world. This docket is just another brick in the wall of orchestrated campaign by scum Bush and his corporate pals 

to poison and destroy any and everything they can to line their pockets from the misery of humanity. And EPA is right there on 

the front lines in the assault. You must be SO proud of destroying the environment for Bush and his pals. This docket is just

ANOTHER green light for the polluters to poison our environment and people who have to handle this stuff. But hey, cockroach 

Bush's financial patrons get whatever they want, right? Who's EPA to say no? I have been watching with disgust and rage how 

EPA has become nothing more than an agency for the Republican Nazi Party since the coup of 2000.What's it like to have no 

conscience? To serve those who are cockroaches on the misery of humanity? Don't those who serve become as their masters? I 

don't believe you will post this, or that you even care about public comments, because we all know the Bush Crime Cabal doesn't 

care what the citizens think! Why, our Fuehrer has said so publicly on more than one occasion. Most of us citizens are nothing 

more than “fodder units “to be used for the Bush gang's endless looting of the US Treasury and continual removal of our 

Constitutional rights so that we are powerless to stop the continual rape of the Republic by the Republican Nazi Party. And EPA 

is proudly doing it's part! Go Team! How soon before the EPA is just dissolved altogether by the Bush Cabal-that's the direction 

we're heading .I'm sure our Fuehrer would love to be rid of the nuisance of having to pretend he even cares about public health.

Docket Number - 226

Comment Key - 1142

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I recently read about this rule change, which will result in 100,000 additional tons of toxic runoff entering our rivers, streams, and 

groundwater. PLEASE RECONSIDER IMPLEMENTING THIS RULE. This hazardous waste will result in illness and death. 

Thank you. 

Docket Number - 227

Comment Key - 1143

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I find the proposed removal of safety standards for industrial workers disgusting. Not only will this proposal endanger workers 

who handle these soiled shop rag directly, but also communities who rely on water sources near these plants. This proposal is 

also a truly despicable example of the government providing special favors for campaign contributors. Richard Farmer, owner of 

a Connecticut plant with over 250 violations of environmental laws, has also given President Bush sizable donations. As a result, 

this proposal was created which would increase profits for an already rich man. These profits will come at a terrible cost, the lives 

and health of low paid workers and families living near plants. Would you pass a law that would leave people dying and stricken 

with cancer simply so an already wealthy man can earn more money?

Docket Number - 228

Comment Key - 1241

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I live in a community where there is presently a superfund sight to clean up exactly the same stuff from 50 years ago. On one 

street of 15 houses, there are 17 cases of cancer. What is the point? Who are you helping?

Docket Number - 229

Comment Key - 1242

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Leavitt, you scum! I just read about how CINTAS paid off Bush 1.7 million to get this ugly, disgusting regulation passed. You

and your polluting cronies are HISTORY come this November, you creep! I hope all the ghosts of those low wage employees 

who are harmed by all the toxic chemicals that YOU are forcing them to handle just so CINTAS can improve their profit margin 

come up and rip you to shreds while dripping toxic, skin-ripping chemicals on you. You are SICK, SICK, SICK!! We're on to 

you bastards, and you WILL pay!!
29

Docket Number - 230

Comment Key - 1243

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

There are those who believe this docket is a pay off to Farmer - a Bush Ranger and one of the richest men in the US. Imagine 

that! Poisoning untold thousands and making money faster than you can count it....

Please remember why we have an EPA, and do not pass this rule.

Docket Number - 231

Comment Key - 1244

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Subject says it all. This is a RIDICULOUS proposal. There should not be ANY exclusions at all.

Docket Number - 232

Comment Key - 1245

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Absolutely no exclusions should be allowed that would exempt industry from federal hazardous and solid waste requirements for 

shop towels contaminated with toxic chemicals. To do so would place workers in situations where their health would be 

seriously, even fatally jeopardized and would dangerously pollute the environment. The pain and suffering to human life and 

existence cannot be played off against raising a profit margin of corporations or industries that are already showing millions of 

dollars in profits. I strongly object to this attempt to exempt industries from complying with federal hazardous and solid waste 

requirements.

Docket Number - 233

Comment Key - 1246

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I think it would be a complete sham to allow these laundry companies to save that little extra money at the cost of the health of 

their workers. Toxic towel waste should be governed under the same disposal and safety rules as any other toxic waste, without 

exception. This conditional exclusion should not be allowed.

Docket Number - 234

Comment Key - 1339

Submitted by - Robert 

Comment Text:

You may think what's wrong with changing the rules for a few contaminated wipes. Like when you open a can of beans you don't 

see the other few million people doing the same thing and the cans going in the landfill. America being an advanced nation of

educated citizens that consumes more resources per capita than the rest of the world's peoples put together should be using it's 

great wealth and expertise to show the developing world the way to look after our environment. 

Docket Number - 235

Comment Key - 192

Submitted by - of Eager Beaver Patrol, LLC 

Comment Text:

Please deny the Rule, on Docket RCRA-2003-0004, allowing this industry, and in particular CINTAS, to pollute this nations 

groundwater, riverwater and lands. The approval of this most important issue would be an abomination to environmental efforts 

put forth in the past 30 years. This should also not be a politically motivated decision, whether based on campaign contributions 

or party affiliation. As a tax paying citizen of this GREAT nation, I feel that corporate special interest money, and not my tax 

money, rules what occurs in decisions made, supposedly, in my best interest. CINTAS, the uniform people, have a special, and 

monetary, interest in relaxation of laws that affect their approach to the environment, as well as how they conduct business. Once 

again, please deny these companies the right to pollute, without further study on what the longterm health and environment 

impacts will be. DO NOT let the special interest monies drive your decision, because many of us feel that is exactly what will 

happen here, regardless of what we, as Americans, plead to you. Thank you.
30

Docket Number - 236

Comment Key - 1247

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Any risk to the environment or to health from business or commercial activity should be eliminated and prohibited. This bill 

protects profits, but not people. The companies affected will not go out of business. Whatever costs are entailed in providing 

occupational health and safety and protecting the environment are borne by all in the same business. Thus, there is not 

competitive disadvantage incurred. 

Returns on investment need to compute human health and environmental quality into the value of the return a company can 

realize. Cash is only part of the measurement. Any reasonable adult can understand value comes in many forms and recognizes 

that quality of life has no value, if others suffer and the environment hurts.

Docket Number - 238

Comment Key - 1343

Submitted by - Sarah Hambrick 

Comment Text:

I am aghast to hear that the EPA is considering relaxing regulations for cleaning industrial rags - at the cost to the environment, 

health, and tax burden to future taxpayers who will have to clean up later what should be cleaned up now through close 

regulatory oversight. Please do not shift today's costs onto the public and the planet. Industry (and the rest of us) should clean as 

we go, and stop dumping on the species of tomorrow.

Docket Number - 240

Comment Key - 1251

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Your decision is filled with contradictions like this and entirely too lenient standards regarding shop towels. This legislation is a 

joke and obviously in place to benefit President Bush's top contributors.

Docket Number - 241

Comment Key - 1252

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Dear EPA, I was deeply concerned to hear that you were even thinking about allowing workers to handle heavy duty 

chemicalized shop towels, no matter their political clout. Who will protect these workers if their employer and government 

cannot? 

I have thought about working for a company such as yours, especially in terms of environmental justice, but I am seriously 

concerned that my ethics would not fit into such a company. I don't mean to undermine your work. The EPA is a hero/heroine to 

the masses in so many ways, but why in the world can't you stop these businesses from trading the safety of their workers for

another dollar? Please show them you value health and life and do indeed know how to PROTECT your people. Don't let the 

Texan get you down. You're better than that. 

Docket Number - 242

Comment Key - 1262

Submitted by - Annette Messina 

Comment Text:

I'm appalled to find out that you are considering allowing the workers at dry cleaning facilities to become exposed to the toxic 

chemicals found there that are presently protected by various safeguards. These workers deserve to work in as safe environment 

as possible, and by relaxing the safeguards you are in turn guaranteeing a sick and possibly deadly future for these workers. 

Cintas has the money to continue keeping the safeguards present. It is one of the wealthiest companies reaping approximately 750 

million dollars a year from all of their facilities combined. Keeping the safeguards is 30 million a year, not even 5% of Cintas 

revenue. How shameful to consider putting greed above health and welfare.

On a 2nd note, Cintas will also be allowed to process those chemicals, which will then turn up in the water supplies of all 

citizens. Cintas has already proven that they cannot be responsible in this area of great concern with it's innumerable citations 

against their treatment of chemical removal.
31

I can only hope that others such as myself take the time to let you know how awful this possibility is, and to encourage you to be 

looking out for the consumers and workers who have no voice.

Docket Number - 243

Comment Key - 1348

Submitted by - Tyler McHaley 

Comment Text:

I want to state that the president's new policy, implemented by the EPA, is not only ludicrous but also deadly. It is obvious that 

the policy of no longer properly disposing of solvent-contaminated wipes is a blatant attempt to appease Richard Farmer, head of 

Cintas, which is the nation's biggest industrial launderer. Farmer gave Bush over $1.7 million in September 2003, and, in return, 

the president and his political cronies gave Farmer's industry a health standards exemption that netted his company a cool $250 

million last year.

This type of quid pro quo by the administration has happened many times since Bush took office. However, this type of 

deliberate disregard for the welfare of workers exposed to these chemicals and, ultimately, the general population exposed to

unclean water is unforgivable. What is the true price of reelection, Mr. President?

My father died of exposure to unregulated chemicals. Thus, I have firsthand knowledge of the effect they can have on a person's 

body as well as the effect on the family. A terribly egregious deal has been made in this policy decision. To trade the health and 

well-being of a potentially huge number of people for the cost of one week's worth of negative campaign advertising is shameful 

and the definition of a true sin. 

My father's death may have been preventable with the proper regulations. How many people will have to face serious illness 

and/or death before this administration takes credit and blame for its actions? Further, when will the EPA cease being the 

harbinger of these destructive decisions? Is it not enough that thousands of people have lost their in a senseless war based on 

manifest deception? Now, people must pay an equal price over an even greater period of time just to see both profits and poll

numbers rise. It is truly a despicable crime against the American public.

Docket Number - 244

Comment Key - 1253

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I am concerned at the relaxing of laws that seem to protect large industry more than the citizens of these United States. If this 

proposal goes into effect, we will have more sick people who will place a heavy burden on our already faltering health system. 

The human cost and the environmental cost will be staggering. It makes me sad that the EPA seems to be under the thumb of big

business and bad government who wear blinders of short term gain.I am strongly against this proposal.

Docket Number - 248

Comment Key - 1280

Submitted by - Dustin Glick 

Comment Text:

Does our government still serve to protect the people of the United States, or has it merely become a tool for the top 1 percent of 

rich Americans to grow even richer? How many more regulations can we throw out the window to help a few millionaire 

campaign contributors? It's disgusting, it's shameful and it's emblematic of everything the Bush administration does. Please don't 

let this proposal become the latest sell out of the American people. The EPA is supposed to be out there protecting American 

citizens and our environment, not helping industry increase profit margins. 

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . 

corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will

endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the 

Republic is destroyed." 

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 

Docket Number - 249

Comment Key - 1324

Submitted by - K. Feilmeyer 

Comment Text:

This proposed conditional exclusion is outrageous. It would allow cancer-causing and toxic chemicals to be flushed directly into 

waste water without any filtering/clean-up by the companies doing the washing/polluting. This means that the costs of cleaning 

the water and environment polluted by these exempt "cleaning" companies will be shifted to the local citizens & individual tax 
32

payers.

Furthermore, this exemption would allow these companies to further expose their low wage workers to known toxins with even 

less protection for their health and well being.

Shame on the Bush Administration for proposing yet another sweetheart deal favoring short term corporate profits and campaign

contributors over the long term health and safety of the American public and our environment.

Docket Number - 250

Comment Key - 1256

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule change is contrary to the legislative intent of the RCRA to minimize exposure to toxins and carcinogens and

safely manage their disposal. The rationale described in the proposal (facilitate waste disposal and improving solvent 

management) are not supported by the facts. While the idea it will increase profitability of the related industry may be true, this is 

not a justification for a rule change that will increase worker exposure to solvents and carcinogens and result in increased 

opportunity for environmental exposure. The RCRA is not intended to trade strict environmental protection for profit of regulated 

corporations. This rule change will result in an increase in precisely what it is intended to prevent: increase direct exposure of 

people to hazardous waste, at a minimum in a new unregulated operating environment of industrial laundries and cleaners, and 

likely by unsound disposal and waste water operations. Please reject this policy change.

Docket Number - 251

Comment Key - 1335

Submitted by - Mike Fuller 

Comment Text:

As I understand this proposed rule change, workers in industrial laundries will be exposed to hazardous waste if this rule is 

passed. I oppose that very strongly. EPA's most basic function is to protect our environment, workers and citizens from 

hazardous and toxic waste. This rule change would undermine that basic purpose. I strongly urge EPA to resist this dangerous 

change.

Docket Number - 252

Comment Key - 1278

Submitted by - David Perryman 

Comment Text:

I am shocked to learn of the proposed change. The contaminated industrial wipes remain contaminated. The hazards presented 

remain hazardous. The only apparent "condition" that would merit a "conditional exclusion" is the fact that Richard Farmer and 

Cintas donated 1.7 million dollars to the corrupt administration that lives in the White House. The only way that this exclusion 

should be enacted is if Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and FARMER and company agree to have their white shirts laundered 

with the contaminated industrial wipes. Fat chance. 

Docket Number - 253

Comment Key - 1323

Submitted by - Julian of Powers 

Comment Text:

I am a retired engineer who has dealt with harsh chemicals used in providing ultra-clean surfaces of various metallic and nonmetallic surfaces.

I have read, unbelieving at first, the description of the proposed rules relative to relaxing the handling of toxic towels and to the 

relatively uncontrolled disposal of toxic liquid wastes. 

I believe these relaxed rules are unconscionable bad. What you are proposing is the deliberate poisoning of not only the workers 

but those unidentified citizens who will suffer due to the contaminated liquid wastes polluting their water supplies. 

EVERY decision maker in this issue should be required to spend 8 hours handling the toxic-contaminated towels and to only 

drink water with toxic liquid contaminants. 

WTHDRAW YOUR PROPOSAL. 
33

Docket Number - 254

Comment Key - 1257

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

This exclusions is an outrage and inconsistent with the EPA's mission to "protect human health and to safeguard the natural 

environment".

Docket Number - 256

Comment Key - 1258

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Why on Earth would you even consider this proposal? Mr. Farmer raises some money for the president, and you want to roll over

and strip regulations protecting his workers from handling toxin-soaked materials? You want to allow him to "process" over 

100,000 tons of toxic solvents that will find their way into our waters? How about NO. How about somebody at your office finds 

the cojones to the the [sic] president that the lives of wage-earners in this country are more important than fundraising efforts.

Docket Number - 258

Comment Key - 1259

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

This proposed rule change would expose thousands of laundry workers to toxic chemicals as well as releasing tons of toxic 

solvents into local environments and should be rejected as unsafe.

Docket Number - 259

Comment Key - 1260

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

As an Epidemiologist with a background in the adverse health effects due to environmental contaminants, as a member of an 

Environmental Justice organization, and most importantly, as a concerned citizen I am appalled at the effort to exclude very toxic 

chemicals and conditions from regulations. If this docket passes, it will expose hundreds of workers to toxic chemicals without 

any safe guards in place. In addition, it will allow further contamination of neighboring communities by hazardous waste. 

I demand this docket be rejected by the EPA and I will raise awareness among the public about this issue until there is justice.

Docket Number - 260

Comment Key - 1261

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I'm writing to voice my opposition to creating exceptions to rules regarding the handling and processing of hazardous wastes.

The ultimate job of the U.S. government is the protection of U.S. citizens, and allowing companies to poison their workers for the 

sake of increasing their profits is a deep and unconscionable violation of that.

Docket Number - 276

Comment Key - 1326

Submitted by - Lawrence D. Kwart 

Comment Text:

I strongly urge that the regulations and definitions concerning hazardous solvent-contaminated shop towels NOT be altered in 

any fashion that would render them neither defined as Hazardous nor Accountable. The towels in question are contaminated with

hazardous materials, and are a danger to workers and the community when stored or shipped improperly, and present a chemical 

loading of the air (through evaporation), water, and ground through seepage from the landfills where they are to be buried. It is 

imperative that the chemical loading of these towels be taken into account at all points of their post-contamination lifetimes. 

What's next: Exempting Mercury-contaminated towels, or Radioactive Isotope-contaminated towels? It doesn't make sense to 

exempt these materials if you are serious about environmental protection.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 193

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 
34

Comment Text:

The proposed rule is an abomination. EPA has proposed “conditions” for exclusion of solvent-contaminated wipes from RCRA 

that are totally inadequate to protect public health and the environment. For example, EPA would allow workers to place 

plywood or cardboard over drums containing solvent wipes to “control” releases. Solvent-soaked rags could be accumulated for 

indefinite time periods in uncontrolled areas. Cloth and plastic bags could be used to transport solvent wipes. Industrial wipes 

that are literally saturated with F- listed and characteristic solvents could be shipped to handlers with no manifest, labels, or 

records. These practices would constitute clear violations of RCRA standards if done for any other solvent-containing waste. If 

the proposed rule is based on “good management practices,” as EPA claims, then we have turned back the clock to the 1960’s of 

hazardous waste management.

ETC makes a number of suggestions in these comments to improve the various provisions in the proposed rule. However, these 

specific recommendations should not be taken as reflecting ETC’s support for the regulation. ETC believes this proposal should 

be substantially revised and re-proposed. Instead of conditional exclusions from RCRA, EPA should develop a proposed rule 

based on the Universal Waste Rule with streamlined but protective conditions for accumulation, storage, transport, and hand ling 

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 LDR treatment standards.

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 308

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

On behalf of UNITE President Bruce Raynor and the tens of thousands of UNITE members who work in industrial laundries, we 

strongly object to EPA’s proposed regulatory exemption for toxic solvents in shop towels. This exemption will open up loopholes 

in federal hazardous waste regulations ordinarily used by government agencies and employers to protect workers and the 

environment from toxic materials, and will harm laundry workers and threaten the safety of our waterways.

...The hazard posed to workers and the environment from the mismanagement of shop towels is potentially huge. 

...Judging from EPA’s estimate of the impact of shop towels on the laundry industry, there are as many as 1,200 industrial 

laundry facilities affected. UNITE estimates that taking into account not only the drivers but also the washer operators and other 

“production” employees, there are about 20,000 workers who handle shop towels on a frequent basis.

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 328

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

In sum, there is no reasonable assurance, from any independent and objective assessment of current industry practice, that the 

laundry industry and their customers will comply with EPA’s intent. If the Bush administration’s proposal is adopted, laundry 

workers will have to handle towels soaked in hazardous waste - often without even minimal protective equipment like rubber 

gloves or effective masks. It is essential that EPA withdraw this proposal and reconsider the options it had prepared in January 

2000.

It’s time for EPA to force the laundry industry and their customers to stop the unnecessary shipment of toxic chemicals that 

endanger workers and the public water supply. We are tired of watching the Bush Administration twist our laws to benefit 

corporate interests, and we demand that EPA withdraw this proposal. EPA must reconsider the options which EPA has 

specifically rejected, such as more collection and recycling of toxic solvents at factories, closed containers for transporting 

solvent-soaked towels, and better training of workers about the chemical hazards.

Docket Number - 300

Comment Key - 1337

Submitted by - Paul Luehrmann 

Comment Text:

I am very concerned that your new draft regulations fail to protect workers, communities and the environment from dangerous 

solvents on shop towels. Solvents pose serious health risks, most heavily for the laundry workers and drivers who often handle 

the towels in cloth bags or other open containers. When solvents escape into the environment, they can cause serious air and 

water pollution in surrounding communities.

Please put workers and the environment first by replacing this weak proposal with regulations that provide real protections for 

workers and communities. Instead of protecting workers and the environment, your draft regulations will allow industries to send 

dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents. This allows additional tons of toxins to spread into local 
35

sewage plants, rivers and lakes. This is BAD. It also allows industries to store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or 

other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks. This is BAD. This proposal will allow industries to neglect 

protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by 

facilities that generate the toxics. This is BAD.

In summary, this is a BAD proposal. Fix it for the safety and health of all Americans and truly protect the environment.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 919

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

On behalf of UNITE, President Bruce Rainer and the tens of thousands of UNITE members who work in industrial laundries, we 

strongly object to EPA's proposed regulatory exemption for toxic solvents. This exemption will open up loopholes that, will harm 

laundry workers and threaten the safety of our waterways.

UNITE estimates that there are at least 20,000 workers who handle shop towels in laundries on a frequent basis. How well do the 

laundries manage these hazards? According to EPA and the industry there's no problem. But let's look at the experience at two

major companies, the Cintas Corporation, the nation's largest industrial laundry company and Coyne Textile Serwice. Cintas has 

been found repeatedly to have violated its waste water permit for toxic solvents and other waste water contaminants..as you can 

see, it is an unending string of mismanagemant of waste water issues involving shop towel contaminants.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 424

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

Unfortunately, as many of the Agency's past proposals and rulemakings have done, if promulgated as proposed, this rule would 

abandon important regulatory oversight, which could potentially increase inappropriate disposal of hazardous wastes and cause

negative impacts on the environment. It also fails to acknowledge well-established recycling options such as energy recovery in 

cement kilns and its associated benefits. Instead of actually increasing the amount of hazardous waste recycling, this proposal, 

absent any change in the properties of wastes, would exempt hazardous waste from Subtitle C merely by changing its label. For 

these reasons, CKRC cannot support EPA's proposed efforts to modify the hazardous waste regulations to exempt current 

hazardous wastes from RCRA simply by describing these wastes with a different name.

CKRC suggests that EPA improve its current approach by developing 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.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1010

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The Maine DEP (MEDEP) does not believe the proposed rule adequately encourages pollution prevention practices or addresses 

the risks posed by F-listed solvent contaminated wipes. The existing federal requirement that industrial towels contaminated with 

specifically listed hazardous wastes or that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste provides incentives to use less solvent and 

explore the use of less hazardous substitutes. MEDEP believes the proposal needs to be strengthened by including additional 

criteria that must be met to qualify for the exclusion and by the addition of management criteria to protect employees and 

downstream handlers.

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 96

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

Unfortunately, the proposed rule’s conditions fall far short of the controls needed to protect workers and the environment from 

solvents used in conjunction with industrial wipes. The “no free liquids” standard, which requires nothing from the generator 

other than “to use their knowledge of the processes to ensure that they meet the standard,” (68 Fed. Reg. 65600) 
36

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 201

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

We applaud the EPA for encouraging the use of less solvents, non-hazardous solvent substitutes, and solvent-extraction 

technologies. (68 Fed.Reg. 65608) However, we fear that this rhetoric veils a policy that will result in just the opposite. 

Excluding solvent-contaminated wipes from the definition of solid waste based on a loose standard of “no free liquid,” 

transportation requirements that will almost certainly allow solvents to escape, and the absence of any recordkeeping requirement 

provide no incentive for innovation.

Innovation occurs when stringent and well-enforced environmental protection requirements compel waste generators to look for 

options to reduce their use of toxic chemicals. This proposed rule sets an extremely low bar. Under these circumstances, the EPA 

is allowing industry to externalize its costs. Workers, the environment, and public wastewater treatment plants will pay the costs. 

Why should industry innovate when the EPA is willing to set such weak conditions for the management of these hazardous 

wastes?

From the perspective of protecting workers and the environment, the EPA’s current proposal is far worse in every respect than

what the Agency was considering just a few years ago. We urge the EPA to make significant extraction of solvents at the 

generator site the basis for any exemption from the definition of solid waste.

Docket Number - 363

Comment Key - 1336

Submitted by - Paul Bissex 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. 

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent contaminated industrial wipes.

There is an alarming trend in America today to believe that we can make "other people" do our dirty work. Sometimes this takes 

the form of outsourcing -- in the garment industry for instance.

But service work like cleaning can't be outsourced. These are our neighbors, family, and friends. Even those on the bottom of the 

totem pole still vote. Please protect them.

The EPA should issue a revised proposal that takes the necessary precautions to protect workers and our natural resources. Please 

consider this an official comment. I understand that it may be placed on your public website.

Docket Number - 364

Comment Key - 1264

Submitted by - Carol Johnson

Comment Text:

Please consider this an official comment in opposition to the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not ensure adequate 

protection from harmful chemicals for laundry and transport workers or for the environment. 

Docket Number - 367

Comment Key - 1272

Submitted by - Charlene Zvolanek 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. 

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Over and over again low-wage workers are exposed to seriously dangerous chemicals without any understanding of what they are 

handling - often with direct skin contact. 

The Environmental Protection Agency was set up to PROTECT people from unknown hazards, such as dangerous chemicals in 

the workplace. It is reprehensible that you would even consider making any permanently exemptions for toxic products. In 

particular, exempting toxic-laden industrial shop towels; chemical solvent rags from federal hazardous and solid waste 

regulations is just plain foolish.
37

Lawsuits will ensue, and then the finger can be pointed back at the workers, who have no choice but to handle these dangerous

chemicals. It is unreasonable to say that the employers have no

responsibility to maintain a safe workplace. 

Not only are the immediate workers at risk, but by allowing these companies to launder dangerous chemicals in the public water 

supply, you are putting all Americans at serious risk. 

I am extremely concerned that your new draft regulations fail to protect frontline workers who are exposed to dangerous solvents 

on industrial wipes and towels. The solvents and toxins contained on wipes pose serious health risks, especially for the laundry 

workers and drivers who have to carry wet wipes in cloth bags and open containers without proper safeguards. If approved, the 

new regulations would enable industrial laundries to: 

- Store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks.

- Neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle wipes, or routine

recordkeeping by facilities that generate the toxins.

- Send dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents, allowing additional tons of toxins to spread into local 

sewage plants, rivers and lakes.

The EPA should issue a revised proposal that takes the necessary precautions to protect workers and our natural resources. Please 

consider this an official comment.

Docket Number - 369

Comment Key - 1331

Submitted by - Ken Montenegro of Mass Campaign 

Notes: A mass campaign with a total of 3638 on-time and 49 late comments received. 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent contaminated industrial wipes. 

I am extremely concerned that your new draft regulations fail to protect frontline workers who are exposed to dangerous solvents 

on industrial wipes and towels. The solvents and toxins contained on wipes pose serious health risks, especially for the

laundry workers and drivers who have to carry wet wipes in cloth bags and open containers without proper safeguards. If 

approved, the new regulations would enable industrial laundries to: 

- Store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks.

- Neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle wipes, or routine recordkeeping

by facilities that generate the toxins.

- Send dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents, allowing additional tons of toxins to spread into local 

sewage plants, rivers and lakes.

The EPA should issue a revised proposal that takes the necessary precautions to protect workers and our natural resources. Please 

consider this an official comment. I understand that it may be placed on your public website.

Docket Number - 370

Comment Key - 1332

Submitted by - Melinda Morales of Mass Campaign 

Notes: This is a mass e-mail campaign. The comments received under this campaign are identical or nearly identical in content 

and format. A total of 864 comments have been received to date.

Comment Text:

Please consider this an official comment in opposition to the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not ensure adequate 

protection from harmful chemicals for laundry and transport workers or for the environment. Please rewrite the rule to make sure 

that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowed to pollute local water systems; Contaminated materials are 

transported in secure containers that won't expose workers to harmful chemicals; and Industries are required to take adequate

protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful training to the people who handle them, and 

keeping records. 
38

Docket Number - 371

Comment Key - 1321

Submitted by - John D. Calandrelli 

Comment Text:

I am very concerned that your new draft regulations fail to protect workers, communities and the environment from dangerous 

solvents on shop towels. Solvents pose serious health risks, most heavily for the laundry workers and drivers who often handle 

the towels in cloth bags or other open containers. When solvents escape into the environment, they can cause serious air and 

water pollution in surrounding communities. Please put workers and the environment first by replacing this weak proposal with

regulations that provide real protections for workers and communities.

Here in Connecticut, the Attorney General is already in litigation against Cintas, the second largest industrial laundry company in 

the U.S. They have polluted Branford harbor for more than ten years and they have been sued by the CT DEP twice since 1998 

for multiple violations. They have crept along in compliance by moving their dirtiest laundry (shop rags) up to a facility in 

Massachusetts so now they can pollute the Housatonic river. Meanwhile, the workers are left to deal with these toxins without

protection or information.

These are simple things to correct if corporate mentalities actually cared for the environment and their workers. Instead of taking 

the necessary precautions to protect workers and the environment your draft regulations leave the door open for industries to send 

dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents. This allows additional tons of toxins to spread into local

sewage plants, rivers and lakes. It also allows industries to store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other 

containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks. This proposal will allow industries to neglect protective measures like 

adequate labeling of containers, training workers who handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by facilities that generate 

the toxics.

Docket Number - 372

Comment Key - 1320

Submitted by - James Bobay 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

How can we let companies force their workers to handle potentially dangerous materials without the proper training? Is this the 

19th century? The health of humans (whether or not they are poor or rich) should be the primary concern for all! I implore you to 

take into consideration the plight of these low end workers.

Docket Number - 373

Comment Key - 1276

Submitted by - Chris Eklund 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. 

Every worker in America has a basic right to work in a safe environment, to be informed of all reasonable risks associated with 

their work and to be adequately compensated for any exceptional risks they are willing to undertake.

Even in the last case, no corporation has the right to slowly poison workers, regardless of compensation, and it seems to me that 

the new draft regulations exempting "shop towels" will allow unscrupulous corporations to do exactly that and to do so not at the 

expense of already overworked and underpaid laborers who already are often not informed of the hazardous nature of the work 

they do.

This change is preposterous and unacceptable. I urge you to reconsider it before irreparable harm is done to the working men and 

women of this country.

Docket Number - 374

Comment Key - 1322

Submitted by - Julian Powers 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.
39

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

This is very clearly a financial reward to a few at the expense of the many. These many not only the workers who would thereby 

be exposed to toxic chemicals but also all of those who would be harmed by the additional toxic pollution of waters. 

This is perhaps the dumbest anti-environmental action of many dumb anti-environmental actions. 

I ask that a tub of toxic-contaminated towels be in the chamber and that everyone who votes yes must wrap such a towel around 

their neck for 4 hours. 

Docket Number - 375

Comment Key - 1318

Submitted by - Gael MacGregor-Walsh 

Comment Text:

All Americans should be protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. 

That is why I urge you to provide real protections for workers, the environment and communities and not to approve your 

proposed regulation for managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. 

How would you feel you were exposed to dangerous toxins at work? What if your employer was well-aware of the dangers these 

posed to you every day but never told you?

These aren’t hypothetical questions at industrial

laundries where many workers are not given the proper training and protective gear to deal safely with their exposure to toxins 

and solvents on towels and rags. 

The EPA's draft rule to permanently exempt toxic-laden “shop towels”—chemical solvent rags—from federal hazardous and 

solid waste regulations is outrageous. The rule not only has serious repercussions for workers, but for the environment as well. If 

approved, it would enable industrial laundries to allow their workers to transport and launder shop towels full of solvents and 

other toxins, without proper training, handling, labeling and disposal requirements.

Workers and the environment come FIRST. You must adopt meaningful protections for them!

Please issue a revised proposal that takes the necessary precautions to protect workers and our natural resources.

Docket Number - 376

Comment Key - 1325

Submitted by - Kathleen Allen 

Comment Text:

It is such a shame that people who have the wealth and power to influence quality of life in this world often lack the vision and 

integrity to act responsibly -- in fact, may be more invested in grabbing more for themselves, than settling for a bit less so that 

others can meet basic needs.

This pattern is most appalling when it comes to negligence in relation to health and safety standards in the workplace, where

many employees cannot even afford health insurance to access medical support for conditions caused by toxicity in the 

environment. What choices do people have?!

Please consider this an official comment in opposition to the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not ensure adequate 

protection from harmful chemicals for laundry and transport workers or for the environment. 

Please rewrite the rule to make sure that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowed to pollute local water systems; Contaminated materials are 

transported in secure containers that won't expose workers to harmful chemicals; and Industries are required to take adequate 

protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful training to the people who handle them, and 

keeping records. 

Docket Number - 377

Comment Key - 1350

Submitted by - William Hooker of WSRC 
40

Comment Text:

Please consider this an official comment in opposition to the proposed rule. For 50 years Savannah River Site has released TCE 

from their own laundry F-Area to Four Mile Creek. Please do not trust the United States Department of Energy. The laundry has 

been shut down but the TCE is still there along 200,000 times the EPA drinking water for Tritium.

That personal protection will be used when beaver trapping in four mile creek and other SRS streams that have release to them on 

daily base. 

Need tell the employees that streams are contaminated prior to letting them work in them. In protected for 8 years and above all 

use the right permits to enter the streams on SRS.

Contaminated materials are transported in secure containers that won’t expose workers to harmful chemicals; 

Industries are required to take adequate protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful training 

to the people who handle them, and keeping records. 

Ex Westinghouse Manager working in H-Tank Farm. We blow dry the monitor to streams at SRS. No need for following 

procedures when you guys can do a damn thing about anything USDOE does at SRS.

It would be nice if you inform the general public that’s paying $70.00 to hunt the deer and hogs in these CERCLA/RCRA Site 

also.

Docket Number - 378

Comment Key - 1346

Submitted by - Scott N. Proctor 

Comment Text:

Weakening worker safety standards and adding to the hazardous waste-water problems in our nation’s cities is the epitome of 

short term thinking. While it may help one isolated industry cut their bottom line, in the long run it costs the entire system more. 

Costs to workers health affect us all, as do river clean ups and drinking water purification. Whenever the safety of our nation's 

workers is threatened, we must, as men of conscience, question the motives behind this Act.

Docket Number - 379

Comment Key - 1319

Submitted by - Grant McKeown 

Comment Text:

I find it unconscionable that the EPA would adopt a policy that brings more harm to workers and the public at large. Politics over 

the health and well-being of Americans workers is disturbing and against our Bill of Rights. Please consider this an official 

comment in opposition to the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not ensure adequate protection from harmful chemicals for 

laundry and transport workers or for the environment. Please rewrite the rule to make sure that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowed to pollute local water systems; Contaminated materials are 

transported in secure containers that won’t expose workers to harmful chemicals; and industries are required to take adequate

protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful training to the people who handle them, and 

keeping records. 

Docket Number - 380

Comment Key - 1327

Submitted by - Marc Wornow 

Comment Text:

Please consider this an official comment in opposition to the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not ensure adequate 

protection from harmful chemicals for laundry and transport workers or for the environment. Please rewrite the rule to make sure 

that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowed to pollute local water systems; Contaminated materials are 

transported in secure containers that won't expose workers to harmful chemicals; and Industries are required to take adequate

protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful training to the people who handle them, and 

keeping records. There will come a time when the criminal bush administration is no longer in power, the next election! I will be 

lobbying to have administrators who have casually disregarded their responsibilties, and participated knowingly in 

environmentally destructive administrative behavior (during the Bush administration and any other) to be criminally prosecuted.

You folks in the EPA have a responsibilty to the public. It should be taken seriously. The 911 debacle where your offices gave 
41

the environment in NY a clean bill of health is a prime example of criminal actions by your dept. The action you are taking now, 

proposing to subject workers, communities, and the environment to toxic wastes is another criminal and irresponsible action. Are 

you people totally unconscionable and spiritually vacuous? Come on!! Live up to the responsibility of your office and do the 

right thing.

Docket Number – 199 

Comment Key - 1483

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

In particular, many ETC companies provide in-plant industrial services to customers where they pick up, properly manage, 

recycle and dispose of solvent contaminated industrial wipes. Because in many states these industrial wipes are hazardous waste, 

we see the industrial wipes at the point of pickup for proper transportation and ultimate disposal or recycling. And I can tell you 

we don’t often see wipes that have only one drop or solvent on them. We see wipes that are soaked in solvent and have been 

used, are filthy dirty with contamination from equipment, from automobile or ink manufacturing facilities. And these shop towels 

need to be managed properly. It’s a sad day when a representative of the waste management industry has to tell EPA that a 

proposed rule poses a threat to human health and the environment, but that is the situation this afternoon.

We are alarmed by a number of the provisions in the proposed rule which simply do not reflect safe management practices in our 

industry. 

1.2.2 Proposed Rule Is Too Burdensome

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 356

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

...[W]e believe the conditions imposed by the Proposed Rule to meet the exclusions will, in most cases, prove too burdensome to 

implement. In addition, the rulemaking will not be mandated upon states' to execute. Thus, as proposed, the rule does not provide 

the relief envisioned by EPA, which is to ". . . resolve, at the Federal level, long-standing issues associated with the management 

of solvent- contaminated industrial wipes by: facilitating pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities, including 

the recycling of the spent solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes; fostering improved solvents management by 

generators and handling facilities; reducing compliance costs; increasing consistency in the regulations governing solventcontaminated industrial wipes across the United States; clarifying existing federal rules . . ." As outlined in our comments below, 

NPCA believes that a uniform national rule, for both reusable and disposable wipes, as opined by EPA in the preamble of the 

Proposed Rule, would better serve industry.' A uniform rule based on a technically and economically feasible approach is the 

only way for EPA to realize its goals with the rulemaking - to provide consistent and protective regulation throughout the states 

while ensuring the protection of human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 365

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Of course, generators may simply handle disposable wipes as hazardous regardless of the exclusion and manage through RCRA 

permitted Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF). In fact, NPCA believes this will most likely be the case, since the

burden of meeting the generator conditions for the exclusion, as discussed above, clearly outweigh any benefits. This then, 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.

1.3 Parity Between Regulations for Reusable and Disposable Wipes

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 752

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

Unfortunately, the proposed rule is much more complex than it needs to be because it includes differing conditions for laundered 
42

shop towels and disposable wipers - resulting in unwarranted preferential treatment for laundered shop towels even though the 

sludge from those towels - with residual solvents - ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 1563

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

The conditions for wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste regulation should be the same for laundered shop towels and 

disposable wipers going to landfills. Since the sludge from laundered shop towels ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers, 

there is no basis for differing conditions.

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1578

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

Even though I support this EPA effort, several issues that must be addressed before the rule is finalized. While I understand that 

these needed changes will be detailed in comments filed by SMART the primary point to be made is that the rule, as proposed, is 

complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. EPA’s stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, 

common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use 

wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to disposal 

or from shop towels prior to laundering. In addition, the proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation 

requirements on disposable wipers which do not apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1577

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

There is parity in the National Football League. There should be parity in the wiping cloth industry. What our industry faces is 

like playing football with the rules of the game being applied to our team only. Could you imagine allowing the other team to

hold or be offsides or get an extra down every possession? Obviously not! But, this is the game we are playing and it is unfair!

Docket Number - 159

Comment Key - 453

Submitted by - Gary Clark of Clark and Associates 

Comment Text:

EPA's stated goals with this effort are to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, and 

could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, the proposed rule is much more 

complex than it needs to be because it includes differing conditions for laundered shop towels and disposable wipers - resulting in 

unwarranted preferential treatment for laundered shop towels even though the sludge from those towels - with residual solvents -

ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 166

Comment Key - 737

Submitted by - Alan Frankhariel of Mercantile Development, Inc. (MDI) 

Comment Text:

While the proposed rule is a step in the right direction, it continues to favor shop towels over disposables. Inequities include 

labeling and transportation requirements for disposable wipers that are not applicable to laundered shop towels, and a 5 gram

limit for solvents on disposable -wipers sent to a landfill that is not applicable to shop towels being laundered.

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 905

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

... the rule, as proposed, is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. 
43

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1629

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[T]he rule, as proposed, is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. 

Docket Number - 172

Comment Key - 712

Submitted by - Norman Manning of Leggett & Platt Incorporated 

Comment Text:

Although the current ruling is a step in the right direction, we believe there are still issues to be addressed. Our belief is that the 

current ruling, as proposed, is still too complex and will continue to favor shop towels over disposables. We have current 

instances involving our customers where requirements for use of disposable wipers are so ambiguous and confusing they have 

selected rental shop towels, even though their performance characteristics are inferior: A common sense approach is required for 

both disposable wipers and rental shop towels; one that is fair, equitable and easily understood by the people that routinely use 

wiping products. 

Docket Number - 173

Comment Key - 906

Submitted by - Robert A. Young of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

We urge the EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will level the regulatory playing field that has favored 

rental shop towels over disposable wipers for years. AF&F’s business in this area has declined significantly over the years due 

primarily to the importation and use of foreign shop towels not subject to the hazardous waste restrictions placed on disposable 

wipers By passing this rule you will ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment while making it easier for 

our customers to make a decision based on the traditional factors of price, quality and delivery.

Although AF&F supports this EPA effort, we feel there is more that must be considered before the rule is finalized... It places 

labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 174

Comment Key - 1605

Submitted by - Phillip E. Bryson of Polymer Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

In addition, proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers which do not apply 

to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 176

Comment Key - 742

Submitted by - Tom Robertshaw of Motion Industries 

Comment Text:

I feel that the proposed rule should even the playing field for both laundered shop towels and the disposable wipers, but sadly this 

is not the case although both products are being applied identically and the solvents from both products are disposed in landfills 

throughout the country. 

Docket Number - 177

Comment Key - 768

Submitted by - of Peerless Wiping Cloth Company 

Comment Text:

I do support this EPA effort and realize that several issues must be addressed before the rule is finalized. While I understand that 

these changes will be detailed in comments filed by SMART the primary point to be made is that the rule continues to favor shop 

towels over disposable wipers. EPA's stated goals with this &ort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would 

facilitate solvent recycling and could easily be understood by the people who actually use the products. The proposed rule, 

however, does not require solvents to be removed before the shop towels are laundered or disposed of. Also, the proposed version 

of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers, which do not apply to laundered shop towels.
44

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 1630

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[T]he rule, as proposed, is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. 

Docket Number - 186

Comment Key - 1604

Submitted by - David Williams of CCP Industries, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables. 

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 863

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] establishing equitable exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wiping products.

Docket Number - 188

Comment Key - 896

Submitted by - Robert Dailey of Tranzonic Retail Group 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] establishing equitable exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wiping products.

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 876

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] establishing equitable exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wiping products.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1397

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP does not support EPA’s approach of having different exclusions for disposable and reusable wipes, and different 

disposal options based on wipe and solvent types. This bifurcated approach is too complicated for smaller businesses to readily 

comply with and for regulatory agencies to enforce. MADEP doubts many small businesses (which predominate in 

Massachusetts) would be able to easily comply with the subtleties and complexities of this rulemaking. It would not be realistic, 

for example, to expect a small business to know as a general matter whether a used wipe contains 5 grams or 6 grams of solvent.

Docket Number - 195

Comment Key - 639

Submitted by - Robert Tobin of Industrial Wiper and Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

The United States of America has as the foundation of its economy free-market capitalism. I therefore must protest the obvious 

regulatory bias that has benefited rental laundries for decades, and apparently is in danger of continuing into the future based on 

my reading of your proposal. Apparently, your proposal does not require solvents to be removed from wipers before disposing of 

them or from shop towels before laundering them - yet somehow has seen fit to remove shop towels from the definition of solid 

waste when the act of laundering them creates vast amounts of sludge which is then disposed of as solid waste! Have logic and 

reason died? Does the EPA consider this to be an equitable solution which will allow all Americans to compete economically 

from an equal footing? I do not believe it to be so. I also ask why the proposed version of the rule places labeling and 

transportation requirements on wipers that it does not place upon laundered shop towels. Again, a level playing field? I think not. 

All I ask is a review of the proposed rule in order to eliminate the unseemly appearance of favoritism and/or influence towards 

the laundries and the implementation of an environmentally intelligent set of regulations which apply to all Americans equally. 

My company has suffered for far too long under the unnecessary and unjust restrictions currently in place. Please, review the 

proposal, equalize the legislation, and finalize the rule as soon as possible.
45

Docket Number - 197

Comment Key - 417

Submitted by - Mark Benezra of Buffalo Industrial Products 

Comment Text:

The rule, as proposed, is complex and continues to favor shop towels over disposables, EPA’s stated goals with this effort were to 

establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, and could easily be understood by the people 

who actually use wiping products.

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 1609

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

In addition, the proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers, which do not 

apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 699

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Objective 1 - Minimize potential risk to human health and the environment from the management of solvent-soiled wipes. Under 

the proposed rule, while stringent restrictions are placed on non-laundered wipes, no meaningful restrictions are placed on 

laundered wipes despite the fact that EPA data proves that the potential risks at landfills from the sludge of industrial launderers 

is the same as the potential risk of non-laundered wipes disposed in landfills. In its Risk Assessment, EPA used different 

assumptions for laundered wipes and non-laundered wipes. If, on the other hand, either central tendency assumptions or high-end 

parameter assumptions had been applied to both laundered and non-laundered wipes, EPA’s Risk Assessment would have shown 

the same potential risks at landfills from both laundered and non-laundered wipes. As a result, the proposed rule is inconsistent –

applying minimal conditions to one type of wipe and applying stringent conditions to another type of wipe – when the potential 

risks to human health and the environment are the same. 

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 701

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Objective 3 – Provide generators with clear, common sense direction on how to manage solvent-soiled wipes. As proposed, the 

Rule has different conditions for laundered wipes and non-laundered wipes destined for landfills. There are differing regulatory 

exclusions, differing labeling requirements, and differing solvent limits and prohibitions. Put simply, the proposed Rule is an 

unnecessarily complex dual set of regulatory conditions. This complexity is unnecessary because the potential risks to human 

health and the environment are the same.

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 526

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Establish which solvents are “nasty” and treat them the same whether they are on a laundered or a non-laundered wipe.

-When central tendencies are applied to EPA’s risk analysis; no solvent proved nasty enough to be barred from landfills. 

-If EPA determines that a solvent is too nasty to be sent to a landfill, basic logic would dictate that the same solvent is too nasty 

to go to a landfill via laundry sludge, or to be discharged to public water treatment facilities that weren’t designed to process 

solvents. Should EPA determine that a certain amount of nasty solvent is acceptable then it should apply to both laundered and 

non-laundered wipes. 

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 125

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

Give workers the choice to use shop towels, rags or wipes – whichever does the best job for their application. Stop giving 

preferential treatment to shop towels, hence forcing workers to use shop towels with solvents. There are no environmental 

advantages to shop towels compared to rags or wipes. The solvents on shop towels end up either in landfills via sludge from the 
46

industrial laundries, in public streams and rivers (if the launderers can’t capture it in their sludge) or in the air. So, why provide 

special treatment for shop towels? We recommend that the same conditions/requirements apply to all wiping products: shop 

towels, rags and wipes.

Docket Number - 272

Comment Key - 573

Submitted by - George Larson of George H. Larson and Associates, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Simplify the rule. Have one set of conditions for all solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. EPA’s Risk Assessment shows 

comparable levels of risk for disposable and reusable industrial wipes when comparable assumptions are used (high end 

parameters or central tendency). Since the risks are comparable for disposable and reusable industrial wipes, make the conditions 

comparable. By doing so, the rule will be much simpler for generators to understand, especially the small businesses that don’t 

have resources to spend a lot of time reading through the pages and pages of conditions.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1160

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

A universal hand-wringing standard uniformly applied to all SSIWs would be equitable and help create a level regulatory playing 

field that would assist wipe users in selecting wipes based upon their relative utility in the applications involved, rather than on 

unjustified regulatory cost differentials.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1169

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

In a number of ways, SSLWs have received more favorable regulatory treatment than SSNWs under the proposed rule. First, as 

discussed above, EPA has proposed an unlawful exclusion from the definition of solid waste for SSLWs despite the fact that the 

entire amount of the hazardous constituents in such wipes are - and under the proposed rule still can be - disposed of into the 

environment. Second, as a result of a risk screening analysis that is unjustifiably more conservative for SSNWs than SSLWs and 

ignores data relevant to risks posed by SSLWs, the former wipes are subject to either a landfill prohibition or significant solvent 

extraction conditions, while laundry sludge - and SSLWs handled by wipe generators - are subject to neither. Third, in a proposal 

that defies all logic, SSNWs have been subjected to a proposed labeling requirement that would not apply to SSLWs, even 

though the rationale provided for proposing such a requirement for SSNWs clearly applies equally to SSLWs. Finally, EPA has 

even chosen a facially pejorative “disposable” label for non-laundered wipes, even though SSNWs, like SSLWs, can be used 

several times before they are disposed of while SSLWs, as with the sludge generated by their laundering, must ultimately be 

“disposed of”.

Because this differential treatment does not appear to be justifiable in either the law or on the record of this rulemaking, 

INDA/SMART can only surmise that this unwarranted “favoritism” stems from some notion that laundered wipes should be 

“accommodated” because the laundering process involves recycling of the wipe itself, thereby arguably resulting in less disposal 

of waste and more conservation of resources than in the case of SSNWs. As the launderers themselves have put it in order to 

position themselves with EPA and the marketplace as the “environmentally preferable” choice, SSLWs should receive 

preferential regulatory status because they “promote recycling and resource recovery” and “reduce the amount of landfilled 

wastes”.

INDA/SMART submits that any such notion on EPA’s part is misguided and based on false premises. As noted above, the 

laundering process effectively serves as a vehicle by which launderers dispose of the entire amount of hazardous solvent in 

SSLWs for wipe generators. The proposed rule would do virtually nothing to change that result, despite EPA’s protestations that 

it is the solvent - and not the wipe - that is properly the focus of the Agency’s concern in this rulemaking. Ironically, EPA’s 

proposal would actually result in substantially more solvent recovery, and less solvent release into the environment, in the case of 

SSNWs than for SSLWs. That result seems highly paradoxical given the favored regulatory status EPA seems prepared to accord 

SSLWs under its proposal, and is certainly inconsistent with the view that laundering of wipes should be encouraged by EPA 

because it “promotes recycling and resource recovery.”

Equally to the point, the simple fact of the matter is that the laundering process actually generates more solid waste than does 

disposal of SSNWs. While the laundered wipe itself is clearly reused, the processing required to get it in a condition that it can be 

reused results in a greater amount of solid waste going to landfills than is the case with SSNWs. This result is evident from an 

analysis conducted by EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Lockheed Martin Environmental Systems and 

Technologies (hereinafter the “EPA ORD Study”), which concluded that laundered wipes generate 88.4 pounds of solid waste 
47

per 1,000 SSLWs laundered compared to 67.8 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 nonwoven shop towels disposed of and 74 pounds 

of solid waste per 1,000 paper towels disposed of.

In responding to the Agency regarding the results of the EPA ORD Study, UTSA did not challenge the study’s calculation of the

amount of laundry sludge (or SSNWs) going to landfills for disposal. Instead, UTSA attacked the study on the unjustified ground 

that it takes multiple nonlaundered wipes to do the work of a single laundered wipe. Put another way, UTSA has asserted that 

laundered towels have “greater utility” than nonwoven or paper towels due to their greater weight, higher absorptive capacity and 

greater durability. However, this claim conveniently ignores an important fact that EPA staff have now acknowledged, i.e., that 

nonwoven technology has evolved to the point today that non-laundered wipes are more absorbent, and just as durable, as woven 

(laundered) wipes. As such, they can be employed multiple times as well, and at lower basis weights than launderable wipes. 

Moreover, the EPA ORD Study assumed that all SSNWs were landfilled rather than incinerated, thereby increasing the amount 

of solid waste generated by SSNWs beyond the actual likely amount.

The EPA ORD Study concluded not only that the laundering of SSLWs results in more solid waste disposal than does the 

landfilling of SSNWs, but also that there are environmental risks associated with the management of SSLWs that are not present 

for SSNWs. For example, Lockheed Martin noted that “[w]aterwash sludge [from laundries] contains approximately 22% water, 

which could increase the mobility of [solvents] into soil and groundwater.” And, of course, the laundering process results in the 

discharges of solvent to U.S. waters that, in part, precipitated this rulemaking and to the air emission risks to laundry workers and 

other handlers of SSLWs in the workplace that are documented in the record for this rulemaking but that EPA has largely left 

unexamined.

It also bears reiterating that the Gradient Corporation study discussed in Section III.B.5.(b) above demonstrates that the 

laundering process places back into commerce “recycled materials” that contain toxic metals that are not only much higher than 

the concentrations of such metals (if any) in analogous “virgin” wipes, but that also implicate various health-based standards. 

Such wipes are also handled by laundry workers who package them for shipment and are repeatedly exposed to these “toxics 

along for the ride.”

Finally, lost in the cacophony occasioned by the repeated protestations of industrial laundries regarding the “recycling” benefits 

afforded by their wiping products is the fact that non-laundered wipes are manufactured from a variety of pre- and post-consumer 

textile materials, including recycled clothing and mill ends. Notably, a 1999 Environmental Life Cycle Analysis conducted by 

Project Performance on behalf of SMART evaluated non-laundered wiping products made from recycled materials, along with 

nonwoven and laundered shop towels, and reached the following conclusions: 

-Non-laundered wipes made from recycled textiles are preferable to laundered shop towels across all three life cycle parameters 

analyzed (water used, energy used, and waste produced). All other types of non-laundered wipes are preferable to laundered shop 

towels on two of the three life cycle parameters analyzed.

-All types of non-laundered wipes use less water and generate less waste relative to laundered shop towels. The calculated 

advantage in these two parameters for non-laundered wipes does not disappear over a broad range of assumptions. Furthermore, 

this advantage increases if one reasonably assumes a non-laundered wipe can be used more than once versus the base case 

assumption that 12 wipes are used for every one shop towel that is laundered 12 times.

[Study included as Appendix I: Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Disposable Wipers and Laundered Shop Towels, Project 

Performance Corporation, 1999 (Reprinted April 2, 2004). Attachments to this submission are in docket #284]

Accordingly, manufacturers of many non-laundered wipes can legitimately make the same “environmentally preferable” claims 

as do industrial laundries for their products.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to fathom why EPA would propose to: (i) grant SSLWs an exclusion from the definition 

of solid waste, (ii) accord SSLWs preferential regulatory treatment, and (iii) thereby provide incentives for wipe users to favor 

these products, even where nonlaundered wipes may be preferable from the standpoint of the wipe application in question. 

Instead, given the fact that laundered and non-laundered wipes use the same solvents in the same concentrations in the same 

applications, and (as demonstrated elsewhere in these comments) pose comparable waste disposal risks, EPA should promulgate 

a final rule that establishes uniform, commonsense, and readily implementable regulatory conditions for all such SSIWs. Such an 

approach is not only warranted for all the reasons set forth above, but would also - consistent with prior decisions EPA made in 

evaluating potential differential regulatory impacts among industrial laundries - level the regulatory playing field so that wipe 

generators could select products on the basis of what is best for their business rather than on unjustifiable cost differentials 

created largely by unjustifiable regulatory differences.

Accordingly, INDA/SMART strongly urges EPA to eliminate the unwarranted disparate regulatory conditions it has proposed for 

SSLWs and SSNWs. Similarly, INDA/SMART requests that EPA refer to these two sets of industrial wipes in the final rule as 

“laundered” and “nonlaundered” wipes, respectively.
48

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 152

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC has come to the conclusion that basic management standards should not differ depending on whether solvent wipes are 

destined for laundries or disposal facilities. The contaminated wipes pose the same risks during accumulation, storage, transport 

and handling regardless of their ultimate destination, and therefore should be subject to the same protective standards.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 25

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

The industrial laundries, represented by the TRSA & UTSA, have certainly not ignored the unfair advantage they enjoy, which is 

why they are in opposition to the rule. The passage of the proposed rule would undermine a primary marketing technique that 

industrial launderers employ to instill fear in the generators that they will solely bear the costs and the liabilities currently 

associated with non-laundered wiping products. Passage of the rule would also force them to significantly alter their pricing 

structure in order to be competitive in the marketplace with non-laundered wiping products.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 28

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

The EPA has identified a list of eleven hazardous solvents in Table 1 of the proposed rule, which are ineligible for disposal in 

municipal landfills or other non-hazardous landfills. This list of solvents should also apply to solvent laden shop towels, which 

are laundered. The list of excluded hazardous solvents should apply to both laundered shop towels and non-laundered wipers.

Docket Number - 301

Comment Key - 682

Submitted by - John M. Gartland of Joseph Gartland, Inc 

Comment Text:

We are extremely concerned that the EPA's current proposal is unnecessarily complex and confusing with differing conditions 

and requirements for wipers destined for the laundry, landfill or municipal incinerator. The rule should not be complex-potential 

environmental and health risks are the same for all wiping materials even if some segments of the industry try to put negative 

spin against other segments.

Docket Number - 301

Comment Key - 683

Submitted by - John M. Gartland of Joseph Gartland, Inc 

Comment Text:

As long time specialists in the industry, we strongly encourage EPA to finalize a Rule that will have ONE set of conditions for 

laundered and nonlaundered wipes. This will appropriately reflect the fact that the potential risks to human health and the 

environment are the same and will make it much easier for the hundreds of thousands of generators - many of whom are small 

businesses -to understand and implement in their operations.

It only makes sense to create a coherent, common sense national policy that companies of any size may comply. Laundries do 

NOT recycle the solvent; it processes it as a waste. The laundry process is no more environmentally sound than the nonlaundered disposable wiper cycle. It is logical, therefore, to establish a uniform federal regulatory framework that all states can 

adopt for both laundered and non-laundered wiping products...It is only fair and logical that conditions and regulation should 

apply equally to both laundered and nonlaundered wipes regardless.

The spin that laundered wipes are more environmentally correct is just an erroneous agenda spun by special interest groups 

working for that segment of the industry. The facts prove that laundered wipes and nonlaundered wipes present equal potential 

risks and as such should be regulated equally. To do otherwise would be an unfair and economic hardship that would burden an 

industry that has been dedicated to recycling since it’s inception. It is clear that a simple, common sense approach that will 

accomplish EPA’s objectives is on the table. Please do the right thing, implement it now.
49

Docket Number - 301

Comment Key - 1655

Submitted by - John M. Gartland of Joseph Gartland, Inc 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation and both industries should 

have the same container and labeling requirements. 

Docket Number - 302

Comment Key - 681

Submitted by - William Wright of John R. Lyman Company 

Comment Text:

I urge you to read the comments from SMART and INDA. We, want a fair field to play on because it has been unfair for decades.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 907

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports EPA proposing regulations that take into account the intended disposition of the wipes. 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. Separate approaches address the 

"resource conservation" aspects of the RCRA program - encouraging less wasteful practices and improving re-use rates.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 366

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA generally agrees with the EPA on the proposed requirements for reusable industrial wipes since much of the language is 

consistent with existing state requirements. However, as stated above, NPCA is concerned about the burdens imposed by this 

rulemaking. Having two different standards, each containing multiple requirements, is too great a burden on industry - simply 

adding to the already complex requirements of RCRA. Thus, generators will simply treat all wipes as hazardous waste and will 

not realize any environmental or economic benefit from the rule. This would be unwarranted for what has been proven to be a 

low risk waste with great potential for reclamation and recovery of hazardous secondary materials. Therefore, NPCA again 

reiterates the need for one simple national standard to apply to all wipes, based on risk. This standard could be an exclusion from 

the definition of solid waste and be based on a no-free liquids or RCRA empty standard. 

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 1658

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 409

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

I urge the EPA to pass this ruling with ONE set of conditions for laundered and non-laundered wipes. This will appropriately 

reflect the fact that the potential risks to human health and the environment are the same and will make it much easier for the 

hundreds of thousands of generators – many of whom are small businesses – to understand and implement in their operations.

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 412

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

ONE set of conditions/requirements makes perfect sense because the potential risks to human health and the environment are the 

same for laundered and non-laundered wipes. A single set of conditions will be much simpler for the generator community to 

implement.

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation.

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.
50

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should meet a performance standard of “not dripping when hand wrung by the 

person managing the wipe” to ensure that the maximum amount of solvent that can practically be removed is recovered and 

recycled.

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be subject to a limited list of,[sic] based upon EPA’s Risk Assessment, 

which must always be handled as hazardous waste. All other solvents should be treated the same whether they are going to a 

landfill on a non-laundered wipe or to a landfill on a laundered wipe via the industrial laundering process. It is recommended that 

if the wipe meets the “not dripping when hand wrung by the person managing the wipe” performance standard, and it doesn’t 

contain a solvent on the list, then no further conditions should apply. However, if EPA decides that additional conditions should 

apply, then those conditions should apply EQUALLY to both laundered and non-laundered wipes. 

These recommendations will result in a substantial increase in the amount of solvents recovered and recycled, simplify the Rule 

for easier understanding and implementation by the hundreds of thousands of generators who must implement the Rule and 

provide appropriate protection to human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 336

Comment Key - 646

Submitted by - Daniel S. Wagner of International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc. (ISSA) 

Comment Text:

Despite ISSA's general support for the proposed exclusions, the Association remains concerned about the different treatment of 

disposable and reusable industrial wipes and the inequity that may result. Although, ISSA recognizes that the reusable wipes,

themselves, may be properly categorized as commodities" rather than as "waste," the same cannot be said of the solvent that is 

eventually extracted. EPA, therefore, should look to establishing a single regulatory exclusion that would apply to all solventcontaminated wipes. It is ISSA's belief that a single all-encompassing exclusion would help companies filly understand their 

compliance obligations and would eliminate the preferential treatment that will be afforded reusable industrial wipes under the 

proposed rule as it is currently drafted.

Docket Number - 341

Comment Key - 968

Submitted by - John Stewart of U.S. Soft Wiping Cloth, Inc. 

Comment Text:

There should be ONE set of rules for laundered and non-laundered wipes. Solvents find their way into landfills both in the case 

of laundered wipes AND non-laundered wipes. Laundering does NOT recycle a solvent, it processes it as WASTE , and ends up 

in the landfill in concentrated form.

There is a limited list based on EPA's Risk Assessment- (nasties)- that should apply to both laundered AND non-laundered. All 

other solvents will reach the landfill on a non-laundered wipe or as sludge via the industrial laundering process.

Docket Number - 341

Comment Key - 1617

Submitted by - John Stewart of U.S. Soft Wiping Cloth, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The position that laundered wipes are more environmentally friendly is just not true. EPA's own studies prove they end up in 

landfills. The consequences of laundered and non laundered wipes as relates to environmental impact at the landfill are EQUAL

and should be regulated EQUALLY.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1191

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA 

Comment Text:

EPA should clearly bifurcate the separate sections of the regulations and the preamble governing reusable towels versus 

disposable wipes.

The proposed preamble and regulations create unnecessary confusion for States and the regulated community by inappropriately 

covering both reusable towels and disposable wipes in the same regulatory and preamble sections. Because disposable wipes are

and will continue to be regulated as hazardous wastes (pursuant to a very different set of legal standards, regulatory policies, and 

management conditions compared to reusable shop towels), it is critical that EPA bifurcate the preamble and regulatory sections 

for disposables and reusables. 

Such bifurcation is also required so that States can clearly and efficiently implement the new rules pursuant to the legal 
51

requirements stated above in Section IV. EPA has correctly recognized that the new proposed conditional hazardous waste 

exclusion for disposables is “less stringent” than either the status quo at the federal or State level. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 65612. 

Consequently, States can continue to maintain their more stringent current disposable wipe regulations and are not required to 

adopt the new regulations. In contrast, the final regulations will establish new federal management conditions for reusable shop 

towels that are more restrictive than the federal status quo (which is silent on the issue) and “more restrictive than some existing 

state programs.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65613. Consequently, at least some States adopt that portion of the final rule governing reusable 

shop towels because the new federal conditions will be more restrictive than the status quo for those States (even assuming EPA 

properly includes co-contaminants within the scope of the federal exclusion). Id Because states will have entirely different 

obligations vis-a-vis the less stringent disposable provisions compared to the more stringent reusable provisions, it is critical that 

EPA bifurcate the reusable and disposable portions of the final regulations and preamble. 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. Id.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 1659

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 574

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

I strongly encourage EPA to finalize a Rule that will have ONE set of conditions for laundered and non-laundered wipes. This 

will appropriately reflect the fact that the potential risks to human health and the environment are the same and will make it much 

easier for the hundreds of thousands of generators – many of whom are small businesses – to understand and implement in their 

operations.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 575

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

EPA’s current proposal is unnecessarily complex and confusing – with differing conditions/requirements for wipers destined for 

the laundry, landfill or municipal incinerator. The Rule shouldn’t be complex – potential environmental and health risks are the 

same for all wiping materials.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 583

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be subject to a limited list of “nasties” – based upon EPA’s Risk 

Assessment - that must always be handled as hazardous waste. All other solvents should be treated the same whether they are 

going to a landfill on a non-laundered wipe or to a landfill on a laundered wipe via the industrial laundering process. It is 

recommended that if the wipe meets the “not dripping when hand wrung by the person managing the wipe” performance 

standard, and it doesn’t contain a solvent on the “nasties” list, then no further conditions should apply. However, if EPA decides 

that additional conditions should apply, then those conditions should apply equally to both laundered and non-laundered wipes. 

Docket Number - 360

Comment Key - 850

Submitted by - Bernard Brill of The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

To put this into context, one trailer load of non-recycled textiles going directly to the landfill sustains two jobs. This same 

container load of materials going to a textile recycling facility for processing maintains 22 jobs! Secondly, the vast majority of 

these jobs are located in major urban areas. In a time when jobs are desperately needed eat all levels, every job is important. Even 

in today's economy, the small business community creates more jobs than anyone else. Nearly every textile recycling firm within 

this industry is defined as a small, family-owned business, with fewer than 500 employees. The majority of SMART member 

companies, in fact, employ 35 and 50 people each. The industry as a whole also employs a large number of semi skilled and 

marginally employable workers at the primary processing level, and creates thousands of additional jobs at thh2: final processing 

stage. Thanks to this industry, millions of dollars we paid every year to a variety of charitable institutions such as Goodwill 
52

International and the Salvation Amy...For this industry to survive it must be able to compete on a level playing field, Under 

current circumstances, laundered shop towels have the distinct advantage of being exempt from RCRA hazardous waste 

regulation. Stories are constantly being heard where a major wiper account is lost to a laundry facility because the generator will 

no longer have to worry about disposing of the waste. Regardless of the price or which product best meets the needs of the user, 

the laundered shop towel is selected with the belief that they will be relieved of the liability is enough justification for using a 

laundered shop towel.

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1660

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements. 

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1494

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

We strongly encourage EPA to finalize a rule that will have ONE set of conditions for laundered and non-laundered wipes. This 

will appropriately reflect the fact that the potential risks to human health and the environment are the same and will make it easier 

for hundreds of thousands of generators--many of whom are small businesses--to understand and implement in their operations. 

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1497

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

One set of conditions/requirements makes perfect sense because the potential risk to human health and the environment are the 

same for laundered and non-laundered wipes. A single set of conditions will be much simpler for the generator community to 

implement. 

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1504

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered and laundered wipes should be subject to a limited list of "nastiest" based on EPA's Risk Assessment that 

must always be handled as hazardous waste. 

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1222

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

Throughout the development of this regulation, the GAC has stated that those wipes destined for disposal in municipal landfills 

should, for future liability and environmental protection purposes, be held to a stricter standard. 

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1225

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

Dealerships and other small businesses want the ability to choose among wipe products and any final rule should strive to set an 

even playing field between disposable and reusable wipes to ensure the viability of different products and their suppliers. 

Assuming appropriate conditions are met; the final rule should allow both reusable and disposable wipes to be excluded from the 

definition of solid waste, regardless of where they are destined (landfills, energy recovery, or laundries).

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1415

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of Secondary Materials That Recycle Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s data shows 88 percent of the wipes used with solvents are laundered wipes. This is not because they perform better. It is 
53

because EPA has allowed the industrial laundries to dispose of solvents on laundered wipes with no conditions while requiring 

non-laundered wipes to be managed as hazardous waste. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1420

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company

Comment Text:

Today the market has shrunk due to the fact that many firms have shifted to laundry wipes. The main reason for this is that the 

laundries take all the towels and solvent and dispose of it for the generator. Therefore it is disposed of in our streams and landfills 

in the form of sludge. While the shift of manufacturing to other parts of the world have forced a significant number of changes to 

our business, there also has been a noticeable significant shift in our customers switching over the laundered shop towels in order 

to relieve themselves of disposability responsibilities.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1422

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

Regulations governing disposal of contaminated wipes should be the same for both laundered and non-laundered wipes, not 

different as in the proposed rule. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1427

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

Furthermore, laundered and non-laundered wipers should be treated in a similar or same manner for all details such as labeling, 

exclusions and transportation. From everything I’ve seen, heard, and read there seems to be widespread support for moving 

forward. Only industrial laundries oppose a common sense, simple rule, the same requirements for laundered and non-laundered 

wipes. This is certainly understandable and if I were in their position I would want the same thing. The reason for their opposition 

is simple. For many years they have been exempt from regulation regarding disposal. As a result they have enjoyed an unfair 

marketing advantage over companies like mine not having to adhere to regulations in the handling of solvent laden laundry 

wipers. Behind the selfish motive there is no other supporting their position.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1428

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

This [preceding discussion regarding laundries' marketing campaign comparing environmental benefits between disposables and 

reusables] demonstrates the decided market advantage the current situation gives industrial launders. This rule should create 

equal treatment of the wipe whether it is laundered or not laundered. This rule, the appropriate changes will be good for the

environment and for those responsible for using and handling these materials. It's only reasonable to expect that in the final form, 

you must treat all forms of wipes equally. At the same time this rule will create greater competition between laundered and nonlaundered wiping fields, resulting in allowing the using of the most appropriate product based on performance and cost. It would 

be a mistake for the federal government to influence buying decisions to exempt one segment in this regulation. The rule must be 

written so everyone understands and plays by the same rules.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1430

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

The current proposals shows unwarranted favoritism for laundered wipers with no justification. EPA should not provide a 

competitive advantage for one industry over another where there are no differences to potential health and environment. The facts 

in the docket prove that the potential risks to human health and the environment are the same for laundered and non-laundered 

wipes. But there are numerous examples in the proposed rule of seemingly preferential treatment for laundered wipes. One, using 

different assumptions for laundered and non-laundered wipes when the risks being evaluated are identical. Two, applying more 

stringent conditions to non-laundered wipes than laundered wipes where the potential risk to human health and the environment 

are the same. Three, not referencing key data in the rules, preamble or the technical background document which exposes the 

environmental risks and impacts from laundered wipes. These studies which are part of the docket clearly indicate that imposing 

stricter conditions on non-laundered wipes than laundered wipes just doesn't make sense.
54

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1433

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

Using the terms of usable and disposable is deceptive and misleading at best. Implying relative environmental benefits for 

laundered wipes when EPA’s research clearly indicates that there are no environmental benefits for laundered wipes compared to 

non-laundered wipes. The final rule that discriminates against non-laundered wipes by providing regulatory preference to 

laundered wipes will adversely impact environmental risks as well as hamper market courses that otherwise would provide users

with improved wiping systems at lower cost. Let the users decide which industrial wiping product is best for their application 

based on the performance of the wiper, not based upon preferential regulatory treatment for one type of wiping product over 

another. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1436

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

In virtually every state, laundered wipes are treated as exempt while non-laundered wipes must be treated as hazardous waste. 

From the research and the studies that have been completed, this fallacy must be corrected. For far too long the laundry powers 

have been exempt from regulation. This dichotomy is a result of lobbying by the industrial laundry associations and their 

members at the state level where they have used rhetoric that because laundered wipers are reused, they are being recycled and 

are therefore aren't waste. They argued and market to generators that laundered wipes are environmentally beneficial compared to 

disposables which are recycled. Compared to disposables because they are recycled and help to keep landfills from being filled 

up by disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1449

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

The printing industry has long advocated that disposables, due to their final destination need to meet a more stringent standard 

then reusable towels. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1465

Submitted by - Lenora Strohm of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

We support EPA’s efforts to develop different approaches for wipes to be disposed than for wipes that will be recycled. Taking 

into account the different environmental impacts of recycling and disposal is prudent to encourage and support recycling efforts 

while ensured protection of human health and the environment. 

1.4 Clarity of Proposed Rule or of Existing Regulations

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 128

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

Simplify the rule. As it is currently written, the rule is overly complicated...the proposed rule has different 

requirements/conditions for shop towels as compared to rags and wipes. This adds significant complexity and is not appropriate 

given that the same environmental and health risks apply to all wiping materials. Make the rule simple, with one set of conditions 

for all wiping materials

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1159

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

A universal hand-wringing performance standard would substantially further EPA’s objectives of increasing consistency in the 
55

regulations governing SSIWs across the United States, clarifying the content of current variable and ambiguous state solvent 

extraction requirements, addressing over-regulation of SSNWs, and rendering SSIW regulations more easily implementable. 

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 410

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

EPA’s current proposal is unnecessarily complex and confusing – with differing conditions/requirements for wipers destined for 

the laundry, landfill or municipal incinerator. The Rule shouldn’t be complex. Potential environmental and health risks are the 

same for all wiping materials.

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1496

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

EPA's current proposal is unnecessarily complex and confusing--with differing conditions/requirements for wipers destined for 

the laundry, landfill or municipal incinerator. The rule shouldn't be complex--the potential environmental and health risks are the 

same for all wiping materials. 

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1223

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

The GAC continues to have serious concerns with the potential to over regulate this particular commodity. The vast majority of 

affected businesses are small printers, and any rule governing the management of used shop towels must be simple and easy to 

comprehend. Adoption of this approach will increase compliance and reduce improper handling of used shop towels. Currently, 

shop towels used with characteristic wastes do not pose problems for state agencies as long as there are no free liquids, so 

imposition of new handling and disposal requirements for these towels would create an additional regulatory burden. The 

problem has been, and remains, the handling and disposal of disposable shop towels co-mingled with listed solvents. 

... Further, the GAC has also maintained that any program put in place must be simple and inexpensive to implement. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1424

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

The rule must be clear and easy to implement.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1434

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

My interest in being here today is to encourage the EPA to keep the rule as simple and straightforward as possible. Undue 

requirements measuring will only complicate the rule and defeat its purpose. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1450

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

Whatever is proposed and adopted by the Agency regarding disposable shop towels must be easy to implement and inexpensive. 

1.5 National Applicability

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 930

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
56

Comment Text:

The EPA developed this proposal over about 12-years balancing a variety of perspectives. Minnesota regulators shared their 

Views with EPA during that time and contributed toward this proposal. The proposal represents progress over past practices as it 

provides a consistent, minimum national standard.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 30

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

Greater compliance will enhance the protection of human health and the environment. As a company that does business 

nationwide it is important that all states be encouraged to adopt this rule. Establishing a sound national policy for storing,

transporting and disposing of used wipers is critical to achieve the goals set out in the proposed rule to protect human health, and 

the environment.

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1221

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

Currently, there are no federal guidelines for the management of used shop towels. The lack of guidance has caused considerable 

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

the existing state policies have differing requirements. 

Over the years, the printing industry has continued to identify the ambiguity of the state policies as they apply to both disposable 

and reusable solvent-contaminated wipes as a major concern. Due to the fact that the handling and disposal of such materials are 

dictated by policy rather than regulation, there exists a patchwork of sometimes conflicting policies.

Since the beginning of this rule making in 1996, it has been the printing and packaging industry’s position that setting a national 

standard for the management and disposal of solvent contaminated towels, wipes and rags will benefit printers, regulatory 

agencies, and ultimately the environment. A well-crafted rule providing uniformity and consistency across the country will 

encourage rather than discourage pollution prevention. Our comments today regarding the management approaches proposed 

continue to strive towards recognition of pollution prevention efforts undertaken by the printing industry. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1423

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

The rule must be clear and easy to implement. As you know there is a great confusion on the handling of soiled wipers from state 

to state, county to county even township to township. This rule should clarify and simplify the mismatch of regulation currently

in existence.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1435

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

I see clear benefits to states following EPA's lead, adopting this rule. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1448

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

Over the years the printing industry has continued to identify the ambiguity of the state policies as they apply to both disposable 

and reusable solvent contaminated wipes as a major concern. Due to the fact that the handling and disposal of such materials are 

dictated by policy rather than regulation, many states were led to develop their own, also conflicting policies. It has long been our 

intention to encourage the US EPA to establish a federal regulation that levels the playing field and provides an element of 

consistency to this issue. Overall, we feel that the proposed language does indeed create that level playing field.
57

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1461

Submitted by - Gary Jones of Graphic Arts Technical Foundation/ Printing Industries of America 

Comment Text:

The stated goal of the printing industry has been to establish a level playing field between state regulations. We believe that this 

rule does provide that level of consistency.

1.6 Goals of Rule or General Regulations for Laundries

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 17

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to disposal or from shop 

towels prior to laundering.

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1632

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

EPA’s stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, 

and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does 

not require solvent to be removed from wipes prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering. 

Docket Number - 171

Comment Key - 601

Submitted by - John Michaud of Green Bay Nonwovens, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA's stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, 

and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does 

not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering.

Docket Number - 173

Comment Key - 292

Submitted by - Robert A. Young of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

Although AF&F supports this EPA effort, we feel there is more that must be considered before the rule is finalized. The proposed 

rule does not require solvent to be removed prior to disposal or laundering.

Docket Number - 174

Comment Key - 799

Submitted by - Phillip E. Bryson of Polymer Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA's stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, 

and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does 

not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering. 

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 1631

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

EPA’s stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, 

and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does 

not require solvent to be removed from wipes prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering. 
58

Docket Number - 185

Comment Key - 12

Submitted by - Steven Hamilton of Urban Environmental Affairs Council 

Comment Text:

The second approach EPA was relying on to reduce the pollution from industrial launderers [in lieu of passing a proposed rule 

that would have required industrial laundry facilities to meet national wastewater pretreatment standards] was preventing solvents 

from entering the laundering process. The rule that EPA published on November 20, 2003 doesn’t do anything to reduce the 

amount of solvents going to industrial launderers. There are no requirements whatsoever for solvent removal.

Docket Number - 186

Comment Key - 420

Submitted by - David Williams of CCP Industries, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The original goal of the EPA was to establish an approach to facilitate solvent recycling that made sense and could be understood 

by users of wiping products. The proposed rule falls short of the EPA’s goal and does not require solvent removal from wipers 

prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to being laundered.

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 861

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule falls short of EPA's goal and does not require solvent removers from wipers prior to disposal or from shop 

towels prior to being laundered. 

Docket Number - 188

Comment Key - 894

Submitted by - Robert Dailey of Tranzonic Retail Group 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule falls short of EPA's goal and does not require solvent removers from wipers prior to disposal or from shop 

towels prior to being laundered. 

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 868

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule falls short of EPA's goal and does not require solvent removers from wipers prior to disposal or from shop 

towels prior to being laundered.

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 900

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA’s stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycling, 

and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does 

not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering. 

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 700

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Objective 2 – Increase solvent recovery and recycling. As proposed, the Rule does not require any solvent removal or recycling.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 702

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

EPA should use four guiding principles in assessing changes to the Final Rule that will result in EPA accomplishing its objectives 

and significantly simplifying the Rule:
59

-Principle No. 1: Where potential risks to human health and the environment do not exist, do not apply regulatory conditions. 

-Principle No. 2: Where equivalent risks exist, apply equivalent regulatory conditions.

-Principle No. 3: Encourage solvent recovery and recycling at the point of generation.

-Principle No. 4: Acknowledge that launderer sludge is a solid waste that is the direct result of the use of laundered wipes. While 

the laundered wipe itself will be reused, the spent solvent is intended for disposal. This rule is about the solvent, not the wipe, and 

the solvent is intended for disposal. That solvent is, by definition, a waste whether it is on a laundered wipe or a non-laundered 

wipe.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 936

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The MPCA supports a hierarchy of policies that promote pollution prevention:

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.

Docket Number - 306

Comment Key - 486

Submitted by - Gregory Roscoe of Colbond Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

EPA's-stated goal of this effort were to establish a national, feasible approach that would facilitate solvent recycling and easily be 

understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does not require solvent

to be removed from wipers prior to disposal or from shop towels prior to laundering.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 735

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposal confirms the importance of being able to remove solvent from wipes before the wipes are sent off site, as a 

pollution prevention measure with multiple benefits. See 68 Fed. Reg. 65608. Although EPA recognizes the importance of this 

treatment, it should be emphasized as integrally linked to the rule, so that there is no question that the regulation promotes 

segregation of liquid solvents for appropriate management. 

Extraction of solvent from rags could occur in several ways, including simple pressing or wringing or solvent extraction. 

Although MPPA members have not been able to engage in these practices because of the state of Maine’s strict interpretation of 

hazardous waste regulations prohibiting treatment without a license, the promulgation of the proposed conditional exemption at 

the same time as encouraging solvent removal should promote solvent recovery and lead states like Maine to promote such 

practices, without requiring a hazardous waste treatment license.

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 973

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

An exclusion that allows disposal of industrial wipes sends the wrong message with respect to pollution prevention. In essence, it 

encourages incineration and landfill disposal over reuse.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 426

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

Because this rule would effectively promote land disposal of these materials over a demonstrably preferable waste recycling 

technology such as energy recovery in cement kilns, it appears EPA is proposing a reduction in environmental protection. This 

kind of backsliding is contrary to the Agency's stated goals of encouraging recycling and energy recovery and promoting upward 

movement on the waste management hierarchy. It is also in direct conflict with all of the Agency's specialty programs including: 

Waste Wise, Resource Conservation Challenge, and the various Pollution Prevention (P2) efforts. All of these programs seek to
60

eliminate or reduce the reliance upon land disposal, the lowest rung on the waste management hierarchy. This proposal should be 

no different. It should be modified to discourage land disposal of these wastes by specifically encouraging them to be managed 

by recycling and energy recovery technologies.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 394

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

U.S. EPA's stated objective of resolving certain issues associated with the management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 

is not accomplished by the proposed rule. First, facilitating pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities is not 

accomplished because it does not discourage the generation or encourage the reduction in toxicity of solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes. While it is true that the universe of hazardous waste will be reduced by the proposed conditional exclusion, the 

volume and toxicity of the waste stream will not change significantly. This waste stream will simply be relegated to less stringent 

management practices currently applicable to non-hazardous wastes. U. S. EPA offers no convincing support for the claim that 

the proposed rule will significantly impact recycling rates of solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes.

Also, U. S. EPA does not adequately support its statement that the proposed rule will foster improved solvent handling practices 

by generators and handling facilities. In fact, 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. This may occur because the proposed rule does not have adequate controls for 

accumulation time-frames, notification, and reporting activities related to management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Regarding U.S. EPA's claim that compliance costs will be reduced, it is obvious that any rule excluding entire waste streams 

from the definition of hazardous waste will have the effect of reducing costs to generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers. 

However, U.S. EPA has not adequately evaluated whether there are any cost impacts to regulators implementing programs under 

the CWA, CAA, OSHA, DOT, RCRA C and RCRA D. U.S. EPA's assertion that this proposal will increase consistency in the 

regulations governing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes is suspect. As U. S. EPA notes, most States currently regulate 

disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes as a hazardous waste. Under this proposal, if finalized without change, 

authorized States may forgo adoption of the rule, creating a patchwork of management requirements where previously there was 

consistency among states.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 391

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

During the last several years, some facilities generating soiled industrial wipes have modified their practices to eliminate solvents 

that are listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. In many cases, the facilities have switched to using reusable wipes, choosing 

to launder them and avoid hazardous waste regulation of the wipes. There is concern that this proposed rule may provide 

incentives to facilities to switch from less toxic solvents to those that are characteristic or listed hazardous wastes. Also, of 

concern is the anti-pollution prevention message this rule proposal sends by allowing solvent contaminated wipes to be disposed 

of into non-hazardous waste landfills.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 950

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA’s stated objective of resolving certain issues associated with the management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes is not 

accomplished by the proposed rule. First, facilitating pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities is not 

accomplished because it does not discourage the generation or encourage the reduction in toxicity of solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes. While it is true that the universe of hazardous waste will be reduced by the proposed conditional exclusion, the 

volume and toxicity of the waste stream will not change significantly. This waste stream will simply be relegated to less stringent 

management practices currently applicable to non-hazardous solid wastes. EPA offers no convincing support for the claim that 

the proposed rule will significantly impact recycling rates of solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes. EPA also 

does not adequately support its statement that the proposed rule will foster improved solvent handling practices by generators and 

handling facilities. In fact, 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. This may occur because the proposed rule does not have adequate controls for accumulation timeframes, 

notification, and reporting activities related to management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. Regarding EPA's claim that 

compliance cost will be reduced, it is obvious that any rule excluding entire waste streams from the definition of hazardous waste 

will have the effect reducing costs to generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers. However, EPA has not adequately 
61

evaluated whether there are any cost impacts to regulators implementing programs under the CWA, CAA, OSHA, DOT, RCRA 

C and RCRA D as a result of the proposed rule. EPA's assertion that this proposal will increase consistency in the regulations 

governing solvent contaminated industrial wipes is suspect. As EPA notes, most states currently regulate disposable solventcontaminated industrial wipes as a hazardous waste. Under this proposal, if finalized without change, many authorized states may 

forgo adoption of the rule, creating a patchwork of management requirements where previously there was consistency among 

states.

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1076

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

During the last several years, a large percentage of facilities generating soiled industrial wipers have modified their practices to 

eliminate solvents that are listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. In many cases, the facilities have switched to using reusable 

wipes, choosing to launder them and avoid hazardous waste regulation of the wipes. We are concerned that this proposal will 

provide incentives to switch to solvents that are more toxic and disincentives for laundering used wipes. Broadening the 

exclusion to include disposable wipes will increase the amount of solvent-containing wipes being disposed of. We recommend 

that EPA consider the pollution prevention message that they are sending by broadening the exemption to disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1077

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The proposed industrial wipe rule states that the rule will encourage the recovery of solvents by laundry facilities and intracompany wipe handling facilities. We question the notion that solvent recovery for recycling occurs at industrial laundries since 

they receive and process wipes from variety of customers using different solvents. We believe that it is very difficult to recycle 

these solvent mixtures into a marketable product. DEQ does not support the notion that solvents will be widely recovered and 

recycled by industrial laundries.

We do recognize, however, that intra-company wipe handling facilities have better control over the solvents in the wipes and 

should have an easier time having the solvent recovered from the wipes recycled.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1174

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

...Reusable shop towels provide environmental benefits by decreasing natural resource consumption, saving energy, and 

providing effective pollution management and prevention. This makes the industry one of the nation’s largest recyclers, while 

saving energy and preventing further depletion of scarce natural resources. Reusable towels are a more environmentally-friendly 

alternative to disposable wipes (e.g., by reducing the waste that goes to landfills and incinerators).

UTSA and TRSA strongly support EPA's policy goal of resource conservation in the most fundamental way: resource 

conservation is one of the principal elements of an industrial laundry's business model. Jim Buik of The Roscoe Company 

(Roscoe), a family-owned small industrial laundry provided a good example of this fact at EPA's March 9, 2004 public hearing. 

The fundamental reusability of shop towels allows Roscoe to deliver approximately 10 million shop towels to its customers each 

year using an inventory of only about 1.5 million towels. If shop towels were solid waste, Roscoe would be purchasing 10 

million, instead of 1.5 million, towels each year. In this example, by reusing shop towels, almost six times more landfill space is 

conserved. All laundries have similar, if not greater, towel recycle rates.

[Submission discusses "Environmental Assessment of Shop Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries", ORD, 

1996, and presents alternative life cycle impacts, with documentation submitted as Exhibit (Attachment) A.]

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1193

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Like the industrial laundry industry, EPA is also concerned about worker health and safety - the proposed rule contains a number 

of references to this topic. However important this matter is to both the Agency and the industry, RCRA is simply not the proper 

statutory vehicle to address worker safety concerns, and worker safety issues should have absolutely no bearing on whether EPA 

finalizes its proposal to exclude shop towels from the RCRA definition of solid waste. There is, indeed, absolutely no mention of 
62

worker safety in the comprehensive list of 11 objectives or goals of RCRA. Legislative history clearly confirms that Congress 

intended for RCRA to protect the public at large from “discarded wastes” as opposed to workers from supposed unsafe products 

used in the workplace. RCRA jurisdiction does not even extend to products (such as reusable shop towels, or industrial devices 

such as cutting or abrasion tools) that may selectively come into contact with hazardous materials in performing their functions.

Congress appropriately delegated to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) the role of protecting employees 

from unsafe working conditions. OSHA has implemented this authority and established comprehensive Permissible Exposure 

Limits (PELS) for all of the hazardous solvents regulated under RCRA. Laundry industry companies routinely evaluate 

workplace exposure to solvent vapors via soiled shop towels. Moreover, industrial laundries are subject to OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard, which requires employers to inform their employees of chemical hazards via container labels, Material 

Safety Data Sheets, and training. Finally, to the extent that individual workers at a particular facility were ever exposed to 

potentially unsafe materials that were added to a product, then OSHA (not EPA) should take the appropriate action against the 

individual employer. Obviously, 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.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1416

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of Secondary Materials That Recycle Textiles Association (SMART) (Industry 

and Associations)

Comment Text:

Requirements for disposals are more complicated than the requirements for reusables. Reusable shop towels are still more 

environmentally friendly and lower liability alternative to disposables. The rule provides minimum regulatory relief for disposals. 

The reusable shop towel service still holds less concern for a user than the classic cradle degrade liability found with disposables. 

The regulation does not require reusable shop towel users to treat towels before laundry picks them up. These comments show 

that while OSW started out with good intentions, this rule as written is not fulfilling the goals set forth many years ago.

The goals being one, develop a clear and national policy that addresses recycling and disposal of cloths contaminated with 

solvents. Create a user friendly document easily understandable by the small business community. Create a win win situation for 

the environment, the printing and other industrial sectors. 

[Testimony provides summary of laundry industry's involvement in rulemaking]

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1417

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of Secondary Materials That Recycle Textiles Association (SMART) (Industry 

and Associations)

Comment Text:

The one clear message our members wish to send to you today is that this rulemaking should not be about laundered wipes or non 

laundered wipes. It should be about solvent. As the Office of Water pointed out when it passed the ball to OSW, a laundry facility 

does not recycle solvent. It processes it as waste. The Office of Water stated that the best way to manage the solvent is to remove 

it prior to entering the laundry process. The solvent whether laundered or non-laundered ends up in the same landfill either as 

liquified sludge or solid waste. Therefore the best win for the environment is removing solvent after using the wipe.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1438

Submitted by - Rosa DeLauro of US Congress, CT 3rd District 

Comment Text:

In particular the EPA proposal fails to include two critical provisions that I understand the Agency was considering as late as 

June of 2000. That proposal 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.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1469

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

We’ve presented an extensive critique of the proposal. We have very limited time here today to review it. I would like to reiterate 

the positions that the Sierra Club and others have taken regarding the need to return to the critical elements of the year 2000 

proposal that EPA was considering at that time.
63

1.7 Regulatory Definitions

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 977

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

The proposed definition of “disposable industrial wipe” is “an industrial wipe that is disposed after use without being sent to a 

laundry or dry cleaner for cleaning and reuse.” There does not appear to be a need for this definition since the term is not used 

within the context of the regulation, only within preamble discussion.

Recommendation: Do not define "disposable industrial wipe" since the term is not used within the context of the rule.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 980

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: 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. 

Discussion: The proposed definition for “industrial wipes handling facility” is “a facility that removes solvents from industrial 

wipes prior to them being sent either to a laundry or dry cleaner for cleaning or to a municipal or other non-hazardous waste 

landfill that meets the standards under 40 CFR 257, Subpart B, municipal waste combustor, or other combustion facility.” 

"Facility" is specifically defined within 40 CFR 260.10 as land used for "treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste....". It 

appears the intend of this proposal was to use the term "industrial wipes handling facility" solely to refer to an intermediate 

facility used to remove free liquids from excluded wipes prior to being sent to a cleaner or disposer, not to a facility permitted to 

treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Also, another potential problem with the proposed definition is that it would appear 

that a generating entity removing solvents from their own excluded wipes might also be interpreted to be an "industrial wipes 

handling facility." 

Recommendation: In modifying the text for the final rule, 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". 

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 978

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

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. 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. 

Recommend that “industrial” be deleted from the proposed definitions in 40 CFR 260.10 and the exclusions in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(22) and (b)(19). Alternatively, recommend that the preamble to the final rule explain that any entity, not just industrial 

entities, may qualify for the exclusions.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 979

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

The proposed definition of “industrial wipe” 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. Other materials, such as rayon, wool, 

and silk, may be considered ineligible. EPA has not provided an explanation of why it has limited the composition of industrial 

wipes. If the definition remains as proposed, a generator may be required to restrict industrial wipe composition (and potentially 

increase costs) without any increased environmental benefit to secure a conditional exemption.
64

Consistent with previous DoD comment, the definition of "industrial wipe" should be replaced 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 revised definition may state: "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...."

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 989

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The proposed rule does not consistently refer to affected sections.

Discussion: Within the preamble, reference is made to the hazardous waste provisions within the CFR beginning with 40 CFR 

260, whereas the proposed rule refers to it as beginning with 40 CFR 261. The title of the proposed rule refers to 40 CFR 260, 

and changes are proposed for 40 CFR 260.

Recommendation: EPA should review the rule and preamble for consistency with regard to the references to the hazardous waste 

provisions within the CFR. The hazardous waste regulations are commonly referred to as beginning with 40 CFR 260, which 

contains the first hazardous waste regulations.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1007

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The applicability of cotton-tipped swabs it is not clear in the definition of an industrial wipe. 

Discussion: The proposed definition of an "industrial wipe" is "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 blend..." It is not clear from this definition whether cotton-tipped swabs would be considered to 

be "industrial wipes".

Cotton-tipped swabs are often used in the same fashion as industrial wipes to clean certain spent solvents on equipment or 

electronics. If interpreted too narrowly the proposed rule definition for industrial wipes might exclude cotton tipped swabs. The 

cotton-tipped swab's intended purpose and use relating to solvents in the aerospace workspace is often the same. However, cotton 

tipped swabs are exempted in the Aerospace National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR 

63.744(a)(1) which is the housekeeping measure for the NESHAP. The purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to allow for 

disposal of items used to clean up solvents that would otherwise require special hazardous or solid waste treatment and disposal 

under RCRA because they are generally insignificant in amount and characterization of substance and not likely to be harmful to 

human health or the environment. Thus, it is well within the intent and purpose of the proposal to include cotton tipped swabs 

that are used for clean up purposes. However, without expressly including them or referencing them, arguably they remain 

subject to regulation.

Recommendation: The definition of industrial wipe in 40 CFR 260.10 should be revised to include cotton-tipped swabs and other 

similar items. 

Docket Number - 165

Comment Key - 413

Submitted by - Mark Bonenberger of Buckeye Pipe Line Company 

Comment Text:

The term "solvent-contaminated" is used a lot within the regulation. Is this regulator exclusion only for wipes used in solvent 

cleaning applications? If not, then the term "solvent-contaminated" should be deleted or a definition for this term needs to be 

provided since it is confusing as to exactly what it means. For example, does an industrial wipe used to cleanup a gasoline spill 

fall under this regulation or is it strictly for wipes used in solvent cleaning applications?

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 54

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests omitting the proposed definition of the term “disposable industrial wipe” from the final rule. While this phrase was 
65

used frequently throughout the preamble of the NPRM, its only appearance in the proposed regulatory text is in the “Definitions” 

section.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 58

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests omitting the proposed definition of the term “reusable industrial wipe” from the final rule. While this phrase was 

used frequently throughout the preamble of the NPRM, its only appearance in the proposed regulatory text is in the “Definitions” 

section.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1365

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

In the proposed definition of “industrial rag” on Page 65617 (second column, Appendix A), consideration should be given to 

including other fabrics, such as acrylic, rayon, and acetate.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 507

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

68 FR 65618, proposed 40 CFR 260.10 “no free liquids” and “ solvent extraction” definitions refer to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)”. 

The correct reference appears to be 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22). 68 FR 65619, proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(iii) has a reference to “40 

CFR 261.4(a)(24)(iv)”. The correct reference appears to be 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iv).

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 283

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

EPA should expand its definition of “industrial wipe” to also include “similar absorbent materials” to provide for new wipe or rag 

content that could be developed in the future for these applications.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 532

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc.

Comment Text:

The proposed terms "reusable industrial wipe" and "disposable industrial wipe'' are currently defined in the proposed rule in

260.10. Neither of these terms is used in the proposed regulatory language except in the definitions. We suggest removing these 

terms altogether because 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.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 533

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

We suggest adding the phrase "solvent-contaminated industrial wipe" to the definitions section. This phrase is used several times 

in the proposed regulatory language but is not included in the definitions. If this phrase is defined, 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."

2. Basis for Solid Waste Exclusion for Reusable Wipes
66

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 357

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA supports 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. How and why rags and wipes are utilized is highly specific to the industry sector using the 

wipes as well as individual facility- specific scenarios. Therefore, as EPA correctly points out, . . . “a wipe’s life-cycle depends 

on its ultimate disposition.’’ 

Docket Number - 461

Comment Key - 1233

Submitted by - Charles Sewell of Textile Rental Services of America (TRSA) 

Comment Text:

As an initial matter, EPA must remain cognizant throughout this rulemaking of the limits on its jurisdiction to only regulate

discarded materials under RCRA Subtitle C. As noted, the 2003 proposed rule wisely proposed to exclude reusable towels from 

the RCRA definition of solid waste based on two fundamental premises that have grown out of the federal RCRA jurisprudence: 

(1) that EPA has no RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction over materials that are not discarded, and which are not part of the nation's 

waste disposal problem; and (2) that reusable towels are more commodity-like than waste-like.

...Accordingly, it is only the solvents in the laundry sludge, and not the reusable shop towel itself, that fall within EPA's RCRA 

jurisdiction.

2.1. Applicability of Partial Reclamation Variance Criteria

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1121

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

...EPA’s rationale for its proposed exclusion, and therefore the exclusion itself, is unlawful. Simply put, EPA has failed to justify 

its tentative determination that the factors set forth in the “partial reclamation” exclusion in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) are met either 

now or under the regulatory conditions set forth in EPA’s proposal so as to warrant a solid waste exclusion at the point of 

generation of SSLWs.

The “criteria EPA considers when evaluating whether a partially reclaimed solid waste is commodity-like and . . . thus is 

appropriate to exclude from RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction” are the six factors set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c), and not the three 

factors set forth by EPA in the preamble to the proposed rule. 62 Fed. Reg. 26012 (May 12, 1997). See also 40 C.F.R. § 

261.31(c) (variance for partially reclaimed materials “will be based” on the six factors identified therein). These six factors are as 

follows:

(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.

...EPA failed to consider adequately - or at all - the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth factors enumerated. Its failure to do so is 

arbitrary and capricious and otherwise unlawful.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1123

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Unlawfully Failed to Consider That Its “No Free Liquids” Condition Does Not Mandate Any Initial “Processing” of 

Solvent-Contaminated Laundered Wipes by Wipe Generators and Will Leave Most, If Not All, of the Solvent on Laundered 

Wipes to be “Processed” by Industrial Launderers. 

The Agency states that it is proposing a “no free liquids” condition to “ensure that wipes that are going to reclamation have low 

levels of solvent consistent with this factor.” What EPA fails to account for, however, is that, contrary to its own consistent prior 
67

application of the first factor in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c), “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, as discussed 

below, EPA’s proposal would not mandate any processing of SSLWs 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. 

(a) EPA has failed to demonstrate that wipe generators now engage in substantial reclamation of solvent-contaminated laundered 

wipes. EPA points to nothing in the record that supports its contention that SSLWs are currently “often” partially reclaimed by 

waste generators, and certainly to nothing that indicates that a substantial degree of processing now occurs to remove solvent 

from SSLWs. Indeed, the guidance provided by the Uniform Textile & Service Association (“UTSA”) and the Textile Rental 

Services Association (“TRSA”) to its members’ customers does not even suggest any specific type of “processing” to ensure that 

no free liquids are present. Instead, it merely indicates that wipe generators should “ensure” that their wipes do not contain free 

liquids by placing them in “collection systems”, i.e., containers, “or [an] other [unidentified] process”. See, e.g., “Management 

Practices for Soiled Reusable Textile Handling”, TRSA/UTSA, Section V.A (RCRA Docket No. 2003-0004-0048) (hereinafter 

“TRSA/UTSA Management Practices”). Put another way, this guidance instructs that SSLW generators may merely place their 

wipes in containers.

(b) EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition would not require any reclamation of solvent by SSLW generators, much less the 

substantial degree of processing required to support a determination that the first factor in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) has been met. 

Perhaps more to the point, however, even if EPA were to demonstrate that wipe generators do “often” partially reclaim SSLWs in 

some limited fashion, that fact would be irrelevant for purposes of the 40 C.F.R. § 261.31(c) test. Under the first factor of that 

provision, the relevant test is not how “often” SSLWs are partially reclaimed by wipe generators, but rather the “degree” of 

processing, i.e., solvent removal, the SSLWs undergo and the degree of further solvent removal required by launderers. The 

simple fact of the matter is that EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition would do virtually nothing to change the current 

ability of SSLW generators to merely place their solvent-soiled wipes in so-called “collection systems.” Under the proposed rule 

itself, SSLW generators need only ensure that their wipes either “contain no free liquids or . . . have been treated by solvent 

extraction . . . .”. ... As such, the proposed rule itself does not require any processing” at all to remove solvent. 

Notably, this “test” does not require an SSLW generator to actually hold up each wipe to determine if it actually drips liquid, or 

for that matter, to undertake any “process” at all to ensure that solvent is in fact removed from the wipe. Instead, consistent with 

the preamble statement regarding use of generator knowledge, this “test” merely requires an evaluation of whether if the wipe 

were to be held up, would it drip any solvent. Simply put, neither the proposed rule nor the regulatory preamble require any 

“processing” at all, much less processing designed to “ensure” that wipes “going to reclamation” have “low” levels of solvent 

“consistent with [the first] factor [in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c)].” 

Notably, this “test” does not require an SSLW generator to actually hold up each wipe to determine if it actually drips liquid, or 

for that matter, to undertake any “process” at all to ensure that solvent is in fact removed from the wipe. Instead, consistent with

the preamble statement regarding use of generator knowledge, this “test” merely requires an evaluation of whether if the wipe

were to be held up, would it drip any solvent. Simply put, neither the proposed rule nor the regulatory preamble require any 

“processing” at all, much less processing designed to “ensure” that wipes “going to reclamation” have “low” levels of solvent

“consistent with [the first] factor [in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c)].” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593 Even were the final rule to require that SSLWs 

actually be hand-held in each instance to “ensure” no free liquids, this condition is unlikely to result in “processing” that would 

ensure “low levels” of solvent. If wipes are hand-held and no liquid drips from them, then clearly there is no “processing” that 

results in partial reclamation. If some solvent does “drip” from the wipe, that result will not “ensure” “low” levels of solvent in 

the wipe being sent offsite, as is evident from the amount of solvent that can be removed if such a wipe is hand-wrung. The mere 

act of physical hand-wringing of SSLWs alone should result in substantially more removal of solvent than the minimal amount 

generated under the proposed condition, a result that should be readily manifest to anyone who has hand-wrung a wet washcloth. 

However, even hand-wringing seemingly would not constitute the “substantial processing” sufficient to justify a determination 

that this factor of the 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) variance test for solid waste exclusions had been met. 

...Thus, use of generator knowledge, or the mere hand-holding of wipes to see if they drip, will not achieve the “substantial” 

processing required by EPA under the first 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) factor. When EPA originally established the 40 C.F.R. § 

260.31(c) variance mechanism for materials that have been partially reclaimed, it explained that “[t]he more substantial the initial 

processing [a material has undergone], the more likely the resulting material is to be commodity-like. Conversely, the more 

substantial the processing that is yet to occur, the less likely the initially reclaimed material is to be commodity-like”, and 

therefore suitable for a variance from the definition of solid waste. 50 Fed. Reg. 655 (Jan. 4, 1985). In its application of the first 

factor of 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c), EPA has continued to mandate “substantial” reclamation at the initial stage of that process.

...In sum, then, EPA has failed to evaluate the “degree of processing” SSLWs 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.
68

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1124

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Unlawfully Failed to Consider That The Initial “Reclamation”, If Any, Conducted by SSLW Generators Under the 

Proposed “No Free Liquids” Condition Would Not Increase or Contribute Meaningfully to the Value of SSLWs

...[T]he proposed rule requires an SSLW generator to do nothing to enhance the value of the wipes it generates and, in the 

absence of the rule, there is no incentive for generators to do so, for (as shown above), UTSA/TRSA instructs that SSLWs can 

simply be placed in a container. 

Most importantly, the proposed rule falls far short of what EPA has typically required for this criterion of the test 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 SSLWs to make them more attractive to laundries, SSLW generators simply pay launderers for (as 

EPA puts it) the “service” of removing the hazardous waste to render it nonhazardous.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1125

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Unlawfully Failed to Consider That Its Proposed Transport “Container” Requirement for SSLWs, When Coupled With Its 

Proposed “No Free Liquids” Test, Will Fail to “Minimize” Loss of Solvent During the Handling of Those Wipes

Member companies of TRSA and UTSA currently employ nylon bags or other liquid-permeable bags for the transport of SSLWs. 

See TRSA/UTSA Management Practices, Section II.C (definition of “soiled textile holders”). EPA’s proposed conditions for the 

transport of SSLWs would not change that practice, and accordingly would fail to ensure that SSLWs are handled to “minimize” 

loss of solvent. The inadequacy of EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” test merely serves to ensure that the proposed rule will not 

satisfy this 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) factor, nor the test EPA has repeatedly established for the proper management during storage 

and transport of secondary materials excluded from the definition of solid waste under 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a).

(a) EPA’s “no free liquids” condition will admittedly result in free liquids within transport containers. EPA itself has recognized 

that its overly lenient test for “no free liquids” will result in some cases in free liquids at the bottom of the container storing or 

transporting SSLWs. Id. at 65599.12 The Agency has sought to rectify this problem by requiring not only that no solvent drip 

from reusable wipes when held for a short time, but that “no free liquids may be present in the bottom of the container in which 

the wipes are transported.” Id. EPA’s acknowledgement that its “no free liquids test” will result in some cases in percolation of 

solvent at the bottom of the container makes its proposal self-defeating since it ensures, in at least some cases, that that situation 

will likely result in violation of the “no free liquids at the bottom of transported container” condition. Put another way, at least 

some meaningful form of solvent extraction from wipes containing appreciable amounts of solvent is required to ensure that 

wipers being transported offsite will not leak free liquids into containers, thereby satisfying the condition EPA has established for 

“no free liquids” in containers. Moreover, as discussed below, coupled with the lax container conditions proposed by EPA for 

SSLWs, the Agency’s failure to require handwringing, at a minimum, will ensure that SSLWs are not handled to “minimize” 

loss.

(b) EPA’s proposed condition for container transport of SSLWs will fail to “minimize” loss or meet the standard EPA has set for 

management of secondary materials excluded under 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a). The Agency’s insufficient “no free liquids” test might

be of less moment from the standpoint of the “minimize loss” factor in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) had EPA proposed a requirement 

for containers used to transport SSLWs that would actually “minimize loss” of solvent to the environment. Unfortunately, EPA’s 

proposal fails to do so, and will likely expose workers and the environment to unnecessary risks as a result.

...EPA’s position and proposal is unfathomable in light of the Agency’s “no liquid may drip from a wiper held for a short period” 

test and its acknowledgement that under that test, percolation can result in free liquids at the bottom of a container. Simply stated, 

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. 

Further evidence of the arbitrary nature of EPA’s proposed container conditions is found in the language of the proposed rule

itself. Generators would be required to store SSLWs in covered, “non-leaking” containers, a provision clearly designed to 

“minimize” (or, more accurately, prevent) loss of solvent to the environment. See proposed 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(22)(i). When 

SSLWs are transported offsite, however, they only need to be transported in containers that are “designed, constructed, and 
69

managed to minimize loss to the environment” (id. at § 261.4(a)(22)(ii)), a condition which, as noted above, will not be met with 

use of plastic or cloth bags. EPA uses yet a third formulation for containers employed to store SSLWs at industrial laundries, 

proposing to require that wipes be stored either in “non-leaking, covered containers” or in “containers that are designed, 

constructed, or managed to minimize loss to the environment” before the wipes enter the handling process. See proposed 40 

C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(22)(v). This last formulation merely confirms the Agency’s acknowledgement that unlike containers that must

be used by wipe generators, those employed under the Agency’s intended requirements for SSLW transport and storage by 

laundries (e.g., plastic or cloth bags) will leak (and allow solvents to evaporate into the air). This condition will merely perpetuate 

the significant human health risks already present from current industrial laundry SSLW handling practices, which are discussed 

in [another comment]. 

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has cautioned in another RCRA context, “[t]o ‘minimize’ something is . . . . to 

‘reduce [it] to the smallest possible amount, extent, or degree’.” Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. U.S. EPA, 886 F.2d 355, 

375 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 849 (1990). To that same end, EPA has crafted conditions for comparable regulatory 

exclusions from the definition of solid waste that require that storage of secondary materials being recycled “prevent” releases of 

hazardous constituents into the environment. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(B) (hazardous secondary materials used to 

make zinc fertilizers are excluded from the definition of solid waste provided, among other things, they are stored “in a way that 

prevents releases of the secondary materials into the environment”); (9)(iii)(C) (requiring handling of spent wood preserving

solutions to “prevent” their release into the environment to qualify for solid waste exclusion); and (14)(i) (requiring storage of 

excluded shredded circuit boards “in containers sufficient to prevent a release to the environment prior to recovery”). See also 64 

Fed. Reg. 68971 (Dec. 9, 1999) (noting that partially reclaimed metal-bearing sludges being granted variance “are managed in a 

way that is designed to prevent loss” at the facilities of both the initial and final reclaimers through compliance with U.S.

Department of Transportation hazardous material transportation requirements) (emphasis supplied).

By its own admission and in light of evidence in the record, the Agency’s “no free liquids” test and allowance for the use of

plastic and cloth bags for SSLWs virtually ensure that such wipes will not be handled to “minimize” loss of solvents, much less 

prevent their release to the environment. 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. 

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1131

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Under EPA’s Proposed Conditions, SSLWs Sent for Laundering Would Not be Analogous to “Raw Materials”, i.e., 

“Commodities”

(a) The failure to require labeling of containers used to store and transport SSLWs indicates that SSLWs will not be handled as 

commodities under the proposed rule.

The third factor in the 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) test requires EPA to examine the degree to which the partially reclaimed material is 

like a raw material (or other “commodity”) that would be used in its place. The foregoing discussion provides 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 in that condition without substantial further processing, and (ii) they would not be handled to prevent, or even 

“minimize,” loss. See, e.g., 50 Fed. Reg. 655 (Jan. 4, 1985) (“the more substantial the processing that is yet to occur, the less 

likely the initially-reclaimed material is to be commodity-like”); 67 Fed. Reg. 48393, 48399 (July 24, 2002) (noting, in 

establishing “prevention of release” conditions for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers, that “[t]he 

conditions also reflect the fact that zinc fertilizer feedstock materials are typically valued commodities and are thus stored so as to 

prevent releases or other losses of the material”.

A third reason is equally apparent. Despite EPA’s assertion that “the conditions for the exclusion from solid waste are appropriate 

because they ensure that the manner in which generators and laundries manage these materials is consistent with how companies

would manage a valuable commodity”, id. at 65603 (emphasis supplied), the Agency fails to account for the fact that “raw 

materials” - or other “commodities” - are typically labeled when they are transported in commerce... Labeling is especially 

evident when a raw material or product to be used in a manufacturing process or shipped in commerce contains hazardous 

materials that could pose risks to human health or the environment if not handled properly.

EPA nonetheless has failed to impose this very fundamental indicia of a “commodity-like” material on SSLWs. Its failure to do 

so, together with its failure to minimize the amount of solvent in - and lost from - reusable wipes offered for transport in 

commerce, belies EPA’s tentative determination that these wipes are analogous to raw materials or other commodities. As just 
70

one example, workers employed in facilities generating SSLWs will not know whether unlabeled containers on the plant floor 

contain so-called “valuable commodities” that are to be handled with care or so much “common trash” to be disposed of like any 

other. Similarly, workers at industrial laundries handling the large volume of soiled uniforms and other textiles these facilities 

receive will not know, in the absence of labels, whether the containers they receive hold “run-of-the-mill” soiled materials that do 

not contain hazardous constituents, or materials with hazardous solvents that must be carefully inspected and handled with care to 

meet the conditions of the proposed exclusion and prevent loss to the environment.

(b) Evidence in the record reveals that SSLWs are not handled in a commodity-like manner. The record in this rulemaking also 

fails to support EPA’s related “valuable commodity” assertions upon which rest the Agency’s tentative determination that two of 

its three putative C.F.R. § 260.31(c) “factors” are met. According to EPA, because “the laundry benefits from their use and reuse 

. . . it is more likely that the used industrial wipes will be handled carefully, in appropriate containers, and will be treated as 

commodities, rather than as wastes, by both users and laundries.” Similarly, EPA asserts that because laundries own SSLWs 

“throughout the process,” they “have an incentive” to ensure the “responsible management of the materials and ensure that the 

wipes are reused, not discarded.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593. As the record reflects, the practices actually engaged in by laundries belie 

these contentions, as does the fact that laundries oftentimes do not own the wipes from which they remove and discard solvent.

Raw materials and valuable commodities are not typically handled in ways conducive to their destruction, or the destruction of 

the facility containing them. Indeed, as EPA has noted in recognizing the fire hazards posed by the flammable nature of solvents, 

“[w]e believe that companies which value their industrial wipes would be likely to manage them in a manner that protects their 

facility from fire damage and that protects them from loss of value, which would occur if the wipes were to catch fire.” Id. at 

65603. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that those closest to the handling of SSLWs at laundries - the employees who 

work with them - have chronicled the fact that “[t]here are numerous instances each year, including a recent fire in Alabama that 

completely destroyed a laundry facility, where shop towels have spontaneously combusted and started fires.” 

[Submission contains additional references that document fire risk]

...Fires have also been known to occur in trucks transporting SSLWs, even in situations where no “free liquids” were present. As 

EPA itself has observed, states “have identified situations where fires occurred in trucks transporting solvent-contaminated 

[wipes] that were stored in an original nonsaturated condition. We also are aware of industry practices involving the application 

of large amounts of solvent on wipers that would probably be considered saturated, but still not have any free liquids.” Letter to 

T.L. Nebrich, Jr., Waste Technology Services, Inc., from David Bussard, Director, Hazardous Waste Identification Division, 

Office of Solid Waste, EPA, 1997 (OSW #9443.1997(02)) (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/documents) 

These findings hardly justify a conclusion that continued ownership and benefits from the use of SSLWs by industrial laundries 

result in “responsible management of the materials.” Even more unjustifiable (particularly in light of EPA’s finding that “most of 

these fires can be avoided through better management,” id. at 137) is EPA’s proposal of exclusion conditions that will fail to 

either meaningfully reduce the amount of solvent on wipes received by industrial laundries or otherwise dictate storage and 

handling practices designed to reduce the risk of self-ignition. 

Similarly, EPA has failed to acknowledge, address, and account for potentially dangerous organic air emissions of SSLWs, 

emissions that would be unlikely from raw material or product solvent containers used to prevent evaporative loss of their 

contents. Once again, those best in a position to know and experience the risks posed by these emissions - industrial laundry 

workers - have chronicled their concern about their exposure to fumes from these volatile and toxic solvents. These workers have 

noted in particular the “countless” laundry employees who work with soiled shop towels that “report frequent nausea, headaches, 

and extreme dizziness.” UNITE Letter, at 1. Indeed, “[e]ven workers who do not directly handle the towels but work in close 

proximity to the soil docks where the towels come into the facility report the same symptoms. Employees have suffered chemical 

exposure to their eyes and skin in the soil dock area where workers transfer the soiled shop towels from the [unlabeled] cloth 

bags used for transport into bins for the washing process.” 

Despite these substantial health risks and impacts and the fact that industrial laundries “face no requirement whatsoever to reduce 

exposure [to such emissions] . . . [or] provide appropriate respirators,” id., EPA has candidly acknowledged that while “the 

potential for air emissions is always present for volatile compounds,” and that “the potential risks and loadings are greatest where 

the concentrations of hydrocarbons are highest (i.e., during wipe storage) . . . very little data regarding [them] are [currently] 

available.” Technical Background Document, at 128. Rather than address those data gaps, e.g., by regulating conservatively in

the absence of such data, EPA has simply and arbitrarily thrown up its hands, and chosen to ignore those findings and risks rather 

than take them into account and address them in an adequate fashion.

In sum, the record fails to support EPA’s contentions that the ownership of, and benefit from, SSLWs by industrial laundries 

ensure that these wipes are treated as valuable commodities and in a “responsible manner”. What’s more, EPA’s proposed 

conditions will fail to ensure that result because they will fail to reduce meaningfully either the amount of solvents being received 

by industrial laundries or their injurious release to the environment at such facilities.
71

INDA/SMART does agree with EPA and the industrial laundry community on one point - industrial laundries “have an incentive 

to ensure that the wipes are reused, not discarded.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593. What EPA fails to account for, however, is that these 

facilities have absolutely no incentive to ensure that the solvents in the wipes are reused; consequently, the laundries typically 

discard all the solvent - and are free to do so - to the air, through wastewater discharges, and to laundry sludge and landfilling. As 

discussed below, EPA’s failure to account for this fact is both unlawful and inappropriate for, as the Agency asserts, “EPA’s

concern surrounding the use of both types of wipes - disposables and reusables - is based on the hazardous solvent contained in 

the wipes, not the industrial wipes themselves.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65589. Put another way, the fact that industrial laundries have an 

incentive to ensure that wipes are reused 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.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1139

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Has Unlawfully Failed to Consider Other Relevant Factors.

(a) EPA has failed to consider adequately the relevance of the fact that none of the solvent - the constituent that renders reusable 

wipers hazardous in the first place - is necessarily reclaimed by either the generator or the launderer.

40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) requires EPA to consider other relevant factors. Given the fact that the overriding Congressional purpose 

and intent motivating the passage of RCRA were (i) protection of human health and the environment from the discard of 

hazardous constituents and (ii) conservation of valuable resources and minimization of hazardous waste generation through 

materials recovery (see RCRA, §§ 1003(a)(6), 1003(b)), the fact that none of the RCRA hazardous constituents in SSLWs is 

currently required to be reclaimed under federal law - and none would need to be reclaimed under EPA’s proposal unless such 

wipes were literally dripping solvent - is clearly a relevant factor in evaluating whether an exclusion from the definition of solid 

waste is warranted. Nonetheless, that fact is ignored in EPA’s discussion of its rationale for tentatively proposing an exclusion 

from the definition of solid waste.

In an August 15, 2001 letter to EPA, INDA/SMART explained why an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for secondary 

hazardous materials where the entire hazardous component of the material is discarded would improperly turn RCRA on its head.

Simply put, under such an approach, generators or other handlers could merely extract the listed hazardous constituents portion of 

the secondary material and, as long as they somehow beneficially used the non-hazardous portion, dispose of the hazardous 

material with impunity unless (as is not typically the case with the listed solvents at issue here) it exhibited a hazardous waste 

characteristic.

[Letter included as Appendix A: Letter from Karl Bourdeau, Beveridge & Diamond, PC, to Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, OSW, 

Augiust 15, 2001. Attachments to this submission are in docket #284]]

Neither RCRA nor EPA’s RCRA regulations contemplates this result. Instead, hazardous SSLWs being sent for laundering 

squarely fit within EPA’s regulatory definition of solid waste - and ample interpretative guidance - as “spent materials” (i.e., 

materials that have been used and as a result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which they were produced 

without processing) being “reclaimed” (i.e., processed to recover a usable product or regenerated). See 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.1(c)(1), 

(4); 261.2(c)(3). Indeed, the aforementioned fact that EPA views the wipe itself (without regard to the solvent it contains) as the 

secondary material that is valued by the laundries because it is reused and thus has commercial value underscores the undeniable 

fact that the solvent is simply discarded because it has no value to launderers.

Any exercise by EPA of its discretion to provide an exclusion from the otherwise applicable solid waste regulatory definition 

under these circumstances would not only contravene RCRA and establish a highly undesirable precedent, but would also be at 

odds with EPA practice. As demonstrated in INDA/SMART’s August 15, 2001 letter, those situations where EPA has exercised 

its discretion to grant a solid waste exclusion to particular waste streams involve situations in which (i) at least a significant 

portion of the hazardous component of the waste itself is being recycled and (ii) the circumstances underlying the exclusion are 

otherwise distinguishable from that involving SSLWs being laundered.

To INDA/SMART’s knowledge, the Agency’s only written response to INDA/SMART’s contentions is a statement in the 

preamble to the proposed rule to the effect that EPA has subsequently concluded, in the finalized conditional exclusion for wastederived fertilizers (67 Fed. Reg. 48393 (July 24, 2002)) and the proposed exclusion for glass from cathode ray tubes (67 Fed.

Reg. 40508 (June 12, 2002)) that “contaminated material can be excluded from the definition of solid waste even though 

contamination ends up in the waste streams of the reclamation process.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593.

The quoted proposition is not remarkable, and INDA/SMART does not dispute it. However, it misses the point. In both the 

waste-derived fertilizer rule and the cathode ray tube proposal, a substantial amount of the hazardous constituents of concern 
72

would remain in the reclaimed product rather than being discarded to the environment. Indeed, in the cathode ray tube example

proffered by EPA, the principal hazardous constituent of concern in the secondary material at issue was an essential component 

of the recycled product in most cases. In contrast, the current practices of SSLW generators and industrial launderers are such 

that all of the hazardous constituents in the SSLW are - or at least can be - simply released to the environment without any RCRA 

controls whatsoever, and there is nothing in EPA’s rulemaking proposal that would necessarily alter that result. 

In sum, as both a legal and a policy matter, it is inappropriate for EPA to exclude from the RCRA definition of solid waste at the 

point of generation a secondary material being “reclaimed” where the only actual “reclamation” involved (laundering) occurs 

after transport of the material offsite and recovers none of the hazardous constituents in the secondary material. Such a position 

would (i) be contrary to the objectives and requirements of RCRA by allowing all of the hazardous constituents in a secondary

material that would otherwise have to be managed as hazardous waste to be discarded without compliance with hazardous waste 

regulatory requirements, (ii) fail to achieve the environmental, hazardous waste minimization, solvent recycling, and pollution 

prevention benefits that are paramount objectives of RCRA, OSWER, and this rulemaking, and (iii) be without precedent in the 

history of EPA’s RCRA program. INDA/SMART finds it hard to imagine that EPA would want to establish a precedent that 

would encourage waste handlers to seek exclusions from the definition of solid waste in situations where all of the hazardous 

constituents in secondary material can be discarded without regard to RCRA hazardous waste regulatory controls, and believes 

EPA must evaluate this factor in assessing whether to promulgate a solid waste exclusion for SSLWs. 

(b) EPA has failed to consider the significance of the presence of hazardous metals in laundered industrial wipes.

Equally important, the Agency has not evaluated the implications of the presence in laundered wipes of metals that are RCRA 

hazardous constituents. Properly accounted for, this factor provides yet another reason why an exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste for SSLWs is unlawful. 

EPA has long taken the position that the presence of toxic constituents “along for the ride”, i.e., hazardous constituents that end 

up in a recycled product but do not contribute to its function or usefulness, is a relevant factor in evaluating whether an exclusion 

from the definition of solid waste for particular recycling practices is lawful and appropriate. See generally 68 Fed. Reg. 61581-

88 (Oct. 28, 2003). In fact, in its recent omnibus proposed revised definition of solid waste, EPA proposed to codify its criteria 

for evaluating “toxics along for the ride” in the context of potential solid waste exclusions in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4, such as the one 

EPA has proposed here. See id. at 61582.31 Notably, while EPA’s 1989 guidance on the subject emphasized the presence of 

toxic constituents in the secondary material destined for recycling, the Agency’s position has evolved to the point that it now 

believes it appropriate to focus on the presence of such constituents in the recycled product. Id. at 61587.32 As EPA has noted, 

“the central question is whether or not (and in what amount) hazardous constituents pass through the recycling process and 

become incorporated into the products of recycling. . . . Put another way, the question posed by this criterion is whether 

hazardous constituents are ‘discarded’ by being incorporated into a product made from hazardous secondary materials. . . . ”. Id. 

at 61586, 61587.

EPA has stated that “[i]n evaluating this aspect of legitimacy, a recycler would ordinarily compare the recycled product to an 

analogous product made with raw materials.” Id. at 61586. The test is met if the product of the recycling process: (i) does not 

contain “significant amounts of hazardous constituents that are not found in analogous products”; and (ii) does not contain 

“significantly elevated levels of any hazardous constituents that are found in analogous products”; and (iii) does not exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic that analogous products do not exhibit. The use of the conjunctive “and” indicates that all three tests 

must be met to satisfy this criterion.

The first of these tests is of particular note in the context of EPA’s proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 

SSLWs. As EPA has stated, the function of that test is to determine whether the recycled product contains hazardous constituents 

not found in analogous products that serve no useful purpose and are simply being passed through the recycling process and in

essence “discarded”. Although EPA has not fashioned a single bright line test for determining whether “significant amounts” of 

hazardous constituents are present in the recycled product for purposes of this analysis, the Agency has observed that if lead 

levels in a recycled product were twice that which would be present in an analogous raw material, the amounts “would likely 

indicate discard of significant amounts of lead.” See 68 Fed. Reg. 61587 (comparing product made from raw materials typically

containing 475 parts per million (“ppm”) of lead with recycled product containing 1000 ppm of lead). Similarly, EPA has stated 

that if a “virgin” solvent contained no detectable amount of barium, and barium was present in a reclaimed solvent at 50 ppm, it 

“would likely indicate discard of the barium.” 

A recent study of the presence of metal constituents in laundered shop towels demonstrates that this first test is not met for 

SSLWs. That study33 examined the concentrations of 27 metals in laundered shop towels collected from 23 companies and at 

least 18 different laundry facilities in 14 states. Certain metals were found frequently on the laundered towels. 

[Submission presents results from study included as Appendix B: Evaluation of Potential Exposure to Metals in Laundered Shop 

Towels”, Gradient Corporation. Attachments to this submission are in docket #284] 
73

...The study also evaluated uncertainties associated with its exposure assumptions (which were predicated on published studies 

and assumptions used by federal and state regulatory agencies) that could result in estimated intakes of metals from contact with 

laundered shop towels being either greater than, or less than, actual intakes. Although use of alternative exposure (and other) 

assumptions could result in lower estimated intakes, the uncertainty analysis revealed that if the uncertainties are taken into 

consideration as a whole, intake of lead from the shop towels would still likely exceed Cal EPA’s Prop 65 MADL. This 

conclusion is predicated on the relatively large exceedance of that MADL, as all towels in which lead was detected exceeded the 

MADL by an average of 26-fold.

The results of this study reveal that significant concentrations of several metals that are not found in “virgin” unused shop towels 

and that serve no useful purpose in laundered shop towels are carried “along for the ride” into the product of the laundering 

process. While the concentrations of the metals found are enough, in and of themselves, to justify a conclusion that the metals are 

present in “significant amounts”, the exposure analysis and exceedances of health-based levels established by EPA, ATSDR, and 

Cal EPA lend further support to that conclusion. That conclusion is buttressed as well by the fact that the number of laundered 

(and unlaundered solvent-contaminated) shop towels containing these metals that were assumed to be handled each day by wipe 

generator employees (2.5 towels per day as “typical” usage and 10 towels per day as “high-end” usage) is considerably less than 

the number of shop towels handled each work day by laundry workers.

This analysis has two important implications. First, it raises the question of whether the laundering process should be considered, 

for purposes of this particular rulemaking, “legitimate” recycling warranting an exclusion from regulation as hazardous waste

treatment. Second, the referenced study provides ample support for INDA/SMART’s contention that an exclusion from the 

definition of solid waste for SSLWs being sent for laundering (which undoubtedly contain even higher concentrations of these 

metals) is both unwarranted and unlawful. See, e.g., Safe Food Fertilizer v. EPA, 350 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (remanding 

EPA’s exclusion from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers, and for zinc 

fertilizers made from them, upon finding that (i) the concentrations of chromium in commercial virgin fertilizer samples were 

well below those found in waste-derived fertilizers, and (ii) the absence of anything in the record indicating that these differences 

in chromium concentrations were “trivial” from a health or environmental perspective). See also 67 Fed. Reg. 52621 (solid waste 

exclusion for certain materials reclaimed from metal-bearing sludges); Fed. Reg. 26011 (shredded circuit board solid waste 

exclusion); Lead Smelter Partial Reclamation Guidance, at 2 (collectively demonstrating that the third criterion of the 40 C.F.R. § 

260.31(c) test would not be met if the hazardous secondary material at issue contained hazardous constituents that (i) were not 

found at comparable levels in analogous raw materials, or (ii) if found, did not contribute to the function or value of the resulting 

recycled product). Simply put, neither SSLWs being sent for laundering, nor laundered shop towels themselves, are analogous to 

new, unused shop towels that would be used in their stead. 

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1144

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA’s Proposed Exclusion Is Unlawful Because It Fails to Require Partial Reclamation by SSLW Generators. 

...40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) is intended to provide an exclusion from the definition solid waste only for secondary materials that have 

been “reclaimed” but must be reclaimed further before the materials are completely recovered. “Reclamation” has been defined 

by EPA to mean “processed to recover a usable product, or . . . regenerated.” 40 C.F.R. § 261.1(b)(4). Because “processing” (a 

term also used in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c)(1)) is not defined in RCRA or its implementing regulations, its every day meaning should 

be employed. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993), “to process” - in the sense most relevant here -

means “to make usable by special treatment [as in “~ing waste material” or “~ing . . . water to remove impurities”].” Put another 

way, “to process” something is “to subject [it] to a particular method, system, or technique of preparation, handling, or other 

treatment designed to effect a particular result.” 

At bottom, EPA’s rulemaking proposal fails to require “partial reclamation” by generators of SSLWs. First and foremost, the 

language of the proposed rule itself does not describe any “special treatment” or “particular method or system” of recovering 

usable solvent (or regenerating usable wipers). Instead, as noted above, it merely states that SSLWs, when transported offsite, 

“must contain no free liquids or must have been treated by solvent extraction. . . . ” (proposed 40 C.F.R.§ 261.4(a)(22)(iii). To the 

extent a generator chooses to rely on the “no free liquids” performance standard, the proposed rule designates no particular 

method or system to recover usable solvent.

As noted above, the preamble to the proposed rule does state that EPA intends the “no free liquids” condition to be determined by 

whether “a wipe drips liquid from it when held for a short period of time”. However, even were this “test” to be added to the rule 

itself, it does not dictate any “process” that would recover a usable product or regenerate the wipes. Instead, as discussed above, 

it simply allows use of “generator knowledge” as to whether wipes would drip if hand-held.

Even if the proposed rule were to require observation of each and every wipe to determine whether liquid dripped from it, that 

mere “observation,” or “checking,” does not result in “reclamation”, whether any solvent drips from the wipe or not. If no liquid 
74

drips from the wipe when observed, then clearly the generator has not engaged in any processing that has recovered usable

solvent. For that same reason, EPA’s proposal to allow “intra-company” transfer of SSLWs containing free liquids if the transfer 

occurs in order to remove sufficient solvent from the wipes so they meet the “no free liquids” condition is clearly unlawful under 

40 C.F.R. § 261.31(c), as no reclamation whatsoever has been undertaken by the wipe generator.

Similarly, even if some solvent drips from the SSLW when observed, the wipe generator has not engaged in any “action” to 

“process” the wipe to recover usable solvents. Instead, EPA is merely requiring the generator to “observe” whether the wipe is in 

fact releasing free solvent. The proposed rule does nothing to require the generator to “reclaim” solvent, i.e., to extract and 

recover what is clearly excess, readily removable solvent remaining in the wipe. As EPA has noted, laboratory “testing” to 

identify the composition or characteristics of a material is not “treatment” within the RCRA meaning of that term. See 46 Fed. 

Reg. 47428 (Sept. 25, 1981); Letter to Vincent Tersegno from Irene Horner, Studies and Methods Branch, Office of Solid Waste,

EPA, July 31, 1985, at 1 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/documents). Because reclamation is a form of 

“treatment”, the “testing” (i.e., checking) of a SSLW to determine if it drips liquid is not reclamation.

The lack of any reclamation in EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition is also evident from the Agency’s own statements in 

this rulemaking. As EPA notes, it has proposed this condition “to ensure that wipes that are going to reclamation have low levels 

of solvent.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593. That statement appears to acknowledge that under this condition, the wipes are not “going to 

further reclamation,” but rather to reclamation in the first instance. As EPA further observes, “[t]hose wipes that have had free 

liquids removed are [merely] similar to partially reclaimed material, because solvent removal, reclamation, laundering or dry 

cleaning of wipes removes solvents from the wipe.” 68 Fed. Reg. 654603. Conspicuously absent from this list of “processes” that 

involve reclamation by effectuating actual solvent removal is reliance on “generator knowledge” as to whether “hand-holding” 

would result in solvent removal, or hand-holding to determine whether solvent would drip from a wipe.

As such, EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” condition fails to satisfy the basic jurisdictional predicate for even evaluating an 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste under 40 C.F.R. § 261.31(c). The same is true, of course, for the proposed “intracompany” transfer provision (or any such “inter-company” transfer provision) authorizing offsite transfer of SSLWs with free 

liquids for initial reclamation.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1145

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA’s Proposed Exclusion is Unlawful Because It Fails to Regulate SSLWs as Hazardous Waste After They Are Generated But 

Before They Are Initially Reclaimed. 

From the inception of 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c), EPA has cautioned that “the variance applies only to wastes after they have been 

initially reclaimed. Applicable regulatory requirements for the waste before initial reclamation are unaffected.” 50 Fed. Reg. 655. 

As such, the exclusion EPA has proposed could only apply after the “no free liquids” test has been applied to prepare wipes for 

shipment. Put another way, the exclusion cannot apply to SSLWs that are stored after a determination has been made by the wipe 

generator to no longer use them but before they are prepared for shipment by initial “reclamation”. In fact, because the “no free 

liquids” conditions of the exclusion require “that there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the wipes,” the exclusion 

should not apply until the wipes are loaded for shipment offsite and the container can be checked to satisfy this element of the 

“no free liquids” test. Because EPA’s proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste fails to require that SSLWs be 

managed as hazardous waste after they have been generated but before they have been “initially reclaimed”, the exclusion is 

unlawful for this reason as well.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1146

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA’s Proposed Exclusion is Unlawful Because It Would Allow Intra-Company Transfers of SSLWs for the Purpose of Initial 

Reclamation.

For the same reasons, 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 SSLWs containing free liquids in order to remove solvent from the 

wipes sufficient to meet the “no free liquids” test is simply unlawful. Because such SSLWs 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. It would be similarly unlawful

for EPA to establish a companion “inter-company” transfer provision without a satisfactory legal basis for doing so.

40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) simply fails to support either such exclusion. If EPA desires to proffer an alternative legal rationale for
75

either an “intra-” or “inter-” company transfer provision for SSLWs, it must first propose that rationale for comment, or adopt an

appropriate exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste as a “logical outgrowth” of what it has proposed for SSLWs.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1147

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

An Exclusion from the Definition of Solid Waste for SSLWs on the Ground That They Might Otherwise Become Subject to State 

Solid Waste Fees Would Be Equally Unlawful.

In requesting comments on whether EPA should exclude SSLWs from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste rather than 

the regulatory definition of solid waste, EPA noted that some stakeholders are concerned that if SSLWs are considered solid 

waste by the Agency, “they may become subject to state solid waste fees if states were to decide to collect such fees.” 68 Fed. 

Reg. 65608. For at least two reasons, that consideration would be an arbitrary and otherwise unlawful basis upon which to rest an 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste.

First, as indicated by EPA’s statement itself, the Agency points to nothing in the record that supports the conclusion that states 

are in fact routinely imposing such taxes and/or that they are creating undue economic burdens on industrial laundries or their 

customers. In fact, EPA has concluded that an exclusion from the definition of hazardous, rather than solid, waste will have no 

economic impact upon industrial laundries or dry cleaning establishments. See Economics Background Document, at 30 (noting 

that only “cachet” benefit from “avoided stigma” would be at risk).

More importantly, however, it would be unlawful for EPA to rest an exclusion from the definition of solid waste on this ground. 

Any such exclusion must be based upon a determination of whether the hazardous secondary material is being “discarded”, and 

not upon whether classification as a solid waste would result in the imposition of solid waste taxes or the purported “stigma” of 

being classified as a RCRA “solid waste”. See, e.g., HWTC v. EPA, 861 F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011 

(1989) (holding that EPA could not consider “stigma,” which would discourage recycling, in determining whether to list recycled 

oil as hazardous waste because RCRA and the regulations adopted by EPA thereunder refer only to the technical characteristics

of waste as relevant considerations in decisions whether to list waste as hazardous).

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1148

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

...[R]eliance by EPA on 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c) as the basis for an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for SSLWs would 

be both unlawful and inappropriate. Not only has the Agency failed to consider all relevant factors under that provision and 

erroneously concluded that all such factors are met, but its contentions that “the conditions for the [proposed] exclusion from

solid waste are appropriate because they ensure that the manner in which generators and laundries manage these materials is 

consistent with how companies would manage a valuable commodity” and “would ensur[e] that wipes don’t pose a substantial 

hazard” (68 Fed. Reg. 65603 (emphasis supplied)) are demonstrably without sufficient support in either the record or the 

provisions of the proposed rule.

Under these circumstances, EPA simply cannot lawfully promulgate a final exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 

SSLWs. Instead, in order to furnish SSLWs 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.

Because generators of SSLWs and SSNWs use the same hazardous constituents in comparable amounts and applications, such 

that SSLWs and SSNWs pose comparable human health and environmental risks, EPA should impose upon SSLWs the same set 

of regulatory conditions it decides to promulgate for SSNWs conditionally excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. 

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 197

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

The basis for the proposed exclusion of solvent contaminated reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste is fundamentally 

flawed. The EPA’s justification for the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste is based on three factors, all of 

which concern the wipes themselves rather than the hazardous solvent in the used wipes. The wipes are more commodity-like 

than waste-like, according to the EPA because: the wipes are often partially reclaimed before shipment; the wipes are handled as 

valuable commodities because the laundries benefit from their reuse; and the wipes are owned by the same entities throughout the 
76

process. (68 Fed. Reg. 65593) 

However, the focus of the EPA’s regulatory analysis is misplaced; it is the solvent waste on the used wipes that merits the EPA’s 

attention, not the fact that the wipes are reused, functioning as a commodity, after they have been cleaned. When solventcontaminated industrial wipes are returned to the laundry for cleaning, the laundry discards the solvent waste contaminating the 

wipes, usually by discharging that waste to a publicly owned wastewater treatment plant. The wipes themselves are not 

discarded, the solvents contaminating the wipes are. Laundering the contaminated wipes is not a method of recycling the solvents 

on the wipes; it is a type of disposal. The EPA’s Preamble acknowledges this, noting that “EPA’s concern surrounding the use of 

both types of industrial wipes – disposables and reusables – is based on the hazardous solvent contained in the used wipes, not 

the industrial wipes themselves.” (68 Fed. Reg. 65589)

Nonetheless, the legal justification the EPA uses for the exclusion is based entirely on the reclamation of the wipes. 

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 579

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

The EPA has failed to adhere to all the factors provided in 40 C.F.R. § 260.31(c). The record does not demonstrate that 

substantial reclamation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes typically takes place. The “no free liquids” condition that the 

EPA is proposing would not meet the processing test required for an exclusion from the definition of solid waste. In fact, the 

proposed rule does not require any processing. The “no free liquids” standard merely requires that “no liquid solvent may drip 

from industrial wipes, and that there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the wipes. (Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 260.10.) The 

proposal does not even impose any requirement on the generators to test the wipes to ensure that they meet this standard.

...The EPA also fails to satisfy another test for excluding solvent-contaminated industrial wipes from the definition of solid 

waste: that initial reclamation increases the value of the material. The proposed rule imposes no requirement of reclamation upon 

the generator, only the “no free liquids” standard, therefore there is no reclamation to add value to the wipes. Instead, laundries 

add value to the contaminated wipes by treating them and discarding the waste solvents. To exclude these wastes from the 

definition of solid waste, the EPA must also determine that the material is handled in a way to minimize loss. The condition that 

the EPA has proposed for container transport, however, suggests that solvents will escape from containers. Risks to workers and 

the environment are a likely result.

The EPA has proposed a standard that containers be “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment.” 

(68 Fed.Reg. 65604) This performance standard may satisfy the laundry industry in that the EPA claims that “plastic or cloth 

bags that were cinched shut could also meet this condition.” Because of the “no free liquids” standard, wipes that may initially 

not drip as they are quickly moved from one container to another are likely to yield liquid solvents at the bottom of a container. 

Allowing for transportation in porous cloth or plastic bags may allow for leaks of solvents and expose laundry drivers to air 

emissions as the chemicals volatilize.

The performance standard the EPA is proposing – “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment” –

seems almost impossible to enforce, particularly if the EPA sets such a low bar by saying that cinched cloth bags could 

“potentially meet this condition.” Instead of seeking to minimize losses, the EPA should set a standard that would prevent them.

It seems odd that the EPA would require generators to store solvent-contaminated wipes in non-leaking containers but then allow 

the wipes to be carted off-site under far less stringent conditions. A better way to prevent health and environmental risk would be 

to require generators to take meaningful steps to remove solvents from the wipes and to require transportation of wipes in 

impermeable closed containers.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1432

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

From the league of perspective [sic] EPA's justification for providing an exclusion from solid waste regulation didn't account for 

six factors set forth in 40 CFR 260.31. An evaluation of those six factors would have clearly indicated to EPA that an exclusion 

from solid waste regulation for laundered wastes is unlawful.

2.2 Support Basis for Exclusion of Reusables from Solid Waste Definition
77

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1005

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: DoD believes reusable wipes are commodity like and should not be regulated as solid waste.

Discussion: Page 65608, column 1, it states, "We are considering an option that would exclude reusable industrial wipes from the 

regulatory definition of hazardous waste rather than exclude them from the regulatory definition of solid waste, ...." Reusable 

wipes are a commodity that is reused, they are not discarded. To consider reusable wipes as solid waste contradicts the existing 

definition of solid waste. Including reusable wipes as solid waste discourages reuse and encourages increased generation of waste 

rags in contradiction to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. DoD disagrees with the EPA option.

Recommendation: Finalize an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for all reusable wipes.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1525

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We concur with EPA's previous conclusion that contaminated material can be excluded from the definition of solid waste. In 

many cases the contamination is reclaimed for reuse in addition to the commodity that it was removed from.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 498

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Reusable wipes are not discarded, thus should not be included in the definition of solid waste. This concept is supported by 

several court decisions, and is discussed fully in our comments on the Definition of Solid Waste Proposal. A reusable wipe is a 

valuable commodity that is reused until it is no longer useful, and is handled as such. On page 65583 of the proposed rule, EPA 

states that it will “take appropriate action to ensure that the provisions in this rule are consistent with those of that broader rule 

[68 FR 61558, October 20, 2003-“Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste”], when finalized.” If the final rule resulting from 

the “Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste” proposal at 68 FR 61558 contains limits on inter-industry recycling, then this 

proposed rule should not be changed to match that condition. Inter-industry recycling is necessary for recycling of reusable 

wipes. If inter-industry handling is not allowed, then this rule will not promote recycling of reusable wipes. This proposed 

exemption should be “stand-alone” irrespective of the outcome of the “Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste” proposed rule.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 296

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

EPA did...indicate that it was considering an option that would exclude both reusable and disposable from the regulatory 

definition of hazardous waste. API believes that EPA appropriately distinguished between reusable and disposable industrial 

wipes in the proposal. Wipes that are recycled should be excluded from the definition of solid waste, provided that the conditions 

of the exclusion are met. These materials are not being discarded and represent valuable commodities. EPA should encourage this 

recycling activity by providing the appropriate regulatory incentive. Congress directed EPA to actively give recycling an edge 

over other options when Congress issued its pollution prevention hierarchy in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act (rank order: 

prevention, recycle, treatment, & lastly disposal). The EPA April 2003 Waste Indicator System for the Environment (WISE) 

report shows recycling of hazardous waste has actually declined from 22% in 1991 to 9% in 1999. The proposed conditional 

exclusion would, therefore, be an appropriate way to promote recycling consistent with the Congressional mandate and 

established EPA policy.

The same cannot be said for wipes that are incinerated or disposed. The conditions of the exclusion operate to minimize the 

potential threats posed by the wipes and justify the exclusion from the regular definition of hazardous waste. Nonetheless, 

disposable wipes are clearly being “discarded” as defined by RCRA and would appropriately be classified as a solid waste, but

not hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 831

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 
78

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports exclusion from the definition of solid waste reusable industrial wipes contaminated with any solvent.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 714

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL believes that reusable industrial wipes should be conditionally excluded from the definition of solid waste provided they 

are not abandoned by being accumulated, stored, or treated before or in lieu of being disposed, burned, or incinerated [40 CFR 

261.2(b)(3)]

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1372

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

In general, the HWP agrees with EPA's proposal to exclude wipes that are to be laundered and reused from the definition of solid 

waste. This is consistent with the approach that Maryland has taken in administering its hazardous waste regulations. It is also 

preferable to a conditional exemption from being regulated as hazardous waste, since it removes the possibility that regulatory 

requirements concerning solid waste management may otherwise be needlessly applied to items that are commodity-like rather 

than waste-like.

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 563

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

Ford supports EPA's assertion that industrial wipes being cleaned and returned into service are more commodity-like than wastelike and can be conditionally excluded from the regulatory definition of solid waste. As stated in the "Ford Comments on U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste, 68 FR 61 558 (October 28,2003)" 

dated February 25, 2004, Ford supports a broader exclusion that would also exclude solvents reclaimed off-site.

Docket Number - 314

Comment Key - 285

Submitted by - Alan Cobb of Alltex Uniform Rental Service, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been considered 

but not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 317

Comment Key - 740

Submitted by - Robert Hager of Miller's Textile Services 

Comment Text:

We ultimately feel that it only makes tremendous environmental and economic sense for the EPA to therefore conclude that 

reusable towels should be excluded from the definition of not only hazardous waste, but also from the definition of solid waste as 

well. Such action encourages recycling and further promotes EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. I 

appreciate this opportunity to express my concerns about regulation of reusable shop towels, and their impact on our businesses. 

Docket Number - 317

Comment Key - 741

Submitted by - Robert Hager of Miller's Textile Services 

Comment Text:

We ultimately feel that it only makes tremendous environmental and economic sense for the EPA to therefore conclude that 

reusable towels should be excluded from the definition of not only hazardous waste, but also from the definition of solid waste as 
79

well. Such action encourages recycling and further promotes EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. I 

appreciate this opportunity to express my concerns about regulation of reusable shop towels, and their impact on our businesses. 

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 238

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA has correctly concluded that industrial wipes destined for cleaning and reuse have not been ‘discarded’ and therefore do not 

qualify as ‘solid waste’. EPA’s requirements for management practices at the generating facility and during transportation to limit 

the amount of solvent sent to the cleaning facility and to protect worker health and the environment appear reasonable. At the 

cleaning facility, POTW pretreatment and NPDES standards, RCRA generator standards, and air emissions limitations are 

applicable to these facilities to ensure environmentally protective operation of the facility without requiring management of

reusable wipes sent to them either as a solid waste or as a hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 343

Comment Key - 213

Submitted by - Aaron Finkelstein of Ace Uniform 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 278

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

In contrast to disposal wipes - which would be excluded from the definition of “hazardous waste” - the proposal would exclude 

reusable solvent-contaminated wipes from the regulatory definition of solid waste. As EPA explains, this is both appropriate and 

sensible because reusable wipes are more commodity-like than waste- like and, therefore, should not be viewed as a waste 

material (provided, of course, that the wipes are managed in accordance with the proposed management conditions). 

USWAG agrees with this rationale because it is fully consistent with the controlling case law construing RCRA’s definition of

“solid waste.” As EPA is well aware, that United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has made 

abundantly clear - on several occasions - that Congress intended to extend EPA’s authority to regulate "solid waste" under RCRA 

"only to materials that are truly discarded, disposed of, thrown away, or abandoned," and that materials destined for legitimate 

beneficial reuse or recycling are "not part of the waste disposal problem" and thus cannot be subsumed by the definition of solid 

waste. American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). This fundamental holding 

was reiterated in Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047, 1051- 52 (D.C. Cir. 2000), where the court once again 

admonished EPA that RCRA's definition of "solid waste" is predicated on a material being "discarded," and materials "destined 

for recycling are obviously not of that sort." As EPA is aware, the court recently made clear that this fundamental limitation on 

RCRA's jurisdiction applies in the context of recycling between industries just as much as it does to recycling within a single 

industry. See Safe Food and Fertilizer, et al. v. EPA , 350 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

There is no element of discard in the case of sending reusable wipes to laundering or dry cleaning facilities. The wipes are 

collected, handled, and re-used as valuable commodities and thus are not being discarded, thrown away, or abandoned. Thus, per 

the clear directives of the above D.C. Circuit decisions, reusable wipes do not fall within the definition of solid waste. Moreover, 

as certain stakeholders have observed, under the narrower option - an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste - reusable 

wipes would remain subject to state solid waste laws and could become subject to state solid waste fees. This would place an 

inappropriate burden on legitimate reuse options for reusable contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1177

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

EPA properly frames the proposal as a rule focused holistically on shop towels and not just on solvents. As detailed in these
80

comments, the reusable shop towel is a commodity that presents a special case for an exclusion under RCRA. Shop towels are 

products that become soiled during use and must be cleaned prior to reuse. While that soil sometimes requires handling pursuant 

to particular regulations, its presence on the shop towel does not change the name of the towel as a commodity. In short, the

towel is at no point considered a waste, but is akin to equipment or a tool that requires cleaning. The handling of contaminants 

removed during the laundering of the towel is a separate issue that is governed effectively by existing regulations.

Accordingly, in addressing the situation of soiled reusable shop towels, EPA has properly proposed an exclusion for the entire 

shop towel as opposed to a misplaced focus only on the solvents or other contaminants that are removed from the towel during 

laundering.

In the preamble to the proposal, the Agency asserts that the basis for the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste “is 

that industrial wipes being cleaned and returned into service are more commodity-like than waste-like.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65593. 

UTSA and TRSA wholly concur with EPA’s position. EPA’s analysis is rooted in the RCRA solid waste variance provision (40 

C.F.R. §260.31(c)) that allows for variances when an item more closely resembles and is managed like a product rather than a 

waste. Id. TRSA and UTSA support EPA’s analysis and application of EPA’s well-established variance factors to reusable shop 

towels.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1179

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

In this rulemaking, EPA relies on three criteria to determine whether reusable towels are more commodity-like than waste-like. 

The 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.” Id. As detailed in the March 9, 2004 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 the they are reused and not discarded. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1180

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The Proposed Exclusion Is Consistent With Federal Jurisprudence. 

In evaluating whether recycled secondary materials constitute a "solid waste” under RCRA, courts have held that EPA must 

determine whether these materials are “truly discarded, disposed of, thrown away or abandoned.” See American Mining 

Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (hereinafter “AMC’). Courts have also precluded EPA from regulating 

secondary materials which “have not yet become part of the waste disposal problem; rather they are destined for beneficial reuse 

or recycling in a continuous process.” Id. at 11 86. More recently, courts have clarified that secondary materials that are 

“retained” or “saved” as part of an overall recycling/production process are not “discarded” or “thrown away” as solid waste. See 

Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047, 105 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). For this reason, EPA cannot regulate as a “solid 

waste” those secondary materials that are “destined for reuse as part of a continuous industrial process” because such materials 

are not “abandoned or thrown away.’’ Id. at 1056.

Industrial laundries own shop towels throughout their use/reuse life cycle. Reusable shop towels are “retained” and “saved” and, 

therefore, are not “part of the waste disposal problem.” In the context of determining whether reusable shop towels are “a solid 

waste,” EPA regional offices, including EPA Regions IV, VIII and IX, have interpreted RCRA in a manner that is consistent with 

the case law cited above. In one of the most recent EPA regional opinions, Region IX concluded that: "Industrial textiles 

manufactured for multiple cycles of soiling and cleaning are generally not regulated as solid wastes until they are discarded. The 

normal use of such textiles is therefore not ordinarily subject to hazardous waste regulations."

[Exhibit (Attachment) C. Letter to Dick Kreutzen, Kaul Associates, from Rich Valle, Waste Compliance Branch, USEPA Region 

IX, June 29, 1995.]

Relying on EPA guidance, most States have also explicitly recognized that properly- managed reusable shop towels are not solid 

wastes. As the State of California has recognized, “reusable textiles . . . are in essence a piece of industrial equipment and, when 

soiled, are no more waste material than a dull cutting tool.”

[Exhibit (Attachment) D. Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Ted Rauh, Hazardous Waste Management Program, 
81

California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. July 9, 1996.]

The proposed rule acknowledges both the case law and regional office opinions discussed above. 68 Fed. Reg. at 65592-93. In 

sum, 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. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1181

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The Proposed Exclusion Is Consistent With The Logic Of Existing Exclusions From The Definition Of Solid Waste.

...EPA appropriately concluded that the secondary materials subject to the solid waste exclusion would be managed through 

conditions that were adequately “protective” so that they would not become part of the “waste disposal problem” and therefore, 

would not need to be considered “discarded” “solid waste.” Id. at 28582. EPA went on to explain that this solid waste exclusion 

should “encourage properly conducted recycling” and should also “fulfill an agency objective of reducing some of the 

complexity in the existing regulatory definition of solid waste.’’ Id. at 28583. EPA has applied this reasoning most recently to 

partially reclaimed zinc in electric arc furnace (EAF) dust that is used as a fertilizer ingredient (67 Fed. Reg. 48393 (July 24, 

2002)), splash condenser dross residue (SCDR) (56 Fed. Reg. 41164, 41173 (Aug. 19, 1991)), and circuit boards (62 Fed. Reg. at 

25998, 26011-12 (May 12, 1997)). The proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable towels is a logical and well-supported 

extension of longstanding EPA policy.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1182

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Laundry Industry Economics Document That Reusable Towels Exceed EPA’s Commodity-like Criteria And Are More Properly 

Described As Capital Goods. 

EPA’s decision to exclude reusable shop towels from the definition of solid waste was based on the fact that they are 

commodities, not wastes. TRSA and UTSA concur with EPA’s conclusions that reusable shop towels are far more commoditylike than waste-like and thus qualify for a solid waste exclusion. Laundry industry business practices and economics lend further 

support to EPA’s conclusions. 

All prior EPA solid waste exclusions concern secondary materials (e.g., SCDR, 40 C.F.R. §261.4(a)(l l)), rather than primary 

products of a manufacturing process. By contrast, reusable shop towels are the primary product of many industrial laundry 

business models. In many cases, shop towels represent the primary service rendered by laundries.

Rather than selling a product that is disposed after use, or profiting from recycling of an incidental or secondary by-product, 

industrial laundries provide a service to their customers - the provision of clean textiles for customer use and subsequent 

collection of soiled textiles. The cornerstone of this service is, of course, the reusable shop towel. Though prices and quality vary, 

reusable shop towels generally cost laundries about $0.20 apiece. Each reusable towel has a life expectancy of six to 20 service 

cycles with each cycle generating approximately $0.10 to $0.15 of revenue per towel. Thus, when placed in the context of an 

industrial laundry’s business model, each $0.20 spent on a new reusable towel generates from $0.60 to $3.00 in revenue for the 

laundry. When other expenses such as transportation, infrastructure requirements, environmental compliance costs, and labor are 

factored in, the average profit margin derived for each new reusable towel purchased is approximately 10 percent. Industrial 

laundry profits depend on carefully managing and recycling the supply of reusable towels to provide a service to their customers. 

Mr. Buik’s testimony at the March 9 public hearing recounts how the industry manages shop towels as a critical and valuable part 

of the company revenue stream: "To us, each shop towel is like a dollar bill. We protect our shop towels in the same way we 

protect our money . . . . If we see a shop towel on the floor we pick it up because that shop towel represents part of the revenue 

stream that lets the plant exist in the first place."

Because reusable towels are used and reused to generate income, they are better characterized, in the context of an industrial 

laundry business as a rented asset - much like other capital equipment that is routinely cleaned before rental (e.g., tuxedos, 

catering equipment, rental cars and trucks). The fact that supplies of reusable towels are more akin to other rental equipment than 

a consumed good is reflected further in the way that industrial laundries characterize both “new” and “in-service’’ reusable 

towels as “assets” on their balance sheets. The value of all “in-service” textiles (including reusable towels along with all rental 

textiles) account for approximately 20 percent of a typical industrial laundry’s current assets.

[Exhibit (Attachment) E. TRSA 2003 Profit Report.]
82

Industrial laundries own their reusable towels and keep track of the number of towels (usually in pounds) that any given customer 

uses. The terms of most service contracts require customers to reimburse laundries the cost of towels that are lost, damaged, or 

soiled beyond laundering. The reimbursement cost is approximately $0.20 - the price of a new towel. Customers that lose or 

destroy a significant number of reusable towels incur a penalty in addition to the replacement costs to reflect the lost profits 

associated with towels that cannot reach their full service life and the negative impact lost towels have on the laundry’s capacity 

to service other customers.

Laundries carefully manage and monitor reusable towels throughout their useful life. Reusable towels are not just a commodity; 

they are one of the primary assets that laundries invest in to generate profits. From this perspective, it is clear that reusable towels 

are not subject to EPA’s RCRA jurisdiction, and warrant an exclusion from the definition of solid waste. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1183

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Unintentional Increase in Shop Towel Regulation Resulting from Only a Hazardous Waste Exclusion. 

A number of States with large reusable shop towel markets impose onerous requirements (often modeled on the federal 

hazardous waste regulations) on generators and processors of industrial, non-hazardous “solid wastes.” Some of these State solid 

waste programs impose fees, detailed permitting requirements, restrictive management conditions, complex site assessments, and 

frequent testing, analytical, and recordkeeping requirements on “solid waste” generators and processors. 

[See Legal Analysis of Pennsylvania and California Solid Waste Programs (Exhibit (Attachment) F] 

Under most existing State solid waste programs, reusable towel users and textile supply and service companies are exempt from

regulation, so long as certain conditions (similar to what EPA proposes) are met, because reusable towels are not classified as

“solid wastes.”” If EPA were to classify reusable towels as a “solid waste” (exempt only from hazardous waste regulation), then 

reusable towels would become subject to various State solid waste regulatory programs - a situation that does not reflect the will 

of EPA and the various States. 

[Exhibit (Attachment) G. Shop Towel Regulation Under State Law]

If EPA were to classify reusable shop towels as a “solid waste,” the Agency would unintentionally (1) override the decisions of 

most States that reusable towels are not properly considered solid waste; and (2) trigger overwhelming compliance costs for 

industrial laundries and their customers.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1184

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

A Narrow Hazardous Waste Exclusion Will Have Environmental Liability and Related Market Consequences That Will 

Negatively Impact Recycling. 

Many laundry customers currently utilize environmentally beneficial reusable towels because they perceive, correctly, that 

generating large volumes of “solid waste” creates potentially significant long-term liability. If reusable towel products were 

deemed “solid wastes,” then a critical distinction between reusable shop towels and disposable rags would disappear and a 

significant portion of the wipe market could shift away from reusable towels to disposable wipes that are ultimately landfilled 

after use. Such a market shift would result in a series of adverse environmental impacts.

First, the production of disposable paper towels has a greater adverse environmental impact than the production of woven shop

towels. See Section I.A. above. Second, a shift away from reusable towels to disposable wipes would result in greater releases of 

untreated solvents into the environment. The solvents found on disposable wipes directly end up in a landfill and thus greatly 

increase the chance that these solvents will be released and potentially cause harm to human health and the environment. In 

contrast, solvents on reusable towels are removed in the laundering process and recovered at laundries, or effectively treated and 

destroyed through biological treatment at POTWs that receive laundry wastewater. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 613

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 
83

Comment Text:

We concur with EPA's previous conclusion that contaminated material can be excluded from the definition of solid waste. In 

many cases the contamination is reclaimed for reuse in addition to the commodity that it was removed from.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1466

Submitted by - Lenora Strohm of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

In summary when materials are legitimately recycled whether on site or off site, they are not discarded by being disposed of, 

abandoned or thrown away. We urge EPA to adopt the broad option where certain materials are legitimately bound for recycling 

are not treated as waste. This option both implements the law and encourages the most recycling by allowing inter-industry 

transfers. Combined with appropriately applied legitimacy criteria, EPA can control and regulate those materials that are truly 

solid waste. Those comments will also be submitted in response to this proposal since our concepts are germane to the issues 

here.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1474

Submitted by - William Guerry of UTSA/TRSA 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable shop towels is based on extensive judicial and regulatory precedent. In fact, 

since 1980, EPA has created 20 similar solid waste exclusions for commodity like materials under 40 C.F.R. Section 261.4(a). 

All of these solid waste exclusions are based on clear and straightforward management conditions, simply set forth as keeping the 

commodity like material from being directly placed on the ground.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1475

Submitted by - William Guerry of UTSA/TRSA 

Comment Text:

In the proposed rulemaking EPA correctly relies on the following three well established criteria to conclude that properly 

managed reusable shop towels are more commodity like than waste like. First, reusable shop towels are partially reclaimed by 

laundry customers who remove free liquids. Second, reusable shop towels are handled throughout the laundering and reuse 

process as viable commodities. Third, because the shop towels are owned by the same entity throughout the use and reuse 

process, laundries have enormous incentives to ensure that the shop towels are, in fact, reused and not discarded. In fact, reusable 

shop towels far exceed EPA’s commodity like criteria as applied to 20 other solid waste exclusions. Because shop towels 

represent one of the core primary assets on which laundries directly derive their revenues and profits as opposed to being a 

secondary or incidental by product which may have value which is the core basis of most of the other solid waste exclusions. 

Following me, Jim Buik, President of the Roscoe Corporation will document the economic factors that ensure the proper and safe 

management of reusable shop towels. 

It is critical for both legal and policy reasons that EPA clearly exclude properly managed shop towels from solid waste 

classification. This is because numerous states with large reusable shop towel markets impose onerous requirements on both 

generators and processors of non-hazardous industrial solid waste. By indicating or implying incorrectly that reusable shop 

trowels are or could be a solid waste, EPA would unintentionally number one, override the decisions of virtually all states that 

reusable shop towels should not be subject to solid waste regulation and two, trigger inappropriate requirements for industrial 

laundries and their customers. If reusable shop towel products were incorrectly deemed solid waste, then a critical distinction 

between reused shop towels and discarded rags would disappear and a significant portion of the shop towel market could shift 

away from usable shop towels to discarded rags. Thus a uniform exclusion from only the definition of hazardous waste for both 

reusable shop towels and discarded rags would result in unintended negative consequences that are directly contrary to RICRA’s 

goals of reducing over regulation and encouraging recycling. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1479

Submitted by - Jim Buik of Rosco Company 

Comment Text:

EPA is absolutely entirely correct that laundered shop towels are not a solid waste. Rather than being disposed of after use, our 

shop towels are laundered and used again and again. Put another way, if the shop towels were solid waste we would be 

purchasing 10,000,000 shop towels annually to meet the customer demand, not the one and a half million that we currently

purchase. That’s six times more landfill space that would be taken up and that’s not one of Administrator Levitt’s goals. The
84

value of a shop towel is also reflected in the accounting and paperwork that we maintain with our customers. Customers are 

financially responsible for shop towels that are in their possession. If a customer loses a shop towel or destroys it, the customer

would pay to replace that shop towel. If a customer’s needs change and they require a lower amount of shop towels inventory is 

reduced and their account’s credited.

To us each shop towel is like a dollar bill. WE protect our shop towels the same way we protect our money. My grandfather 

started the tradition of walking the plant on a regular basis picking up shop towels. He was a statsman and he had a stern burrow, 

but the plant manager’s knew right well that he was very upset when he would find shop towels lying around. My dad continued 

that tradition as did I. If I find a shop towel on the floor of our plant, I have a little talk with our manager because it’s completely 

out of the question that something like that should happen. Those are dollars sitting on the floors. Those are our corporate assets 

laying around. I’ll guarantee it doesn’t happen very often.

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only and thus defining them as a solid waste makes no 

sense considering the fact that reusable shop towels play in my business. 

3. Basis for Hazardous Waste Exemption for Disposable Wipes

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 998

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The proposed regulatory text for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste is much narrower than the 

applicable scope described in the Preamble and Background Document and should be revised. The most current risk data should 

be used to codify the hazardous waste exclusion.

Discussion: 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 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 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.

Further, on page 65598, EPA requests comment on the preliminary decision that certain solvents contained in industrial wipes not 

be disposed of in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills and gives the following example: Should solvents which 

exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, but which were not found to pose a significant risk in [EPA’s] risk screening analysis for 

[the] proposal, be prohibited from being sent to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills? The original basis of the toxic 

characteristic listing was risk, and we believe it is appropriate to apply the most current risk data to this rulemaking.

Recommendation: We recommend that EPA update 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(B) with the best available risk analysis data for 

contaminated solvent wipes sent to a landfill. 

We further recommend the hazardous waste exclusion for disposable industrial wipes be revised to reflect the scope of the 

preamble and background documents as follows:

(b) * * *

(19) Wipes that are sent for disposal to a municipal waste landfill or other non-hazardous waste landfill that meets the standards 

under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, to a municipal waste combustor or other combustion facility, or to a wipes handling facility 

when they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic due to use with solvents; they are contaminated with F001-F005 spent 

solvents, or comparable P-and U-listed commercial chemical products that have been spilled and cleaned up; or they are cocontaminated with a material that makes them characteristically hazardous for ignitability, provided the conditions specified 

below are satisfied by the facilities claiming the exclusion:[sic]
85

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 42

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE notes that, the mandate to comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (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 solvent-contaminated industrial wipe until some point after the wipe is generated, 

depending on the meaning of the phrase “discarded by the generator.” Accordingly, DOE 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 in the conditions for 

exclusion from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1083

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

While CTDEP generally supports some reduced regulation for disposable industrial wipes, we do not support the proposed 

exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for such wipes, and would not be likely to adopt it if it is finalized as proposed, 

for several reasons. First and perhaps foremost, the proposed exclusion runs counter to the principle of environmental 

management that recycling is always the preferred option to disposal. [additional reasons listed here- details provided on each 

comment where categorized elsewhere]

a. Disposable Wipes would not be subject to speculative accumulation requirements 

b. Lack of accountability for disposable wipes. If launderable wipes are sent to an industrial laundry for cleaning, the laundry is 

going to open the containers and remove the wipes, ensuring that if any free liquids are present, they will be detected. 

c. Sets a dangerous precedent for weakening of the Land Disposal Restrictions (“LDRs”)

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 781

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

PING requests that the EPA 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. Many generators of disposal 

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 to 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. Although we agree with EPA’s conclusion that full 

RCRA hazardous waste regulation of these materials (meaning the wipes defined in the proposed rule) is not necessary to protect 

human health and the environment, we believe that generators who choose to use permitted treatment facilities should qualify for 

the conditional exclusion. As such, PING requests that language be added to the proposed rule that clarifies that the conditional 

exclusion extends to wipes being treated by permitted treatment facilities.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 786

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

PING requests clarification 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 (benzene, carbon 

tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, cresols, methyl ethyl ketone, trichloroethylene, 2-nitropropane, nitrobenzene, pyridine, 

tetrachloroethlyene, and methylene chloride) 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.
86

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 690

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed conditional exclusions from the definition of solid waste for solvent-contaminated disposable wipes...The 

current hazardous waste requirements for such wipes are burdensome and unnecessary for the protection of human health and the

environment. When managed responsibly under the proposed rule change, the wipes will represent less volatile releases to the 

environment and exposure to humans. Meeting conditions for the exclusion will also encourage solvent recovery and recycle.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 396

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

A minority of the Task Force members supports the development of an approach that excludes solvent-contaminated disposable 

wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. However, several of the proposed conditions need to be changed in order to 

improve the enforceability and implementation of the exclusion.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 389

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

For a variety of reasons, a majority of the Task Force members do not support the exclusion of solvent-contaminated disposable 

wipes destined for disposal in a non-hazardous waste landfill from the definition of a hazardous waste. Five of the twelve States 

represented on the Task Force do not anticipate that such an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for solventcontaminated disposable wipes would be adopted in their respective States. This is because the proposed exclusion does not 

adequately consider the risks posed by the disposal of solvent-contaminated disposable wipes in non-hazardous waste landfills, 

and/or the exclusion is in contradiction with current State-specific law or State-initiated environmental objectives. Further, the 

proposal sets a precedent promoting disposal over recovery. 

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 395

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

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 main difference is that the conditional exclusion process is initiated by U.S. EPA 

and is based on an evaluation of the general waste characteristics of a target class of waste, while the delisting process is initiated 

by the waste generator for a particular waste stream. However, the risk implications are virtually identical because most delisting 

reviews consider disposal in a municipal landfill as a worstcase management scenario for the delisted waste stream. Therefore, 

U.S. EPA should consider applying similar criteria to both risk evaluations. U.S. EPA has developed 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 US. EPA's risk screening analysis. In fact, the DRAS model 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. U.S. 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.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1587

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that will be managed at a landfill or non-landfill disposal facility to meet the 

exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. 

-The department views the addition of this exclusion as an attempt to simplify waste management for a waste that is wide spread. 

However the rule as written does not significantly improve the regulatory working environment. 
87

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1029

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The MEDEP does not support creating a conditional exclusion for disposable industrial wipes or allowing management of 

disposable wipes except as fully regulated hazardous waste. Providing an exclusion to allow less stringent management will 

undermine pollution prevention initiatives and compromise the effectiveness of the land disposal requirements. There are many

scenarios where a generator does not know the ultimate disposal of the solid waste stream. The exclusion of solvent contaminated 

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 land disposal restrictions. 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. Employees, regulatory officials and downstream handlers should not be required to weigh used wipes to determine the 

weight of used wipes. Handling of the soiled wipes should be minimized to prevent exposure.

4. Scope and Applicability of Rule

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 997

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: As written, the proposed solid waste exemption favors use of more toxic F-listed solvents and favors disposal over 

reuse and recycling of industrial wipes, in certain cases.

Discussion: The proposed regulations (40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)) exempt industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry from 

the definition of solid waste only if the wipes are contaminated with F, P, or U-listed wastes, or if the wipes exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic when that characteristic results from F, P, or U-listed wastes. As written, the exemption does not extend to wipes 

that are contaminated with other non-listed hazardous characteristic solvents, such as a petroleum naphtha, nor other hazardous 

contaminants and co-contaminants; thereby, resulting in a narrow, prescriptive exclusion that is impractical to implement, 

disruptive to current industry practice, and severely limiting to existing state and EPA regional exclusions and policies. 

The proposed rule would require that a wipe contaminated with a non-F-listed solvent which fails the characteristic for 

ignitability to 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. We believe this 

inconsistency will make it extremely difficult to be sure that wipe recycling operations are being performed in strict accordance 

with these RCRA regulations, as proposed. 

For example, to effectively use the industrial wipe exemption a facility would need to identify and segregate wipes from different 

processes. To avoid disposal of reusable wipes, a facility would be forced to introduce a system where disposable wipes are used 

in some cleaning processes and reusable wipes are reserved for other cleaning processes. We believe this approach would prove

to be too burdensome to make the solid waste exemption useful in industrial settings. 

Contaminated industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry are “commodity-like” regardless of what contaminates the 

rags. For example, a rag that becomes contaminated with solvents or metals that would cause it to fail the TCLP analysis would 

be expected to be reusable after being washed at an industrial laundry facility. 

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 Clean Water Act, as amended. This 

is the same as the industrial wastewater discharge exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2). The outputs of the industrial laundry process 

would then be reusable laundered wipes, wastewater subject to the CWA, and ultimately, a wastewater treatment sludge subject 

to EPA or State regulation. Solvent extracted prior to laundering would still be subject to RCRA. We believe this approach will 

be fully protective of human health and the environment and will encourage reuse of industrial wipes. The laundered wipes need 

no further regulation under RCRA. 

Our conclusions are further supported by EPA’s August 18, 1999, withdrawal of its proposed rule for the industrial laundry 

sector (64 FR 45072). EPA's primary basis for the withdrawal was that indirect discharges from industrial laundries contain very

small amounts of toxic pollutants that are not removed by POTWs. Comments on that proposed rule and subsequent data 

collection resulted in the following conclusions: (1) Laundry discharges are not as toxic as estimated at proposal, (2) POTWs 

provide better treatment of the toxic pollutants remaining in laundry discharges than estimated at proposal, and (3) many former 
88

problems have been resolved by local pretreatment authorities.

As for improperly disposing of spent solvents (or other hazardous wastes) by mixing them in with wipers and then sending the 

wipers to a laundering facility ?as EPA states in the Memorandum of February 14, 1994, this is clearly not allowed under the 

federal regulations. It would seem a form of impermissible dilution, and therefore prohibited (40 CFR 268.3 Dilution prohibited 

as a substitute for treatment.)

Recommendation: To avoid unnecessary conditions that merely complicate implementation of the rule, we recommend the solid 

waste exclusion for industrial wipes be revised to read as follows: 

Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.

(a) * * *

(22) Industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry where the wastewater discharges are subject to regulation under section 

402 of the Clean Water Act, to a dry cleaner for cleaning, or to an industrial wipes handling facility, provided that the conditions 

specified below are satisfied by the facility claiming the exclusion: [sic]

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1352

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

(The following comment is contingent upon USEPA amending the scope of the exclusions, as suggested in Comment 1 above, so 

that they also apply to industrial wipes that are characteristically hazardous from constituents not originating from the solvent 

used.)

On Page 65589 (second column), USEPA states that the rule would not apply to industrial wipes contaminated with aqueousbased solvents. The Department requests reconsideration of the inclusion of hazardous industrial wipes containing aqueous-based 

solvents, such as damp wipes used to clean lead-based paint dust, and notes that water is considered the most common of all 

solvents.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1074

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Ohio EPA believes that the wipes eligible for exclusion should be broadened to include all reusable wipes contaminated with a

listed hazardous waste or that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.

...The factors that U.S. EPA uses to support the exclusion would apply to any reusable wipe regardless of the contaminating 

substance. This is because the commodity is the wipe and not the contaminating substance. The same regulatory basis that 

supports the exclusion of solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of solid waste supports the exclusion of all reusable 

wipes that meet the definition of hazardous waste.

Further, laundry facilities frequently work closely with their customers to learn the purposes for which the wipes will be used, the 

chemicals being used, the extent of contamination expected on the wipe and the constituents of concern that may be present on

the wipes...Therefore, they probably would not accept contaminated wipes containing substances that would cause a violation of 

their CWA permit or that would pass through the treatment system untreated. 

Docket Number - 270

Comment Key - 1583

Submitted by - Heather S. Bowman of Electronic Industries Alliance 

Comment Text:

While EIA supports EPA’s conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable solvent contaminated 

industrial wipes, EIA is concerned that State agencies, when implementing the conditional exclusion, may attempt to apply the 

exclusion too broadly. Accordingly, EIA recommends that EPA clarify the conditional exclusion in the final rule and make clear 

that the requirements for claiming the conditional exclusion do not apply to disposable solvent contaminated industrial wipes that 

are not hazardous waste at the time of generation. EIA believes more explanation is needed than is provided in the proposed rule 

wherein EPA states, “we also note that this proposed rule would not be applicable to generators using non-hazardous solvents, 

since these industrial wipes are not currently subject to regulation under Subtitle C.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65593-94. In particular, EIA 

requests that EPA provide examples, since the reference to non-hazardous solvents is ambiguous. For example, a solvent may 

have hazardous properties, however, if it is not a listed solvent (e.g., in F001-F005), and the amount present on a wipe after use 
89

does not trigger a hazardous waste characteristic, then the wipe is not hazardous waste and does not need to be managed in 

accordance with the conditional exclusion, despite the fact that the solvent used on the wipe is itself hazardous.

Docket Number - 277

Comment Key - 848

Submitted by - Michael G. Fusco of Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 

Comment Text:

SK is also concerned that the proposal would allow hazardous waste spill cleanups to go into Subtitle D landfills or wastewater 

treatment systems. SK believes this would be a mistake and would present a threat to human health and the environment. SK 

urges the EPA in its final rule to require the disposal of rags and wipes from hazardous waste spill cleanups in the RCRA Subtitle 

C System.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1373

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

EPA's stated purpose is that the exclusion include "industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic ... due to use with 

solvents" (page 65589). However, the wording of proposed 261.4(a)(22) does not accomplish this. The proposed language only 

speaks of 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 

U-listed commercial chemical product. 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. A wipe contaminated with such a solvent would not 

be eligible for the exclusion under the proposed wording. 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.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1374

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

EPA should also 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. 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.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1038

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The proposed exemptions from the definitions of solid waste or hazardous waste appear to only apply to industrial wipes that are 

contaminated with F, P, or U-listed solvents, or wipes that exhibit a characteristic when that characteristic results from F, P, or Ulisted wastes, and allows ignitable characteristic co-contaminants. The proposed exemptions therefore do not appear to apply to 

industrial wipes that are contaminated with only non-listed, characteristically hazardous solvents, such as petroleum naptha. 

Idaho DEQ recommends that the exclusion proposed at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22) be revised to include characteristic-only solvents 

and the exclusion proposed at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19) be revised to include characteristic-only solvents that do not pose a risk when 

disposed to provide better consistency and less confusion for generators.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 151

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

ETC agrees the proper scope of the rule is industrial wipes that exhibit a hazardous characteristic due solvent use and industrial 

wipes containing any F001-F005 listed solvents and corresponding P- or U-listed commercial chemical products when spilled. 68 

FR 65593.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 935

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
90

Comment Text:

The MPCA would like the EPA to address managing Wipes that remain hazardous for the ignitability characteristic. 

Docket Number - 298

Comment Key - 1584

Submitted by - Lawrence Liden of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

Comment Text:

In particular, the proposed regulatory text setting forth the scope of the conditional exclusions is narrower than the scope of the 

rules as they are explained in the preamble, inadvertently excluding an important category of solvent-contaminated wipes from 

the rule. Specifically, EPA explains in the preamble that the rule will encompass: (1) industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous 

characteristic (i. e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) due to use with solvents or (2) industrial wipes contaminated 

with F001 -F005 spent F-listed solvents or comparable P- and U-listed commercial chemical products that are spilled and cleaned 

up with industrial wipes.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65589, left hand column (emphasis added). In other words, it is clear that EPA intends 

for the conditional exclusions to apply not only to industrial wipes contaminated with F-listed solvents or comparable 

commercial chemical products, but also to any other industrial wipe contaminated by a solvent that causes the wipe to exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic. This makes perfect sense, as there are wipes contaminated with solvents that, while not listed, 

nonetheless cause the wipes to exhibit a hazardous characteristic, such as ignitability. The problem, however, is that the proposed 

regulatory text identifies only wipes Contaminated with F-listed solvents or comparable P- or U-listed commercial chemical 

products as falling within the scope of the rule. See Proposed Regulatory Text at 68 Fed. Reg. at 656 18- 19. We do not believe 

this was EPA’s intent and therefore we think it is important for EPA to ensure that the final regulatory text includes all wipes 

exhibiting a hazardous characteristic due to contamination by any solvent, not just F-listed solvents.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 241

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

EPA has not gone far enough in the proposal and should also exclude the solvent itself from the definition of solid waste when 

legitimately reclaimed and recycled. When materials are legitimately recycled, whether on-site or off-site, and whether within the 

same industry, or company, or not, they are not “discarded by being disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away” - and therefore are 

not “solid wastes.” The Alliance urges EPA to explicitly exclude the solvent bound for reclamation/recycling as well as 

excluding reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste. The solvent, as well as the wipes, meets the decision factors for 

exclusion listed in 40 CFR 260.31 (c) [Variances from classification as a solid waste] upon which EPA has relied (see Preamble 

discussion at 68 FR 65593).

[Attachment: Comments on suggested revisions to the definition of "solid waste"]

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 531

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The proposed language in 40 CFR 261m4(a)(22) and (b)(19) addresses wipers that contain F-listed spent solvents, corresponding 

spilled P- or U-listed commercial chemical products, or wipers that exhibit a characteristic resulting from the F-, P- or U-listed 

solvent. We suggest removing the word "spilled" in relation to P- and U-listed solvents because wipers may be contaminated with 

P- and U-listed solvents that did not result from a spill but would be similar to those from spills. In addition, the proposed 

language seems to limit applicability of the Conditional exclusion, in the case of wipers that exhibit a characteristic, to those that 

exhibit the characteristic as a result of contamination from an F-listed solvent. We suggest that the conditional exclusion apply 

not only to wipes contaminated with F-listed solvents but also to other unlisted solvents as well, such mineral spirits, naphtha, 

etc. commonly used by industry for cleaning. Such wipes would be similar to those contaminated by ignitable F-listed solvents.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 535

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Where the proposed rule for disposable wipes indicates the list of prohibited solvents in 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(B), we suggest that 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 TC regulatory level. In this case, the wipes 

may not meet the definition of hazardous waste in the first place (unless hazardous due to another characteristic).
91

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 429

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

Expanding the exemption from the titled "solvent-contaminated industrial wipes" to wipes exhibiting the characteristics of 

corrosivity and Reactivity is improper. The proposal focuses on solvents identified in F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005 codes as 

well as their analogous P- and U-codes characteristic wastes. However, the F001-F005 codes are identified in 261.3 l(a) as being 

ignitable and toxic only. None are also identified as exhibiting the characteristics of corrosivity or reactivity. Neither the proposal 

nor the Technical Background Documents (TBD) contains discussion of why these wipes may exhibit the DO02 andor D003 

waste codes. CKRC suggests that EPA modify its proposal to state that if the materials that contaminate the wipes are corrosive 

or reactive the exemption does not apply and the 40 CFR 262 waste determinations requirements must apply.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 430

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule opens up a major new “market” (a.k.a. loophole) for wipes: spill cleanups. One 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. This makes it highly likely that future chemical or even hazardous waste 

spill cleanups will be conducted in a manner that uses that exemption. In fact, the TBD appears to acknowledge that spill 

cleanups are a normal use for wipes (pg. 17). CKRC believes that this is a major loophole that must be addressed. EPA should 

modify the proposal to establish use or generation restrictions in the conditional use exemption that limit the exemption only to 

wiping activities and not to spill cleanup.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 387

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

The Task Force members support expanding the wipes eligible for exclusion to include all reusable wipes contaminated with a 

listed hazardous waste or exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic.

The factors that U.S. EPA uses to support the exclusion would apply to any reusable wipe regardless of the contaminating 

substance. This is because the commodity is the wipe and not the contaminating substance. The same regulatory basis that 

supports the exclusion of solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of solid waste supports the exclusion of all reusable 

wipes that are defined as hazardous waste.

In addition, laundries are subject to regulation under the CWA and have either discharge permits or pretreatment requirements

prior to discharging to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Therefore, it is unlikely that they would accept 

contaminated reusable wipes containing substances that would cause a violation of their CWA permit or that would pass through 

the treatment system untreated.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1020

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The MEDEP believes clarification is needed regarding the list of 11 solvents prohibited from being disposed of in a land disposal 

facility when the waste is a mixture. If the solvent in use is a mixture of non-prohibited solvents and prohibited solvents (i.e. 3% 

MEK, 4% 1,1,1,trichlorethane, and 3% Isobutanol) that meets the F-listing requirements of 10% or more, a trigger for the 

restriction should be established based on the percentage of the prohibited solvent.

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 484

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

I am requesting that the Agency clarify the difference between paint materials that contain spent solvents and spent solvents that 

contaminate wipes in this rule. Please reconfirm that if paint contains a listed solvent, the contaminated wipe is not potentially 

RCRA regulated unless it exhibits the characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e. flammability).
92

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1075

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

It is not clear in the proposed exclusion that wipes containing additional contaminants are not excluded from regulation if those 

contaminants cause the wipes to exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. Neither is it clear what is meant by a ''corresponding'' 

spilled P- and U- listed commercial chemical product within the context of the exclusion. Does this mean that the P- or Umaterial needs to have a corresponding solvent before the wipe is exempted? DEQ is recommends that EPA clarify exactly what 

is and what is not covered under the exclusion proposed as 261.4(a)

(22) and 261.4(b) (1 9). The exclusions should be clear to minimize confusion.

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 234

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

At present, solvent-contaminated wipes which do not meet either the D001 ignitable liquids or solids criteria and are not 

contaminated with a listed solvent 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. EPA’s proposal would require that wipes contaminated by non-listed 

solvents that are destined for Subtitle D landfill now meet a more stringent definition of ‘dry’ rather than the current ‘no free 

liquids’ under the D001 ignitable liquids characterization. As applicable to non-listed solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, this 

proposal would actually expand RCRA jurisdiction to those wipes that would not meet the ‘dry’ standard but would meet the ‘no 

free liquids’ standard. Alcoa believes this is an unnecessary expansion of RCRA jurisdiction and may be an unintended 

consequence of EPA’s proposal as currently defined. 

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 253

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

...[I]t is clear that EPA intends for the conditional exclusions to apply not only to industrial wipes contaminated with F-listed 

solvents or comparable P- and U-listed commercial chemical products, but also to any other industrial wipe contaminated by a 

spent solvent - even if not listed - if such solvent causes the wipe to exhibit a hazardous characteristic. This makes perfect sense, 

as there are wipes contaminated with solvents that, while not listed, nonetheless cause the wipes to exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic, such as ignitability. This category of solvent-contaminated wipes clearly warrants inclusion in the final rule. The 

problem, however, is that the proposed regulatory text identifies only wipes contaminated with F-listed solvents or comparable Por U-listed commercial chemical products as falling within the scope of the rule. 

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 254

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

Another flaw in the proposed regulatory text is the inadvertent exclusion of contaminated wipes exhibiting the characteristic of 

ignitability due to being “co-contaminated with ignitable waste.” As EPA explains: “because [such] industrial wipes are already 

likely to be ignitable because of the nature of the solvents on them and because this risk is managed by the conditions of the 

exclusion from hazardous waste, wipes co-contaminated with ignitable waste would remain eligible for the exclusion if they meet 

its other conditions.” Here too, however, the proposed regulatory text fails to include this category of wipes that EPA plainly 

intends to include the proposal. To correct these drafting errors, 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..." This text will 

ensure that the final rule does not inadvertently exclude from coverage wipes exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic due to 

contamination by a spent solvent or wipes otherwise exhibiting the characteristic of ignitability.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 608

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

The proposal does not distinguish non-hazardous from hazardous wipes. We believe wipes that are not subject to RCRA 

hazardous waste requirements because at the point of generation they are (1) a solid waste (containing no free liquid), (2) are not 

ignitable pursuant to 40 CFR 261.21, and (3) does not exhibit any other characteristics of a hazardous waste (Subchapter C –
93

Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, sections 261.20 – 261.24) should continue to be managed as non-hazardous waste and not be 

subjected to the proposed requirements.

Docket Number - 365

Comment Key - 810

Submitted by - Richard L Sieg of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 

Comment Text:

Another concern is that consumer products (products typically packaged and labeled for use by the general public) that are used 

for maintenance activities should be exempted from the rule. As an example, spray cans of degreasers, etc., oftentimes contain 

one of the F001-F005 listed hazardous wastes or a characteristic hazardous waste. Specifically, CRC Brakleen contains 

tetrachloroethylene (one of the listed 11 spent solvents - Table 1, page 65590). This chemical is highly volatile and there is little 

likelihood that the chemical would remain on the industrial wipe. 

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 476

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

I am requesting that the Agency clarify the difference between paint materials that contain spent solvents and spent solvents that 

contaminate wipes in this rule. Please reconfirm that if paint contains a listed solvent, the contaminated wipe is not potentially 

RCRA regulated unless it exhibits the characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e. flammability). 

Docket Number - 448

Comment Key - 1219

Submitted by - Michelle Lusk of Cement Kiln Recycling Association 

Comment Text:

[In the NODA], EPA requests comments on the elimination of 10 compounds from the risk analysis based on a literature review, 

site visits and other factors (74 FR 55165, col 3). CKRC is concerned that these solvents would be considered for exemption even 

though a risk analysis was not performed. One reason cited by EPA is that these compounds were not used as a solvent wipe. 

However, CKRC would like to stress that even if these compounds are not used as ‘industrial wipes’, wipes used during spill 

cleanups should not qualify for the exclusion for these 10 (or any) solvents. 

In the proposal (74 FR 55168), tetrachloroethylene was shown to be a risk concern in both wipes and laundry sludge and in both 

unlined and composite lined landfills. CKRC agrees that based on these findings EPA should not include this waste in the scope 

of the final exclusion and that special alternative management conditions for tetrachloroethylene are warranted. 

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1570

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP does not support EPA’s proposed ban of certain solvents contained in industrial wipes going to municipal or other nonhazardous waste landfills that are lined.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1402

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

Regarding the 11 listed spent solvents, which EPA has tentatively determined “may pose adverse risks to human health and the 

environment when disposed in a landfill, even if dry,” what is the rationale for excluding these wipes if laundered? When 

laundered, traces of these 11 solvents are sure to be discharged or end up in wastewater treatment sludges that will ultimately be 

landfilled. EPA’s proposal doesn’t seem to acknowledge media transfer that occurs during laundering.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1566

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We concurs with the EPA decision to impose both the 5 gram "dry" wipe condition and prohibit certain solvents from disposal in 

non-hazardous landfills. ITU holds with the position that all solvents, which exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, should be 

prohibited from being sent to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills.
94

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1054

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP agrees that any solvents found to pose a significant risk when “dry” should be prohibited from disposal in a non-hazardous 

waste landfill, whether or not such wipes exhibit the toxicity characteristic. (FDEP questions a conclusion that wipes containing 

1,1,1-trichloroethane or 1,1,2-trichloroethane pose no significant risk when “dry.”) At the same time, FDEP recognizes the 

extreme difficulty of ensuring that prohibited wipes will not be disposed of at the landfills. There is no practical way for landfill 

operators to distinguish between wipes contaminated with MEK and those contaminated with ethyl benzene without testing, 

which would be an insupportable burden. 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.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1562

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP agrees that any solvents found to pose a significant risk when “dry” should be prohibited from disposal in a non-hazardous 

waste landfill, whether or not such wipes exhibit the toxicity characteristic. (FDEP questions a conclusion that wipes containing 

1,1,1-trichloroethane or 1,1,2-trichloroethane pose no significant risk when “dry.”) At the same time, FDEP recognizes the 

extreme difficulty of ensuring that prohibited wipes will not be disposed of at the landfills. There is no practical way for landfill 

operators to distinguish between wipes contaminated with MEK and those contaminated with ethyl benzene without testing, 

which would be an insupportable burden. 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.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1067

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

...11 solvents and any solvent blend containing the 11 solvents are not eligible for exclusion if destined for disposal in a 

nonhazardous waste landfill. Ohio EPA agrees with the eligibility requirements for disposable solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 818

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports 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.

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. Generators retain the burden of determining whether any waste stream is characteristically 

hazardous and are obligated to manage those waste streams as hazardous. 

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1043

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

Industrial laundries should not be permitted to process reusable shop towels that contain the 11 most hazardous solvents. As 

proposed, the regulations would not allow disposable wipes to be sent to a landfill if they contain certain listed solvents, but they 

would allow industrial laundries to process reusable towels containing these same solvents. Ultimately, we know that the solvents 

from the reusable towels will end up in a landfill as sludge from the wastewater treatment process. Industrial laundries should not 

be permitted to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Moreover, industrial laundry workers should not be exposed to these 

hazardous chemicals.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 672

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 
95

Comment Text:

EPA has identified eleven solvents that cannot be placed into a municipal landfill. This exclusion is based upon an extensive risk 

analysis undertaken by EPA for this proposal. As a result of the analysis, these eleven solvents have been identified by EPA as 

posing a substantial hazard to human health and the environment if wipes containing even a trace amount of the solvent were 

placed in a landfill. Since it is extremely difficult achieve zero concentrations, IPC recommends that EPA clearly state in the final 

rule language that the toxic characteristic, if available, for each of the solvents listed in this table be considered at the de minimis 

level. For those solvents without a toxicity characteristic, EPA should develop a de minimis concentration.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 596

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

In addition [to the 11 solvents in table 4], the GAC strongly recommends that methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), be removed from this

table since EPA’s own risk assessment does not justify its inclusion. In the Agency’s report, “Use and Management Practices of 

Solvent- Contaminated Industrial Shop Towels and Wipes,” MEK was listed as a solvent exhibiting a low chronic toxicity. The 

report defined low concern as one that “was given to chemicals that exhibited very slight effects on humans, or if no human data 

are available, on animals. For example, the compound may be reported to cause dermal irritation, or repeated exposure to low 

levels of the compound in drinking water may be reported to be linked with diarrhea and mouth sores in humans.” This report did 

not conduct a qualitative assessment of chronic

toxicity, but relied on a review of all publicly available literature.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1167

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

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”.

Of the 11 solvents that EPA has tentatively determined to prohibit from land disposal under the proposed rule, six would be 

“ineligible for disposal in a municipal or other nonhazardous waste landfill because they meet the toxicity characteristic [“TC”], 

not because of the results of EPA’s risk screening analysis.” EPA’s analysis found that even when “they have been through an 

advanced solvent-extraction process and contain less than 5 grams of solvent, the levels of these solvents in contaminated wipes 

are likely to be higher than the regulatory levels indicated in 40 C.F.R. 261.24. Therefore, these TC solvents are ineligible for 

disposal in landfills because of their potential risk, as determined when they were originally identified by EPA as TC wastes.” 68 

Fed. Reg. 65597-98.91 Three of these six solvents - carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene - are among 

the 16 solvents referred to in the preceding section of the comments as posing “insignificant risks”. The other three - benzene, 

chlorobenzene, and cresols (o,m,p) - were determined by EPA to be acceptable for landfilling provided they met a 5 gram limit, 

i.e., were subjected to centrifuging. 

Although the TC admittedly was designed to simulate the co-disposal of municipal and industrial waste in a municipal landfill, it 

certainly was not designed to approximate conditions in a 40 C.F.R. Part 257, Subpart B landfill. As such, the results of TC 

analysis cannot be properly applied to evaluate risks from a Part 257, Subpart B landfill. See, e.g., Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. 

v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (hazardous waste determinations cannot be based on assumptions about disposal 

conditions that the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure simulates when there is no evidence that the waste in question will 

be disposed of under those conditions); Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (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).

Moreover, it defies logic to apply the results from application of the more general assumptions and parameters used in the TC 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”. Id. at 65610. That is especially so here, where 

EPA employed certain more conservative assumptions that would suggest a greater risk than under the assumptions employed for 

like parameters under the TC rule analysis, and yet found no significant risks for these particular solvent wastes in these 

particular waste management units.

Finally, and most elementally, 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, SSIWs that “exhibit a hazardous waste 

characteristic (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) due to use with solvents.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65589. See also id. at 

note 1 (“[SSIWs] that are co-contaminated with another [i.e., non-solvent] material that makes them characteristically hazardous 

for . . . toxicity would not be eligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. . . .”) . 
96

Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis to employ TC results to prohibit these six solvents from landfilling when a more wastespecific 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, EPA certainly has the discretion to conclude that it’s more tailored risk screening 

analysis provides an ample foundation for not prohibiting these particular solvent constituents from landfilling, so that - in 

conjunction with the considerations set forth below - the Agency can promulgate a final rule that treats all solvents alike and 

authorizes landfilling of SSNWs and laundry sludge provided a “no free liquids” test based on a hand-wringing performance 

standard is met.

The discussion above demonstrates that wipes containing 16 of the 30 solvents covered by this rulemaking should be able to be

landfilled subject only to a “no free liquids” condition, and that an additional three solvents - benzene, chlorobenzene, and cresols 

(o,m,p) - should not be prohibited from land disposal. The analysis in the following sections explains why EPA’s risk assessment 

was so unduly conservative - especially when compared to the separate assessment undertaken for laundry sludge being 

landfilled - that it fails to justify either prohibiting from landfilling, or imposing a “5 gram limit/solvent extraction” condition on, 

any of the 30 solvents covered by this rulemaking. It follows then that EPA has similarly failed to provide any adequate 

justification for prohibiting from landfilling, or subjecting to a “5 gram limit/solvent extraction” condition, SSNWs containing 

any percentage whatsoever of any of these solvents.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 692

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed a number of conditions for disposing of wipes at a municipal or other non-hazardous landfill. First, is that 

wipes containing certain solvents cannot be disposed of at non-hazardous waste landfills...The “ban” of the disposal of wipes 

containing specific solvents (Table 4, page 65597 of the proposed rule) in non-hazardous waste landfills is reasonable.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 364

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA questions the data and analyses underlying EPA’s list of 11 solvents that if contained on a disposable wipe can never be

disposed of in municipal or non-hazardous waste landfills. In particular, one listed solvent, Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) was 

currently proposed for delisting from the CAA’s list of Hazardous Air pollutants. This proposal was the result of exhaustive 

research and analyses that was supplied to EPA detailing the low risk of MEK, not only from an air toxic standpoint, but from an 

overall risk and children’s health risk standpoint as well. EPA has eight years of evaluation in this regard, including results of risk 

assessments demonstrating that emissions of MEK may not reasonably be anticipated to result in adverse human health or 

environmental effects.

Further EPA’s report, “Use and Management Practices of Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Shop Towels and Wipes,” MEK was 

listed as a solvent exhibiting a low chronic toxicity. In addition, the Agency’s own report on the “Evaluation of the Solvent 

Extraction Efficiency of an Industrial Centrifuge on a Variety of Shop Towels and Wipes,” clearly states, “that the solvent that 

seemed to be most easily extracted was MEK.” In fact, the report states that MEK’s extraction efficiency was 99 percent. Based 

on the extraction efficiency, we ask the Agency to reevaluate, with a solvent extraction efficiency rating of 99 percent rather than 

90 percent, the inclusion of MEK as one of the solvents listed in Table 4.

In addition, it does not appear that EPA has provided for a de minimus level for these 11 solvents. Under OSHA, manufacturer’s 

need not report constituents under 0.1% for carcinogenic chemicals and 1% for all others. Yet, the Proposed Rule says wipes 

“[M]ust not containing [sic] the following solvents..."in order to be disposed of in municipal landfills." EPA must at the very 

least recognize a de minimus level for these solvents as the very product components being cleaned with solvent wipes may 

actually contain the solvents at below these levels without the knowledge of the manufacturer. Industry will have to complete

additional expensive testing to be sure their wipes and rags do not contain any of the 11 solvents. This significantly increases the 

burden of this “de- regulatory’’ rulemaking - especially on small business.

Lastly, NPCA does not support prohibiting other solvents from municipal landfills even though they were found not to pose a 

significant risk. Again, EPA's risk data is flawed given current landfill practices provide an adequate margin of safety to protect 

human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1589

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 
97

Comment Text:

The department believes the requirement to ban 11 listed spent solvents from the exclusion conditions for managing spent wipers 

at municipal landfills as nonhazardous waste as impractical. For example, in order for a wiper to meet the exclusion from 

hazardous waste and be allowed to be disposed to a landfill, the wiper cannot contain “the listed solvents in Table 1 .” Table 1 

has 11 solvents listed. Our reading of the proposed rule leads us to believe that the Table 1 list is separate and in addition to any 

waste considerations associated with F, P, or U listed wastes. This situation can cause confusion for the generator. A wiper that 

was used with a solvent that contained 0.01% methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and 11% toluene would not meet the F003 listing and 

would not be characteristically hazardous for MEK but would be a F005 listed waste. Yet, under the conditions of the exclusion it 

could not be land disposed merely because it contained MEK. A rule that sets up such scenario’s is inherently conhsing and 

ultimately either unenforceable or merely unenforced. It should be noted that the mere use of a Material Safety Data Sheet 

(MSDS) to determine if a Table 1 solvent is present in a solvent would not be sufficient. Unless a constituent was a carcinogen, 

the MSDS would not be required to report constituents below 1% by weight. For example, it is known that all gasoline contains

benzene. However, some gasoline formulations can contain < 1% benzene and their MSDSs very often do not show benzene as a 

constituent. This knowledge should prevent any wiper used with gasoline from meeting the wiper as non-hazardous waste 

exclusion. (The wiper might or might not be characteristic for benzene.)

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 949

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Segregating which solvents may and may not be disposed in a municipal landfill overly complicates the proposed rule and 

suggests that EPA has taken a “make it fit” approach to managing disposed solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1021

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The MEDEP supports the proposed prohibition on disposal of wipes contaminated with the solvents listed in Table 1, at 

municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills. However, solvent contaminated wipes that are “conditionally excluded” under 

the proposed rule, if incinerated, but prohibited from landfills, may end up in landfills. Non-hazardous waste transporters or 

municipal solid waste transporters that transport these “conditionally excluded” wipes from generators may co-mingle the wipes 

with other loads of solid waste, and most likely will not differentiate loads containing these wipes when selecting a solid waste 

disposal facility (incinerator or landfills).

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 478

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

I am requesting that the Agency specifically clarify the use of the Table 1 chemical restrictions. I suggest that the Agency include 

a statement that those eleven (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. 

Docket Number - 336

Comment Key - 648

Submitted by - Daniel S. Wagner of International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc. (ISSA) 

Comment Text:

Remove the provision that prohibits solvents that exhibit the characteristics of toxicity from being disposed in municipal and 

other non-hazardous waste landfills if those solvents were not found to pose a significant risk under EPA's Risk Screening 

Analysis.

Docket Number - 340

Comment Key - 804

Submitted by - Erwin S. Frey of PPG Industries 

Comment Text:

Including methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) in the list of 11 solvents that cannot be present on a wipe destined for disposal in a 

municipal or non-hazardous landfill is inconsistent with current scientific studies on the hazards MEK poses to human health and 

the environment. EPA has proposed that MEK be removed from the list of Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants based on the 

Agency’s finding that emissions, bioaccumulation, or deposition of this compound are not reasonably anticipated to cause 

adverse human health or environmental effects. PPG respectfully requests that MEK be removed from the list of 11 solvents in 

proposed Section 261.4 (b)(l9)(iv)(B).
98

The ban on wipes containing any amount of the 11 listed solvents is overly stringent and problematic in that these solvents may 

be present in miniscule concentrations (e.g, less than 0.1 %) on the wipe or may be a minor constituent in a product removed by 

the wipe during cleaning. Manufacturers of products containing these solvents are not required by OSHA to list these solvents as 

ingredients on Material Safety Data Sheets if the product contains less than 0.1% for carcinogens or less than 1.0% for other

compounds. A generator may not be aware that a product removed with a disposable wipe contains one of the prohibited 

solvents. Also, 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. PPG suggests that the 

management procedures used to minimize free liquids in wipes are consistent with the RCRA-empty approach and are sufficient 

to prevent environmentally significant amounts of these solvents from being disposed in non-hazardous landfills.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 261

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG opposes EPA’s proposal to exclude 11 specified solvents from the proposed disposal option. A review of the risk 

assessment underlying the proposal does not support this limitation on its scope.

...EPA has preliminarily determined that disposal of the above solvents in a non-hazardous landfill would pose a substantial 

hazard to human health and the environment. Id. USWAG believes this finding is inconsistent with the record. In this regard, 

USWAG refers EPA to the relevant portions of the joint comments submitted in this rulemaking by The Association of the 

Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (“INDA) and The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (“SMART”) (“INDA/SMART 

Comments”). These comments make clear that EPA's risk screening analysis for disposal 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.

...the conditional exclusion for disposal wipes should encompass wipes contaminated with any solvents provided the wipes meet 

the no free liquids test. 

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 542

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

In response to the Agency’s request for comment on 68 Fed. Reg. 65598, FPA also does not support banning solvents that exhibit 

the toxicity characteristic if they can be demonstrated to be nontoxic, using the “dry” methodologies for establishing that the used 

rag is “dry” (i.e., less than 5 grams solvent/rag). 

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 545

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

EPAs proposal lists eleven solvents that are not allowed in landfills or solvent blends containing these constituents. It is not clear 

to FPA whether EPA intends to exempt from the “conditional exclusion” it is proposing an industrial wipe with any amount of 

the specified F- or- U-listed solvents for only industrial wipes that would exceed the 261.24 TC-levels for these solvents. Further 

discussion of this issue is requested in the final rule. FPA also requests confirmation that industrial wipes with one or more of the 

listed 11 solvents can be disposed at municipal waste combustors or laundered commercially.

FPA's position is that especially for characteristic wastes or for listed constituents, the generator ought to be able to establish that 

there is a deminimis environmental risk by proving that the TC level is not exceeded for the constituents. FPA supports similar 

methodologies ds have been proposed for determining that industrial wipes are “dry,” as the basis for this determination.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 777

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Under EPA’s proposed rule, solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that contain any of the following 11 listed solvents are not 

excluded from “hazardous” waste regulation and may not be sent for disposal to municipal or other non-hazardous landfills: 

benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, cresols, methyl ethyl ketone (“MEK”), trichloroethylene, 2-nitropropane, 

nitrobenzene, pyridine, tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride. Phelps Dodge objects to this proposal as unsubstantiated and 
99

burdensome.

It is unnecessary to consider the potential risk from disposal of wipes contaminated with any of the 11 listed solvents because 

EPA analyzed the actual risk using conservative factors and found the risks acceptable...This is clearly an unrealistic and overly 

conservative assumption due to the high volatility of solvents. Yet, the six solvents listed above were still found to pose no 

significant risk when landfilled...EPA also performed an analysis to assess potential ecological risks related to landfill of these 

solvent-contaminated wipes. None of the evaluated solvents were found to pose adverse ecological risks from disposal of solventcontaminated wipes in municipal solid waste landfills...Similarly, even under a "potential” risk evaluation, regulation of 

disposable wipes containing these 11 solvents is not justified because normal use of disposable wipes results in only a small 

quantity of solvent on the wipe. This small quantity of solvent mostly evaporates before the wipes are disposed in a landfill? 

Thus, EPA should not retain this requirement for eligibility of the exclusion from “hazardous" waste regulation for disposable 

industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 778

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Another of EPA’s stated objectives is to encourage solvent recovery and reuse. EPA analyzed available data in an attempt to 

determine which solvents are most commonly used in industry in conjunction with industrial wipes.

For EPA’s proposed rule to have a measurable impact on solvent recovery and reuse, the most commonly used solvents should be 

included under the proposed rule’s conditional exclusion, unless there is some other justification for excluding them...EPA has 

failed to justify the exclusion of these six solvents based on its own data. In light of the fact that these solvents are commonly 

used and EPA’s stated goals, the exclusion of these six solvents is particularly troubling. Phelps Dodge recommends that all of 

those solvents found to pose no significant risk to human health and the environment by EPA’s risk screening analysis be 

included in the proposed rule’s conditional exclusion, allowing disposal in municipal and non-hazardous landfills.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 926

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

ITU holds with the position that all solvents, which exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, should be prohibited from being sent to 

municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills.

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 470

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

I am requesting that the Agency specifically clarify the use of the Table 1 chemical restrictions. I suggest that the Agency include

a statement that those eleven (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. 

Docket Number - 461

Comment Key - 1645

Submitted by - Charles Sewell of Textile Rental Services of America (TRSA) 

Comment Text:

The foregoing analysis using TRSA's more robust and current database confirms that there is virtually no potential excess risk 

from PCE-containing laundry sludge — in either a lined or unlined landfill scenario. Therefore, TRSA believes that the 

qualifying conditions contained in EPA's 2003 proposal for laundry facilities would continue to ensure that reusable shop towels 

are being managed appropriately. (See Section I, n.1.) 

Regarding PCE, from a cursory review of recent TRI data and in the industry's own recent experience, the use of PCE by both the 

printer and automotive industry is declining. This, in combination with the results of TRSA's survey, provides further evidence 

that PCE-containing laundry sludge poses no excess risk. While a phase-out of PCE as proposed in the NODA may be a worthy 

goal and one that TRSA would support, industries that use shop towels and printer towels decide which solvents they use, not the 

laundry facilities that process those towels. TRSA member facilities merely take these products and clean them.
100

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1459

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

Similarly, we fail to understand why the Agency would completely prohibit certain solvents from being disposed of in a 

municipal solid waste landfill, but will allow the exact same solvents to be discharged to PFWs or disposed of in a landfill as 

sludge. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1464

Submitted by - Gary Jones of Graphic Arts Technical Foundation/ Printing Industries of America 

Comment Text:

Today I would like to address the Table 11 solvents contained in the proposed language. The solvents have been identified by the 

Agency as posing a substantial hazard to human health and the environment if the wipe containing even a trace amount of the 

solvents were placed in landfills. Since it is virtually impossible to achieve a zero concentration of any solvent, we recommend 

that the Agency clearly state in the final rule language that the toxic characteristic if available for each of the solvents listed in 

this table should be considered the diminimus level. For those that do not have a toxicity characteristic level, we recommend that 

EPA develop a concentration for them.

We would also like to address the inclusion of methylethylketone or MEK on the list. We believe it should be removed from this 

table. In the Agency’s report, use and management practices of solvent contaminated industrial shop towels and wipes, MEK was 

listed as a solvent exhibiting a low chronic toxicity. The report to find a low concern is one that I quote was given to chemicals 

that exhibit very slight effects on humans or no human data available on animals. For example, the compound may be reported to 

cause thermal irritation or repeated exposure to low levels of the compound in drinking water may be reported to be linked with 

diarrhea and mouth sores in humans. The report relies on a review of all publicly available literature and not a qualitative 

assessment of chronic toxicity. 

The report further states that constituents can exhibit a low toxicity rate but a high ignitability risk. Acetone, another solvent used 

by our industry is considered a low toxic risk with a flashpoint of minus 20 degree Celsius. MEK’s flashpoint is minus seven 

degrees Celsius and acetone has not been included on the list in Table 4. Further, the risk assessment undertaken by the Agency 

to determine whether or not a solvent should be added to Table 4 assumed a one to one ratio of solvent on the wipe as well as 

removal efficiency of 90 percent by centrifuge. This is found in the report estimating quantities of solvents containing rags that 

can be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.

A 1999 study estimating risks from disposal of solvent contaminated shop towels and wipes in municipal landfill states in its

concluding remarks that the risk assessment methodology presented can be used to estimate risk based on a wide variety of waste 

disposal scenarios. Specifically, the report states that one may consider a scenario that reduces the quantity of solvent in each 

wiper by one half or more through waste elimination efforts such as centrifuging. The Agency’s own report on evaluation of 

solvent extraction efficiency of an industrial centrifuge on a variety of shop towels and wipes clearly states and I quote the 

solvent that seemed to be most easily extracted was MEK. In fact, the report states that MEK’s extraction efficiency was 99 

percent. Based on the extraction efficiency, we recommend that the Agency reevaluate the solvent extraction efficiency rating of 

99 percent rather than 90 percent, the exclusion of MEK as one of the solvents in table 4.

Docket Number - 136

Comment Key - 811

Submitted by - John Smith of Red Wing Shoe Company 

Comment Text:

The definition of Industrial Wipes as proposed at Subpart B, Section 260.10 while broad is not inclusive of sponges...I ask the 

EPA to broaden the definition of "industrial wipes" to include sponges. At page 65589, vol 68 the EPA writes "We emphasize 

that EPA's concern...is based on the hazardous solvent contained in the used wipes, not the industrial wipes themselves." 

The use of sponges to wipe boots is common in the shoe manufacturing industry. The sponge is wetted with solvent and then the 

boot or shoe is wiped to remove residual glue, fabrication guide markings and to even the leather finish. Used sponges are placed 

in suitable containers and shipped as hazardous waste to TSDF facilities. The use of sponges is not different than that of other 

industrial wipes, and it is not the wipe itself that is of interest, but the solvent used. For these reasons, the rationale EPA has used 

to exempt disposal wipes from regulation as hazardous waste should apply equally to sponges. I ask the EPA to include sponges 

under the definition of industrial wipes. 
101

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 985

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The proposed rule should be expanded to include other commodity-like materials that may be cleaned and returned to 

service (e.g., coveralls, work uniforms).

Discussion: The proposed rule conditionally excludes industrial wipes being cleaned and returned to service from the definition 

of solid waste. The primary reason for this conditional exclusion is that industrial wipes are more "commodity-like that wastelike." Other materials are similarly commodity-like and should be similarly regulated. For example, soiled coveralls and work 

uniforms, like industrial wipes, are often partially reclaimed, handled as valuable commodities throughout the laundering process, 

and owned by the same entity throughout the laundering. 

Recommendation: Expand the proposed rule to include other commodity-like materials that may be cleaned and returned to 

service.

Docket Number - 167

Comment Key - 448

Submitted by - Cynthia M. Lee of Chemical Solvents, Inc 

Comment Text:

We also suggest that the same exclusion be applied to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). PPE includes gloves, chemical suits 

and other personal devices. PPE is less hazardous than industrial wipes that have been intently used to clean-up a spill, thus 

becoming saturated with the solvent, PFE may have come in contact with the solvent. OSHA/NIOSH Personal Exposure Limits 

(PEL'S) prevent PPE from becoming solvent saturated. Our employees are trained that a simple splash of solvent on PPE 

determines that the PPE is to be immediately discarded. CSI in turn disposes of the PPE as if were a hazardous waste. Knowing 

that the material could have come in contact with F-listed solvent requires us to dispose of the PPE as hazardous waste. Our 

customers dispose of their PPE as a hazardous waste, also.

Docket Number - 298

Comment Key - 1585

Submitted by - Lawrence Liden of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

Comment Text:

In particular, we suggest that EPA include within the rule’s scope worker protective clothing - such as gloves, coveralls, and 

shirts - that, like wipes, also become contaminated with solvents and must be managed as a hazardous waste. Workers in a wide 

variety of industries use industrial wipes in conjunction with personal protective clothing, such as coveralls and gloves, and this 

clothing often becomes contaminated with the same solvents that contaminate the wipes. We think the same rationale underlying 

the proposed exclusion for solvent-contaminated wipes applies to protective clothing contaminated with the exact same solvents -

indeed, they are generally cloth-like materials just like wipes and are managed in the same way. Equally important, when this 

protective clothing becomes contaminated, we are confronted with the same regulatory quagmire under RCRA that led EPA to 

pursue this rulemaking for solvent-contaminated wipes. We believe that management of protective clothing in accordance with 

the proposed management conditions for wipes will ensure that such materials will not pose a hazard to human health and the 

environment. Therefore, we urge EPA to include solvent-contaminated worker protective clothing, that is contaminated with the 

same solvents that contaminate wipes, in the scope of this rulemaking initiative.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 530

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

We suggest that consideration be given to expanding the conditional exclusion for disposable wipes to apply not only to solventcontaminated wipes but also to other solvent-contaminated solids such as disposable gloves, suits, other personal protective 

equipment, paper products, etc., as these materials are often generated by industry and collected together with industrial wipes, 

and are essentially equivalent in composition to disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 732

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

In some situations, worker protective clothing, floor mats, and other textiles become contaminated with solvents and would 

otherwise have to be managed as hazardous waste. Workers in the pulp and paper industry use industrial wipes, and also in some 
102

cases, personal protective clothing, such as coveralls and gloves, and this clothing sometimes becomes contaminated with the 

same solvents that contaminate the wipes. The same rationale underlying the proposed exclusion for solvent contaminated wipes 

applies to protective clothing contaminated with the exact same solvents although the solvents are typically at lower 

concentrations in these other textiles. Equally important, when this protective clothing becomes contaminated, MPPA members 

are confronted with the same regulatory and management issues under RCRA as industrial wipes. 

We see no reason why the same fundamental tests (no free liquids, management in non-leaking covered containers) should not 

also apply to allow protective on-site management of these textiles. Similarly, because these materials are identical, there should 

be no difference in the offsite treatment or disposal alternatives for contaminated textiles. EPA should therefore expand the 

proposal to include such materials.

Docket Number - 318

Comment Key - 559

Submitted by - Frank Nesbihal of FPL Group 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule modifies the hazardous waste management regulations for reusable and disposable industrial shop towels and 

rags contaminated with certain solvents, and spilled P and U- listed commercial chemical products. AS previously mentioned, 

some of our facilities do generate solvent-contaminated wipes. When any solvent is being used, our employees are required to 

wear disposable gloves and aprons due to the potential dermal hazards. During use, the solvent may slightly soak through the 

wipe and contaminate the gloves, or the apron may get slightly splashed with the solvent. When this occurs, both items become 

contaminated with de minimis amounts of the used solvent. In accordance with the mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv), FPL 

Group currently manages these solvent-contaminated items as a hazardous waste. However, since these items are made of the 

same types of materials the wipes are made of, we believe this proposed rule should be expanded to include all protective 

equipment when handling solvents, and P- and U-listed chemicals.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 367

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA recommends that EPA expand the conditional exclusion to address not only solvent-contaminated rags and shop towels, 

but other related materials as well. This should include other materials such as solvent contaminated Personnel Protective 

Equipment (PPE) and clothing.

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 461

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Given the conclusions reached by EPA in this proposal, Alcoa believes EPA should also more generally articulate that other 

materials destined for cleaning and reuse similarly have not been ‘discarded’ and therefore do not qualify as ‘solid waste’.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 256

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG suggests that EPA include within the rule’s scope worker protective clothing - such as gloves, coveralls, and shirts -that, 

like wipes, become contaminated with spent solvents and must be managed as a hazardous waste. Workers in a wide variety of 

industries use industrial wipes in conjunction with personal protective clothing, such as coveralls and gloves, and this clothing 

often becomes contaminated with the same solvents that contaminate wipes. The same rationale underlying the proposed 

exclusion for contaminated wipes applies to protective clothing contaminated with the same solvents - indeed, they are generally 

cloth-like materials just like wipes and are managed in the same way. When this protective clothing becomes contaminated, 

regulated entities are confronted with the same regulatory quagmire that led EPA to pursue this rulemaking for contaminated 

wipes. Based on the risk assessment underlying the proposal for contaminated wipes, management of similar solventcontaminated protective clothing equipment in accordance with the proposed management conditions will ensure that such 

materials do not pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment when disposed or laundered.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 544

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 
103

Comment Text:

FPA supports a broad definition of “industrial wipe,” and thus strongly supports EPA’s definition, which does not attempt to 

narrow the applicability of the proposed definition by particular uses for the wipes. We would like to see the definition broadened 

further, either in the regulation or in the final preamble, to cover “mop heads” and other woven/nonwoven materials that are used 

to remove solvent from floors, provided they also meet the “no free liquid,” “dry," and other criteria set forth in the final rule. 

Some companies in the flexible packaging industry use fabric mop heads in the same manner as rags to wipe up floors. Since 

these mop heads are used and disposed of currently in the same manner as other industrial wipes, we urge EPA to clarify the final 

rule to exclude them from the waste definitions so long as they meet other criteria in the final rule.

5. Conditions

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 1662

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

This proposal will allow industries to neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who

handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by facilities that generate the toxics.

Docket Number - 156

Comment Key - 1574

Submitted by - Larry Manziek of The International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI) 

Comment Text:

The conditions that are proposed by the Agency for the exclusion of combusted industrial wipes are reasonable and acceptable 

for precious metal reclamation as well:

1. Accumulate the used wipes on site in a non-leaking, covered container;

2. Ensure that the wipes do not contain free liquids when transported off site;

3. Handle any removed solvents subject to hazardous waste regulations accordingly;

4. Package wipes for shipment off site in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the 

environment; and

5. Mark containers ‘‘Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.’

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 1653

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The regulation of non-terne plated used oil filters allows direct disposal if certain management standards are met. Under 40 CFR 

261.4(b) (13), oil filters meeting the specific performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid waste. 

Requirements similar to that contained in the exclusionary provision for these filters would be acceptable for shop towels used 

with a listed solvent. The approach taken for these filters provides performance based options regarding the removal of oil from 

the filters, and does not specify disposal options for the filters. The two situations are analogous. The provision contained in 40 

CFR 261.4(b) (13) addresses the removal of a substance, oil, from a filter. The filter is then excluded from consideration as a 

hazardous waste. If the listed solvent is removed from the shop towel, then the shop towel should not be considered a hazardous 

waste regardless of the type of solvent used during production, or how the materials, wipe and solvent became co-mingled. Most 

importantly, there are no references to any certification process on the part of the generator. There are no labeling or special 

container requirements for these filters. The GAC believes that the disposal of the one-time use shop towel is similar in nature to 

both the empty container or the non-terne plated used oil filter. Similar to the requirements set forth that determine an “empty” 

container, and an “empty” oil filter, we believe that the 5 gram limit constitutes a similar standard denoting that a shop towel is 

“empty.” 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. Imposition of 

the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 934

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
104

Comment Text:

The MPCA knows of one laundry truck fire traced to Wipes (possibly a result of waste solvent illegally disposed in Wipes). The 

MPCA would like the EPA to address managing Wipes to consider the potential for fire hazards, such as spontaneous combustion 

or accidental ignition in storage, transit, laundry, or landfills.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 264

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al.

Comment Text:

USWAG is generally supportive of the proposed management conditions (with the exception of the “dry condition” discussed 

above [see comment under "Dry condition"]) with respect to both disposal and reusable wipes. The Agency has, for the most part, 

done a reasonable job in balancing the need for practicality and simplicity with its obligation of ensuring that the proposed

conditions will ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 364

Comment Key - 1269

Submitted by - Carol Johnson 

Comment Text:

Please rewrite the rule to make sure that:

-Industries are required to take adequate protective measures, including labeling contaminated materials, providing useful 

training to the people who handle them, and keeping records. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1480

Submitted by - Jim Buik of Rosco Company 

Comment Text:

We work closely with the Illinois EPA and together have developed a viable environmentally sound program for managing used 

shop towels from pickup at the customer facility through the laundering process. The management conditions we adhere to 

ensure protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on a lab or testing rather than the 

common sense management conditions we already employ 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. 

5.1. Containers

Docket Number - 141

Comment Key - 710

Submitted by - Viktor Prismantas of Lasco Bathware 

Comment Text:

Table 3 of the proposed regulation provides guidance for a municipal or other non-hazardous landfill without first being sent to a 

handling facility for solvent removal. Under this section the table states that the generator must package wipes for shipment off 

site in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment.

I am requesting some additional guidance on what would be considered a container designed, constructed and managed to 

minimize loss to the environment. Would this include a cardboard box or a plastic trash bag?

Docket Number - 143

Comment Key - 939

Submitted by - Jim Gilstrap of Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Comment Text:

One common question by clients: is it okay to air dry the solvent contaminated wipes before disposal? The proposed rule may 

want to make the prohibition against air drying more prominent. The first reference I could find was on page 11, top of the 

middle column. Many people feel letting the wipes lay in the work area is an acceptable way to make sure there are no free 

liquids prior to disposal. The resulting emissions are not considered nor is the fire safety issue.
105

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1000

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Wipes destined for disposal at a municipal solid waste landfill or other non-hazardous waste landfill that meet the 

standards under 40 CFR 257, subpart B, should be allowed to be managed along with other solid wastes and consistent with 

OSHA standards for covered containers. 

Discussion: EPA requests comment on whether the rule should defer to OSHA regulations for proper accumulation of solventcontaminated wipes at a generator’s facility. A potential hazard of accumulating solvent-contaminated wipes, similar to oily rags, 

is that of spontaneous combustion. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire analysis, perhaps as many 

as 800 structure fires annually can be attributed to spontaneous combustion of rags (EPA Docket RCRA-2003-0004-0006). It 

would seem prudent to accumulate all solvent wipes in covered containers. It is not clear, however, that OSHA’s enjoinder to 

dispose of combustible waste daily should apply in all contexts of solvent wipe use. OSHA paragraph 29 CFR 1910.106 

(e)(9)(iii) states:

“Waste and residue. 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.”

Once the wipes are placed in the proper accumulation container they should be considered properly managed and “disposed of” 

for safety purposes.

Further, the OSHA regulation does not require segregating solvent-contaminated disposable wipes from other combustible solid 

wastes, nor labeling of these combustible waste material. Rather, the disposable wipes are managed along with other solid waste, 

rubbish, and trash. We agree that when the ultimate disposition is a landfill or municipal waste combustor, it does not make sense 

to segregate these wipes from the rest of the solid waste stream. Some combustor facilities may request segregating industrial 

wipes, but that can be achieved through local agreements and need not be codified in the federal regulation for all disposable 

wipes. 

Recommendation: Delete conditions 40 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(ii) regarding transportation in containers to minimize losses to the 

environment and (iii) regarding labeling as "exempt solvent -contaminated wipes" from the hazardous waste exclusion for 

disposable wipes; and, allow excluded disposable wipes to be managed the same as, and along with, other solid waste from 

industrial facilities. Retain 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(i) which requires containers to be covered.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1008

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: This proposed rule may be inconsistent and the Aerospace NESHAP.

Discussion: EPA may need to consider the possible inconsistency between this proposed rule and the Aerospace NESHAP 

requirement for "closed" containers. Because this proposed rule appears to be more liberal in its use and reference to "covered" 

containers, there is likely to be some confusion in workplaces subject to what appear to be more stringent requirements under the 

Aerospace NESHAP rules. See 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1).

Recommendation: As a follow on action, EPA should consider pursuing modification of the NESHAP standard to allow 

containers to be "covered" (consistent with the wipes rule) rather than "closed".

Docket Number - 162

Comment Key - 708

Submitted by - C. Richard Titus of Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

Comment Text:

The regulations do not apply to wipes currently not classified as hazardous waste. However, disposal sites are going to find it 

difficult to distinguish. We are concerned that quite likely non-hazardous solvent contaminated wipes will be required to follow

the new regulations as a result. This would mean that generators would no longer be allowed to co-mingle wipes with plant trash 

and will not be able to use a compactor box for storage or transportation. Drums will be required and municipal waste landfills do 

not accept waste in drums. Rags that now are disposed with plant trash are going to have to be drummed and shipped to 

incinerators or other high-cost disposal options. 
106

There is concern that the current system of storing and transporting rags in bales will no longer be acceptable. In all likelihood, 

the rags will have to be transported in sealed drums which significantly increases the cost and limit disposal options.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 39

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE urges EPA to provide guidance by describing what would be needed to demonstrate compliance with the proposed 

performance standard requiring that transportation containers be “designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the 

environment.” Specifically, DOE requests that the notice of final rulemaking identify and explain the criteria to be used in the 

demonstration, if a transportation container design without a sealed lid were to be used.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1356

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

We are concerned that the last sentence in Footnote 9, on Page 65596, may be misinterpreted and/or cited by the regulated 

community as giving blanket approval to use plastic or cloth bags for industrial wipes. That sentence states: “Containers which 

are authorized for transporting hazardous materials in Packing Group II are listed under 49 CFR 173.212 and include, among 

other things, steel, aluminum, or plastic drums and plastic or cloth bags.” We request USEPA clarify that, even though plastic or 

cloth bags are listed as containers which qualify as DOT Packing Group II containers, the bags must still pass a leak-proof test 

whenever they are used for a material having the DOT shipping name of “solids containing flammable liquid, nos.” (We 

recognize that on Page 65601, first column), USEPA stated that cloth bags are not likely to minimize loss for wipes containing 

free liquid, but this statement was not made in the context of the DOT hazmat regulation issue raised in USEPA’s Footnote 9. 

We also note that on Page 65604 (third column), USEPA suggests that cinched shut cloth bags could potentially meet the 

“minimize loss to the environment” performance standard, but it is our view that this is too unlikely to merit mentioning as a 

possibility.)

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1368

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

The proposal does not appear to have addressed the potential safety issues resulting from the formation of explosive vapor 

mixtures within closed containers. This is of particular concern when containers are destined for a landfill or combustion facility 

where normal handling of the container could cause an ignition.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1410

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP does not support EPA’s proposed method of placing “two containers adjacent to one another and to transfer wipes from 

one container to the other. If they drip liquid during transfer, or if there are free liquids in the bottom of the container, they would 

not meet the “no free liquids” condition. Generators should be responsible for recovering as much solvent from the wipes as is 

practicable before shipping them off-site.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 619

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Transportation requirements should remain the same for all wipes, whether they meet the dry standard or not. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1543

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Containers designed to minimize loss to the environment should be used for transportation. The option for sealed containers is 

unreasonable. The sealed containers would require significantly more labor to handle by both the generator and the laundry. 
107

Additionally a sealed container will prevent a handler from checking for free liquids prior to transportation. The proposed closed

condition is sufficient. All wipes should be handled alike for consistency, whether they contain more or less than 5 grams of

solvent.

...While cloth bags are often appropriate for transportation of wipes, cinched cloth bags apply more pressure to wipes during

transportation and handling so that any saturated wipes would be more likely to release liquid, than a rigid or other (plastic bag) 

container. Cloth bags unless shown to be impervious should not be allowed.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1665

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Generators should be required to accumulate wipes in containers that minimize evaporation.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 297

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

API is...concerned by EPA’s preamble discussion and definition of “closed containers,” specifically defined as “containers with a 

lid that screws on to the top and must be sealed to be considered closed.” This definition of “closed container” does not appear in 

regulatory language nor has EPA previously communicated this definition in any published national guidance. As such, it 

represents a potential departure from existing regulatory interpretations under RCRA.

API agrees with EPA that excluded wipes should not be subject to a strict “closed container” standard, and that “covered 

containers” are adequate for the purpose of the proposed exclusions. API does not, however, agree that lids of containers must be 

“sealed” or “screwed on” to be considered “closed” as that term is used for purposes of hazardous waste accumulation elsewhere 

in the RCRA regulations. Containers have many different types of closure devices, and any attempt by EPA to clarify the 

regulatory interpretation of “closed” should be made in documents pertaining to those specific regulatory standards, rather than in 

the preamble to this proposed rulemaking.

For transportation of excluded wipes, API agrees that a performance standard of non-leaking containers that are designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment is an appropriate condition.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1064

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Further, we agree that it is appropriate that the packaging used to transport the solvent contaminated wipes for disposal or 

combustion meet DOT packaging requirements.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1065

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

We do not object to the use of plastic bags for the accumulation of solvent contaminated wipes or to their use in transporting the 

wipes if such containers are permissible for use according to DOT requirements. These types of containers would further ensure 

that no free liquids are present in the container.

If free liquids are present in such a container, they can be easily detected by the generator, transporter, or inspector; free liquids 

could be detected in the corners of a plastic bag. This is an advantage because the generator, transporter or inspector does not 

need to unload the container to determine if free liquids are present. 

Also, since the presence of free liquids would be readily evident, the generator can take immediate action to address the situation 

and adjust his procedures to attain the no free liquids standard. He can reduce the amount of solvent used per application or

institute the use of an extraction method to remove the solvent from the wipes.

Although cloth and woven polypropylene bags would also allow the easy detection of free liquids, we are hesitant to support their 

use due to the permeability of such a container and the release of solvent through evaporation. We suggest that U.S. EPA further 
108

evaluate the use of cloth and polypropylene bags to determine the air emissions from such a bag containing solvent contaminated 

wipes and no free liquids does not pose an unacceptable risk to handlers of the wipes. [same comment for reusable wipes]

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 816

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports a performance standard that will allow generators to choose which container is adequate for their 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes while meeting relevant DOT standards. Rockwell Collins does not support a “closed” 

container requirement during transport of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that meet the “dry” or “no free liquid” condition. 

However, we are unsure what precautions municipal refuse haulers will be expected to take to avoid puncturing, ripping or 

otherwise reducing the integrity of the generator’s container that initially did not leak nor allow air emissions.

The alternative option of requiring a closed container assumes the wipes will fail the “no free liquid” or “dry” condition, which 

by definition would require management of the solvent-contaminated wipes as hazardous waste and, thus, accumulation and 

transportation in closed, non-leaking containers. The alternative option, then, takes the position that wipes with no free liquids 

and “dry” wipes pose the same risk as saturated, “wet” industrial wipes, which is counter to the underlying position of the 

proposed action. If the waste has shown minimal potential for environmental and health and safety impacts to exempt it from 

definition as hazardous waste, there should be no need to containerize it any differently from municipal waste.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 835

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports a performance standard that will allow generators to choose which container is adequate for their 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes while meeting relevant DOT standards. Rockwell Collins does not support a “closed” 

container requirement during transport of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that meet the “dry” or “no free liquid” condition. 

Requiring the container to be closed and sealed would cause extra handling of the wipes as well as the container itself to 

determine if free liquids are present. This extra handling would expose the solvent to the environment and employees and would 

take additional time. By using a performance standard, the generator and the receiving facility can contractually agree on a 

mutually acceptable and regulatory-compliant containerization method.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 658

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

Transport of these materials should not be limited to closed containers...the transfer of these materials is for the express purpose 

of consolidating the handling procedures. Because the movement is limited to a contiguous zone, the use of covered containers 

should be sufficient to minimize any environmental risk.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 715

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL concurs with the proposal to allow generators of solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes to store them in nonleaking covered containers at the point of generation. However, it would seem that solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that 

contained no free liquid, 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. This option should not exceed the 

risk from exposure already assessed by EPA in Section VII.C. of this proposed rule.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 717

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

Though presumably it would not be difficult to implement OSHA standards relative to solvent contaminated rags generated at 

industrial plants that are required to implement standards for flammable or combustible liquids, LANL 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 
109

liquid and ignitable characteristic waste (D003)]. Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that are dry or contain no free liquid 

would not fall under these requirements. In addition, Section 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act exempts federal and 

state agencies from OSHA requirements, although some agencies voluntarily comply.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 593

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC agrees with all the provisions proposed by the Agency with the exception of the labeling and separate container 

requirement. The GAC does not see the need for a separate container or a label that identifies the contents of the container. Under 

the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Transportation Program, all hazardous materials shipped must be 

properly labeled and placarded. The GAC encourages the Agency to defer to DOT shipping requirements for the proper labeling 

of these containers. The need to include an additional label is redundant and unnecessary.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 595

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The regulation of non-terne plated used oil filters allows direct disposal if certain management standards are met. Under 40 CFR 

261.4(b) (13), oil filters meeting the specific performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid waste. 

Requirements similar to that contained in the exclusionary provision for these filters would be acceptable for shop towels used 

with a listed solvent. The approach taken for these filters provides performance based options regarding the removal of oil from 

the filters, and does not specify disposal options for the filters. The two situations are analogous. The provision contained in 40

CFR 261.4(b) (13) addresses the removal of a substance, oil, from a filter. The filter is then excluded from consideration as a 

hazardous waste. If the listed solvent is removed from the shop towel, then the shop towel should not be considered a hazardous

waste regardless of the type of solvent used during production, or how the materials, wipe and solvent became co-mingled. Most 

importantly, there are no references to any certification process on the part of the generator. There are no labeling or special

container requirements for these filters. The GAC believes that the disposal of the one-time use shop towel is similar in nature to 

both the empty container or the non-terne plated used oil filter. Similar to the requirements set forth that determine an “empty” 

container, and an “empty” oil filter, we believe that the 5 gram limit constitutes a similar standard denoting that a shop towel is 

“empty.” 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. Imposition of 

the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 932

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The MPCA supports the policy of containing Wipes in plastic bags or covered drums for storage and transportation to reduce air 

emissions and dripping, as compared to canvas laundry bags allowed in the past.

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 323

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Meeting on January 21,2000, just a year before President Bush’s inauguration, EPA leaders told the “stakeholders”, including the 

laundry industry, that EPA was considering two alternate proposals for this rulemaking. (See Docket Ex#28, “Notes from 

Stakeholder meeting, Jan. 21, 2000"). However, both options had the following common features in any exemption from EPA’s 

hazardous waste rules:

1. shipping containers would have to be “closed” by the laundry customers and labeled, and

2. before placing towels in containers for shipment to laundries, customers would have to press the towels so that the towels “do 

not release any liquid when wrung”.

At the same meetings, EPA also discussed in more detail the meaning of these terms. For instance, “closed container” would 

mean a container with a sealed cover. This is far different from the “plastic or cloth bags” which EPA now accepts under the 

proposed exemption. Likewise, EPA’s version of “do not release any liquid when wrung” clearly imposes a more stringent test 

than the current proposal.

...A few months after the January 2000 Stakeholders meeting, on May 9, EPA sponsored yet another stakeholder meeting, which 

was summarized in a subsequent memo by EPA project officer Jim O’Leary (Docket Ex. #29). O’Leary specifically emphasized 

that EPA would not accept the use of cloth bags in its definition of “closed containers”: [Comment provides quotation to this
110

effect from Jim O'Leary]. What happened to these useful and protective proposals? How did EPA arrive at such an abruptly 

different position? A year later, with Bush Administration appointees running EPA, the laundry industry clearly viewed EPA in a 

different light. On July 13,2001, the industry met with the senior EPA officials, including Robert Dellinger who was serving as 

Director of the Hazardous Waste Identification Division, to review their objections to the earlier proposal. A month later, the 

laundry industry’s lobbyist wrote to Dellinger to thank him for the meeting and to offer the industry’s own legal arguments for 

new and broader exemptions for shop towels. Docket Ex#91.

As a result of those contacts, it is clear that EPA’s current proposal was tailored to the needs of the employers in the laundry 

industry - to the detriment of worker and environmental safety:

- No longer would EPA seek to substantially limit the level of toxic or flammable solvents on the towels; “No Free Liquids” 

would now mean something very different.

-Incredibly, plastic and even cloth bags would be allowed for shipments from customers to laundries.

-No labeling would be required for towels shipped to laundries. 

Incredibly, EPA actually claims that this definition [of no free liquids], as well as the allowance for cloth bags, would actually 

protect workers and reduce air emissions...But the definition used in January 2000 [of no free liquids when wrung]would have 

been far more protective, and is in fact already required by two states (MA and MN). Unfortunately, EPA has again allowed itself 

to be unduly influenced by the “stakeholders” and rejected this option in the current proposal.

Docket Number - 301

Comment Key - 684

Submitted by - John M. Gartland of Joseph Gartland, Inc 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation and both industries should 

have the same container and labeling requirements. 

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 250

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports this approach [performance-based language for transportation containers] and not EPA's alternative option 

to impose more specific criteria to define “closed container."

EPA should use the term “transportation containers” to distinguish containers used in storage and accumulation from containers 

used in transportation. Second, EPA’s option adding requirements of “impermeability” and also the “use of lids that screw on the 

top and must be sealed to be considered closed” for transportation containers, is too prescriptive. We agree with the stakeholder 

objections to these requirements.

The Alliance takes exception to EPA establishing a new definition or interpretation of “closed” in this proposal, that would be 

inconsistent with the Preamble language to the May 19, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 33199).

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 333

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK believes EPA must clearly define the appropriate transportation requirement for disposable wipes meeting the “dry” 

standard to eliminate any ambiguity and subjective interpretation. Reusable towels are typically handled by one industrial laundry 

under contract for an extended period of time with a customer. The handling processes are well defined and any discrepancies are 

readily noted and resolved. The presence of non-exempt wastes will be apparent to industrial laundries. In contrast, soiled 

disposable wipes may be handled by different transporters and be shipped to various disposal facilities with differing handling 

practices. Transportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling and handling of towels designated as

”Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” It should also be noted that it might be difficult to label containers that are not 

designed of impermeable materials.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 686

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

As for storage and transportation of these reusable wipes, requiring storage in a covered, non-leaking container at a facility is a 

practical and effective way of managing these wipes. Transportation of these wipes in a plastic or cloth bag should also be 
111

allowed. The “no-free liquids” condition proposed by EPA should be very adequate to ensure that releases of solvents do not 

occur during the transportation of the wipes to laundering facilities.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 691

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

As for storage of disposable wipes, requiring storage in covered, non-leaking container at a facility is a practical and effective 

way of managing these wipes. 

Docket Number - 314

Comment Key - 385

Submitted by - Alan Cobb of Alltex Uniform Rental Service, Inc. 

Comment Text:

We agree that it is appropriate that the packaging used to transport the solvent contaminated wipes for disposal or combustion 

meet DOT packaging requirements.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 362

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

At the very least, if over NPCA objection, EPA adopts the “the dry standard” for disposables destined for the landfill, additional 

labeling and container requirements are still not necessary. In fact, it will again discourage solvent recycling and reuse. Simply 

put, once the dry standard has been met, the disposable towels should be allowed direct disposal into the landfill without other 

burdensome labeling and container storage requirements.

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 442

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1668

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department agrees that requiring wipers that will be managed at a laundering facility be stored and transported in closed

containers. Additionally, the requirement that speculative accumulation apply is valid. If a generator were to make use of the 

exclusion, he/she will need to maintain some form of record keeping to be able to demonstrate compliance with the exclusion. 

There is no need to add additional regulatory language for this requirement as it is adequately addressed at 40 CFR 26 1.2f. The 

department does not view relying solely on OSHA regulations as providing sufficient protection to human health. OSHA 

standards are not enforceable at a large class of wiper users, namely federal, state, and local governments.

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 493

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

USEPA states that it is considering an alternative option of requiring all generators of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to 

transport them in impermeable closed containers (the definition of which means containers with a lid that screws on to the top 

and which must be sealed to be considered closed). DP&L opposes the alternative option as unnecessary. The requirement to 

provide transportation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in sealed containers provides no added protection to human 

health and the environment vs. the performance based standard of a non-leaking container that provides for the control of air 

emissions. From a practical viewpoint, requiring the use of a sealable container for transportation will likely entail the use of such 

a container for collection of the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to avoid having to transfer the wipes from the collection 

container to a separate transportation container. The conditional exclusions already propose to require the use of a covered 

container for collection of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes and specify that transportation be conducted in containers 

designed to prevent release of any solvent. The requirement to utilize containers of a higher standard will not provide any 

additional protection for the environment.
112

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 941

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Containers must be of sufficient integrity and design to minimize to the potential for accidental puncture, tear, rupture, or other 

unintended integrity failure during accumulation, transportation, and handling. Cloth or plastic bags are not designed to 

adequately resist these types of failures during normal handling practices. Further, cloth bags are permeable and do not restrict 

volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors.

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 480

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

I agree with the Agency proposal to adopt a performance standard approach to containers. Given the variety of wipe destination 

scenarios (laundry pick-up, landfilling, and incineration), it would be inappropriate to designate specific container types (i.e. open 

top metal drums with ringbolt closure). One type of container might be appropriate for one condition and not appropriate for all. 

However the Agency may entertain changes based on comments that such flexibility may be misinterpreted or abused and unsafe 

conditions could result during storage or transportation. Again I believe that designating specific containers and container types is 

unnecessary given adoption of the “dry” or “no Drip rule”. Metal containers for solvent laden wipes are generally required by 

OSHA or internal “Best Practices” when such wipes are saturated and must be placed in a “groundable container” to avoid static 

ignition. This would not be the case under the Agency “dry”/”no drip” requirement.

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 1670

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

In order to be eligible for the exclusions provided for in this proposal, solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be 

accumulated in non-leaking, covered containers. This seems to be a reasonable requirement. However, in the middle column of 

page 65595, EPA notes that the alternative would otherwise be full RCRA control under Subpart I requiring ‘that containers be 

closed (i.e. sealed) during accumulation. Alcoa believes that the parenthetical addition of sealed in the quote above does not 

accurately represent the state of the Subpart I criteria requiring closed containers during accumulation. To set more stringent 

management controls comparable to a sealed standard on VOC containing materials (under which many solvent-contaminated 

wipes would likely qualify), EPA established the Subpart CC regulations for accumulation and management in containers (40 

CFR 264.1086(c)/265.1087(c)). These regulations prescribe requirements for the use of certain types of containers, container 

sealing devices, and the times at which and how those devices must be in placed on the container. 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 notice.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1202

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA also support the flexible, performance-based container standard proposed for generators. In crafting the final 

generator container requirements, EPA must be mindful of the interface between laundries and their customers (ie., the 

generators). In particular, EPA must ensure that laundries are not compelled to alter their current transportation practices (which 

depend on cloth or plastic bags) in order to accommodate any potentially conflicting generators container requirements. For 

example, as discussed in the preceding section, laundry trucks are designed for use with cloth or plastic bags. 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. The minimal benefits, if any, of containerization in reducing VOC emissions, are not justified by the 

costs that would be imposed on laundries.

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 510

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

The proposed language of the rule states that wipes must be managed in “non-leaking covered containers” or in “containers that 

are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment.” The flexibility noted in the preamble for this rule 

as to what constitutes a “covered container” is reasonable due to the wide variety of generating locations at manufacturing 
113

facilities.

The preamble discussion and definition of “closed containers” seems reasonable to DuPont. As these containers and their 

contents are to be offered for transport, either to disposal locations or launderers, the requirements under DOT and OSHA 

regulations seem to be the appropriate regulatory authorities. Unless there is no public highway transport involved in movement 

of these wipes, the performance standard of non-leaking containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss 

to the environment is an appropriate one and should apply in all cases.

Docket Number - 350

Comment Key - 858

Submitted by - John Shipp of Tennessee Valley Authority 

Comment Text:

TVA recommends that EPA allow storage of solvent rags in alternative containers. We question the rationale of limiting worker

exposure due to solvents vs. the safety issue of spontaneous combustion, which has been known to occur when solvent saturated 

rags are placed in closed safety cans.

Docket Number - 353

Comment Key - 320

Submitted by - of American Trucking Association (ATA) 

Comment Text:

Containers used in both the storage and transport of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be designed to prevent harm to 

both the environment and employees in the work environment. Such container use should take into account not only the cost of 

such containers, but the level of protection afforded the environment and employees. In light of the agency becoming bogged 

down in specifying through the rulemaking which containers are or are not acceptable, the agency should issue appropriate 

guidance identifying types of containers that would provide an adequate level of protection in transporting and storing wipes. 

Such guidance should carefully analyze and determine the adequacy of containers such as locking plastic, metal, or paper-derived 

drums, paper derived or plastic-gauged bags or containers, and impermeable cloth bags. The guidance should include a 

recommendation that containers storing used wipes should be constructed in such a way as to limit further evaporation of 

solvents remaining on the wipes. Recommended practices should include, as appropriate, the use of self-sealing lids, drawstrings, 

zipper or fastening devices, etc. As an alternative to the agency issuing a formal guidance document, the suggestion by the 

agency to include containers that meet DOT packaging requirements to satisfy the performance standards is a logical, commonsense approach.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 577

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 609

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

The proposed exclusion establishes requirements for the disposal of industrial wipes in covered containers. This requirement is 

duplicative to existing requirements related to the storage of solvents, including solvent-containing industrial wipes. Specifically, 

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 67.17, a federally applicable requirement, regulates the “Storage of 

Materials Containing Volatile Organic Compounds”. As such, we believe it is appropriate for the proposed conditional exclusion 

to recognize existing standards, where they exist, as an acceptable manner of demonstrating compliance with the proposed 

management practices.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 611

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

With respect to the container requirements, please comment on the use of a self-contained compactor, such as a RamJet RJ-250 

(http://www.marathon-equipment.com/selfcont.htm), for the disposal of solvent-containing wipes. We believe use of a selfcontained compactor is consistent with the discussion on page 65596 that states, “closed cinched bags would minimize exposed 

surface area and, thus, minimize evaporative loss”. The bags placed into the compactor are closed and cinched. The compactor 

further reduces the surface area to the extent that a full load is compressed to greater than 1,000 pounds per square inch. 
114

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 616

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

We concur with EPA's position that the proposed performance standard is sufficient to ensure protection of health and the 

environment. Implementation of the option for closed containers would be economically disadvantageous due to the extra time 

required for both the generator to add wipes to the container and monitor it for free liquid and the handler to check the load 

before transportation and upon arrival at their facility.

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1500

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements. 

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 473

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

I agree with the Agency proposal to adopt a performance standard approach to containers. Given the variety of wipe destination 

scenarios (laundry pick-up, landfilling, and incineration), it would be inappropriate to designate specific container types (i.e. open 

top metal drums with ringbolt closure). One type of container might be appropriate for one condition and not appropriate for all. 

However the Agency may entertain changes based on comments that such flexibility may be misinterpreted or abused and unsafe 

conditions could result during storage or transportation. Again I believe that designating specific containers and container types is 

unnecessary given adoption of the “dry” or “no Drip rule”. Metal containers for solvent laden wipes are generally required by

OSHA or internal “Best Practices” when such wipes are saturated and must be placed in a “groundable container” to avoid static 

ignition. This would not be the case under the Agency “dry”/”no drip” requirement. 

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1227

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

Regardless of their destination, contaminated wipes should be stored and shipped in containers designed to minimize releases to 

the environment. For onsite storage and shipping purposes, dealerships shouldn’t be required to manage excluded wipes 

differently than any other material legitimately destined for a municipal waste landfill, energy recovery facility, laundry, or dry 

cleaner. Containers designed to minimize releases to the environment should include those that are covered. but not closed, and 

there should be no requirement to segregate excluded wipes from other materials being sent to the same destination.

...Moreover, EPA should not require separate containers or labeling for excluded disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1237

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

To prevent releases of hazardous solvents into the environment, it continues to be INDA/SMART’s position that regulatory 

standards related to container labeling and container performance standards be equally applied to both solvent-contaminated 

laundered shop towels and disposable wipes, as follows:

-Require that all wipes be transported in containers that either (i) meet U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) standards that 

are already applicable, or (ii) are otherwise closed, sealed, and impermeable. 

-Require that all wipes stored prior to or after transport be in non-leaking covered containers.

-Require that if EPA decides to establish a labeling requirement for disposable wipes and solvent-contaminated laundered shop 

towels, any such condition apply equally to both types of materials.

5.1.1. Proposed Container Regulations Are Not Stringent Enough
115

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 4

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

It also allows industries to store and transport contaminated towels in cloth bags or other containers that fail to protect workers or 

prevent leaks. This proposal will allow industries to neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training 

workers who handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by facilities that generate the toxics.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1407

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP considers the proposed container performance standards acceptable only for wrung, non-saturated wipes; closed 

containers with a lid that screws may not be necessary for non-saturated wipes. MADEP considers the proposed performance 

standards to be inadequate for saturated wipes going to another site under same ownership. Shipments of those wipes if allowed 

should take place in USDOT containers approved for transport of hazardous wastes.

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 127

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

Closed, sealed containers should be required throughout the handling process. The proposed rule requires closed containers onsite, but not in transportation. This doesn’t make sense. Since the materials have solvents on them, the containers should be

marked so workers know what they’re handling. Given the substantial health/safety/fire risks at industrial laundries, why didn’t 

the EPA require that shop towel containers be labeled and sealed? These container requirements need to be changed to protect 

laundry workers and all other workers handling these materials.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1049

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

In particular, FDEP agrees that the conditions for excluding wipes should prevent the intentional air drying of wipes. Covering a 

container with a piece of plywood or storage in cloth bags will not prevent release of volatiles to the air. The container criteria of 

"designed, constructed and managed to minimize losses to the environment" proposed for transportation should apply to 

accumulation as well. All wipes should be accumulated, stored on site, and transported in non-leaking closed (not just covered) 

containers. FDEP recommends prohibition of the use of cloth bags for accumulation, storage or transportation of any wipes.

Wipes should be transported in substantial, impermeable, nonporous, closed containers, made of plastic, steel, or aluminum. 

“Closed” could include ring-top drums, snap-on plastic containers, or a lid that screws on to the top. For transportation, the top 

must be sealed to be considered closed.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1088

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

...[W]e believe that the use of such bags is not adequately protective of human health and the environment, even if the wipes meet 

the “dry” or “no free liquids” standards. CTDEP cites the following in support of this position:

a.) Neither plastic nor cloth bags provide for adequate control of solvent vapors, particularly during transportation. Plastic or 

cloth bags do not afford the same degree of vapor containment as hard, closed containers with lids. In addition, such bags are 

typically placed on top of one another in the transportation vehicle, resulting in compression of the bags and the release of solvent 

vapors. During the summer months, temperatures inside the transportation vehicles can become very high, prompting further 

evaporation and release of vapors. This in turn creates potential fire and/or worker exposure hazards for the transportation vehicle 

drivers, and for personnel that empty the transportation vehicles at the laundry facility.

b.) Plastic and some cloth bags are prone to attack by residual solvents. Many solvents are capable of attacking the kinds of bags 

that are utilized by industrial laundries and other handlers, even if the rags do not have free liquids. Contact with a “moist” (but 

not “free liquid”) wipe containing the right solvent may be all that is needed to result in the structural failure of the bag, and the 

release of contaminated wipes. This is particularly a concern with respect to plastic bags, but may also be a concern for certain 

kinds of cloth bags (i.e., cloth bags that are made out of synthetic fibers that would be prone to attack by certain solvents). In 
116

addition, since bags are often placed next to or on top of one another during storage and/or transportation, the breaching of one 

bag may result in an adjacent bag being attacked and breached, or may result in a situation where the contents of the breached 

bag may come into contact with other wipes or materials with which they are incompatible.

c.) Cloth bags are prone to wicking. When contaminated wipes come into contact with a cloth bag, the solvents contained in the 

bag may wick from the wipes into the bag, facilitating the release of solvent and solvent vapors (see first bullet above), and 

creating a potential fire hazard or worker exposure hazard for personnel handling the bags.

d.) Use of bags is clearly not protective if free liquids are present. The proposed rule specifically allows generators of industrial 

wipes to transport wipes with free liquids to other facilities within the same company provided that such transport is for the 

purposes of processing to meet the “dry” or “no free liquid” standard. In light of the issues outlined above, cloth and plastic bags 

could clearly be inadequate in such situations, and their use would undoubtedly result in the release of liquid solvents. In 

addition, industrial wipes may on occasion be shipped to laundry facilities or to solid waste landfills or combustors in violation of 

the “dry” or “no free liquid” standards, posing a similar hazard of solvent release.

CTDEP notes that there are a number of alternatives that handlers may use in lieu of plastic and cloth bags in order to facilitate 

the handling of wipes in transportation and at the receiving facility. In addition to standard ring-top drums, handlers could 

employ drums lined with plastic or cloth bags (to facilitate the removal and handling of the bags at the laundry), or design special 

containers that could be mechanically handled and loaded more readily than standard drums.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1091

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

On page 65595 of the proposed rule preamble (column 1, second paragraph), EPA clarifies the kinds of containers that would be 

considered a “non-leaking covered container” that could be used for the storage of disposable wipes at generator sites. Included 

in this discussion as an example is a drum covered with a piece of plywood. CTDEP does not believe that this type of container 

should be identified as meeting the standard, since it would not afford the same level of protection from fires/explosions and 

worker exposures as other types of containers, such as spring-operated safety containers. CTDEP believes that a sufficient 

number of practical and economical alternatives currently exist on the market, and that allowing alternatives such as open drums 

covered with plywood is not necessary. Spring-operated safety containers are available in a wide variety of sizes and styles to suit 

all kinds of uses and applications, are affordable, and are vastly superior to crudely covered drums in that they are self-closing 

and include seals to prevent vapor releases.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1095

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP believes that the rule should include such a provision [to require closed containers during transportation of disposable 

wipes] for several reasons. First, it would appear from the text in the preamble that one of the types of containers that would be 

allowed under the rule as proposed would be plastic and/or cloth bags. As noted in comment 4 above, CTDEP believes that such 

bags are not adequately protective, and are inappropriate for transportation purposes. With respect to other types of containers 

other than plastic and/or cloth bags (e.g. open drums), serious concerns remain relating to vapor emissions and the related issues 

of fire safety and worker exposure protection that would justify requiring the use of closed containers. See also comment 5.d. 

above concerning the adequacy of “covered” containers versus those with a secure lid for more justification for a “closed 

container” requirement. And, lastly, in response to the concerns expressed by stakeholders that requiring closed containers would 

be cumbersome and make the determination of free liquids difficult, CTDEP believes that containers are currently available on 

the market that would address both of these concerns. For example, generators could accumulate wipes in plastic or cloth bags3 

inside closed, spring-top containers (which would facilitate addition of wipes to the container), and the transporter could transfer 

the full bags into ring-top drums at the time of pickup (thereby allowing examination for free liquids content). 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1105

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

...CTDEP believes that the rule should be modified to require the use of closed containers during transportation, for the reasons 

outlined in [another comment] for disposable wipes... CTDEP does not believe that plastic or cloth bags should be used under to 

transport wipes under any circumstances.
117

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1045

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

Shipping containers for reusable shop towels should “prevent the release” of solvents to the environment. As proposed, the 

regulations require only that containers for contaminated reusable towels “minimize” but not “prevent” the release of solvents to 

the environment. To be consistent with DOT regulations for hazardous materials, reusable towel containers should prevent 

releases to the environment.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1162

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

...[B]ecause most SSIWs are already classified as certain DOT materials that must be transported (in the absence of free liquids) 

in packaging that meets the “leak-proof” test for the Packing Group II level, and the final rule will presumably prohibit free 

liquids in containers at the time they are loaded for transport, most wipes covered by this rulemaking are already required to be 

transported in “leak-proof” containers in conformance with DOT standards for transporting hazardous material in Packing Group 

II. As noted above, these DOT standards provide considerable flexibility to shippers of SSIWs in the choice of containers used. 

Inasmuch as these standards are: (i) designed to provide adequate protection against risks to human health and property inherent 

in transporting hazardous materials in commerce, (ii) offer flexibility in use of containers, and (iii) already required “in most 

cases” involving wipes covered by this rulemaking (see Technical Background Document, at 39), EPA should simply require 

transport of all SSIWs in containers that conform to these DOT standards. However, in order to maximize flexibility for 

transporters of wipe containers, INDA/SMART recommends that EPA establish as well an alternative performance standard of 

transport in “closed, sealed, and impermeable containers.” This standard should provide protection equivalent to the “leakproof” 

DOT standards. See, e.g., 68 Fed. Reg. 65596 (“[EPA] would consider containers that meet DOT packaging requirements for 

hazardous materials”, as well as “closed, sealed, and impermeable containers,” to meet its intended performance standard).

Accordingly, INDA/SMART recommends the following regulatory condition for the transport of all SSIWs covered by this rule: 

“Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported offsite, must be transported in containers that meet applicable U.S. 

Department of Transportation standards or are closed, sealed, and impermeable such that they prevent leaks and evaporative loss 

of solvent during transport.”

In its preamble to the proposed rule, EPA stated that “plastic bags or cloth bags that were cinched shut might also meet [these] 

conditions” because they would “minimize” exposed surface area, evaporative loss, and release of liquids. INDA/SMART 

questions whether cloth bags, through which free liquids could readily soak, or plastic or cloth bags which are “cinched” with 

holes at one end, would meet EPA’s stated objective (and the objective of INDA/SMART’s recommendation for transport 

conditions) of “use [of] containers that do not leak and that provide control of air emissions.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65596. 

INDA/SMART therefore urges EPA to state in the preamble to the final rule that it does not anticipate that cloth bags, or plastic 

bags that are “cinched” in such a way as to allow leaks of liquids or evaporative loss, will meet the alternative container transport 

performance standards. 

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1163

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

All Wipes Should Be Stored Prior to and After Transport Offsite in Non-Leaking, Covered Containers.

As discussed above, EPA has proposed a container storage condition for all wipe generators that would require storage in “nonleaking, covered containers”. At the same time, the Agency has proposed a container storage requirement for industrial laundries 

in “non-leaking covered containers or in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the 

environment before the industrial wipes enter the handling process” (emphasis supplied). INDA/SMART fails discern a rationale

for these disparate conditions, and EPA has failed to supply one. 

INDA/SMART notes further that the standard proposed for industrial laundries would appear to allow for leakage from 

containers used by those facilities; otherwise, there would be no need for, purpose behind, the second part of the condition for 

industrial laundries. This result, if supported industrial laundries and finalized by EPA, would merely confirm that while 

laundries may “value” wipes themselves and therefore seek to prevent their loss, they are less concerned about the fate of 

hazardous solvents that, after all, are the basis for EPA’s concern motivating this rulemaking. 

INDA/SMART believes that a “non-leaking, covered container” condition - applicable wipe generators and industrial laundries 
118

alike - strikes the proper balance of objectives sought to achieved by this rulemaking. On one hand, unlike in transport, containers 

stored at these facilities less likely to tip over; consequently, there is less need that they be “closed”, as opposed to merely 

covered. Moreover, covered - as opposed to closed - containers will make it much easier for wipe generators (and transporters 

picking up soiled wipes) to determine if the wipes meet the “no free liquid” condition, thereby easing the regulatory burden on 

these entities. See 68 Fed. Reg. 65596-At the same time, covered containers that are non-leaking should be adequately protective 

of human health and the environment by preventing both releases of liquid solvent and evaporative losses.

Accordingly, INDA/SMART recommends the following regulatory condition for the storage of wipes by wipe generators and 

industrial laundries:

“Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be accumulated, stored and managed in non-leaking, covered containers by wipe 

generators prior to transport offsite and by laundries, dry cleaners, and industrial wipes handling facilities before the industrial 

wipes enter the handling process.”

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1376

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Requirement for "covered" containers. Proposed 261.4(a)(22)(i) requires wipes to be accumulated, stored and managed in 

"covered" containers. In the preamble to the proposal, EPA states that the "covered" standard could be met by something as 

minimal as placement of a piece of plywood on the container (page 65595). This condition is inadequately protective. At a 

minimum, EPA should specify that a cover to be used to meet the standard must be designed to specifically match the container

opening. EPA should also specify that if the wipes being managed in the container have free liquids, the cover must be capable of 

holding the liquids within the container in the event the container is tipped over.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1377

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Containers used to transport wipes. Proposed 261.4(a)(22)(ii) requires that wipes be transported in containers that are "designed, 

constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment." This is too weak a standard. EPA should change "minimize" to 

"prevent".

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1384

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Management standards at receiving facilities. Proposed 261.4(a)(22)(v) gives facilities that receive wipes the option of doing so 

in containers that are "designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment." This is too weak a standard. 

EPA should change "minimize" to "prevent".

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1386

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Requirement for "covered" containers under proposed 261.4(b)(19)(i). Proposed 261.4(b)(19)(i) requires wipes to be 

accumulated, stored and managed in "covered" containers. In the preamble to the proposal, EPA states that the "covered" 

standard could be met by something as minimal as placement of a piece of plywood on the container (page 65595). This 

condition is inadequately protective. At a minimum, EPA should specify that a cover to be used to meet the standard must be 

designed to specifically match the container opening. EPA should also specify that if the wipes being managed in the container 

have free liquids, the cover must be capable of holding the liquids within the container in the event the container is tipped over.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 159

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA proposes to allow solvent contaminated wipes to be stored in poorly designed containers, even containers covered with 

plywood or cardboard. 68 FR 65595. In addition, EPA has not proposed any accumulation time limits, allowing solvent rags to 

accumulate indefinitely in potentially unsafe conditions. The proposal is seriously flawed in that these lax conditions will subject 
119

the public and workers to unacceptable risks from exposure to fugitive emissions, spills, and fires. These are the types of 

incidents related to solvent-containing wastes that occurred in the late 1970’s which were a motivating force behind Congress’s 

enactment of RCRA.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 179

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA must require that steel containers be used if free liquid solvents are still present in order to comply with DOT standards and 

to prevent releases during transport and subsequent processing. The use of cloth or plastics bags must be prohibited if free liquids 

are still present. Only properly sealed DOT steel containers should be allowed.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 161

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA has also proposed to allow substandard containers for solvent contaminated wipes. These include cloth and plastic bags and 

containers covered with plywood. Such containers create fire hazards and also are incompatible with hazardous solvent 

contaminants. Solvent constituents can attack and dissolve the plastic bag, resulting in releases of solvent to the environment. 

Solvents can penetrate the porous cloth bags also resulting in releases. Plywood, plastic and cloth are combustible, resulting in 

increased fire risk.

OSHA standards under 29 CFR § 1910.106 require that flammable (solvent) materials be kept in closed metal containers. DOT 

standards likewise require that solvent materials be kept only in metal or plastic containers meeting certain minimum 

specifications. These specifications do not allow for plastic or cloth bags, and neither should EPA’s final rule.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 162

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule attempts to defer to DOT requirements for transportation of solvent wipes, yet discusses container 

management practices that clearly violate DOT rules. The EPA’s proposed management during transportation of both the 

disposable and reusable solvent-contaminated wipes is inadequate to protect human health and the environment.

Specifically, the ETC has concerns that the language in the proposed § 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. Proposed § 

261.4(a)(22)(ii) states: "Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off site, must be transported in containers that are 

designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment." The ETC believes that the proposed language is 

ambiguous at best, and does not provide sufficient description of the allowable methods that will effectively minimize loss to the 

environment. The rule must have regulatory language that gives more defined parameters to the proper management methods for 

minimizing loss of these solvents during transportation. In addition, the ETC believes that these standards should be applied to all 

transportation scenarios outlined in this proposed rule; e.g., transportation to disposal facilities, laundry facilities, recycling 

facilities, combustion facilities, and intra-company transfers.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 165

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC would like to see the language regarding the transportation of these materials to be revised in the final rule to provide as 

follows: (i) Solvent contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off site, must be transported in containers that are designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment; (A) At a minimum, for materials that are regulated by the 

Department of Transportation, these materials must be transported in containers that meet the applicable provision of 49 CFR 

Parts 173, 178, and 179. (B) For materials that are not regulated by the Department of Transportation, the containers used to

transport the solvent-contaminated wipes must meet the Container level 1 standards found in 40 CFR § 265.1087(c)(1) and (2). 

(C) Solvent-contaminated wipes may not be transported in containers constructed of porous materials such as fiberboard (without 

an inner liner) or cloth. (D) Plastic bags are not acceptable for the transportation of solvent-contaminated wipes unless they meet 

the design requirements of 49 CFR § 178.518 or 178.519, and are manufactured, tested, and marked in accordance with the DOT 

regulations in 49 CFR Part 178.
120

The EPA request comment on whether solvent contaminate wipes meeting the “dry” condition should be required to meet 

transportation requirements. 68 FR 65599. Given that the “dry” condition as defined by EPA is so weak given the flaws identified 

below in the 5 grams and “no free liquids” criteria, the full transportation restrictions must be applied to all wipes, even those 

identified by the generator and/or handler as dry. The record shows that even 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. Given the compressive forces 

present in the container there is major concern for separation of free liquid solvent during transportation. 68 FR 65599. In cloth or 

incompatible plastic bags, such solvent will be released to the environment.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 330

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the second approach proposed by EPA in the Proposed Rule concerning the transportation of reusable 

towels; that is, soiled towels should be transported in impermeable, closed containers. Use of closed, impermeable containers, 

such as plastic or metal drums, minimizes the potential for fugitive emissions of volatile solvents and is protective of both the 

environment and of workers who handle such containers. Use of containers that meet appropriate DOT specifications also 

removes any ambiguity related to potential shipping requirements. Lastly, impermeable containers meet many insurance carriers’ 

requirements and fire code requirements.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 342

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the proposal for the transportation of reusable towels in containers that are designed and constructed to 

minimize loss to the environment. However, ARAMARK disagrees with the approach to utilize a performance standard unless 

that standard is tested and proven to be adequately protective of worker safety and the environment and is in substantial 

compliance with applicable fire codes. ARAMARK contends that reusable industrial towels that contain solvents should be 

transported in impermeable containers. Impermeable containers such as sealable plastic or metal drums will prevent fugitive 

emissions of volatile solvents that could present an inhalation hazard to employees, contribute to atmospheric emissions of VOCs 

and present a fire risk. The DOT and various governmental agencies have established specifications for storage and for 

transportation of volatile and flammable materials.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 959

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Number two, putting the towels in closed containers that can’t leak the solvents into the air and to label the containers with the 

names and the hazards of the solvents.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 433

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

An impermeable closed container requirement should be included in the rule to prevent evaporation, leaks and potential releases.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 384

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

A majority of the Task Force members believe the proposed standard to cover the wipes container versus instituting a standard to 

close and seal the container when waste is not being added/removed is not sufficient to prevent the release of solvent vapors and 

guard against spills if the container is upset. Plywood, cardboard or other combustible materials should not be allowed to serve as 

a lid for the solvent contaminated wipes container. Containers must be of sufficient integrity and design to minimize the potential 

for accidental puncture, tear, rupture or other unintended failure during accumulation, transportation, and handling. We are 

familiar with commercially available wipe storage containers that are approved by OSHA for the storage of flammable wipes. 

Also, there are devices available such as spring-loaded lids that meet the requirements under Subpart CC requirements that would 

allow easy access for adding wipes to the container. These containers minimize the chance of combustion and reduce evaporation 

of solvents from the wipes.
121

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1599

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not view cloth bags as suitable for either storage or transportation of reusable wipers. Additionally, the 

department views the use of plastic bags for storage or transportation as suspect. Depending on the nature and the amount (albeit 

< “no free liquids”) of the solvents contaminating the wipers, cloth could easily allow the escape of volatiles and plastic could be 

attacked to the point of degradation by some solvents. The department prefers a closed, impermeable container requirement for 

the accumulation and transport of excluded reusable wipers. The department does not concur with the proposal to allow transport 

of wipers containing less than five grams of solvent. See paragraph 1 b above for our rationale.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 1669

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be managed in closed containers during accumulation. The proposed performance 

standard for covering containers is not adequate to prevent unnecessary volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1015

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

To prevent accumulation and potential generation of harmful air emissions from wipes contaminated with F listed hazardous 

waste solvents contaminated wipes should be managed in covered containers and shipped in sealed containers that meet US 

Department of Transportation shipping requirements. The proposed rule should be revised to prohibit cloth bags because they 

allow solvent vapors and liquids to escape to the environment. The proposed rule should also be revised to prohibit plastic bags 

because they are incompatible with some solvents (and may easily degraded) and are easily punctured during handling. 

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1080

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Regarding the storage of the solvent-containing wipes, we do not believe that storage of wipes containing volatile solvents that 

are covered with a non-tight fitting lid (such as plywood) is adequate. We are familiar with commercially available wipe storage 

containers that are approved by OSHA for the storage of flammable wipes. DEQ recommends that such containers be required 

for storage of solvent-contaminated wipes. These containers minimize the change of combustion and reduce evaporation of 

solvents fi-om the wipes. DEQ also recommends that solvent-contaminated wipes be transported in containers that are sealed to 

prevent the release of solvents. EPA also must ensure that any transport requirements in the final rule are consistent with 

Department of Transportation requirements.

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 580

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

The EPA has proposed a standard that containers be “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment.” 

(68 Fed.Reg. 65604) This performance standard may satisfy the laundry industry in that the EPA claims that “plastic or cloth 

bags that were cinched shut could also meet this condition.” Because of the “no free liquids” standard, wipes that may initially 

not drip as they are quickly moved from one container to another are likely to yield liquid solvents at the bottom of a container. 

Allowing for transportation in porous cloth or plastic bags may allow for leaks of solvents and expose laundry drivers to air 

emissions as the chemicals volatilize.

The performance standard the EPA is proposing – “designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment” –

seems almost impossible to enforce, particularly if the EPA sets such a low bar by saying that cinched cloth bags could 

“potentially meet this condition.” Instead of seeking to minimize losses, the EPA should set a standard that would prevent them.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 624

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 
122

Comment Text:

Generators should be required to accumulate wipes in containers that minimize evaporation.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 626

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

While cloth bags are often appropriate for transportation of wipes, cinched cloth bags apply more pressure to wipes during 

transportation and handling so that any saturated wipes would be more likely to release liquid, than a rigid or other (plastic bag) 

container. Cloth bags unless shown to be impervious should not be allowed.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 1671

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

On page 65595 of the proposed exclusion, EPA states “Generators would not need to seal, secure, or close the container every 

time a wipe is placed inside; rather, they would only need ensure that the container was covered”. We believe the requirement to 

place the cover on the container for each wipe needs to allow some flexibility for situations where this is not practical. For 

instance, a process where wipes are used to clean low-VOC epoxy materials from metal parts in an assembly environment has 

presented problems where the epoxy interferes with the cover. While it isn’t the intent to get the epoxy on the cover, when an 

employee places wipes in the disposal container several times per minute it is difficult to keep the epoxy off the cover. 

Eventually, the epoxy inhibits the covers ability to close. Closed containers, such as self-extinguishing swing lid containers, have 

proven unacceptable for the disposal of solvent-containing wipes used for disposal of epoxy wipes because the epoxy is very 

messy, and when a small amount touches the lid it renders the lid useless. In practice, the operator puts a lid on the container 

when not actively wiping epoxy-containing parts. Operators at one company represented by IEA place wipes into a container 

several times per minute while cleaning epoxy from the metal parts. To minimize solvent emissions from the wipes the company 

uses smaller wipes and solvent dispensers that limit the amount of solvent dispensed. The same company uses self-extinguishing 

swinging lid waste cans for solvent wipe operations where epoxy is not present. We ask 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. Note that solvent-containing wipes 

using the management practices listed above are limited to approximately 1 – 1.5 grams of solvent per wipe, with much of the 

solvent being transferred to the metal part during the cleaning process.

Docket Number - 364

Comment Key - 1267

Submitted by - Carol Johnson 

Comment Text:

Please rewrite the rule to make sure that:

-Contaminated materials are transported in secure containers that won’t expose workers to harmful chemicals.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1486

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council

Comment Text:

The solvent soaked rags could be shipped in things like plastic bags, cloth bags, wraps, even paper bags which obviously can be 

pierce and allow accumulated solvent to be released. And the solvent rags could go to landfills or municipal incinerators. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1489

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

After the material is picked up, it’s going to be transported and we think all shop towels, solvent soaked shop towels should be 

transported in sealed containers that are appropriate for the type of material that’s being transported. It’s not the cloth or the paper 

rag that’s of concern, obviously. It’s the solvent and the contaminants that have been picked up with the solvent.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1672

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 
123

Comment Text:

We are alarmed by a number of the provisions in the proposed rule which simply do not reflect safe management practices in our 

industry. For example, solvent soaked rags could be accumulated in containers with just a piece of plywood or a piece of 

cardboard put over the top and thereby be deemed a closed container... Under this rule there would be no standards for 

accumulating and storing of these solvent soaked rags to prevent fires, not even something as simple regular inspections of the 

facilities. 

5.1.2. Support Container Regulations as Proposed

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1532

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We concur with EPA's position that the proposed performance standard is sufficient to ensure protection of health and the 

environment. Implementation of the option for closed containers would be economically disadvantageous due to the extra time 

required for both the generator to add wipes to the container and monitor it for free liquid and the handler to check the load 

before transportation and upon arrival at their facility.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 784

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

Under this proposal, generators must transport industrial wipes in containers that are designed, constructed and managed to 

minimize loss to the environment. PING agrees with this proposed requirement. Our materials are currently transported in 

containers that are designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment. In addition, PING utilizes containers 

that meet both OSHA and DOT regulations as well as local Clean Air Act requirements.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 791

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

For transportation of reusable industrial wipes, we are proposing that facilities that transport reusable solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes ... prior to cleaning must do so in containers constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment.

PING agrees with this proposed requirement. Our materials are currently transported in containers that are designed, constructed 

and managed to minimize loss to the environment.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 1667

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

(A) practical reason for allowing generators to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes and retain the exclusion is that “overhandling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emissions. 

Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario would be for the 

operator to use the wipe and drop it into an appropriate container immediately when finished with the job. While additional 

handling at the process, such as “hand-wringing’’ the wipe, may reduce the likelihood of free liquids during transportation, 

unfortunately it may also reduce the amount of solvent to be ultimately recovered. 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. 

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 567

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

Ford supports EPAs performance standard requiring generators to transport industrial wipes in containers designed, constructed, 

and managed to minimize loss to the environment. As EPA identified, there are a variety of container designs in use that could 

meet this standard while minimizing potential impact to the environment. Manufacturers should be able to decide which design 

best suits their particular situation.
124

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 373

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association

Comment Text:

NPCA supports EPA's performance standard approach that allows current methods to be used - specifically containers that meet 

DOT packaging requirements - and plastic or cloth bags that are cinched shut. NPCA recommends that the simplest yet most 

effective approach is for EPA to adopt the Department of Transportation requirements instead of imposing new requirements. 

EPA should merely reference the DOT requirements, since they are already in place and ensure that hazardous materials are not

released to the environment. At the very least, similar to EPA’s approach with the OSHA regulations governing flammable 

materials, EPA should state that generators meeting the DOT requirements for hazardous materials transportation meet the 

transportation requirements under the Proposed Rule.

NPCA does not support EPA’s alternative option of a sealed container for transportation. This option is overly burdensome 

without commensurate benefit to human health and the environment. Again, opening and closing a sealed container every time a 

wipe is added or for a transporter to determine whether the wipes meet the no-free liquids test would actually produce greater 

emissions of the solvents into the air than DOT standard closed containers.

With respect to reusable wipes, NPCA supports EPA’s proposal of no free liquids and covered containers that minimize loss.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1603

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department considers the proposed conditions applicable at handling facilities to be adequate if the wipers are stored in 

closed, impermeable containers. The department also favors a requirement that laundries and dry cleaners receiving reusable 

wipers that do not meet the "no free liquid" exclusion condition notify the state or EPA.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1201

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA support EPA’s proposed flexible, performance-based management conditions for the containers in which 

reusable towels are stored during transportation to and at the laundry facility. The proposed performance-based standards (based 

on “minimizing loss to the environment”) provide industry with the needed flexibility to handle reusable towels in a safe and 

efficient manner. They also will allow the industry to continue to use the different techniques and equipment (such as cinching 

plastic or cloth collection bags) that have demonstrated effectiveness in protecting worker health. (See above discussion of truck 

driver’s safe exposure to solvents in Section V1.B).

In the past, EPA has considered requiring sealed container requirements to address the potential that free liquids could spill 

during transportation on public highways. This concern would only be valid if individual trucks transporting reusable shop towels 

contained substantial quantities of hazardous solvents in the form of free liquids such that an accident could result in substantial 

contamination. Such a scenario is totally implausible. First, States already require that reusable shop towels contain no free 

liquids. Second, even assuming that this requirement is not fully complied with in all circumstances, the quantity of “free liquids” 

that could realistically spill in a worst case scenario could hardly result in contamination requiring hazardous remedial activity. 

Third, EPA plans on finalizing a “no free liquids” test that will further minimize any concerns that a transportation accident could 

result in any spill or release. Once “free liquids” are effectively removed at the point of generation (pursuant to existing State 

regulations and any new federal mandates), there is no threat of environmental contamination and therefore no basis to impose

“closed container” requirements.

Closed containers also will not reduce solvent volatilization. They would only change the location. The solvents that would 

volatilize during transport would also volatilize during processing. Thus, there would be no net reduction in VOC releases 

resulting from sealed containerization.

The mandatory use of sealed containers will actually make it more difficult for laundries to enforce a no free liquids condition 

vis-a-vis their customers and transporters. Laundries need the flexibility to access and closely scrutinize all shop towels they are 

receiving to ensure that they do not contain free liquids or other potentially hazardous wastes. Drivers and route salesmen picking 

up soiled shop towels are easily able to see whether towels are wet and/or dripping by visually inspecting the cloth bags. Bags 

that appear to contain wet towels are left with the customer for further processing. Sealed containers for the towels will preclude 

this visual examination and could require towels or solvents to be handled and transported twice, at greater risk to the 
125

environment. Hence, a sealed container mandate could expose laundries to greater enforcement liability by limiting their ability 

to self-police their operations.

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

on laundries that frequently operate under tight space constraints both with regards to the transportation and on-site storage of 

reusable shop towel containers. The use of drums or fiber packs would substantially increase the floor space requirements in 

laundry facilities and could require laundries to redesign their shop towel unloading and on-site transportation systems. Certainly 

there would be the cost of the drums themselves ($20-$40 each), but these costs would be negligible in comparison to the other 

costs laundries would be forced to incur -- costs that could not be passed on to customers. Many plants do not have the space and 

are not designed to handle drums efficiently. Accumulation and storage of the drums in these facilities would be difficult at best. 

It would be expensive for these plants to expand their facilities, assuming they even have sufficient real estate for expansion. 

Many plants are located in older buildings in developed areas of cities and lack space or land to expand their facilities. 

Redesigning an existing plant's operations to accommodate drums would be economically prohibitive.

Trucks are designed to handle textiles in a number of different ways and are sized for the specific routes they are assigned, thus 

maximizing efficiency. As a result, there is little to no extra space. Requiring shop towels to be transported in drums would

require either larger route trucks or shortening existing routes and adding new routes to accommodate the additional space needed 

for the drums. Laundries would face increased costs to purchase larger trucks for the same route or to purchase more trucks and 

added labor for additional routes, since the existing routes would have to be shortened. Typical route trucks are 12 to 16 feet long 

and cost between $30,000 and $50,000 each. Additional compensation costs could run $34,220 annually per additional route 

supervisor. There also would be additional training costs involved. In addition, EPA observed during plant visits in 1998 that 

there is insufficient space in existing trucks to hang uniforms above drums without the uniforms touching the drums. This could 

result in poorer quality products for customers due to wrinkles and stains that would be unacceptable for laundries and customers 

alike. Moreover, heavy drums would require the existing and new trucks to be fitted with lift gates.

Shorter routes would result in lower salaries for route salespeople. This would present a particularly difficult situation in plants 

with unions and may necessitate new contract talks. Within the laundries, use of drums would present handling problems also. 

Workers required to handle the drums would be at greater risk for on-the-job injuries. This could result in higher worker 

compensation and insurance costs for laundries and greater employee absences due to on- the-job injuries. This, in turn, would 

result in higher labor costs, including the need to hire more employees. Training costs would increase as laundries attempt to 

reduce risk of the exposure of employees handling drums.

Specifying drums as the only acceptable closed container would result in dramatically higher costs for laundries while limiting 

needed flexibility. The perceived benefits gained by such a requirement are negligible in comparison to the costs. Additionally, 

because over 90 percent of the laundry industry consists of small businesses, and the cost increase involved with using sealed 

containers would be substantial, the benefits and cost impacts would have to be evaluated pursuant to SBREFA if EPA were to 

impose a sealed container requirement. 

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 773

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Under EPA’s proposed regulation, both reusable and disposable industrial wipes must be packaged in containers that are 

“designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment” for shipment off-site, whether to a disposal facility, 

industrial laundry or dry cleaner, or an intermediate handling facility. Phelps Dodge supports this proposal.

Again, EPA has chosen to set a flexible performance standard in place of rigid technical specifications for the containers used to 

transport industrial wipes off-site. As discussed above, this standard allows generators (and others handling industrial wipes) to 

effectively manage the industrial wipes at minimal cost. As long as the containers meet this standard, human health and the 

environment are not at risk.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 774

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

EPA states that it is also considering impermeable, closed containers as an alternative option, where closed means sealed. Phelps 

Dodge objects to this alternative because it is burdensome and unnecessary to protect human health and the environment. EPA 

has already concluded that solvent-contaminated wipes pose little risk. Therefore, requiring these materials to be transported in 

containers that are impermeable and sealed is overkill. As long as the containers are designed to minimize loss to the 

environment, the environment is safe from the minimal risk a leak of these materials impose. Requiring impermeable, closed 

containers adds nothing significant to the protection of human health and the environment, but adds significantly to the cost and 
126

complexity of environmental compliance.

Phelps Dodge supports EPA’s flexible standard for containers used to transport industrial wipes as it is presently proposed.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 625

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Containers designed to minimize loss to the environment should be used for transportation. The option for sealed containers is 

unreasonable. The sealed containers would require significantly more labor to handle by both the generator and the laundry. 

Additionally a sealed container will prevent a handler from checking for free liquids prior to transportation. The proposed closed

condition is sufficient. All wipes should be handled alike for consistency, whether they contain more or less than 5 grams of

solvent. 

5.2. Labeling

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 7

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

This proposal will allow industries to neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who

handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by facilities that generate the toxics.

Docket Number - 191

Comment Key - 98

Submitted by - of The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA) 

Comment Text:

CSHEMA supports the option of no RCRA-specific labeling condition for containers of disposable solvent-contaminated wipes. 

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. The difficulty in maintaining compliance with such specific requirements is 

evidenced by EPA’s own inconsistency: on page 65597 of the preamble, the Agency refers to the term “Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes”, whereas in the proposed regulatory text the term “Exempt Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” is used (40 CFR 

261.4(b)(19)(III), page 65619). Personnel that use wipes cannot reasonably be expected to have sufficient regulatory knowledge 

to identify whether wipes are “excluded” or “exempt”. CSHEMA suggests that while it is appropriate for EPA to require facilities 

generating excluded wipes to label the containers in a manner that clearly identifies the contents, EPA should not continue to 

attempt to prescribe specific wording under RCRA. 

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1412

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

While a labeling requirement may not be necessary, MADEP is also not opposed to a requirement that would describe whether or 

not the wipes are saturated, non-saturated, wrung out, etc. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1533

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We strongly feel that the proposed labeling is appropriate for disposable solvent contaminated wipes. 

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 525

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Eliminate the need to separate and label non-laundered wipes

-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. 
127

-Separating and storing wipes has more of a potential for spontaneous combustion than if the wipes are mixed with other trash

-When non-laundered wipes are discarded they will end up in the back of a trash truck never to be handled by humans again and 

therefore labeling is not necessary.

-If EPA determines that labels are necessary for some reason that I cannot understand, those labels should be required for 

laundered wipes as well. Laundered wipes are handled several times by human hands both on the transportation vehicle and at the 

laundry facility.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 817

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports imposing no specific requirements for labeling of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes during 

transportation. 

EPA, later in this proposed rule, does not require labeling for reusable wipes because “laundries have agreements with their 

customers and already know what is in the containers of wipes that arrive.” The same thought process should be applied to 

disposable wipes. If sent to a treatment/storage/disposal facility (TSDF), the waste will be subject to the contractual requirements 

for the waste-specific “profile”. If sent for disposal in a municipal landfill, the generator must first obtain a special waste 

authorization for industrial waste. The special waste authorization will include any required specifications for containers and 

labels as necessary for the solid waste authority to manage the waste in a manner compatible with the disposal facility’s 

construction and its permit requirements. By specifying language to use on the label of a container of disposable solventcontaminated wipes, the EPA will be imposing an unnecessary burden on the generator. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 838

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Labeling [when transporting to handlers] is also unnecessary because contractual arrangements between the generator and the 

laundry will result in pertinent knowledge of the reusable wipes.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1096

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

First, CTDEP believes that a labeling requirement is necessary, in order to allow identification of containers by emergency 

response personnel during traffic accidents, and by the motor carrier inspectors during weigh station inspections. This is 

especially relevant due to the fact that the proposed rule contains no requirements to use manifests or other shipping papers to 

identify the contaminated wipes. With respect to the second issue concerning the exact phrasing of the labeling, CTDEP admits 

that although the proposed term “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” is somewhat wordy and may provoke more questions 

than it answers (e.g., “excluded from what?”), we cannot offer a better alternative.

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1044

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

Shipping containers for reusable shop towels should be labeled as hazardous. As proposed, the regulations would require labels 

on shipping containers with contaminated disposable towels destined for the landfill, but they would exempt containers with 

reusable shop towels destined for an industrial laundry. This makes no sense. If anything, it is more important to label 

contaminated reusable towels as they will be handled by vulnerable workers during and after transit. Moreover, if there is an

accident, public safety workers and the public should know that they may be exposed to towels with hazardous solvents on them.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 663

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC does not support any additional labeling requirement for containers of reusable wipes sent off site for cleaning.
128

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 666

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC is opposed to EPA’s proposed labeling standard. The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Program requires all hazardous materials shipped to be properly labeled and placarded. IPC encourages EPA to 

defer to DOT shipping requirements for proper labeling of these containers.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 668

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

We do not agree with the provision requiring the disposal of wipes in separately labeled containers if the “dry” standard of 5 

grams is met. A stated goal of this proposal is to encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization. The inclusion of a 

separate container and labeling standard for disposable wipes destined to be land filled will inhibit IPC Comments on SolventContaminated Industrial Wipes waste minimization. The 5 gram standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating 

no substantial hazard to human health and the environment. This is confirmed by EPA’s risk screening analysis. To meet this 5

gram standard, EPA is requiring that facilities either utilize high-performance solvent extraction technologies; maintain records 

showing the amount of solvent used per wipe is less than 5 grams; or conduct sampling to ensure the dry standard is met. All are 

rigorous tests designed to ensure that facilities meet the dry standard.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 671

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

We also believe that requiring labeling and separate containers for disposable wipes destined for municipal landfills will create 

unnecessary burden on regulated entities. Facilities using a non-hazardous solvent can simply dispose of their wipes directly into 

the landfill, while at the same time they must label and accumulate in separate containers exempted contaminated wipes having 

met the dry standard. This will create additional regulatory burdens on facilities, especially small entities with limited space and 

resources, attempting to comply with the proposed rule.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 718

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL does not concur that it is desirable to implement a labeling requirement for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes destined 

for disposal. Further, 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.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 592

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC does not support any additional labeling requirement for containers of reusable wipes that are sent off site for 

laundering. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to place a numerical limit on the number of wipes that can be sent off site on an 

annual basis for cleaning. Since not all wipes used in a facility are used in conjunction with solvents for wiping purposes, placing 

a limit on the number of towels based on the assumption that all wipes are used in conjunction with solvents can have an adverse 

impact on the manufacturing process.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 1654

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC agrees with all the provisions proposed by the Agency with the exception of the labeling and separate container 

requirement. The GAC does not see the need for a separate container or a label that identifies the contents of the container. Under 

the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Transportation Program, all hazardous materials shipped must be 

properly labeled and placarded. The GAC encourages the Agency to defer to DOT shipping requirements for the proper labeling 

of these containers. The need to include an additional label is redundant and unnecessary.
129

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1387

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Labeling requirement (proposed 261.4(b)(19)(iii). Since proposed 261.4(b)(19)(viii) requires certain responses when free liquids 

are found in containers at a receiving facility, the labeling requirement should include a provision for information on the identity 

of the generator so that the responsible party can be engaged if the "no free liquids" requirement is violated.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1032

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

There appears to be an inconsistency between the preamble discussion and the proposed regulation in 40 CFR Part 

261.4(b)(19)(iii) regarding the proposed labeling requirement for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes excluded from the 

definition of hazardous waste. The preamble discussion states such containers must be labeled “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated 

Wipes” while the proposed language in 40 CFR Part 261.4(b)(19)(iii) states containers must be labeled “Exempt SolventContaminated Wipes”. Idaho DEQ recommends EPA require such containers to be labeled “Exempt Solvent-contaminated 

Wipes”.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 331

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with EPA's approach requiring the labeling of containers that contain disposable industrial wipes containing 

hazardous solvents. The identity of reusable soiled towels and other merchandise is known throughout the process of pick up, 

transportation, storage and laundering, and the towels remain within a controlled environment at all times. However, soiled 

disposable wipes may, and likely will, be handled by many different individuals from the time of use to the time of disposal.

Labeling containers of soiled disposable wipes would provide a universal means of identification and eliminate potential 

questions during transportation and at any receiving facility on the type(s) of materials in the containers.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 345

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees that labeling should not be required for reusable towels since existing procedures at industrial laundries 

necessitate the identification of all soiled goods at all times. Additional labeling would be redundant, place unnecessary burden 

on the generator and laundry and could be confusing, thereby defeating the intent of the requirement.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 534

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Section V.B.4. of the preamble discusses the proposed labeling requirement for containers used to transport disposable wipes. 

The proposal requires marking containers with "Excluded Solvent Contaminated Wipes." We suggest providing more flexibility 

by allowing the use of this phrase or an equivalent phrase, such as "excluded solvent-contaminated rags," "wipes contaminated 

with toluene," 'excluded rags contaminated with solvents," etc. To this point, note that the language in EPA's proposed rule states 

that containers must be labeled "Exempt Solvent-Contaminated Wipes" but the preamble language in Section V.B.4. reads 

"Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes." We also suggest that containers used to transport reusable industrial wipes be subject 

to the same labeling requirement.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 363

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

At the very least, if over NPCA objection, EPA adopts the “the dry standard” for disposables destined for the landfill, additional 

labeling and container requirements are still not necessary. In fact, it will again discourage solvent recycling and reuse. Simply 
130

put, once the dry standard has been met, the disposable towels should be allowed direct disposal into the landfill without other 

burdensome labeling and container storage requirements.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 375

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Disposable wipes destined for non-landfill disposal must also be labeled “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” NPCA 

disagrees that wipes excluded from the definition of hazardous waste should have to bear a label stating such. NPCA does not 

believe labeling is necessary. Again, EPA need merely refer to existing OSHA and DOT requirements in order to ensure that the

containers will be labeled and handled appropriately to minimize release to the environment and protect workers. Adding 

additional and confusing labeling will not serve to minimize risk further. NPCA finds it ironic that EPA states in the preamble 

that a “labeling condition would not add significant burden as existing regulatory programs administered by EPA, DOT and 

OSHA already prescribe labeling requirements for containers, both in storage and transportation.”’ Thus, EPA recognizes that the 

sheer number of labeling requirements imposed on industry from numerous Federal Agencies is significant. Therefore, additional 

labeling under this rulemaking is wholly unwarranted. In addition, it is inconsistent for EPA to require labeling for disposable 

and intra-company transfers but not for reusable wipes, as discussed below. Therefore, NPCA supports EPA’s alternative option 

to not impose a specific labeling condition since this option both provides constancy with DOT regulations and provides 

protection to the environment.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1018

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule should be revised to require generators to mark containers as toxic, ignitable, flammable and/or combustible, 

as applicable. This will provide downstream transporters and handlers with relevant information about the hazards posed by the 

contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 481

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

The Agency is proposing that containers be labeled with the words “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” As the Agency 

discussed there are already labeling requirements under OSHA and DOT. To add another labeling on the container would be 

unnecessary, burdensome and could be confusing to persons at the generating facility. Such labeling alongside required OSHA 

labeling could be confusing those not intimately aware of the intent of the labels from each agency. The Agency expressed the

need for the “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” wording based on a concern for confusing facilities receiving these 

materials. I suggest that wipes shipments require a shipping paper (any format used by the shipper or receiver would be 

acceptable) and that the shipping paper contain the “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” wording. 

Docket Number - 342

Comment Key - 519

Submitted by - D.W. Coleman of Energy Northwest 

Comment Text:

We believe the proposed labeling condition for disposable wipes (p. 65597, lst col.) is sufficient. However, we note that EPA has 

not explicitly excluded the commingling of solvent contaminated wipes with nonhazardous wastes in the same container. A label

requirement makes it implicit that other types of wastes are not to be placed in the container.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 557

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

An aspect of the proposal that FPA strongly disagrees, with is the requirement in proposed 261.4(a))(19)(iii) for used industrial 

wipes to be segregated and labeled as “Exempt Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” in order to be disposed of at municipal waste 

landfills or other non-hazardous waste landfills. FPA feels that these conditions are wholly unsupported for used rags, which EPA 

has concluded do not pose risks to the environment or to public health in this rulemaking. The associated costs of special 

accumulation containers and placarding, also have not been evaluated in the rulemaking. These costs are not insignificant 

regulatory obstacles to implementing the reforms, particularly for small operators (of which there are hundreds in the Segregation 

and Labeling of Containers Sent To Landfills flexible packaging industry) who even under the current regime, do not handle 
131

wastes this way. Disposable wipes that meet the “dry” condition will pose no harm if they are directly discarded into the solid 

waste dumpster, just like any other nonhazardous solid waste. Providing special, labeled containers adds cost, and does not 

provide any additional benefit, to the environment. In fact, the volume of waste disposed into the landfill is increased by the 

addition of the special container. In addition, we believe that receipt of placarded containers at municipal or other landfills will 

cause an unnecessary level of concern by the public and landfill operators who will likely assume there is an environmental risk 

associated with this waste stream because it is required to be specially containerized. Since landfill operators will treat the used 

rags the same as other non-hazardous waste the proposal is particularly unreasonable. 

For these reasons, FPA hopes that EPA will reevaluate the necessity for segregation and/or special labeling of industrial wipes 

that meet the proposed “dry” condition and delete “sub-sub” paragraph (iii) from the subparagraph 19.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1209

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Labeling Requirements for Shop Towels Are Unnecessary.

EPA is entirely correct in not proposing a labeling requirement for the transportation of reusable shop towels. Through long-term, 

existing business practices, enhanced by the customer relationships developed under the Laundry ESP’ program, 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. Labeling would be repetitive and provide no information that is not already known to the laundry 

facility. The commodity-like nature of shop towels, customer relationships, and laundries’ close stewardship over their product 

renders such labeling unnecessary. In contrast, the transporter or disposal facility for disposable wipes does not know what 

hazardous constituents are in the disposed wipes and may not know that the wipes contain solvents at all. In fact, neither a landfill 

nor incinerator would typically have any contact or communication with the entity that applied hazardous solvents to and then

disposed of an industrial wipe. Accordingly, labeling is necessary to ensure that transporters and disposal facilities are aware that 

disposable wipes entering their facilities contain hazardous solvents. 

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 512

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

The Agency has proposed to impose a labeling condition that would require the containers used to transport solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes for disposal to be marked “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” This condition is comparable to the used oil 

designation labeling requirement in 40 CFR Part 279 and is appropriate.

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 199

Submitted by - of Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

Sierra Club believes that labeling of solvent-contaminated wipe would alert workers to potential safety threats. In addition, 

requiring training of workers who come into contact with industrial wipers could help improve compliance with the rules.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 612

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

With respect to proposed labeling conditions, please comment on 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. Also, comment on the 

impacts commingling the non-hazardous waste solvent-contaminated wipe with other non-hazardous solid wastes has on the 

labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 617

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

We strongly feel that the proposed labeling is appropriate for disposable solvent contaminated wipes.
132

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 474

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

The Agency is proposing that containers be labeled with the words “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” As the Agency 

discussed there are already labeling requirements under OSHA and DOT. To add another labeling on the container would be 

unnecessary, burdensome and could be confusing to persons at the generating facility. Such labeling alongside required OSHA 

labeling could be confusing those not intimately aware of the intent of the labels from each agency. The Agency expressed the

need for the “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” wording based on a concern for confusing facilities receiving these 

materials. I suggest that wipes shipments require a shipping paper (any format used by the shipper or receiver would be 

acceptable) and that the shipping paper contain the “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes” wording. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1451

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

First, the Agency has proposed to require that disposal towels destined to be managed at a non landfill disposal facility be labeled 

excluded solvent contaminated wipes. We disagree with the imposition of this requirement. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation requires that all hazardous materials shipped be properly labeled. Disposal towels that are indeed hazardous 

materials as defined by the U.S. DOT would require a label on the container. If the towels do not require a label, then it indicates 

that the materials are not considered hazardous, i.e. ignitable, corrosive, etc. As the U.S. DOT provides for both labeling of 

combustible as well as flammable materials all disposables that require a label will receive one. 

... Due to this existing regulatory requirement, we do not find the need for an additional US EPA label is justified, nor would it 

provide any information that would not be provided by the US DOT label and shipping paper.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1453

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

Additionally, we do not understand the need to dispose of towels in separately labeled containers if the dry standard of five grams 

is met. As a standard goal of this proposal is to encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization. The inclusion of a 

separate container and labeling standard for disposable towels destined to be land filled will inhibit, not encourage pollution 

prevention. We fail to see the benefit of requiring facilities to take this step when disposing of towels that meet the dry standard. 

This standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating that no substantial hazard to [human] health and the 

environment would be posed as confirmed by the Agency’s risk screening analysis. 

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 754

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

Labeling and transportation requirements should be the same for both laundered and disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 159

Comment Key - 456

Submitted by - Gary Clark of Clark and Associates 

Comment Text:

Labeling and transportation requirements should be the same for both laundered and disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 18

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

...[T]he proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers which do not apply to 

laundered shop towels.
133

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1625

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

In addition, the proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipes that do not 

apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 176

Comment Key - 743

Submitted by - Tom Robertshaw of Motion Industries 

Comment Text:

Labeling and transportation requirements should be the same for both types of products.

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 403

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

The proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to 

laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 186

Comment Key - 421

Submitted by - David Williams of CCP Industries, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[The rule] places labeling and transportation requirements on-disposable wipers that do not apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 1606

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

It [the proposed regulation] also places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to 

laundered shop towels. 

Docket Number - 188

Comment Key - 1608

Submitted by - Robert Dailey of Tranzonic Retail Group 

Comment Text:

It [the proposed rule] also places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to laundered 

shop towels. 

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 1607

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

It [the proposed regulation] also places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to 

laundered shop towels. 

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 1616

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

In addition, the proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers, which do not 

apply to laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 705

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 
134

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1164

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA Has Failed to Justify Its Proposal Not to Impose a Container Labeling Requirement For SSLWs While Proposing One For 

SSNWs.

...EPA’s differential treatment of the labeling issue for SSLWs and SSNWs, and its rationale for that dichotomy, is arbitrary and 

capricious. If labels are viewed by EPA as necessary to indicate the status of the materials in SSNW containers so as to ensure 

their proper handling by the employees of SSNW generators, they are equally necessary for employees of SSLW generators. 

Regardless of the business relationships between SSLW generators and industrial laundries, workers on the shop floors of wipe

generators that are responsible for management of waste materials are not likely to be familiar with those arrangements. In any 

event, if it is important enough for employees of a SSNW generator to know that a container holds SSNWs so that they are 

properly handled subject to the conditions of the exclusion and not as common trash, it is equally important for employees of a 

SSLW generator to have the same information.

Similarly, EPA’s apparent assertion that industrial laundry employees need not be made aware of what is in containers they 

receive in order to ensure proper handling because “sufficient information from business documents exist” rings hollow. EPA 

does not specify what “business documents” are supposed to notify laundry employees responsible for handling incoming 

containers that those containers hold SSLWs subject to specific handling conditions (e.g., inspection for free liquids). Nor does 

EPA explain how, in the absence of labels, these workers are to know whether any specific container among the high volume of 

containers they receive and handle on a daily basis contains SSLWs subject to certain regulatory requirements or other soiled 

materials that are not subject to such requirements. Put another way, in the absence of labels, what is to prevent a laundry 

employee from merely dumping a container of SSLWs containing free liquids into a wiper holding bin rather than inspecting the 

container first to determine if it contains free liquids in the first place? And once free liquids are so dumped and mingle with 

various soiled wipes in the handling bin, how are laundries supposed to comply with the exclusion’s proposed condition of either 

returning free liquids to SSLW generators in the containers in which they arrived, or handling them separately as spent solvent 

hazardous wastes?

In sum, the final rule should either impose a labeling requirement for both SSLW and SSNW containers, or not impose such a 

requirement for either type of container. Of course, if EPA wrongly persists in establishing an exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste for SSLWs, then a labeling requirement would be necessary, for the reasons stated in Section III.B.4.(a) and here, to 

ensure that SSLWs are indeed handled like “commodities”.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1165

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

If EPA decides to establish a labeling requirement for SSLWs and SSNWs, there is no valid justification for treating these two 

types of materials differently. As such, INDA/SMART recommends that any such condition apply equally to both types of 

materials and read as follows: 

“Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported offsite, must be transported in containers labeled “Exempt Solvent-Soiled 

Wipes.” 

INDA/SMART notes that the term “Solvent-Soiled”, rather than “Solvent-Contaminated” (as EPA has proposed), may be viewed 

as less pejorative (but equally effective from the standpoint of EPA’s objectives) and therefore preferable for both SSLWs and 

SSNWs. Therefore, INDA/SMART recommends modifying the proposed language in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(19)(iii)(addressing 

SSNWs).

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 166

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

While new and laundered wipes may be commodity items, used wipes containing hazardous waste solvents are not, and the 

hazardous solvents are discharged to POTWs as part of the wastewater from the laundry facility. Prior to laundering, the 

contaminated wipes present the same hazards that exist for disposable wipes routed to landfills and combustion units. Therefore,
135

the same labeling must be required as a warning to intermediate handlers, workers, and the general public, particularly in the 

event of a transportation incident. In addition, all solvent contaminated wipes must have labels indicating the start accumulation 

time at the point of generation, as well as the generator source and location. This is to provide some traceability to ensure that the 

conditions of the exclusion are enforceable back to the point of generation. Otherwise a container of wipes with free liquids will 

lose its identity at an intermediate handler location or final launderer, making it difficult and perhaps impossible to hold the 

original generator accountable for the loss of the exemption status due to the presence of free solvent.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 29

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

We would also encourage the EPA to eliminate the labeling requirements placed on the non-laundered wipers, or impose similar 

labeling requirements for the laundered shop towels. Only this approach would treat non-laundered wipers equally to the 

treatment of laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 306

Comment Key - 487

Submitted by - Gregory Roscoe of Colbond Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

The proposed version of the rule places labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers which do not apply to 

laundered shop towels.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 1664

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Section V.B.4. of the preamble discusses the proposed labeling requirement for containers used to transport disposable wipes. 

The proposal requires marking containers with "Excluded Solvent Contaminated Wipes." We suggest providing more flexibility 

by allowing the use of this phrase or an equivalent phrase, such as "excluded solvent-contaminated rags," "wipes contaminated 

with toluene," 'excluded rags contaminated with solvents," etc. To this point, note that the language in EPA's proposed rule states 

that containers must be labeled "Exempt Solvent-Contaminated Wipes" but the preamble language in Section V.B.4. reads 

"Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes." We also suggest that containers used to transport reusable industrial wipes be subject 

to the same labeling requirement.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 428

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

CKRC believes that labeling should be required for both reusable and disposable wipes to ensure that employees know what 

chemicals are present and that handlers know what material they are managing. In addition, labeling will ensure that for 

containers sent from a facility to a sister location for further processing, the receiving facility knows which: containers have been 

processed and which have not. Otherwise, un-processed materials may be sent for further handling (laundering or disposal) with 

excessive liquid content.

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 443

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1592

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Regarding marking containers “Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” Our reading leads us to believe that containers 

accumulating or transporting wipes excluded from the definition of hazardous waste to combustion facilities, non-landfill 

disposal facilities, and landfills would require marking. However, containers used to accumulate or transport wipes excluded 

from the definition of solid waste and not being disposed would require no marking. The department fails to see why such a 
136

distinction was proposed. This is even more pronounced when considering that a generator would be allowed to move wipes with 

free liquids between facilities within the same company for liquids removal.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 1618

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should have the same container and labeling requirements.

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1642

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

Moreover, EPA should not require separate containers or labeling for excluded disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1238

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

To prevent releases of hazardous solvents into the environment, it continues to be INDA/SMART’s position that regulatory 

standards related to container labeling and container performance standards be equally applied to both solvent-contaminated 

laundered shop towels and disposable wipes, as follows:

...

-Require that if EPA decides to establish a labeling requirement for disposable wipes and solvent-contaminated laundered shop 

towels, any such condition apply equally to both types of materials.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1460

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

The third and final concern that I would like to raise today has to do with different requirements that EPA has proposed for 

containers used to transport soiled wiping products. INDA contends that it is illogical for EPA to apply different labeling 

requirements to laundered and non-laundered wiping products. We believe these different standards are unnecessarily complex 

and unwarranted. 

5.3. Accumulation

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 984

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facilities that chose to remove free liquids and manage them as hazardous waste 

should be allowed to temporarily accumulate the solvents without having a RCRA hazardous waste permit.

Discussion: The referenced sections of the proposed rule state that “Any liquids removed from the industrial wipes must be 

managed according to the regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270”. Reference to 270 could be 

interpreted to mean that the facility must have a permit or could be interpreted to mean that the facility would need to have a 

permit if accumulation times for generators in 40 CFR 262.34 are exceeded. 

Because the facility removing the solvent meets the definition of generator as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 as the "person... whose 

act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation", it would appear that the facility should be allowed to 

accumulate waste without a permit for 90 days (or 180 if a small quantity generator) per 40 CFR 262.34.

Recommendation: The final rule should clarify that laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facilities that choose to mange solvents 

as hazardous waste become the generator and as such are subject to generator accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 262.34.
137

Docket Number - 240

Comment Key - 1249

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

I do not understand the logic of your decision on regulating shop towels. For example, in the matter over storing the shop towels 

on site in sealed containers, the EPA claims that it is impractical to force the laundries to open and seal the container each time a 

wipe is discarded. But then the EPA claims that thy will use performance standards that allow companies to be innovative in their 

methods for protecting workers against solvents.

Why would any company regulate itself if you won’t? 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1542

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Generators should be required to accumulate wipes in containers that minimize evaporation.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 502

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

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. Additional accumulation time limits 

would be inconsistent with existing recycling exclusions from hazardous waste and subject the generator to unnecessary burdens. 

Shorter accumulation time limits may promote disposal over recycle since economically sized batches for recycle could not be 

accumulated.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1066

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

We suggest that U.S. EPA set a limit on the amount of solvent contaminated wipes that can be accumulated by a generator at any 

one time. The maximum allowable amount of wipes accumulated should be determined considering both the cost of 

transportation and the risk posed from long term storage of solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 814

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

In cases such as manual cleaning of electronic components where disposable wipes typically are not initially saturated with 

solvents, the solvents are used up in the cleaning process. This type of manual process also generates a large number of wipes 

daily. 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. 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 operator makes the decision to dispose of the wipes at shift end, at which time 

container requirements will not impede the industrial process. 

Requiring the container to be covered and non-leaking requires the generator to manage the disposable, solvent-contaminated 

wipes as hazardous waste while on site. This condition assumes the disposable wipes will fail the “no free liquid” or “dry” 

condition, which by definition would require on-site management as hazardous waste and, thus, accumulation in covered, nonleaking containers. The proposed condition, then, takes the position that wipes with no free liquids and “dry” wipes pose the

same on-site risk as saturated, “wet” industrial wipes, which is counter to the underlying position of the proposed action. 

Using on-site storage conditions that adequately protect the environment and employees, “dry” and “no free liquids” wipes have 

the same risks as they do upon disposal. By allowing landfill disposal of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, the proposed rule 

implies risks associated with the industrial wipes are no greater than risks associated with universal waste. Spent wipes meeting 

the proposed conditions of “no free liquid” or “dry” should not have accumulation time limits more restrictive than universal 

waste.
138

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 815

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins also supports accumulation of spent reusable wipes for on-site storage prior to disposal in containers that do not 

expose employees to vapors that exceed the relevant permissible exposure limits, provided the spent wipes also meet the “no free 

liquids” condition. Requiring the container to be covered and non-leaking requires the generator to manage the reusable, solventcontaminated wipes as hazardous waste while on site. This condition assumes the wipes will fail the “no free liquid” condition, 

which by definition would require on-site management as hazardous waste and, thus, accumulation in covered, non-leaking 

containers. The proposed condition, then, takes the position that wipes with no free liquids pose the same on-site risk as saturated, 

“wet” industrial wipes, which is counter to the underlying position of the proposed action.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 832

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports accumulation of reusable wipes for on-site storage prior to disposal in containers that do not expose 

employees to vapors that exceed the relevant permissible exposure limits, provided the spent wipes also meet the “no free 

liquids” condition.

Rockwell Collins believes that the risks associated with storing and accumulating solvent-contaminated reusable wipes are the 

same as storing and accumulating solvent-contaminated disposable wipes. Solvent-contaminated reusable wipes should have the 

same initial storage and accumulation requirements as disposable wipes. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 834

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Recordkeeping requirements to rebut speculative accumulation are unnecessarily burdensome for a commodity that does not 

meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1084

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Disposable Wipes would not be subject to speculative accumulation requirements. It is an established general principle of RCRA 

that speculative accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) and 261.2(c)(4) only apply to secondary materials that, but for 

their over-accumulation, would otherwise be exempt from the definition of solid waste. Therefore, while launderable wipes 

would be subject to these provisions under the proposed rule, disposable wipes would not. As a result, launderable wipes would 

have effective limits on over- accumulation, whereas disposable wipes would not. This is a serious problem with the proposed 

rule, in that it actually makes disposable wipes less highly regulated than launderable wipes, and provides no avenue for 

enforcement action should an implementing agency find disposable wipes that are being over-accumulated.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 160

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

Without reasonable safeguards on storage practices and accumulation times, there will be no incentive for generators to move 

contaminated wipes to treatment or final disposal. This will result in greater risk of spills, releases and fires. The underlying goal 

of RCRA is to prevent adverse incidents and environmental damage by requiring proper control of hazardous waste. Even though 

local Fire Codes and OSHA standards in many cases predated RCRA, substantial damage cases still resulted from 

mismanagement of industrial waste. RCRA picked up where OSHA and Fire Codes left off, filling in gaps to ensure that 

hazardous waste is controlled at the generator’s site. 

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. These standards should include labeling with starting accumulation times indicated to ensure 

enforceability. 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. 
139

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 255

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

(A) practical reason for allowing generators to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes and retain the exclusion is that “overhandling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emissions. 

Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario would be for the 

operator to use the wipe and drop it into an appropriate container immediately when finished with the job. While additional 

handling at the process, such as “hand-wringing’’ the wipe, may reduce the likelihood of free liquids during transportation, 

unfortunately it may also reduce the amount of solvent to be ultimately recovered. 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. 

Docket Number - 318

Comment Key - 560

Submitted by - Frank Nesbihal of FPL Group 

Comment Text:

EPA is proposing to establish a storage time limit for disposable wipes, at a generating facility, so they cannot be kept on-site 

indefinitely without management. This condition would be that solvent-contaminated disposable wipes being accumulated at the 

generator under the conditions proposed must also follow the accumulation time limits in 40 CFR 262.34 that are applicable for 

their generator category (i.e., 90 days for LQG’s and 180 days for SQG’s). However, the proposed rule and the regulatory 

language are not clear on whether all the regulations regarding storage time limits specified in 40 CFR 262.34 apply. Specifically, 

the satellite accumulation regulations outlined in 40 CFR 262.34(c). FPL Group believes managing disposable solvent- or 

chemical-contaminated wipes and shop towels under the satellite accumulation regulations would continue to address EPA’s 

concern of having proper management. FPL Group is asking EPA for clarification on this issue.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1598

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department agrees that requiring wipers that will be managed at a laundering facility be stored and transported in closed

containers. Additionally, the requirement that speculative accumulation apply is valid. If a generator were to make use of the 

exclusion, he/she will need to maintain some form of record keeping to be able to demonstrate compliance with the exclusion. 

There is no need to add additional regulatory language for this requirement as it is adequately addressed at 40 CFR 26 1.2f. The 

department does not view relying solely on OSHA regulations as providing sufficient protection to human health. OSHA 

standards are not enforceable at a large class of wiper users, namely federal, state, and local governments.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 940

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be managed in closed containers during accumulation. The proposed performance 

standard for covering containers is not adequate to prevent unnecessary volatilization and exposure to solvent vapors.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 948

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks posed by indefinite stockpiling of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 

which are stored in lieu of disposal. There are no restrictions in the proposed rule to prevent storage in lieu of disposal.

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 479

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

In general I agree with the proposed exclusion which would eliminate the accumulation time. However I also understand the 

concern for wipes being stored for inordinate periods of time which may ultimately present a hazard to the workplace. A 90-day 

or 180-day limit, such as in current RCRA regulations would be an unnecessary economic burden and potentially encourage the 
140

use of disposable wipes.

A 90-day or 180-day limit may be an economic burden for the standpoint of accumulation time since some facilities may need to 

store for longer periods of time to collect enough for transportation. I suggest that the Agency review information it has on the 

typical Laundry service pick-up periods. For wipes that must be disposed through incineration, fuel burning or landfilling 

extended storage times are also appropriate to accommodate economic shipments. Therefore, if the Agency believes some storage

time limit should be applied, I suggest a period of one (1) year. Given that wipes would meet either the “dry” or “no drip 

criteria”, storage for this period of time would not represent a danger to the environment. 

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 239

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

In order to be eligible for the exclusions provided for in this proposal, solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be 

accumulated in non-leaking, covered containers. This seems to be a reasonable requirement. However, in the middle column of 

page 65595, EPA notes that the alternative would otherwise be full RCRA control under Subpart I requiring ‘that containers be 

closed (i.e. sealed) during accumulation. Alcoa believes that the parenthetical addition of sealed in the quote above does not 

accurately represent the state of the Subpart I criteria requiring closed containers during accumulation. To set more stringent 

management controls comparable to a sealed standard on VOC containing materials (under which many solvent-contaminated 

wipes would likely qualify), EPA established the Subpart CC regulations for accumulation and management in containers (40 

CFR 264.1086(c)/265.1087(c)). These regulations prescribe requirements for the use of certain types of containers, container 

sealing devices, and the times at which and how those devices must be in placed on the container. 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 notice.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 267

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG also agrees with EPA's proposal to defer to Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA") regulations on workplace 

safety for the proper storage of solvent- contaminated wipes on site at a generator's facility. The 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.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 610

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

On page 65595 of the proposed exclusion, EPA states “Generators would not need to seal, secure, or close the container every 

time a wipe is placed inside; rather, they would only need ensure that the container was covered”. We believe the requirement to 

place the cover on the container for each wipe needs to allow some flexibility for situations where this is not practical. For 

instance, a process where wipes are used to clean low-VOC epoxy materials from metal parts in an assembly environment has 

presented problems where the epoxy interferes with the cover. While it isn’t the intent to get the epoxy on the cover, when an 

employee places wipes in the disposal container several times per minute it is difficult to keep the epoxy off the cover. 

Eventually, the epoxy inhibits the covers ability to close. Closed containers, such as self-extinguishing swing lid containers, have 

proven unacceptable for the disposal of solvent-containing wipes used for disposal of epoxy wipes because the epoxy is very 

messy, and when a small amount touches the lid it renders the lid useless. In practice, the operator puts a lid on the container 

when not actively wiping epoxy-containing parts. Operators at one company represented by IEA place wipes into a container 

several times per minute while cleaning epoxy from the metal parts. To minimize solvent emissions from the wipes the company 

uses smaller wipes and solvent dispensers that limit the amount of solvent dispensed. The same company uses self-extinguishing 

swinging lid waste cans for solvent wipe operations where epoxy is not present. We ask 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. Note that solvent-containing wipes 

using the management practices listed above are limited to approximately 1 – 1.5 grams of solvent per wipe, with much of the 

solvent being transferred to the metal part during the cleaning process.

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 471

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 
141

Comment Text:

In general I agree with the proposed exclusion which would eliminate the accumulation time. However I also understand the 

concern for wipes being stored for inordinate periods of time which may ultimately present a hazard to the workplace. A 90-day 

or 180-day limit, such as in current RCRA regulations would be an unnecessary economic burden and potentially encourage the 

use of disposable wipes.

A 90-day or 180-day limit may be an economic burden for the standpoint of accumulation time since some facilities may need to 

store for longer periods of time to collect enough for transportation. I suggest that the Agency review information it has on the 

typical Laundry service pick-up periods. For wipes that must be disposed through incineration, fuel burning or landfilling 

extended storage times are also appropriate to accommodate economic shipments. Therefore, if the Agency believes some storage

time limit should be applied, I suggest a period of one (1) year. Given that wipes would meet either the “dry” or “no drip 

criteria”, storage for this period of time would not represent a danger to the environment. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1484

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

We are alarmed by a number of the provisions in the proposed rule which simply do not reflect safe management practices in our 

industry. For example, solvent soaked rags could be accumulated in containers with just a piece of plywood or a piece of 

cardboard put over the top and thereby be deemed a closed container... Under this rule there would be no standards for 

accumulating and storing of these solvent soaked rags to prevent fires, not even something as simple regular inspections of the 

facilities. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1488

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

Under the proposed rule, solvent rags could be accumulated for an indefinite period of time at the generator site, no limitations on 

the amount of time of storage or the type of facility that could retain the stored materials. And we think that’s just not good 

management practice for this kind of waste material. We recommend that the rule first of all distinguish between accumulation 

and storage which it doesn’t do. While shop rags are being accumulated we can see the practical need for the worker’s to be able 

to put the rags in some sort of a bin or container with a lid that is secure but not sealed tight. Obviously you need that practical 

flexibility. But once the drums or the bins, whatever container is being used are filled and the material is going to be stored, 

waiting, picked up and transported, we think the material 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 aren’t leaking or that they don’t pose some kind of a fire hazard. 

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 986

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: It is not appropriate to establish an accumulation time limit for wipes which are not hazardous waste. 

Discussion: On page 65596, Column 1, last paragraph, EPA requests comment on the option of adding an accumulation time 

limit to the accumulation condition. The preamble states that general prohibitions against speculative accumulation are 

applicable, so that already imposes some limitation on the amount of wipes that can be accumulated for recycling in a given year. 

Adding a “1-year,” “90-day,” or any other limitation does not appear to be necessary. Additionally, EPA already believes that 

speculative accumulation should not be a concern for reusable wipes since those wipes should travel frequently between user and 

laundry services.

For disposable wipes, the potential for excess accumulation of solid wastes could occur, but that is no different than other solid 

wastes (e.g., tires, industrial trash, etc.). If there are no accumulation time limits for other solid wastes under RCRA-D, then there 

should be none imposed for disposable wipes. If EPA intends to offer regulatory relief for solvent wipes, then the minimum of 

administrative burdens should be imposed. 

The whole premise for this proposal is that wipes do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Since 40 

CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(iv)(B) of the proposal bans certain solvents from municipal landfills, the remaining solvents that are allowable 

in municipal landfills have already been determined to pose minimal risk. 

Recommendation: Leave proposal as is, without inclusion of an accumulation time limit.
142

Docket Number - 191

Comment Key - 89

Submitted by - of The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA) 

Comment Text:

CSHEMA does not support the option of adding an accumulation time limit for reusable or disposable wipes. Vendors typically 

charge a premium for recycling and recovery of small numbers of wipes. Given the low number of wipes generated daily at a 

typical campus, an accumulation time limit would provide an economic disincentive for the use of reusable wipes and contradict 

EPA’s stated intent of encouraging pollution prevention. CSHEMA supports the option of requiring facilities generating wipes 

destined for landfills to maintain the wipes in containers that meet OSHA standards, in lieu of an accumulation time limit. 

Maintaining consistency with existing regulations will minimize confusion while providing required levels of protection for 

human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1411

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

Because small businesses with less than twenty employees predominate in Massachusetts and generate spent wipes in small 

quantities at a given time, MADEP has not observed large quantities of solvent-contaminated wipes accumulating at generator 

facilities. Since MADEP’s policy encourages conversion of regulated hazardous waste wipes to non-regulated wipes without free 

liquids, thereby preventing generators from potentially acting in a higher generator status and in noncompliance with other 

RCRA regulations, MADEP does not see a need for an additional time limit for accumulation of non-exempt wipes on which the 

RCRA regulations already place accumulation time limits at generator facilities. Municipal and State fire prevention codes may 

adequately regulate storage of wipes that would be exempt from RCRA.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 501

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed that disposable solvent-contaminated wipes be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste and be 

classified as solid waste provided certain management standards are met. Placing a time limit on accumulation would be 

inconsistent with existing regulatory requirements for solid waste. The generation rates for wipes vary widely from facility to 

facility and imposing a time limit would be an unnecessary burden on the facilities with low generation rates.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 298

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s 90-day and 180-day accumulation time limits under consideration for wipes are not necessary, and would be inconsistent 

with other non-hazardous waste management standards.

Reusable wipes excluded from the definition of solid waste do not need a specific accumulation time limit as part of this 

rulemaking because they will be subject to the speculative accumulation provisions, as is the case with other materials that are 

excluded from the definition of solid waste under RCRA when recycled.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1073

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

No maximum time limit is specified for the accumulation of reusable solvent contaminated wipes. However, the speculative 

accumulation provision, 40 CFR 261.1, is applicable to the accumulation of the wipes. Ohio EPA concurs with this approach.

It is not necessary to specify a maximum time limit for the accumulation of reusable wipes. This is because, generally, the use 

and cleaning of the wipes are covered by a contractual agreement between the generator and the laundry that includes a specified 

schedule for pickup of soiled wipes and delivery of laundered wipes. Further, a generator is charged a fee for each wipe that is 

not returned to the laundry.
143

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 813

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports accumulation of spent disposable wipes for on-site storage prior to disposal without an accumulation 

time limit in containers that do not expose employees to vapors that exceed the relevant permissible exposure limits, provided the 

spent wipes also meet the “no free liquids” or “dry” conditions.

Rockwell Collins believes that the risks associated with storing and accumulating solvent-contaminated disposable wipes are the 

same as storing and accumulating solvent-contaminated reusable wipes. Solvent-contaminated disposable wipes should have the 

same initial storage and accumulation requirements as reusable wipes.

Docket Number - 268

Comment Key - 341

Submitted by - Patricia McCullough of Northeast Utilities System 

Comment Text:

EPA has requested comment on whether additional management standards, such as accumulation time limits and recordkeeping 

requirements should be added to the rule. NUSCO suggests that these additional requirements are unnecessary.

Similar to the “dry” condition, requiring solvent-contaminated wipes to meet specific accumulation time limits and recordkeeping 

requirements would unnecessarily limit the benefits of the rule. If disposable wipes are excluded from the definition of 

“hazardous waste,” it seems to reason that they should also be excluded from strict hazardous waste management requirements. 

Also, if the intent of the exclusion is to remove unwarranted management and disposal standards, then prescriptive time limits 

and recordkeeping requirements are also unnecessary. Additionally, requiring wipes to be managed under strict accumulation 

time limits would penalize small quantity generators by forcing them to incur the added cost of frequently shipping small 

amounts of non-hazardous wipes off site. This would also create a disincentive for waste minimization.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 659

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC opposes establishment of an accumulation time limit for either disposable or reusable wipes. In the proposed rule, EPA seeks 

comment on the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.106. This regulation, promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), applies to the storage of flammable and combustible liquids. Traditionally, used wipes are placed in 

safety cans or other containers that meet OSHA requirements while in the manufacturing area. We do not believe any further 

regulatory language need be included to address this issue.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 783

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

Under the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste, there would be no limit on accumulation time of wipes under federal 

regulations if the accumulation condition is being met-that is, the wipes are kept in a non-leaking covered container. PING agrees 

with this proposed requirement, as it is consistent with current EPA regulations (e.g. non-hazardous wastes are not regulated by 

an accumulation time limitation). We do not believe that the lack of an accumulation time limit would provide an incentive for 

the improper management of this waste stream. For example, interior storage of these materials prior to disposal is influenced by 

physical space limitations. We are capable of storing a limited number of drums prior to transportation. Outdoor storage of these 

materials is impracticable due to other regulatory schemes (e.g. storm water protection).

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 716

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL is largely involved in research and development and science and technology. Through the conduct of these activities, 

LANL is a large quantity generator and a treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility. Even so, it was determined that LANL 

only generated a total of 252 kilograms (kg) of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes for disposal in a calendar year. Of this total, 

only 104 kg of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes would be eligible for exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste as 

proposed in this rule. In lieu of this relatively small amount of waste and if the proposed rule is finalized, there would be
144

additional incentive to dispose of the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in a timely manner. Thus, an accumulation condition 

would not be warranted.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 590

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC opposes establishment of accumulation time limit for either disposable or reusable wipes. If the goal of the regulation 

is to simplify requirements and exclude properly managed industrial wipes from the burdens associated with the hazardous waste 

regulations, limiting accumulation time will be counter to that goal. Traditionally, within the industry, shop wipes are removed 

from the shop floor on a daily basis and reusables are subsequently picked up by the launderer on a weekly basis. Disposables 

that are currently considered a hazardous waste must be shipped out under the time frames that are specified by the regulation. 

Those disposables that will qualify under this exemption will now be included in the regular shipments of solid waste, which 

typically occurs on a weekly basis. 

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 565

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

There should be no limits on accumulation time since the waste would no longer be considered RCRA hazardous. Specific 

accumulation time limits would add an unnecessary administrative burden to the wipe management process without any 

incremental benefit to the environment.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 336

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with EPA's approach that accumulation standards should not be imposed on reusable towels stored at the 

generator’s facility. As previously discussed, since the towels are treated by the laundry industry as a commodity and represent 

value, the towels are consistently inventoried and accounted for, typically weekly and seldom less than every other week. As a 

result, there is little risk of prolonged accumulation at the generator’s facility.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 1656

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK believes EPA must clearly define the appropriate transportation requirement for disposable wipes meeting the “dry” 

standard to eliminate any ambiguity and subjective interpretation. Reusable towels are typically handled by one industrial laundry 

under contract for an extended period of time with a customer. The handling processes are well defined and any discrepancies are 

readily noted and resolved. The presence of non-exempt wastes will be apparent to industrial laundries. In contrast, soiled 

disposable wipes may be handled by different transporters and be shipped to various disposal facilities with differing handling 

practices. Transportation standards would impose consistency in identification, labeling and handling of towels designated as

”Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.” It should also be noted that it might be difficult to label containers that are not 

designed of impermeable materials.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 922

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

There should not be a requirement limiting accumulation time; if these materials are going to be classified as non-solid waste, 

then they should not be subject to some of the same type of restrictions and requirements as hazardous waste. 

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 372

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA also supports the Proposed Rule's approach to accumulation. Since these wipes would not be considered hazardous waste 

while being managed under the exclusion, specific accumulation times are unwarranted. Again, as long as the wipes are being 
145

managed in a covered, non-leaking container, human health and the environment are being protected. Allowing for longer 

accumulation times, and in this case not limiting the accumulation times, allows facilities to gather enough wipes to make pickup 

and disposal economical, as opposed to paying for shipping small quantities of these materials. Thus, NPCA does not support 

EPA's alternate option to limit accumulation times to 90 or 180 days, as currently done for hazardous wastes under RCRA, 

depending upon the generator status of the facility. This option would subject facilities to excessive shipping fees since they

would have to ship many small quantities of disposable rags, instead of managing bulk one-time shipments, with no benefit to 

human health or the environment. There should be no time limit on accumulating wipes if EPA wants to promote solvent 

recycling and reuse.

Lastly, NPCA supports EPA's deference to already established OSHA regulations. If generators meet the OSHA standard for 

flammable liquids they will meet the accumulation and storage conditions under the Proposed Rule. With respect to storage of 

used reuseable wipes, NPCA recommends that EPA not use the speculative accumulation provisions since existing contracts with 

laundering services will 'ensure that wipes and rags will be picked up and laundered on a regular basis.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 386

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

U.S. EPA specified no maximum time limit for the accumulation of reusable solvent contaminated wipes. A majority of the Task 

Force members concur with this approach. It is not necessary to specify a maximum time limit for the accumulation of reusable

wipes. This is because, generally, the use and cleaning of the wipes are covered by a contractual agreement between the generator 

and the laundry that includes a specified schedule for pickup of soiled wipes and delivery of laundered wipes. Further, a 

generator is charged a fee for each wipe that is not returned to the laundry. 

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1591

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department views the accumulation of spent reusable solvent contaminated industrial wipes in non-leaking, RCRA-closed 

containers at a generator’s facility as an acceptable accumulation practice. The department does not believe the addition of an 

accumulation time limit is necessary to allow accumulation of spent solvent contaminated wipers if there is no free liquid allowed 

in the accumulation container.

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 492

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

DP&L opposes the imposition of accumulation time limits for disposable solvent-contaminated wipes as a confusing and 

unnecessary requirement. The basis upon which the proposed rule is being developed is that solvent contaminated wipes destined 

for disposal pose little or no hazard to human health and the environment and as a result, their conditional exemption from 

hazardous waste regulation will not compromise environmental protection. USEPA has included in the proposed rule, 

accumulation standards applicable to used industrial wipes destined for disposal that provide ample protection (covered, nonleaking containers designed to minimize solvent loss). If USEPA truly believes that disposable solvent-contaminated industrial 

wipes are worthy of the proposed conditional exclusions from the hazardous waste regulations (and DP&L concurs that they are), 

there should be no need for the added complexity of accumulation time limits and/or labeling requirements. Such provisions only 

impose an added regulatory burden upon the regulated community with no commensurate additional benefit. The RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations are complex and to add “RCRA-like” requirements to a material USEPA considers, and experience 

shows, to be non-hazardous will do nothing more than to make the proposed rules confusing and defeats their stated purpose of 

simplifying the handling and ultimate disposal of the material.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 266

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

On a related issue, USWAG opposes the imposition of an accumulation time limit on the storage of disposal wipes. Generation of 

contaminated wipes is generally an episodic event, with uncertain frequency and intervals. There is an extremely low likelihood 

that wipes held in non-leaking covered containers would pose any significant risk if allowed to accumulate on-site for more than 

the 90 or 180 days generally applicable to generators for the on-site accumulation of hazardous waste under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34. 

EPA also should make clear that nothing in the conditional exclusion would preclude generators from accumulating the wipes 
146

pursuant to the "satellite accumulation" rule under 40 C.F.R. 5 261 5, under which wipes can be accumulated in a 55-gallon 

container with no time limit on storage until the drum becomes full. USWAG is not opposed to the imposition of the "speculative 

accumulation rule" for the storage of reusable wipes - i.e., those destined for recycling through laundering. In other words, in any 

calendar year, 75% of the wipes accumulated for recycling must actually be recycled. If this percentage is not fulfilled, the 

reusable wipes would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion. The speculative accumulation rule has served as the 

cornerstone for establishing a time limit on legitimate recycling operations and its use in this context seems reasonable.

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 511

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed no limit on the accumulation time for wipes excluded from the definition of hazardous waste, provided that 

the wipes are kept in a non-leaking covered container. Id. at 65595. DuPont agrees with this position both because disposable 

wipes that meet the conditions of the exclusion would be solid waste, not hazardous waste and because the generation rate of 

these wipes varies widely from facility to facility. DuPont has manufacturing facilities which generate only a few of these 

containers a year as well as facilities which generate containers on a weekly basis. 90-day or 180-day accumulation time limits 

for wipes seem excessive, and would be inconsistent with other non-hazardous waste management standards. 

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 770

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Under the proposed rule’s exclusion from “hazardous” waste regulation, there is no accumulation time limit for disposable 

industrial wipes as long as the other accumulation conditions (e.g., non-leaking, covered containers) are met. However, EPA 

expressed that it is considering including a time limit...Phelps Dodge supports the proposed rule as presently written without an 

accumulation time limit as a condition for exclusion. Inclusion of an accumulation time limit is burdensome and unnecessary for 

adequate protection. An accumulation time limit is burdensome because such a time limit makes the proposed

rule closely mirror the very RCRA regulations the Agency is trying to move away from. 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, ensuing 

that it does not exceed the applicable time limit or else become subject to the full extent of RCRA regulation. If EPA has already 

recognized that these materials pose very little risk to the environment, this extra administrative burden is unnecessary.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 771

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

With respect to disposable industrial wipes, the potential for excess accumulation of these materials is no different than the 

potential for excess accumulation of any other “solid” waste. There are no accumulation time limits for “solid” wastes under 

RCRA Subtitle D. If EPA intends to relieve generators from the burden of RCRA regulation of disposable industrial wipes, then 

these materials should not be subject to an accumulation time limit.

In sum, Phelps Dodge supports EPA’s proposed rule as currently written, and objects to the inclusion of an accumulation time 

limit as a condition for exclusion from “hazardous” waste regulation as burdensome and unnecessary.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1529

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We support the time limit for accumulation of disposable industrial wipes. This provision would prevent excessively long 

accumulation times and quantities that could be potential hazards in the workplace to equipment and employees, as well as 

increased volatilization of contaminants.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1050

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP would like to ensure periodic, documented disposal of wipes. (As noted in EPA’s preamble, recycling of wipes typically is

documented adequately by the agreement between the laundry and the generator.) The accumulation period could be 180 days, or 

could be determined by a maximum volume amount, such as four 55-gallon drums. Labeling drums accumulating wipes with “ 
147

Excluded Solvent- Contaminated Wipes” is good business practice, and, for that reason, could not be unduly burdensome on the 

generator.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1094

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

On page 65596, column 3 (section V.B.2.c.), EPA requests comment on whether or not it should add an accumulation time limit 

for disposable wipes to the proposed rule. CTDEP believes that such a provision would be appropriate. As noted in comment 2.a. 

above, disposable wipes would not be subject to speculative accumulation requirements under the proposed rule, therefore 

allowing such wipes to be accumulated indefinitely. CTDEP believes that an accumulation limit of one year would be appropriate 

for disposable wipes, since it would be comparable to (but no less stringent than) the effective time limit applicable to 

launderable wipes under the speculative accumulation provisions CTDEP also believes that it would be appropriate to require the 

marking of containers of disposable wipes with the accumulation start date, so that compliance with this time limit may be 

effectively checked during inspections by enforcement agencies. 

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 327

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[ARAMARK] also agree that a time limit is needed on the accumulation of soiled disposable wipes at the generators’ facilities. 

Industrial laundries are strongly motivated to remove, wash and return cleaned towels in order to maximize the utilization of 

inventory. There is no such motivation with regard to disposable wipes. Therefore, the rule should have provisions to ensure 

soiled disposable wipes are removed from the generators’ facilities within time frames that are protective of worker safety and 

the environment.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 584

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

We also agree that a time limit is needed on the accumulation of soiled disposable wipes at the generators’ facilities. Industrial 

laundries are strongly motivated to remove, wash and return cleaned towels in order to maximize the utilization of inventory.

There is no such motivation with regard to disposable wipes. Therefore, the rule should have provisions to ensure soiled 

disposable wipes are removed from the generators’ facilities within time frames that are protective of worker safety and the 

environment.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 432

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule, does not include an accumulation time limit, but the preamble discussed incorporating the hazardous waste 

generator requirements of 90/180 days (see p. 65595, c01.2). CKRC supports incorporating an accumulation time limit consistent 

with the existing hazardous waste generation limits to ensure that excess material is not present that may present fire and safety 

hazards.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 1515

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

One member supports establishing a finite accumulation period for reusable wipes destined for laundering or dry cleaning. 

Accumulation of wipes by generators should be for a period of time no longer than 180 days. Laundries and drycleaners should 

be allowed no more than 10 days to refurbish the wipes once they are received. Transporters should not be allowed more than 10 

days total transit time to deliver the reusable wipes at the laundry or drycleaner. Establishing specific accumulation limits will 

discourage the storage of reusable wipes by a handler in lieu of reclaiming the wipes.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 400

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 
148

Comment Text:

U.S. EPA proposes no maximum time limit for the accumulation of disposable solvent contaminated wipes. It appears that 

solvent contaminated wipes destined for disposal and combustion could be accumulated indefinitely. Under the proposal, 

disposable wipes meeting the "dry standard" are not allowed to be discarded along with the generator's regular non-hazardous 

wastes. The disposable wipes will need to be segregated and transported to the disposal facility or combustion facility separately. 

This transportation will be a burden to the generator either in money spent to have the wipes transported separately by a third 

party or in time and money expended by the generator to self-transport the wipes. Therefore, by not having an accumulation time 

limit, generators may overaccumulate wipes in an effort to avoid expending the resources necessary to get the disposable wipes to 

the disposal or combustion facility. The indefinite accumulation of solvent contaminated rags could increase the fire hazard that 

they pose.

We suggest that U.S. EPA set a limit on the length of time for which generators may accumulate excluded solvent contaminated 

disposable wipes. This is so generators do not store the wipes in lieu of disposal.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 944

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Generator accumulation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be limited to a finite period. ADEQ suggests that reusable 

solvent- contaminated industrial wipes be allowed to accumulate at generator facilities for no more than 180 days before 

shipment to a laundry or dry cleaner. Laundry and dry cleaning facilities should be allowed no more than 10 days to refurbish 

contaminated wipes after they are received by the facility. Transporters should not be allowed more than 10 days total transit time 

including all periods when contaminated wipes are managed in transportation related warehouse and distribution facilities. 

Establishing specific limits on accumulation and management timeframes for generators, transporters and reclaiming facilities

minimizes the potential for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to be stored in lieu of being reclaimed while allowing ample 

time for generators, transporters, and reclaiming facilities to accumulate and manage contaminated wipes in a safe and 

economical manner.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1016

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Filled containers should be shipped for treatment within ninety (90) days of becoming full.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1027

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MEDEP questions the lack of generator accumulation limits. Increased quantities of contaminated wipes will result in increased 

air emissions and could lead to poor management practices. The proposed rule should be revised so that there is an accumulation 

limit of 90 days for large quantity generators and a limit of at least 180 days for small quantity generators for any full 55 - gallon 

size container of solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1028

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The MEDEP also recommends a time limit on storage and treatment at handling facilities. Wipes should be processed within a 

specific period (i.e. within 7 days of receipt). This would require handling facilities to mark a received date on all contaminated 

wipes.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 614

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

We support the time limit for accumulation of disposable industrial wipes. This provision would prevent excessively long 

accumulation times and quantities that could be potential hazards in the workplace to equipment and employees, as well as 

increased volatilization of contaminants.
149

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 497

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Dow supports the accumulation standard’s use of “covered containers.” However, in EPA’s preamble discussion of “covered” 

versus “closed,” Dow suggests that EPA is inappropriately attempting to define or redefine the term “closed” which is already 

defined in an existing RCRA regulation. Dow further suggests that whenever the term “closed container” is referred to for RCRA 

purposes, EPA should reference the language used in the RCRA Subpart CC language [40 CFR 

264.1086(c)(1)(ii)/265.1087(c)(1)(ii)]: “b. a container equipped with a cover and closure devices that form a continuous barrier 

over the container openings such that when the cover and closure devices are secured in the closed position there are no visible 

holes, gaps, or other open spaces into the interior of the container. The cover may be a separate cover installed on the container 

(e.g., a lid on a drum or a suitably secured tarp on a roll-off box) or may be an integral part of the container structural design 

(e.g., a "portable tank" or bulk cargo container equipped with a screw-type cap);” 

Defining a closed container as only being “closed” if a lid is screwed on, as EPA is proposing, is extremely limiting to the wide 

variety of containers (such as 55 gallon drums, open-top plastic containers with lids and ring-seals, etc.) that could be used to 

hold or transport used wipes. Dow supports deferring to the DOT packaging requirements for transport of used wipes, and where 

DOT packaging requirements may not apply, transporting in closed containers, as defined in RCRA Subpart CC [40 CFR 

264.1086(c)(1)(i and ii)/265.1087(c)(1)(i and ii)].

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 499

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

This is a flexible standard that is appropriate for wipes and the conditions under which they are accumulated, as explained in the 

preamble. Dow supports EPA’s conclusion (FR 65595) which “recognizes that many generators use a large number of wipes 

daily, so to require unsealing and sealing a container each time a wipe is placed inside would be impractical. This condition

would reduce fugitive air emissions, maximizing the ability to capture free liquids for reuse or recycling. It would also be among 

good management practices for generators to have regardless of this proposal to maximize worker exposure to solvents....A 

performance standard also provides a degree of flexibility in terms of allowing a different approaches that minimize the length of 

time required for workers to place a used wipe in a storage container.” This standard promotes good management practices by 

allowing workers to quickly and easily place wipes in a container that will minimize emissions. Requiring the sealing, latching, 

etc. of a cover on a container that will be frequently opened and closed as wipes are used creates an unnecessary burden on the 

generator.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1063

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Ohio EPA supports the use of a performance standard for the accumulation of disposable wipes. The performance standards 

proposed are appropriate and focus on the aspects of contaminated wipes management that are most important that is leaking 

containers which would indicate the presence of free liquids and the reduction of emissions from the container. [same comment

for reusable wipes]

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1516

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

We believe the proposed standard to cover the wipes container versus instituting a standard to close and seal the container when 

waste is not being added/removed is sufficient to guard against incompatible wastes being inadvertently discarded into the 

container, to reduce emissions from the container and to accommodate easy use of the container by the generator. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1104

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection

Comment Text:

CTDEP believes that the “non-leaking covered containers” requirement is the appropriate standard for the accumulation of 

launderable wipes. CTDEP also believes that it would be appropriate to require the marking of containers of disposable wipes 
150

with the words “Excluded Launderable Industrial Wipes,” in order to facilitate the identification of containers of such wipes 

during inspections, and to allow clear differentiation of disposable and launderable wipes at facilities which handle both types of 

wipes. CTDEP further believes that launderable wipes should be marked with the accumulation start date, so that compliance 

with speculative accumulation requirements may be effectively checked during inspections by enforcement agencies.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 655

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC supports the use of covered containers in lieu of closed containers. The use of covered containers compliments current 

manufacturing practices and provides the required level of environmental protection. The imposition of closed containers implies 

the use of a rigid container with a sealed lid. This would create an unnecessary compliance burden on facilities.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 782

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

The first condition the industrial wipes would have to meet is an accumulation standard. Generators would be required to place 

the hazardous solvent-contaminated wipe in a nonleaking, covered container. PING agrees with this proposed requirement. Our 

materials are currently managed in non-leaking, covered containers that meet both OSHA and DOT regulations as well as local 

Clean Air Act requirements.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 790

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

For reusable industrial wipes, the user must place them in a non-leaking, covered container.

PING agrees with this proposed requirement. Our materials are currently managed in non-leaking, covered containers.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 588

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC continues to support the use of covered containers in lieu of closed containers for the collection and accumulation of 

wipes. The use of covered containers compliments current production practices and provides the required level of environmental 

protection. The imposition of closed containers implies the use of a rigid container with a sealed lid. This would create an undue 

compliance burden on the user of the wipe. Being able to utilize covered containers allows for the ability to also use flexible 

containers. For example, common practice in print shops is to use the spring-closed safety cans to collect the wipes near the press 

or other equipment. The wipes are then periodically collected and transferred to a rigid container such as a drum that has been 

fitted with a flexible cloth or synthetic liner and in some cases, a false bottom that will allow the solvent to drain from the wipes 

and collect at the bottom of the drum. This rigid container is fitted with a lid, but it is not sealed. The flexible inner container is 

then removed when filled with wipes for either disposal or laundering. Specifying covered containers preserves the printers’ 

flexibility to maintain their current systems, while protecting both the worker and the environment from unnecessary exposure

and releases.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 248

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports EPA’s proposed performance-based CFR language that would allow a generator to use the exemption if 

the wipes are accumulated in “non-leaking, covered containers...and we appreciate EPA recognizing that “covering, sealing, 

securing, latching, and closing’’ are distinctly different actions.

However, consistent with EPA’s understanding of “in-plant” conditions, “EPA recognizes that many generators use a large 

number of wipes daily, so to require unsealing and sealing a container each time a wipe is placed inside would be impractical.” 

We request that EPA further incorporate a provision that containers don’t need to be “covered” during periods of active 

accumulation, and only need to be covered if there will be no wipes deposited for a certain period of time (e.g. end of shift). This 
151

clarification would recognize the realities of ongoing production processes, and the unrealistic expectation that operators should 

cover the container between each addition of a wipe to the container. 

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 564

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

Ford supports EPAs performance standard requiring generators to place disposable wipes in non-leaking covered containers. Any 

additional requirements to seal the container every time a wipe is placed inside would make the proposed exclusion impractical to 

implement since many operations generate large numbers of wipes daily.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 338

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with EPA's approach requiring reusable towels to be stored in covered containers at the generator’s facility. 

Covered containers will lessen fugitive emissions from the wipes and lessen the risk of fire. Additionally, covered containers will 

minimize exposure to the environment and facility personnel.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 1517

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the EPAs proposal that soiled disposable wipes should be stored in covered containers while at the 

generators’ facility. Covered containers will lessen fugitive emissions from the wipes and lessen the risk of fire. 

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 1514

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

Also, it is not clear how the OSHA requirements would apply to the management of these wipes. Thus, the storage in a covered,

non-leaking container, will provide sufficient management of these wipes to protect workers and the environment.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 371

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Wipes must be accumulated and stored onsite in non-leaking covered containers. NPCA supports, with one exception discussed 

later, EPA's proposed performance based standard in this regard. Generators would not need to seal, latch or secure a lid on the 

container every time a wipe was placed inside. Instead, they would simply be required to ensure that the container was covered 

and minimize emissions to the environment. EPA correctly points out that to mandate sealed lids would be impracticable for 

many industries. Instead, EPA proposes a work practice standard, similar to those required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 

volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants, and under Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (OSHA) for 

flammable liquids, that reduces fugitive air emissions; provides for worker safety from exposure to vapor releases; and minimizes 

loss to the environment from leaks. As discussed below, however, for some specialized solvents - those with a risk of combustion 

- an alternative approach must be provided.

...Lastly, NPCA supports EPA's deference to already established OSHA regulations. If generators meet the OSHA standard for 

flammable liquids they will meet the accumulation and storage conditions under the Proposed Rule. With respect to storage of 

used reuseable wipes, NPCA recommends that EPA not use the speculative accumulation provisions since existing contracts with 

laundering services will ensure that wipes and rags will be picked up and laundered on a regular basis.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1023

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MEDEP also supports that part of the proposal requiring storage of solvent contaminated wipes in non-leaking covered 

containers to enhance liquid recovery and minimize workplace exposure to vapors.
152

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 265

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

The first condition for both disposal and reusable wipes is that they be placed in a “non-leaking covered container.” EPA has 

deliberately not defined what constitutes a “non-leaking covered container,” but instead has appropriately recognized that a range 

of devices can meet this performance standard (e.g., ranging from “a spring-operated safety container to a drum with its opening 

covered by a piece of plywood.”). Given the large numbers of entities likely to operate under the conditional exclusions, this is 

the only practical way to implement this condition.

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 508

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

The Agency has request comment on the proposal for accumulating spent reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in nonleaking, covered containers while at the generator’s facility. DuPont believes that this is a reasonable requirement for such wipes.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 772

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposed rule requires generators to accumulate both reusable and disposable industrial wipes in “non-leaking, covered 

containers” in order to be excluded from “solid” and “hazardous” waste regulation.” Phelps Dodge supports EPA’s current 

proposal. As the Agency points out, this condition sets a performance standard for accumulation rather than strict technical 

requirements.” The performance standard provides flexibility in compliance, which in turn makes compliance less burdensome 

and less expensive. Many generators will be allowed to continue current practices, using storage equipment they already have onsite, rather than having to invest in particular storage vessels that meet detailed specifications. This flexible standard 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.

EPA already recognizes that solvent-contaminated wipes impose little risk on human health and the environment. Therefore, 

requiring these materials to be stored in a manner that ensures they do not leak and are not continually exposed to workers is 

adequate protection.

Phelps Dodge supports EPA’s proposal to store industrial wipes in non-leaking, covered containers and does not believe detailed 

specifications for storage vessels are necessary or advisable.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 38

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes the purpose of the accumulation time limits in 29 CFR 1910 for flammable liquids and combustible waste material 

is fundamentally different from the purpose of the accumulation time limits in the RCRA hazardous waste generator regulations

(40 CFR 262.34). This is evidenced by the significant difference between the accumulation time specified in 29 CFR 

1910.106(e)(9)(iii) (Le., one day) and the accumulation time specified in 40 CFR 262.34 (i.e., 90 days for large quantity 

generators and 180 days for small quantity generators). Whereas the regulations in 29 CFR 1910 are intended to ensure a safe 

workplace and primarily address the potential for spontaneous heating of flammable liquids and combustible waste material, the 

regulations in 40 CFR 262.34 are intended to protect human health and the environment from releases of the hazardous 

constituents in hazardous wastes caused from mismanagement of such wastes over time. Because their purposes are 

fundamentally different, DOE submits that they should not be considered interchangeable. Accordingly, DOE recommends 

against the option of establishing a condition on the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste that would rely on the 

regulatory requirements of non-RCRA statutes for limits on accumulation times for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 47

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:
153

...[T]he Department believes the accumulation time provisions in certain regulations (in particular the OSHAct regulations) may 

be inappropriate when applied to the storage and accumulation of reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. The OSHAct 

regulations primarily address the potential for spontaneous heating of flammable liquids and combustible waste material rather 

than the potential for releases of the hazardous constituents in hazardous wastes, which is the primary focus of the generator 

accumulation time limits in the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, if EPA decides that, in addition to storage 

container design standards, accumulation time limits are needed as a condition on initial storage of solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes claiming the exclusion from the definition of solid waste, DOE recommends that the condition specify explicit 

accumulation time limits to address the primary concern, rather than reference or rely on the OSHAct or other non-RCRA 

regulations.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1530

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We feel that the specific accumulation condition, or the accumulation time limit described in the proposed legislation are better 

methods than relying on the OSHA and DOT standards. This option is more difficult to comply with in that it does not work well 

with how the wipes are handled at point of use, more confusing, and does not give a clear reasonable method for the affected 

industries to handle these products.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1057

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP does not support an approach that would rely on other regulatory statutes, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSHA).

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1509

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

In addition, in this same section of the proposed rule preamble, EPA requests comment on the option of deferring to OSHA 

regulations for the storage of wipes at generators’ facilities, in lieu of the proposed accumulation requirements. CTDEP would 

not support such a deferral, since it would not include the accumulation time limit or marking requirements described above, and 

since, as noted by EPA in the preamble, the relevant OSHA regulations may not apply to all generators managing disposable 

wipes.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 1510

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The Agency seeks comments on the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.106 under OSHA’s regulations. This regulation, promulgated 

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, applies to the storage of flammable and combustible liquids. 

Traditionally, used wipes are placed in safety cans or other containers that meet OSHA requirements while on the shop floor. As 

mentioned earlier, wipes are often accumulated in metal drums with a plastic liner. This practice facilitates transfer of the used 

wipes to their ultimate destination. The GAC does not believe that any further regulatory language needs to be included to 

address this issue.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 1511

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

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. These standards should include labeling with starting accumulation times indicated to ensure 

enforceability. 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. The OSHA rules do not contain these protective provisions, and in particular 

do not limit the storage time. Also, a generator can claim that contaminated wipes are not subject to OSHA standards under 29 

CFR 1910.106, since the wipes do not meet the definition of “flammable liquid.” Lastly, the OSHA standards apply strictly to 

worker protection, and the general public has no legal means to make a complaint pursuant to OSHA. Therefore, deferring the 
154

storage of solvent contaminated wipes to OSHA control will not adequately protect human health and the environment. RCRA 

control on solvent contaminated wipes at the generator’s location must be retained.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 1513

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

...ARAMARK agrees with EPAs approach not to utilize RCRA-based accumulation standards for reusable towels. Since reusable 

towels are not considered “waste,” RCRA-based standards should not apply.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1590

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA is considering not establishing a specific accumulation condition, but relying on other regulatory statutes such as OSHA 

(See 68 FR 65595). The department does not view this as providing sufficient protection to human health. OSHA standards are 

not enforceable at a large class of wiper users, namely federal, state, and local governments.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 615

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

We feel that the specific accumulation condition, or the accumulation time limit described in the proposed legislation are better 

methods than relying on the OSHA and DOT standards. This option is more difficult to comply with in that it does not work well 

with how the wipes are handled at point of use, more confusing, and does not give a clear reasonable method for the affected 

industries to handle these products.

5.4. Condition of Wipes

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1052

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The definitions of “dry” and “no free liquid” seem unnecessarily complicated and impracticable for field inspectors, small 

generators and disposal facilities. FDEP suggests that the distinction be eliminated and the generator be allowed three options for 

management of its conditionally excluded wipes: (1) Send the wipes to an industrial laundry under the conditions of its 

agreement with the laundry; (2) Send the wipes to a WTE facility or lined landfill with a certification that the wipes:

(a) Are in an acceptable “dry” disposal condition, which could be demonstrated by any one or more of several options (e.g. either 

5 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 small quantity generators only, “hand wrung”); 

and (b) Contain no prohibited solvents; or (3) Send the wipes to a solvent recovery facility with a hazardous waste permit.

FDEP considers that the benefits of an extra step of solvent removal prior to disposal outweigh the limitations. This should be 

done at the generator, or at the industrial laundry that decides to dispose of recycled wipes, or at a permitted hazardous waste 

TSD facility. (Laundries should be able to demonstrate appropriate management of the solvent in their wipes through 

pretreatment and discharge of wastewaters authorized under the Clean Water Act.)

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1391

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

General criteria for transport to landfill or other facility. Proposed 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A) and (B) provide criteria for situations 

"when [wipes] are transported to" a landfill or other facility. To enhance enforceability, EPA should change the language of these 

provisions so that they 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.)
155

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 173

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC would like to note that we were surprised to see that EPA’s Technical Background Document did not mention 

compactor technologies. The ETC members are aware of the use of compactors by certain generators that are designed to be 

intrinsically safe with solvent usage. These compactors compress the solvents from the rags for collection in a separate drum for 

management under Subtitle C, and also reduce the volume of wipes, important if disposal is occurring. Given that these devices 

apply compressive forces, they are effective at removing free liquids to the point of ensuring that conditions in the final disposal 

unit are applied up front, thereby protecting against releases later. The ETC recommends that EPA explore this technology as part 

of any final rule making and apply it as part of the solvent extraction definition.

5.4.1. Free Liquids

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1071

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

We do not support the finalization of the "no free liquids" or "no free liquids when wrung" approaches 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. As 

proposed, the rule prohibits the disposal or combustion of free liquids by disposal facilities, therefore a solvent removal standard 

needs to be instituted that supports attainment of the prohibition.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 168

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed a limit of 5 grams of solvent for any wipe that is disposed of in a nonhazardous waste or MSW landfill, and a 

standard of “no free liquids” for wipes processed in laundries or MSW combustors. The documents in the docket to this proposed 

rule raise significant doubt that these criteria can be met routinely. For example, in the Technical Background Document the 

quantity of solvent can be as high as 7:1 and typically can be on the order of 3:1. These same ratios are given in two support 

documents in the administrative record: “Estimating Quantities of Solvent-Containing Rags That Can be Disposed in a MSW 

Landfill,” Document ID RCRA-2003-004-0011, and “Use and Management Practices of Solvent Contaminated Industrial Shop 

Towels,” RCRA-2003-004-0040. A wipe typically weighs 10 grams. This means that a wipe can contain 30 to 70 grams of 

solvent after use. 

Removal efficiencies cited in the TBD at 65 vary greatly, and for techniques other than centrifuging, range from 3.5% to 24%.

Assuming the high end of this efficiency performance, the net result is a range of 22 to 53 grams of solvent remaining on a wipe 

following the type of solvent removal allowed by this proposed rule. Even at lower ratios of solvents to wipe, a high amount of 

free liquid is often present. The record provides results of SW846 Method 9096, Liquids Release Test, applied to wipes 

containing ratios of 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0 weight of solvent per weight of wipe. Several wipes with 0.5 and 1.0 ratios were found to 

fail the “no free liquids” criterion. Again these tests show that the “no free liquids” criterion is weak, ineffective, and will not be 

protective of human health and the environment. This is particularly true since EPA’s basis for “no free liquid” is that the wipes 

are not dripping. Other sources in the record also indicate comparable amounts of solvent per wipe following “extraction.” For 

example, RCRA-2003-004-0040 page 4 indicates these same amounts of solvent. RCRA-2003-004-0127 indicates that after hand 

wringing a range of 40.56 grams to 75.79 grams remained on wipes, which were hand wrung to the “one drop” criterion. This 

document was a study in which 34 replicates were done, meaning that it is statistically reliable. EPA is considering allowing hand 

wringing as an acceptable extraction technique to satisfy the “no free liquid” criterion. RCRA-2003-004-0012 page 3-33, which 

assesses shop towel usage in the automotive and printing industries, cites typical solvent remaining on a wipe as 0.031 lbs to 

0.065 lbs, or 14.1 to 29.5 grams. 

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 1666

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

(A) practical reason for allowing generators to accumulate free liquids along with the wipes and retain the exclusion is that “overhandling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emissions. 

Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario would be for the 
156

operator to use the wipe and drop it into an appropriate container immediately when finished with the job. While additional 

handling at the process, such as “hand-wringing’’ the wipe, may reduce the likelihood of free liquids during transportation, 

unfortunately it may also reduce the amount of solvent to be ultimately recovered. 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. 

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 1657

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

As for storage and transportation of these reusable wipes, requiring storage in a covered, non-leaking container at a facility is a 

practical and effective way of managing these wipes. Transportation of these wipes in a plastic or cloth bag should also be 

allowed. The “no-free liquids” condition proposed by EPA should be very adequate to ensure that releases of solvents do not 

occur during the transportation of the wipes to laundering facilities.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 942

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Free liquids should be totally excluded from all off-site shipments of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 237

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA asks for comment (page 65608, middle column) on the option of it not differentiating between ‘dry’ and ‘no free liquids’ in

the different management scenarios for qualification under the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. Alcoa believes 

that a differentiation is warranted if qualification to the more stringent criteria of ‘dry’ provides more flexibility in the

management approach for ‘dry’ wipes. 

Docket Number - 364

Comment Key - 1265

Submitted by - Carol Johnson 

Comment Text:

Please rewrite the rule to make sure that:

-Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowed to pollute local water systems;

5.4.1.1. Support "No Free Liquids" Condition as Proposed

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1400

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s solvent wipes rule should require solvent recovery at the site of generation (i.e. by wringing or other suitable technology). 

A technology-based standard for determination of when a wipe is exempt is the simplest way for a small business to implement. 

Exempting saturated wipes that are transported to a company under the same or other ownership for solvent reclamation runs 

counter to waste minimization and pollution prevention principles and presents an added risk of a release during transport.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1414

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

Should EPA allow industrial wipes containing solvents that pose insignificant risk when meeting the “no free liquids” condition 

to be placed in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills without being required to meet the ``dry'' condition. MADEP 
157

supports allowing this disposal option because, as stated above, these wipes, if disposed in Massachusetts, would be disposed in 

small quantities at a time in lined landfills meeting 40 CFR Part 258 standards. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1544

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

This condition is appropriate for handling and transporting wipes to a laundry, dry cleaner, or handler.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 822

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports applying “no free liquids” as the only condition that is required to be met to ship solvent-contaminated 

wipes to a non-land disposal facility... Furthermore, Rockwell Collins supports having the option to use knowledge of processes 

to determine wipes contain no free liquids. The solvent-contaminated wipes generated from cleaning electronic components are 

typically not saturated with solvent initially and the solvent is used up in the cleaning process. Requiring a “test” to prove what is 

already known will impose unnecessary financial burden on similar generators. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 836

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports applying “no free liquids” as the only condition that is required to be met to ship reusable solventcontaminated wipes. 

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 334

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the decision to institute a “no free liquids” condition that is consistent with the existing protocol 

currently utilized by most states and stakeholders. The disposable wipes would meet the condition if no liquid solvent drips from 

the towels at the time of shipment off-site. Additionally, no free liquids could be present in the bottom of the container in which 

the wipes are transported. Altering the exemption by instituting a “no free liquids when wrung” condition could create confusion 

and add ambiguity to the rule by allowing subjective interpretation of the term “wrung”. This ambiguity would defeat the purpose 

of developing a simplified approach for compliance determination under the new regulation.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 358

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Under the Proposed Rule, disposable wipes destined for non-landfill disposal must have “no-free liquids” and be transported in 

containers designed, constructed and managed to minimize solvent loss to the environment. The no-free liquids test is determined 

to be met if no liquid solvent drips from them when sent off-site. NPCA supports EPA’s practical no free liquids proposal, 

however, we are concerned about the percolation of liquids. As EPA correctly points out under the handler requirements, 

between the time when the wipes arrive at the disposal site and when the facility introduces them into the process some liquids 

may have percolated out. EPA proposes to either allow the handler to remove the liquids or return the container to the generator 

(with the wipes and free liquids). NPCA supports this approach.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 374

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

With respect to reusable wipes, NPCA supports EPA’s proposal of no free liquids and covered containers that minimize loss.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1593

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 
158

Comment Text:

The department does not believe a change is necessary in how “no free liquid” is determined. The department agrees that using a 

criteria of “no free liquids when wrung” is impractical and would involve significant increased exposure of hazardous 

constituents to the environment and also an increased threat to worker safety.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1196

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The Agency’s “no free liquids” condition is consistent with free liquids as defined under 40 C.F.R. 5260.10 - as “liquids which 

readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure.” This flexible performance-based no 

free liquids standard is also very similar to that which the industrial laundry industry has voluntarily imposed upon itself for over 

10 years. See industry Best Management Practices, attached as Exhibit L. Finally the proposed no free liquids management 

condition is a condition that many States already incorporate into their policies on the handling of reusable shop towels. EPA’s 

proposal codifies many years of State experience and allows for an easy regulatory transition.

[Exhibit (Attachment) L. Industry Best Management Practices]

EPA has proposed a performance-based “no free liquids” standard for reusable shop towels that is easy to comply with and 

contains no complicated testing or measurement requirements. Compliance with the proposed standard can easily be measured by 

examining a random sample of reusable shop towels. If no drips are visible the shipment can be transported. If drips are visible, 

the free liquid must be removed prior to transport so the towels meet the “no free liquids” standard. Such a performance-based 

standard is simple, easy to comply with, and ensures no free liquids are being transported off site. It also meets all definitions 

currently used by EPA, States, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 

Docket Number - 355

Comment Key - 225

Submitted by - Robert Peters of The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) 

Comment Text:

AIA specifically supports the definition of “no free liquids” as proposed in Section 260.10. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 627

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment on "no free liquids" condition. This condition is appropriate for handling and transporting wipes to a laundry, dry 

cleaner, or handler.

5.4.1.2. Determination/Definition of "No Free Liquids"

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 41

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

...DOE suggests that EPA delete the proposed definition of the term “no free liquids” from the final rule because a definition of 

“free liquids” is already provided in 40 CFR 260.10. DOE believes that the final regulations concerning hazardous industrial 

wipes 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.” This approach would be consistent with other

existing sections of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations that prohibit the presence of free liquids. For example, 40 CFR 

264.190 indicates that certain tank systems used to treat or store hazardous waste containing “no free liquids” are exempt from 

the requirements in 40 CFR 264.193. According to 40 CFR 264.190(a), the absence or presence of free liquids in waste 

treated/stored in the tank systems of interest must be demonstrated using Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test) as described in 

“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW-846. A similar example appears 

in 40 CFR 264.314, which prohibits placement of any hazardous waste containing free liquids in a landfill. In this example, 40 

CFR 264.3 14(c) indicates that the absence or presence of free liquids must be demonstrated using the Paint Filter Liquids Test. 

As criteria for demonstrating the absence or presence of free liquids with respect to the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, 

DOE supports the suggestion made by the printing industry (p. 65600, col. 1) that one or more technologies (i.e., quantitative and 

reproducible compliance tests) considered to be adequate should be specified. This would minimize misunderstandings and 
159

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

applicable to containerized hazardous wastes.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 50

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes that the final regulations concerning hazardous industrial wipes 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.” As criteria for demonstrating the absence or presence of free liquids with respect to the solventcontaminated industrial wipes, DOE supports the suggestion made by the printing industry (p. 65600, col. 1) that one or more 

technologies (i.e., quantitative and reproducible compliance tests) considered to be adequate should be specified. 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.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 56

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests omitting the proposed definition of the term ‘‘no free liquids” from the final rule. Since a definition of “free

liquids” is already provided in 40 CFR 260.10, DOE believes it would be more appropriate to provide a regulatory section that 

indicates criteria for demonstrating whether or not free liquids are present in solvent-contaminated industrial wipes than to 

provide a new definition of the term “no free liquids.” ...[T]his alternative approach would be consistent with existing sections of 

the RCRA regulations that prohibit the presence of free liquids. As criteria for demonstrating the absence or presence of free 

liquids with respect to the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, DOE supports the suggestion made by the printing industry (p. 

65600, col. 1) that one or more technologies (i.e., quantitative and reproducible compliance tests) considered to be adequate

should be specified. 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.

If the definition of the term “no free liquids” is not included in the final regulations, DOE suggests that the last sentence of the 

proposed definition (i.e., “Wipes that have been subjected to solvent extraction are presumed to contain no free liquids.”) be 

incorporated as a subsection within the new regulatory section that would indicate criteria...for demonstrating whether or not free 

liquids are present in solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1539

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

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. Technology such as a wringer can be adjusted, times and spin 

rates can be changed on centrifuges rendering them ineffective. An alternative to a specified technology would be a record 

keeping requirement that indicates actual compliance.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 788

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

In this proposal, EPA intends for compliance with the ‘no free liquids’ condition to be determined by a practical test. That is, 

does a wipe drip liquid from it when held for a short period of time, for example, when being transferred from one container to 

another. 

PING agrees that this condition is acceptable, as it is standard practice. However, we request that the provision for generator 

knowledge be maintained in the final rule. Generators who track their solvent use should be able to utilize their process 

knowledge to determine if their wipes contain no free liquids. If a list of acceptable technologies is developed to meet the 

condition, we request that the list include generator knowledge.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 721

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 
160

Comment Text:

A simple visual test or the option to utilize specific test methods such as the Paint Filter Test (SW-846 Method 9095) would be 

the preferred approach to determine if the “no free liquid” condition is met. The more difficult or expensive the option, the less 

likely all potentially regulated entities will implement the option. Therefore, listing specific technologies that would be 

considered to meet the condition may not be the best solution for all potentially regulated entities.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1393

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Definition of "no free liquids". EPA's proposed definition of "no free liquids" includes, in part, merely the requirement that "no 

liquid solvent may drip". This is too weak a criterion. EPA should require that wipes be wrung, and then, after wringing, not drip.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1035

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Idaho DEQ recommends, while not specifying technologies in the final rule, that the preamble to the final rule include a 

discussion of what technologies may be appropriately used to remove free liquids from wipes. It may assist in the implementation 

of and compliance with this rule and would assist in clarifying that air drying is not a permissible method to remove free liquids.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 171

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

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. It relies on weak criteria, with no objective means of verification. For instance, the 

requirement that no free liquid can drip from the wipes when transferring from one container to another is a judgment call that 

can vary from employee to employee. It also relies on proper training and awareness by the millions of employees who use these 

wipes. Likewise, the requirement that the container has no free liquid at any point assumes that every container will be inspected 

at each stage of transport to the final destination. Also, the test can appear to be satisfied at the point of generation, but later from 

pressure in the container, free liquids may separate and accumulate in the container bottom. 

Likewise in the landfill cell the compressive forces of waste above the containers can force free liquids to escape from the wipes 

and rags. This in turn can cause deterioration of landfill liners and other releases from the landfill. In the laundering process, free 

liquid remaining in the wipe could be further compressed or spun out of the wipe, and ultimately discharged. To be protective, 

therefore, EPA must be more specific in the “no free liquids” condition, and not leave this open to subjective interpretation of 

millions of workers from the generation to disposal/reuse of the wipes. ETC proposes the following criteria be added to the 

definitions of “no free liquids” and “solvent extraction” under 40 CFR 260.10:

Definition of “No Free Liquid”

-Require the 5 grams standard for all wipes going for reuse or disposal.

-Compliance with this standard must be based on some measurable basis and not left to judgment or interpretation. This could be 

achieved, for example, by the use of graduated dispensers in all areas where solvent wipes are used. This practice is done in many 

other work environments (e.g. laboratories, hospitals, food plants) and ensures that the proper and safe amount of a material is 

used. This would also promote safety and employers may find that it would cut costs by preventing waste of raw materials and 

also improve efficiency. As EPA found, the amount

of solvent applied to a wipe often far exceeds the amount needed to perform a particular cleaning operation. TBD at 49.

-Compliance could also be demonstrated by subjecting the wipes to solvent extraction as defined below.

Definition of “Solvent Extraction”

-Solvent removed through the use of centrifuges would be deemed to satisfy the “no free liquids” standard, without the need for 

further testing or verification of the wipes.

-Other “similarly effective” methods should be allowed, provided the method is shown to be successful in removing solvents. In 

particular, mechanical wringing should be grouped with the “other similarly effective” methods and be subject to a

demonstration test as below. The justification is that page 60 of EPA’s Background Technical Document indicates that removal 

efficiencies for mechanical wringing rarely exceed 30%, compared to 76% to 99% for centrifuges. In fact hand wringing often 

out-performed mechanical wringing. TBD at 60-65 Table 10.

-The proposed language on “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 keeping this test report on file. The test should 
161

demonstrate either a minimum 70% efficiency, or that the 5 grams standard is met after starting with a wipe saturated at 2 times 

dry weight with solvent (see TBD at 65 Table 10). An equipment vendor report can be kept on file to satisfy this requirement.

This definition of “no free liquids” requires that a generator, in order to qualify for the exemption, must either limit and control 

usage of solvent to less than 5 grams per wipe, or invest in a solvent extraction device to remove free liquids. Given the cost 

benefit afforded by the exemption from RCRA, investment in either graduated dispenser practices or solvent extraction devices is 

a small and justifiable cost. Furthermore, this approach would make EPA’s stated goal to promote pollution prevention not just 

conjecture but reality. Other flawed aspects of the “no free liquids” condition in the proposal should also be eliminated in the 

final rule. These include the concept that monthly bookkeeping of solvent usage versus the weight of wipes shipped can be used 

to meet the 5 grams test, and the allowance for use of generator knowledge. The “bookkeeping” option is flawed because it is 

after-the- fact. If the bookkeeping shows a level in excess of 5 grams on average per wipe, the wipes have already been shipped 

and the solvents are in the environment. The generator knowledge provision is also weak and subject to interpretation and is 

difficult to enforce. Likewise, the physical inspection criterion based on visual observations is also weak, given that it is hard to 

tell visually if a wipe still has free liquids, or to be able to inspect visually the condition of every wipe in a container.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 175

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC opposes the proposed allowance for use of generator knowledge to make certain solvent has been removed from the 

wipes. 68 FR 65600/1. 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. As discussed above, there are at least two studies in the 

record to this proposed rule that showed substantial free liquid present on wipes following application of a condoned solvent

extraction technique (50 grams of solvent per wipe and 10 gallons in a 55 gallon drum of solvent wipes). The generator of wipes 

covered in these studies might have claimed by knowledge that no free liquid is present, yet substantial free liquids were still 

available creating risks of environmental releases.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 335

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the approach proposed by EPA for allowing generators to determine that the towels meet the “no free 

liquids” condition if the towels to not drip when they are held or if there is no free liquid in the bottom of the containers. This is 

similar to the approach initiated by the laundry industry during the development and implementation of its best management 

practices (“Laundry Industry BMPs”) that most states have adopted as their regulatory protocol.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 733

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

In its preamble, EPA discusses the approaches that may be used in implementing the “no free liquids” condition, which could 

include the Paint Filter Test (S W-846 Method 9095) and the “practical test” that would allow persons to determine whether a 

wipe will drip liquid from it when held for a short period of time; for example, when being transferred from one container to 

another. 68 Fed. Reg. 65599-600. Further, an employee or an inspector could easily determine compliance of whether there are 

“free liquids” on the bottom of a container, or whether a wipe, hoisted in the air over a container, would drip a free liquid.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 438

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

It appears that the “no free liquids” requirement would be based upon mere observation with no requirement or obligation to 

technically verify that an adequate level of solvent extraction has in fact occurred. Additionally, the observer is not required to 

have training or certification, which is in stark contrast to a parallel requirement under the CAA wherein an observer of an 

emission point can make a visual judgment of “pass” or “fail” (regarding stack opacity) using EPA method 9. However, EPA 

does not accept the observation unless the “certified eye” is fully trained and then retrained and certified every six months. If 

EPA intends to promulgate a methodology for confirming “no free liquids,” the Agency must establish a specific technical 

method and require training and certification of the operators who make these critical decisions that essentially de-list waste at 

the source.
162

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1595

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department agrees with the EPA’s “no free liquids” practical test proposal as described at 68 FR 65599 - 65600. 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. The department also agrees with the EPA that a list of acceptable technologies for rendering wipes free of liquid is 

not necessary.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1601

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department views the proposed conditions of ‘‘no free liquid” as meaning no liquid solvent could drip from the wipes and no 

free liquid could be present in the bottom of the container used for transport as sufficiently protective of the environment. No 

additional provisions should be added. The department does not believe a limit is needed on the maximum amount of solvent or 

the concentration of solvent on reusable wipes. 

Docket Number - 332

Comment Key - 483

Submitted by - Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC 

Comment Text:

The Agency is proposing to adopt a practical “No drip test“ such as no drip in the period of time to transfer a wipe from one 

container to another. I believe that there probably is no procedure that can provide both a practical and infallible method to 

establish a “no free Liquid test”. I also believe that such a criteria is needed to provide any practical approach to the wipes issue. I 

suggest that the Agency “no drip test ” proposed is sufficient considering that the generator wipes would be subject to full RCRA 

regulation if free liquids result in any storage or shipping containers. As a generator I know that if I do not provide sufficient 

procedures to eliminate the potential for free product in containers that the exclusions will not apply and the wipes will be subject 

to full RCRA regulation. Therefore, as a generator, I will not only see to it that procedures are in place that will pass the “No drip 

test” but I will institute procedures appropriate to each process that will ensure no free liquids in containers as well. Additional 

test methods (paint filter test, wring wipes) would be burdensome and provide no more assurance that the proposed “No drip 

Test”. 

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1078

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

We recommend that EPA specify and require a technical standard to ensure that the wipes meet this "no free liquids" condition. 

Specified technology should include wringing and/or extraction. We support an exemption from requiring the technology 

standard if it can be demonstrated that no free liquids are removed through wringing out the wipe(s).

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 268

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

A key condition underlying several components of the conditional exclusions is that the wipes meet a “no free liquids” condition. 

(e.g., proposed 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(22)(iii)). EPA intends for this condition to be met by a practical test: does liquid drip from 

the wipe when it is handled for a short period of time, for example, when being transferred from one container to another? EPA 

explains that an inspector could test for compliance with this condition by placing two containers adjacent to one another and 

transferring wipes from one container to another. If the wipes drip liquid during the transfer or if there are free liquids in the 

bottom of the container, the wipes would not meet the “no free liquids” condition. While EPA is careful not to identify any 

specific test method that must be used to demonstrate compliance with this condition, it discusses a number of methods (e.g., the 

Paint Filter Test (SW-846, Method 9095) or hand wringing the wipe) which, if met by the generator, would it make it “unlikely” 

that the no free liquids test was violated. Generators also would have the option of using “process knowledge” to determine that 

their wipes contain “no free liquids.” 

USWAG fully agrees with EPA that compliance with this condition must be kept simple and easy to administer and supports 

EPA’s decision not to prescribe any specific procedure for meeting the test, but rather to provide the regulated community with 

an objective test that can be achieved in any number of ways. The Agency also should retain the option of demonstrating 
163

compliance through “process knowledge.” The ”process knowledge” rule has worked effectively for decades in assessing 

whether a solid waste exhibits a hazardous characteristic (see 40 C.F.R. § 262.1 l(c)(2)), and there is no reason to believe that this 

option will not be equally effective in allowing the regulated community to determine whether a wipe meets the "no free liquids" 

standard. 

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 554

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

FPA similarly supports EPA’s proposal to exclude from RCRA treatment, transfers of industrial wipes to cleaners or to industrial 

wipe handling facilities provided they meet the proposed “no free liquids” standard. However, we think that the “no free liquids” 

standard must be clarified in several ways, as discussed further below. We also request EPA clarification regarding the frequency 

of sampling to establish compliance with the standard.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 555

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

At 5 260.10, EPA proposes to define “no free liquids, as used in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and 40 CFR 261.4(a))(19) as meaning “that 

no liquid solvent may drip from industrial wipes, and that there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the wipes.” This 

definition presents a potential issue for facilities that have dedicated accumulation containers on site. In this situation, rags may 

be transferred to another container and shipped under 5 261.4 to a laundry or dry cleaner or under 8 264(a))(19) to a municipal 

waste combustor. We assume that EPA is concerned about free liquid that may be present in containers used to transport 

industrial wipes, not about liquid in accumulation containers that is managed in accordance with existing regulations on-site. In 

order to resolve our concern, EPA should revise the proposed definition by modifying the phrase in italics above to read “that 

there is not liquid solvent in the container being used for transporting the wipes.”

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1197

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Checking The Bottom Portion Of Screen-Bottomed Drums For Liquids Is Not An Appropriate Way To Verify Compliance With 

The No Free Liquids Standard.

Many reusable shop towel users employ screen-bottomed drums as a practical management device to prevent improper disposal 

of solvents and to create conditions that allow towels to minimize their solvent levels. But the actual presence of free liquids in 

the bottom portion of a screen-bottomed drum is not a positive indication that the towels in the drum contain free liquids. By its 

very purpose, a screen-bottomed drum may contain free liquids precisely because compression of the towels above has removed 

solvents, thus ensuring that the towels truly do pass the no free liquids management condition.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1198

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Any Definition Of “No Free Liquids” That Is Not Simple And Easy To Implement And Enforce Is Unacceptable.

Any definition of or test for “no free liquids” should be: 1) consistent with definitions under 40 C.F.R. 5260.10 which state that 

“free liquids” are liquids that readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure; and 2) 

easy for users to understand, cheap to perform, and simple enough to avoid confusion or misinterpretation during inspections and 

compliance enforcement. EPA’s currently proposed performance-based “no free liquids” definition meets these criteria. 

[Submission contains a summary of these "no free liquids" testing methods and why they should be rejected: Pain Filter Test, 

Liquids Release test, Massachusetts "One Drop" Test/Hand Wringing, and Mechanical Wringing]

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 196

Submitted by - Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

The record does not demonstrate that substantial reclamation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes typically takes place. The 
164

“no free liquids” condition that the EPA is proposing would not meet the processing test required for an exclusion from the 

definition of solid waste. In fact, the proposed rule does not require any processing. The “no free liquids” standard merely 

requires that “no liquid solvent may drip from industrial wipes, and that there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the 

wipes. (Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 260.10.) The proposal does not even impose any requirement on the generators to test the wipes to 

ensure that they meet this standard. Generators “have the option to use their knowledge of their processes to determine that their 

wipes contain no free liquids.” (68 Fed. Reg. 65600) The EPA anticipates that even if contaminated wipes initially meet this 

condition, free liquids may accumulate at the bottom of the container as a result of percolation. The beneficiary of this lax “no 

free liquids” standard is the generator with less hazardous waste to manage. The Preamble suggests that it may be in the interest 

of the generator to leave as much solvent on the wipes as possible: “Any solvent removed from an industrial wipe by a generator 

when using solvents in conjunction with industrial wipes may be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste.” (68 Fed. Reg. 

65605) This perverse incentive for the generator to avoid removing solvents from the wipes so as to duck the expense of 

managing the solvent as a hazardous waste, combined with the lax “no free liquids” standard, suggests that the laundries may end 

up with a great deal of solvents.

Instead, the EPA should require processing of the wipes to remove a substantial percentage of the waste solvent before it is 

returned to the laundry. The EPA’s Technical Background Document shows that centrifuging is capable of achieving between 76 

percent and 99 percent solvent removal. (page 65). The EPA should require that the generators remove as much solvent as 

technically possible to avoid worker exposure and dissemination of hazardous waste throughout the environment. That 

centrifuging may be beyond the means of some facilities that generate solvent-contaminated wipes should not preclude the EPA 

from requiring it of the larger solvent users. Even smaller users ought to be able to take some steps to extract solvents from the 

wipes.

Docket Number - 355

Comment Key - 446

Submitted by - Robert Peters of The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) 

Comment Text:

Since the wipe user is the primary point of compliance at the accumulation site, the requirements must be capable of being 

determined in the field. The no drip “test” must be performed by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysis or 

specialized equipment. 

Docket Number - 355

Comment Key - 1649

Submitted by - Robert Peters of The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) 

Comment Text:

When reviewing waste management practices at various aerospace manufacturing, maintenance and repair facilities, four overall

conditions come into play:

[1] Aerospace facilities that generate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are governed by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. 

[2] While the Agency talks about the desire to provide a relaxed regulatory scheme; the continued need to provide 

containerization, storage limitation, transport restrictions and the like, seem more closely allied with managing the wipers as if 

they were hazardous waste rather than waste that is proposed to be conditionally exempt from solid and hazardous waste rules. 

[3] Proposed requirements, no matter the wastes’ designation, must provide adequate and equal (for both disposables and 

reusables) levels of occupational and environmental protection. 

[4] Since the wipe user is the primary point of compliance at the accumulation site, the requirements must be capable of being 

determined in the field. The no drip “test” must be performed by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysis or 

specialized equipment. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 621

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment relative to determining no free liquids. 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. Technology such 

as a wringer can be adjusted, times and spin rates can be changed on centrifuges rendering them ineffective. An alternative to a 

specified technology would be a record keeping requirement that indicates actual compliance.
165

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 288

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

Boeing supports the proposed definition of "no free liquids" set forth in Section 260.10.

...Since the wipe user is the primary point of compliance at the accumulation site, the requirement must be capable of being 

determined in the field. The "no drip" test can be performed by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysis or 

specialized equipment. 

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 289

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

...[T]he proposed rule does not require that wipes be hand wrung, mechanically wrung, or centrifuged. This is important to 

aerospace companies like Boeing whose solvent wipe waste handling practices are already regulated under Aerospace National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR 63, Subpart GG. The Aerospace NESHAP sets stringent 

housekeeping requirements for hand wipe solvent cleaning. These rules require, among other things, that the operator --

"...place cleaning solvent-laden cloth, paper, or any other absorbent applicators used for cleaning in bags or other closed 

containers upon completing their use. Ensure that these bags and containers are kept closed at all times except when depositing or 

removing these materials from the container. Use bags and containers of such design so as to contain the vapors of the cleaning 

solvent." See 40 CFR 63.744(a)(1) (Emphasis added). Any requirement to wring or centrifuge these wipes after completing their

use but before depositing them in a closed container would conflict with the currently applicable requirements for the proper 

handling of solvent-laden rags in the Aerospace NESHAP. 

Moreover, many aerospace hand wipe operations require only small amounts of solvent to be used, and the wipe can easily meet 

a "no free liquid" test upon completion of use without any wringing or further processing. Hand wringing of solvent wipes could 

increase solvent emissions to the atmosphere and increase the potential for employee exposure to solvent vapors. Hand wringing 

would necessarily occur in close proximity to the workers' breathing zone and increase the concentration of solvent vapors in the 

breathing zone.

A requirement that solvent wipes be hand wrung or machine processed would be particularly inappropriate for wipes destined for 

combustion in a solid waste combustor. The fuel value of many of the F-listed solvents would make these wipes attractive to 

combustion units. There is no reason to remove fuel value from the wipes, then combust recovered liquids separately. 

Docket Number - 366

Comment Key - 475

Submitted by - Robin Bennett of The Boeing Company 

Comment Text:

The Agency is proposing to adopt a practical “No drip test“ such as no drip in the period of time to transfer a wipe from one 

container to another. I believe that there probably is no procedure that can provide both a practical and infallible method to 

establish a “no free Liquid test”. I also believe that such a criteria is needed to provide any practical approach to the wipes issue. I 

suggest that the Agency “no drip test ” proposed is sufficient considering that the generator wipes would be subject to full RCRA 

regulation if free liquids result in any storage or shipping containers. As a generator I know that if I do not provide sufficient 

procedures to eliminate the potential for free product in containers that the exclusions will not apply and the wipes will be subject 

to full RCRA regulation. Therefore, as a generator, I will not only see to it that procedures are in place that will pass the “No drip 

test” but I will institute procedures appropriate to each process that will ensure no free liquids in containers as well. Additional 

test methods (paint filter test, wring wipes) would be burdensome and provide no more assurance that the proposed “No drip 

Test”. 

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1224

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

NADA argued that EPA should simply require that there be “no visible signs of free-flowing solvent remaining in or on the 

material.” 
166

5.4.2. No Free Liquids When Wrung

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 757

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

Wipes should meet a "no dripping when hand wrung" performance standard to ensure that users reclaim as much solvent as 

practically possible. 

Docket Number - 159

Comment Key - 458

Submitted by - Gary Clark of Clark and Associates 

Comment Text:

Wipes should meet a “not dripping when hand wrung” performance standard to ensure that users reclaim as much solvent as 

practically possible.

Docket Number - 176

Comment Key - 745

Submitted by - Tom Robertshaw of Motion Industries 

Comment Text:

Wipes should meet a "not dripping when hand wrung'' performance standard; this will help the environment by ensuring that 

users reclaim as much solvent as practically possible.

Docket Number - 185

Comment Key - 13

Submitted by - Steven Hamilton of Urban Environmental Affairs Council 

Comment Text:

We recommend that EPA make the following changes to the proposed rule to significantly reduce the pollution currently being 

discharged by industrial laundries:

1) Prevent solvents from entering the laundering process.

-Require solvent removal at the generator, minimally hand wringing.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1409

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MADEP urges EPA to adopt the “no free liquids when wrung” standard, either by hand-wringing or by other suitable 

technologies. The feedback MADEP received from Massachusetts’ generators during the last ten years this policy has been in 

effect demonstrates that this is not a burdensome requirement. Also, because generators are required to manage recovered 

solvents as a hazardous waste, this simple step 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. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1537

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Comments relative to the inclusion of no free liquids when wrung option. Benefits of the when wrung option for disposable 

wipers going to a landfill would include added recovery of solvent for recycle. It would minimize the amount of fuel value that 

the products had for combustion on wipers going to a combustor.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 706

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should meet a performance standard of “not dripping when hand wrung by the 

person managing the wipe” to ensure that the maximum amount of solvent that can practically be removed from solvent-soiled 

wipes is recovered and recycled. 
167

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 524

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Establish a “non-dripping when hand wrung” standard for both laundered and non-laundered wipes

-Hand wringing is the standard used for “oily” rags and is universally understood.

-The greatest amount of solvent will be recovered with the least amount of cost to the generator.

-Solvent on laundered and non-laundered wipes will be recovered and recycled or treated properly by the generator, thus 

preventing solvent from entering the landfill or the wash process (as EPA’s Office of Water desired)

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 500

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Dow objects to the 5 grams per wipe condition and supports a “wrung” requirement for direct land disposal of wipes in nonhazardous landfills. The 5 grams per wipe condition stands in stark contrast to EPA’s objective for conditions to “be 

performance-based and easy to understand and implement”. The majority of sites that produce wipes will not have the separation 

equipment or the measuring and analyzing equipment to process or determine if a wipe has more or less than 5 grams contained 

in it. Dow believes an adequate condition for direct land disposal of a wipe is to require wringing before disposal. A wrung wipe 

will essentially be “dry” relative to producing any free liquid discharge upon handling and disposal. Also, wringing at the 

generating point will facilitate recovery and reuse of solvent at its point of use. A “no free liquids when wrung” condition would 

meet the objective of being performance-based and easy to understand and implement. Additionally, wipes come in different 

sizes and may, as a result of use, end up in different sizes, thus a fixed quantity/mass limit is not appropriate for all wipes, a 

concentration limit would be more applicable, although such a limit would also not meet the “easy to implement” objective.

Docket Number - 277

Comment Key - 847

Submitted by - Michael G. Fusco of Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 

Comment Text:

SK is concerned that the proposal, if promulgated, would allow large quantities of solvents to be disposed in Subtitle D Landfills 

and wastewater treatment systems. SK believes this could present a risk to human health and the environment, and discourages 

recycling. To minimize this risk and encourage recycling, SK urges EPA to modify this proposal prior to finalizing it. SK 

strongly urges the EPA to adopt a standard where all solvent contaminated rags and wipes must be compressed (wrung out) 

sufficiently for removal of liquid solvents prior to containerized disposal. Solvents wrung out from the rag or wipe must then be 

recycled or treated within RCRA’s Subtitle C System.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1149

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

To achieve the environmental protection and resource conservation and recovery goals of RCRA and this rulemaking, the 

proposed rule needs to be amended to require a “hand-wringing” performance standard for all wipes subject to this rule.

In the previous section [see comments in Section 2.1], INDA/SMART explained why EPA’s tentative determination not to 

require substantial solvent extraction from SSIWs, along with other factors, renders EPA’s proposed exclusion from the 

definition of solid waste for SSLWs unlawful. INDA/SMART addresses here the numerous reasons why the environmental 

protection and resource conservation goals of RCRA, and EPA’s stated objectives for this rulemaking, dictate solvent extraction 

at least equivalent to that attainable by hand-wringing of wipes as a condition for an exclusion for all SSIWs from the definition 

of hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1150

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA’s Stated Basis for Failing to Propose a “Hand-Wrung” Condition Is Neither Sound Nor Persuasive. 

1. The Argument That This Condition Would Be Burdensome Is Faulty. The view that hand-wringing would be “burdensome” 

argues too much. All regulation, by its very nature, is “burdensome.” However, that is not the proper issue for EPA’s 
168

consideration. The proper - and legally required - 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. See, e.g., 45 Fed. Reg. 33089 (May 19, 1980) (“EPA may not consider cost burdens upon industry in choosing the level of

its standards. The Agency may, however, take cost considerations into account in order to select the most effective regulation 

among various alternatives that meet the statutory requirement of being ‘necessary to protect human health and the 

environment’.”) 

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, as demonstrated above, 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 

SSLWs, thereby rendering it inadequate to sustain an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste as well. Equally so, the 

benefits of such an approach, as shown by comments in Section IV.B below, far outweigh its “burdens”, which - in actuality - are 

quite small.

EPA has estimated the cost of a “no free liquids when wrung” condition at an aggregate, annual total of $2.2 to $8.1 million for 

laundered wipe generators and launderers combined. See Economics Background Document, at 27. Those figures are clearly 

unwarranted for a plain and simple reason: they ignore EPA’s own conclusion that “hand-wringing” is already taking place in 

good measure due to existing state “regulatory” policies or industry practices. 

Even if those figures were justified, they would be relatively inconsequential for individual members of the regulated community 

given the vast number of wipe generators and industrial launderers that would be subject to this rule. That conclusion is 

particularly justified when one weighs those cost figures against the direct costs associated with failing to require hand-wringing, 

e.g., the costs to launderers and wipe generators alike of having to address the spent solvent “free liquids” in transport containers 

that EPA readily acknowledges will ensue from its proposed “no free liquids” condition. While INDA/SMART is confident that 

EPA has vastly underestimated the percentage of containers that will contain free liquids under its proposed condition and 

therefore the amount of free spent solvent that will need to be managed as hazardous waste, even under EPA’s calculations the

annual direct costs of managing percolated “free liquids” as hazardous waste is expected to range from approximately $1.5 to 

over $1.7 million for laundered wipes alone. See id. at 17. As such, the net direct cost of requiring hand-wringing should be quite 

manageable. That cost would be even more manageable under INDA/SMART’s recommended “hand-wringing” performance 

standard, which (as discussed further below) would enable wipe generators to rely on “generator knowledge” and avoid actual 

hand-wringing where the minimal amount of solvent used on a wipe justified a conclusion that it would not drip if hand-wrung.

2. The Argument That Hand-Wringing Would Represent a Substantial Change From Current State Policies on “Free Liquids” Is 

Equally Without Merit As with a solid waste exclusion for a secondary material all of whose hazardous constituents are disposed 

of, a failure to adopt a hand-wringing requirement on the ground that it would represent a “substantial change” from current state 

policies would turn RCRA on its head. Congress did not enact RCRA so that EPA could turn to state policies to decide which 

waste materials should be subjected to the federal hazardous waste regulatory regime. Instead, Congress established RCRA with 

a mandate that EPA make an independent decision, as the federal agency responsible for such determinations, as to which 

materials should be classified as solid waste, and classified and regulated as hazardous waste, on a national, uniform basis. See, 

e.g., RCRA, § 1002(a) (while the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be a function of state agencies, “the 

problems of waste disposal . . . have become a matter national in scope and in concern and necessitate federal action”). As such, 

it is EPA’s statutory obligation to decide which materials should be classified as solid and hazardous waste and what regulations 

are necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by discard of such materials. Id., §§ 

3001(a), (b), 3002-3005. Once EPA makes a determination (as it has here with its conditional exclusion for SSLWs) that a 

material is subject to RCRA, Subtitle C jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of EPA to implement and enforce regulations designed 

to address those risks or, in the event a State promulgates a hazardous waste regulatory program that is no less stringent than the 

federal program, authorize a State to administer and enforce its program in lieu of the federal counterpart. Id., §§ 3006, 3008.52 

Even if the positions of the states on this issue were relevant, it is worth noting that many states already impose a number of 

different conditions on the management of SSLWs. See, e.g., 68 Fed. Reg. 65593. In particular, as best INDA/SMART can 

discern from its analysis of available state SSLW “policies”, at least 5 states essentially regulate SSLWs as hazardous waste (with 

minor deviations from otherwise applicable requirements in a few instances); at least 14 states have established a “no free 

liquids” test that is more stringent than that proposed by EPA (e.g., by requiring use of EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW846 

Method 9095) or Liquids Release Test (SW846 Method 9096), or by requiring some kind of wringing or other solvent 

extraction); and at least 6 states recommend use of some form of aggressive hand-wringing, mechanical wringing or centrifuging, 

or other such solvent extraction process.

Clearly then, at least half the states either already impose requirements that are more stringent than the “no free liquids” condition 

proposed by EPA or strongly encourage use of aggressive solvent extraction processes. As such, EPA’s failure to establish a 

more stringent condition than what it has proposed would itself represent a “substantial change from current state policies” 

comparable to (and less protective and consistent with RCRA’s resource recovery objectives than) that occasioned by a handwringing requirement.
169

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1151

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

The Assertion That Hand-Wringing Would Expose Wipes To the Air More Than is Necessary is Baseless.

The final contention raised as an argument against hand-wringing is that it would expose wipes to the air more than is necessary. 

For at least the following four reasons, this assertion is baseless:

-First, it fails to account for the minimal amount of time it takes to hand-wring a wiper, and the fact that the substantial amount of 

solvent removed by handwringing is then not available for evaporation when SSLWs are later exposed to the air during the 

laundering handling process.

-Second, it fails to account for the additional amount of time the wipers will be exposed to the air due to the need to address the 

free solvents that will inevitably accumulate at the bottom of containers of SSLWs not hand-wrung when those containers need to 

be returned to wipe generators to manage properly the hazardous solvents in them.

-Third, as discussed further below, this simplistic argument fails to balance the significant benefits (e.g., resource recovery, waste 

minimization, and reduction of risks to laundry workers) achieved by the substantial amount of solvent that can be extracted by 

hand-wringing.

-Finally, this argument fails to account for the comparable exposure of wipers to the air that are “hand-held” under EPA’s 

proposed “no free liquids” test. Were that test to be unlawfully promulgated in support of an exclusion from the definition of 

solid waste, the test - to have any meaning - would presumably necessitate hand-holding of SSLWs in at least some cases to 

determine if liquid dripped from them. That hand-holding would also expose the wipers to the air. On the other hand, if the 

“stakeholders” raising this contention (and EPA) are basing this “air exposure concern” on the ground that hand-wringing would 

expose wipers to the air while EPA’s proposed condition would not because it does not actually require hand-holding, then these 

stakeholders seem to have proven INDA/SMART’s point, namely, that EPA’s proposed exclusion from the definition of solid 

waste for SSLWs is illegal because it will fail to require any initial reclamation.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1152

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

The Numerous Substantial Benefits to Be Derived From Hand-Wringing Far Outweigh the Minimal “Burden” Associated With 

Its Imposition.

As noted above, INDA/SMART supports adoption of a hand-wringing performance standard for all SSIWs. Such a requirement 

(i) 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 SSLW generators, (ii) would substantially further EPA’s own priority policy objectives of resource 

conservation and recovery, (iii) would establish a level regulatory playing field for those wipe generators who already engage in 

such practices, either voluntarily or as a result of existing policies in numerous states that already require hand-wringing (or 

comparable solvent extraction) in light of the clear resource conservation and environmental protection benefits to be derived, 

(iv) should adequately address the documented worker and workplace safety and health risk concerns that EPA’s proposed 

regulatory conditions clearly do not, (v) is easy to understand and implement, (vi) should pose no additional meaningful cost to 

those who would fall under its requirements, and (vii) can readily be applied consistently to all SSIWs. 

1. The Substantial Recovery of Additional Solvent Achieved Through Hand-Wringing of SSLWs is Necessary to Achieve the 

Environmental Protection Objectives Established by EPA’s Office of Water When it Decided to Refer Regulation of Industrial 

Laundries Managing Contaminated Wipes to The Office of Solid Waste.

...EPA’s Office of Water ultimately reasoned that the best way to minimize solvent releases in industrial laundry wastewater 

would be to prevent the solvents from entering the industrial laundering process in the first place...In light of its recognition that 

solvent removal by SSLW generators (or industrial laundries prior to laundering) would effectively reduce the amount of solvents 

entering the nation’s water supply in the first instance, the Office of Water decided not to issue a final rule requiring industrial 

laundry facilities to meet national wastewater pretreatment standards, but to rely instead on such alternative measures. The Office 

of Water therefore referred the issue to the Office of Solid Waste, which was then working on a rule to prevent solvents from

entering the industrial laundering process, as the more appropriate office to issue effective and cost-efficient regulations to keep 

solvents out of the environment. 

Having made that policy judgment, EPA has now decided - without explanation - to forego any meaningful solvent extraction by 

SSLW generators. Despite acknowledging the substantial solvent removal that can be achieved through hand-wringing and other 

solvent extraction techniques (see Technical Background Document, at 64-68), EPA has tentatively decided not to require the use 
170

of any such techniques for SSLWs. Given the findings of its Office of Water, the Agency’s desire “to foster pollution prevention 

and recycling opportunities by requiring users of disposable industrial wipers who desire less stringent management requirements 

to . . . remove solvents to achieve the ‘no free liquids’ . . . conditions”, the fact that the record reveals a continuing need for 

solvent extraction prior to the laundering process to avoid recurring noncompliance by industrial laundries with local 

pretreatment requirements and health risks to laundry workers, and the relevant factors discussed below, the Agency’s proposal 

for SSLWs is inexplicable and arbitrary. (It is as if EPA were somehow concluding that pollution prevention is important for 

users of non-laundered wipes, but not for laundered wipes.) For all these reasons, EPA should mandate a hand-wringing 

performance standard, which represents a reasonable and readily implementable and cost-effective middle-of-the-road 

compromise between the Agency’s “do nothing” proposal and the recommendations of other commenters that EPA require more 

advanced and expensive solvent extraction techniques. 

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1153

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

2. The Substantial Recovery of Additional Solvent Achieved By Hand-Wringing Will Advance the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Goals of RCRA, Which Are One of the Top Priorities of the Current Office of Solid Waste And Emergency Response. 

(a) The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has established resource conservation and recovery of hazardous 

chemicals as one of its highest priorities. The current Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (“OSWER”) has made 

resource conservation and recovery of hazardous chemicals one of its highest priorities under RCRA. On September 9, 2002, 

OSWER Assistant Administrator Horinko announced the Resource Conservation Challenge (“RCC”), an invitation to large and 

small businesses alike to, among other things, increase the national recycling rate, cut the per capita rate of waste generation, and 

reduce the generation of the most harmful chemicals in hazardous waste. Noting that the RCC comprised “one third” of her 

Administration’s “six priorities”, Administrator Horinko announced a challenge to “apply common sense approaches” to waste 

reduction and recycling. In a February 27, 2003 statement before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment of 

the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Assistant Administrator Horinko reiterated the importance of the RCC and 

denominated it a “major national effort to conserve our natural resources through waste reduction. . . .” Similarly, in an April 8, 

2003 statement to the Environmental Council for the States, she stated that “[w]ith the RCC, I’m putting resource conservation, 

recovery and reuse on OSWER’s front burner . . . we’re paying a lot more attention to reducing how much comes out the end of 

the pipe.”

On May 6, 2003, in her memorandum to RCRA Senior Policy Advisors entitled “OSWER Priorities FY04/RCRA FY04 Mutual 

Performance Agreement”, Assistant Administrator Horinko announced her intent to carry this initiative forward, identifying the 

RCC as “one of four key areas” where EPA’s leadership and performance were “critically important” to achieve OSWER’s fiscal 

year 2004 priorities. At a meeting held on June 20, 2003 to promote this “significant shift at EPA to achieve cross-media and 

multimedia environmental protection” through the RCC, then EPA Deputy Administrator Fisher characterized the RCC as “a 

challenge to EPA [and] the states . . . to coordinate resource conservation efforts across programs, across environmental media, 

and across different levels of government to support a national conservation ethic in a seamless way.” At that meeting, EPA 

“emphasized that through the RCC, the principles of pollution prevention, waste minimization, and conservation of resources will 

be applied in the context of a number of relevant environment statutes, [including] the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

. . .” Moreover, “the Agency, at the highest level, commit[ted] to mobilize its institutional resources to bring sustained, focused, 

and internally aligned attention and responsive decision-making to achieving these goals.”

Finally, in its 2002-2003 report on the progress of the RCC, EPA observed that the current regulatory system for hazardous waste 

“hasn’t focused sufficiently on minimizing wastes and reducing the release of toxic chemicals through product design, recycling, 

and reuse.” In that report, the Agency noted that “the solutions being advanced [by it] may include regulatory approaches . . . to 

allow material recycling and reuse, while still providing protection of human health and the environment.” Two such regulatory 

approaches touted by EPA were its “comparable fuels rule that conditionally exempts specific hazardous waste from regulation 

when the waste contains no more toxic constituents than gasoline or fuel oil,” i.e., comparable “virgin” materials, and its proposal 

to promote computer monitor recycling “that will also reduce the release of toxic chemicals . . . into the environment.” To further 

these goals, RCC has developed “a new goal that will seek to further reduce priority chemicals in hazardous waste, but also 

expand the goal to all solid waste and releases to the environment.”

Having posed this laudable challenge to the nation and to EPA itself, it is incumbent upon the Agency to set an example by acting 

consistent with, and in furtherance of, that challenge. Although the proposed rule provides EPA an excellent opportunity to both 

reduce toxic releases to the environment of hazardous chemicals with documented health impacts in the waste management 

context addressed in the proposal and conserve voluminous solvent resources, the Agency’s proposal to not require any 

affirmative solvent extraction from SSLWs regrettably falls far short of both the goals and challenge established by EPA and 

INDA/SMART’s call for a uniform hand-wringing performance standard. Moreover, unlike with SSNWs, it fails to make diligent 

efforts to minimize release of hazardous constituents to the environment a condition for the reward of an exclusion from the 
171

RCRA hazardous waste regulatory system. In the absence in these circumstances of meaningful solvent extraction conditions 

applicable to over 85 percent of the enormous SSIW market, the public is left to ponder whether the RCC ultimately rings a bit 

hollow. Put another way, if not here, where?

(b) Adoption of a hand-wringing performance standard would materially advance OSWER’s resource conservation and recovery 

goals The Office of Water’s referral of this issue to the Office of Solid Waste was a sensible decision. 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. See, e.g., Technical Background Document, at 65 (noting solvent removal efficiencies of up to 68 percent). In 

fact, EPA may have underestimated the efficacy of hand-wringing of SSLWs. A study of launderable wipes saturated with water, 

which compared wipes that were not dripping and not hand-wrung to the same wipes after they had been hand-wrung, showed 

that the wipes that were not hand wrung contained 66% more liquid than the wipes that were hand wrung. This study confirms 

common sense - the fact that a wipe is not dripping when held by its corner does not mean the wipe does not contain solvents 

which could be easily extracted by hand-wringing.

[Study included as Appendix C: Amount of Additional Liquid Removable from Individual Launderable Wipes by HandWringing. Attachments to this submission are in docket #284]

Equally important, EPA may not only have underestimated the amount of solvent that can be extracted from each laundered 

wipe, but also the total amount of solvent that annually could be extracted, recycled, and kept out of the environment in the U.S. 

As set forth in Appendix D to these comments, as much as 225,000 tons/year of solvent (57.75 million gallons), rather than the 

82,000 - 103,000 tons/year (21.1 to 26.5 million gallons) figure employed by EPA, are likely to be present on SSIWs. EPA’s 

figures are based on an unexplained assumption that only 11% to 14% of the solvent used in industrial solvent 

cleaning/degreasing applications finds its way to industrial wipes used for cleaning/degreasing. See Economics Background 

Document, at 46.63 Given the fact that cleaning/degreasing operations are conducted with the intent that the solvent will be 

wiped away, and given the common use of industrial wipes for that purpose, the Agency’s assumption is inordinately 

conservative. Based on the experience of its member companies and their customers, INDA/SMART believes that a 25% figure 

is a much more reasonable assumption. Use of that percentage results in a total of 225,000 tons/year of solvent used and 

contained in SSIWs (25% of the 900,000 tons of solvent EPA estimates are used annually in industrial solvent 

cleaning/degreasing applications). 

[Study included as Appendix D: Estimate of Additional Solvent on Solvent-Soiled Industrial Wipes that Potentially Can Be 

Recovered and Recycled Annually on a Nationwide Basis. Attachments to this submission are in docket #284]]

Moreover, EPA assumes that only 14% of the solvent in SSIWs will be recovered. See Appendix D. Based on its experience and 

knowledge of the industry, INDA/SMART believes that a much more realistic, yet still conservative, average figure is 20% 

recovery from hand-wringing. Using this more reasonable assumption together with the above INDA/SMART estimate of the 

amount of solvent on SSIWs, it would appear that approximately an additional 8.18 million gallons of solvent could be captured 

with hand-wringing beyond the 3.37 million gallons estimated by EPA, for a total of approximately 11.55 million gallons. See id. 

This volume of solvent extraction is over three times EPA’s inordinately low estimate. Of course, every gallon of additional 

solvent captured is a gallon of solvent not entering the environment via sludge in landfills, wastewater to POTWs, or air 

emissions, and is potentially an additional gallon of recycled solvent that can be used in lieu of raw materials, thereby advancing 

EPA’s resource conservation and recovery agenda.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1154

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

3. EPA’s Failure to Establish a Hand-Wringing Performance Standard is Inexplicable in Light of The Agency’s Finding That 

Hand-Wringing is Already Occurring in Large Measure and the Policies of the Significant Number of States that Already Require 

Hand-Wringing Or a Comparable Performance Standard in Light of the Clear Benefits to be Derived.

In conducting its analysis for this rulemaking, EPA apparently concluded that hand-wringing of SSIWs is already taking place to 

some significant extent. For example, EPA’s risk screening analysis assumes that wipes qualifying for the conditional exclusion 

satisfy the “no free liquids” condition only when meeting a hand-wrung performance standard. For purposes of that analysis, 

EPA assumed a solvent to towel weight ratio of 1:1 for non-laundered wipes for printers. See Technical Background Document, 

at 102 (assuming dry SSNW weight of 25 grams and 25 grams of solvent on each SSNW for printers). However, in order to reach 

a solvent to towel weight ratio of 1:1, hand-wringing is clearly required for saturated wipes.

...As EPA also noted there [in the Draft Economic Impacts Analysis], based on representations from the industrial laundry 

community, hand-wringing “is also a condition of doing business with most industrial laundries. The condition therefore 

represents no incremental cost for generators or laundries”. 
172

In other words, EPA itself apparently believes that as a matter of practice and/or state regulatory policies, hand-wringing of 

SSIWs is already largely occurring. Given that belief, it is difficult to fathom why EPA would not want to codify that practice 

and ensure that it is being implemented uniformly by all SSIW generators to ensure that (i) those entities engaging in this 

environmentally beneficial practice are not unfairly economically disadvantaged in comparison to those entities who are not 

engaged in those practices, and (ii) the various acknowledged resource recovery and environmental benefits of this practice are 

maximized. 

Moreover, UTSA and TRSA have stated that EPA’s proposed rule should be based on the “no free liquids” management 

conditions applicable to SSLWs under existing state “regulatory” policies. Given that position, and the large number of states that 

already require hand-wringing or its functional equivalent (or else strongly recommend aggressive solvent extraction techniques), 

UTSA and TRSA should not have a problem with a federal rule that uniformly mandates in all states salutary solvent removal 

practices they generally endorse.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1155

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

4. A Hand-Wringing Performance Standard Is Necessary To Ensure That Regulatory Requirements Are In Place That Will 

Compel All SSIW Generators to Engage in Meaningful Solvent Extraction and Achieve the Substantial Resource Recovery Goals 

That Should Be an Objective of this Rulemaking.

Despite EPA’s assumptions (based on state policies) that hand-wringing is occurring, widespread solvent extraction may not in 

fact be the case in practice. As noted earlier in these comments, 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. However, only a limited 

number of states actually impose a “hand-wringing” regulatory requirement (as opposed to more informal policy statements 

establishing “no free liquids” conditions that are more stringent than those proposed by EPA), and some states merely 

recommend other forms of aggressive solvent extraction. Moreover, if hand-wringing were actually now largely occurring in 

practice, it is difficult to understand why industrial launderers would have so stridently opposed a “hand-wringing” standard to 

date.

In INDA/SMART’s view, noncompliance with existing state solvent extraction standards occurs largely because of the 

complexity and lack of transparency and clarity of existing state policies. A uniform federal rule that requires common sense 

management of all wipers containing solvents will increase compliance in this area and actually achieve the solvent recovery 

objectives EPA has set for itself and this rule. It will also eliminate the competitive disadvantage faced by those entities actually 

complying with current state hand-wringing requirements.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1157

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

5. A Hand-Wringing Performance Standard For Wipe Generators is Necessary to Address Effectively the Environmental Health 

Risks Posed By Fires During Transport and Storage of Solvent-Contaminated Wipes and By the Extensive Handling of Such 

Wipes by Laundry Workers.

The record for this rulemaking, including comments provided at the March 9 public hearing convened by EPA on the proposed 

rule; is replete with examples of how current SSLW handling practices have not only posed substantial worker safety and health 

risks, but actual adverse health impacts. These risks arise from the release of liquid solvents from wipes and wipe containers 

when being transported, solvent fumes emitted during transport of SSLWs and at laundering facilities in the wipe handling 

process prior to laundering, and fires during both transport of wipes and their management at industrial laundries due to the 

flammability of many solvents addressed in this rulemaking. Additional risks are posed by the substantial concentrations of 

metals in laundered wipes handled in large quantities by laundry workers packaging them for shipment to customers, and by 

employees of customers who handle them prior to use. 

It is remarkable that despite these documented risks, EPA has conceded (as discussed above) that its proposed “no free liquids” 

condition will continue to allow free liquids to accumulate in SSLW containers shipped offsite for laundering. It is equally 

remarkable that despite this acknowledgement, EPA has not proposed a transport container standard that would prevent the 

release of solvents. Put another way, on their face, EPA’s proposed conditions for the SSLW regulatory exclusion would not 

appear to adequately address the environmental and health risks posed by the management of these volatile and flammable 

solvents.
173

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 the wipes. 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. 

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1158

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

6. Adoption of a Uniform Hand-Wringing Performance Standard for all SSIWs Would Be Easy for Wipe Generators to 

Understand and Implement, Should Not Pose Any Meaningful Cost Burdens, and Would Be Equitable.

(a) A uniform hand-wringing standard would be easily understood and implemented by all SSIW generators. A universal handwringing performance standard would substantially further EPA’s objectives of increasing consistency in the regulations 

governing SSIWs across the United States, clarifying the content of current variable and ambiguous state solvent extraction 

requirements, addressing over-regulation of SSNWs, and rendering SSIW regulations more easily implementable. Any generator 

should be able to immediately understand and apply a hand-wringing performance standard, especially if it is worded, as 

INDA/SMART recommends below, as requiring that the wipe “not release a single drop of solvent when hand-wrung to the 

maximum extent practicable by the person responsible for managing the wipe.” Anyone who has used a washcloth can intuitively 

grasp the principle of a hand-wringing standard to eliminate liquid. With that “every day” understanding and the enhanced clarity 

of regulatory language will presumably come consistency in application and enhanced compliance with the standard.

Unlike with EPA’s proposed “5 gram solvent limit” for SSNWs, 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 “5 gram limit” has been met, especially where the nature or the amount of the 

solvent application changes with changing manufacturing processes. The comments EPA is receiving on its proposal from SSIW 

generators make clear that the complexity and cost of complying with a “5 gram solvent limit” for landfilled wipes is such that 

EPA may as well not promulgate it as an effort at “regulatory relief” because it simply will not be used.

(b) A hand-wringing performance standard should not impose meaningful costs. If, as the above-referenced analyses of EPA and 

INDA/SMART indicate, many states already require as a policy matter hand-wringing of SSLWs or its functional equivalent, and 

launderers truly already insist upon it in at least a number of cases, then the cost impact of a uniform federal standard of that sort 

for those wipes should be minimal. Moreover, even if there is less hand-wringing actually occurring than these analyses would 

indicate is the case, EPA’s own economic impact assessment, properly analyzed, reveals once again that the compliance cost 

should be readily

manageable by individual wipe generators. 

(c) A universal hand-wringing standard uniformly applied to all SSIWs would be equitable and help create a level regulatory 

playing field that would assist wipe users in selecting wipes based upon their relative utility in the applications involved, rather 

than on unjustified regulatory cost differentials. UTSA and TRSA have asserted that current state regulatory practices and the 

business practices of industrial laundries render a federal “hand-wringing” requirement unnecessary. This assertion is belied by a 

number of facts. First, as noted above, the TRSA/UTSA Management Practices manual does not even recommend, much less 

require, hand-wringing or any other identifiable and meaningful solvent extraction technique. Second, as also noted above, while 

a good number of states already impose a hand-wringing requirement (or its functional equivalent), not all states currently do so. 

Third, due to the forestated factors, current solvent extraction practices are highly uneven. While some environmentallyconscious wipe generators and industrial laundries presumably employ meaningful solvent extraction practices, others - in the 

absence of clear, enforceable state regulatory requirements - clearly do not. Finally, and perhaps most elementally, it simply 

defies credulity to conclude that UTSA and TRSA would have opposed a hand-wringing requirement as assiduously as they have 

during the course of this rulemaking if hand-wringing were standard operating practice” in the industry.

As noted above, INDA/SMART is committed to the principle of equivalent regulatory conditions for all SSIWs, including an 

identical hand-wringing performance standard for all SSIWs. That result is not only justified by the comparable risks posed by 

the management of SSLWs and SSNWs, but also as a matter of fairness and even-handed regulatory policy. A uniform 

handwringing standard would not only remove any competitive advantage for those wipe generators not now engaged in that 

commonsense and protective practice, but would also ensure - as it clearly should that all SSIW generators bear an equal 

“burden” in furthering the resource conservation and recovery objectives of RCRA and this rule. Moreover, a uniformly applied 

standard would facilitate significantly the ability of wipe generators to (i) select wiper products based on which work best for the 

applications they need, rather than on the basis of cost differentials occasioned by regulatory differences that are unjustified, and 

(ii) understand and implement applicable SSIW regulatory requirements and, in turn, enhance compliance with this rule.
174

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1161

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Recommended Regulatory Condition for “No Free Liquids”. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the final rule should 

expressly define the “no free liquids” condition as a performance standard requiring solvent extraction that would be at least 

equivalent to that attained by hand-wringing of industrial wipes. INDA/SMART therefore recommends that EPA promulgate a 

“no free liquids” condition for both SSLWs and SSNWs as follows:

“When transported offsite, solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must contain no free liquids. To ensure that this condition is 

met (i) a wipe must not release a single drop of liquid solvent when hand-wrung to the maximum extent practicable by the person 

responsible for managing the wipe, and (ii) there must be no liquid solvent in the container holding the wipes. Wipes that have 

been subjected to solvent extraction are presumed to contain no free liquids.”

Consistent with EPA’s objective of establishing a practical and readily understood test, this recommended language would 

simply require that a wipe generator instruct whatever person is responsible for managing wipes at the generator’s facility to 

ensure that each wipe about to be transported offsite for subsequent management not release a single drop of liquid solvent 

should it be hand-wrung by that person to the maximum extent practicable. This approach would allow the responsible person to 

(i) use “generator knowledge”, where appropriate, to determine that the wipe would not release liquid solvent if hand-wrung by 

him or her (e.g., because very little solvent had been applied to the wipe), (ii) hand-wring the wipe to the maximum extent 

practicable to ensure that the condition for the exclusion was met, or (iii) employ “solvent extraction”, as defined in the 

regulations. Although this approach may result in somewhat different levels of solvent being removed depending upon the 

approach employed, the results should be comparable and ensure substantial solvent recovery where meaningful amounts of 

solvent are in a wipe, thereby achieving the objectives of this rulemaking. 

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1677

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Definition of "no free liquids". EPA's proposed definition of "no free liquids" includes, in part, merely the requirement that "no 

liquid solvent may drip". This is too weak a criterion. EPA should require that wipes be wrung, and then, after wringing, not drip.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 27

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

The final rule needs to require that the hazardous solvents be removed prior to laundering or disposal of the solvent laden wipers. 

We urge the EPA to define ‘Dry” by the hand wringing method to achieve the requirement for no free liquids for both laundered 

and non laundered solvent laden wipers. AF&F feels this standard is preferable to the 5-gram limit on solvents for non-laundered 

wipers sent to the landfill. 

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 444

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

-Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should meet a performance standard of “not dripping when hand wrung by the 

person managing the wipe” to ensure that the maximum amount of solvent that can practically be removed is recovered and 

recycled.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1022

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MEDEP recommends a “no free liquids when mechanically wrung” proposal over the drip test. A requirement to centrifuge or 

mechanically wring the wipes will reduce the potential for generating liquids during shipment. This requirement will prevent 

excess handling of, and worker exposure to, solvents in the form of free-liquids. Manual wringing of wipes should not be 

encouraged.
175

Docket Number - 340

Comment Key - 924

Submitted by - Erwin S. Frey of PPG Industries 

Comment Text:

In lieu of a 5-gram limit, PPG would suggest that the wipes be wrung out to remove as much free liquid as possible and 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.

Docket Number - 345

Comment Key - 1567

Submitted by - Kyle Pitsor of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Comment Text:

The alternative [to a 5g condition] NEMA proposes is that wipes are considered dry if no free liquid can be removed (extracted) 

from the wipe when the wipe is wrung using hand pressure. This is a simple field applied test that could be used onsite at the time 

the inspector reviews the generator’s storage of solvent contaminated industrial wipes and a compliance determination made 

immediately. The variability to this particular alternative is that one person may be able to apply greater pressure than another 

person.

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 513

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

The Agency has proposed a number of options for demonstrating that a wipe is free of liquid. DuPont believes the most workable 

option would be the hand wrung option, which is at least the standard in one State in which we do business and has the greatest 

potential to avoid liquids settling out during transport. A nondripping wipe when placed in a container may still have sufficient 

solvent to settle out during transport, where a wrung out wipe will likely not.

Centrifuging and gravimetric methods seem unworkable based on the myriad of operations and settings where wipes are 

generated.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 578

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should meet a performance standard of “not dripping when hand wrung by the 

person managing the wipe” to ensure that the maximum amount of solvent that can practically be removed is recovered and 

recycled.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 620

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comments relative to the inclusion of no free liquids when wrung option. Benefits of the when wrung option for disposable 

wipers going to a landfill would include added recovery of solvent for recycle. It would minimize the amount of fuel value that 

the products had for combustion on wipers going to a combustor.

Docket Number - 360

Comment Key - 853

Submitted by - Bernard Brill of The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

SMART further agrees that "hand wringing" wipers to the point where no liquid drips should be the standard for considered the 

wiper to be non-hazardous. At this transported to a laundry or safely disposed of along with other trash.

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1503

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered and laundered wipes should meet the performance standard of "not dripping when hand wrung by the person 

managing the wipe" to ensure that the maximum amount of solvent that can practically be removed is recovered and recycled. 
176

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1425

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company 

Comment Text:

I also urge you to adopt the hang wringing procedure over the five gram rules. Measuring five grams in determining is water and 

the other solvent is on the wiper is cumbersome and unnecessary. Non-laundered wipes [that] aren’t dripping and contain 

solvents that EPA has identified don't pose any health risks should be allowed to go to landfills without a five gram ruling. By 

encouraging the use of a hand wringing solvent to where nothing is dripping makes more sense also by hand wringing the wiper 

creates an opportunity to recover, recycle more solvent.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 40

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE agrees with the stakeholder concerns summarized in the preamble, which include the following: (1) such a requirement 

[hand-wringing] would be a substantial change from current state policies on free liquids and would be burdensome for 

generators to implement; (2) contaminated wipes would be exposed to the air more than necessary; and (3) wringing would need 

to be performed immediately prior to placement of the wipes on the shipping vehicle, which would further burden generators. In 

addition, DOE is concerned that wringing to detect the presence of free liquids is not a reproducible test. Therefore, DOE 

encourages EPA not to adopt “no free liquids when wrung,” instead of “no free liquids,” as a condition for exclusion from the

definition of hazardous waste for wipes being sent for disposal at a non-land disposal facility or for further processing to meet the 

“dry” condition. 

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 49

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

...DOE encourages EPA not to adopt “no free liquids when wrung,” instead of “no free liquids,” as a condition for exclusion from 

the definition of solid waste for reusable wipes being sent to a laundry, dry cleaner, or handler for cleaning.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1545

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

This condition is excessive as laundries, dry cleaners and handling facilities are designed to handle wipes in the no free liquid 

condition and have systems in place to properly handle soils removed from wipers. In addition technology exists and is in place at 

laundries to remove solvents from towels as a first step in the laundry process. Depending on the technology used the solvents 

can additionally be recovered and recycled separately from the water used to clean the wipers.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 503

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Dow supports the “no free liquids” condition for wipes sent for recycling/laundering or for non-land disposal... Dow agrees with 

EPA that requiring additional treatment to the wipes, such as a “no free liquids when wrung” requirement, is unnecessary for 

these cases. The wipes are being sent to treatment where solvents will be removed and destroyed (laundering or non-land disposal 

unit) and therefore, pre-treatment is not necessary. Imposing additional requirements would place additional and unnecessary 

burdens on generators.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 299

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

EPA has not proposed a “no free liquid when wrung” condition, but did request comment on it. Under this condition, wipes could 

not drip any liquid when wrung. API agrees with EPA that a condition that would require wipes to be wrung is not appropriate 

because it would be a substantial change from current policies on free liquids and would impose an unnecessary burden on 

generators by requiring mechanical or hand wringing of all wipes.
177

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1070

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

We do not support the finalization of the "no free liquids" or "no free liquids when wrung" approaches 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. As 

proposed, the rule prohibits the disposal or combustion of free liquids by disposal facilities, therefore a solvent removal standard 

needs to be instituted that supports attainment of the prohibition.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 837

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Requiring facilities to mechanically treat each solvent-contaminated wipe to ensure that solvent will not drip when wrung will 

significantly increase employee exposure to the solvent and likewise extend the work flow, creating a large financial burden on 

facilities to implement. The solvent-contaminated wipes generated from cleaning electronic components are typically not 

saturated with solvent prior to use and applied solvent is used up in the cleaning process. Requiring each wipe to be wrung would 

unnecessarily expose the employees to solvents whether wringing is accomplished at the work station or upon consolidation for 

storage prior to shipping off site for disposal. The proposed rule contains provisions to handle situations when free liquids are 

discovered at the handling/combustion facility. If industry has to incur extra costs to dispose of material that does not meet the 

“no free liquid” condition, it will adapt and modify internal processes to meet the condition. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1099

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP is familiar with this concept [no free liquids when wrung]; however, we do not believe it should be adopted and, and 

further believe that the “no free liquids” standard is superior for several reasons. First, the “no free liquids” standard is more 

straightforward, and can more readily be detected (i.e. by simply looking in the bottom of a container, or lifting a bag out of a 

drum to see if there is any free liquid present). Second, the “no free liquid” standard does not require intimate contact with the 

waste (i.e., hand-wringing) in order to definitively determine compliance. Such contact would pose a significant and unnecessary 

exposure hazard for production workers and hazardous waste inspectors attempting to evaluate compliance with the “no free 

liquids when wrung” standard. And third, the “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. In addition, different 

individuals may find it appropriate to apply different amounts of force when wringing the wipes, creating inconsistencies from 

one person to the next in the determination of whether or not wipes meet the “no free liquids when wrung” standard.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 174

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC does not support the hand wringing test for no free liquids, and urges EPA not to adopt it. Although the Massachusetts 

“one drop when hand wrung” criterion appears to be protective, it is subject to wide variability in effectiveness. The effectiveness 

of hand ringing varies significantly with the fabric or cloth type and with the strength and the diligence of the worker. TBD at 65. 

The efficiency of hand wringing is poor, with results as low as 3.5% and mean efficiencies ranging from 5% to 24%. As noted, it 

is also subjected to labor costs, which likely exceed the cost of the graduated dispenser or mechanical wringer noted above. 

EPA must also heed the worker safety concerns associated with hand wringing. EPA notes that there are gaps in OSHA coverage 

of wipes, and the OSHA standards often do not ensure that adequate PPE is used. TBD at 54. EPA also notes that facilities 

managing wipes may or may not be subject to PPE standards under 29 CFR 1910.132, and also notes that not all of the 30 

solvents covered by this rule are subjected to workplace atmosphere PELs under OSHA standards. TBD at 38. Even for those 

constituents with PEL monitoring requirements, these are performed only on an infrequent basis, and significant exposure can 

occur between the one-time monitoring tests. If EPA were to promote hand wringing as a solvent extraction technology or as part 

of the definition of no free liquid, EPA would be enabling direct worker exposure to hazardous solvents through inhalation, skin 

absorption and possible accidental ingestion. The gaps in the OSHA coverage of solvent contaminated wipes are substantial. In

fact EPA’s Background Technical Document at 38 footnote 6, relaying the response of OSHA to EPA’s inquiry on this subject, 

shows that the only OSHA provision that is possibly directly related to solvent wipes deals only with maintaining combustible

waste material in closed metal containers and to a minimum (29 CFR 1910.106). Therefore, it is clear that EPA cannot rely on 
178

current OSHA standards to protect workers, and EPA should therefore not be promoting hand wringing of solvent contaminated 

wipes.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 1673

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the decision to institute a “no free liquids” condition that is consistent with the existing protocol 

currently utilized by most states and stakeholders. The disposable wipes would meet the condition if no liquid solvent drips from 

the towels at the time of shipment off-site. Additionally, no free liquids could be present in the bottom of the container in which 

the wipes are transported. Altering the exemption by instituting a “no free liquids when wrung” condition could create confusion 

and add ambiguity to the rule by allowing subjective interpretation of the term “wrung”. This ambiguity would defeat the purpose 

of developing a simplified approach for compliance determination under the new regulation.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1675

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe a change is necessary in how “no free liquid” is determined. The department agrees that using a 

criteria of “no free liquids when wrung” is impractical and would involve significant increased exposure of hazardous 

constituents to the environment and also an increased threat to worker safety.

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 494

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

USEPA states that the proposed regulation does not contain “when wrung” as part of the “no free liquids” condition due to 

concerns expressed by some stakeholders. DP&L agrees with this decision and opposes the inclusion of the “when wrung” 

stipulation in the “no free liquids” condition. 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. 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. DP&L agrees that there should be no free liquid in 

containers of solvent-contaminated wipes destined for disposal or reuse, but there should be no requirement to pass a more rigid 

test verifying this than a “drip test” whereby it is confirmed that the wipes contain no free liquids by simply observing that they 

do not drip.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 269

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

In light of the above, USWAG opposes any prescribed method for meeting the "no free liquids" condition, including the "no free 

liquids when wrung" standard. This approach would require that each wipe cannot drip solvent when hand wrung. EPA correctly 

recognizes that this option would be more burdensome and could result in additional exposure of the wipes to the air. As a 

practical matter, this would require an unnecessary step of hand-wringing each individual wipe, which would not only result in 

potentially increased solvent exposures to workers, but also would be impractical from an operational perspective.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1199

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA do not support this option [hand-wringing] for all of the concerns stated by EPA in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. This option would be very similar to, if not the same as, the “Massachusetts One Drop” test. As noted above, the 

Massachusetts test has significant flaws and these concerns would also apply to the “no free liquids when wrung” option. In 

addition, this option would be time consuming for generators to implement and its benefits are not clear.

Docket Number - 355

Comment Key - 226

Submitted by - Robert Peters of The Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) 
179

Comment Text:

The proposed rule should not require that wipes be hand wrung, mechanically wrung, or centrifuged. This is important to 

aerospace companies whose solvent wipe waste handling practices are already regulated under Aerospace National Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR 63, Subpart GG. 

The Aerospace NESHAP sets stringent housekeeping requirements for hand wipe solvent cleaning. These rules at 40 CFR 

63.744(a)(1) require, among other things, that the operator –

“...place cleaning solvent-laden cloth, paper, or any other absorbent applicators used for cleaning in bags or other closed 

containers upon completing their use. Ensure that these bags and containers are kept closed at all times except when depositing or 

removing these materials from the container. Use bags and containers of such design so as to contain the vapors of the cleaning 

solvent.” (Emphasis added). 

A requirement to wring or centrifuge these wipes after completing their use but before depositing them in a closed container 

would conflict with the currently applicable requirements for the proper handling of solvent-laden rags in the Aerospace 

NESHAP. 

Moreover, many aerospace hand wipe operations require only small amounts of solvent to be used, and the wipe can easily meet 

a “no free liquid” test upon completion of use without any wringing or further processing. Hand wringing of solvent wipes could 

increase solvent emissions to the atmosphere and increase the potential for employee exposure to solvent vapors. Hand wringing 

would necessarily occur in close proximity to the workers’ breathing zone thus potentially increasing the concentration of solvent 

vapors. 

For area sources, requiring facilities to mechanically treat each solvent-contaminated wipe to ensure that solvent will not drip 

when wrung will significantly increase employee exposure to the solvent and likewise extend the work flow, creating a large 

financial burden on facilities to implement. The solvent-contaminated wipes generated from cleaning most aerospace components 

are typically not saturated with solvent prior to use and applied solvent is used up in the cleaning process. Requiring each wipe to 

be wrung would unnecessarily expose the employees to solvents whether wringing is accomplished at the work station or upon 

consolidation for storage prior to shipping off site for disposal. The proposed rule contains provisions to handle situations when 

free liquids are discovered at the handling/combustion facility. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 628

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

This condition is excessive as laundries, dry cleaners and handling facilities are designed to handle wipes in the no free liquid 

condition and have systems in place to properly handle soils removed from wipers. In addition technology exists and is in place at 

laundries to remove solvents from towels as a first step in the laundry process. Depending on the technology used the solvents 

can additionally be recovered and recycled separately from the water used to clean the wipers

5.4.3. Dry Condition

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1579

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposable wipers sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram 

limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered;

Docket Number - 160

Comment Key - 765

Submitted by - Louis Buty of Peerless Materials Company 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposable wipers sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.
180

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1626

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered; 

Docket Number - 171

Comment Key - 602

Submitted by - John Michaud of Green Bay Nonwovens, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 174

Comment Key - 797

Submitted by - Phillip E. Bryson of Polymer Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 175

Comment Key - 760

Submitted by - Wayne Proctor of Wellman, Inc.

Comment Text:

Wellman recommends that the EPA consider removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 

5 gram limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered. 

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 404

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered;

Docket Number - 185

Comment Key - 14

Submitted by - Steven Hamilton of Urban Environmental Affairs Council 

Comment Text:

If a 5 gram condition is placed on disposable industrial wipes, that same condition should be placed on reusable industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 186

Comment Key - 422

Submitted by - David Williams of CCP Industries, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills or placing a 5 gram limit for the 

amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 862

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills or placing a 5 gram limit for the 

amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.
181

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 869

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] Removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills or placing a 5 gram limit for the 

amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 190

Comment Key - 844

Submitted by - George Cotter of Row Clothing 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered;

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 901

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for 

the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered;

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1535

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We concurs with the EPA decision to impose both the 5 gram "dry" wipe condition and prohibit certain solvents from disposal in 

non-hazardous landfills. ITU holds with the position that all solvents, which exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, should be 

prohibited from being sent to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills. Further we agree with EPA's proposal that all 

industrial wipes land filled under this proposal be required to meet the 5 gram standard and not just the no free liquid condition. 

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1041

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

The regulations should require some form of solvent extraction method be used on industrial towels. In their current form, the 

proposed regulations do not require users of industrial towels to do anything to remove solvents from the towels after they have 

been used. Obviously, 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.

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1042

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

Reusable industrial shop towels should have to meet the same 5 gram rule imposed on disposable towels. The proposed 

regulations would require that disposable industrial towels contain no more than 5 grams of solvents or they cannot be discarded 

in a landfill. As noted above, because virtually all of the solvents from reusable shop towels end up in a landfill anyway, the same 

5 gram limit should apply.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 169

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

In RCRA-2003-004-0040 another issue cited is the settling of solvent in a drum during transportation and storage. On page 22 of 

this document it is noted that wipes in the bottom of a container were typically found to contain 37% more weight of solvent than 

wipes in the top of the container. This same document also evaluated waste piles of solvent contaminated wipes, and identified 

weight gains of 90% to 460% at the bottom of piles, after only 18 to 22 hours of storage (pages 46 and 47). These tests also show 

that a generator may certify “no free liquids” based on wipes present in the top of the container or pile prior to storage or

shipping, yet during subsequent storage and transportation the wipes in the lower portion of the container or pile will exceed the 5 
182

grams or “no free liquids” criteria. 

Clearly based on overwhelming evidence in the administrative record, unless EPA mandates the use of centrifuge or mechanical 

removal technology to satisfy the “no free liquids” criterion, actual amounts of solvent remaining on an “extracted” wipe are far 

in excess of the 5 grams of solvent required for landfill disposal, and/or will contain substantial free liquid solvents that will be 

released to wastewater from laundering facilities. Unless a means such as the graduated dispenser that places a maximum of 5 

grams on the wipe to begin with is used, EPA has to assume that the wipe will contain much higher amounts of solvent, and 

therefore must be restricted from landfill disposal. The rule has provided no means for a generator to measure 5 grams, so the 

condition is not enforceable, particularly 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.

Docket Number - 291

Comment Key - 678

Submitted by - Michael Norboge of Jacob Holm Industries 

Comment Text:

A modification to the rule which we urge EPA to consider includes either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables 

sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 251

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

We agree with EPA that the standard for “dry” for wipes to be landfilled is overly stringent for reusable wipes and wipes destined 

for solvent reclamation (see 68 FR 65605, Col. 1, Sec. 5(a)). We support EPA in adopting performance-based transportation 

container requirements appropriate for the material being transported. (“Dry” wipes should have different requirements than 

wipes that are not considered “dry.”) A performance-based approach “provides industry the ability to be creative in developing 

less expensive ways to reach a desired outcome”.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 332

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the approach to require disposable wipes transported to municipal or other non-hazardous waste 

landfills to meet a “dry” standard. Expected environmental receptors for solvents removed from soiled reusable towels include

air, wastewater, solid waste and direct recycle or fuel use. Federal, state and/or local regulations currently regulate each of these 

receptors. This, in turn, limits the amount of solvent-laden soiled reusable towels that can be processed by any given laundry. The 

decision to meet these requirements by limiting the number and size of customers, by using enhanced pollution control 

equipment or by using some other means is at the discretion of the laundry but is not optional. There are no such corresponding 

“secondary” limits on disposable solvent wipes sent to municipal or nonhazardous waste landfills. All of the solvent contained on 

these wipes will be sent to the disposal facility. Therefore, the rule should include a “primary” or direct limit on the amount of 

solvents allowed on disposable wipes exempted by this rule. This approach 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.

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 236

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

EPA asks for comment (page 65608, middle column) on the option of it not differentiating between ‘dry’ and ‘no free liquids’ in 

the different management scenarios for qualification under the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. Alcoa believes 

that a differentiation is warranted if qualification to the more stringent criteria of ‘dry’ provides more flexibility in the

management approach for ‘dry’ wipes. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1571

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The same cannot be said about solvents found on disposables that are sent to landfills and introduced directly into the 
183

environment without treatment. This difference accounts for the need to apply a “dry” standard to disposable wipes sent to 

landfills. Such a standard is not necessary for reusable shop towels.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 618

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

We concur with the EPA decision to impose both the 5 gram "dry" wipe condition and prohibit certain solvents from disposal in

non-hazardous landfills. Further we agree with EPA's proposal that all industrial wipes land filled under this proposal be required 

to meet the 5 gram standard and not just the no free liquid condition.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 637

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment of the option to have one set of conditions for all types of disposable wipes. The potential for environmental harm is 

significantly increased if the "dry" condition for land filled wipes is removed.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 62

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests that the phrase “or must have been treated by solvent extraction,” which is emphasized in the proposed regulatory 

text quoted above, be omitted from the final regulations. As used in the quoted regulatory text, this phrase appears to create a 

presumption that wipes subjected to solvent extraction would contain less than 5 grams of solvent (i.e., would be “dry,” as 

explained on p. 65598). Hence, if the proposed section 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A) remains unchanged, the resulting final 

regulatory provision will be inconsistent with the proposed definition of the term “no free liquids,” which creates the presumption 

that wipes subjected to solvent extraction would contain no free liquids (Le., would not contain liquids which readily separate 

from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure). Under the former presumption, wipes treated by 

solvent extraction would be presumed to contain much less solvent than under the latter presumption.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1367

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

From an enforcement perspective, the Department anticipates significant problems verifying the 5-gram condition for wipes 

destined for landfilling described on Page 65598. In addition, the lack of a cloth size restriction for the 5-gram condition would 

appear to allow, for absorbent “pigs/socks/sausages” that are stuffed with small pieces of cloth, each small piece to have legally 5 

grams of solvent. Such quantities of solvent may not have been anticipated in the risk screening analysis mentioned in column 1 

on that Page.

Docket Number - 255

Comment Key - 966

Submitted by - John H. Skinner of The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 

Comment Text:

Under RCRA Subtitle D, landfills are required to establish waste screening programs to monitor the waste stream received at the 

site, and to ensure that excluded hazardous wastes and PCB's are not received. Waste screening is largely a visual process. 

Although many landfills have also implemented industrial waste testing and acceptance programs, they are not required to do so 

by regulation. SWANA does have some concerns that a waste screening program that relies on visual checks can not readily 

determine if a contaminated industrial wipe formerly excluded from the site now has a solvent concentration less than 5 mg, or 

lacks contamination from solvents banned under the proposed rule. This proposed rule will make the conduct of waste screening 

and industrial waste acceptance programs more challenging for both landfills and waste-to-energy facilities. But, if proper health 

and safety procedures are followed, it is not generally felt that there would be a significant overall exposure hazard to personnel 

involved in the handling of the material, either as solid waste disposed of at a landfill or as fuel at a combustor.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1069

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 
184

Comment Text:

This component of the rule needs to be implementable and enforceable. Furthermore, the methods used to remove solvent from 

the wipes must be sufficient to ensure that off-site disposal and combustion facilities do not receive free liquids. Therefore, we 

support the use of the five gram standard in conjunction with an approach that specifies the high-extraction technologies that can 

be used in order to presume that the five gram RCRA standard is attained. In order to allow for the use of new and innovative 

technologies that may be developed in the future, a process should be included in the rule that would allow the use of an alternate 

extraction technology following evaluation and approval by U.S. EPA.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 259

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

We do agree with EPA’s approach that “using advanced solvent-extraction technologies will be considered to have met the ’dry’ 

condition.” (68 FR at 65598) [Proposed Sec. 261.4(a)(22)(iii), Sec. 261.4(b)(l S)(iv)(A), and Sec.261.4(b)(l9)(v)]. Additionally, 

the Alliance believes that “no free liquids” is equivalent to the five gram standard. (68 FR 65608, Col 2, (Sec F,2). 

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 260

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

If the agency is persistent in adopting a quantitative standard, we encourage that the requirement be an “average” requirement for 

a representative sample of wipes.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 734

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

By contrast [to the "no free liquids test"], defining “dry” -- or unrealistically suggesting that employees or inspectors could 

determine whether a wipe has five grams of solvent -- would be an extremely difficult determination. First, whether a wipe is 

“dry” is ultimately subjective. In addition, it is impractical to imagine that employees or inspectors could easily determine

whether a wipe has five grams of solvent. Persons could not be “calibrated” to determine what five grams of solvent would be. 

(We cannot imagine employees or inspectors using scales or other objective means to determine the weight of the solvent, and 

then attempting to determine how much a wipe would weigh without the solvent.) Moreover, if there were five grams of a liquid 

on a wiper (which may include the listed solvent), it would be very difficult to determine the number of grams of solvent as 

compared to the other liquid. In short, it appears that this aspect of the proposal fails as impracticable for both the regulated 

community and public agencies that would be charged with enforcement. To address this concern, MPPA recommends that EPA 

simply use a “no free liquids” condition.

Docket Number - 318

Comment Key - 562

Submitted by - Frank Nesbihal of FPL Group 

Comment Text:

FPL Group does, however, propose that EPA apply the “no drip” requirement to wipes that will be disposed in a landfill. We 

believe this simpler approach would not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. We base this reason on a 

wipe that is used to clean out a container meeting the definition of “empty” as described in 40 CFR 261.7. The amount of 

hazardous waste remaining in an “empty” container is no longer regulated under the hazardous waste regulations. As EPA 

explained, “except where the hazardous waste is an acutely hazardous material listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e), the small amount of

residual that remains in individual empty, un-rinsed containers does not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the 

environment” [45 FR at 78525 dated November 25, 19801. For that reason, a wipe used to clean out an “empty” container that 

previously held a spent solvent would also not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment regardless of the 

amount of solvent on the wipe. This would also include “empty” containers that have held any of the eleven (11) specified 

solvents EPA has excluded from landfill disposal. In most cases, if not all, the initial wipe that is used to clean out an “empty” 

55-gallon drum would contain more than 5 grams of solvent. By complying with the “no drip” requirement, we feel this would be 

a good “universal” approach to ensure the wipes do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment, including 

wipes containing any of the eleven (11) solvents excluded from the proposed disposal options.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 360

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 
185

Comment Text:

NPCA has several concerns with respect to how generators can-meet the dry condition. First and foremost, EPA must recognize 

that 5 grams is only equivalent to approximately 1.24 tablespoons of solvent. Given this small amount of solvent allowed to meet 

this condition, EPA’s dry standard appears to favor industries with processes where solvent wipes are used over and over again in 

the cleaning or decontamination of equipment or product components. In the paint and coatings industry, however, solvent wipes 

are generally used to clean spills or small process equipment; therefore, the amount of solvent on the wipe will vary considerably 

depending on the substrate or constituent being cleaned. EPA’s proposed methods to prove the dry standard do not solve this 

problem. These methods include the use of centrifuging or other high- performance solvent extraction/removal technology; use of 

normal business records; and sampling to measure the amount of solvent applied per wipe before use versus the amount of 

solvent remaining on wipes when use is completed. These methods simply will not work for the paint and coatings industry as 

well as similarly situated industries whose use of solvent wipes is not tied to a specific process. 

Equipping most manufacturing facilities with a centrifuge or other high-performance solvent removal equipment dedicated to 

solvent contaminated wipes is cost prohibitive. This is not only true from an operational and capital improvement budget 

standpoint, but from a regulatory standpoint as well. The addition of such reclamation equipment at a facility will most likely 

trigger additional RCRA recordkeeping and recording requirements, not to mention possible permitting analysis, and it will also 

trigger emission reduction analyses and possible standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Surely, EPA can not truly believe that 

the minimal benefit this rulemaking attempts to provide regarding disposal of contaminated wipes will outweigh the cost and 

burden of actually attempting to utilize the exclusions as proposed.

Similarly, the use of normal business records or sampling pre and post solvent wipe use senseless. Again, our industry and others 

like it use the wipes for manual cleaning and residue from spill cleanup. Therefore, normal business records would not capture 

how much solvent is used prior to the incident, since it would vary depending on what was being cleaned-up. In fact, business 

records that exist would simply over estimate the amount of solvent per wipe since they would not account for solvent 

evaporation and residual that would occur during the wipes use. And to delay a spill response or stop a production process to

conduct sampling/weighing analyses is simply not an option. Measuring the wipe after use is troublesome at best since the wipe 

will most certainly contain other solvent and non-solvent materials that were collected on the wipe during use, again 

overestimating the weight of the solvent on the wipe. 

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 399

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

A disposable solvent contaminated wipe is considered "dry" when it contains less than five grams of solvent. U.S. EPA proposes 

that wipes contaminated with eligible solvents may be disposed of into a non-hazardous waste landfill if the "dry" standard is 

met. In response to the "dry" provision, U.S. EPA has proposed a standard for eligible solvent-contaminated disposable wipes 

that will be very difficult to enforce consistently. We recommend a performance-based provision that specifies solvent removal 

process that can be used to attain the "dry" standard. Such a provision can be easily implemented by generators and verified by 

inspectors. The specified processes need to result in wipes that contain minimal solvent contamination and will attain the 

standard of "no free liquids" in the container when sent off-site. U.S. EPA should specify in the rule those extraction 

technologies, including wringing, if appropriate, that can be used by a generator to attain the "no free liquids" standard in the 

container. Generators should be required to process the disposable wipes by one or more of the given processes. If a generator 

uses one or a combination of the specified processes then it is presumed that no free liquids are present and that the dry standard 

is met. Further, an exemption procedure should be included in the rule to exempt a generator from the specified process standard 

if he can demonstrate that the solvent-contaminated wipes do not need to be processed to attain the "no free liquids" standard.

Docket Number - 345

Comment Key - 749

Submitted by - Kyle Pitsor of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s approach to managing this waste stream applies common sense and clearly stated goals. This approach makes it clear to 

the generator which specific solvents are eligible for the exclusion (if less than 5 grams per wipe) and which are not. The EPA 

also clearly states disposable wipes in containers holding free liquids are not eligible for this exclusion. The point that does not 

seem clear is how to determine in the field the amount of solvent in each wipe. The inspector is required to rely on their intuition 

to determine compliance with this condition for exclusion.

NEMA is concerned that a reliable field method is not available to determine whether or not disposable solvent contaminated 

industrial wipes are “dry”, based on less than 5 grams of solvent per wipe. Subsequently, NEMA believes that the inspector and 

generator will find it impossible to make a field judgment between a wipe containing 4.5 grams of solvent and a wipe containing 

5.5 grams of solvent, and thereby determine generator compliance. NEMA recommends that EPA add clarification within the 

regulation on how the inspector and generator may determine if a wipe contains less than 5 grams of solvent. Based on the 
186

concerns listed above, NEMA offers two alternatives to determine if a disposable industrial wipe is “dry” and further suggests it 

be included in the regulation before it is finalized.

The alternative NEMA proposes is that wipes are considered dry if no free liquid can be removed (extracted) from the wipe when 

the wipe is wrung using hand pressure. This is a simple field applied test that could be used onsite at the time the inspector 

reviews the generator’s storage of solvent contaminated industrial wipes and a compliance determination made immediately. The

variability to this particular alternative is that one person may be able to apply greater pressure than another person.

A second alternative could require the generator to conduct a test and retain a copy of test results for review by the inspector to 

document compliance with the condition “dry”. Using the % Solids Determination from EPA method 8270 modified to operate 

the oven at a temperature high enough to boil off the solvents but not evaporate water that could be in the wipe may be an 

appropriate test method to confirm if a representative sample of disposable wipes contain less than 5 grams of solvent per wipe. 

Analysis could be required once a year on a representative sample of disposable industrial wipes by a certified independent 

laboratory.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 546

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

The Agency proposes to allow disposable wipes to be disposed at municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills if the wipe is 

“dry,” meaning it contains less than 5 grams of solvent. EPA explains that generators can meet this condition through several 

methods, including (1) using less than 5 grams of solvent per wipe; (2) putting used industrial wipes through an “advanced 

solvent extraction process” Capable of removing sufficient solvent to meet the 5-gram condition; (3) using normal business 

records to calculate monthly solvent usage by the number of wipes; or (4) sampling to measure the amount of solvent per wipe 

before use or remaining after use. 

FPA supports the proposed menu of options. Please confirm in the final rule, however, that the 5 gram limit is not an 

approximation of risk, but rather based on the Agency’s determination of what constitutes “dry” with respect to a used rag.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 550

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

The preamble for the proposal does not specify a frequency for sampling if the sampling option is chosen. FPA requests that the 

Agency clarify in the notice of final rulemaking that, consistent with current RCRA regulations, it will be up to generators to 

determine the frequency for performing the sampling they believe is required to adequately characterize their used industrial

wipes. Therefore, EPA should confirm that once the, generator has characterized its wipes for purpose of the demonstrating 

compliance with the 5-gram 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.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 551

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

Another issue presented in the notice of rulemaking involves whether other “high extraction” technologies not mentioned in the 

notice’s Preamble could be used to establish the “dry” condition. Id. at 65598. Consistent with RCRA’s emphasis on driving 

technology innovation, without favoring a particular technology, FPA would like to see the definition of “solvent extraction” as 

proposed at page 65618 remain broad enough to accommodate new solvent extraction technologies without additional specific 

rulemaking to add new technologies to the definition. It will, therefore, be important to explain in the notice of final agency 

action that the States can allow new technologies to qualify without specific EPA approval.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 552

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

If normal business records are used to determine if industrial wipes are “dry,” we encourage EPA to confirm in the final rule that 

separate RCRA computation records do not need to be specifically maintained by a company or updated to demonstrate 

compliance. We think such recordkeeping would be unnecessarily burdensome when normal business records can be relied on if 

needed to demonstrate compliance with the proposed “dry” standard.
187

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1640

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

It is unclear from the October 27th Federal Register notice if the Agency is revising its position regarding the proposed “dry” 

standard of 5 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 5 gram standard was chosen because it falls within 

the range indicating that no substantial hazard to human health and the environment would be posed. Further, the report on 

landfill loadings specifically states that data regarding the use of advanced solvent extraction technologies were not used in the 

landfill loadings calculations. 

To meet the proposed five gram standard, the Agency proposed in its 2003 rulemaking that facilities utilize high-performance 

solvent or other extraction technologies such as gravity draining, which is an option that needs to be provided. 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. 

Docket Number - 1019

Comment Key - 1485

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

We are alarmed by a number of the provisions in the proposed rule which simply do not reflect safe management practices in our 

industry... Solvent rags could be dry, deemed dry without using any solvent removal technology like a centrifuge or other 

commonly available equipment for that purpose. Instead somebody can sit at a desk and make a rough guesstimate of the volume 

of solvent used and the volume of rags and thereby claim that every solvent, every rag had less than five grams of solvent.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1003

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The Agency requests comment as to whether EPA should allow industrial wipes containing solvents that pose 

insignificant risk when meeting the "no free liquids'' condition to be placed in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, 

without being required to meet the "dry" condition. DoD concurs with this more practical method of implementation using the 

“no free liquid” standard.

Discussion: EPA states in the preamble that the risk screening analysis identifies industrial wipes that pose an insignificant risk 

when disposed of in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, even though they contain solvents that meet the "no free 

liquid" condition, rather than the more stringent 5 gram condition (or "dry" condition). 

A simple demonstration using water and a generic paper towel indicates the “no free liquid” standard may be more protective 

than the 5 gram “dry” standard. That is, 5 grams of water will more than saturate a generic paper towel, beyond the point of “no 

free liquids,” where it will then drip fewer than 10 drops of liquid when held for a short period of time - consistent with the 

practical test for no free liquids suggested on page 65599, col III, last paragraph. Thus, the “no free liquids” condition results in 

fewer than 5 grams remaining in the wipe for disposal. 

Finally, the “no free liquid” definition includes a “solvent extraction” presumption, as does the hazardous waste exclusion 

condition of less than 5 grams for disposal in a landfill at 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A). It would appear from a performance standpoint 

they are the same.

Recommendation: For ease of implementing the rule and demonstrating compliance, EPA should allow a practical test for wipes 

to meet the "no free liquids" condition for disposal in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, without meeting the 

"dry" condition of less than 5 grams solvent. The "no free liquids" condition should be determined by a practical test; that is, does 

a wipe drip liquid when held for a short period of time. 

The following revisions are suggested:

Sec. 260.10 Definitions.

* * * * *

“Intra-company transfer” of industrial wipes means the off site transportation of wipes from a generating entity to another 
188

location owned or operated by the generating 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. 

* * * * *

261.4(b)(19)(iv)

(A) Must meet the “no free liquids” condition, or must have been treated by solvent extraction; and

* * * * *

261.4(b)(19)(vi) 

(A) The transfer must occur in order to remove sufficient solvent from the wipes so they meet the "no free liquids" condition; and 

[sic]

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1569

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The Agency requests comment as to whether EPA should allow industrial wipes containing solvents that pose 

insignificant risk when meeting the "no free liquids'' condition to be placed in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, 

without being required to meet the "dry" condition. DoD concurs with this more practical method of implementation using the 

“no free liquid” standard.

Discussion: EPA states in the preamble that the risk screening analysis identifies industrial wipes that pose an insignificant risk 

when disposed of in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, even though they contain solvents that meet the "no free 

liquid" condition, rather than the more stringent 5 gram condition (or "dry" condition). 

A simple demonstration using water and a generic paper towel indicates the “no free liquid” standard may be more protective 

than the 5 gram “dry” standard. That is, 5 grams of water will more than saturate a generic paper towel, beyond the point of “no 

free liquids,” where it will then drip fewer than 10 drops of liquid when held for a short period of time - consistent with the 

practical test for no free liquids suggested on page 65599, col III, last paragraph. Thus, the “no free liquids” condition results in 

fewer than 5 grams remaining in the wipe for disposal. 

Finally, the “no free liquid” definition includes a “solvent extraction” presumption, as does the hazardous waste exclusion 

condition of less than 5 grams for disposal in a landfill at 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A). It would appear from a performance standpoint 

they are the same.

Recommendation: For ease of implementing the rule and demonstrating compliance, EPA should allow a practical test for wipes 

to meet the "no free liquids" condition for disposal in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills, without meeting the 

"dry" condition of less than 5 grams solvent. The "no free liquids" condition should be determined by a practical test; that is, does 

a wipe drip liquid when held for a short period of time. 

The following revisions are suggested:

Sec. 260.10 Definitions.

* * * * *

“Intra-company transfer” of industrial wipes means the off site transportation of wipes from a generating entity to another 

location owned or operated by the generating 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. 

* * * * *

261.4(b)(19)(iv)

(A) Must meet the “no free liquids” condition, or must have been treated by solvent extraction; and

* * * * *

261.4(b)(19)(vi) 

(A) The transfer must occur in order to remove sufficient solvent from the wipes so they meet the "no free liquids" condition; and 

[sic]
189

Docket Number - 172

Comment Key - 713

Submitted by - Norman Manning of Leggett & Platt Incorporated 

Comment Text:

We must also express our disfavor in the requirement concerning the 5- gram limit on any solvent remaining on a disposable 

wiper prior to disposal in a landfill. Again, this unfairly restricts the use of disposable wipers. This requirement is not placed on 

rental shop towels before they are laundered. Any solvent contained in either a disposable wiper or rental shop towel will 

eventually be absorbed into the environment. Unfortunately, these solvents cannot be neutralized. They will either be absorbed in 

the landfill or passed along through the wastewater in the cleaning of the shop towel. In addition, other chemicals will be used 

and disposed of in the laundry efforts of cleaning the shop towel. We understand placing a limit on the amount of solvent and we 

concur. However, we believe it is fair to place identical limits on both products.

Docket Number - 191

Comment Key - 110

Submitted by - of The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA) 

Comment Text:

CSHEMA comments that the proposed “dry condition” of 5 grams of solvent per wipe is not warranted for disposable wipes 

contaminated with the 14 non-carcinogenic solvents listed in Table 6 that resulted in acceptable loadings when disposed of in a 

municipal landfill in an untreated condition. As EPA states, the risk screening analysis “identifies industrial wipes that pose an 

insignificant risk when disposed of in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills even though they contain solvents that 

meet the ‘no free liquids’ condition, rather than the more stringent 5 grams condition (or “dry” condition).” (p. 65598) 

While CSHEMA understands EPA’s intent to simplify the rule, the purchase or acquisition of an “advanced solvent-extraction 

process” mentioned in the proposed rulemaking is not economically feasible for generators of small amounts of wipes, such as 

campuses. Determining the weight of residual solvent in a wipe is also not a practical approach. CSHEMA contends that the 

more practical, easily verifiable, and environmentally protective standard of “no free liquids” or “no free liquid when hand 

wrung” should be extended to industrial wipes destined for municipal landfill that contain the 14 non-carcinogenic solvents listed 

in category 1 of Table 6.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1399

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s “dry” standard required for disposable wipes destined for a Subtitle D landfill is impractical for small businesses to 

comply with. MADEP believes most generators couldn’t say with confidence if there are 5 grams or less in a particular wipe. In 

Massachusetts, companies are often uncertain whether their trash is destined for a landfill or a combustion facility. In fact, waste 

may go to a landfill one day and a combustion facility the next. Faced with such uncertainty, many generators would presumably 

not want to “take a chance” that their wipes were headed towards a combustion facility, and would then have to either stop using 

disposables or ship them off-site as a hazardous waste. MADEP believes this restriction is not justified if such wipes are destined 

for a lined-landfill. 

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1408

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP does not support EPA’s proposed “dry condition” of less than 5 grams per wipe. It is an impractical standard for

generators, particularly small businesses to comply with and for regulatory agencies to enforce. As mentioned above, MADEP 

has concerns regarding EPA’s risk analysis since it assumes disposal in unlined landfills. The rationale for the “dry” standard has 

no relevance in Massachusetts where there are no unlined landfills in operation. As such, MADEP believes the “dry” condition is 

unnecessary and that non-saturated wipes should be allowed to be disposed in lined landfills. MADEP does not support EPA’s 

proposed ban of certain solvents contained in industrial wipes going to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills that are 

lined.

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 523

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Eliminate the 5 gram limit for non-laundered wipes. 

-It is impractical and unrealistic to expect the average person to recognize 5 grams when they see or feel it.
190

-It is impractical and unrealistic to expect anyone to know whether there is 5 grams of solvent or 2 grams of solvent and 3 grams 

of dirt, water, or other substance on a wipe.

-EPA is under the false assumption that centrifuge equipment, mechanical wringing equipment or extraction equipment and or 

mobile extraction services are either easily attainable or affordable for the small businesses affected by this rule. I have spent 

many hours on the internet searching for such equipment and services. I challenge you to do the same. Most sites on the internet 

point to medical and scientific equipment suitable for test tubes not wiping materials. 

-There is no requirement or need for laundered shop towels to meet a 5 gram standard. As demonstrated in the INDA/SMART 

comments, EPA’s risk assessment data shows that the potential risks at landfills are comparable for non-laundered wipes and the 

sludge generated by laundered wipes. There is simply no rational basis to apply a 5 gram limit to non-laundered wipes if the same 

limit isn’t applied to laundered wipes.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 302

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA requested comments on whether the “no free liquids” standard should apply to all 

industrial wipes under the proposed rule, including wipes sent to landfills for disposal. API agrees with EPA that “it would be 

simpler and easier to implement and would simplify the regulations for generators of solvent-contaminated disposable industrial 

wipes” if the “no free liquids” standard was applicable to all industrial wipes. The “no free liquids” standard would provide 

sufficient environmental and human health safeguards without imposing unnecessary, significant burdens on generators to meet 

the “dry” standard. For example, meeting the 5-gram condition of the “dry” standard would require generators to take extra 

treatment steps and incur significant costs with minimal, if any, additional environmental benefits. The “no free liquids” 

condition is an environmentally protective standard that appropriately addresses the potential risks associated with the disposal of 

industrial wipes in landfills. Accordingly, the “no free liquids’ standard should be used for the conditional exclusions applicable 

to all industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 268

Comment Key - 340

Submitted by - Patricia McCullough of Northeast Utilities System 

Comment Text:

In the interest of creating a rule that is both practical and protective of the environment, NUSCO recommends that EPA replace 

the requirement that industrial wipes contaminated with de minimis amounts of solvent must meet the definition of “dry” with the 

requirement that disposable wipes must contain “no free liquids.” Requiring wipes containing solvents to be “dry,” as defined in 

the proposed rule is impractical and would effectively undermine the rule’s intent and implementation. 

The intent of the proposed rule is to exclude, from restrictive hazardous waste management and disposal standards, rags 

containing small amounts of solvent. To qualify for the exclusion, disposable industrial wipes and rags must qualify as “dry.” 

“Dry” is defined as containing less than 5 grams of solvent at the time of disposal. Generators can meet the 5-gram limit by either 

extracting excess solvent from disposable rags, weighing rags before and after use or by logging the total amount of solvent 

placed on rags, divided by the number of rags used. Besides being inconvenient, complicated and potentially costly, these 

requirements are unnecessary. 

EPA states that it chose to impose the “dry” condition on all disposable rags to simplify the rule. We would argue that in practice, 

requiring wipes to meet this “dry” condition has the exact opposite effect. The costs associated with solvent extraction, sampling 

and recordkeeping will result in many generators abandoning the proposed exemption and opting to continue treating minimally 

contaminated, non-hazardous wipes as hazardous waste. Forcing generators to abandon the benefits of the rule due to overly 

restrictive and unnecessary conditions on solvent content is contrary to the rule’s intent. 

Substituting the “no free liquids” condition for the “dry” condition would provide generators with a simpler and more practical 

compliance standard while adequately protecting the environment. This simpler standard would also prevent employee exposure 

to solvent vapors from rags and wipes that are inappropriately “air dried” to meet the strict “dry” condition. Also, by making the 

standard for disposable wipes consistent with the standard for reusable wipes, it will be easier for generators who use both types 

of rags, to remain in compliance. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1086

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Sets a dangerous precedent for weakening of the Land Disposal Restrictions (“LDRs”). Through its exemption from the 

definition of hazardous waste for disposable wipes, the proposed rule effectively supersedes LDR standards for the disposal of 
191

such wipes. The “5 grams of solvent per wipe” standard in the proposed rule would certainly exceed the corresponding LDR 

standards for wipes being disposed of under the current rules. For example, assuming a weight of 100 grams for a typical wipe, 

the “5-gram” standard translates to 5 percent, or 50,000 ppm, of solvent. This number would exceed by over two orders of 

magnitude even the highest numerical LDR limits for D018-D043 and F001-F005 non-wastewaters. EPA carefully crafted the 

LDR standards to ensure that all hazardous wastes that were land disposed met appropriate risk-based standards, and would not 

result in harm to human health or the environment when landfilled. Although EPA performed a risk analysis to justify this 

decision, the proposed relaxation of these standards to such an extreme degree opens the door for many other generators of 

supposedly “low risk” wastes to petition EPA for reduced regulation for the disposal of their wastes as well. Although CTDEP 

recognizes that reduced regulation may be appropriate in some cases to encourage environmentally beneficial recycling, we do 

not believe that the enormous amount of relief that is embodied in the proposed rule is appropriate for wastes being landfilled.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1097

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection \

Comment Text:

Although EPA presents a risk analysis to justify the “5 gram” standard, CTDEP believes that the proposed rule invites petitions 

to further weaken of the LDR system, which is the ultimate gatekeeper under the RCRA regulations to ensure that wastes are not 

inappropriately disposed of to the land. CTDEP believes that 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, it should at least specify that wipes be disposed of only in lined Subtitle D landfills.

...EPA requests comment on whether it should allow industrial solvents that pose “insignificant” risk when meeting the “no free 

liquids” standard should be allowed to be disposed of in solid waste landfills without meeting the “dry” condition. For the 

reasons outlined in the previous comment [above], CTDEP believes this would not be appropriate.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 1663

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

We do not agree with the provision requiring the disposal of wipes in separately labeled containers if the “dry” standard of 5 

grams is met. A stated goal of this proposal is to encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization. The inclusion of a 

separate container and labeling standard for disposable wipes destined to be land filled will inhibit IPC Comments on SolventContaminated Industrial Wipes waste minimization. The 5 gram standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating 

no substantial hazard to human health and the environment. This is confirmed by EPA’s risk screening analysis. To meet this 5

gram standard, EPA is requiring that facilities either utilize high-performance solvent extraction technologies; maintain records 

showing the amount of solvent used per wipe is less than 5 grams; or conduct sampling to ensure the dry standard is met. All are 

rigorous tests designed to ensure that facilities meet the dry standard.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 787

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

The 5 grams of solvent per wipe is arbitrary and does not allow for wipes of different sizes and mass. For example, wipes that 

weigh 20 grams can have 25% liquid (5 grams) whereas wipes that weigh 100 grams would be hazardous with over only 5% 

saturation. However, the wipes in both examples may pass the free liquids test. In addition, this wording suggest that all the 

rag/wipes used will be consistent in size and weight prior to contamination. This is not necessarily true and shifts of 5 grams are 

well within the weight range of wipe/rag weights before contamination. We suggest to insure consistency, the 5 gram limit 

should be eliminated from the rule and a testing method that addresses different size "wipes" equally such as the paint filter test, 

wring test, no free liquids, etc. be used.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 719

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL does not concur with the proposed definition of “dry” i.e., a solvent-contaminated industrial wipe that contains less than 5 

grams of solvent, for disposable industrial wipes destined for a municipal or non- hazardous waste landfill. This specific 

requirement does not appear to be easily implemented and may require a representative sample from each container. In light of

the risk screening analysis results indicating that 16 listed solvent constituents would not exceed risk thresholds, even without 

treatment, this condition for disposal appears unwarranted. LANL would prefer that the “no free liquid” provision proposed for 
192

management of reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes also be used for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes for 

disposal instead of the currently proposed definition of “dry.”

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1166

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Wipes Containing the 16 Solvents That EPA Determined Would Pose an Insignificant Risk Even If They Merely Met the Less 

Stringent “No Free Liquids” Condition Should Not Be Subjected to the 5 Gram Limit Condition.

...Recognizing perhaps that it was on shaky ground, EPA requested comment “as to whether [it] should allow industrial wipes 

containing solvents that pose insignificant risk when meeting the ‘no free liquids’ condition to be placed in municipal or other 

non-hazardous waste landfills without being required to meet the ‘dry’ condition.” Id. at 65598-99. To ask that question is to 

answer it. EPA well knows that it can only regulate solid wastes as hazardous wastes under Section 3001 of RCRA if it 

demonstrates that they “may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly

treated, stored, transported, or disposed of or otherwise managed.” 42 U.S.C. § 6903(5)(B) (RCRA statutory definition of 

“hazardous waste”). Having determined that wipes containing these 16 solvents “pose an insignificant risk” when disposed of in 

the units in question when they merely meet the “no free liquids” test, EPA is without a lawful basis to regulate them as 

hazardous waste unless they meet even more stringent conditions, i.e., conditions that are clearly greater than necessary to 

prevent them from posing a substantial hazard.

Even though the more stringent “no free liquids” condition recommended by INDA/SMART should therefore not be necessary in 

connection with such landfilling of SSNWs containing these solvents, that condition would clearly promote the resource 

conservation and recovery objectives of RCRA and would arguably be appropriate for other solvents covered by this rule. 

Consequently, INDA/SMART does not object to (and indeed supports) application of the “hand-wringing” performance standard

to wipes containing these solvents so as to provide a uniform and environmentally responsible condition for managing SSIWs 

subject to this rule.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1168

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

C. A Determination That No SSNW Meeting a “Hand-Wrung” Performance Standard Need Be Subject to A Landfill Prohibition 

or Five Gram/Solvent Extraction Condition Is Consistent With EPA’s RCRA “Empty Container” Rule for Hazardous Wastes.

Under 40 C.F.R. § 261.7, any “non-acute” hazardous waste remaining in a container from which all wastes have been removed 

“that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container, e.g., pouring, 

pumping, and aspirating” is not subject to federal hazardous waste regulation (provided that no more than one inch of waste 

residue is left in the bottom of the container or other quantitative limits on the amount of waste residue remaining in the container 

are met). EPA promulgated this regulatory exclusion based upon a determination that “the small amount of hazardous waste 

residue that remains” in containers so emptied “does not pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.” 45 Fed. 

Reg. 78525 (Nov. 25, 1980). The Agency subsequently noted that it had also promulgated this regulatory exclusion because it 

would provide a “tremendous cost savings to industry” without compromising environmental protection. See 47 Fed. Reg. 

36095-96 (Aug. 18, 1982).

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, EPA has subsequently clarified that hazardous waste residues removed 

from “empty” containers are not subject to hazardous waste regulation upon removal. As such, industrial wipes used to remove 

liquid hazardous solvent residue from the bottom of a RCRA “empty” container could lawfully disposed of in a non-hazardous 

waste landfill even if the wipes were saturated with the hazardous solvent.

Given that regulatory determination, it would be arbitrary and capricious for at least reasons for EPA to prohibit landfill disposal 

(or to subject to a 5 gram/solvent extraction condition) SSNWs that had been subjected to a “hand-wrung” performance standard. 

First, such SSNWs analogous to “empty containers” in that all the solvent that can be removed using practices commonly used to 

remove solvent contained in SSNWs has been removed. Second, the solvent remaining hand-wrung SSNWs would be less than 

that found in wipers saturated with hazardous solvent residues from an “empty” container that could lawfully be disposed of in 

municipal landfills or C.F.R. Part 257, Subpart B landfills.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1390

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 
193

Comment Text:

"5 Gram" criterion. Proposed 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A) states that wipes, in order to allowed to be disposed in a non-hazardous waste 

landfill, must contain less than 5 grams of solvent each. This criterion has a fundamental definitional flaw. This criterion is also 

unworkable.

The fundamental flaw with the criterion is that it fails to relate the allowable mass of solvent to the size of the wipe. Under this 

criterion, all a person would have to do to make a grossly contaminated wipe eligible for the exclusion would be to cut it into 

smaller pieces such that each piece has no more than 5 grams of solvent. A more appropriate criterion would be based on mass of 

solvent per unit area of wipe.

However, the HWP is not recommending that a "mass per unit area" criterion be adopted. It is simply unrealistic to think that 

there is a reliable, easy method for solvent users to determine that a given wipe meets a mass-loading criterion or a "mass per unit 

area" criterion. Weighing the wipe will not work because of the error introduced by material picked up on the wipe through use.

Using inventory records of solvent use will not work because that fails to take into account evaporative losses in use. Also,

facilities may have other uses for solvents other than applying them to wipes, and trying to keep track of the amount of solvent 

used for these various uses would be an unacceptable burden.

Relying on sampling may give a valid answer, but inherent variabilities make this problematic, and the cost of sampling and 

analysis may be prohibitive compared with the relief gained.

Instead of relying on the "5 gram" criterion, EPA should adopt two alternate, jointly necessary criteria for wipes that are to be 

disposed in a non-hazardous waste landfill: 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, 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.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1034

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA should adopt the more practical “no free liquids” standard for industrial wipes containing solvents that pose insignificant 

risk when sent to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills. The “dry” condition where an industrial wipe contains less 

than 5 grams of solvent is too onerous and impractical to determine compliance, particularly for small businesses who do not 

have the resources or an environmental staff to properly determine if each rag meets the less than 5 grams of solvent standard. 

The “no free liquid” standard is easier to implement and demonstrate through the proposed practical test: no free liquid could drip 

from an industrial wipe when held for a short period of time and no free liquids may be present in the bottom of the container.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 1661

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC would like to see the language regarding the transportation of these materials to be revised in the final rule to provide as 

follows: (i) Solvent contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off site, must be transported in containers that are designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment; (A) At a minimum, for materials that are regulated by the 

Department of Transportation, these materials must be transported in containers that meet the applicable provision of 49 CFR 

Parts 173, 178, and 179. (B) For materials that are not regulated by the Department of Transportation, the containers used to

transport the solvent-contaminated wipes must meet the Container level 1 standards found in 40 CFR § 265.1087(c)(1) and (2). 

(C) Solvent-contaminated wipes may not be transported in containers constructed of porous materials such as fiberboard (without 

an inner liner) or cloth. (D) Plastic bags are not acceptable for the transportation of solvent-contaminated wipes unless they meet 

the design requirements of 49 CFR § 178.518 or 178.519, and are manufactured, tested, and marked in accordance with the DOT 

regulations in 49 CFR Part 178.

The EPA request comment on whether solvent contaminate wipes meeting the “dry” condition should be required to meet 

transportation requirements. 68 FR 65599. Given that the “dry” condition as defined by EPA is so weak given the flaws identified 

below in the 5 grams and “no free liquids” criteria, the full transportation restrictions must be applied to all wipes, even those 

identified by the generator and/or handler as dry. The record shows that even 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. Given the compressive forces 

present in the container there is major concern for separation of free liquid solvent during transportation. 68 FR 65599. In cloth or 

incompatible plastic bags, such solvent will be released to the environment.
194

Docket Number - 298

Comment Key - 1586

Submitted by - Lawrence Liden of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

Comment Text:

USWAG believes that EPA should abandon the “dry” condition for the disposal of wipes. We already have spoken with many of 

our members operating in different states across the country and every member consulted thus far agrees that requiring generators 

to remove excess solvents to achieve a maximum solvent residue of 5 grams of solvent per wipe, or requiring every wipe to go 

through some type of solvent extraction process, is completely impractical and could effectively undermine the disposal portion 

of the rule.

We would like to point out to the Agency that literally thousands of generators of all different sizes and from different industries 

generate solvent-contaminated wipes. When attempting to develop a “one size fits all” approach for such a large and diverse 

universe of generators - not unlike the scope of RCRA “universal waste” rules - the imposition of an inflexible volumetric limit 

on each individual wipe will simply be too burdensome and impractical for the regulated community, especially for purposes of

demonstrating compliance. The costs of attempting to meet and/or to demonstrate compliance with this condition would simply 

overwhelm a large percentage of otherwise qualifying generators. Any final wipes management regulatory program containing 

such compliance uncertainties will cause generators to shy away from this option and will cause wipes that clearly do not warrant 

full hazardous waste regulation, nonetheless to be managed under Subtitle C. This outcome would be at odds with the very 

purpose of this rulemaking and would not be good environmental or public policy. 

Docket Number - 298

Comment Key - 1612

Submitted by - Lawrence Liden of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

Comment Text:

Therefore, USWAG recommends that EPA drop the “dry” condition altogether and replace it with the “no free liquids” condition 

that EPA proposes to apply to wipes sent for laundering. Using the ‘‘no free liquids” condition as the “universal” condition for 

both disposal and reusable wipes will offer generators a far simpler, less confusing and more practical and “universal” wipes 

management program. Based on our review of the risk assessment, ensuring that wipes contain “no free liquids” when disposed 

will ensure that these materials do not pose a risk to human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 257

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports EPA in developing separate standards for wipes that are discarded and destined for disposal, and 

recommends that EPA adopt criteria that allow qualifying wipes to be excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. The 

Alliance appreciates the agency’s intent to manage the risks associated with solvents disposed in municipal landfills. However, 

the Alliance cannot support the “five grams of solvent per wipe” standard proposed by EPA in Sec. 261.4(b)(l S)(iv)(A). The 

standard does not take into account the size or absorption capability of the wipe, and does not correlate with establishing whether 

or not there are “free liquids” in the container. Further, it would be extremely difficult for a generator to demonstrate compliance 

with this pass/fail standard -- it is unlikely that a generator will be able to ensure that each and every individual wipe meets the 

standard.

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 570

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

Generators transporting disposable industrial wipes to a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill should only be required 

to meet the "no free liquids" requirement. The proposed requirement to meet an incremental "dry" five gram per wipe standard 

would create additional administrative burden without proven environmental benefit. Under the proposed "dry" criteria, 

generators would be required to ensure that each wipe after use contains less than five grams of solvent. To meet this 

requirement, generators must install and operate centrifuging or other solvent-extraction equipment, track solvent usage per 

month divided by number of wipes used, or conduct sampling to measure solvent per wipe before or after use. These costly and 

time consuming incremental activities associated with meeting the "dry" criteria would effectively negate the main administrative 

benefits of the proposed rule.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 693

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 
195

Comment Text:

Meeting the dry condition (less than 5 grams of solvent per wipe or processed by advanced solvent extraction) under the 

proposed rule change may be impractical, burdensome and unnecessary for the protection of human health and the environment. 

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 696

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

Simplot believes the risk analysis of the solvent wipes demonstrates that the wipes pose insignificant risk when meeting the “no 

free liquid” condition when placed in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill without being required to meet the “dry” 

condition. Simplot therefore supports a “no free liquids” condition for solvent contaminated wipes going for disposal at a 

municipal or other non-hazardous landfill, or other disposal unit such as a municipal waste combustor.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 1521

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

EPA should abandon the “dry” and “five gram” limitations, and apply a “no free liquids” test for all industrial wipes. 

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 974

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposed allowance of 5 grams of solvent per wipe is overly simplistic given that, depending on the manufacturing 

process, individual wipes may range from postage stamp size to bath towel size. Similarly, EPA’s risk assessment is inadequate 

because it assumes only impacts arising from contaminated groundwater from a theoretical unlined landfill without reference to 

the more probable overall solvent impacts on landfill liners, leachate, or leachate collection and treatment systems. Moreover, the 

5-gram limit would be very difficult for inspectors to evaluate during the course of conducting inspections.

Docket Number - 318

Comment Key - 561

Submitted by - Frank Nesbihal of FPL Group 

Comment Text:

EPA is proposing that disposable industrial wipes being disposed in a landfill must be “dry.” A wipe is considered “dry” when it 

contains less than 5 grams of solvent. If a wipe contains 5 grams or more of solvent, EPA has suggested various methods that can 

be used to meet the “dry” condition. FPL Group believes that performing any of the proposed methods to achieve the “dry” 

condition would be impractical and difficult to comply with. For example, we commonly see that the amount of solvent 

contained on a disposable wipe or shop towel prior to discarding it can vary greatly depending on the quantity of solvent used by 

an individual. Determining the amount of solvent on each wipe by calculating the amount of solvent used per month using 

normal business records, then dividing the number of rags used per month, can be grossly inaccurate in proving each wipe is 

“dry.” We also believe that using any type of mechanical device to remove excess solvent from each wipe, or conduct sampling 

to measure the amount of solvent remaining on each wipe, would be impractical, especially to demonstrate compliance. The costs 

associated with using any of these methods may force us to manage all our industrial wipes as a hazardous waste. The result 

would adversely affect the purpose of this rulemaking. Therefore, FPL Group recommends the “dry” condition requirement 

outlined in the proposed rule be dropped.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 361

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Considering these comments [on the risk assessment], NPCA believes that if the EPA redoes its risk assessment it would find that 

wringing solvent wipes, or meeting a similar “no free liquids” test as proposed for reusables, would be a more cost effective and 

environmentally protective alternative to the proposed 5 gram “dry” procedure. Since EPA’s 5 gram “dry” standard is technically 

and practically infeasible for industries like the paint and coatings industry to implement, EPA must evaluate a standard that 

would allow for practical implementation. There are precedents based on other RCRA regulation to which EPA should look. 

Specifically, the “RCRA empty” container standard allows for the direct disposal of containers that contain no more than one 

inch of hazardous materials. The statute provides specific instructions as to how a container is to be emptied for highly hazardous 

materials. This regulation clearly states that if the container meets these criteria, then it is not subject to the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR 261 - 265, including the standards set out for hazardous waste generators. Similarly, the regulation of non-
196

terne plated used oil filters allows direct disposal if certain management standards are met. Oil filters meeting the specific 

performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid waste. There are no labeling or special container 

requirements.

Similarly, an exclusion for the disposal of used shop towels should be provided by the existing regulatory structure for hazardous 

materials, when they are disposed of in amounts not posing a risk to human health or the environment. Instead of mandating the 

“5 gram” limit, which is difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate, EPA could adopt the “no free liquids” standard for these 

wipes as well - almost identical to the RCRA empty standard for hazardous wastes already in place. Additional demonstrations, 

testing, labeling and container requirements for disposable towels represent additional regulatory burdens that are unjustified 

based on the current protective statutory scheme of RCRA for solid wastes.

Docket Number - 321

Comment Key - 369

Submitted by - Edward Graves of Ashland, Inc. 

Comment Text:

As currently written, the proposed rule specifies that the generator must ensure that the solvent-contaminated wipes are “dry”, 

which is defined as no more than 5 grams of solvent per wiper or rag, or that the rags have been treated by solvent extraction. 

Since the vast majority of generators would not treat their disposable rags via solvent extraction prior to disposal, they would 

necessarily be subject to the 5 grams per wipe criteria. Ashland believes determining and documenting compliance with this 

requirement may be difficult and cumbersome for generators. Furthermore, compliance with this requirement would be difficult,

if not impossible, for the receiving facilities to monitor, or for EPA or authorized state inspectors to determine compliance.

Docket Number - 321

Comment Key - 370

Submitted by - Edward Graves of Ashland, Inc. 

Comment Text:

For disposable wipers going to incineration and reusable wipers being laundered, the solvent content criteria is simply that the 

wipers contain no free liquids. This can be achieved by wringing the wipers to remove free liquids, which is a much simpler and 

easier criterion to apply. Furthermore, Ashland notes that this is consistent with current landfill requirements under Subtitle D of 

RCM, which prohibit landfills from accepting free liquids. Therefore, Ashland recommends that EPA amend the proposed rule to 

remove the 5 grams of solvent per wiper criteria for disposables going to landfill, and replace it with the requirement that the 

wipers contain no free liquids. This would make the solvent content criteria the same for all wipers covered under the rule, 

disposable and recyclable.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1588

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department believes the exclusion condition of "dry" (meaning containing less than 5 grams of solvant) is essentially 

unworkable. There is no corresponding association of the 5 gram limit with the size of the wiper. There is no practical way for a 

generator or a third party evaluator to know whether a large rag had 5 grams or 5.9 grams. On the other hand, since 5 grams 

equals approximately 0.18 ounces, small wipers such as gun patches could be saturated and actually have "free liquid" and still 

meet the criteria. The scheme of allowing a generator to divide solvent used to wiping (as opposed to solvent not used for wiping) 

by the number of wipers used per month for wiping operations...is inconsistant with how RCRA is applied in similar situations. 

The scheme is noteworthy for its impracticality. This requirement should be seen as unenforceable. If it's unenforceable, it should 

not be a regulatory requirement. 

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1030

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The 5 grams of solvent per wipe threshold for determining if wipes are “dry” and acceptable for disposal at a landfill under the 

proposed rule is an unenforceable threshold. This provision will cause confusion and frustration in its implementation and 

effectively render the rule impractical to most generators and any landfill operators who want to ensure and maintain compliance.

Docket Number - 336

Comment Key - 650

Submitted by - Daniel S. Wagner of International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc. (ISSA) 
197

Comment Text:

Include a provision in the rule stating that solvents that do not pose a significant risk when they meet the "no free liquid'' 

condition can still be disposed of in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill even though they do not meet the more 

stringent "dry" condition.

The bottom line is that EPA needs to trust its "no significant risk" conclusions and alleviate the regulatory burden placed on those 

industrial wipes that have been deemed relatively safe. For example, if a solvent-contaminated wipe has been analyzed and it has 

been determined that it does not pose a significant risk, why can't it be disposed of in a municipal landfill? Basing such a 

prohibition exclusively on the product's toxicity improperly ignores the Agency's Risk Screening Analysis findings.

Docket Number - 340

Comment Key - 802

Submitted by - Erwin S. Frey of PPG Industries 

Comment Text:

The 5-gram limitation to show the wipe is “dry” is impractical because there is no economically feasible way to measure the 

amount of solvent remaining on wipes after use. Wipes that have been wetted with solvent and used for cleaning will include not 

only that particular solvent, but also any other solvent that could be on the item being cleaned. Some materials removed during 

cleaning are viscous, oily, adhere readily, or may contain high solids. Ultimately all these constituents contribute to the weight of 

material on the wipe. Additionally, it is a common practice for spent wipes to be placed and submerged in a container with water 

to prevent spontaneous combustion. When such wipes are subsequently wrung out, there still may be residual solvent, solids, 

resinous materials and water that affect the weight of the wipe. Given the variability inherent in wipe cleaning practices and the 

numerous materials that may be involved, there is no practical way to demonstrate compliance with the 5-gram limitation by 

measuring the amount of solvent remaining on a spent wipe.

In lieu of a 5-gram limit, PPG would suggest that the wipes be wrung out to remove as much free liquid as possible and 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.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 258

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG opposes the “dry” condition for disposal wipes and recommends that EPA drop this condition in exchange for the “no 

free liquids” standard proposed for reusable wipes. USWAG members operating in different states across the country all agree 

that requiring generators to remove excess solvents to achieve a maximum solvent residue of 5 grams of solvent per wipe, or 

requiring every wipe to go through some type of solvent extraction process, is completely impractical and would effectively 

undermine the disposal portion of the rule. Even EPA concedes that certain contaminated wipes can be safely disposed in a 

municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill by meeting the “no-free liquids” standard as opposed to the more onerous “dry” 

standard. Remarkably, EPA nonetheless proposes to impose the “dry” standard on a// disposal wipes purportedly to “simplify the 

rule.” It will do nothing of the sort and it is wholly inappropriate to subject solvent-contaminated wipes to a condition that EPA 

knows full well is not necessary to protect human health and the environment. Instead, the “dry” standard will result in subjecting 

disposal. wipes to management conditions that EPA concedes are unnecessary, as well as making the rule far more burdensome 

and complicated than necessary, which is precisely the opposite of EPAs stated intent in this rulemaking initiative. 

EPA must remember that literally thousands of generators of different sizes and industries generate solvent-contaminated wipes. 

When attempting to develop a “one size fits all” approach for such a large and diverse universe of generators, the imposition of 

an inflexible volumetric limit on each individual wipe will simply be too burdensome and impractical for the regulated 

community, especially for purposes of demonstrating compliance. The costs of attempting to meet and/or to demonstrate 

compliance with this condition would simply overwhelm a large percentage of otherwise qualifying generators. Any final wipes 

management regulatory program containing such compliance uncertainties will cause generators to shy away from this option and

will cause wipes that clearly do not warrant full hazardous waste regulation to nonetheless be managed under RCRA Subtitle C. 

This does not make for sound environmental policy. 

EPA's “dry” standard also is at odds with and more stringent than certain of EPA's existing rules for the disposal of contaminated 

wipes. For example, wipes are sometimes used to absorb and remove the residual spent solvents contained in the bottom of 

“empty” containers, as that term is defined under EPA’s hazardous waste rules - e.g., no more than one inch of residue remains 

on the bottom of the container. See 40 C.F.R. § 261.7(b)(I)(ii). EPA has made clear, however, that such residuals are not subject 

to hazardous waste regulation because such de minimis amounts of residuals “do not pose a substantial risk to human health and 

the environment.” See 45 Fed. Reg. 78524, 78525 (Nov. 25, 1980). Thus, if an “empty container” has a listed spent solvent 

remaining at the bottom, under today’s hazardous waste rules, such residuals can be absorbed with an industrial wipe and 

disposed of as non-hazardous, even if the wipe contains more than 5 grams of solvent residue. See, e.g., EPA interpretive letter to 

Richard Stoll, dated April IO, 1990 (explaining that the residuals removed from an “empty container” through steam-spraying are 
198

not subject to hazardous waste regulation). The proposed “dry” standard is inconsistent with this existing practice and at odds 

with EPA’s earlier finding that the management of wipes contaminated with such residuals does not warrant hazardous waste 

regulation. Indeed, as noted above, EPA readily concedes that, even under its own risk assessment, the “dry” condition is overly 

restrictive with respect to at least certain solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 923

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

In short, USWAG recommends that EPA abandon the “dry” condition altogether and replace it with the ”no free liquids” 

condition. Using the “no free liquids” condition as the “universal” condition for both disposal and reusable wipes will offer 

generators a far simpler, less confusing, and more practical ”universal” wipes management program. As EPA itself recognizes, 

this type of “universal” approach for both disposal and reusable wipes would ensure a rule that is “simpler and easier to 

implement and would simplify the regulations for generators of solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes.” 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1200

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA Do Not Support The Imposition Of a “Dry” Management Condition on Reusable Towels.

As EPA correctly states, a “dry” conditional requirement for reusable shop towels “is overly stringent for the management of 

reusable industrial wipes.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65605. In addition, laundries already have incentives and controls in place to ensure a 

“no free liquids” condition is met and that a reusable towel meeting the performance-based no free liquids management condition 

would do no harm to human health or the environment. 

Laundries must already comply with OSHA, DOT and EPA Pretreatment Program regulations. These regulations ensure a safe 

workplace, safe transportation, and the effective removal and treatment of solvents found on shop towels to facilitate compliance 

with permit conditions. Solvents that arrive at a laundry on towels meeting the “no free liquids” condition are removed during the 

laundering process and captured by laundry wastewater treatment systems designed to ensure compliance with applicable 

wastewater pretreatment permits.

Solvents not captured by an industrial laundry’s wastewater treatment system are safely conveyed to the POTW where secondary 

biological treatment effectively destroys these organic compounds. In deciding in 1999 not to impose categorical ELGs on the 

industrial laundry industry, EPA already determined that solvents found in laundry wastewater do not impact the environment. 

The same cannot be said about solvents found on disposables that are sent to landfills and introduced directly into the 

environment without treatment. This difference accounts for the need to apply a “dry” standard to disposable wipes sent to 

landfills. Such a standard is not necessary for reusable shop towels.

Docket Number - 350

Comment Key - 857

Submitted by - John Shipp of Tennessee Valley Authority 

Comment Text:

Rather than the recommended method of a concentration of 5 grams of solvent per rag, it would seem more reasonable to utilize a 

standard of “no free flowing liquids” to determine the status of the rags. No free flowing liquids can be determined either by the 

paint filter test or by picking up a rag and looking for a drip of liquid from the rag. Nothing in the proposed rule indicates why the 

standard of 5 grams of solvent per rag was chosen, this standard is excessively restrictive and would be difficult to comply

with.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 775

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Phelps Dodge supports the “no free liquid” standard. According to the Agency, it selected 5 grams of solvent per wipe as the 

standard because it fell within a range found in its risk screening analysis to pose insignificant risk to human health and the 

environment. However, the risk screening analysis identified several solvents that when present on industrial wipes in more than 

5 grams, but without free liquid, posed significant risk to human health and the environment.” Therefore, EPA has failed to 

adequately support its selection of 5 grams of solvent per wipe as a condition for exclusion, making it an arbitrary and capricious 
199

action.

Here, EPA chooses to set a specific technical standard as an amount of solvent per wipe rather than setting a performance 

standard as EPA has done with other conditions in the proposed rule. As EPA recognized in other areas of this rule, performance 

standards have the benefit of providing adequate protection from materials that EPA has found pose minimal risk, while allowing 

generators and others involved in handling industrial wipes to manage these materials cost-effectively. It is unclear why EPA has 

departed from the performance-based approach with respect to this aspect of the regulation.

EPA’s strict technical standard may have unintended results. Depending on the material composition of the wipe, its thickness 

andor size, and absorbent characteristics, some wipes may contain less than 5 grams of solvent and still have “free liquid” that 

could be released to both air and leachate, resulting in more risk to human health and the environment. Furthermore, EPA 

indicates that one method of meeting the 5-gram requirement is to use business records to calculate the average amount of solvent 

on each wipe, and as long as the average amount equals 5 grams or less of solvent per wipe, the condition will be met. That 

means that for every wipe that is dripping with solvent, a generator could simply include a couple of dry wipes so that it averages 

out. In addition, the “business records approach” may necessitate complex mass balance calculations to account for every drop of 

solvent. This is especially troublesome in the context of large facilities such as many Phelps Dodge facilities that have multiple 

parts washers and that use numerous solvents. Therefore, the technical standard may actually pose more risk to the environment, 

in addition to being burdensome.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 776

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

Phelps Dodge supports a performance standard of “no free liquids” in lieu of the “dry" standard (less than 5 grams of solvent per 

wipe). A performance standard of ”no free liquids” is easier to implement while maintaining adequate (if not better) protection of 

the environment.

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1229

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

Since dealerships are unlikely to know whether their solid wastes are destined for landfills or for energy recovery, there would be 

one set of disposable wipe standards based on a simple “free liquids” performance standard for all excluded wipes, regardless of 

their destination.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1235

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

In light of the conservative assumptions employed in EPA’s revised risk assessment with regard to solvent loadings and 

contaminant levels, there is clearly no need for solvent extraction or to establish any limitations regarding solvent levels beyond 

the “no free-liquids” condition and test that was proposed by EPA in the NPRM. EPA should therefore not promulgate the 5 

gram solvent contamination limit in the proposed rule and should instead adopt a simple “no free liquids” condition, whereby a 

soiled rag does not drip when held for a short period of time [68 RF 65599].

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1458

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

Specifically, we see no reason why EPA has proposed to limit the amount of solvent that can be on each wipe intended for 

disposal in municipal solid waste landfill when no such limit applies to the amount of solvent for shop towel that can be 

discharged through municipal water treatment plants in industrial effluent or end up in municipal landfill in the form of sludge. 

5.5. Recordkeeping
200

Docket Number - 152

Comment Key - 8

Submitted by - Mass Campaign 

Comment Text:

This proposal will allow industries to neglect protective measures like adequate labeling of containers, training workers who

handle towels, or routine recordkeeping by facilities that generate the toxics.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 993

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Do not impose recordkeeping requirements for excluded wipes.

Discussion: EPA is considering whether to require generators to keep certain records in order to qualify for the exclusions. Such 

records would include the number or volume of wipes generated, where the wipes were sent, how many shipments were sent 

offsite, certifications that the shipped wipes meet the “no free liquids” or “dry” condition, and maintain such records for three 

years. Additionally, EPA is considering whether to require receiving facilities, such as dry cleaners and laundries, to maintain 

records of the “as received” condition of the wipes. 

The rationale provided is that such records are for the purpose of “...improving implementation by the relevant regulatory 

authority.” EPA does not explain how requiring these records would benefit the regulators because none of those proposed 

(except certifications as to the condition of the wipes prior to shipment) have any relevance to the applicability of the exclusion. 

Additionally, if the generator qualified for the exclusion, it would be exempt from solid and hazardous waste recordkeeping 

requirements. Should the generator fail to meet the conditions of the exclusion and then become subject to the hazardous waste 

regulations, failure to maintain those records would be a violation.

Concerning requiring receiving facilities to keep records of the condition of the wipes when received appears to be unnecessary. 

As proposed, wipes received with free liquids are to either returned to the shipper or managed as hazardous waste. Wipes 

received without free liquids would still be covered by the exclusions and handled normally. Failure to manage the wipes 

properly would be a violation of the hazardous waste management regulations, and it is not clear how adding the paperwork 

burden of keeping records of the received condition would augment the management procedures proposed in this rule.

Recommendation: Do not require any of the records mentioned in Section V.D. to be maintained.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1004

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense

Comment Text:

Comment: Do not require certification that employees have been trained to manage excluded wipes under training requirements 

of 40 CFR 262.

Discussion: Per 68 FR 65607, column 1, EPA is considering requiring that generators certify that employees are trained under 40 

CFR 262.

On page 65603, EPA indicates that reusable wipers are a commodity and not a waste. If no waste is generated, requiring RCRA 

generator training makes no sense. All applicable employees are already required to receive OSHA worker right to know training 

that accomplishes the same goal. Duplicative training would be redundant and serve no purpose.

Recommendation: Do not impose additional training requirements on persons managing commodity like materials such as 

reusable wipes.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1360

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

Regardless of USEPA’s decision regarding notification requirements for no free liquids, we believe that 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 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. USEPA should require that this log be maintained on-site 

at the industrial laundry for three years. This requirement would greatly assist in State enforcement efforts.
201

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1362

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

To assist in the enforcement of this regulation, industrial laundries should be required to submit a one-time notification to 

USEPA or authorized states stating that they will be laundering hazardous wipes under this exclusion. This requirement would 

also make enforcement efforts substantially easier for the states.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1550

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Generators using reusable wipers should not be required to keep records on the volume of wipers generated. As stated in the 

proposed rule document these wipers are commodity like and have value to the generator and handler and are likely to be tracked 

and handled properly. A certification that the wipers meet the no free liquid standard is not needed. Training certification above 

that already required by various programs is not needed. 

Generators using disposable wipers should keep track of the volume disposed through the normal hazardous or solid waste record 

keeping. They should certify each shipment meets the "dry" condition. 

Laundries, dry cleaners, handling, and disposal facilities should only be required to maintain records of the condition of non 

compliant wipes that arrive and how they handle those that do not meet either the "no free liquid" or "dry" conditions. No use of a 

streamlined manifest should be required. Often the handler does not know the type of solvents used by the generator.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1676

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

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. Technology such as a wringer can be adjusted, times and spin 

rates can be changed on centrifuges rendering them ineffective. An alternative to a specified technology would be a record 

keeping requirement that indicates actual compliance.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 506

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Additional recordkeeping, such as one-time notifications, certifications, or shipping records would place unnecessary burdens on 

the generator and/or receiver while providing little, if any, additional benefit beyond existing regulatory requirements.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 303

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

API agrees that no new record keeping requirements are needed for this rule, including the following requirements that EPA 

mentioned in the preamble: a one-time notification that a facility is using the exclusion, certification of compliance with the 

conditions of the exclusion, or certification that employees are trained adequately to manage wipes. Such additional requirements 

would impose unnecessary paperwork burdens while providing little, if any, benefits beyond existing regulatory controls.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 1508

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Recordkeeping requirements to rebut speculative accumulation are unnecessarily burdensome for a commodity that does not 

meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. 
202

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 842

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports the EPA’s proposal not to impose specific recordkeeping requirements for either the proposed 

exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for disposable industrial wipes or for the proposed exclusion from the definition 

of solid waste for reusable industrial wipes. 

The EPA has already made the determination through a risk screening analysis that solvent-contaminated wipes that meet the 

conditions set forth in this proposed rule pose no significant risk to health or the environment. Keeping records of volume 

generated, quantity shipped and where they were shipped to contradicts the outcome of the risk screening analysis. Furthermore, 

40 CFR 261.2(f) adequately states the generator’s obligation to document that the material is not a waste or exemption from 

regulation. This type of performance standard allows greater business flexibility.

Docket Number - 268

Comment Key - 343

Submitted by - Patricia McCullough of Northeast Utilities System 

Comment Text:

Similar to the “dry” condition, requiring solvent-contaminated wipes to meet specific accumulation time limits and recordkeeping 

requirements would unnecessarily limit the benefits of the rule. If disposable wipes are excluded from the definition of 

“hazardous waste,” it seems to reason that they should also be excluded from strict hazardous waste management requirements. 

Also, if the intent of the exclusion is to remove unwarranted management and disposal standards, then prescriptive time limits 

and recordkeeping requirements are also unnecessary. Additionally, requiring wipes to be managed under strict accumulation 

time limits would penalize small quantity generators by forcing them to incur the added cost of frequently shipping small 

amounts of non-hazardous wipes off site. This would also create a disincentive for waste minimization.

Similarly, NUSCO does not believe that additional recordkeeping requirements (e.g., number and volume of wipes shipped, 

number of shipments, etc.) are necessary to ensure compliance with the rule. As EPA has proposed, generators will be obligated 

to demonstrate that the wipes they generate qualify for the exclusion. To require additional recordkeeping would be redundant

and could jeopardize use of the exclusion. Requiring extensive recordkeeping would contravene the intent of the rule by 

complicating compliance rather than simplifying it.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1107

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP believes that the requirement for generators to maintain records of the number or volume of wipes generated and where 

the wipes were sent would be very useful for enforcement agencies in evaluating compliance with the conditions of the exclusion. 

CTDEP also believes that these records should include the dates of each shipment and the number or volume of wipes sent per 

shipment, and that all of these records should be maintained for at least three years. CTDEP also sees some value to adding 

employee training and emergency response requirements as suggested by EPA in this section of the preamble, but does not 

believe that full personnel training and emergency response requirements per 40 CFR 262 may be needed in this case (rather, 

more streamlined, performance-based training and emergency response requirements may suffice). CTDEP also finds value in 

EPA’s suggestion to require receiving facilities (i.e., laundries, dry cleaners, wipes handling facilities, and disposal facilities) to 

maintain records of shipments which are received with free liquids, and believes that these records, too, should be maintained for 

at least three years. CTDEP would also point out that all of the above provisions could easily be instituted if EPA chose to follow 

CTDEP’s suggestion to list industrial wipes as Universal Waste, as discussed in [another comment].

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 657

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

We do not support the inclusion of a one-time notification as it would not provide any environmental benefit. Nor do we support 

the need to maintain any types of records regarding the management of wipes. The recovered solvent, if a hazardous waste, is 

already covered under existing statute. No further reports or records should be required. Requiring training under this provision is 

also unnecessary. As the facility is often handling hazardous waste as well, this training requirement is already met.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 660

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 
203

Comment Text:

IPC does not support the inclusion of any type of recordkeeping requirements. To the best of our knowledge, states that have 

adopted strict policies regarding the handling and disposal of used wipes, either reusable or disposable, do not require any type of 

recordkeeping or certification. Since current industry practices are based on state policies, EPA’s proposed recordkeeping 

requirements would impose a new regulatory burden on facilities. EPA has clearly stated this proposal is a deregulatory action 

making the additional regulatory burden counter intuitive to the intent of the proposed rule. Further, EPA has not indicated an 

environmental benefit from the added recordkeeping responsibilities placed on the generator. Unless EPA can verify the 

environmental benefit derived from this additional regulatory burden, we cannot support any additional recordkeeping.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 591

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC does not support the inclusion of any type of recordkeeping. If the goal of the regulation is to simplify requirements 

and exclude properly managed industrial wipes from the burdens associated with the hazardous waste regulations, requirements 

for additional recordkeeping will be counter to that goal. Current industry practices have been dictated by state policies. These 

state policies were developed due to a void that was created by the lack of a national rule . Additionally, the Agency has clearly 

stated that this is a deregulatory action and as such, imposing additional responsibilities on the generator without clear indication 

as to the environmental benefit for these records is unacceptable. To the best of our knowledge, states that have adopted strict 

policies regarding the handling and disposal of used wipes, either reusable or disposable, do not require any type of 

recordkeeping or certification. Again, unless the Agency can verify the environmental benefit derived from this additional 

regulatory burden, the GAC cannot support any additional recordkeeping.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1381

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

EPA should include a one-time notification requirement for the destination facility, along with a requirement for the destination 

facility to maintain records of the identity of the facilities that are sending wipes for solvent removal. This will provide the 

regulatory authorities with information essential to providing adequate checks on compliance.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1392

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

The HWP suggests that EPA should include a one-time notification requirement for the destination facility, along with a 

requirement for the destination facility to maintain records of the identity of the facilities that are sending wipes for solvent 

removal. This will provide the regulatory authorities with information essential to providing adequate checks on compliance.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1039

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Idaho DEQ recommends EPA require generators to keep 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. These records should be maintained for three years. We believe the recordkeeping requirements would not be 

overly burdensome to generators and could easily be maintained as part of their existing standard business records. Additionally, 

such recordkeeping requirements would assist implementing agencies ensure solvent-contaminated industrial wipes are properly 

managed.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 185

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA has not proposed any recordkeeping provisions in the rule language, although some possible provisions are discussed in the 

preamble. 68 FR 65607. Without sufficient recordkeeping provisions, enforcement of the rule will be weak at best and impossible 

in reality. If a given container of wipes fails to meet the 5 grams or “no free liquids” criteria, the lack of recordkeeping 

requirements makes it difficult to impossible to trace this back to the original generator who ultimately should be held liable for 

the management of these wipes as hazardous waste.
204

The recordkeeping requirements must start at the generator’s site. Any generator seeking to use this exemption must send a one 

time notification to EPA and/or the State notifying them of the intention to use the exemption. The storage time must be limited 

and labels must be applied to both reusable and disposable solvent wipes indicating the generator’s name, location and 

accumulation start date. The generator must also keep records on the quantity of wipes generated, where they were sent, and a

record of each shipment sent. The generator must certify that each shipment of wipes met the “no free liquids” requirement. All 

records must be kept for a minimum of 5 years, to allow for inspection in case of an enforcement issue. 

In addition, generators must also be required to notify EPA or the State when every a shipment of their wipes fails to meet the 

“no free liquids” criterion at an intermediate handler, launderer or disposal facility. The letter must state the date that the 

shipment was made, the reasons why the criterion was not met, and what was done to remedy the deficiency, including where the 

hazardous waste free solvent and wipes were finally sent for proper treatment and disposal. If for some reason the generator 

cannot be determined, then the intermediate handler, launderer or disposal facility must send a notification letter to the State 

and/or EPA if a shipment of wipes is received that fails the “no free liquids” criterion. In addition these parties must record the 

efforts made to identify the generator, and where the solvent and wipes were sent for proper treatment and disposal. A hazardous 

waste manifest must be used to document proper shipment of the material as a regulated hazardous waste, and to ensure that there 

is traceability to the final point of disposal. Once the exempt status is lost, due to failure of the “no free liquids” criterion, the 

shipment is fully subject to RCRA Subtitle C, and all manifest and documentation requirements must be in place to ensure proper 

management. As an alternative, the Universal Waste Rule under 40 CFR Part 273 provides adequate documentation provisions. 

As commented above, solvent contaminated wipes should be managed within the framework of the Universal Waste Rule.

These minimum recordkeeping provisions are critical to ensure enforceability of the rule, and to ensure that the conditions of the 

exemption are met. Without these requirements, the proposed exemption is subject to much abuse, and substantial risk to the 

public and the environment will result.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 273

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports that EPA not propose any specific recordkeeping requirements for either the proposed exclusion from the

definition of hazardous waste for disposable industrial wipes or for the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 

reusable industrial wipes. These requirements would impose unnecessary burdens on generators without providing any additional

environmental benefit.

Docket Number - 304

Comment Key - 571

Submitted by - Lawrence Merritt, Jr. of Ford Motor Company 

Comment Text:

Ford agrees that any additional recordkeeping requirements specific to this proposal are unnecessary and would increase the 

administrative burden of implementation similar to the "dry" wipe argument.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 350

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with EPAs approach not to require specific recordkeeping requirements for generators utilizing reusable 

towels. As outlined in the Proposal Rule, reusable towels are not considered waste; thus, RCRA-type conditions should not apply 

to non-waste materials.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 351

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Record keeping procedures already exist at industrial laundries as part of the service provided to the laundries’ customers. 

Invoices and other business-related documents are used as part of the service to the customer/generator, which provides 

documentation that could be used to determine the amount of towels the generator used or sent to the laundry and the dates of

shipment. Additional requirements would be redundant and would defeat the purpose of a simplified regulation.
205

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 689

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

Recordkeeping on the number of wipes sent for cleaning, what cleaner they were sent to and number of shipments would not 

have any value. It is reasonable that a facility train the appropriate employees (those who would be expected to “generate” the 

majority of the solvent-contaminated wipes) on the proper management of such wipes. As for a certification that goes with each 

shipment of wipes certifying that they contain no free liquids, instead we recommend that a quarterly inspection be

done of some of the containers at the facility for holding used reusable wipes for the purpose of determining whether or not the 

wipes contain free liquids. Such records should be maintained for three years.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 694

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed three methods for tracking and recordkeeping: 1) Use normal business records, such as the amount of solvent 

used per month for wiping operations divided by the number of wipes used per month for solvent wiping; 2) Conduct sampling to

measure the amount of solvent applied per wipe before use; 3) Sample to measure the amount of solvent remaining on wipes 

when use is completed.

Method number 1 above does not represent normal business records. Under most situations both wipes and solvents are 

purchased in bulk and distributed through the use of secondary containers to various locations within the facilities. This would 

result in each location within the facility being required to keep records of the wipes used with solvents. Not all wipes are used 

with solvents so additional records would need to be compiled in order to demonstrate proof of usage. Records from all the 

various locations within a facility would then have to be compiled on some frequency yet to be determined. 

Method 2 and 3 above both result in more worker and environmental exposure then current requirements under the hazardous 

waste rules.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 380

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA strongly supports self-implementation without prior agency notification, review and approval. Under the current RCRA 

statutory scheme, Agency notification, review or approval is not required prior to an exclusion becoming effective. Rather, if 

operating under a current recycling exclusion, such as the closed loop recycling exclusion, facilities need only maintain 

documentation showing that only tank storage was involved and the entire process was closed by being entirely connected with 

pipes or other comparable closed conveyance. This self-implementing approach should be used for this rulemaking as well.

Maintaining supporting documentation on-site eliminates the need for the overseeing agency to establish special controls 

regarding the submission, maintenance and public distribution of such information, particularly that which is confidential, and 

correctly places the burden upon the generator to maintain such information as confidential. The burden of proof under RCRA 

has always been on the facility claiming that a material is excluded or otherwise exempt under the regulation. There are 

significant penalties in place for not maintaining appropriate documentation or for mischaracterizing a practice as exempt when it 

is not. Therefore, there is sufficient incentive to manage the materials appropriately and to document the exclusion under the 

current statutory structure. This structure is also one that is being complied with today for current exclusions and is well known to 

regulated parties. There is no justification to alter this scheme in any final rulemaking under this Proposed Rule.

Thus, NPCA does not support additional recordkeeping than that which is required under the current RCRA statutory scheme. In 

addition, EPA has made it clear that this is a deregulatory action, and adding recordkeeping requirements increases regulatory 

burden without commensurate environmental gain. EPA requested comments on: (1) requiring industry to keep records on 

volumes of wipes generated/sent off-site; (2) certifying that no free liquid/dry condition is met; and (3) certifying that employees 

are adequately trained. These recordkeeping requirements are unnecessary, burdensome, and in some cases duplicative of already 

existing requirements under DOT and OSHA. Before EPA adopts any recordkeeping requirements (despite NPCA objections), 

EPA must do an economic impact analysis since this would add regulatory burden on industry.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 439

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 
206

Comment Text:

CKRC is very concerned about this rule’s intent to abandon oversight of these wastes. CKRC believes that reporting 

requirements are essential to ensure correct waste determinations, proper waste classifications, and appropriate management of 

these wastes. A series of notifications would be needed to ensure proper application of the proposed exemption. A conditional 

exemption should in fact be conditional. Just as the used oil and universal waste conditional exemptions require notifications of 

waste activity, the wipes conditional exemption should require the same. There is a possibility of system abuse whereby 

generators routinely do not remove sufficient liquid and the handlers simply accept the excess waste as their own rather than

giving the customer an excuse to select an alternate supplier. Since no reporting is required, the system can be easily abused. 

CMRC urges the Agency to modify the proposal to require that laundries and disposal facilities discovering containers not 

meeting! the “no free liquid” condition periodically report their results to regulators by (at a minimum) managing the “significant 

difference” in a way similar to hazardous waste manifest discrepancy or waste characterization significant differences. (40 CFR 

264.72) 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.

-Periodically report (e.g., every six months) to the state agency lists of generators from which free liquids are received.

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 495

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

USEPA says it is considering some specific recordkeeping requirements and solicits comments on several possibilities. USEPA 

asks whether generators should be required to keep basic information, such as the number or volume of industrial wipes 

generated, where the industrial wipes were sent, and how many shipments were sent off site. Additionally, USEPA asks whether 

generators should be required to certify that their shipments of industrial wipes meet either the “no free liquids” or the “dry” 

condition, as appropriate, and maintain those records for three years. Finally, USEPA questions whether generators should be 

required to certify that their employees are adequately trained to manage wipes stored and handled on site through compliance 

with generator employee training and emergency response requirements in 40 CFR part 262. The Agency’s stated purpose for 

such recordkeeping consideration is for improving implementation by the relevant regulatory authority. DP&L can see no benefit 

to keeping such records. If the overall purpose of the proposed regulations is to lessen the burden on the regulated community by 

providing conditional exemptions for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, a requirement to keep records of activities 

conducted under those exemptions is counterproductive. DP&L does not oppose appropriate recordkeeping requirements if they 

contribute to the protection of human health and the environment. But DP&L has to seriously question the need for the keeping 

of records being considered by USEPA under this proposal for a material the Agency acknowledges poses little or no risk to the 

environment. Under such a philosophy, recordkeeping requirements would proliferate for other items that are exempt from solid 

or hazardous waste regulation such that records would be required for all manner of disposal/recycling activities. Such 

burdensome regulations would act as a disincentive for companies to engage in the very activity that USEPA is attempting to 

encourage through its proposal.

Docket Number - 342

Comment Key - 521

Submitted by - D.W. Coleman of Energy Northwest 

Comment Text:

Although we are not adverse to a basic recordkeeping requirement such as quantity of waste managed under the exclusion, we do 

not believe it should be necessary to maintain certifications on the employee training and emergency response provisions.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 277

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG supports EPAs decision not to establish any specific record keeping requirements under either one of the proposed 

exclusions, especially with regard to generators of contaminated wipes. EPA correctly reasons that such additional regulation is 

unnecessary because persons claiming an exemption from hazardous waste regulation already are required, when requested by 

EPA, to provide appropriate documentation demonstrating compliance with the exemption. 

Nonetheless, EPA seeks comment on whether it should impose new and additional record keeping requirements on generators of 

wipes, including information on the number or volume of wipes generated, where the wipes were sent and how many shipments 

were sent off-site. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether generators should be required to certify that their wipes meet 

the “no free liquids” or “dry” conditions (assuming the latter survives in the final rule) and whether their employees are 

adequately trained to manage contaminated wipes. USWAG sees absolutely no need for these additional requirements for the 

very reason EPA itself has already articulated - entities availing themselves of the exclusion already are under a regulatory 
207

obligation to demonstrate, when requested by regulators, that they meet the applicable conditions of the exclusion. Therefore, any 

additional requirements would be redundant and only serve to impose needless paperwork obligations on the regulated 

community at a time when EPA is attempting to reduce unnecessary record keeping and reporting requirements generally. Absent 

an explicit and compelling need for such record keeping requirements -which EPA has not offered - the final rule should not 

include additional paperwork burdens on the regulated community. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1210

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Additional Record Keeping Requirements for the Laundry Are Unnecessary.

UTSA and TRSA support EPA’s proposal not to impose any specific record keeping requirements for the proposed exclusion 

from the definition of solid waste for reusable shop towels. 68 Fed. Reg. at 65607. Industrial laundries already keep accurate 

business records to track the use of shop towels by their customers. Indeed, that is how the companies get paid! These records are 

more than sufficient to ensure compliance with the management standards upon which the solid waste exclusion is premised. 

Further record keeping is unnecessary and would be unduly burdensome in practice.

EPA requests comment on various issues for which record keeping requirements, while not proposed, are under consideration. 

With regard to laundry customers, there is no need for a regulatory mandate to keep track of the volume or amount of shop towels 

in a shipment, where the shipment is going, or how many shipments were sent off-site. This critical business information already 

is collected under contractual arrangements with industry laundry service providers. Additional record keeping would be 

duplicative and unnecessary. Likewise, customers already are obliged under existing contracts to ensure that shipments meet the 

“no free liquids” standard. Industrial laundries have ample incentives, both financial (to collect revenue from their shop towel 

commodity) and regulatory (to preserve the solid waste exclusion), to enforce compliance with this standard. Finally, customer 

employee training in the responsible handling of soiled shop towels is adequately covered by applicable RCRA (40 C.F.R. Part 

262) and OSHA requirements. Requiring additional training or certification would simply add an unnecessary layer of 

paperwork.

For similar reasons, it is unnecessary to require laundries to certify the condition of shop towels when received. The “no free 

liquids” condition is a standard requirement of the terms of agreement that govern the relationship between the laundry and 

customer. As laundries have a financial incentive to enforce this requirement, so too do laundry customers, who must pay to 

replace shop towels that are damaged, destroyed, or returned due to the presence of “free liquids.” Moreover, given the volume of 

reusable shop towels, a certification requirement (particularly based on each batch of towels) would be unduly burdensome for 

laundries to implement.

In sum, additional record keeping requirements would simply add a paperwork burden onto existing industry practices that are 

sufficient to ensure compliance with the conditions of the proposed solid waste exclusion, including the “no free liquids” 

standard. Increasing the paperwork burden will only serve to discourage use of the valuable recycling service provided by 

industrial laundries. Accordingly, EPA should finalize the proposal without specific record keeping requirements for the solid 

waste exclusion for reusable shop towels.

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 200

Submitted by - Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

If the EPA proceeds with this proposed rule, it should include extensive recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Given the 

paucity of the EPA’s enforcement resources, recordkeeping requirements are essential to hold generators and laundries 

accountable. Especially if the EPA retains its woefully slack, “no free liquids” standard, it should require both generators and 

laundries to certify that there are no free liquids at the bottom of the container when it leaves the generator and when it reaches 

the laundry. When free liquids are present, the laundry should be required to notify the EPA and provide the identity of the 

generator and information on how the laundry handled the free liquids. Without such requirements, strong economic incentives 

could result in waste mismanagement.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 633

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Generators using reusable wipers should not be required to keep records on the volume of wipers generated. As stated in the 

proposed rule document these wipers are commodity like and have value to the generator and handler and are likely to be tracked 
208

and handled properly. A certification that the wipers meet the no free liquid standard is not needed. Training certification above 

that already required by various programs is not needed. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 634

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Generators using disposable wipers should keep track of the volume disposed through the normal hazardous or solid waste record 

keeping. They should certify each shipment meets the "dry" condition.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 635

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Laundries, dry cleaners, handling, and disposal facilities should only be required to maintain records of the condition of non 

compliant wipes that arrive and how they handle those that do not meet either the "no free liquid" or "dry" conditions. No use of a 

streamlined manifest should be required. Often the handler does not know the type of solvents used by the generator.

5.6. Handling Facilities

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1398

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposal is based in part on risk analysis that assumes disposable wipes go to unlined landfills. This assumption 

presumably led EPA to favor laundering and combustion over land disposal. There are no unlined operating landfills in 

Massachusetts and so MADEP feels that EPA has overstated the risk of land-disposing non-saturated solvent contaminated wipes 

in this context. In Massachusetts, most disposable wipes are generated by businesses with less than twenty employees and these 

businesses would generally dispose only small quantities at a time into Massachusetts lined-landfills. MADEP believes that such 

small quantities present within much larger volumes of municipal solid waste pose a small risk in Massachusetts’s lined-landfills, 

all of which meet 40 CFR Part 258 standards. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1549

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Comment on conditions for reusable wipes managed at a handling facility. The conditions are reasonable. Laundries should 

handle their liquids through appropriate recovery, or waste handling measures as applicable to their operating system and 

permits. Laundries and other handlers should not be required to notify EPA that the "no free liquids" condition has not been met.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1056

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP agrees that the generator (combustor or industrial laundry) must determine whether residues (ash or sludges) from 

incineration or washing of wipes are characteristically hazardous. If so, they must manage them as hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1085

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Lack of accountability for disposable wipes. If launderable wipes are sent to an industrial laundry for cleaning, the laundry is 

going to open the containers and remove the wipes, ensuring that if any free liquids are present, they will be detected. In addition, 

if such liquids are present, the laundry is typically not going to want to assume the cost for properly removing or disposing of the 

free liquids, providing an additional deterrent against generators sending wipes with free liquids in them. These factors combine 
209

to ensure a high degree of accountability for generators and other handlers of launderable wipes to ensure compliance with the 

liquid content standards in the proposed rule. Disposable wipes, on the other hand, are not likely to be opened or examined at the 

landfill or combustor facility, and these facilities are less likely to be concerned about the presence of unacceptable levels of 

solvents since, unlike laundries, they do not generate a sludge for which they must assume the cost of disposal. As a result, there 

is a much lower level of accountability for generators and other handlers of disposable wipes to meet the required solvent content 

standard than there is for launderable wipes. This fact places a greater burden on enforcement agencies to police handlers of

disposable wipes to ensure compliance with the solvent content standards for such wipes. Since 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.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 181

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The conditions for management of wipes at handling facilities are also weak and require more specific provisions dealing with 

container management, storage time limitations and notification requirements. The ETC urges EPA to consider application of the 

Universal Waste framework to all solvent contaminated wipes going to launderers or disposal facilities and to intermediate 

handling facilities. The Universal Waste provisions under 40 CFR Part 273 provide protections not afforded by this proposed 

rule, including traceability and enforceability. 

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 728

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

MPPA believes that the Agency should allow laundering, combustion in commercial boilers and incinerators, and disposal in 

landfills.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 1520

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

The survey results (which also included other Maine businesses), indicated that Maine businesses were 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. MPPA is not aware of any adverse health or environmental impacts 

from these practices, and notes that federal and state regulatory programs are in place in Maine and other states to ensure these 

management options are protective. 

For example, under Maine DEP regulations, the biosolids that may be generated from POTW treatment of wastewater from 

laundries are monitored for a variety of contaminants, including VOCs, before landfilling or land application to address any 

potential contaminants of concern. See DEP Regs Chaps. 405 (including standards for waste characterization for disposal of solid 

waste and for agronomic utilitization) and 41 9 (agronomic utilization of residuals). Of course, wastewater treatment plants in 

Maine are subject to extensive monitoring requirements that include metals, volatiles, semi-volatiles, and whole effluent toxicity 

tests. & DEP Regs Chap. 530 (Surface Water Toxics Control Program). In-stream water quality standards are monitored under 

the DEP’s Biocriteria Rules. DEP Regs Chap. 579. Stationary air emission sources in Maine that might burn wipes are licensed, 

and are subject to extensive air emission controls, emission monitoring or testing requirements, and regulation and inspections 

under DEP Regs Chaps. 115 and/or 140. As EPA is aware, the high efficiency of VOC destruction in industrial boilers and 

commercial waste-to-energy incinerators ensures that the VOCs present in solvent rags would be virtually completely destroyed 

in any event. MPPA supports 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.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 943

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be laundered or dry cleaned on-site or shipped directly to a laundry or dry cleaner. 

The use of an industrial wipes handling facility should not be allowed, except for facilities with RCRA hazardous waste 

management permits. Industrial wipes handling facilities, as proposed, could potentially handle unlimited quantities of solvent 

contaminated industrial wipes with virtually no regulatory controls or restrictions. Laundries, on .the other hand, ordinarily 
210

operate under CWA regulations which set appropriate waste management and discharge controls, and are usually subject to 40 

CFR Part 270.60 (c) permit by rule requirements which include waste identification, manifesting, annual reporting, and corrective 

action for solid waste management units for facilities with NPDES permits issued after November 8,1984.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1014

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

No conditional exclusion should be provided for wipes shipped to industrial laundries or other facilities that utilize a leachfield or 

similar subsurface disposal system.

5.6.1. Laundries

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 19

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] placing a 5 gram limit for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towel before it is laundered.

Docket Number - 173

Comment Key - 293

Submitted by - Robert A. Young of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

Either remove the 5 grams of solvent limit on disposals sent to landfills or place a 5 gram maximum on shop towels to be 

laundered.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1370

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

The Department is concerned 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 the waters of the State. Efforts to remove excess contaminated solvents from the

reusable wipes prior to their washing should be encouraged, if not required. Centrifuging, pressing, or other solvent extraction 

technology may be used to accomplish this.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1371

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

The rule should require that wastewater discharges from these industrial laundries be either to a POTW or a point source 

discharge subject to NPDES permitting. Discharges to groundwater via septic systems or other means should be prohibited.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1546

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Comment relative to specific limits on amount of solvent or concentration of solvent, or number of towels allowed on an annual 

basis. No limits should be placed on these parameters. Any limit on amount of solvent would be inconsistent due to the vast 

variety of wipers available. A limit that would over saturate one type of towel would leave a second type of towel merely damp. 

A better way to control solvent loading to the environment would be to require solvent recovery technology prior to washing. 

These technologies would mirror the desire to encourage the recovery and recycling of solvent. 

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 1507

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 
211

Comment Text:

Additionally, Dow does not believe it is necessary to set limits on the quantity of reusable wipes that can be sent to a laundering 

facility, dry cleaners or industrial wipes handling facilities (laundering facility); nor is it necessary to set a limit on the quantity a 

laundering facility can accept in a certain time period. Additionally, Dow does not support and does not see justification to place 

a limit on the distance between the generator and the recycling or laundering facility. These provisions would unnecessarily 

restrict free market commerce.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 307

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

In response to EPA's request for comment (Id. at 65605), API does not believe that it is necessary for additional requirements 

setting 1) maximum amounts of solvent or concentrations on reusable wipes sent to a laundering or dry cleaning facility or 2)

numerical limits on the number of wipes or shop towels that launderers or dry cleaners can accept on annual basis, provided that 

wipes meet the conditions for the exclusion. These additional limitations identified by EPA are not necessary because the 

conditions of the proposed exclusions and existing regulatory programs such as effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for 

wastewater discharges from industrial laundries and applicable OSHA workplace exposure standards already provide appropriate 

safeguards to protect the environment and human health.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 839

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Limiting the number of shop towels launderers or dry cleaners can accept on an annual basis for cleaning does not increase 

compliance with the proposed regulations and may restrict accessibility or increase disposal costs for generators in areas with

limited laundry or dry cleaning establishments.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1106

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

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, 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. In addition, 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). CTDEP requests EPA to specifically clarify this issue. Furthermore, CTDEP believes that 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. CTDEP acknowledges that 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, 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, EPA may wish to 

consider a special set of standards for such 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.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 664

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

We also do not believe it is necessary to place a numerical limit on the number of wipes sent off site on an annual basis for

cleaning. Placing a limit on the number of towels that can be sent off site would adversely impact the manufacturing process.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 795

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

We submit the following comments with regard to EPA’s request to specifically comment on information submitted by the 
212

Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association.

-We do not agree that EPA should place a specific limit on either the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of solvent 

on reusable wipes sent to a laundering or dry cleaning facility.

-We do not agree the EPA should set a numerical limit on the number of shop towels launderers or dry cleaners can accept on an

annual basis for cleaning.

As required by the Clean Water Act (CWA), municipalities regulate point discharges (meaning launderers) through industrial 

user and pretreatment requirements. Permits issued to these point discharges specifically provide numeric and other limitations 

that are subject to enforcement actions. It is the responsibility of the permitee to ensure that its discharges meet its permit 

requirements. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the best method to control discharges to municipal sewer systems. Placing a 

specific limit on either the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of solvent on reusable wipes is an unnecessary 

additional layer of regulation.

Secondly, PING has significantly reduced the amount of hazardous waste rags and wipes it generates by utilizing recyclable 

towels. The use of recyclable towels is a major element in our pollution prevention program and in our commitment to 

continually improve our management systems. In order to make the change, we were required to modify our manufacturing 

processes to most effectively use the recyclable towels.

There are a limited number of launderers that we feel are able to meet our strict environmental vendor requirements. If these 

launderers are restricted to the amount of towels they can accept in a year, it may force us (as well as other generators) to

discontinue our use of recyclable towels and use more non-recyclable wipes that would be classified as a hazardous waste. In 

addition, our manufacturing process would be affected and we would need to re-configure our processes due to the seasonal 

change in towel use. As such, we are opposed to any limitation on the amount of towels launderers can accept in a calendar year.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1031

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA notes that most states that currently have exclusions for laundering of industrial wipes require that the laundry either 

discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or be permitted under the Clean Water Act. However, EPA’s proposed 

solvent-contaminated wipes rule does not include such a requirement. The proposed rule and risk assessment both appear to 

presume that industrial wipes will only be laundered at dry cleaners or at on-site facilities or off-site industrial laundries that 

discharge to a POTW. There is concern that some on-site laundries, or even some off-site laundries, that could potentially accept 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes may discharge to septic systems or other non-POTW/CWA systems, which will result in 

the release of hazardous constituents to the environment. Under the current proposed rule, it appears EPA and states could not 

bring an enforcement action against the receiving facility for violations of hazardous waste requirements because the wipes 

would be excluded from the definition of solid waste.

Idaho DEQ recommends that the proposed rule require laundries that accept solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to be 

permitted under the CWA or discharge to a POTW to: 1) allow treatment of the toxic pollutants remaining in discharges and 2) 

allow the POTW through their existing pretreatment authority to respond to problem dischargers. The proposed solid waste 

exclusion for reusable industrial wipes at 40 CFR Part 261.4(a)(22) should be revised to require that reusable industrial wipes be 

sent to industrial laundries where the wastewater discharges are subject to regulation under section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 933

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The MPCA supports the use of vapor recovery technologies to reduce the solvent in Wipes prior to laundering.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 346

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK disagrees with the need to establish specific limits on either the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of 

solvent on reusable towels or a limit on the number of towels laundries or dry cleaners can accept. Industrial laundries assisted 

with the development and foundation of the Industrial Laundry BMPs to reduce the amount of solvents contained on reusable 

towels. By utilizing the “no free liquids” approach, the amount of solvents contained on wipes is controlled to a great extent. 

Existing federal, state and local regulations already provide protection for all expected environmental receptors (air, sewer 

systems receiving wastewater and disposal facilities receiving wastewater treatment sludge). Establishing limits on the amount or 
213

concentration of solvents or on the number of wipes a facility could handle would be confusing and essentially impossible to 

implement. Since reliable data on the concentrations or quantities of solvents on towels is virtually impossible to acquire, users 

would need to rely on highly subjective estimates. Each individual laundry should be able to determine through its own analysis 

how best to comply with applicable regulations that limit or control the discharge of VOCs to the air, sewer systems receiving 

wastewater or disposal facilities by limiting its production of towels, investing in pollution control equipment or some 

combination of the two. 

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 347

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the proposal that reusable towels should be stored in covered containers at the laundry facility until 

entering the laundry process (i.e. sorting/counting). Laundries utilize BMPs to minimize storage time on site prior to processing. 

Additionally, ARAMARK agrees that in the event a laundry receives towels that do not meet the “no free liquids” standard, the 

laundry should be required to ship the towels and liquid back to the customer as soon as reasonably practical. This approach is 

consistent with the Industrial Laundry BMPs that laundries helped develop and that most states adopted as part of their reusable 

towel regulatory programs.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 352

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK agrees with the approach identified by EPA in the Proposed Rule regarding the procedures industrial laundries 

would follow to handle and transport reusable towels that meet the “no free liquid” standard. We do not believe that additional 

requirements, such as certification of the condition of the towels upon arrival at the facility or documentation of the handling of 

free liquids, types of solvents, or the weights and volumes of liquids is necessary in the event reusable towels arriving at a 

laundry do not meet the ’no free liquids” standard. The Industrial Laundry BMPs contain provisions to address proper 

management of reusable towels. If free liquids are detected, the affected towels are shipped back to the customer and the laundry 

facility’s management addresses the issue directly with the customer. Requiring laundries to certify the condition of every load of 

towels brought to its facilities would be burdensome considering that large number of loads daily may be received and that it

would not result in greater protection to the environment. Additional requirements would complicate the process, create 

burdensome recordkeeping requirements for the laundry and undermine the purpose of streamlining the approach to handling 

reusable towels.

Docket Number - 312

Comment Key - 687

Submitted by - Alan L. Prouty of J.R. Simplot 

Comment Text:

Placing requirements on the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of solvent on reusable wipes, or a numerical limit

on the number of wipes that a launderer can accept will result in decreasing the reuse of wipes. It is neither practical nor 

economic for a facility to determine or have analyses done on individual wipes to determine the amount of solvent or the 

concentration of a solvent in individual wipes. Such requirements would defeat the purpose of this rulemaking, which is:

-facilitating pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities, and

-fostering improved solvents management by generators and handling facilities, and

-reducing compliance costs

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 918

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

I also think 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 the air we breath on the job but also in the bags that we have to lift 

and touch.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 437

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

The discussion in both the proposal and the TBD addressing OSHA’s ability to prevent hazards focuses on the emissions and 
214

“closed container” rules for ignitable materials...there is no indication that the driver collecting the reusable wipes is provided the 

same information. It is doubtful that the laundries can supply full chemical safety information to their employees collecting these 

wipes since there is no requirement for generators to supply this information to the laundries. At best, the laundries may address 

these issues on a generic basis, but not specific to a particular customer and specific chemicals. This is a problem because the 

lack of complete information causes ineffective training, which results in insufficient or improper use of personal protective 

equipment (PPE). The driver may wear protective gloves, but will they be suitable for the chemicals involved? And what about 

respiratory protection? If the same types of materials were to be managed as a hazardous waste at a RCRA-regulated 

transportation, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), the employee would be trained to OSHA HAZWOPER standards, wear both 

skin exposure and respiratory protection to sample the container, and be in receipt of a waste profile from the generator 

identifying the specific chemicals contained in the waste. The hazards posed by these chemicals do not change as a result of who 

is transporting the waste and where it is being shipped. CKRC believes the proposal ignores this reality and as a result fails to 

adequately protect employee health and safety.

CKRC urges EPA to 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 MSDS): (3) thoroughly documented and frequent training of personnel; and (4) application of the 

HAZCOM standard to laundry drivers, just as the HAZCOM standards apply to facilities that must train contractors working on 

an employer’s site.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1613

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe there should be a numerical limit on the number of shop towels laundries or dry cleaners can 

accept on an annual basis. Both the CAA and CWA permitting schemes should provide sufficient protections for the environment 

in lieu of limiting the amount of product to be processed.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1012

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

In summary, the rule proposal should be revised to require any industrial laundry that receives “conditionally excluded” solventcontaminated wipes to have a Clean Water Act permit with specific discharge limits for F-listed solvents. Monthly monitoring for 

compliance with those limits (with the monitoring samples collected during times when solvent contaminated wipes are

being laundered) should also be required.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1013

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule should be revised so that generators can send wipes only to industrial laundries that perform waste 

determinations and manage wastes pursuant to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for all 

sludge residuals, or waste liquids generated from laundering hazardous waste contaminated wipes. Toxic organic contaminants 

from laundering facilities will likely be present in the sludge at the POTW. Sludge destined for composting, land spreading or 

landfills should be accurately characterized and managed according to representative sample analysis. 

Docket Number - 343

Comment Key - 219

Submitted by - Aaron Finkelstein of Ace Uniform 

Comment Text:

Over the years, Ace Uniform has followed the best industry practices for managing shop towels. In 1992, Textile Rental Services 

Association (TRSA) and the Uniform & Textile Service Association (UTSA) developed best management practices (BMPs) 

governing the handling of soiled shop towels. These BMPs clearly stated that “textiles bearing free liquid will not be accepted or 

transported to the textile rental” facility. The industry has operated under these BMPs for over 10 years. Additionally, “no free 

liquids” requirements have been incorporated by nearly every state, in many cases utilizing the verbiage from the BMPs.

These practices include procedures and infrastructure, such as ventilation systems to protect workers handling soiled shop towels, 

to imposing rental conditions on our customers including a “no-free-liquids” requirement for returned shop towels, and also 

comprehensive employee training so that our route drivers can discriminate whether or not to accept a load of soiled shop towels. 
215

At Ace Uniform, we work in partnership with our customers to help them minimize their waste streams by supplying a reusable 

product that is more environmentally friendly than a disposable and which also allows the customer to limit the long-term 

environmental liability associated with the disposal of material in landfills. The industry practices that we have developed and 

followed over the years help us do this.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 272

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

EPA seeks comment on whether there should be a limit on the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of solvent on 

reusable wipes sent to a downstream handler and/or whether there should be a numerical limit on the number of reusable wipes 

that laundries or dry cleaners could accept on an annual basis for cleaning. While USWAG is not opposed to the proposed 

management conditions applicable to the transport of reusable wipes to a launderer - including the “no free liquids” condition -

EPA has offered no rationale for establishing a specific limit on either the maximum amount of reusable wipes or the 

concentration of solvents on reusable wipes that can be sent off-site for laundering or dry cleaning. There is no justification for 

setting an arbitrary limit on this important option. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1206

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA agree with the Agency’s proposal that the reusable towels should follow proper management conditions at the 

laundry facility up until the time towels are introduced into the laundry process. The laundry process begins soon after the towels 

are delivered to the processing facility. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1212

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

It Is Unnecessary for EPA to Impose a Solvent Concentration Limit, a Maximum Quantity Limit, or Other Additional Conditions 

on Shop Towels.

UTSA and TRSA support EPA’s decision not to impose further restrictions on the use, handling, transportation, and processing 

of reusable shop towels. 68 Fed. Reg. at 65609. As EPA makes clear in the preamble, “the central question in solid waste 

determinations is whether the material is discarded.” Id. Accordingly, given that soiled reusable shop towels are commodity-like 

and not wastes, other potential considerations, such as the type and quantity of solvents or towels, are irrelevant. 

Further, the Agency’s risk analysis demonstrates that there is no significant risk to human health associated with the processing 

of solvents at industrial laundries. Accordingly, there is no justification or need to limit the quantity or type of solvents processed 

by laundries under current industry practices.

In fact, the “no free liquids” management condition already places a de facto limit on the maximum amount or concentration of

solvents on reusable shop towels. Rather than being numeric, the “no free liquids” standard is a narrative performance based 

limitation. The “no free liquids” standard accomplishes the same goal as a numeric limit while providing a significantly easier 

and less costly method for determining compliance. In addition, numeric pretreatment limits on a laundry’s wastewater discharge 

also serve to limit the amount or concentration of solvents on reusable shop towels. 

Finally, it is entirely inappropriate to limit the number of shop towels a laundry can process on an annual basis. Such a 

requirement could seriously affect a laundry’s business, while affording no additional environmental benefits. The Agency's risk 

analysis provides no support for such a limitation. 

As with any industrial facility, volume processing and the efficient and effective use of equipment and production capacity is 

critical to financial well being. Volume restrictions placed on a laundry facility's ability to process reusable shop towels will 

significantly impact the economic viability of companies in the industry, especially small businesses. In addition, any proposed 

standard that requires a laundry or the shop towel user to perform an actual measurement of the amount of solvent on a reusable 

towel would be extremely costly. EPA must fully analyze the economic implications, including a SBREFA review, before 

proposing such restrictions. 
216

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1213

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

In short, as reflected in the final ELG rulemaking and subsequent data collection, including the LaundryESP data:

-Laundry discharges are not as toxic as EPA estimates;

-POTWs provide adequate treatment of any toxic pollutants that remain in laundry discharges; and

-Individual local problems are not prevalent; past problems have been resolved by local pretreatment authorities.

Accordingly, there are no significant potential risks associated with the management and processing by laundries of shop towels 

soiled with solvents or other contaminants.

Docket Number - 350

Comment Key - 856

Submitted by - John Shipp of Tennessee Valley Authority 

Comment Text:

Since generators have contracts with companies that launder their rags, EPA should recognize preexisting paperwork if 

documentation is needed. Contract documentation generally consists of billing statements or pick-up receipts for the rags to be 

laundered.

EPA should recognize the tracking mechanisms that laundries who handle reusable wipes already have in place as sufficing for 

documentation requirements, particularly if these rags are not tracked to determine generator status. EPA currently recognizes 

contracts as valid documentation at 40 CFR 262.20e in the rules for small quantity generators with tolling arrangements. TVA 

feels that this is a good base case to emulate in order to facilitate paperwork reduction.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 629

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment relative to specific limits on amount of solvent or concentration of solvent, or number of towels allowed on an annual 

basis. No limits should be placed on these parameters. Any limit on amount of solvent would be inconsistent due to the vast 

variety of wipers available. A limit that would over saturate one type of towel would leave a second type of towel merely damp. 

A better way to control solvent loading to the environment would be to require solvent recovery technology prior to washing. 

These technologies would mirror the desire to encourage the recovery and recycling of solvent. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 632

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment on conditions for reusable wipes managed at a handling facility. The conditions are reasonable. Laundries should 

handle their liquids through appropriate recovery, or waste handling measures as applicable to their operating system and 

permits. Laundries and other handlers should not be required to notify EPA that the "no free liquids" condition has not been met.

Docket Number - 461

Comment Key - 1234

Submitted by - Charles Sewell of Textile Rental Services of America (TRSA) 

Comment Text:

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that we believe the conditions in the 2003 proposal are sufficient to protect human health and 

the environment, TRSA is interest in working with EPA to facilitate the disposal of laundry sludge containing solvents of concern 

to lined landfills when EPA agrees to finalize the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for shop towels. TRSA 

believes this approach would be the most effective alternative management approach should the Agency deem additional controls

necessary for PCE, and we stand ready to work with EPA to make this happen.

5.6.2. Combustors
217

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 829

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports allowing municipal and other non-hazardous waste combustors to burn solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes that meet the proposed conditions, as modified in these comments, for the exclusion from the definition of 

hazardous waste.

Allowing municipal and non-hazardous waste combustors to burn solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 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, it shouldn’t matter who 

handles or disposes of them. As stated in this proposed rule, the recently promulgated standards for non-hazardous waste 

combustors provide for a level of protection comparable to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for hazardous waste incinerators and should ensure that at least 99.99 percent of the solvent in contaminated 

industrial wipes is removed or destroyed. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 830

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports 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.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1103

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule would allow the burning of F001- and F002-contaminated wipes meeting the “no free liquids” standard in 

combustors. However, 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 solvents associated with the F001 and F002 listings are 

all halogenated solvents, which are commonly known to be dioxin precursors. 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. CTDEP suggests that EPA document that it has evaluated the appropriateness of allowing such wipes to be 

incinerated.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 183

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA must specify some minimum standards for solvent wipes to be burned in MSW combustors. For example, a minimum 

temperature of 1800° F must be maintained during periods when combustors burning solvent contaminated wipes. This is to 

ensure destruction and also minimize dioxin formation. The burning of solvent contaminated wipes should not be allowed in 

units that fail to comply with the CO monitoring conditions in Subpart O. In addition, any unit that fails to meet its stack 

emissions standards under its air permit must not be allowed to burn solvent contaminated wipes. Other restrictions need to be 

placed on the storage of solvent contaminated wipes prior to combustion. The largest source of risk with management of solvent 

wipes in MWCs is totally ignored by EPA. This risk is from fugitive emissions from storage of the contaminated wipes in waste 

piles and processing in feed pits prior to incineration. MWCs typically receive waste in garbage trucks which dump the contents 

directly onto the operating floor. The pile is not covered and at best may be set in an area with a block wall partition separating 

bays of materials. Other non-hazardous waste brought into the MWC feed area in containers are also stored in these containers, 

until the operator opens and dumps the container contents directly onto the garbage pile on the floor or in the pit. A clam shell or 

other device is used to mix the dumped containerized waste with the garbage. Any free liquids simply accumulate on the floor 

and run off or are collected in blind sumps. Such an open waste pile or waste pit management scenario has extensive fugitive 

emissions. These fugitive emissions not only result in worker exposure, but also are carried to neighboring residences. This 

creates a significant air exposure pathway from the management of solvent contaminated wipes, which EPA has not addressed 

with any restrictions or operating standards in the proposed rule.

EPA needs only to perform a site visit of MWCs in Baltimore, Harford County, MD and Portsmouth, VA to see the huge 

potential for fugitive emissions from MWC managing solvent contaminated wipes. In fact the facility in Portsmouth, VA has the 
218

waste sorting and processing area located across the street from the actual MWC. Any industrial or non-hazardous chemical 

waste is dumped from containers directly onto the pile, and is then carried by conveyor across a public road. This long 

conveyance in which the waste is spread out on a conveyor belt presents a large surface area and long transit time allowing 

extensive fugitive emissions.

In contrast, RCRA permitted incinerators do not manage the waste in open piles or containers, and waste is fed through 

controlled feed systems that minimize fugitive emissions. These incinerators are subject to 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart CC 

standards, which limit the amount of fugitive emissions to a low threshold, with frequent monitoring and inspections required. In 

addition, hazardous waste incinerators must address fugitive emissions in comprehensive risk assessments that consider both 

direct and indirect exposure pathways. MWCs are subject to none of these requirements or controls.

The storage and processing of solvent contaminated wipes therefore needs to be controlled by standards that prevent fugitive 

emissions of solvents prior to combustion. EPA must require that solvent wipes be kept in closed containers at all times, until the 

point at which they are fed to the combustion unit. In addition, solvent wipes must be restricted from combustors with open pit or 

long conveyance feed systems. Solvent wipes can only be managed in units that are equipped with direct feed systems that allow 

the container contents to be transferred directly to the combustion unit, with no open surface pit or conveyor that exposes a large 

surface area of the solvent wipes, creating a large source of fugitive emissions.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 184

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA has proposed to exempt the combustion residues generated in the burning of solvent contaminated wipes, yet no testing data 

is provided in the record to support that this exemption is justified. 68 FR 65603. The characteristics of the combustion residues 

can vary greatly from one combustion unit to the next. The only way to be certain that combustion residues are suitable for nonhazardous disposal is to test the ash.

The rule must therefore 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 sample should be collected and analyzed for the Fsolvent LDR constituents to meet the LDR standards for the F-solvent constituents in order to be managed as an exempt nonhazardous waste. In addition, the ash generated from the burning of solvent contaminated wipes must also be tested for the 

hazardous toxicity characteristic. This testing is justified as the ash characteristics can vary. 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.

Docket Number - 294

Comment Key - 937

Submitted by - Mike Tibbetts of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment Text:

The proposal allows for burning single-use Wipes for energy recovery. The MPCA prefers this to placing them in landfills.

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 971

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

The Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program, on the other hand, opposes 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.

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 

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.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 425

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

CKRC observes the Agency has taken no steps within its recent RCRA proposals to promote energy recovery in cement kilns or 

to provide any regulatory relief or flexibility. Instead, its proposals’ explore exemptions for virtually every type of recycling 
219

except energy recovery or establish regulatory regimes that are biased against energy recovery. Unfortunately, the proposal once 

again ignores the availability and utility of energy recycling and its associated benefits.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 427

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

Over the past 10 years, EPA has been creating apparent reductions in the amount of hazardous waste by defining secondary 

materials out of the RCRA management system, thus removing regulatory controls over many types of toxic organic wastes. 

Because these wastes continue to be generated and, under this proposal, would be managed under relaxed controls (or none at 

all), this is a negative outcome. The use of redefinition to create “reductions” in hazardous waste volumes and/or to “increase” 

the amount of recycling has become a misguided pattern in the Agency’s regulatory efforts. This proposal is simply another step 

along this increasingly worn path..If EPA’s real goal is to increase recycling, 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. 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, EPA has no basis for proceeding with this type 

of rulemaking. By recycling industrial secondary material as fuels, cement kiln operators have achieved positive energy, 

environmental, and economic outcomes while subject to the entire body of RCRA Subtitle C regulations that govern the 

transportation, storage, and combustion of hazardous wastes. Based upon our industry’s long and successful experience with 

recovering energy from hazardous waste within a fully regulated business environment, we reject EPA’s premise that RCRA

rules are an immutable impediment to recycling. On the contrary, we believe and have long advocated that EPA can and should 

promote recycling by making significant revisions within the RCRA context.

EPA is well aware that there is a lot of unused energy recovery capacity in existing fully regulated cement kilns. The surest way 

for the Agency to achieve its claimed objectives of increasing and promoting all forms of recycling, including energy recovery, 

would be to reverse its potentially damaging policy of excluding hazardous organic secondary materials and wastes from RCPQA 

regulation. EPA can only assess and control the performance of waste management systems it regulates. That includes the 

amount of wastes generated, transported, stored, and ultimately recycled or disposed. The existence of 1.6 million tons per year 

of energy recovery capacity in cement kilns is solid proof that successful recycling programs and RCRA regulation are not 

mutually exclusive. 

The fact is, once EPA relinquishes regulatory control over materials it has no way to measure (much less control) the effects of 

its actions. What EPA can measure and what has been publicly touted as progress in the past, however, is the reduction in the

amount of hazardous waste that is treated in regulated RCM units. But the Agency cannot truly enhance protection of public 

health and the environment by simply redefining its way to ever-lower amounts of hazardous waste. We are dismayed that EPA 

seems unwilling to acknowledge that its deregulatory actions with respect to hazardous waste, particularly organic waste, could 

inexorably lead back to where this country was when RCRA started.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 946

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of disposing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in municipal waste 

combustors or other combustor facilities.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 276

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG fully supports the management option of burning industrial wipes - including for use as a fuel - in qualified nonhazardous waste combustion units. EPA's risk analysis demonstrates that such combustion practices would be protective of 

human health and the environment when conducted in accordance with applicable permit conditions. From a practical 

perspective, this management option will provide an environmentally beneficial recycling alternative to disposal and will allow 

generators - including electric utilities - to use contaminated wipes as supplemental fuels in lieu of virgin fuels.

USWAG also agrees with EPAs position that the hazardous waste mixture and derived-from rules would not apply to the ash 

derived from such combustion operations, because wipes meeting the conditions of the proposed exclusion would not be 

hazardous wastes, including when combusted. Id. at 65603. Therefore, the combustion ash would be considered “newly 

generated” and would be regulated as
220

hazardous only if it independently exhibited a hazardous waste characteristic (and if the combustion ash did not otherwise qualify 

for an exclusion from hazardous waste regulation under the so-call Bevill Amendment exclusion (see 40 C.F.R. 5 26’l.4(b)(4)).

Docket Number - 448

Comment Key - 1217

Submitted by - Michelle Lusk of Cement Kiln Recycling Association 

Comment Text:

Most importantly, CKRC would like to again encourage EPA to acknowledge well- established and protective recycling options 

such as energy recovery in cement kilns as it makes important decisions regarding the management of solvent contaminated 

wipes. Simply redefining wastes without changing the properties of these wastes will not actually increase hazardous waste 

recycling. By merely changing a label and allowing solvent contaminated wipes to be land-disposed without prior treatment, 

these wastes would be eligible to be managed with less oversight and valuable resources would be lost as these energy-bearing 

wastes are senselessly buried in landfills. Continuing down the path originally proposed in 2003 flies in the face of our national 

priorities to promote sustainability and conserve energy resources.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1240

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Finally, although EPA’s revised risk assessment also did not address the risks associated with disposal of solvent-contaminated 

wipes in municipal incinerators, INDA/SMART agree that this disposal option does not present an unacceptable risk to human 

health and the environment, and that this option should be allowed without regard to the nature or amount of solvent in the wipe. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1491

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

Likewise, when material is going to be delivered to a municipal or a waste to energy incinerator, in that case the material doesn’t 

even have to be dry. It has to be what I called not quite dripping with solvent. And if you’ve ever been to a municipal waste 

incinerator, you will see that the material is then generally dumped into a large bin or concrete pit and it is manipulated with a 

clam shell or a backhoe or equipment of that nature. If the Agency thinks in this proposed rule that somebody’s going to look in 

the bags to see if there’s any free liquid, that’s just not going to happen. The material is immediately off loaded into these bins 

where it is manipulated by heavy equipment. There is a very serious risk of fire in that situation. A spark from the equipment 

could easily ignite the solvent. And the whole management of the material before it gets into the municipal incinerator by putting 

it onto conveyor systems and that sort of thing allow easy release to the environment and evaporation primarily because 

municipal incinerators are not equipped and people are not trained to manage this kind of hazardous material. 

5.6.3. Landfills

Docket Number - 167

Comment Key - 447

Submitted by - Cynthia M. Lee of Chemical Solvents, Inc 

Comment Text:

Regardless of how the material is disposed, it is squandering resources to dispose of industrial wipes in such a matter. The risk 

analysis of landfilling industrial wipes in an industrial landfill seems both more economical and a better use of energy than 

incinerating industrial wipes or expending gasoline to transport the materials to Canada.

Docket Number - 173

Comment Key - 294

Submitted by - Robert A. Young of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

Either remove the 5 grams of solvent limit on disposals sent to land fills or place a 5 gram maximum on shop towels to be 

laundered.
221

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 61

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

[re. Regulatory status of sludge from laundries and dry cleaning facilities] DOE believes that provision in proposed 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(22)(vii) should not be presented in the final regulations as a condition that must be “satisfied by the facility claiming the 

exclusion.” This provision is not appropriate as a condition for claiming the exclusion because it does not apply to the handling of 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 255

Comment Key - 962

Submitted by - John H. Skinner of The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 

Comment Text:

In the case of landfilling rags, while we believe that emissions through the landfill cover are unlikely to change with the receipt 

of these wastes, it is possible that in-situ concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) might nominally increase, 

potentially enough to raise the value of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) under an NSPS Tier 2 emissions field test 

program. SWANA would like to emphasize that this scenario could result in a site now under the 50 mg per annum emissions 

threshold for NMOCs 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.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1053

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposal will result in increased land disposal of ignitable wipes and solvents at non-hazardous waste landfills. This is a 

concern because of the ever-present threat of landfill fires, and because solvent contamination in groundwater is difficult to 

manage. FDEP strongly opposes any option allowing disposal of solvent-contaminated wipes in unlined landfills under 40 CFR 

Part 257 Subpart B.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1090

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule at section 261.4(b)(19)(iv) indicates that disposable wipes sent to a landfill must meet the “5 gram” solvent 

content standard and must not contain any of the solvents listed in subparagraph (B) of this section, but does not indicate what a 

landfill should do if it receives a shipment of wipes that do not meet either of these requirements. CTDEP believes that 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 if wipes not meeting the required standards are received. In addition, CTDEP believes that the list of options for 

addressing such situations should be expanded to include the two additional items identified in the previous comment. [(1) 

transferring the wipes to another facility which is capable of removing the free liquids; and, (2) sending the wipes as fullyregulated hazardous wastes to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility.]

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 670

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC believes that wipes destined for disposal in municipal landfill should, for future liability purposes, be held to a stricter 

standard. We also maintain that any program put in place must be simple and inexpensive to implement.

Disposable wipes that meet the dry standard should be allowed direct disposal into the landfill. There are precedents set based on 

other EPA regulatory actions. For example, the empty container standard allows for the direct disposal of containers containing 

no more than one inch of product. 40 CFR 261.7(b) (1) provides specific instructions as to how a container is to be emptied. This 

regulation clearly states that if the container meets these criteria, it is not subject to the requirements contained in 40 CFR 261 –

265, including the standards set out for hazardous waste generators.

Similarly, the regulation of non-terne plated used oil filters allows direct disposal if certain management standards are met. Under 

40 CFR 261.4(b) (13), oil filters meeting the specific performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid 

waste. There are no labeling or special container requirements. IPC believes the disposal of the one -time use shop towel is 

similar in nature to both the empty container or the non-terne plated used oil filter. Similar to the requirements established to 
222

determine an “empty” container and an “empty” oil filter, we believe the 5 gram limit constitutes a similar standard denoting that 

a shop towel is “empty.” The additional labeling and container requirements imposed for disposable wipes represents an 

additional regulatory burden that we believe is not justified based on previous EPA rulemakings and EPA’s risk analysis. 

Imposition of the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 720

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

LANL would prefer to be allowed to dispose of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes destined for a municipal or non- hazardous 

waste landfill that contain no free liquids to be placed in a solid waste dumpster. This request is based on the results of the risk 

screening analysis in Section VII.C of this proposed rule...If this option were allowed, EPA could limit disposal of solvent 

contaminated industrial wipes to the 16 solvent constituents that passed the risk screening analysis without treatment.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 594

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC does not agree with the provision requiring the disposal of wipes in separately labeled containers if the “dry” standard 

of 5 grams is met. The five gram standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating that no substantial hazard to 

human health and the environment would be posed. This is confirmed by the Agency’s risk screening analysis. To meet this five 

gram standard, the Agency is requiring that facilities need to either utilize high performance solvent extraction technologies, 

maintain records ensuring that the amount of solvent used per wipe is less than 5 grams, conduct sampling to ensure the dry 

standard is met, or conduct sampling to ensure that the amount of solvent remaining on the towel meets the 5 gram standard. All 

are rigorous tests designed to assist facilities in meeting the dry standard. If the goal of the regulation is to simplify requirements 

and exclude properly managed industrial wipes from the burdens associated with the hazardous waste regulations, requirements 

for disposal in separately labeled containers will be counter to that goal and will result in facilities incurring additional cost in 

segregating materials and in shipping and disposal of these containers. Numerous facilities operate compactors that reduce the 

volumes of plant refuse before it is shipped for landfill disposal. If separate containers are required for “dry” shop towels, the 

volume of waste will be increased, as will be the associated disposal costs.

With the inclusion of these specific generator requirements, disposable wipes that meet the dry standard should be allowed to be 

directly disposed into the landfill. There are precedents set based on other US EPA regulatory actions. For example, the empty 

container standards at 40 CFR 261 allows for the direct disposal of containers that contain no more than one inch of product. 40 

CFR 261.7(b) (1) provides specific instructions as to how a container is to be emptied. This regulation clearly states that if the 

container meets these criteria, then it is not subject to the requirements contained in 40 CFR 261 – 265, including the standards 

set out for hazardous waste generators.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 157

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) required that hazardous waste constituents be treated prior to land 

disposal. This proposed rule is a direct violation of HSWA, and will allow solvent waste to be land disposed without treatment. 

As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the “no free liquids” and 5-gram criteria proposed by EPA are ineffective, and 

solvent wipes processed by extraction techniques allowed by the rule will still contain substantial amounts of free solvent (as 

much as 75 grams per wipe or 10 gallons per 55-gallon drum equivalent). These solvents will be released in land disposal units 

and wastewater streams far in excess of the hazardous constituent limits of the LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR § 268. HSWA

requires that hazardous solvent constituents be treated using Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT) prior to land 

disposal. The treatment standards in 40 CFR § 268 reflect this BDAT level of treatment. Hand wringing, mechanical wringing, 

screening and other techniques discussed in EPA’s Technical Background Document (hereafter “TBD”) to this proposed rule are 

not BDAT, and result in releasable amounts of solvents. 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. The rule must 

prohibit disposal of solvent contaminated wipes in landfills unless the treatment standards in 40 CFR § 268 are met prior to land 

disposal. 

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 727

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 
223

Comment Text:

MPPA believes that the Agency should allow laundering, combustion in commercial boilers and incinerators, and disposal in 

landfills. MPPA has reviewed the Agency’s risk screening assessment document “Estimating Risk from Disposal of Solvent 

Contaminated Shop Towels and Wipes in Municipal Landfills,” March 1999, and does not see a basis for disagreeing with the 

report’s conclusion that disposal in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills would not pose a substantial hazard to 

human health or the environment.

Docket Number - 313

Comment Key - 731

Submitted by - Kenneth F. Gray of Maine Pulp & Paper Association (MPPA) 

Comment Text:

Assuming that EPA is correct in concluding that disposal of the 11 specified solvents could pose a risk if disposed in unlined 

landfills, MPPA urges the Agency to allow disposal of all solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in lined landfills meeting the 

minimum design and operating parameters of hazardous waste landfills. EPA’s proposal did not allow that alternative, apparently 

concluding that the only alternative to an unlined municipal landfill is a licensed hazardous waste landfill. In the state of Maine 

(and other states as well), 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 C.F.R. Part 

264. 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. See 40 C.F.R. Part 264, subparts F (releases from solid waste management units), G 

(Closure and Post-closure), H (Financial Requirements), and N (Landfills).

In Maine, protective non-hazardous waste landfills dispose of “Special Waste” including spill debris, ash, sludges, non-liquid 

paint waste, and “industrial and industrial process waste” among other wastes. 38 M.R.S.A. 5 1303-C (34) (definition of special 

waste). These “Special Waste” landfills are extensively regulated by the state of Maine, through statute (38 M.R.S.A. §§1301 et 

seq.), regulations (DEP Regs Chaps. 400-401, and 405), licensing through formal and public proceedings, and regular 

inspections. Each and every one of the above-listed federal requirements for landfills in the hazardous waste regulations is 

implemented by the state of Maine and its licensees at Special Waste landfills. Accordingly, 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.

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 972

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

The Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program, on the other hand, opposes 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.

...Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) hazardous, wastes are already banned from municipal solid waste 

landfill disposal in Vermont and other states. This would be a huge step backwards for our hazardous waste management 

program, in particular, since seven of Vermont’s ten National Priority List (NPL) sites are landfills with industrial solvent 

contamination issues.

Docket Number - 319

Comment Key - 313

Submitted by - Howard M. Zins of American Reusable Textile Association (ARTA) 

Comment Text:

There is credible information which suggests that landfills should be used only when there are no viable alternatives. Reusable 

shop towels represent a preferred product, offering our society a manner in which landfills can be used less. Extensive 

information, demonstrating the problems associated with landfills and related details concerning challenges to the health of our 

population exist. 

[Comment provides a summary of impacts associated with landfill use.]

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 434

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

The current proposal appears to allow disposal to a municipal or non-hazardous landfill with certain labeling restrictions. 
224

However, it also appears to allow properly labeled containers/bags to be placed in a facility's normal trash dumpster to be carted 

by an unsuspecting trash hauler. Compacting trash trucks may damage the container, thus potentially releasing the contents into 

the truck prior to arrival at the landfill. There will be no ability to determine if excess liquids are present. In addition, this would 

introduce land-banned solvents into landfills and likely would

necessitate and exacerbate future cleanups at municipal landfills. Disposal at a solid waste landfill should be limited to direct 

deliveries to the landfill. These containers should not be mixed in with other solid wastes.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 463

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

U.S. EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of disposing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in non-municipal 

non-hazardous waste landfills. U.S. EPA's proposal to extend the exclusion of solvent-contaminated wipes to include disposal in 

landfills that meet the 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B standards without first evaluating the associated risks raises great concern. 

Non-municipal non-hazardous waste landfills are held to fewer standards and are less protective than municipal landfills. For 

example, the standards for non-municipal non-hazardous waste landfills do not require the owner/operator to conduct random 

inspections of waste loads. Therefore, the owner/operator of the facility would not be required to randomly verify the contents of 

containers and determine whether or not the wipes meet the "dry standard" or if free liquids are present in the container. Other 

operational criteria that do not apply to non-municipal non-hazardous waste landfills include, but are not limited to, application of 

daily cover, restriction of access, and installation of run-on/run-off control systems. In addition, these landfills are not subject to 

any bottom liner or final cover system design standards or post closure care requirements.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 390

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

Concerning the disposal of solvent contaminants in non-hazardous waste landfills, many States have taken great steps to 

minimize the amount of hazardous constituents that enter their non-hazardous waste landfills including the restriction of all but 

household hazardous waste. Given the concerns that many States have about limited landfill space and the addition of hazardous 

constituents into their non-hazardous waste landfills, U.S. EPA should consider in the rulemaking encouraging generators of 

these wipes to dispose of them in a manner that recovers energy. Such an exclusion would, for disposable wipes, promote energy 

recovery, alleviate concerns over non-hazardous landfill space, limit additional hazardous constituents from entering the nonhazardous waste landfills and provide regulatory relief to the generators of disposable wipes.

Docket Number - 350

Comment Key - 859

Submitted by - John Shipp of Tennessee Valley Authority 

Comment Text:

TVA sees no rationale for segregating disposable wipes from the normal municipal solid waste stream if the wipes are destined

for disposal. Specifically, we request to know if there is evidence to document that these disposable wipes when mixed with the 

trash pose a greater fire hazard than if they were kept separate.

Docket Number - 448

Comment Key - 1561

Submitted by - Michelle Lusk of Cement Kiln Recycling Association 

Comment Text:

EPA’s first proposed approach [in the NODA] “would allow the disposal of solvents not showing a risk in any municipal landfill 

or nonhazardous waste landfill whether lined or unlined. The solvents that indicated a potential risk if disposed of in an unlined 

landfill could only be disposed in a lined municipal landfill or lined non-hazardous waste landfill. This could be accomplished by 

requiring disposal in 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).” (74 CFR 55167, 3rd col). This option appears to have high potential to increase risks, would be

more complicated for the generator, and would be very difficult to enforce. CKRC is very concerned about the unintended 

negative effects on human health and the environment that could result from this type of approach. Therefore, CKRC does not 

support EPA moving forward with this option.

The second approach would be “to establish conditions that allow all solvent-contaminated wipes, no matter which solvent they 

contain, except perhaps tetrachloroethylene, to be sent to a Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfill unit subject to, or otherwise 

meeting, the landfill requirements in §258.40(a)(2) or (b).” (74 FR 55168) If this proposal goes forward, this second option 

appears to provide a greater protection; however, neither option provides the level of protection or resource conservation/energy 
225

recovery benefits that accrue from burning these wastes as fuel in energy recovery units. 

Furthermore, neither the first nor second proposed option limits how solvent-loaded a wipe can become. Currently, generators of 

rags and wipes are encouraged to minimize solvent content of wipes. However, a delisting will encourage an increase in the 

solvent-to-wipe ratios. The exemption implies that solvent diluted with a rag somehow constitutes reduced risks. The rule 

provides no basis for how EPA will keep such an unsound practice from growing as a “waste minimization” method.

Under the proposed options, it appears likely that solvents that currently are removed from wipes and rags for alternative 

management will in the future be left in the rags, thus increasing the risk impact beyond what EPA has evaluated in the NODA. 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.

Docket Number - 448

Comment Key - 1636

Submitted by - Michelle Lusk of Cement Kiln Recycling Association 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposal appears to lack sufficient knowledge about whether these exempted wipes will end up in a lined or unlined 

landfill. For this reason, EPA’s risk evaluation should be based on unlined landfills. The use of unlined landfills introduces risks 

that EPA must assume are always present. How can EPA assume that they will only sometimes be present? Since EPA is looking 

to relax the regulatory burden on wastes heretofore considered to be hazardous and relinquish important oversight of how they

are managed, it seems irresponsible to assume the landfills used will always be lined. CKRC 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. 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 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 language in these 

sections is as follows:

(2) With a composite liner, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section and a leachate collection system that is designed and 

constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of leachate over the liner.

(b) For purposes of this section, composite liner means a system consisting of two components; the upper component must 

consist of a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML), and the lower component must consist of at least a two-foot layer 

of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1×10?7cm/sec. FML components consisting of high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) shall be at least 60-mil thick. The FML component must be installed in direct and uniform contact with the 

compacted soil component.

Why wouldn’t the landfill where the wipes and sludge are being proposed to be disposed be subject to the entirety of Part 258? If 

EPA plans to simply relabel a hazardous waste and allow it to be sent to a Subtitle D landfill, CKRC believes it would be 

negligent to omit some of the important requirements for landfills in the other subparts of Part 258.

Docket Number - 448

Comment Key - 1637

Submitted by - Michelle Lusk of Cement Kiln Recycling Association 

Comment Text:

While CKRC does not support either proposed approach for the reasons explained above, it appears that the second option 

(composite lined landfill with leachate system) would be more protective. However, CKRC has significant concerns about the 

actual implementation of this option. Inadequate landfill requirements, lack of oversight, potential for abuse, and senseless waste 

of energy resources are all concerns that plague even this less unacceptable approach. Furthermore, CKRC cautions EPA against

decisions to eliminate from the risk analysis 10 compounds that they determined are “not used as industrial wipes,” essentially 

ignoring the practical possibility that these compounds could end up in landfills through spill clean up wipes. CKRC urges EPA 

to address the risk concerns it identified for tetrachloroethylene and to develop alternative management approaches accordingly. 

In CKRC’s 2004 comments on this proposed rule and in comments we have submitted on multiple regulatory initiatives since, 

CKRC has stressed to EPA that merely redefining waste will not lead to an actual increase in legitimate recycling. For similar 

reasons, we believe that both the proposed approaches in this NODA may lead to an increase in the movement of energy-bearing 

wastes away from energy recovery technologies and toward land disposal. This is in direct conflict with both RCRA’s longstanding goals of pollution prevention and recycling and our nation’s current focus on increasing energy independence and 
226

sustainability. Furthermore, if promulgated, this proposal could have the unintended consequence of increasing negative impacts 

on human health and the environment.

Docket Number - 455

Comment Key - 1638

Submitted by - Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

Based on this far more thorough evaluation and supporting information in the administrative record, EPA has correctly offered 

two new management options that reflect the conclusion that disposal of most solvent-contaminated wipes and laundry sludge in 

lined or unlined solid waste landfills poses no significant threat to human health and/or the environment.

Moreover, given the particularly conservative assumptions upon which the agency relied for developing its revised risk analysis, 

the agency should feel completely comfortable advancing final rule that allows for both of the management approaches outlined 

in the NODA as quickly as possible. Doing so would balance safeguarding the environment and public health with protecting and

promoting the future viability of U.S. businesses, small and large and close the loop on a long overdue rulemaking.

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1639

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

Management Approaches and Risk Analysis Findings. Based on the risk analysis presented in October 2008 report entitled 

“Landfill Loadings Concentrations For Disposed Solvent-Contaminated Wipes and Laundry Sludge Managed in Municipal 

Landfills,” the Agency has proposed two management options, which are:

-Allowing facility to segregate disposal of their solvent contaminated wipes depending on risk of solvent used into either any 

municipal or Subtitle D landfill depending on risk of solvent; or, 

- Disposal of solvent contaminated wipes, regardless of solvent used, into Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfills.

The GAC supports the option that would allow facilities to dispose of solvent contaminated wipes not showing a risk into any 

municipal landfill or nonhazardous waste landfill. We believe that this option presents a strong balance between cost 

effectiveness and environmental protection.

The GAC does not agree nor support the management option that would require facilities to dispose all solvent contaminated 

shop towels, regardless of the residual solvent contamination, at Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfills. It is our belief that 

the Agency used incorrect assumptions in their report, which would render this option moot due to risk and further, did not 

include any cost justifications regarding this management option. 

Docket Number - 458

Comment Key - 1641

Submitted by - Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition 

Comment Text:

The Graphic Arts Coalition remains supportive of the Agency’s efforts to develop a regulation that establishes a level playing 

field for the handling of both disposable and reusable industrial wipes. We support the management option to allow contaminated 

towels and wipes to be disposed into a Subtitle C landfill as outlined by the Agency in their Notice of Data Availability. The 

GAC 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.

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1228

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 

Comment Text:

NADA could support a rule allowing excluded solvent-contaminated wipes to be sent to Subtitle D municipal or industrial 

landfills subject to 40 CFR § 258.40(a)(2) and (b), assuming such facilities are easy to identify. Though dealerships use few if 

any solvents containing tetrachloroethylene, NADA does not support separate management guidelines for wipes contaminated by 

solvents containing the chemical. 

Docket Number - 460

Comment Key - 1230

Submitted by - Filipa Rio of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
227

Comment Text:

As a general matter, the Alliance supports the rationale underlying the first approach [in the NODA], which would evaluate the 

risks associated with the solvents that are actually being disposed, and would present the generator with disposal options based on 

that evaluation. The regulations should be tailored to address the actual risks posed by different solvents, and should provide 

generators with as much flexibility as possible in their management and disposal options for contaminated wipes. If a particular 

solvent can be safely disposed in an unlined landfill, then that disposal option should be available to a generator who uses that 

solvent.

EPA states regarding the second approach [in the NODA], that it "could be simpler since the generator would not need to 

separate his wipes and send them to separate disposal locations." 74 Fed, Reg. at 55168. But if a particular solvent does not

present a risk, then the generator should have the option of sending it to an unlined landfill. If the generator uses multiple 

solvents, and finds that sorting its contaminated wipes according to solvent content is too burdensome, then it can choose to send 

them all to a lined landfill. However, the generator should be the one to make that decision; it should not be mandated by EPA, in 

the absence of risk considerations, based solely on its perception that it "could be simpler" for some generators.

Docket Number - 461

Comment Key - 1644

Submitted by - Charles Sewell of Textile Rental Services of America (TRSA) 

Comment Text:

While TRSA understands the purpose of EPA's NODA is not necessarily to speak to the Agency's RCRA jurisdiction, it is 

important to remain cognizant of the jurisdictional limits of RCRA Subtitle C. Specifically, the Agency has indicated that it is 

"considering alternative management conditions for PCE to address the potential risk" associated with PCE (both for unlined and 

lined landfills). 74 Fed. Reg. at 55,168. Suggested alternatives include prohibiting disposal of PCE-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. See 

74 Fed. Reg. at 55,167-68. Based on more accurate data and assumptions associated with laundry operations see below in Section 

III), TRSA does not believe that either alternative is warranted for laundry sludge. Nevertheless, TRSA recognizes that even 

minimal risks can be further reduced and is committed to working with EPA to insure that laundry sludge containing solvents in 

question is managed only in lined landfills.

Docket Number - 462

Comment Key - 1634

Submitted by - Alison Keane of American Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

ACA Generally Supports The Second Alternative for Managing Solvent -Contaminated Wipes. In the NODA, EPA requests 

comment on two different alternatives for managing solvent-contaminated wipes. The first alternative includes two parts: part A, 

is for solvent rags to be segregated based on their solvent risk profile. Rags containing solvents that have not been found to pose a 

risk in unlined landfills could be disposed of in such landfills. Part B, rags containing solvents on the NODA’s newly updated 

list, would be required to be sent to a lined (e.g. Subtitle D landfill) or to a hazardous waste unit. ACA does not support this first 

alternative.

EPA’s second alternative states: “Establish conditions that allow all solvent -contaminated wipes, no matter which solvent they 

contain, except perhaps tetrachloroethylene, to be sent to a Subtitle D municipal or industrial landfill unit subject to, or otherwise 

meeting, the landfill requirements in § 258.40(a)(2) and (b) .” 

The second alternative is not only less burdensome, but also the only practical one. In the paint and coatings industry, solvent 

wipes are generally used to clean spills or small process equipment; therefore, the amount and type of solvent on the wipe may 

vary considerably depending on the substrate or constituent being cleaned. Also, a single rag may be used in different parts of the 

plant making it difficult to determine what solvent is in the rag and whether it could be sent to an unlined landfill under the first 

approach. Furthermore, if a facility uses municipal waste services, then it does not have control over where its non-hazardous 

wastes go – it goes to the facility used by that municipality, which are generally lined landfills. Since it is difficult to distinguish 

between rags based on the solvent used, and because paint and coatings facilities can not control where their municipal wastes are 

sent, the current industry management practice is to send all solvent rags to be disposed as hazardous waste or laundered. 

Therefore ACA generally supports the NODA’s second approach which would allow disposal in a lined landfill or use of a 

commercial laundry.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1635

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

As a result of its analysis, INDA/SMART believe the Agency’s revised risk assessment is unduly conservative in many aspects. 
228

As INDA/SMART demonstrate in greater detail below, the Agency should account for this over-conservatism and adopt a 

management method and appropriate regulatory exclusions that support use of unlined municipal solid waste landfills or 

nonhazardous waste landfills for the co-disposal of solvent-contaminated wipers and laundry sludge for all the solvents covered 

by the NPRM, with the exceptions of tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) and, perhaps, trichloroethylene (“TCE”). Stated differently, 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 solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundry sludge to be co-disposed in unlined municipal landfills or unlined non-hazardous waste landfills without the need for 

prohibition of land disposal of any covered solvent (except PCE and perhaps TCE), a 5-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.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1452

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

Additionally, we do not understand the need to dispose of towels in separately labeled containers if the dry standard of five grams 

is met. As a standard goal of this proposal is to encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization. The inclusion of a 

separate container and labeling standard for disposable towels destined to be land filled will inhibit, not encourage pollution 

prevention. We fail to see the benefit of requiring facilities to take this step when disposing of towels that meet the dry standard. 

This standard was chosen because it falls within the range indicating that no substantial hazard to [human] health and the 

environment would be posed as confirmed by the Agency’s risk screening analysis. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1454

Submitted by - Marci Kinter of Specialty Graphic Imaging Association International 

Comment Text:

To meet this standards EPA is requiring that the facilities need to either utilize high performance solvent extracting technologies, 

maintain records regarding the amount of solvent is less than five grams, or conduct sampling to ensure the dry standard is met, 

or sample the amount of solvent remaining on the towels meets the standards. All are rigorous tests designed to assist facilities in 

meeting the dry standard. We believe that if disposables contaminated with a hazardous solvent meet the dry standard then they 

should be allowed direct disposal into the landfill. 

There are precedents set on other EPA regulatory actions. The empty container standard allows for the direct disposal containers 

that contain no more than one inch of product. 40 C.F.R. 261.7(b)(1) provides specific instructions as to how a container is to be 

emptied. This regulation clearly states that if a container meets these criteria, then it is not subject to the requirements contained 

in 40 C.F.R. 261 through 265 including the standards set out for hazardous waste generators.

We also find another analogous situation involving the regulation of non-term flated use oil filters. Under 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(13) 

oil filters that meet a specific performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid waste. There are no labeling 

or special container requirements. We believe that disposal of the one time use shop towel is similar. And the standards set forth 

by the Agency are more stringent as a specific dry standard has been proposed. Similar to the requirements set forth that 

determine an empty container and an empty oil filter, we believe that the five gram limit constitutes a similar standard denoting 

that a shop towel is empty. The additional labeling and container requirements imposed for disposable towels represent an 

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

the Agency. Imposition of the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environmental releases. 

5.7. Free Liquids Received by Handlers

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 991

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: It is not clear whether containers rejected and returned to the generating entity because of free liquids can be returned 

in the condition received.

Discussion: In the preamble, EPA states that when a facility receives a container that has free liquids in the bottom, the receiving 

facility may return the wipes and the liquid to the generator in containers that meet the “original shipment condition.” It is 

assumed that this means the containers are to meet the conditions that the generator was supposed to meet when shipping them. It 
229

could be interpreted to mean, however, that the containers must meet whatever condition the containers were in when they left 

the generator, whatever that was. Perhaps it means something else. It is not clear what is meant by this term.

Recommendation: Revise the text to state clearly what is meant and 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. 

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 992

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Laundries that receive shipments containing free liquids should not be required to notify regulators.

Discussion: EPA requests comment on whether laundries that receive shipments of wipes that contain free liquids should notify

the regulators. This requirement should not be added for the following reasons:

-The current proposal requires the laundry to manage free liquids as hazardous waste if the wipes and liquids are not returned to 

the generator. In this case, the liquids enter the RCRA universe and all applicable records must be kept.

-It is not explained what the regulators would do with such information if it was provided. If the generator receives the drums 

after being returned by the laundry, they are responsible for managing the liquids appropriately. If the laundry decides to manage 

the liquids as hazardous waste, they are responsible for the management of a hazardous waste. It is unlikely that a laundry would 

notify the regulators and then mismanage the liquids, making them subject to enforcement under RCRA.

Recommendation: Do not impose notification requirements regarding receipt of free liquids.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 46

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes a handling facility that receives a shipment of wipes that does not meet the "no free liquids" condition should not 

be required to notify the state or EPA region, unless the handling facility could not meet the conditions placed on it that would 

allow the wipes to remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. As proposed, there would be two such conditions. 

First, the receiving facility would be required to store the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes either (a) in containers designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment (Le., containers that would meet the condition for off site 

transport of conditionally excluded solvent-contaminated industrial wipes), or (b) in non-leaking, covered containers (Le., 

containers that would meet the condition for initial storage and accumulation by the generator). Second, if an incoming container 

of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes were to contain free liquids, the receiving facility would be required to either (a) return 

the container (with the wipes and liquid) to the generator as soon as reasonably practicable, or (b) recover any liquid solvent from 

the container and properly manage it under applicable federal or state hazardous waste regulations. If the receiving facility would 

be unable to meet these two conditions, DOE believes the facility should be required to notify the state or EPA region because 

the incoming solvent-contaminated industrial wipes would have become hazardous waste that would be subject to full RCRA 

regulation. [this comment references FR p. 65602, cols 1 and 2] 

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 60

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

p. 65619, col. 2, Regulatory status of free liquids in incoming containers at laundries. dry cleaning facilities, and industrial wipes 

handling facilities. Proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(vi)(A) would require that free liquids removed from incoming containers at 

laundries, dry cleaning facilities, or industrial wipes handling facilities, must be managed "according to the regulations found 

under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270.” DOE suggests that proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(vi)(A) be modified to be 

consistent in the final regulations with 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iii) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iv)(B) [see comment categorized under 

"Other conditions/requirements"]

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 64

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests that proposed 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(viii)(A) be modified to be consistent in the final regulations with 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(19)(v) and 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19)(vi)(B).
230

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1359

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

As suggested by USEPA on Page 65606 (third column), we recommend adding a requirement that laundries receiving shipments 

of wipes containing free liquids notify the regulating agency.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1541

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

We concur with the EPA proposal that wipes should be managed in a manner designed to minimize loss to the environment prior 

to introduction into their process. Facilities that receive free liquids should retain the option to recover any free liquids found and 

properly manage them. If available, the facility should be allowed to recover the liquids through use of appropriate technology 

for reuse without classifying the liquid as hazardous waste. Facilities should be required to submit notification to the generator, 

the state, and EPA that the "no free liquids" condition has not been met.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 504

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Dow supports EPA’s proposal that wipes containers received by a laundering facility or disposal facility containing free liquid 

can be sent back to the generator without using a hazardous waste manifest or the free liquid can be removed by the receiving

facility and managed as a hazardous waste, provided the removed liquid meets hazardous waste classification criteria.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 300

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

Under the proposal to comply with the no free liquids condition, wipes must not drip and no liquids must be present in the bottom 

of the container when transported off site. EPA correctly recognizes that even though wipes may meet these conditions at the 

point of generation, the wipes can compress and the solvent can percolate through them and collect in the bottom of the container 

during transit. In such instances, the receiving facility must remove any free liquids (and manage them appropriately as hazardous 

waste) or return the shipment to the generator.

API agrees with this approach of maintaining the exclusion for the generator that meets the conditions of the exclusion at the 

point of generation and allows the receiving facility to take the appropriate corrective measures consistent with applicable 

regulatory controls, which includes an option for sending the “non-complying” wipes back to the-generator. EPA should consider 

using this same approach for other RCRA waste determinations or waste management scenarios. For example, if a material that 

would otherwise be D002 waste, except for the fact that it was determined not to be a liquid at its point of generation, was to 

subsequently express a liquid phase after generation, the corrosive liquid phase could be managed separately as a hazardous 

waste by the receiving facility or the load returned to the generator.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1055

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP does not agree that a handler who discovers any free liquid should be allowed to return the container with the wipes and 

free liquid to the generator. FDEP proposes that such a handler should remove the free liquid and manage it properly as a 

hazardous waste, if applicable. Mismanagement of the free solvents by the handler, either by illegal disposal or other means, 

would be a violation of the conditions and loss of the exclusion for the generator, despite the wipes being out of the generator's 

control at that moment.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 841

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

In situations where a handling facility receives a container with free liquids and is not a solvent extraction facility, the generating 
231

facility may contractually incur additional charges irrespective of whether the container is returned (additional transportation 

costs) or whether the container and its contents are managed by the receiver as hazardous waste (increased disposal costs). In an 

effort to lower disposal costs, the generator will modify its behavior if this situation occurs often. 

Solvent contained in the reusable wipe is already subject to 40 CFR part 261 and must be managed according to 40 CFR parts 

260-268.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1089

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule at sections 261.4(a)(22)(vi) and 261.4(b)(19)(viii) states that when a laundry, industrial wipes handling 

facility, or combustion facility receives wipes that do not meet the “free liquid” standard, it must either return the wipes to the 

generator, or process them to removed the free liquids. CTDEP believes that these two options do not account for all the possible 

scenarios that may occur in these situations. For example, these 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, and the receiving 

facility does not have the ability to remove the free liquids. CTDEP therefore believes that the list of options should include the 

following two additional items, at a minimum: (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.

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1385

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Requirements concerning free liquids at receiving facilities. Proposed 261.4(a)(22)(vi) establishes requirements with which the 

receiving facility must comply if wipes containing free liquids are received. EPA should add a requirement that the receiving

facility notify the appropriate regulatory authority (authorized state agency or EPA) in such instances. 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. The notification requirement should 

have a specific deadline, and have adequate informational requirements for the regulatory authority to be able to contact all

parties and identify the date of the incident and the approximate amount of material involved.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 177

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

For wipes sent off-site for processing that still contain free liquids, the same hazards associated with solvent waste exist and EPA 

must more strongly control such transfers. For these situations, the provisions for Universal Wastes can apply. EPA should 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. This includes requirements associated with small and large quantity handlers, transporters and 

destination facilities. The latter would include the final landfill, combustor and/or laundry facility. The provisions requiring 

notification, labeling, accumulation time limits, training, release response, off-site shipments and tracking should all apply. In this 

way, EPA can 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 universal waste regulatory program does not carry the burdens of RCRA permitting, but still promotes the proper 

management standards, as well as notice and traceability. This provides an optimum balance between no permitting or regulatory 

controls and full RCRA permits. The universal waste provisions have worked well for pesticides, batteries, mercury thermostats 

and lamps. All of these waste streams are as widely generated as solvent wipes.

It is important to control the transfer of solvent wipes still containing free liquids as hazardous universal waste, as the hazards 

still exist of spills during transportation, as well as at the final destination facilities. Solvent wipes still containing free liquid are 

still hazardous waste, with sufficient solvent to cause substantial physical harm and environmental impact. The universal waste 

provisions will provide more protection, while at the same time not being as burdensome as full RCRA permitting. It will also 

promote consistency with the management of other similar waste; indeed this is what the universal waste section was 

promulgated for.
232

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 1505

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

If an intermediate handler discovers the presence of free liquids, then the ETC agrees that the container and wipes must be 

returned to the original generator, or recover the liquid solvent and properly manage it as a hazardous waste. 69 FR 65602. 

Another option not given is for the handler to manage the wipes/free liquids mixture as a hazardous waste and take it to a 

permitted facility as opposed to returning it to the generator. In all of these cases, EPA needs to add a condition that a notification 

must be sent to the state or EPA that a shipment not meeting the “no free liquids” criterion was received by the handler. This 

notification must be required for each instance of such receipt of free liquid solvents. This is to allow the opportunity for the state 

or EPA to confirm that the free solvent has been properly managed as a hazardous waste. The ETC also agrees with EPA’s 

comment at 68 FR 65602 that at any time solvents are spilled or leaked, this must be considered illegal land disposal and subject 

to RCRA enforcement.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 440

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The rule relies upon subsequent handlers of solvent wipes to identify the presence of free liquids and to manage the free liquids 

and wipes as hazardous if these are found. Yet with the very weak tracking, labeling and recordkeeping provisions of the rule, the 

subsequent handler will not likely be able to track the original generator or to properly identify the source of free liquid as a 

RCRA solvent. As a result, the handler may decide that there is no clear evidence that the free liquid is RCRA solvent making the 

waste hazardous, and will therefore not dispose of the free liquid and wipes in the proper manner. Relying upon the subsequent 

handler(s) to recognize a waste as hazardous, after the waste leaves the generator site, is a preposterous leap of faith on EPA’s 

part. With the lack of rigorous labeling, tracking and recordkeeping provisions under this rule, EPA cannot enforce or discover 

cases where subsequent handlers are managing free liquids as non-hazardous. Even if EPA or a State official discovers that a 

given handler is managing wipes with free liquids, tracing this back to the original generator will be next to impossible since a 

manifest is not required, and since no labeling requirements apply.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 348

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK does not agree that notification to state regulatory agencies or to EPA is necessary when the laundry receives a 

container that does not meet the “no free liquids” standard. There is no evidence that the existing BMPs are problematic or that a 

pattern exists demonstrating a consistent problem with facilities accepting towels that have free liquids. As long as the containers 

are shipped back to the generator and otherwise properly handled, risk to the environment is minimized and notification is 

unnecessary.

ARAMARK disagrees that the laundry should be responsible to take the necessary steps to return the towels to compliance with 

the conditions of the exclusion. A laundry’s only obligation when it receives towel containers with free liquids present should be 

to ship such containers back to the generator for removal of the free liquids. The laundry is not the generator of the solvents 

contained on the towels and should not be responsible for removal of the free liquids. Of course, if a laundry agrees to remove 

free liquids for a customer/generator, it would be required to follow regulatory requirements for handling and disposal of such 

solvents. 

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 359

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

Under the Proposed Rule, disposable wipes destined for non-landfill disposal must have “no-free liquids” and be transported in 

containers designed, constructed and managed to minimize solvent loss to the environment. The no-free liquids test is determined 

to be met if no liquid solvent drips from them when sent off-site. NPCA supports EPA’s practical no free liquids proposal, 

however, we are concerned about the percolation of liquids. As EPA correctly points out under the handler requirements, 

between the time when the wipes arrive at the disposal site and when the facility introduces them into the process some liquids 

may have percolated out. EPA proposes to either allow the handler to remove the liquids or return the container to the generator 

(with the wipes and free liquids). NPCA supports this approach.
233

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 958

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

I strongly recommend that the EPA changes these rules...by forcing customers to take more of these solvents out of the towels.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1017

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

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 liquids or otherwise generate free liquid while accumulating, during storage, or in transit. Soiled wipes that have 

associated free liquid should not be conditionally excluded, and should be managed as a regulated hazardous waste. 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.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1019

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule should be revised 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. 

Alternatively, the receiving facility could be required to manage the free hazardous waste liquids as hazardous waste. Containers 

with liquid hazardous waste should not be considered as having met the conditional exclusion and should only be transported by 

licensed hazardous waste transporters to licensed or permitted hazardous waste facilities. These wastes should not be shipped by 

common carrier back to the generation facility as allowed by the proposal. The receiving facility or laundry should be required to 

document the receipt of wipe containers and contact the generator (laundry customer) in writing, advising the generator that free 

hazardous waste liquids were received, requiring payment of costs associated with management and disposal as hazardous waste, 

and requiring the customers to institute best management practices to eliminate free liquids in future shipments.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 270

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG also recognizes the concerns raised by some stakeholders that industrial wipes can compress when transported in 

containers and solvents can percolate through them and collect at the bottom of the container. EPA acknowledges the possibility 

of this happening and therefore proposes that if free liquids are discovered at the downstream handling combustion facility, the 

wipes would remain eligible for the exclusion as long as the handler removes the free solvents and manages the wipes 

appropriately, or returns the shipment to the generator as soon as reasonably practicable. Any free solvent removed from the 

containers would have to be managed in accordance with applicable hazardous waste requirements. USWAG believes that this is 

a reasonable approach for such circumstances.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 275

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

While USWAG generally believes that the proposed management options for "handlers" of contaminated wipes - e.g., facilities 

receiving the wipes for laundering or disposal - are reasonable (see id. at 65601-OZ), we oppose requiring a handler to submit a 

notification to the authorized state or EPA Region whenever it receives wipes that do not meet the "no free liquids" condition. 

EPA acknowledges that liquids may percolate from wipes during transport, and it has proposed to address these circumstances by 

requiring the handler to either return the container with the free solvents to the generator or recover any liquid solvent and 

properly manage it in accordance with applicable federal or state hazardous waste requirements. As EPA recognizes, solvents can 

percolate from the wipes during transportation without any fault of the generator. Thus, there is little to be gained by notifying 

regulators when these cases arise, other than inappropriately suggesting some degree of culpability on the part of the generator. 

Such a notice provision would result only in the unnecessary waste of resources in potentially investigating and responding to the 

natural phenomenon of percolation.
234

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 556

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposed “no free liquids” standard as it is applied in 261.4 and 264(c))(19)(v) appears to create liability if after shipment, 

a laundry/dry cleaner or municipal waste combustor discovers free liquids at the bottom of the container in which a generator

ships used industrial wipes. Under either provision, the wipes may be returned to their sender at the discretion of the laundry/dry 

cleaner or municipal waste combustor. However, the notice - while implying that the conditional exclusion is revoked for such 

materials - neither addresses noncompliance nor the practical issues for the recipient, whom if the conditional exclusion is 

revoked becomes ‘either a generator themselves of hazardous waste or a transporter of non-excluded hazardous waste. This issue 

has wide repercussions and potential liability for both the generator and the recipient of the used rags. It also underscores a type 

of Catch-22 in the regulation for handling used industrial wipes, despite the fact that the Agency has concluded that they impose 

no risk to the environment if laundered or burned. 

In order to fully understand the risks for companies if free liquid is found in a container, particularly if it is accumulated by the 

laundry/dry cleaner or municipal waste combustor with other such containers for long periods of time, EPA needs to 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 offending shipment to the operator 

per RCRA requirements? Consideration of these issues is necessary for us to determine whether the proposed changes to the 

regulation actually present more costs or uncertainty than the present regime.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1205

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Current industry practice, as described above, provides that free liquids should not be transported from the generator to the 

laundry facility. In those rare instances where free liquids are delivered to a laundry facility, it is extremely important for the 

laundry to be given the flexibility to manage them in a way that preserves the reusable towel's solid waste exclusion. As 

proposed, if a shipment of towels that contains free liquids arrives at a laundry facility, then the laundry must either (a) return the 

towels in their original container to the generator, or (b) capture the free liquids and process those liquids in accordance with all 

applicable regulations. Mismanagement of these free liquids would void the solid waste exclusion given to that specific batch of 

towels (but no others in the truck or at the facility at the time the free liquids are discovered). UTSA and TRSA support this 

approach. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1207

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Hazardous Waste Manifests Should Not Be Required when Returning Free Liquids to the Generator

EPA is correct in proposing not to require laundries to manifest inadvertent free liquids that are transported back to the generator. 

If manifests were required then laundries would become classified as a hazardous waste generator and, because its trucks are used 

to take the free liquids back to the generator, the laundry would also become classified as a hazardous waste transporter. 

Classification as a hazardous waste transportation company would require the laundry to come into compliance with all 

applicable hazardous waste transportation regulations, the costs for which most laundries are not prepared to absorb for such an 

infrequent occurrence. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1208

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Laundries Should Not Be Required to Report Receipt of Free Liquids to EPA or Applicable State Agency.

It is assumed that the intended purpose of a reporting requirement would be to allow the State or EPA region to inspect and 

oversee the launderer or generator in an effort to prevent continued transportation of inadvertent free liquids. Such oversight is 

unnecessary and would produce little to no benefit. Existing regulations already provide enough incentive to encourage 

launderers and generators to prevent inadvertent free liquids. As discussed in these comments, launderers currently have 

significant C WA and RCRA compliance requirements. (See Section I.) The continued transportation and subsequent return of 

inadvertent free liquids would be an undesirable practice generating environmental risk and liability and costing the launderer 
235

both time and money. Improper management of the free liquids would jeopardize the laundry’s pretreatment permit compliance 

status or worse.

The generator has its own incentives to ensure there are no free liquids. One example involves the cost of having the towels 

returned. When the wet towels are returned, the generator would be responsible for removing the free liquids. In addition, towels 

that must be returned to the generator may be treated as lost items by the launderer and thus may incur the generator “lost 

charges.”

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 623

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comments relative to handling facilities managing industrial wipes. We concur with the EPA proposal that wipes should be 

managed in a manner designed to minimize loss to the environment prior to introduction into their process. Facilities that receive 

free liquids should retain the option to recover any free liquids found and properly manage them. If available, the facility should 

be allowed to recover the liquids through use of appropriate technology for reuse without classifying the liquid as hazardous

waste. Facilities should be required to submit notification to the generator, the state, and EPA that the "no free liquids" condition 

has not been met.

5.8. Other Conditions/Requirements

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 59

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE notes 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 40 CFR 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. DOE suggests that these two sections be harmonized in the final 

regulations.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 63

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE notes that proposed 40 CFR 26 1.4(b)( 19)(vi)(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 40 CFR 26 1.4(b)( 19)(v) 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 disposed. DOE suggests that these two sections be harmonized in the final 

regulations.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1059

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

FDEP urges EPA to reconsider ways to provide relief for small generators, perhaps by excluding some number or volume of 

wipes per month.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1092

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP therefore believes that it would be appropriate to establish a clear regulatory prohibition on airdrying to make it clear that 

this practice is inappropriate and unlawful (for both disposable and launderable wipes). 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 
236

point to when air-drying is observed in the field in order to compel the facility to stop the practice. Having such a provision in 

this rule (or is some other appropriate section of the RCRA regulations) would be of great help in responding to such situations.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1098

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

On page 65599 of the proposed rule preamble (second paragraph), EPA requests comment on whether wipes meeting the “dry” 

condition should be required to meet the transportation requirements for disposable wipes. CTDEP believes that such wipes 

should remain subject to these requirements for a number of reasons. First, as noted in comment 2.c. above, even “dry” wipes 

may contain as much as 5 percent, or 50,000 ppm of solvents. This concentration of solvents is certainly sufficient to produce 

significant solvent vapors to pose fire and/or worker exposure hazards. In addition, 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, 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). These issues are especially important since there is no requirement 

in the proposed rule for the use of manifests or other shipping papers.

Docket Number - 272

Comment Key - 572

Submitted by - George Larson of George H. Larson and Associates, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Given the primary objective of increasing the amount of solvent recovery and recycling in industry, there is an important missing 

element: conditions that will result in generators increasing their amounts of solvent recovery and recycling.

Include a condition that will result in increased solvent recycling and recovery by the generators. Prevent solvents from going to 

landfills and into the industrial launderers wastewater by capturing the solvents at the point of generation. At a minimum, require 

hand wringing of industrial wipes to remove and capture residual solvent in the wipes. Given the fire hazards at industrial 

laundries, it is imperative that EPA keep the solvents out of industrial laundries and appropriately direct them to be recycled or 

managed as hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 961

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Force the laundry to train drivers and the washing workers about the OSHA, and EPA rules so that we can help the EPA make 

sure the rules are enforced.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1011

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule should be revised to require generators to evaluate product substituti6ns as one criterion of the conditional 

exclusion. Generators should be required to evaluate substitution' with non hazardous or non F listed solvents and maintain the 

results of that evaluation at the facility where the industrial wipes are generated. The evaluation should 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. The evaluation results should be made available to local, state or federal' regulatory 

personnel upon request.

6. Co-contaminants

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1006

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: In developing final regulation, do not inadvertently prohibit reuse of wipes containing constituents other than those 
237

covered by this exclusion. 

Discussion: Page 65589 states, "It has long been EPA's policy to encourage the appropriate state or EPA regions office to 

characterize the regulatory status of laundered and reused wipes based on site-specific factors. ....Most authorized states already 

exclude reusable wipes for the definition of solid or hazardous waste as long as certain basic conditions are met, such as the 

removal of free liquids by the user. It is not EPA's intent to modify or in any way limit the existing state or EPA regional 

exclusions or policies through the proposed Federal Rulemaking". 

Conceivably, a State may be allowing wipes with constituents outside the scope of the Federal proposed rule, such as metals, to 

be laundered and reused. Unless the final rule is carefully worded to avoid imposing a prohibition, the Federal rule may 

inadvertently be placing restrictions on reuse of wipes contaminated by constituents not addressed in this rule. 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.

Recommendation: Draft a final rule which still allows states flexibility to allow all types of reusable wipes to be managed as a 

commodity, not solid waste. 

Docket Number - 156

Comment Key - 1573

Submitted by - Larry Manziek of The International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI) 

Comment Text:

Industrial wipes are sometimes used to apply precious metals to a surface, or to clean materials that are made of precious metals, 

or that are coated with precious metals. This use invariably causes an amount of precious metal to be captured by the wipes, and 

makes the wipes a valuable commodity to a secondary precious metal refiner. Such precious metal-bearing wipes are therefore 

never discarded, but are instead always sent to a refiner for precious metal reclamation. The wipes are reclaimed by being slowly 

oxidized in an industrial furnace, so that their metal content will be greatly concentrated in the furnace ash. Such furnaces always 

have pollution control systems as well, so that particulate will be captured in the emissions stream, because that particulate will 

also be valuable. Ash is then processed to extract the precious metal content, either directly through selective leaching and

precipitation, or through smelting and copper metallurgy.

Some owners of precious metal-bearing wipes may classify them as hazardous waste, in consideration of their F001-F005 solvent 

content. That, of course, complicates the reclamation process, and makes it more expensive, without bringing about any 

improvement in protection of the environment. We approve of the proposals of the Agency to conditionally exempt solventcontaminated rags and wipes from classification as solid waste and hazardous waste. However we believe that these proposals 

may not encompass our precious metal reclamation activity, and we believe that it should. 

We note, and agree, that reusable wipes are a commodity and will be managed to avoid release or loss, so that waste 

classification is not needed. We believe that the same reasoning applies to wipes that are claimed for their precious metal content. 

Precious metal-bearing industrial wipes are a valuable commodity, more valuable than reusable wipe, and they are carefully 

managed as such. They are packaged in containers that prevent loss, such as 55 gallon drums with closed and sealed tops, or 

gaylord containers with closed plastic liners. There is careful attention to their weight, because bulk weight is a significant factor 

in determining process charges for reclamation. Such attention to weight, and the associated cost, gives the original owner an 

economic incentive to remove solvent to the degree practicable before sending the wipes to a precious metal refiner. And the 

precious metal content gives the owner an economic incentive to avoid loss of any material while in transport. Financial 

accountability is strict, because these wipes are always toll processed – i.e. the wipes continue to belong to the generator until 

they have been processed to a fine, homogenous ash that can be accurately sampled and assayed. Until that point, the precious 

metal content belongs to the original owner, as well as the wipes themselves. So both the original owner and the reclamation 

processor have a strong financial interest in careful management and avoidance of loss throughout all stages leading to 

reclamation. These conditions should satisfy the requirements of the Agency for exclusion of precious metal-bearing industrial 

wipes as a commodity and not a waste.

If the Agency believes that precious metal-bearing wipes should nevertheless be classified as solid waste, we believe that the 

proposed exclusion of wipes from classification as hazardous waste when combusted should apply to our reclamation processes. 

As set forth above, the initial reclamation process is specialized combustion in an industrial furnace. The furnaces that are used 

already comply with the conditions of the Boilers and Industrial Furnace rule applicable to precious metal reclamation, and 

include a secondary chamber or afterburner to ensure thorough oxidation of organic content, and have a particulate collection 

system to ensure against loss of precious metal, as well as protect against escape of pollutant particulate matter.

Docket Number - 156

Comment Key - 1575

Submitted by - Larry Manziek of The International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI) 
238

Comment Text:

The Agency has proposed one condition, however, to the exclusion from hazardous waste with which we disagree: “Solventcontaminated industrial wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to co-contaminants also are not eligible for the 

hazardous waste exclusion, unless the characteristic is ignitability.” This could exclude industrial wipes that contain silver. 

Where that silver is being reclaimed, this condition – negating the exclusion from hazardous waste - does not make sense. The 

present definition of waste already excludes many materials that are reclaimed even though they exhibit characteristics, e.g.

sludges and byproducts that are reclaimed. Precious metal-bearing industrial wipes are very much like a byproduct, and when 

reclaimed they should not be classified differently from other byproducts. If the Agency removes a classification of wipes as

listed hazardous waste, it should remove that without regard to any characteristics, if the wipes are going to be reclaimed. 

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 22

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the health and environmental impact of shop towels containing heavy metals as studied by the Gradient 

Corporation study.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1351

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

In the opening paragraph (Page 65586), USEPA states that the proposal “is applicable to: industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous 

waste characteristic due to use with solvents...”, suggesting that wipes that are characteristically hazardous due to substances not 

originating from the solvent also qualify for the proposed exclusions. However, 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. (“...when that characteristic results from the F-listed spent solvent or corresponding P- or U-listed commercial chemical 

product....”) As suggested on Page 65602 (second column), industrial wipes are frequently used for cleaning off residues that

contain metals and other TC constituents, so such a restriction could seriously limit the availability of the proposed conditional 

exclusion. For example, printing inks being cleaned from printing presses may contain barium, or paints being wiped may 

contain methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) in sufficient quantities to cause the wipes to be characteristically hazardous, making them 

ineligible for the proposal. We believe further consideration should be given to having the conditional exclusion also apply to 

wipes acquiring a hazardous waste characteristic during legitimate usages such as these and, therefore, request that USEPA 

reevaluate its proposal to automatically not allow wipes to qualify for the exclusion whenever they exhibit non-ignitable 

characteristics and those characteristics do not derive from the solvent itself.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 309

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

In the preamble, EPA states that wipes that exhibit the characteristic of ignitability due to cocontaminants would still be eligible 

for the hazardous waste exclusion, because the ignitability risk would be addressed by the conditions of the exclusion. 

Unfortunately, EPA did not specifically include this provision in the proposed regulatory language. EPA should, consistent with 

the preamble discussion, amend the regulatory language of 40 CFR 3 261.2(b)( 19) to include wipes exhibiting the characteristic 

of ignitability due to co-contaminants as eligible for the exclusion.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1068

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

The exclusion does not apply to disposable wipes that exhibit the characteristic of toxicity due to contamination by a nonsolvent 

substance or to disposable wipes that are contaminated with nonsolvent listed hazardous wastes...Ohio EPA agrees with the 

eligibility requirements for disposable solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 828

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins believes that the chemicals found in Table 4 that were not found to pose a significant risk in EPA’s risk 
239

screening analysis should not be subject to the Co-Contaminant rule. The presence of this material, as determined by the 

screening analysis does not pose a risk other than risk associated with its ignitability, which is exempt by this proposed rule.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1102

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

...EPA discusses the applicability of the proposed rule to wipes that are hazardous for something other than solvents (i.e., wipes 

contaminated with listed wastes other than F001-F005 and the corresponding U- and P-listed commercial chemical products, and 

wipes that are characteristically hazardous for non-solvent-related constituents or properties.). CTDEP agrees with EPA that such 

wipes should not be subject to the proposed exclusions when they are disposed of (i.e., landfilled or incinerated), but believes that 

many of these wipes would be appropriately excluded if sent for laundering. The current policy of CTDEP with respect to 

launderable wipes does not limit eligibility to solvent wipes, and we have not experienced any problems arising as a result of 

allowing non-solvent-contaminated wipes to be eligible for the policy. In addition, limiting the proposed exclusion for 

launderable wipes only to solvent-contaminated wipes may unnecessarily prevent the legitimate recycling of large numbers of 

wipes. However, we do acknowledge that expanding eligibility to other contaminants would raise concerns with respect to the 

toxicity of the sludge generated by laundries. However, these concerns could be easily mitigated, for example, by modifying the 

proposed rule to indicate that these sludges are subject to the derived-from rule (i.e., that if the facility receives listed wipes, their 

sludge retains the listings). 

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 652

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

Current regulatory policies in a significant number of states do not distinguish between solvents and other contaminants the wipe 

may contain. Under state policies, reusable wipes are typically excluded from the definition of solid waste regardless of 

contamination type. Similarly, disposable wipes are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste if wipes are properly 

managed. EPA clearly sets management protocols for reusable wipes in the proposed rule . If properly followed, all reusable 

wipes, regardless of contamination types, should be eligible for the exclusion.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 653

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

Disposable wipes containing contaminants other than the solvents listed above [F-, P- and U- listed solvents] should also be 

eligible for the proposed exclusion. The “dry” standard of 5 grams set by EPA for disposables destined for landfills is sufficiently 

protective, even if co-contaminants are present. Disposable wipes destined for incineration and managed according to the 

standards set by EPA should be covered by the exclusion.

If EPA fails to amend the scope of both the hazardous waste and solid waste exclusions, generators will likely be required to

verify the presence of co-contaminants and determine whether the presence of co-contaminants void the exclusions. We 

encourage EPA to clearly state in the final rule that the proposed exclusion applies to all wipes, regardless of co-contamination.

Docket Number - 279

Comment Key - 789

Submitted by - Matthew Conway of PING, Inc 

Comment Text:

Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to co-contaminants also are not 

eligible for the hazardous waste exclusion, unless the characteristic is ignitability. Specifically, EPA is proposing that industrial 

wipes that would exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of wastes with which they are cocontaminated would not be eligible for the conditional exclusion.

PING requests that EPA consider extending the conditional exclusion to the following:

-wipes that exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste due to co-contaminants and that are being managed by generators that use 

a licensed, commercial hazardous waste treatment facility. 

As such, wipes that exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of wastes with which they are cocontaminated would be eligible for the conditional exclusion if said wipes are disposed at licensed, commercial hazardous waste 

treatment facilities.
240

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 587

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

Currently, a significant number of states, such as Illinois and Texas, exclude reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste 

and do not distinguish between solvents and other contaminants that may be contained on the wipe. In a similar manner, states

exclude disposable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste; and exclude reusable wipes, regardless of contamination type, 

from their

respective regulations if wipes are properly managed. In the proposal, the Agency clearly sets management protocols for reusable 

wipes, which is consistent with many of the current state and EPA Regional policies. If properly followed, then all reusable 

wipes, regardless of contamination types, should be eligible for the exclusion. Disposable wipes that contain contaminants other 

than the solvents listed above should also be eligible for the exclusion. Those disposable wipes that are destined for incineration 

and are managed according to the standards set by the Agency should also be excluded. Similarly, the Agency has proposed 

extensive management standards for disposables destined for landfill, and these wipes should also be allowed to take advantage 

of the exclusion, regardless of types of contaminants that may be found on the towel. The five gram limit set by the Agency for 

disposables destined for landfills is sufficiently stringent. If the Agency fails to amend the scope of both the hazardous waste and 

solid waste exclusion, then it appears that 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, this is an additional regulatory burden that voids the intent of the Agency’s goal to promote 

waste reduction and recycling. The GAC encourages the Agency to clearly state in the final rule that the proposed exclusion 

applies to all wipes, regardless of cocontaminate, as long as the proper management standards are met.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1170

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

The language of the proposed rule should be amended to reflect EPA’s intent to include within its coverage certain wipes that 

exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability the language of the proposed rule should be amended to reflect EPA’s 

intent to include within its coverage certain wipes that exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability.

INDA/SMART concurs with EPA’s assessment that it is appropriate to include within the scope of this rule the categories of 

SSNWs identified by EPA as covered by its proposal. Unfortunately, however, the language of the proposed rule itself does not 

reflect EPA’s intent to include within the coverage of the rule SSNWs that are co-contaminated with a material that makes the 

SSNW characteristically hazardous for ignitability. Accordingly, INDA/SMART recommends that the Agency amend the 

introductory paragraph of proposed 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.4(b)(19) so that it reads, in relevant part:

“ . . . when they contain an F-listed spent solvent or a corresponding spilled P- or U- listed commercial chemical product, exhibit 

the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity when that characteristic results from an F-listed 

spent solvent or corresponding P- or U- listed commercial chemical product, or is co-contaminated with another material that 

makes them exhibit the hazardous characteristic of ignitability, provided that the conditions specified below. . . .”.

INDA/SMART agrees with EPA that it is not proper to extend the coverage of this rule to industrial wipes that are cocontaminated with other wastes (e.g., metal-containing wastes) that cause them to exhibit the hazardous waste characteristics of 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Because EPA has not examined the risks posed by such SSIWs in the waste management 

scenarios covered by this rule, it would not be appropriate to include such wipes within the regulatory relief provided by this rule.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 182

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The proposed rule does not adequately address co-contaminants. A substantial discussion of this issue is presented in the ETC 

comments on the risk screening analysis below, in which the sources are cited from the administrative record that document the 

frequent cocontaminants.

The proposed rule is inadequate for both reusable and disposable wipes in that it does not specify any testing or evaluation 

requirements that the generator must follow to ensure the absence of co-contaminants. ETC is in full agreement with EPA’s 

discussion at 68 FR 65602 that the presence of cocontaminants make the industrial wipes subject to the mixture rule under 40 

CFR § 261.3(a)(2)(iv), and that these co-contaminants make the wipes a listed hazardous waste. The ETC also agrees that 

industrial wipes that exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of co-contaminants are also not 
241

eligible for the exclusion. 

However, the ETC does not agree that a constituent that causes the ignitable characteristic to fail should not be considered a cocontaminant that precludes the exclusion. Ignitable constituents can also consist of non F-solvent type constituents. Therefore, the 

ignitable characteristic must also be deemed to make the waste ineligible for the exemption, if the co-contaminant is an ignitable 

non-F-solvent constituent. Despite application of the mixture rule, there are no provisions that require generators to confirm the 

absence of such co-contaminants. 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 

in which wipes are used. The test should include analysis for metals constituents and also testing for the toxicity characteristic. 

The exemption should be available only if the generator can show by annual analysis that co-contaminants are not present above 

LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR Part 268 for non-wastewater levels.

In addition, the generator must demonstrate on an annual basis that none of the characteristic levels are exceeded for all of the 

toxicity constituents. The exemption is only applicable to the F Solvent constituents, so that any D- constituents above 

characteristic levels would void the exemption. Besides checking for toxicity characteristic constituents, the generator must also 

test for the Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs) that are regulated under 40 CFR § 268. Note that EPA needs to ensure 

the language in the rule does not include wipes exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic, as the preamble language on page

65586 and in some other portions of the preamble is confusing on this point. Again this testing must be completed on an annual 

basis for each type of process in which wipes are used, in order to qualify for the exemption. As discussed above, the D001 

ignitability characteristic is not an exception, as other UHCs and Appendix VIII constituents that are not F-Solvent constituents 

can cause the ignitability characteristic to be exhibited.

In testing for the hazardous characteristic, it is important that the analysis be properly applied to a sample wipe taken directly 

from the process. In the docket to this proposed rule is an analysis submitted by Sidley & Austin performed by Scott Paper 

Company (RCRA-2003-004-0103), that was not properly performed. In this analysis, Scott Paper took the wipe samples and 

placed them in a laboratory fume hood for 23 hours with the hood on. The conditions in the fume hood would dry the solvent 

constituents overnight. Then Scott Paper sent the samples to an outside laboratory, wrapping the samples in aluminum foil. By

time the samples arrived for analysis, most of the solvent would have been lost due to the high capture velocity in the fume hood 

and the loose sample packaging in aluminum foil, as opposed to a glass sealed sample jar. Sidley & Austin’s cover letter to this 

report incorrectly asserts that the wipes passed the TCLP test. Yet the truth is that the characteristic solvents were simply 

evaporated off. Generators cannot be allowed to apply the characteristic test in this fashion. EPA must be clear in the final rule 

that solvent wipes, after extraction, must be subjected to the TCLP test directly, without any airing or ventilation period.

Docket Number - 295

Comment Key - 928

Submitted by - Mike Eck of US Army Environmental Center 

Comment Text:

FR p. 65589, III Summary, paragraph 1, footnote 1: Text of summary extends exclusion from the definition of HW and SW 

exhibiting any hazardous characteristic due to use with solvents. 

Footnote 1 and section V.B.II note that co-contamination of SCIW making them characteristic for toxoicity, corrosivity, 

reactivity cancels the proposed exclusion.

The proposal does not again address solvent contaminations resulting in ignitability and toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity, nor

does it explain why solvent toxicity must be managed different from co-contaminant toxicity. If the risk of tox/corros/reactivit 

from original solvent contamination can be managed by conditions of the exclusion, co-contaminant risks can also be managed.

Please:

-Identify typical co-contaminants

-Determine if risks from co-contaminant toxicity, corrosivity, and reactivity can be managed by the conditions (or modified 

conditions) of the exclusion.

Docket Number - 295

Comment Key - 929

Submitted by - Mike Eck of US Army Environmental Center 

Comment Text:

FR p. 65589, III Summary, paragraph 1, footonote 1: Text of summary extends exclusion from the definition of HW and SW 

exhibiting any hazardous characteristic due to use with solvents. 

Footnote 1 and section V.B.II note that co-contamination of SCIW making them characteristic for toxoicity, corrosivity, 

reactivity cancels the proposed exclusion.
242

The proposal does not again address solvent contaminations resulting in ignitability and toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity, nor 

does it explain why solvent toxicity must be managed different from co-contaminant toxicity. If the risk of tox/corros/reactivit 

from originial solvent contamination can be managed by conditions of the exclusion, co-contaminant risks can also be managed.

Please:

-Identify typical co-contaminants

-Determine if risks from co-contaminant toxicity, corrosivity, and reactivity can be managed by the conditions (or modified 

conditions) of the exclusion.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 377

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

The Proposed Rule states that wipes are conditionally excluded from either the definition of hazardous waste or solid waste if 

they contain F-listed spent solvents, corresponding spilled P- or U- listed commercial chemical products, or characteristically 

hazardous waste, if that hazard characteristic results from the F-, P- or U-listed contaminant. EPA further states in the preamble 

that RCRA's mixture and derived from rule will apply to the exclusion. This means that if the wipe is co-contaminated with any 

other listed or characteristically hazardous waste (one not stemming from an F-listed spent solvent or corresponding spilled P- or 

U-listed commercial chemical product), it would not be covered by the exclusion. Thus, irrespective of the solvent the wipe 

contains for cleaning, depending on what is cleaned a majority of wipes will not qualify for the exclusion. In effect, 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. 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. In addition, as stated above, in most cases the wipes will be used to clean-up some other material, which may 

likely contain another listed or characteristic waste under RCRA. NPCA does not believe this is what EPA intended. EPA must 

extend the exclusion to all wipes and rags regardless of the presence of co-contaminants, since if managed appropriately they do 

not pose any more or less of a risk then the solvents and listed materials analyzed and proposed for exclusion.

If EPA fails to amend the scope of both the hazardous waste and solid waste exclusion, or to amend into one cohesive exclusion, 

then it appears generators will be required to verify the presence of co-contaminants to determine whether or not that presence 

voids the exclusions. This additional regulatory burden would be cost prohibitive, forcing industry to conduct extensive cocontaminant testing - voiding the intent of the Proposed Rule - to promote waste reduction and recycling. Thus, EPA must clearly 

state in the final rule that the proposed exclusions applies to all wipes, regardless of co-contaminants. 

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1081

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Proposed 261.4(b)( 19)(iv)(B) states that solvent-contaminated wipes must not contain certain solvents (e.g., nitrobenzene, 

methyl ethyl ketone, benzene) if they are being transported to a municipal or other type of non-hazardous waste landfill. It is our 

experience that solvent blends often contain these constituents as contaminants, not intentionally added to the solvent product. In 

addition, there may be circumstances in which wipes pick up some of these solvents during use. We request clarification 

regarding this issue -- does the presence of these solvents as contaminants prevent the wipes from being excluded? Will 

generators be required to conduct laboratory analysis of wipes to document that they do not contain these constituents in order to 

meet this exclusion?

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1178

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

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

existing regulations.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1185

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Common Sense Justification For Extending; The Solid Waste Exclusion To All Contaminants. 
243

Any exclusion limited to towels contaminated only with solvents (and not to other co-contaminants) would render such an 

exclusion illusory. The very purpose of solvents in industrial applications is to suspend unwanted substances (such as extra ink, 

oil, grease or residual metal particles) in solution so that the substances can be removed. A solvent-only exclusion would 

undermine, rather than advance, EPA’s goals of waste reduction and recycling.

Second, and more importantly, all industrial laundry waste streams already are subject to regulation under the CWA and RCRA. 

All contaminants (whether they are solvents or co- contaminants) on reusable shop towels are ultimately subject to regulatory 

control. 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. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1186

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The Jurisdictional Authority That Compels EPA To Exclude Solvent-Contaminated Reusable Towels From RCRA Regulation 

Logically Extends To All Contaminants Found On Reusable Towels. 

In addition to the practical considerations noted above, the jurisdictional logic and authority on which EPA relies to justify a solid 

waste exclusion for reusable towels applies regardless of whether the towel contains only solvents or solvents and other 

contaminants. The preamble notes that reusable towels are “more commodity-like than waste-like and, therefore, that they can be 

conditionally excluded from the regulatory definition of solid waste.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65593. EPA’s commodity-like conclusion 

is premised on three factors: (1) that the shop towels are partially reclaimed before laundering; (2) that shop towels are handled 

throughout the laundering process as valuable commodities; and (3) that shop towels are owned by the same entity throughout the 

laundering process. Id. None of these three factors is affected by whether the contaminants are only solvents or solvents and other 

contaminants. Moreover, the presence of a co-contaminant has absolutely no bearing on whether laundries treat their towels as 

valuable commodities (or capital goods). There is no reason for EPA to limit the proposed solid waste exclusion only to solvent 

contamination because the exclusion is premised on the jurisdictional limitations of RCRA as applied to the process through 

which reusable towels are recycled rather than discarded.

Applying the solid waste exclusion to reusable shop towels regardless of contaminant type also is consistent with the logic and 

authority that EPA employs to distinguish between the different proposed RCRA exclusions for reusable towels and disposable 

rags. The proposed exclusion for disposable wipes does not extend to all hazardous solvents. Id. at 65597 (Table 4, “Listed 

Solvents Not Allowed in Municipal Landfills”). The proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable towels, on the other hand, 

covers all listed solvents. 

...Because the “central question in solid waste determinations is whether the material has been discarded,” there is no 

jurisdictional basis for EPA to limit the solid waste exclusion for reusable towels only to those contaminated with solvents. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1187

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The Unintended Consequences of Limiting The Solid Waste Exclusion Only to Solvents

If the final rule does not exclude reusable shop towels soiled with co-contaminants, as well as solvents, then generators and 

laundries will be saddled with the task of verifying (1) the presence of co-contaminants, and (2) whether the co-contaminants 

void the solid waste exclusion because of the RCRA mixture rule. The “strict liability” scheme enunciated in the preamble for 

violations of the proposed management conditions (see 68 Fed. Reg. at 65607) and the potential liability associated with 

inadvertently qualifying as a non-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility would force both laundries and their 

customers to analyze each delivery of used shop towels for the presence of co-contaminants. While it is fairly easy to determine 

the presence of free liquids in a textile, ascertaining the presence of a listed hazardous waste would be exceedingly difficult. Even 

small industrial laundries process millions of shop towels annually. Testing shop towels via TCLP analysis alone would be costprohibitive. 

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. Even if analyzing reusable towels could be conducted in a systematic, less expensive 

manner, the compliance risk and threat of qualifying as a non-permitted TSD facility (in the event a contaminated towel was 

inadvertently processed) would give laundries little incentive to service reusable industrial towels. A solid waste exclusion for 

reusable towels that is limited only to solvents would effectively destroy the shop towel segment of the industry.
244

[Submission includes extended discussion of economic impacts of limiting exclusion to solvents only]

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1188

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

There Is No Justification To Limit The Solid Waste Exclusion To Solvents-Only

Due to the careful management of shop towels as valuable commodities by laundries and their customers, reusable shop towels 

are not part of the waste disposal problem, regardless of whether they are soiled with solvents or co-contaminants. The “newly 

generated” contaminants that are removed from the towels enter the laundry’s CWA wastewater treatment systems. The 

discharge of the wastewater and disposal of the treatment sludge are effectively regulated under existing regulatory programs. 

See Exhibit B. Moreover, greater than 99 percent of the sludge generated by treatment of laundry wastewater is non-hazardous. 

Based on the expert knowledge of UTSA and TRSA, the very small portion of this sludge that is ever hazardous is virtually 

always due solely to ignitability from solvents and not from characteristics associated with co- contaminants. EPA’s overly 

conservative risk assessment, as discussed in [another comment], demonstrates that there are no meaningful risks associated with 

this sludge.

As the sludge profile data demonstrate, non-solvent contaminants are effectively addressed by existing environmental regulation 

(i. e., regulation of laundry wastewater and wastewater sludge)... Thus, there is no environmental basis for seeking to regulate 

such contaminants under RCRA. However, because some reusable towels do, from time to time, contain non-solvent hazardous 

constituents, it would be unacceptable for industrial laundries to ignore these occurrences in light of the strict liability scheme 

contemplated in the proposed rule, not to mention the possibility of a laundry unintentionally triggering TSD status. And, as 

discussed above, the overall result of myopically limiting the reusable towel solid waste exclusion only to solvent contamination 

would be to destroy a vital and environmentally-friendly aspect of the laundry industry (which would directly result in a greater 

stress on our nation’s natural resources and landfill space), contract the industrial laundry business on a national scale, and 

eliminate jobs.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1189

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The proposed exclusion for disposable wipes will effectively make less stringent the current federal regulatory compliance 

requirements for disposables (which is based on the strict application of the RCRA “mixture” and the “derived from” rules). 

RCRA-authorized States are free to adopt or retain more stringent requirements. Id. at 65612-1 3. Accordingly, EPA correctly 

explains that RCRA-authorized States would have the discretion not to adopt any final federal hazardous waste exclusion for 

disposables.

EPA acknowledges that the situation is less clear for the solid waste exclusion for reusable towels, because the States currently 

vary in terms of being more or less stringent than the proposed solid waste exclusion. Id. While a stringency analysis limited to 

the proposed management conditions for reusables (comparing the final federal standard to each State policy) would be complex, 

EPA’s uncertain position on the co-contaminant issue for reusable towels renders such an exercise impossible for many States. A 

significant number of States that exclude reusable towels from either the definition of solid waste (including Illinois and Texas, 

see Exhibit H) or from regulation as a hazardous waste (including New York and California, see Exhibit I) do not distinguish 

between solvents and other contaminants, and 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 many 

States that do not distinguish between solvents and co- contaminants could be faced with an unintentional federal mandate to 

create new regulations for co-contaminants (so as to not fall below the new federal mandatory “floor” for reusable towels). 

Finalizing the reusable towel exclusion in its current form as an implicit solvent-only exclusion would be substantially 

inconsistent with the State regulatory status quo and cause significant confusion among the RCRA-authorized States. EPA should 

clarify that the final federal rule will holistically exclude all properly-managed shop towels (regardless of contaminant status) and 

thus will not impact existing State exclusions for co-contaminants. 

Docket Number - 459

Comment Key - 1226

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association 
245

Comment Text:

Again, vehicle maintenance wipes often are contaminated with other hazardous or nonhazardous materials. Whatever the nature 

of this co-contamination, wipes should be considered excluded if appropriate conditions are met. Alternatively, if cocontaminated with listed hazardous waste (other than those addressed by the proposal), wipes could be considered hazardous, 

unless managed by a CESQG. If co-contaminated by a characteristic hazardous waste, wipes should nonetheless be considered 

excluded. See, 40 CFR §279.10(a) and (b).

Importantly, dealerships managing waste materials, like most small businesses, lack in-house environmental expertise and require 

straightforward rules and guidance, especially regarding waste determination issues. Mandatory case-by-case waste 

characterizations would be prohibitively costly and burdensome.

Docket Number - 464

Comment Key - 1236

Submitted by - Jessica Franken of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Although contaminated wipes are likely to be ignitable due to the nature of the solvents on them, this risk is managed by the

conditions of the exclusion from hazardous waste. Therefore, as EPA indicated in its preamble to the NPRM, wipes exhibiting 

this characteristic should remain eligible for the exclusion [68 FR 65602]. Given the comprehensive nature and overall results of 

the revised risk analysis, INDA/SMART believes that there is ample support to also apply this exclusion to solvent-contaminated 

wipes exhibiting the toxicity characteristic. EPA should include language that extends the exclusion to wipes exhibiting the 

characteristics of ignitability and toxicity due to contamination from solvents addressed within the revised risk analysis.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1492

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council 

Comment Text:

And then finally EPA has simply ignored the contamination from the material that the solvent removes from the equipment, the 

metals, the inks, the colors, things of that nature. The background document makes clear that EPA simply didn’t collect 

information that it would need in order to assess the risks posed by those materials. And that’s something EPA needs to do.

7. Intra- and Inter-company transfer

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 981

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: It is unclear how the definition of “intra-company transfer of industrial wipes” would apply to Department of Defense 

installations. DoD supports allowing solvent contaminated wipes to be transported offsite between DoD installations operating

(by site) as generators under different EPA identification numbers. 

Discussion: “Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes” is proposed to be defined as “the off site transportation of industrial 

wipes from a generator facility to another generator-owned facility that has a solvent extraction and/or recovery process for the 

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

appropriate.” With this definition in mind, it is unclear what constitutes a "generator facility".

Per 40 CFR 260.10, a “generator” is "any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in 

part 261 of this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to be come subject to regulation." A "facility" means, in part, 

"all contiguous land, and structures, other appurtenances, and improvement on the land, used for treating, storing, or disposing of 

hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units...." With these definitions in 

mind, it is unclear how the proposed rule would apply to DoD installations. For example, does a generator transferring wipes 

need to own or operate a "facility" to qualify for the intra-company transfer of industrial wipes conditional exclusion? If DoD 

owns both "facilities," must it operate them under the same EPA identification number to qualify for the conditional exclusion? 

Will DoD military installations involving different commands and/or military services be considered "generator owned"?

Recommendation: Define the term "intra-company" to clarify that intra-department transfers of wipes between properties owned 

by the Federal government, such as the Department of Defense, are allowed - regardless whether these installations are used for 

treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. 
246

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 983

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Proposed 40 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(v) and (b)(19)(vi) are potentially contradictory.

Discussion: Proposed 40 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(v) states, "When transported to a ... industrial wipes handling facility, solventcontaminated industrial wipes must not contain free liquids or must have been treated by solvent extraction." Proposed 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(19)(vi) it states, "Intra-company transfer of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes containing free liquids may occur...." 

These 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".

Recommendation: Paragraph (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)."

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 987

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Use term “generating entity” rather than "generator".

Discussion: The proposed definition of “Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes” and proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(vi)(B) 

and (b)(19)(viii)(B) each use the word “generator”. “Generator” already is a long-standing defined term in 40 CFR 260.10 that 

applies only to an entity managing hazardous waste. It is inappropriate to use that defined term in regulations that provide 

exclusions to solid and hazardous waste regulation. 

Recommendation: Recommend that "generator" in the definition of "Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes" and in 

261.4(a)(22)(vi)(b) and (B)(19)(viii)(B) be replaced with "generating entity."

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1002

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: On page 65606, Column 1, paragraph 8.a, EPA proposes that wipes can qualify for the exclusion from the definition 

of solid waste when transferring solvent-contaminated reusable industrial wipes containing “free liquids”, provided the transfer is 

between facilities within the same company.

Although EPA did not request comment on this issue, our concern is that EPA allow intra-company transfer of reusable industrial 

wipes containing “no free liquids” for the purpose of consolidation. 

Discussion: The Navy often has small remote bases that are separated by public highways from Navy concentrated areas. For 

instance, Navy Region Hawaii has a large waste management facility at Pearl Harbor Naval Complex. However, they are also 

responsible for waste generated at remote sites that may not have the same level of waste management opportunities.

It would be more cost effective for wipes to be accumulated at a centralized Navy area such as Pearl Harbor Naval Complex. A

contract could then be established for pickup of reusable wipes from one building instead of several pick-up locations at multiple 

bases. 

The proposal as written does not address this scenario.

Recommendation: Since reusable wipes are considered a commodity (not a solid waste) by EPA, the movement of “no free 

liquid” wipes to a centralized consolidation area should be acceptable even if movement is on public highways. As mentioned by 

EPA, DOT regulations are always in effect if applicable. 

Regulatory text at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22) and (b)(19) 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. 
247

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 55

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE suggests that the proposed definition of the term “intra-company transfer of industrial wipes” be simplified and harmonized 

with other proposed definitions, as follows [deletions are shown as strikeout text in original, shown here in brackets; additions are 

shown in redline in original, but not discernible in docket copy of submission, so not shown here]: Intra-company transfer of 

industrial wipes means the offsite transportation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes from a generator facility to [another 

generator owned] a separate industrial wipes handling facility owned by the same generator [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].

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1357

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

We concur with USEPA that inter-company transfers of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes with free liquids should not be 

exempted under the proposal for the reasons cited by USEPA (Page 65601, third column).

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1540

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Intra-company shipments should be allowed under the exclusion, this does increase the capability of a company to recover 

solvent. Subsidiaries and affiliates should also be eligible for the exemption. It is unlikely that containers would be transferred 

long distances with free liquids due to the increase in shipping costs. No distance limits should be applied. 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. Wipes sent to a third party should not be eligible for the exemption. 

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1548

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

The intra-company shipment of free liquids would encourage the additional recovery and reuse of hazardous solvents. 

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 656

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

IPC supports the inclusion of language allowing companies to self-transport used wipes and other materials to one central 

processing location. We propose that, similar to other EPA programs, the boundaries be set based on a contiguous property line. 

This demarcation policy is used by the Office of Air in their determinations regarding the air permitting of a facility. This

practice should be allowed for both reusable as well as disposal wipes and other materials.

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 589

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The GAC supports the inclusion of language that allows companies to self transport used wipes and other materials to one central 

location for processing. This practice should be allowed for both reusable as well as disposable wipes and other materials. The 

GAC does not support the inclusion of a one-time notification as we do not see that it would provide any environmental benefit. 

Nor do we support the need to maintain any types of records regarding the management of the wipes. The recovered solvent, if 

considered a hazardous waste, is already covered under existing statute and regulation. No further reports or records are required. 

Requiring training under this provision is also unnecessary. Since the recovered solvent is already considered a hazardous waste 

and the facility typically has other wastes classified as hazardous, they have to meet the appropriate training requirements 

specified in the regulations and no additional training is required. Transport of these materials should not be limited to closed 

containers. As discussed above, the transfer of these materials is for the express purpose of consolidating the handling 
248

procedures. Limiting the movement to within a company’s own operations should allow the use of covered containers designed 

to minimize the environmental risk.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 180

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA proposes to allow intra-company transfers of solvent contaminated wipes with free liquids, to allow for the extraction of 

solvents at another location. 68 FR 65600. The ETC does not support such transfers as an exempted activity, since the wipes 

should at least be required to meet the “no free liquids” or less than 5 grams criteria at the point of generation to qualify for the 

exemption. Allowing free liquid hazardous waste solvents to be transported freely to multiple sites creates an opportunity for 

further exposure and potential for environmental releases. Solvent extraction technologies are not costly and do not require 

permitting at the generator site. Furthermore, the proposed exemption is premised on the wipes containing no free liquid. It is not 

justified to allow free liquid solvent waste to be transported outside of RCRA controls without a manifest and other minimum 

protections. If EPA allows such transfers, tracking of free solvents will be lost, and this will create a huge loophole in RCRA 

resulting in poor control of solvent waste.

If EPA decides to promulgate the allowance for intra-company transfers, then the minimum recordkeeping and notification 

provisions at 68 FR 65601 must apply. In particular, a notice must be sent to the state so that it is known who is transferring free 

solvents outside of RCRA, and a recordkeeping system must be maintained to identify where solvents are being transferred to. 

This will provide some measure of traceability for enforcement purposes. The ETC is opposed to inter-company transfers, as this 

will allow solvent waste to escape proper management and the notification and tracking provisions will become very difficult to 

enforce.

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 537

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

We suggest that a note be added to the regulation as a reminder to generators that offsite transfer of solvent-contaminated wipes 

may be regulated under the Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR, and they must comply with these regulations, if 

applicable.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 388

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

A majority of the Task Force members do not support the inter-company transfer of solvent-contaminated reusable wipes 

containing free liquids. 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. We believe that it would be difficult to further 

reclaim such solvent mixtures into usable and marketable solvent products. It is much more likely that the solvent mixture would 

be sent off and recycled by being burned as a fuel. We do not support the notion that solvents will be widely recovered and 

recycled by industrial laundries and do not support excluding solvent contaminated wipes, containing free liquids, that are 

destined for inter-company transfer.

We recognize however, 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. A majority of 

the Task Force members are in favor of the intra-company transfer of reusable wipes for the recovery of solvents. However, 

several members want this provision to be conditioned as follows: A generator needs to provide a one-time notice to the 

overseeing agency informing the agency that he is using the exclusion, train employees regarding the proper handling of the 

wipes, and maintain records of the transfer of the wipes. The receiving intra-company needs to notify the overseeing agency, 

maintain records regarding the solvents recovered, train employees and have appropriate extraction/reclamation equipment onsite.

Docket Number - 325

Comment Key - 397

Submitted by - Karen Hale of Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Comment Text:

None of the Task Force members support excluding solvent-contaminated disposable wipes that are transferred, intercompany, 

for the purposes of processing the wipes for the attainment of the "dry standard" prior to disposing of them at a non-hazardous 
249

waste facility. There is no outstanding environmental benefit or burden reduction benefit to the generator that supports such an 

exclusion. The management of the wipes is identical to waste management where the solvent and solvent contaminated wipes 

will be managed by a third party, there will likely be free liquids present in the container, and the recovered solvent will likely be 

burned for energy recovery. Several Task Force members support the intra-company transferring of disposable solventcontaminated wipes for the purposes of processing to attain the "dry standard" prior to their disposal in a non-hazardous waste 

facility. Such an approach can promote the recovery of spent solvent for further reclamation and use by the generator, and reduce 

costs to the generator for virgin solvent, third party reclamation and disposal of the wipes. Further, the wipes remain in the 

control of the generator which reduces his liability due to third-party handling. Intra-company transfers should include affiliates, 

subsidiaries, and parent companies.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1597

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe that allowing transport of excluded wiper waste with free liquids will significantly increase 

solvent recycling. This opinion is based on admittedly anecdotal evidence that shows there are few facilities in Nebraska with 

multiple sites and the single and multiple sites are not likely to invest in extraction technologies. This is borne out by the 

relatively small number of solvent stills in use in the state - this despite the fact stills reduce hazardous waste monthly totals and 

result in lower solvent procurement costs. The department does not view inter and intra company movements as particularly 

worrisome, but we do not believe the movement of these wastes is much different than the movement of similar wastes that are 

fully RCRA regulated. The mere suggestion that there be mileage limits proposed on such movements is de facto recognition that 

EPA views such movements as essentially the same as RCRA movements.

Docket Number - 330

Comment Key - 947

Submitted by - Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

EPA has not considered exposure and ecological risks of managing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in industrial wipes 

handling facilities.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1025

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MEDEP supports the one time notification and record keeping provisions proposed for intra-company transfers to a location with 

solvent recovery equipment as proposed in B(9)(b) of the rule. Contaminated wipes should only be shipped in non-leaking, 

closed containers to prevent vapor emissions and spills.

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1026

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

The MEDEP does not support an inter-company transfer provision, as described in B(9)(b) or the rule, without compliance with 

RCRA rules for the shipment between companies and a reporting system that notifies the state of these activities. In addition, the 

generator facility should comply with any state specific standards that are applicable.

Docket Number - 337

Comment Key - 1652

Submitted by - Karen Whisler of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The proposed industrial wipe rule states that the rule will encourage the recovery of solvents by laundry facilities and intracompany wipe handling facilities. We question the notion that solvent recovery for recycling occurs at industrial laundries since 

they receive and process wipes from variety of customers using different solvents. We believe that it is very difficult to recycle 

these solvent mixtures into a marketable product. DEQ does not support the notion that solvents will be widely recovered and 

recycled by industrial laundries.

We do recognize, however, that intra-company wipe handling facilities have better control over the solvents in the wipes and 

should have an easier time having the solvent recovered from the wipes recycled.
250

Docket Number - 342

Comment Key - 520

Submitted by - D.W. Coleman of Energy Northwest 

Comment Text:

The proposed conditions for intra-company transfers (pp. 65600-6560 1) are adequate and should be applicable to parent 

companies and subsidiaries. A broad exclusion should help promote reclamation and recycling with the company. For the same 

reason, the proposal could be expanded to allow inter-company transfers.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1211

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The “No Free Liquids” Standard Should Apply to Intra- and Inter-Company Transfers of Reusable Shop Towels.

EPA proposes to extend the solid waste exclusion to cover reusable shop towels and disposable wipes that do not meet the “no 

free liquids” management conditions when sent to another facility (intra- or inter-company transfers) for the purpose of solvent 

extraction/recovery. 68 Fed. Reg. at 65606. UTSA and TRSA support activities that reduce and recover solvents in reusable shop 

towels; nevertheless, the associations cannot support extending the solid waste exclusion in this manner. This exclusion will not 

facilitate the recovery of greater amounts of hazardous solvents. UTSA and TRSA believe that EPA should promote measures 

that minimize the use of solvents or, as the proposed rule does, encourage generators to remove solvents prior to transport. 

Providing an exclusion that allows the transport of towels with free liquids may in reality encourage the overuse and potentially 

improper disposal of solvents. 

The exclusion also conflicts with the requirements for shop towels sent to a laundry. There is no logical reason why transfers to a 

generator’s local facility, a subsidiary, or a third- party should be any less regulated than activities conducted by a laundry. The 

same concerns, such as leakage of free liquids, that the Agency may have with a laundry picking up towels and transporting them 

back to its processing facility would be the same if those towels were transported by a customer to another facility. The Agency 

should be consistent and treat the transport of free liquids the same no matter the destination. 

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 514

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

DuPont agrees that generators should be allowed under the exclusion to ship wipes with free liquids off-site to an intra-company 

facility that extracts and recovers solvents from the wipes, provided the transport occurs in suitable containers. Id. at 65601. In 

order to facilitate the recovery of materials that can be beneficially reused, EPA should employ a broad definition of “intracompany” facility to include facilities of all parent, subsidiary and affiliate companies as well. Broadening this interpretation to 

include these other “intra-company” facilities is consistent with the Agency’s desire to encourage companies and corporate 

affiliates to obtain more advanced solvent recovery equipment at a centralized location that handles wipes from several of the 

corporation’s generators. 

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 631

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

The intra-company shipment of free liquids would encourage the additional recovery and reuse of hazardous solvents.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 43

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE supports the proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste during intra-company transfers of 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes containing free liquids, if the receiving facility has a solvent-extraction and/or -recovery 

process.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 52

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE supports the proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste during intra-company transfers of reusable, 
251

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes containing free liquids, if the receiving facility has a solvent-extraction and/or -recovery 

process.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 826

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports intra-company transfers of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that contain free liquids in 

containers that protect employees, the public and the environment against exposure and release with no prescribed labeling 

providing the transfer is made so that free liquids can be extracted by the receiving facility.

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. Wipes not meeting the “no free 

liquids” condition also do not meet the “dry” condition and it would not be unexpected to retain some of the regulatory 

requirements attendant to these wastes that may thus carry higher risks. Meeting recordkeeping, training and emergency response 

requirements for such wastes imposes no additional burden to the generator over and above what is required for the hazardous 

waste they would be considered absent the proposed rule. In fact, companies may already have internal recordkeeping 

requirements to satisfy their own financial accounting procedures. One-time notification to the state of intra-company transport, 

though, does not appear to add any valuable safeguards, particularly in cases where DOT regulations apply to the shipment. 

Transfers of industrial wipes containing free liquids for the purpose of solvent extraction should be limited to entities having 

interrelated fiscal accountability either through contractual arrangements (inter-company or third-party) or through corporate 

ownership (intra-company). These fiscal accountabilities will drive generator performance. Transportation costs may also affect 

the decision of whether or not to take advantage of inter- or intra-company transfers without a regulatory distance limit. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 840

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins believes that allowing the intra-company transfer of solvent-contaminated reusable wipes will encourage 

recovery of solvents. This practice will also result in cost savings by allowing facilities that generate smaller quantities to 

aggregate their reusable wipes with the larger quantities generated at other facilities, thus making the contractual arrangements 

with laundries cost effective.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1101

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

[re. whether or not intra-company shipments of disposable and reusable wipes should be allowed]: CTDEP agrees that allowing 

intra-company shipments is appropriate and will result in additional recycling of both wipes and solvents. 

[re. whether such a provision should include a distance limit]: CTDEP sees no need for a distance limit in the rule. 

[re. whether additional conditions should be added for notification, record-keeping, training and emergency response, and use of 

“closed” containers (as opposed to “non-leaking covered containers”)]: CTDEP sees some value to many of these additional 

provisions, and points out that designating wipes as Universal Wastes, as we have suggested in [another comment], would 

address many of these issues. However, the additional requirement that CTDEP feels most strongly about is the use of “closed 

containers” as opposed to “non-leaking covered containers.” CTDEP believes that closed containers would be more appropriate 

for these wipes since, by design, they will contain greater amounts of solvents than other wipes being sent for disposal, thereby 

posing greater risks for spills, releases, vapor emissions, and worker exposure. This is particularly true in light of the fact that 

EPA seems to imply that plastic and cloth bags can meet the definition of “non-leaking covered containers.” 

[re. whether the provision should be expanded to allow shipment to third-party (i.e., “extra-company”) solvent extraction 

facilities]: CTDEP does not believe that this practice should be allowed within the context of the exclusion from the definition of 

hazardous waste, for the reasons cited by EPA in not electing to include such a provision. In addition, CTDEP believes that such 

activities are more akin to traditional waste management activity and should remain subject to full regulation (at least until the 

point that the wipes meet the “no free liquids” or “dry” standard).
252

Docket Number - 286

Comment Key - 1380

Submitted by - Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Department of the Environment 

Comment Text:

Transfer of wipes for the purposes of solvent removal. Proposed 261.4(a)(22)(iv) allows intra-company transfer of wipes if the 

wipes are to be processed at the destination point to remove solvents. The HWP agrees with EPA that this provision should be 

limited to intra-company transfers. 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.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1037

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Idaho DEQ recommends that EPA make this condition applicable to intra-company transfers only, for the reason stated in the 

preamble. 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.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 553

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

FPA firmly supports the proposed rule, which would exempt intracompany transfers of used industrial wipes from RCRA 

requirements. Many members have multiple facilities in fairly close proximity to one another. Hence, we think this facet of the 

proposal will provide significant incentives for companies to purchase and install solvent recycling equipment at a centralized 

location, which would not be economically feasible otherwise. Moreover, we applaud EPA for not restricting intra-company 

transfers of industrial wipes by NAICS code. To restrict transfers in this manner would be a strong disincentive to reuse and 

recycling in this industry because so many of our members’ operations, even at a single facility, can fall under different NAICS 

codes.

In the final rule, FPA asks that EPA confirm our understanding that intra-company transfers are permitted even if they involve 

interstate transfers.

Several FPA members operate in adjacent states where such intra-company collections would make sense.

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 622

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment relative to intra-company shipments of industrial wipes containing free liquids. Intra-company shipments should be 

allowed under the exclusion, this does increase the capability of a company to recover solvent. Subsidiaries and affiliates should 

also be eligible for the exemption. It is unlikely that containers would be transferred long distances with free liquids due to the 

increase in shipping costs. No distance limits should be applied. 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. Wipes sent to a third party should not be eligible for the exemption. 

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 982

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: The definition of "intra-company transfer of industrial wipes" should be revised to apply to wipes going to “another 

facility owned or operated by the generating entity.”

Discussion: The proposed definition of “Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes” is limited to those going to “another 

generator-owned facility ... ,” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65618. This does not allow the generating entity to take advantage of the 

exclusions if it operates, but does not own, the receiving facility. 

Recommendation: Change "intra-company transfer of industrial wipes" to "intra-company transfer of wipes" and define as off 

site transportation of wipes to another facility owned or operated by the same entity that has a solvent extraction and/or recovery 
253

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." In addition, it is recommended that the preamble to the final rule explain that the use of the term “intracompany” is not intended to limit the exclusions to commercial entities, so that it is clear that governmental entities, educational 

institutions, and not-for-profit entities may use the exclusions.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 990

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Allow third party intermediates to be used to remove solvents from excluded wipes.

Discussion: EPA is proposing that transfers of solvent-contaminated wipes containing free liquids be allowed only between 

generator-owned facilities. They argue that loss or spills would be reduced and management of the material would be more 

comprehensive (1) if the transaction occurs between a single “company” and (2) it is expected that communication would be 

better within a single “company.” EPA provides no basis for reaching this conclusion. A contract is supposed to provide the 

protection equal to, or better than, internal company policy (it certainly has greater legal standing). Additionally, communication 

is required during the transportation of hazardous waste, and there is no explanation why such communication would not work in 

these instances. Finally, the proposed rule does not recognize any efficiency in third-party management. There may be companies 

that are dedicated to solvent recovery and may have more expertise and operate more efficiently than “company”-owned 

operations.

Recommendation: Review the intra-company-only provisions for opportunities to utilize the expertise and efficiencies of thirdparty organizations that specialize in management and recovery of solvents. Additionally, discuss in detail why communication 

between third party organizations handling industrial wipes would be less viable than between handlers of hazardous waste, as

proscribed by existing hazardous waste regulations.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 996

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Transportation between sites for the purpose of removing free liquids should be allowed to be conducted by third 

party transporters.

Discussion: The proposed rule discusses the intra-company transfer of wipes containing free liquids only if it is done when the 

generator and receiving operation are owned by the same company. Although it is inferred in the preamble through language such 

as in Section V.B.9., which states at the bottom of the first column on page 65601, “....the whole transaction occurs within one 

company.” It is not clear from this language whether the transportation must occur in company-owned vehicles using company 

employees. If this is so, 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; 

whereas company-owned vehicles may be less suitable for such duty. By precluding third party management of the wipes, EPA 

may be inferring that third parties may also not transport wipes containing free liquids between company-owned installations.

Recommendation: EPA should consider allowing third parties to transport wipes with free liquids between company owned or 

operated installations. 

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 44

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes solvent recovery would be further encouraged if transfers of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes containing free 

liquids from a generator facility to solvent-extraction and/or - recovery processes located at affiliate, subsidiary, or parent 

companies were allowed to be eligible for the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. Thus, DOE supports extending 

the proposed intra-company transfer exclusion to include such transfers.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 45

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes that extending the proposed conditional exclusion for intra-company transfers of solvent-contaminated industrial 
254

wipes containing free liquids to inter-company transfers would further encourage solvent recovery. Thus, DOE supports 

including an inter-company transfer exclusion in the final rule.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 53

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE believes that extending the proposed conditional exclusion for intra-company transfers of reusable, solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes containing free liquids to inter-company transfers would further encourage solvent recovery. Thus, DOE 

supports including an inter-company transfer exclusion in the final rule.

Docket Number - 262

Comment Key - 505

Submitted by - Kim L. Harvey of DOW Chemical Company 

Comment Text:

Dow supports EPA’s proposal to allow intra-company transfers of wipes containing free liquids for removal of solvent from the 

wipes under the exclusion from solid waste. “Intra-company” should include all parent, subsidiary and affiliate companies. This 

will enable more centralized and economical management of solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Dow suggests that the same provision should apply to inter-company transfers of wipes containing free liquids for removal of 

solvent from the wipes. Companies that specialize in such activities and handle economical quantities of wipes are not likely to 

be the same companies that generate the majority of solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 304

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

API agrees that generators should be allowed under the exclusion to ship wipes with free liquids off site to an intra-company 

facility that extracts and recovers solvents from the wipes. In order to facilitate the recovery of materials that can be beneficially 

reused, EPA should employ a broad definition of “intra-company” facility to include facilities of all parent, subsidiary and 

affiliate companies as well. Broadening this interpretation to include these other “intra-company” facilities is consistent with the 

Agency’s desire to encourage companies and corporate affiliates to obtain more advanced solvent recovery equipment at a 

centralized location that handles wipes from several of the corporation’s generators.

The same rationale of encouraging solvent recovery applies to inter-company transfers. EPA should consider broadening this 

provision to include inter-company transfers as well.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1072

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Ohio EPA does not oppose the inclusion of the provision [for intra-company transfer]. Such a provision can promote the recovery 

of spent solvent and reduce costs to the generator for virgin solvent, third party reclamation and disposal of the wipes. Further, 

the wipes remain in the control of the generator which reduces his liability due to third party handling. Intracompany transfers 

should include affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 252

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

We support EPA allowing transporters to carry wipes with free liquids to other facilities within the same company when the 

wipes are destined for solvent recovery. However, this allowance should be expanded to include transportation to any legitimate 

solvent recovery facility, whether within the same company or to a third-party recycler. The risks during transportation do not 

change simply based on the ownership of the destination. 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. This also provides an 

efficient and economic means for low-quantity wipe generators to participate in solvent recovery recycling programs by 

minimizing handling costs and employee exposures. It would also provide the additional important benefit of opening up markets 

for use of the reclaimed solvent by providing “single points of business” for other potential end-users of the reclaimed solvent 

than the original users.
255

Docket Number - 311

Comment Key - 536

Submitted by - Kristina Richards of ESS Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Self-transport is proposed to be allowed from one generator site to another (same owner) for wipers with free liquids only for 

processing by solvent extraction. There is no limit on the amount of free liquids or the number of containers. We suggest that the 

proposed regulation include a prohibition against intentional mixing of liquid waste solvent with rags. This may help minimize 

the amount of free liquids present, as well as prevent generators from mixing liquid waste solvent with wipers as a means of 

avoiding regulation at a generator site. We also suggest that parent companies be included for allowable intra-company transfer 

rather than limiting this to generator-owned facilities.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 379

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA supports the proposed intra-company transfer language allowing companies to self-transport used wipes and other 

materials to central locations for processing since this will increase solvent recovery and recycling. However NPCA does not 

support the proposed one-time notification requirement since this again is a deregulatory proposal and this notification increases 

burden without commensurate environmental gain. Finally, NPCA comments on labeling, accumulation, and transportation apply 

to intra- company transfers. NPCA recommends that EPA expand offsite transfers to non-intra companies as well to increase 

solvent recycling and reuse.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1602

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department sees no reason to limit the movement of reusable industrial wipers between facilities if the proposed exclusion 

conditions are met. However, the department does not believe there will be a significant increase in recycling by allowing such 

movement...The department would also view the movement of reusable wipers between facilities for the sole purpose of 

consolidation as allowable if the reusable wipers were stored and transported in closed, impermeable containers. In this case, 

speculative accumulation rules should apply.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 274

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

USWAG is especially interested in preserving cost-effective and practical options for electric utilities - many of which have 

geographically dispersed transmission and distribution systems - to consolidate wipes for centralized management. Therefore, 

USWAG is extremely supportive of EPA’s proposal to allow for the intra-company transfer of contaminated wipes, even when 

the wipes contain free liquids. Under this proposal, generators would be able to transfer contaminated wipes containing free 

liquids between their own facilities conditioned on the receiving facility having a solvent extraction and/or recovery process that 

would remove sufficient solvent to ensure that the wipe meets either the dry condition (if going to a landfill and assuming this 

condition is retained in the final rule, which USWAG opposes) or the no free liquids condition (if going to a non-landfill 

destination).

While USWAG supports this option, we are opposed to the proposed requirement that the intra-company "receiving facility" 

have a solvent extraction and/or recovery process in order to receive contaminated wipes from other intra-company sources. Such 

processes may be completely unnecessary and therefore there is no reason to retain this condition in the intra-company 

consolidation option. For example, any entity transporting the consolidated wipes to a downstream commercial handling facility 

will have to meet the no free liquids standard. Because there is no prescribed method by which this standard can be met, and 

indeed it may be met through "process knowledge," there may be no need for the "receiving" facility to have a solvent extraction 

and/or recovery process in place. Thus, requiring an intra-company receiving facility to have such processes -when in fact they 

may not be necessary for the consolidation facility to lawfully manage the wipes under the proposed exclusion - is unduly 

restrictive and would unnecessarily frustrate the ability of entities to engage in the intra-company consolidation of contaminated 

wipes. This requirement should be dropped from the final rule. 

As noted above, the ability to consolidate contaminated wipes from intra- company locations is essential to a cost-effective and 

practical contaminated wipes management program. For this reason, USWAG is opposed to EPA's suggestion that there be 
256

geographic limits on the intra-company consolidation option (id. at 65601), especially in the context of electric utilities, where 

inter-related transmission and distribution systems can span hundreds of miles. Further, because of the inter-related nature of 

utility operations, USWAG supports EPAs suggestion that the intra-company transfer option include affiliates, subsidiaries, and 

parent companies. Again, this is especially relevant and necessary in the utility industry, where it is common for inter- related 

divisions of a single company to operate collectively in the generation, transmission, and distribution of power to the public. In 

fact, recognizing the unique nature of electric utility operating practices, EPA has taken a similar approach in the context of the 

federal PCB regulatory program, where EPA had defined the term “related company” to include, among other things, “a parent 

company and its subsidiaries: sibling companies owned by the same parent company; companies owned by a common holding 

company; members of electric cooperatives; . . . and a company having a joint ownership interest in a facility from which PCB

waste is generated.(such as a jointly owned electric power generating station) where the PCB waste is stored by one of the coowners of the facility.” See 40 C.F.R. 5 761.3. USWAG suggests that EPA consider adopting portions of the definition of 

“related company” from the federal PCB regulations for incorporation into the relevant provisions of the conditional exclusion 

for contaminated wipes.

USWAG also urges EPA to keep the qualifying conditions for intra-company consolidation activities to a minimum. Because 

intra-company consolidation practices would involve a high degree of controls and incentives to prevent spills, 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. Such conditions add little, if any, incentive for companies to appropriately 

handle solvent-contaminated wipes, but rather would only encumber a program that is intended to be simple, practical, and 

streamlined in nature.

Docket Number - 357

Comment Key - 779

Submitted by - Timothy Eastep of Phelps Dodge Corporation 

Comment Text:

EPA proposes to exclude from “solid” and “hazardous” waste regulation reusable and disposal industrial wipes that contain free 

liquids if those wipes are packed and shipped to another intra-company facility for the purpose of solvent removal and recovery 

such that the wipes meet either the “no free liquids” condition for laundering and reuse, or the “dry” condition for disposal. 

Phelps Dodge supports EPA’s effort to encourage solvent recovery and recycling in this manner’ but does not feel that EPA goes 

far enough. EPA justifies its proposal to allow an exclusion only to those generators transporting wipes off-site to intra-company 

facilities by stating that it “believes the management of free liquids in transportation to prevent loss or spills is likely to be more 

comprehensive when the whole transaction occurs within one company,” and that communication “is likely to be better between 

the entities transporting and receiving the waste if they are in one company." EPA provides no justification for this statement.

To the contrary, regardless of the relationship of the transporting and receiving facilities, certain minimal U.S. Department of 

Transportation regulations will apply to ensure safe transportation of the materials in addition to the proposed rule’s requirement 

that containers used for transportation be designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment. Furthermore, 

there is no reason to believe that the management of material and communication between inter-company facilities that are 

affiliated in some manner is any less than when the facilities fall directly under the same ownership. Finally, third party facilities 

that specialize in the recovery of solvents are more inclined to properly manage the materials and communicate with the 

transporting facility because this is their business.

Broadening this proposal to cover all transfers of industrial wipes to any solvent recovery facility (whether intra-company; to an 

affiliate, subsidiary or parent company; or to a third-party facility that specializes in solvent recovery and reuse) has several 

significant advantages. Solvent recovery would significantly increase overall because it would be convenient for all generators, 

not just a chosen few. This would in turn lead to a corresponding decrease in disposal of solvents. It would allow for substantial 

savings to all generators, not just those that directly own facilities with solvent recovery equipment. Broadening this proposal 

would also help minimize administrative complexities that result when free liquids are generated during transportation as a result 

of compression of the wipes and percolation through them such that free liquids collect in the container.

Phelps Dodge believes that the exclusion proposed for intra-company transfers of industrial wipes with free liquids for further 

processing and solvent extraction should be broadened to apply to all such transfers regardless of the nature of the ownership of 

the receiving facility. 

8. Exotic Solvents
257

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1353

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

Regarding the...issue of wipes that have a propensity to spontaneously combust (Page 65600, second column), we do not believe 

this rule’s exclusions should apply to wipes that contain free liquid, even when the free liquid results from intentionally wetting 

down the wipe to prevent spontaneous combustion. The Department believes this would result in an increased possibility of 

abuse, since a generator could easily claim that his/her wipes spontaneously combust, and thereby improperly be shielded from

the general “no free liquid” requirement. Proving that the wipes did not have the propensity to spontaneously combust would be 

very difficult, if not impossible, for regulators since the wipes in question would have already been wetted with water.

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1547

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

No special conditions should be established for such materials.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 824

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins has no experience with “exotic solvents” that may be flammable unless wetted with water, thus not being able 

to meet the “no free liquids” condition. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1100

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP cannot offer any information on “exotic” solvents, but is aware that spontaneous combustion is a real concern. The 

classic scenario that we are aware of does not involve an exotic solvent, but simply common linseed oil. Wipes that have been

contaminated with linseed oil and tightly packed (while wet) in closed containers have been known to generate sufficient heat to 

spontaneously combust. CTDEP would therefore support the addition of a provision allowing the use of water or other 

appropriate fire-suppressing agents for both disposable and launderable wipes that are at risk of spontaneous combustion. CTDEP 

would point out, however, that water may not be the appropriate agent in all cases, since certain solvents or other contaminants 

that may be present on wipes may be water-reactive. CTDEP would therefore suggest that if EPA decides to allow the use of 

water to prevent spontaneous combustion, it also allow the use of alternative suppressant agents in such cases. CTDEP also 

believes that wipes treated in this manner should still be required to comply with the applicable “free liquid” or “dry” standards 

prior to being laundered, incinerated, or disposed of in a solid waste landfill, and believes that any final rule should clearly 

indicate as much.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 722

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

“Exotic” solvents such as terpenes or citric acid could be characterized by using 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. LANL does not have specific data relative to the use of these exotic solvents and doesn’t utilize laundry or dry 

cleaning facilities for reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

Docket Number - 287

Comment Key - 1036

Submitted by - Brian Monson of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

Idaho DEQ recommends that wipes contaminated with hazardous waste “exotic” solvents that may result in dangerous reactions, 

fires, etc. if dried out, should not be included in the proposed exclusions from the definitions of solid and hazardous waste due to 

the potential hazards. 
258

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 176

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA proposes to allow the use of water for so called “exotic” solvent wipes, thereby waiving the “no free liquids” provision. 68 

FR 65600. The ETC is opposed to this allowance for water noting that it will make the free liquids condition meaningless, 

making it possible for other RCRA regulated solvents to be present in substantial quantities, even saturating the wipe. In addition, 

the presence of free water could mobilize other hazardous constituents, promoting releases at the landfill, laundry, or other 

intermediate or final points. The need for the use of water has not been substantiated. As EPA notes, the conditions under which 

spontaneous combustion can occur with the use of “exotic” solvents “have yet to be determined.” TBD at 69. The “exotic” 

solvents noted are citric acid and terpenes. According to MSDS sheets and other chemical references, citric acid is a combustible 

solid, but not flammable. It also does not react strongly with oxygen. Likewise terpenes are combustible oils, but not flammable, 

and also do not react strongly with oxygen. There is no clear mechanism for spontaneous combustion to occur with any 

probability that is greater for these wipes than the pure wipe itself. The fires mentioned by the industrial laundries may have been 

caused by some other initiating source. The mechanism for spontaneous combustion involves very slow oxidation and build-up of 

heat over extended periods in confined spaces, where heat cannot be dissipated. In situations where this has occurred, for 

example with oily rags, storage has been in open piles, allowing air to get to the rags, but circulation promoting heat dissipation 

was not occurring. Spontaneous combustion tends to occur with piles stored in the open; not with items sealed in a container. In 

the case of wipes in a closed container, air is limited meaning that there is not much opportunity for initiation of combustion. 

Usually, also, very prolonged time periods must pass before spontaneous combustion occurs. If the wipes are being processed 

within 90 days, this should not be a problem. Another remedy to avoid spontaneous combustion, is to transfer the wipes to a new 

container if they have to be stored for an extended period of time. This not only will provide a means to inspect the containers for 

integrity, but will also allow heat to be dissipated if it has built up in the container. Another safety measure is to have adequate 

ventilation in areas where containers with wipes are stored.

The addition of water is not a good deterrent to spontaneous combustion. This will provide dampness which aids in the 

proliferation of microorganisms. The physiological activity evolves heat in a process called thermogenesis.1 The microorganisms 

grow in the damp rags and consume oxygen generating sufficient heat eventually to where chemical oxidation can be initiated. 

One of the measures, therefore, to prevent spontaneous combustion is to avoid damp environments. The addition of water will be 

increasing the hazard of spontaneous combustion, not reducing it. In fact, for citric acid, a strong nutrient for bacteria, it is likely 

that the presence of water was the cause of the fire. If the wipes were dry, the microorganisms would have not thrived. The 

presence of citric acid plus water is a recipe for disaster. Such a condition is not limited necessarily to “exotic” solvents, and the 

potential for spontaneous combustion can exist with any other solvent wipe that is wet. This is therefore another strong reason 

why EPA must insure that the “no free liquid” criterion is effective as defined in the ETC’s comments to ensure that wipes are 

dry. It is also another reason to require that accumulation and storage time of wipes is limited to 90 days. The latter must apply 

not only at the generating site, but also at the laundering facility as well as any intermediate storage/processing facilities.

Finally, EPA must not allow for the addition of water for exotic solvents, as this will become a loophole in the regulations.

Generators will be able to avoid the free liquid condition by simply adding citric acid to the wipe. Then major amounts of solvent 

can be allowed to be dispose or laundered unregulated, causing environmental impacts at both launderers and disposal facilities.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 376

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA believes that the “exotic solvent” issue is valid and EPA needs to include special conditions for the handling of exotic

solvents in any final shop towel rule. The coatings manufacturing industry uses exotic solvents including citric acid; however, 

EPA must understand that wipes and rags used to clean up certain vegetable based oils could also increase the possibility of these 

rags spontaneously combusting during storage. There have been many fires attributed to the spontaneous combustion due to the 

improper storage of vegetable based oils and solvents- a simple online search included many documented cases of fires caused by 

this means. In addition, safety data sheets for products containing vegetable oils, linseed oils, citric acids, etc., clearly state that 

spontaneous combustion could occur and precautions should be taken. One common method is to add water to rags being stored 

in containers, however this will conflict with EPA's no free liquids" procedure. Since our industry needs to continue its use of 

water for fire and safety purposes NPCA recommends that EPA give special consideration to the use of water to mitigate 

potential wipe and rag spontaneous combustion due to exotic solvents or vegetable oils like linseed oil.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1596

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe there is a need to add a discussion of so-called “exotic” solvents being added to regulation. A 
259

wiper used to wipe linseed oil would not be hazardous waste yet, it is well known that linseed oil is prone to spontaneous 

combustion. The current regulations adequately cover such waste streams. Adding water might reduce the solid ignitability 

characteristic, but would also add additional waste and only coduse the issue of determination of free liquid being present. 

Additionally, once the added water was removed to meet the exclusion requirements, the underlying ignitable waste could still be 

present and still subject to combustion.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 271

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

Finally, EPA seeks comment on the applicability of the "no free-liquids'' condition to so-called "exotic" solvents, such as terpenes 

and citric acids that, while labeled as non-hazardous, could actually be flammable. Stakeholders advised EPA that, under certain 

conditions, oxygen can mix with industrial wipes contaminated with these solvents and spontaneously combust. For wipes 

contaminated with these particular solvents, stakeholders suggested that EPA allow for them to be transported offsite with free 

liquids, so that generators can wet down the wipes with water prior to offsite transport. USWAG agrees with this approach, 

which also serves to underscore the need for EPA to maintain as much flexibility as possible in developing a rule with such farreaching applicability.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1214

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

UTSA and TRSA take exception to the Agency’s use of the term “exotic” to describe the newer citrus-based solvents employed 

by many industries today. 68 Fed. Reg. at 65600, 65605. EPA’s use of “exotic” solvents to describe citrus-based solvents is a 

misnomer and disserves the efforts of many State and local regulatory agencies and education institutions that seek to encourage 

the use of these types of solvents. The term “exotic” suggests that such solvents are particularly dangerous, when, in fact, the 

solvents are almost always less potentially harmful to human health and the environment than the petroleum-based solvents they 

often replace. 

Citrus-based solvents are a common class of cleaners used in both household and industrial settings. These solvents typically 

exhibit a high flash point (> 140”F), are readily biodegradable, have a low human and environmental toxicity, and are often 

recommended by environmental regulators as a replacement for more toxic and more flammable petroleum-based solvents. See 

Exhibit 0. In fact, common citrus-based solvents generally do not exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste.

[Exhibit (Attachment) O. Information on citrus-based solvents]

The most common concern with citrus-based solvents, as with any naturally-derived solvent, is their biodegradability, which can 

be a drawback in the industrial setting. Environmentally, however, biodegradability is a desirable characteristic. As any 

biodegradable substance breaks down, however, heat is generated. Some citrus-based solvents biodegrade rapidly enough to 

generate significant quantities of heat. If this heat is not allowed to dissipate, as with a closed container of soiled shop towels, the 

heat can raise the solvent to its flash or auto-ignition point, thus causing spontaneous combustion.

Industrial laundries have long been aware of this concern (see UTSA Spontaneous Combustion Study, attached as Exhibit P) and 

take steps appropriate to minimize the chances of spontaneous combustion by wetting down towels soiled with citrus-based 

solvents. Given the safety considerations in preventing spontaneous fires, this has long been considered an acceptable practice. 

Often, however, towels are wetted to the point where they would not pass a "no free liquids" test. This practice does not violate 

current State policies nor would it violate the Agency's proposed shop towel regulation, because citrus-based solvents are not 

RCRA regulated. As long as citrus-based solvents 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. EPA must 

clarify this point in the final regulation.

[Exhibit (Attachment) P. Industrial Fire Protection: Understanding and Prevention of Spontaneous Combustion Fires in Industrial 

Laundries. UTSA, March 1996]

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 630

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

No special conditions should be established for such materials.
260

9. State Authorization

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 758

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

This Rule needs to be a mandatory requirement for every state to adopt as soon as possible.

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1581

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 159

Comment Key - 459

Submitted by - Gary Clark of Clark and Associates 

Comment Text:

This Rule needs to be a mandatory requirement for every state to adopt as soon as possible.

Docket Number - 160

Comment Key - 767

Submitted by - Louis Buty of Peerless Materials Company 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 21

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt. The leveling of the 

playing field does little if the requirements are not understood and followed.

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1627

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 171

Comment Key - 604

Submitted by - John Michaud of Green Bay Nonwovens, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 174

Comment Key - 798

Submitted by - Phillip E. Bryson of Polymer Group, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule do be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 175

Comment Key - 925

Submitted by - Wayne Proctor of Wellman, Inc. 
261

Comment Text:

...[W]e believe that this rule should be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 176

Comment Key - 746

Submitted by - Tom Robertshaw of Motion Industries 

Comment Text:

This Rule needs to be a mandatory requirement for every state to adopt as soon as possible.

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 406

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt. 

Docket Number - 186

Comment Key - 423

Submitted by - David Williams of CCP Industries, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] establishing equitable exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wiping products; and requiring each of 

the 50 states to adopt the rule.

Docket Number - 187

Comment Key - 866

Submitted by - Richard Sims of The Tranzonic Companies 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] requiring each of the 50 states to adopt the rule.

Docket Number - 188

Comment Key - 898

Submitted by - Robert Dailey of Tranzonic Retail Group 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] requiring each of the 50 states to adopt the rule.

Docket Number - 189

Comment Key - 878

Submitted by - Bill Hemann of Tranzonic Commercial Group 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] requiring each of the 50 states to adopt the rule.

Docket Number - 190

Comment Key - 846

Submitted by - George Cotter of Row Clothing 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1364

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

On Page 65613 (first column), USEPA requests comment on whether states consider the conditions proposed to be more 

stringent than their current approaches. Comments 1 (addressing the constraint that a non-D001 characteristic can derive only 

from the solvent) and 2 (addressing the constraint of aqueous solvents being excluded) illustrate where the proposal is more 

stringent than our current policy.
262

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1396

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s final rule should allow states to adopt the federal rule with modifications, and promulgate in its final rule not identical, but 

equally protective provisions. MADEP’s solvent wipes policy went into effect in 1994. Developed with input and comments 

from its Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee, this policy is easy for MADEP staff to enforce and for the regulated community 

to comply with. MADEP believes EPA’s solvent wipes proposal is overly complex and would be a setback to the Massachusetts 

program from a compliance and enforcement standpoint if it were required to adopt the proposal verbatim.

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 903

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the need for this rule to be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 707

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

The Rule should be mandatory for all states to implement as soon as possible. Much of the confusion and complexity that exists 

today is due to the inconsistent management standards for theses wipers (or complete lack thereof) that currently exist in the 

states. K-C submits that EPA should clear up the confusion and complexity by implementing this Rule nationally as quickly as 

possible.

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 528

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

THIS RULE MUST BE ADOPTED QUICKLY AND BY ALL STATES 

-Almost 19 years of consideration and development is long enough for a rule that has been referred to by EPA leadership as “fasttrack.”

-This rulemaking effort has been delayed by several election year excuses in the past. 

-Both the small business community and the states have been looking for national policy on this issue. The only way to make a 

rule national in scope is to insist that the rule be adopted by every state.

-Unless the regulation is a national policy, companies with multi-state operations could employ practices that allow them to 

“play” the system. 

-Making this a national policy would stop industrial laundries from “regulation shopping” as pointed out by Congresswoman 

Rosa DeLauro (CT) during her verbal comments on March 9, 2004.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 310

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

Currently, the regulation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes is a patchwork of state requirements based on a variety of sitespecific factors, and most, if not all, interpretations on regulatory status are made on the state level. EPA has expressed its desire 

to achieve greater national consistency in the regulatory status and management of industrial wipes. This is particularly critical 

for API members with generating facilities in more than one state. Accordingly, API supports EPA’s proposed exclusion from the 

definition of solid waste (reusable wipes) and exclusion from regulation as a hazardous waste (disposable wipes).

Because this regulation is not specifically authorized under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), it 

will not be effective automatically in all states. To insure that this regulation achieves the desired national consistency goal for 

the management of industrial wipes, EPA should upon promulgation of the rule make all reasonable efforts to get all states to

adopt the conditional exclusion for wipes. For example, EPA should continue to seek the input on the proposed rule from States 

and conduct comprehensive outreach with the States to adopt the proposed conditional exclusions when they are finalized. This

will promote not only national consistency of the regulation of industrial wipes, but will also provide generators with greater 

regulatory flexibility and encourage increased recycling of reusable wipes and recovery of valuable products to the maximum 

extent.
263

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1171

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

EPA needs to ensure proper and lawful implementation by the states.

If the Conditional Exclusions Provided by the Rule Are “Exit” Mechanisms From Otherwise Applicable Hazardous Waste 

Regulatory Requirements, The Full Set of RCRA-Authorized State Hazardous Waste Regulations Should be Made Applicable to 

SSLWs Unless and Until the Final Rule for SSLWs is Implemented Lawfully by Authorized States.

As EPA has noted, the Agency developed a policy in the early 1990s that deferred determinations of whether SSLWs are subject

to RCRA’s hazardous waste regulatory regime to states authorized to implement the federal hazardous waste program 

(hereinafter “RCRA-authorized states”) or to the EPA Region in non-authorized states. See generally 68 Fed. Reg. 65591-92. In 

doing so, EPA failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to determine, on a consistent, nationwide basis, whether and, if so, when 

these materials containing listed hazardous solvent wastes are properly classified as solid and hazardous waste.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to fulfill that obligation by clarifying the regulatory status of SSLWs under RCRA and by 

“proposing” to “modify” [EPA’s] hazardous waste management regulations under . . . RCRA . . . for certain solventcontaminated materials, such as reusable shop towels” in order “to conditionally exclude from the definition of solid waste 

reusable industrial shop towels and rags that are contaminated with hazardous solvents and are sent for laundering or dry 

cleaning.” Id. at 65586. Alternatively, EPA has indicated that it is considering “an option that would exclude reusable industrial 

wipes from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste rather than exclude them from the regulatory definition of solid waste . . 

.”. Under that option, “the [SSLWs] would remain solid wastes (though not hazardous wastes) when the conditions were met.” Id. 

at 65608. 

These statements make it abundantly clear that the Agency believes it needs to propose and promulgate a final exclusion from the 

RCRA definition of either hazardous or solid waste in order for SSLWs to be exempt from otherwise applicable hazardous waste 

regulatory requirements. Put another way, SSLWs are currently properly and lawfully classified as hazardous wastes under the 

federal RCRA regulatory scheme, and therefore must also be classified as such in RCRA authorized states. Otherwise, why 

would EPA need to propose the exclusion from the definition of solid waste – or the alternative hazardous waste exclusion – it 

has?

As such, having finally discharged its statutory responsibility to determine whether SSLWs are subject to the federal hazardous 

waste regulatory regime and concluded that a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid (or hazardous) waste is necessary 

to obviate the full application of applicable hazardous waste regulatory controls to SSLWs, EPA must direct its Regions and 

authorized states to consider SSLWs subject to such controls now, and unless and until the exclusions EPA presumably intends to 

finalize are made effective in RCRA-authorized and unauthorized states. It 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.

If EPA declines to do so now, it must, at a minimum, provide such a clarification in the preamble to the final rule it promulgates 

establishing either a solid or hazardous waste regulatory exclusion for SSLWs. Once the Agency promulgates such an exclusion 

(which would impose conditions less stringent than the applicable hazardous waste regulatory requirements that would otherwise 

pertain), it will not become effective in authorized states unless and until each state duly promulgates its own exclusion so that 

EPA can ensure that each state’s regulatory conditions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal conditions.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1172

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

B. If the Conditional Exclusions Provided by the Rule Are First-Time “Entry Mechanisms” For Listed Solvent-Containing 

Wastes, The Contemplated Industrial Wiper Rule is Properly Classified as a HSWA Rule That Should Be Immediately Effective 

in All Respects In All States.

EPA has tentatively determined that the conditional exclusions it has proposed would not be regulations promulgated pursuant to 

authorities granted by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (“HSWA”), and therefore would not be immediately 

effective in authorized states. 68 Fed. Reg. 65613. However, for the reasons stated in a November 18, 1999 letter sent by INDA 

to EPA, the proposed rule properly can, and should, be classified in its entirety as a HSWA rule immediately effective in all

states. The entire contents of that letter, which INDA requests that EPA review and respond to, are incorporated by reference into 

these comments.

In short, if despite the arguments set forth in Section X.A of these comments, EPA takes the view that it is now establishing - for 
264

the first time - whether and when solvent-contaminated industrial wipes are properly considered hazardous wastes under RCRA 

(i.e., if they fail to meet the conditions established by the exclusions), then EPA’s proposed rule is an initiative governing entry of 

solvent wastes into the RCRA regulatory regime. As discussed further in INDA’s November 18, 1999 letter, Section 3001(e)(2) 

of RCRA, a HSWA provision, directed EPA to determine whether to list solvent wastes as hazardous wastes. As such, 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 in them if the conditions of the exclusion are not met, authority for this regulation clearly derives from 

HSWA.

As noted in INDA’s 1999 letter, that conclusion is entirely consistent with previous determinations EPA has made under Section 

3001(e)(2) regarding solvent-related waste streams. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to decide otherwise in this case. 

Similarly, to the extent EPA adopts the position that there is currently no federal regulation governing the regulatory status of 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes under RCRA, then the requirements imposed by this rule are more stringent than existing 

federal regulations. 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.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1173

Submitted by - INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Regardless of Whether the Conditional Exclusions Provided by the Rule Are Hazardous Waste “Exit” or “Entry” Mechanisms,

To Maximize the Benefits of the SSLW Exclusion and to Comply With RCRA, 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 SSLWs Are Provided For in Duly Promulgated State Regulations. 

EPA has stated that its proposed rule for SSLWs is “generally consistent” with various state policies that have developed in light 

of EPA’s past policy of deferring the determination of the regulatory status of SSLWs to the states and, in non-authorized states, 

to EPA Regions. 68 Fed. Reg. 65613. The Agency has further noted that “it is not EPA’s intent to modify or in any way limit the 

existing state or EPA regional exclusions or policies through this proposed rulemaking.” Id. at 65589. Despite these general 

comments, EPA has grudgingly acknowledged that “it is possible [sic] that conditions that would be imposed by the proposed 

rule could be [sic] more stringent than some existing state programs. As a result, these authorized states would be required to 

modify their programs when [the Agency] promulgate[s] a final rule.” Id. at 65613. 

It is not merely “possible”, however, that the conditions EPA has proposed for SSLWs “could be” more stringent than some 

existing state “programs”. It is a fact. As EPA well knows from its own review of state SSLW policies, many states simply do not 

have in place policies (much less duly promulgated regulations) that impose conditions equivalent to, or more stringent than, 

those proposed by EPA. For example, some states do not establish a “no free liquids” condition, others do not extend that 

condition to free liquids in containers, and still others do not impose the container and “management of free liquids by laundries” 

requirements that EPA has proposed.

Of equal importance, virtually no state that has a “program” for SSLWs has established that “program” in duly promulgated - and 

enforceable - regulations. Instead, the policies of the states, to the extent they are discernable at all, are set forth in a hodgepodge 

of interpretative letters, guidance documents, policy statements, and fact sheets whose variability and lack of clarity has led to the 

clarion call by wipe generators for a uniform, and clearly stated, national program and set of regulatory requirements.

Both RCRA and EPA’s implementing regulations set forth specific requirements for states that wish to receive and retain 

authorization to implement and administer their hazardous waste regulatory programs in lieu of the federal program, as follows: 

-First, as noted above, Section 3006(b) of RCRA requires authorized state programs to be “consistent with” and at least 

“equivalent to” the federal hazardous waste program. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 271.3(a), 271.4; State Authorization Manual, at i 

(Executive Summary) and 1-2 (“For a State program to receive final authorization, RCRA requires the State program to be 

equivalent to, no less stringent than, and consistent with the Federal program”; “each aspect of a State’s regulation must be as 

stringent as EPA’s regulations”.

-Second, in order to have their programs authorized, states must submit a statement from the State Attorney General that the laws 

of the state provide adequate authority to administer and enforce the state program. That statement “shall include citations to the 

specific statutes, administrative regulations and, where appropriate, judicial decisions that demonstrate adequate authority. State 

statutes and regulations cited by the State Attorney General . . . shall be in the form of lawfully adopted State statutes or 

regulations at the time the statement is signed and shall be fully effective by the time the program is approved.” 40 C.F.R. § 

271.7(a). Put another way, states “demonstrate equivalence through legal authorities in their statutes and regulations.” State 
265

Authorization Manual, at 1-2.

-Third, the “State program must control all of the hazardous wastes controlled under 40 C.F.R. Part 261.” Id. at § 271.9.

-Fourth, when the controlling EPA regulatory authority is modified or supplemented, authorized states must revise their programs 

accordingly and submit to EPA a modified program description and Attorney General’s statement regarding the requisite 

regulatory authority to implement the required revisions. See id. at § 271.21(a), (b), (e). See also State Authorization Manual, at i 

(Executive Summary) (“States must continue to maintain equivalency to the Federal program”), and 3-2 (“For each Federal 

requirement for which the state is seeking [program revision] authorization, the Attorney General must cite the specific statutory 

and regulatory authorities upon which the State is relying to assert equivalence.” 

-Finally, all required revisions to state programs must be made within the timeframes set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 271.21. This 

authorization procedure reveals that virtually all state programs will have to be modified if EPA promulgates a final rule for 

SSLWs, whether that rule is consistent with the changes INDA/SMART has indicated are necessary to support a lawful exclusion 

from the definition of solid or hazardous waste or merely comparable to what the Agency has unlawfully proposed for SSLWs. 

These revisions are mandated for two reasons. First, many states do not have current SSLW “policies”, either in whole or in part, 

that are at least as stringent as the full set of conditions EPA has proposed for its exclusion. Second, even in the states that may 

have announced “policies” that are as stringent as one or more of those conditions, in virtually no case are those “policies” set 

forth in statutes or duly promulgated regulations, as required by EPA’s mandatory state authorization procedures. As such, 

regardless of whether EPA views this rulemaking as providing a conditional “exit” from application of otherwise applicable 

hazardous waste regulations, or the first-time entry of SSLWs into the hazardous waste regulatory regime through conditional 

exclusions from otherwise applicable hazardous waste requirements, changes to the hazardous waste regulations of most states 

will be required.

Accordingly, to ensure the lawful administration of any conditional exclusion that EPA promulgates for SSLWs, the Agency 

needs to include language in the preamble to the final rule to the following effect: 

“Unless an authorized state already fully regulates [SSLWs] as a hazardous waste, the state must modify its existing program and 

promulgate an administrative regulation that either (i) establishes at least the equivalent of each and every condition for the 

exclusion EPA has promulgated for [SSLWs], (ii) adopts the federal exclusion verbatim, or (iii) incorporates it by reference in 

the state’s hazardous waste regulations. This requirement does not apply to any state that already has a statute or administrative 

regulation which imposes a condition that is equivalent in effect to, or more stringent than, each corresponding federal 

condition.”

In sum, if EPA’s position is that the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes covered by this rule are currently classified as 

hazardous waste, thereby necessitating the exclusions proposed by EPA to establish a warranted level of regulation, then EPA 

should issue a Federal Register notice forthwith indicating that until these exclusions are promulgated, SSLWs and SSNWs 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 Agency’s rule is really an “entry” mechanism for solvent wastes 

promulgated under the authority of HSWA and, once finalized, immediately effective in all states. Either way, RCRA-authorized 

states that do not have authorized hazardous waste regulations that are at least as stringent as those requirements set forth in the 

conditions in the final rule will need to modify those regulations in the manner and within the time frame set forth in 40 C.F.R. 

Part 271. 

Docket Number - 291

Comment Key - 679

Submitted by - Michael Norboge of Jacob Holm Industries 

Comment Text:

We also believe that this rule should be a mandatory requirement for adoption in each of the 50 US states.

Docket Number - 306

Comment Key - 489

Submitted by - Gregory Roscoe of Colbond Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

The rule should also be a mandatory requirement for each of the 50 states to adopt.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 382

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 
266

Comment Text:

Unfortunately, states do not have to adopt the exclusions under the Proposed Rule when promulgated since it is de-regulatory in 

nature. NPCA disagrees that the Proposed Rule is de-regulatory per se. Nevertheless, the states have the option of being more 

stringent than federal regulation. NPCA strongly urges EPA to encourage the states to adopt whatever final rulemaking is 

promulgated to be consistent with the federal requirements and to provide for uniform application. This is especially important 

for companies with affected facilities in multiple states. Without such, this rulemaking is meaningless. 

Docket Number - 336

Comment Key - 645

Submitted by - Daniel S. Wagner of International Sanitary Supply Association, Inc. (ISSA) 

Comment Text:

EPA has recognized that the regulations currently vary from state-to-state and the Agency has articulated its wishes to remedy the 

situation, but the proposed rule, as drafted, does not require that states adopt the proposed exclusions. ISSA is troubled by this 

fact. To truly achieve the desired regulatory consistency and to facilitate compliance, EPA should make adoption of this rule by 

the states mandatory. 

Docket Number - 338

Comment Key - 233

Submitted by - Curt Wells of Alcoa, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Generators and managers of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes have operated under a patchwork of regulations, guidance, 

and state-specific interpretations since 1994 when EPA formally deferred determinations regarding these materials to authorized 

states and EPA Regions. This has made the development of clear and consistent management standards impossible for companies 

with manufacturing facilities located in a variety of states and EPA Regions. This situation has resulted in inconsistencies, rework, additional potential for non-compliance, and administrative waste at regulated facilities. It is clear from Alcoa’s experience 

in this area that Federal standards applicable to solvent-contaminated industrial wipes are needed.

Docket Number - 340

Comment Key - 805

Submitted by - Erwin S. Frey of PPG Industries 

Comment Text:

PPG strongly urges EPA to provide incentives for authorized States to adopt the rule when finalized. Without the States’ 

adoption, 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.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 263

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

The Conditional Exclusions Should Not Be Narrower In Scope Than Existing State Programs. EPA acknowledges that in the 

early 199Os, it developed a policy to defer determinations and interpretations regarding the regulation of solvent-contaminated 

wipes to authorized states or to the EPA regional directors. In developing this rule, EPA should be cognizant of the fact that many 

states have had over a decade of experience in establishing cost-effective, practical, and protective regulatory programs for 

contaminated wipes. EPA, therefore, should be cautious to avoid interfering with pre-existing and equally-protective state 

programs that already are in place for the management of contaminated wipes. To the extent that an existing state program is 

already in place and equally protective as, though different from, EPA’s proposed exclusions, the Agency should retain the 

discretion to authorize such programs to continue in place.

Docket Number - 347

Comment Key - 558

Submitted by - Ram Singha of Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) 

Comment Text:

The greatest obstacle to realizing the goals of these reforms will be the States’ willingness to revise their own rules and policies 

once the federal rules are finalized, we are prepared to work with States in which all members operate to help provide States the 

assurances they need to implement the changes. We hope that EPA will outline a strategy in the final rule for working with 

States, and providing them the technical assistance they may need to understand and implement the final rules fairly.
267

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1190

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

The proposed exclusion for disposable wipes will effectively make less stringent the current federal regulatory compliance 

requirements for disposables (which is based on the strict application of the RCRA “mixture” and the “derived from” rules). 

RCRA-authorized States are free to adopt or retain more stringent requirements. Id. at 65612-1 3. Accordingly, EPA correctly 

explains that RCRA-authorized States would have the discretion not to adopt any final federal hazardous waste exclusion for

disposables.

EPA acknowledges that the situation is less clear for the solid waste exclusion for reusable towels, because the States currently 

vary in terms of being more or less stringent than the proposed solid waste exclusion. Id. While a stringency analysis limited to 

the proposed management conditions for reusables (comparing the final federal standard to each State policy) would be complex, 

EPA’s uncertain position on the co-contaminant issue for reusable towels renders such an exercise impossible for many States. A 

significant number of States that exclude reusable towels from either the definition of solid waste (including Illinois and Texas, 

see Exhibit H) or from regulation as a hazardous waste (including New York and California, see Exhibit I) do not distinguish 

between solvents and other contaminants, and exclude from their respective regulations properly managed reusable towels 

regardless of contamination type.

[Exhibit (Attachment) H. Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Minor Hibbs, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division, 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, April 30, 1996; and Explanation of Illinois EPA Policy on Industrial Towel 

and Sorbent Disposal]

[Exhibit (Attachment) I. Letter to Lee Terry, Prudential Overall Supply, from Peggy Harris, Hazardous Waste Management 

Program, California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. June 21, 1996; and Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Norman 

Nosenchuck, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation. April 19, 1996]

Unless EPA clarifies that the final solid waste exclusion equally applies to co-contaminants on reusable shop towels, the many 

States that do not distinguish between solvents and co- contaminants could be faced with an unintentional federal mandate to 

create new regulations for co-contaminants (so as to not fall below the new federal mandatory “floor” for reusable towels). 

Finalizing the reusable towel exclusion in its current form as an implicit solvent-only exclusion would be substantially 

inconsistent with the State regulatory status quo and cause significant confusion among the RCRA-authorized States. EPA should 

clarify that the final federal rule will holistically exclude all properly-managed shop towels (regardless of contaminant status) and 

thus will not impact existing State exclusions for co-contaminants. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1192

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

EPA should clearly bifurcate the separate sections of the regulations and the preamble governing reusable towels versus 

disposable wipes.

The proposed preamble and regulations create unnecessary confusion for States and the regulated community by inappropriately 

covering both reusable towels and disposable wipes in the same regulatory and preamble sections. Because disposable wipes are 

and will continue to be regulated as hazardous wastes (pursuant to a very different set of legal standards, regulatory policies, and 

management conditions compared to reusable shop towels), it is critical that EPA bifurcate the preamble and regulatory sections 

for disposables and reusables. 

Such bifurcation is also required so that States can clearly and efficiently implement the new rules pursuant to the legal 

requirements stated above in Section IV. EPA has correctly recognized that the new proposed conditional hazardous waste 

exclusion for disposables is “less stringent” than either the status quo at the federal or State level. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 65612. 

Consequently, States can continue to maintain their more stringent current disposable wipe regulations and are not required to 

adopt the new regulations. In contrast, the final regulations will establish new federal management conditions for reusable shop 

towels that are more restrictive than the federal status quo (which is silent on the issue) and “more restrictive than some existing 

state programs.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65613. Consequently, at least some States adopt that portion of the final rule governing reusable 

shop towels because the new federal conditions will be more restrictive than the status quo for those States (even assuming EPA 

properly includes co-contaminants within the scope of the federal exclusion). Id Because states will have entirely different 

obligations vis-a-vis the less stringent disposable provisions compared to the more stringent reusable provisions, it is critical that 

EPA bifurcate the reusable and disposable portions of the final regulations and preamble. Separate and distinct final regulatory 
268

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. Id.

Docket Number - 353

Comment Key - 317

Submitted by - American Trucking Association (ATA) 

Comment Text:

Widely-varied state requirements may still exist even after EPA finalizes the rule until each state independently modifies its 

existing regulations to parallel the newly-adopted federal standards. EPA typically promulgates regulations that impose more 

stringent requirements upon the regulated community. State authorized programs in turn adopt requirements that are at least as 

stringent as the federal standards. In the case of this rulemaking effort, the agency is taking a different tactic – namely, 

establishing less stringent standards under an existing regulatory scheme. In order to more fully appreciate the cost savings and 

paperwork reductions associated with this rule, 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.

Docket Number - 360

Comment Key - 851

Submitted by - Bernard Brill of The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART) 

Comment Text:

In many cases our industry members are supplying wiping products to companies with facilities in different parts of the country. 

Currently these firms must deal with confusing rules set forth by state, county, or local authorities. For this reason SMART 

endorses the idea done coherent national policy that clearly addresses the safe handling and disposal of both laundered and nonlaundered wipes. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1426

Submitted by - Richard Daniels of Oscar Daniels and Company

Comment Text:

As a company that does business in multiple states, it is hoped that all states will encourage or adopt this rule. Not only will there 

then be a consistent national approach, companies with multi-state operations could have one safe uniform policy for wiper 

disposal. 

10. Enforcement

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 988

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Enforcement action should not be taken against the generating entity when the generating entity manages wipes in 

compliance with conditions of the exclusion even if subsequent handlers cause loss of the exclusion. Also, enforcement action

should not be taken against handlers who in good-faith manage wipes under the assumption that they are excluded.

Discussion: Section V.B.6 (68 FR 65599) regarding proposed condition for transportation to non-land disposal facilities and 

section V.E. (68 FR 65607) regarding enforcement explain that EPA believes that it can reach-back and prosecute the entity that 

generates a wipes container if the container has free liquids when it arrives at the cleaners or wipes handling facility. This 

enforcement interpretation is improper. First, it is inconsistent with the proposed exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(vi)(B) and 

(b)(19)(viii)(B). Those exclusions to the definitions of solid waste and hazardous waste, respectively, allow the receiving entity 

two options when it receives a wipes container that has free liquids: it may remove the free liquids and manage them according to 

applicable regulatory requirements; or it may return the container to the generating entity. The decision is made solely by the 

receiving entity, and the exclusions continue to apply under either option. Only if the receiving entity does neither of the two 

permissible options will the wipes lose the exclusion. In that case, it is the receiving entity that should be subject to possible 

enforcement, because it, not the generating entity, had the last opportunity to act to ensure that the exclusion still applied. Second, 

the EPA interpretation is inconsistent with the long-standing regulatory definition of “generator” at 40 CFR 260.10, which 

provides, “Generator means any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste identified or listed in Part 261 of 

this chapter or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to be subject to regulation.” In this instance, the generating entity is not a 

“generator” under either portion of the regulatory definition even if the wipes container has free liquid when it arrives at the 
269

receiving facility, because such materials still qualify for the exclusion so long as the receiving entity does either of the two 

permissible actions. The EPA interpretation also is inconsistent with the RCRA statutory definition of “hazardous waste 

generation,” which is “the act or process of producing hazardous waste,” 42 U.S.C. §6903(6). In this instance, hazardous waste is 

produced only if the receiving facility does not take one of the two permissible options to keep the exclusion in place. 

EPA defends its position by stating that by holding everybody in the chain accountable, the chain will be strengthened and 

violations reduced. EPA does not provide any evidence that this is true and does not provide any argument for extending this 

logic in all hazardous waste management enforcement. For generators and handlers of industrial wipes, the only way to ensure 

that all facilities managing industrial wipes would not be subject to enforcement should anyone in the chain violate the exclusion 

provision would be to manage industrial wipes as hazardous waste at all times, thereby defeating the purpose of the proposed 

rule. It appears inappropriate to hold everybody in the chain accountable if the wipes become hazardous waste subsequent to the 

point of origin. 

Recommendation: EPA should not develop enforcement 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 become the generator of the hazardous waste. Also, 

the preamble to the final rule should clearly explain that EPA will not reach back and bring enforcement action against the 

generating entity nor intermediate handlers if a wipes container arrives at the receiving entity with free liquids.

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1051

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

While supporting the conditional exclusion concept, FDEP foresees problems implementing the proposed rule. Inspectors will 

not be able to determine what chemicals are on the wipes; whether the wipes are “dry” or “free of free liquids”; and which 

disposal option applies to any particular wipe.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 723

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

EPA indicates the following in this proposed rule: “For disposable industrial wipes, the burden of proof that conditions of the 

exclusion are met falls on the generator, commercial transporter, municipal solid waste landfill...” 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, may promote more facilities to manage this waste stream rather than potential handlers and disposers declining 

management due to potential liability as specified above, even with the exclusion in place. Notwithstanding, EPA and authorized 

states currently have enforcement mechanisms that can be used for cases of noncompliance.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 186

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

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. This fact is admitted even in the background documents to the 

proposed rule. [Uses example, RCRA-2003-004-0040, page 7]. [This example] notes that numerous inspectors from local 

POTWs found at industrial laundries frequent cases of free solvents in containers of contaminated wipes staged for processing. If 

this is the case under today’s rules, the proposed rule will result in even more noncompliance, as the use of F- listed solvents will 

increase as a result of the exemption, and as EPA is proposing even weaker controls than currently required by many states. The 

above compliance issues resulted, even though solvent contaminated wipes remain under RCRA jurisdiction. With the type of 

exemption proposed under this rule, even more frequent instances of non-compliance can be expected.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 441

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

The ETC agrees that at any point the conditions of the exemption are not met, that the wipes are considered hazardous waste back 

to the point of their generation, and therefore liability for the violation extends back to this point. 68 FR 65607. The ETC agrees 

that the enforcement action should be brought from the point of generation, as well as each point in the chain at which a violation 

of the exemption conditions resulted in mismanagement. The ETC agrees that such an enforcement interpretation creates an 
270

incentive for generators and handlers to comply with the conditions of the exemption. However, 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 proposed rule relies strictly on the diligence and honor of the handlers 

and generator, with no means to enforce if they fail. Once a handler has wipes that contain free liquids, there is no assurance that 

the handler will do the right thing, or even be able to trace the source of the hazardous waste wipes, and properly manage these as 

hazardous waste. The rule requires that a subsequent handler who discovers free liquids to either remove the free liquid and 

manage it as a hazardous waste, or return the container with the wipes to the original generator. 68 FR 65590. Yet the handler 

may not have the means to recover the cost from the generator to properly manage the free liquid hazardous waste under RCRA. 

Since the rule allows for use of “knowledge,” the handler may use lack of clear knowledge as a basis to conclude that the free 

liquid is not a regulated solvent, and thereby dispose of a hazardous waste illegally. The latter would not be detected by EPA or a 

State, since there is no recordkeeping or traceability under the rule.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 280

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

While we support many of the concepts presented in the proposal, overall, we do not support the proposed linking of the 

conditions of the exclusions into a single pass-fail compliance determination. The proposal indicates that if any condition for 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. While the agency may believe that this approach may provide an incentive to 

properly handle the wipes, we believe that it is overly onerous and makes it extremely difficult for a generator to use the 

exemption and assume the risk of non-compliance. All the potential benefits of the rule may become lost, making the proposal a 

“moot” exclusion, regardless of the technical details proposed.

Docket Number - 303

Comment Key - 282

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text:

An operator who properly controls its own actions, and believes its material is being legitimately recycled should not be the

subject of enforcement under RCRA if its downstream recycler subsequently does not handle the material according to the 

legitimacy criteria for recycling. Such a standard would impose retroactive and strict liability, contrary to RCRA, since RCRA 

requires a material to be discarded before it is considered a waste, and some degree of fault. (Note that even CERCLA, which 

imposes a retroactive and strict liability scheme, now exempts generators vs. recyclers from liability if the generators have 

exercised reasonable care.) It would also destroy the incentives explained above for third party solvent reclamation operations, 

which may be the most flexible, environmentally sound, and cost effective way of dealing with these materials.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 381

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

NPCA strongly objects to EPA’s attempt at imposing strict liability provisions to any finalized rule. EPA states that if a laundry 

operating under the exclusion receives a barrel of reusable industrial wipes containing free liquids and mixes them with other 

industrial wipes, without removing the free liquids, then those wipes would no longer qualify for the exclusion. The Proposed 

Rule goes on to say that EPA and the states could bring enforcement action against any individual in the management chain - the 

generator, transporter and/or receiving facility - for violations of applicable RCRA hazardous waste requirements. This is a 

fundamentally unfair approach and one not defensible under the RCRA statutory scheme. 

EPA cannot bring an enforcement action against a generator for an action taken by a "downstream” transporter or receiving 

facility, without proof of culpability and control. To impose this type of strict liability would not only serve as a deterrent to 

beneficial reuse and recovery, but would also mandate violations regardless of their relationship to human health and the 

environment. If a generator and transporter appropriately handled the material under the exclusion in good faith, they should not 

be held accountable for actions not within their control should a receiving facility not handle the material appropriately. Just as 

with the current exclusions under RCRA, if a generator and/or recycler decides for whatever reason to discard the excluded 

material, which until that point has been managed appropriately under the exclusion, as long as they dispose of the material under 

the RCRA Subtitle C regulations an enforcement action is improper and unwarranted. If at some point in the disposition of the

excluded material, action is subsequently taken inconsistent with the exclusion and not appropriately within the Subtitle C 

system, an enforcement action should be available only against the party that acted in a way to lose the exclusion, but continued 

to operate as if the exclusion still applied.
271

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 279

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

EPA makes clear that a party operating under either one of the proposed exclusions would be responsible for maintaining the 

exclusion by ensuring that all of the conditions are met. In the event that a particular condition is not met, “the party managing 

the wipes at that time will need to remedy the situation as soon as possible in order not to jeopardize the exclusion.’’ if this is not 

done - e.g., the wipes are transported with “free liquids” and the handling facility does not promptly send them back to the 

generator - the wipes would be considered hazardous waste from the point of generation (i.e., from the point when the generator 

had finished using them).

USWAG believes that this approach is fundamentally unfair and violates basic principles of due process because it would impose 

liability on entities that have no culpability whatsoever in the alleged violation. For example, if a generator of solventcontaminated industrial wipes complies in good faith with all the applicable conditions of the exclusion and uses all appropriate 

due diligence in selecting a qualified handler or laundry facility, but the wipes are subsequently mishandled by the downstream 

facility (e.g., the facility adds additional solvents to the wipes), the handler or laundry facility, not the generator, should be the 

sole entity subject to enforcement measures. EPA, however, would hold the wholly innocent generator to the same degree of 

culpability as the handler, which is fundamentally unfair and runs afoul of basic notions of due process. Indeed, courts have made

clear that “[i]mplicit within the concept of due process is that liability may be imposed on an individual only as a result of that 

person’s own act or omissions.” See Tyson v. New York City Housing Authority, 369 F. Supp. 513,518 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

USWAG also is concerned 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.” This approach suggests that EPA believes it could bring an “overfiling” action if it is dissatisfied with an authorized state’s enforcement action for a particular violation. If this is EPA's position, 

USWAG strongly disagrees. USWAG believes that EPAs enforcement ability under the final rule should be controlled by the 

holding in Harmon Industries v, Browner; 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999); namely, that EPA is prohibited from bringing an “overfiling” action against a particular entity that has already been prosecuted by a RCRA-authorized State for the same violation.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1203

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Primary Responsibility For The Management Of Soiled Reusable Shop Towels Lies With The Generator.

Reusable shop towels are a rentable commodity. The very nature of a rental item means that industrial laundries do not have full 

control of a reusable shop towel once it is provided to a customer. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA correctly states that 

(from a compliance standpoint) generators have the “primary responsibility for assuring that their industrial wipes meet the 

conditions of the proposed exclusion.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 65606. EPA’s assessment is based on the fact that the generator clearly is 

in the best position (from both a control and a knowledge standpoint) to remove free liquids from each towel. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1204

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

EPA’s Enforcement Policy Needs To Be Consistent With The Allocation Of Compliance Responsibilities.

The enforcement section of the preamble inappropriately appears to impose a much broader scope of strict liability on all parties 

for activities that are beyond their control. For example, EPA inappropriately proposes to hold laundries jointly and strictly liable 

for any violations of the proposed management conditions (even apparently when the laundry reasonably relies on the generator’s 

representation/assurance that he has met all the exclusion requirements). See 68 Fed. Reg. at 65607. If a lapse occurs in the

management conditions (even if only a temporary lapse), EPA asserts that the wipes may be considered hazardous from the point 

of generation, and that, pursuant to the mixture rule, the solid waste exclusion would be lost for other processed towels. Id. Thus, 

under a worst-case hypothetical scenario, an “innocent” industrial laundry unknowingly receiving problematic shop towels from 

a “bad actor” customer could be subject to substantial penalties for failing to operate as a RCRA permitted TSD facility and 

could potentially be liable for the illegal disposal of hazardous “derived from” wastes.

EPA’s proposed overly broad liability regime could effectively require each laundry to test each batch or each towel to ensure it 

does not contain either “free liquids” or “co-contaminants” (i. e. , listed hazardous contaminants other than the identified 

solvents). That is impossible. EPA should not publish a rule that contains such problematic compliance requirements. Industrial 
272

laundries have attempted through the LaundryESP program to work cooperatively with their customers in improving 

environmental performance. However, laundries cannot and should not be expected to assume responsibility for their customers’

actions or to act in any capacity as an enforcer of regulatory compliance.

In the final rule, 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, EPA should clearly state in the final regulations that the party responsible 

for the non-compliance will be the party liable for any penalties or remedies. EPA should also create an affirmative defense under 

which an innocent laundry can reasonably rely on the assurances provided by his customers as long as he undertakes a defined 

minimum level of “prudent precautions.”

Docket Number - 365

Comment Key - 809

Submitted by - Richard L Sieg of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 

Comment Text:

Also, we question the enforceability of including in the hazardous waste mix wipes contaminated as a result of the use of 

consumer products. There are numerous car repair shops, etc., and they use these products regularly. While they may think that 

they are CESQGs, we suggest that many actually would trigger the SQG threshold. It is our 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 "overthe-counter" products. These consumer products, sold to the general public, contain concentrations of the target chemicals that 

are generally acceptable for use. 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.

11. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Other Executive Orders

Docket Number - 191

Comment Key - 76

Submitted by - of The Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA) 

Comment Text:

EPA did not include the College and University Sector as an “economic sub-sector” during the data acquisition phase for this 

proposed rulemaking. Key data included in Appendix A to the Preamble of this proposed rule making indicated that the number 

of wipes used at those facilities included in data collection varied “from 50 to 6,000” wipes per facility per day. While many of 

the 3,900 colleges and universities across the United States use industrial wipes, the number of wipes used daily on a campus is 

typically much less than the identified 50 to 6,000 wipes.

College and university uses of industrial wipes are typically associated with academic art studios, such as printmaking, or 

ancillary activities, such as facilities management and fleet vehicle maintenance. Use of industrial wipes in art studios and other 

academic locations is generally limited by the academic calendar to 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 daily, with an estimated average of less than 

15 wipes per day. 

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1403

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP disagrees with EPA’s economic impact analysis for disposables since it assumes that they are all managed as a 

hazardous waste. In Massachusetts, disposable wipes that meet the one-drop standard when wrung may be laundered, landfilled 

or sent to a combustion facility. So, contrary to the statement in EPA’s preamble that the proposal provides “the disposable wipes 

market with an annual net cost savings benefit relative to current RCRA regulatory compliance costs,” this proposal would have 

an adverse economic impact on generators and manufacturers of disposable wipes, since the rule would explicitly regulate a 

wastestream that has been conditionally exempted in Massachusetts for the last ten years.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 582

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 
273

Comment Text:

[Comment about Economics Background Document]

EPA estimates that the net annual economic benefit from the proposed rule is $28 million to $72 million. 68 FR 65614. Yet a 

review of the Economics Background Document indicates that EPA has done no assessment of potential environment impact 

caused by the proposed rule. This impact can consist of increased loadings of solvent contaminants to POTW systems, as a result 

of more solvent wipes being managed by launderers as a result of this deregulation, and more release of solvents to the water 

discharges from launderers and POTWs. In addition, EPA has not assess other environmental impacts resulting from fugitive 

emissions and releases of free liquids during transportation and at handling facilities, landfills and non-hazardous waste 

combustion facilities. EPA also

has not considered the impact on worker exposure and health. The solvent 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. These workers 

are not trained nor equipped to handle and protect themselves from fumes associated with solvent contaminated wipes. The cost 

of implementing safety and training programs and the cost of exposure injuries has not been assessed in EPA’s economic impact

analysis.

The impact to POTWs alone of increased solvent loadings can easily consume the entire net annual savings projected by EPA of 

$28 million to $72 million. In addition, if only 1 damage case occurs per year from release of solvent free liquids in a 

transportation incident or from a landfill or combustion storage area to stormwater, this could cost over $10 million to resolve. 

None of these impacts have been considered in EPA’s analysis. The cost of a liner failure or solvent release from a MSW landfill 

has also not been considered or address. Such a liner failure is highly probable given the compressive forces in a landfill, and 

given the high amount of residual solvents present in wipes that are hand wrung or declared liquid free to EPA’s no-dripping 

standard. As discussed above, a solvent wipe that is considered to meet EPA’s “no-free-liquids” or “less than 5 grams” standard 

can still content as much as 75 grams of solvent, and one study by Fierro showed 5 to 10 gallons of additional free solvent per 55 

gallon drum equivalent for wipes that met EPA’s “dry” criterion. The fact that the solvent extraction technologies are so poor in 

efficiency (see Table 10 of the Technical Background Document) means that considerable volumes of free solvent will be 

available for release under the compressive forces in a MSW landfill, and can result in liner failures. In addition, these released 

liquids will also impact leachate and groundwater quality and will also increase fugitive emissions directly, as well as by 

advective losses with the landfill gas. The cost of these environmental impacts have not been evaluated and could easily consume 

a major part or all of the net annual benefit predicted by EPA.

Likewise, the impacts on state programs have not been evaluated. 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, 

states that currently regulate disposable wipes as hazardous waste will lose generation fees and taxes. This revenue loss to states 

will have to be recovered, and the impact of this has not been addressed in the economic analysis.

The impact to the commercial hazardous waste treatment industry and the service market that currently packages and properly 

manages these wipes has also not been evaluated. Since all states currently regulate disposable wipes as hazardous waste, 

currently these wipes are being treated at commercial permitted facilities equipped and trained to properly manage these wipes. 

The loss of this revenue from treatment of solvent contaminated wipes has not been factored into the economic impact analysis. 

EPA spent considerable effort in the economic impact analysis, focusing on cross market impacts to the disposable wipes market 

versus the re-useable wipes market, but never considered the market impact to the commercial hazardous waste industry, where 

disposable wipes are managed now in the most protective manner, versus the MSW landfill and combustor market.

Because EPA did not address the above factors, the environmental impact analysis is incomplete, and needs to be redone, 

particularly to address environmental, worker safety and exposure and POTW impacts discussed above. If this is done properly, it 

will be seen that there is no economic benefit to this proposed rule, and in contrast, the economic impact is negative because of 

the impacts to POTWs, worker exposure and the environment.

Even in its present state, the economic impact assessment shows very little significance considering the number of users of 

solvent contaminated wipes. EPA estimates at page 10 of the economic impact analysis that there are 215,000 users of industrial 

wipes, covering CESQGs, SQGs and LQGs. The net estimated annual benefit predicted by EPA of $28 to $72 million, when 

spread out over these users, amounts to an annual savings of only $130 to $335 per user. Even for a small auto body shop, this

savings is insignificant and amounts to less than the cost of one average car repair per year. If the savings per user is weighted by 

user size and number of wipes used per year per user type, the savings is even smaller for an average auto body shop. In addition, 

auto repair shops typically pass these costs along to their customers, along with fees charged for tire disposal, used oil 

management and battery recycling. If a small body shop services 100 customers in a year, the savings to these customers is only 

$1 to $3 per year at worse case, and if averaged based on actual weighted wipe usage, well below $1 per year. Thisis a very small 

cost to avoid the adverse environmental damage, worker exposure issues and POTW impacts discussed above. 

In addition to the above considerations, the Economic Impact Analysis is flawed, because it is done in a biased manner assuming 

the maximum benefit to users for certain critical assumption line items. Examples of problematic assumptions in the Economic 
274

Background Document are provided below. This list identifies most of the major ones, but due to time constraints, all of the 

factors could not be identified or quantified. However, even this partial list is sufficient to show that the economic analysis is 

flawed, and that the net national economic impacts are adverse not beneficial.

· No tracking paperwork or recordkeeping is assumed.

· Plastic bags assumed for major fraction of wipes.

· Only 0.32 per user per year assumed for “dry” condition evaluation.

· Only $0.16 to $5.66 per year per disposable wipe user assumed to deal with “free liquid” issues, and $0 per year per re-useable 

wipe user.

· Avoided Subtitle C Disposal Cost is inflated for disposable wipes. The net savings of $32,971,000 per year equates to $0.13 per 

disposable wipes. This amounts to $2.95/lb which is inflated. Solvent wipes incineration is currently in the average range of

$0.50 to $0.70/lb.

· $380,000 per year of costs is assumed to state agencies to verify RCRA exclusion for solvent wipes managed by launderers. Yet 

46 out of 50 states currently exempt the laundering process from RCRA (see Table 6 of Technical Background Document). It is 

not clear what these costs are for, if the launderers are currently exempt.

· Likewise $46 to $92 million per year savings are projected for launderers, for avoided cost of managing their sludge as derivedfrom waste in Subtitle C Landfills. Yet currently 46 of 50 states consider launderers and reusable wipes exempt from RCRA.

· A benefit of $3.4 million to $6.9 million is assumed for launders, from avoided hazardous waste “stigma”. Not only is this a 

arbitrary line item, with no clear basis, but also it is not valid to assume as 46 out of 50 states already exempt launderers from 

RCRA.

· No cost for solvent extraction is assumed other than decanting and hand wringing. 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 

the recovered solvents likely have co-contaminants and must be further purified for sale. 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. EPA arbitrarily assumes a net human health and environment benefit of $8 to $36.4 million per year. Very 

little justification is 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 cost is not appropriate to 

assume as 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, the free liquid recovered 

will contain cocontaminants and will have to be further refined. The net reductions in air emissions cannot be assumed. Further, 

the negative environmental impacts to POTWs and increased potential for releases of solvent to surface waters discussed above 

need to be addressed. 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, 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. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, even the proposal to allow 

wetting of wipes presumably to prevent spontaneous combustion, will actually increase the risk of spontaneous combustion. 

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 5% of wipe generators will have to provide RCRA training. Yet 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 5 grams, and satisfy the terms of the exemption. Therefore, the training costs are 

understated by a factor of 20. According to footnote (b) on page 47, only 12.5% of the weight of the wipe is assumed to be the 

amount of solvent for non-printer re-useable wipes, and 50% for printer re-useable wipes. Yet the Technical Background 

Document (Docket Doc. 0003) indicates that as high as 7 times and on average 3 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. 

Likewise, this same footnote assumes that 25% to 40% of the solvents are evaporated from the wipes before they undergo 

laundering, due to storage in non covered containers (see footnotes (b) and (d) on page 47 of the EIA). 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.

Net Conclusions on Economic Impact

Because of all of the above factors, EPA’s overall economic conclusions in the proposed rule are flawed and incorrect for three 

major categories of reasons: 

1. The costs to comply with the rule are understated, if a good faith effort is made by generators, handlers, disposers and 

launderer facilities to really comply, and if the correct amounts of solvent per wipes are assumed. Other factors include proper 

recordkeeping, free liquids management, and training. The net benefit to the overall national economy is understated and is likely 

a break even.

2. EPA has given economic benefits to certain factors that should not have been assigned benefits. Examples of these include 

laundry sludge disposal cost under RCRA, state cost reductions for dealing with RCRA exemption issues, the purported 
275

environmental benefit of the rule (which is not true), the presumed reduction in fire incidents (which is also false) and the cost 

benefits to launderers from eliminating “stigma”. When these cost benefit factors are removed, the net economic annual benefit to 

the national economy is reduced further by $53 million per year, which alone reduces the high end of the presumed benefit from 

$72 million to $19 million. In fact the true range of national impact of this rule, correcting for this factor alone, is - $24 million to 

$19 million, which averages out to about “zero” benefit.

3. The negative environmental impact described above to POTWs, MSW landfills and combustors and other expected releases 

during transportation, as well as worker exposure issues, and impacts on State Programs, create additional severe economic 

impacts. These impacts can be on the order of several hundred million dollars per year. Overall, assuming EPA’s economic 

analysis is correct, the benefit of the rule is less than $300 per wipe user establishment per year. EPA’s assessment is not correct 

and has not adequately addressed the severe impact to the environment that can result as discussed above. Overall, if the other 

factors discussed above are considered, the rule has a net adverse impact on the national economy and must not be promulgated.

Economics of High Efficiency Extraction Technologies Support Their Mandatory Use by Large Quantity Generators

Even without any final action on this rule, it is clear from the Economics Background Document that there are cost benefits to 

using high efficiency solvent extraction techniques for solvent wipes. For example, at page 19 of the Economics Background 

Document as specific case is given of a printing company that invested $15,000 in a centrifuge device, and recovered an average 

of 3 gallons of reusable solvent per 220 wipes, and saving $34,000 per year in the purchase of new solvent. Other studies by 

various vendors of high efficiency extraction devices are provided in the proposed rule record in Docket Documents 0115 and 

0120. In the Economic Background Document at page 52, EPA concludes that centrifuge technologies have beneficial cost 

impact for the largest 16% of solvent wipes generators. The benefit may be even higher than this when other opportunity cost and 

savings are assumed. Even if it is only the 16% largest solvent wipe users that benefit in cost reduction, this percentage would 

cover all of the large quantity generators of industrial wipes, according to the industry data provided in the Section II.C of the 

Technical Background Document. EPA should encourage the use of such high efficiency devices and require the use of these 

devices for large quantity generators of industry wipes. Not only will large quantity generators achieve cost benefits, but the net 

impact on the environment from free solvents associated with wipes will be reduced.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1215

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Imposing Additional Requirements on Industrial Laundries Is Likely to Trigger SBREFA Review Requirements.

As explained in these comments, imposing any more burdensome requirements on industrial laundries would be 

counterproductive to achieving EPA’s goals of eliminating over regulation and encouraging resource conservation and 

responsible solvent management. The imposition of such additional requirements would also substantially delay and complicate 

this regulatory process. EPA has previously recognized that 93 percent of the industrial laundry industry consists of small 

businesses. 64 Fed. Reg. at 45082. We agree with EPA’s general assessment that its proposed conditional exclusion as currently 

drafted would not result in a substantial adverse impact on these small businesses. However, in the preamble, EPA has presented 

and dismissed alternative options or procedures that would likely have a substantial adverse impact on a significant number of 

small businesses, thereby, requiring EPA to initiate a formal SBREFA review process. SBREFA would likely be triggered if EPA 

modified the proposed regulation by adopting any of the problematic alternatives identified below:

1. inappropriately characterizing reusable shop towels as “solid waste”; 

2. implicitly or explicitly excluding co-contaminants from the scope of the final shop towel exclusion;

3. adopting a more onerous no free liquids test (such as a “one drop” test);

4.requiring the laundry transporter to use sealed containers; or

5. imposing problematic, expensive, and unnecessary reporting, labeling or recordkeeping requirements on industrial laundries.

Thus, EPA could only adopt these problematic and expensive alternative options after first completing a thorough SBREFA 

review and developing alternative approaches to mitigate the adverse impact on small businesses.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 581

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

Most States currently regulate solvent contaminated wipes more stringently than the proposed rule. As discussed in the Technical 

Background Document at pages 39 to 46, all states currently regulate disposable wipes contaminated with listed solvents as 

hazardous waste. There are varying provisions with regard to reusable solvent wipes, with four states regulating even laundered 

wipes as hazardous wastes, and with two additional states providing other controls on laundered wipes prior to washing. 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. In addition, the rule will become effective in unauthorized states. The discontinuity created in 

the RCRA regulation of solvent contaminated wipes, will add further complications to enforcement actions, and will create issues 
276

for states that continue to manage these waste as hazardous. 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, the proposed rule can be considered an Unfunded Mandate, the impact of which has

not been evaluated and addressed by EPA. EPA incorrectly concludes that the proposed rule “contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.” 68 FR 65616. Yet as described above, 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. EPA has not evaluated at all the adverse impact on POTW systems as a result of the 

proposed rule. EPA also 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.

The impact on POTWs alone could exceed the $100 million annual threshold discussed at 68 FR 65616, due to higher solvent 

loadings and management of compliance enforcement cases resulting from launderers that will likely accept even higher 

quantities of exempt solvents. The loss of hazardous waste taxes on states that are forced to adopt the exemption has also not 

been evaluated. Also, the complication of enforcement cases resulting from a state that chooses not to adopt the exemption, 

border by a state that does has not been evaluated. 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.

12.0. Environmental/Worker Health Record of Industrial Laundries

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 122

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

I’d like to highlight information in the docket about the substantial risk at laundry facilities that solvent-contaminated shop towels 

present to the members of another union, UNITE. In a letter from UNITE to the EPA (dated October 30, 2001 and included in the

docket for this proposed rule), UNITE cited numerous health and safety concerns resulting from solvent-soiled shop towels 

including vapor release and chemical exposure resulting in nausea, headaches and extreme dizziness. In addition, the docket 

shows that between 1993 and 1997 there were 735 fires at industrial laundry facilities. Since there are 1,175 facilities processing 

shop towels with solvents, there were fires in over 60% of industrial laundries in this 5-year period. If that doesn’t demonstrate a 

health hazard, I don’t know what will.

Docket Number - 272

Comment Key - 599

Submitted by - George Larson of George H. Larson and Associates, Inc. 

Comment Text:

The fire-related statistics were very troubling. In a 5 year period, there were an average of 147 fires per year in industrial 

laundries. Given that there are 1,175 industrial laundry facilities processing reusable industrial wipes (per the Economics 

Background Document, p. 117), that means that there is a fire at 1 out of every 8 industrial laundry facilities every year. This is 

clearly an indication that solvents on reusable industrial wipes present a significant risk to workers at industrial laundries that 

needs to be addressed by this rule.

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 314

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Let’s look at the experience of the Cintas Corp., the nation’s largest industrial laundry company and one of the biggest processors 

of shop towels. Cintas Corp. has been found to have repeatedly violated its wastewater permits for toxic solvents and other 

wastewater contaminants in many of its laundries around the nation, sometimes as much as 20 times the permitted levels. In its 

Branford, CT laundry, for instance, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in 2000 sued Cintas for 250 

violations of the Clean Water Act between, September 1994 and April 2000 including excessive emissions of cancer- causing 

solvents like methylene chloride and tetrachloroethylene, other solvents (like methyl ethyl ketone and acetone) and metals like 

lead and cadmium. Potential penalties for these and other violations amount to millions of dollars, to be determined in the 

pending trial in Hartford, CT Superior Court.

[Attachment A, Listing of all violations, Exhibit B, Complaint by Commissioner of Environmental Protection vs. Cintas Corp., 

Aug. 20,2002, Dkt. No. CV-02 -8 18622-S, Judicial District of Hartford.]
277

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 316

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Cintas' recklessness on environmental issues goes hand in hand with its disregard for the safety of its own employees. Overall, 

Cintas has been cited for over 140 violations of OSHA standards in the last 20 years. At its Branford CT plant, OSHA has 

repeatedly cited Cintas for violations that can cause “death or serious physical harm’’ for management failures involving worker 

training, protection from hazardous materials, and personal protective equipment.

[Attachment B: OSHA summary of inspection of solvents fire at Coyne Textiles plant in Cleveland, OH,1 /22/97.]

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 318

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

...Coyne Textile Services likewise has a miserable record. A leading industrial launderer with major shop towel operations, 

Coyne also abuses its workers by neglecting basic safety measures. In the last few years, Coyne Textile has been repeatedly cited 

by OSHA for serious and repeated violations of OSHA standard on chemical hazards, worker training and protective equipment 

[specific citations provided in comment].

However, Coyne has failed to acknowledge in this proceeding its other evident management failures. For instance, not only has

Coyne been responsible for creating clear life-threatening hazards to its employees. It has also failed to assure that its customers 

provide Coyne with the information necessary to protect Coyne employees from those hazards. In 1992, OSHA cited Coyne for 

failing to provide to workers - and to train workers about -- the routine “Material Safety Data Sheets” (MSDS’s) about specific 

individual chemicals upon which employers, first-responders and workers normally rely in identifying and preventing fires, 

explosions and health threats, just as any employer using chemicals would have to do. (OSHA inspection #108830431, citation 

issued 8/12/92) In successfully challenging this citation, Coyne convinced OSHA to withdraw the citations in exchange for 

Coyne’s implementation of a “generic” chemical hazard training program that discusses only broad classes of chemicals. 

[Comment provides additional information about Coyne's OSHA citations for inadequate MSDSs and worker protection 

measures]

[Attachment C: Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Secretary of Labor v. Cope Textile Services, OSHRC Dkt. # 92-2906, 

Oct. 28, 1992.]

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 319

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

[Attachment D: OSHA citation 123292765 at Coyne’s Waterbury CT plant; 11/14/01]

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 322

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

It is painfully evident that workers at Cintas and Coyne Textile Services are at risk from the management’s mishandling of shop 

towels. Has anyone at EPA ever talked to a laundry worker? Did any of the laundry bosses who shuttled in and out of EPA’s 

offices for the last 10 years ever bring along a driver or a washer operator to tell EPA the facts about the dangers that EPA’s 

earlier exemptions have already created? Did EPA’s consultations with Cintas or Coyne ever take into account these companies’

gross and repeated failings on this question? Did EPA ever ask Cintas or Coyne workers about their supervisors’ competence or 

commitment to worker or environmental safety? Did EPA ever even ask Cintas, Coyne or the other major laundries to document 

their wastewater emissions since the state-level exemptions were granted in the mid- go’s? How could EPA have failed to make 

such an elementary determination when it was meeting with industry representatives on a frequent basis?

It is obvious that the only people whose views EPA takes seriously are the corporate “stakeholders”, not the workers, the 

community residents or the wildlife and waterways on the receiving end of the negligence of laundry industry managers like 

Cintas or Coyne.

[Attachment D: “So You Thought It Was All Over,”, Industrial Launderer Online, April 2000.]
278

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 324

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

EPA claims that its current proposal is legitimate because industrial laundries can be relied up to cooperate voluntarily with their 

customers and assure that the solvent-soaked towels will not be dripping in the containers. EPA blithely assures us that this 

cooperation will magically assure the maximum feasible capture and recycling of solvent at the customers, thus avoiding the 

extra burden on the wastewater stream. 

The last 10 years of informal EPA and state agency exemptions have yielded multiple examples of the failure of this approach.

Mark Fragola has expertly described the fraudulent nature of the industry’s assurances of good faith and compliance. EPA’s own 

consultants for this rulemaking, in conducting their on-site evaluations, found the same patterns: "Non-compliance with either 

Federal and State rules...is highly likely. However, the extent such non-compliance exists is not known. For instance, examples 

were found during site visits where . . . reusable shop towels most likely would have failed the “no free liquids” test since large 

numbers of saturated shop towels were being generated daily without utilizing any removal technology . . . prior to transportation 

off-site" (footnote 3 : "discussions with several inspectors from local POTW’s . . . confirmed this finding by identifying situations 

where ‘‘free liquids” were found in containers and in nylon bags containing solvent contaminated shop towels." Use and 

Management Practices of Solvent Contaminated Industrial Shop Towels, SAIC Corp., Docket Ex. # 40, p. 7.

Docket Number - 297

Comment Key - 325

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

EPA ignores loopholes in OSHA regulations on chemical safety in laundry industry EPA also speculates in the proposal about 

the additional benefits of OSHA regulations on chemical hazards.

[comment provides extended quotation regarding requirements for chemical-specific MSDSs, worker training and container 

labeling].

...However, EPA plainly fails to address the exemption that Coyne Textile Services has already received from OSHA inspectors 

from the MSDS and training requirements for specific solvents. This ignorance is plainly consistent with EPA’s approach of 

“responding to stakeholders’’ rather than assuring minimum levels of worker protection.

In sum, there is no reasonable assurance, from any independent and objective assessment of current industry practice, that the 

laundry industry and their customers will comply with EPA’s intent. If the Bush administration’s proposal is adopted, laundry

workers will have to handle towels soaked in hazardous waste - often without even minimal protective equipment like rubber 

gloves or effective masks. It is essential that EPA withdraw this proposal and reconsider the options it had prepared in January 

2000.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 904

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Almost every day I worked at Cintas, I helped my co-workers unload dirty laundry from trucks for at least an hour. We would 

unload shop towels, uniforms, aprons, mops and other items. I worked the third shift. 

When shop towels came in, we would find them in the truck in plastic garbage bags and sometimes plastic grocery bags. Often, 

there were too many shop towels in the bags and the bags would break or overflow. When the bags were broken, there would be 

loose shop towels on the floor of the truck. In almost every truck, there would be loose shop towels on the floor. 

For the bagged towels, we would rip open the plastic bags once we took them off the truck and throw them in bins so they could 

be washed. We would rip open the bags, and the towels would fall on the ground. We would then pick up the towels by hand and 

then throw them in the bins. We covered our hands with cotton gloves. The gloves were about as thick as a sweatshirt. 

I would generally change my gloves twice an hour when I was unloading. Liquid from the shop towels would soak through the 

gloves and get on my hands. Our hands would get really dry because of the chemicals from the shop towels that got on our hands 

every day. The gloves got washed every day too, and some of the chemicals used in the washing made our hands dry as well.
279

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 913

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text

At Cintas I first worked in the production department inside the plant, in all activities related to washing and sorting towels and 

uniforms, including operating the washing machines. I then worked as a driver's helper, where my responsibilities included 

collecting dirty laundry from Cintas' customers, loading the dirty laundry into the truck and then unloading it at the plant.

We collected dirty towels from several different types of businesses, including mechanics shops, auto painting businesses, hotels, 

restaurants, hospitals, and factories. These dirty towels were often soaked through with chemicals, solvents, or grease, and we 

never knew what chemicals the different towels we had to handle contained. 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. Cintas never told us anything about protecting ourselves from dangerous chemicals.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 912

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Lots of towels smelled like spray paint and some were just dirty and didn't smell like anything. I would get headaches and get 

dizzy every day when I unloaded shop towels. 

We worked without masks. Sometimes I felt like I was hi working with the towels. In the summer, lots of the white towels would 

have maggots, lots of them! The smell of rotten food from the white towels would really make you sick to your stomach. I only 

unloaded trucks for an hour a day, but some people do it all day long. I have no idea how they do it.

Another thing that is bad is the dust mops. Sometimes we would unload a bunch of dust mops, and the dust would blow up in our 

face and we would breathe in the dust.

Cintas is all messed up like that. They should have given us thick rubber gloves and masks to do that kind of work.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 914

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

When I collected dirty towels from Cintas customers, the towels were sometimes already in bags and sometimes I pick the towels 

up individually to put them in the bags to take them back to the plant. The bags the towels were packed in were usually made out 

of cotton and since the towels wen often soaked through with chemicals, the bags often were wet with those chemicals too. 

Sometimes because we were in a hurry and didn't have time to put on gloves, I had to grab the bags with my bare hands. 

Sometimes Cintas didn't even give us gloves to wear. Also, I had to lift the bags over my head to load them into the truck and 

because the dirty towels were so wet, the liquid would leak out of the bags and fall on my arms or shoulders. So, even when I was 

wearing gloves, I couldn't help but be in contact with whatever chemical or liquid was on the dirty towels. I once saw a coworker try to lift a very heavy bag of dirty towels into the truck and once he finally lifted it over his head, he used his forehead 

and face to, push the bag onto the shelf into the truck became he couldn't do it with only his arms. So you can see why we were in 

contact with chemicals all the way up our arms and even on our faces and heads sometimes! And again, we never knew what it 

was we were in contact with and if it could be dangerous to our health.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 915

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Cintas never gave us any training about how to handle contaminated shop towels or about the danger related to being in contact 

with these towels. Even though Cintas made some protective gear available, like gloves, we were never told that we had to use

them. There wasn't a norm established at the company that made using protective equipment mandatory. I always used the gloves 

they provided, but many of my co-workers did not and worked with their bare hands.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 916

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 
280

Comment Text:

Because of the inadequate equipment, we had to collect the dirty shop towels, we often had to put all dirty towels into one bag, 

with all different towels mixed together. There weren't any compartments or containers for towels from different types of 

businesses or containing different types of chemicals or solvents. Sometimes thsse bags would rip and dirty towels would be in 

the truck without being contained in a bag. This caused a terrible smell in the trucks. It seemed to me that the people who had to 

be inside the trucks all day could have developed some serious health problems from being in contact with these smells all day 

long.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 920

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Is this the responsible environmental management on which the laundry industry prides itself? For Cintas too commit violations 

over a six year period? According to Cintas' website "Each Cintas rental location is audited each year to assure compliance with 

applicable regulations. Cintas is also a charter member of the laundry environmental stewardship program. If Cintas's description 

of its audit program is accurate, it is inconceivable that they could commit these violations without the knowledge of corporate 

headquarters. 

There have been multiple violations involving either metals or solvents at Cintas plants in Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, 

Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. Some also spanning periods of months to years. 

Cintas' lawlessness is bad enough, but as the industry leader, its reckless disregard for its environmental obligations vividly 

demonstrates the company's abuse of the trust of environmental agencies. 

Their recklessness on environmental issues also goes hand in hand with disregard for the safety of its own employees...Mark 

Fragala, a former Cintas driver in Branford will testify here today about the conditions he and other drivers have had to endure, 

including management's refusal to prevent the illegal transportation of heavily contaminated shop towels. Mark escaped Cintas 

with surgical sears, serious medical debts, with his life intact. Others have not been as fortunate. In the past five years, two Cintas 

workers have died on the job in situations where the company's failure to comply with clear OSHA standards contributed to the 

workers' death. Unless you at EPA adopt stricter conditions for these exemptions, how many other Cintas workers will be forced 

to undergo abusive treatment? Worse, how many will be forced to put their jobs and families at risk when EPA requires them to 

refuse illegal loads of contaminated shop towels? When EPA claims that laundry drivers will be able to enforce these exemptions 

by refusing to pick up non compliant loads, you’re deluding yourself and the public...Coyne Textile Services likewise has a 

miserable record. 

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 953

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

I worked primarily as a route service and sales representative which involved driving the customers dirty laundry shop towels 

from printed plants and other customers that were soaked with solvents such as acetone was a big part of the load that I carried 

every day. I also had to carry towels and mats from restaurants that were filled with mold and fungus. The conditions for drivers 

hauling the shop towels were horrible. Drivers like me were routinely forced to count up dirty rags, one at a time, pick up 

dripping rags with our bare hands, without cotton gloves and breathe the contaminant air in the truck. 

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 955

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Sometimes you put these towels into plastic bags, but they would tear and we would have to sit there and pick them up all over 

again. We usually had to put the towels in cotton bags, in the bags soaked with solvents. I know this because the solvents left a 

stain on my shirt when I picked the bags up. When I came home I had to warn my kids "don't touch daddy" until I took off my 

uniform. Only after a couple of years just before I left did I ever get some plastic gloves. They usually didn't have enough gloves 

for all the drivers. My biggest problem with the bags of rags was that when I put these bags in the back of my truck, there was 

nothing to protect me from the vapors. The smell was very powerful. I used to joke that I was getting a buzz and then sinus 

headache. It would last a few hours until I got out of the truck and back at the plant.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 956

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 
281

Comment Text:

The towels were also sometimes dripping with the solvents. Our supervisors knew this all along. One time I was given some 

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 even cut them off as customers. I don't recall Cintas ever telling me to refuse to take these dangerous 

loads from customers. They're just interested in getting all the business they could.

Docket Number - 322

Comment Key - 957

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

Cintas violates the law and workers like me pay that price with our health and our jobs. I hope that EPA will remember this when 

you listen to all the lobbyists for the laundries of other companies who keep promising to protect the environment. Unless they 

prove that they’re operating cleanly I wouldn’t believe a word they say.

After two years in October/November 2001 I developed serious breathing problems and headaches. By February of 2002 I finally 

went to my doctor--who said I was being heavily affected by the mold from the shop towels and he said I actually needed surgery 

and I was forced to undergo my first surgery that month. The effects were so bad that I had to stay home for seven weeks to 

receive strong antibiotics through a tube that was permanently inserted into my arm, all the way to my heart. After returning to 

work for a few weeks in April I had to undergo a second surgery to clear out my sinuses. After two more weeks I went back to 

work again. I reported all of this to Mike, my supervisor. I showed him the letter from my doctor which said my condition was 

related to my job, but Cintas kept denying that this was work-related. They refused to admit that this is workers compensation. 

Instead they told me just to accept my disability pay which is, of course, less than the workers cornpensation and covers the 

medical costs through the regular health insurance, and I had to pay for 20 percent of all medical bills and we’re still paying off 

the debt today. We still owe about $2,000.

When I came back to work and asked for a different driving route without the shop towel chemicals, I showed the letter from my 

doctor about the danger the job posed to my breathing, but they refuse I to accommodate me. Mike said I’m sorry there is nothing 

else available. Instead they offered me a job painting the plant at $10 an hour. Compare that to the $650 a week I was making

before I got sick I don‘t understand how they could have done this to me. I essentially was forced to quit in April 2002.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1175

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Because of effective management controls and this comprehensive universe of regulatory and policy requirements, reusable shop

towels are already properly managed from the laundry to the customer and back. These towels are not part of the waste disposal 

problem and, therefore, properly qualify for the proposed solid waste exclusion. 

[Exhibit (Attachment) B: Summary of some of the regulatory requirements that industrial laundries must currently meet under the 

CWA]

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1176

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

After extensive review, and due in part to the effective treatment and management of wastewater and solvents by laundries and 

POTWs, EPA chose not to impose CWA Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) on the industrial laundry industry. 64 Fed. Reg. 

45072 (Aug. 18, 1999). EPA correctly elected not to impose mandatory ELGs on the industry in part because the Agency 

recognized that more cost-effective and comprehensive environmental benefits could result from a voluntary, cooperative effort 

with industrial laundries and their customers. The positive relationship the industry built with EPA through the ELG rulemaking 

process has evolved into the formal joint EPA/UTSA/TRSA Laundry Environmental Stewardship Program (LaundryESP). 

LaundryESP is a voluntary program by which industrial laundries raise their overall environmental performance by meeting 

specific, well- established target criteria. The program is not limited to reusable shop towels, but extends to a laundry’s entire line 

of textiles. More importantly, Laundry ESP facilitates an exchange and cooperation on critical environmental matters across 

industries, including the various businesses that use and rely on reusable shop towels.

LaundryESP has been and continues to be a resounding success, as documented through objective and frequent evaluations. 

Through program participation, laundries have achieved the following:

(1) an 11 percent decrease in water use, which equates to a savings of over 4.9 billion gallons of water since 1997 - or more water 
282

than is used by New York City in three years. Further, at this rate of water savings, the industrial laundry industry is conserving 

enough water every year to supply over half of New York City’s population;

(2) an 11 percent reduction in energy consumption, which equates to 10 trillion BTUs of energy saved between 1997 and 2002 --

equivalent to the annual energy use of Dover, Delaware; and

(3) a reduction in wastewater pollutant content of over 40 percent since 1998!

These environmental benefits exceed the likely results of a “command and control” approach and reflect the wisdom of EPA’s 

policy of encouraging voluntary shop towel recycling management programs.

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1195

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Laundry Workers Are Not Exposed to Unsafe Levels of Solvents

TRSA and UTSA member companies have a strong commitment to protection of worker health and safety and the environment. 

For this reason, 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. For example, at EPA's March 9, 2004 public hearing, Bob 

Schaffer from Coyne Textile Services (Coyne), a major industrial laundry which focuses on reusable shop towels, testified that 

Coyne has invested millions of dollars in environmental and worker safety controls and has an annual budget of over $2 million 

to insure worker safety. As Mr. Schaffer explained, Coyne (like other laundries) provides its workers with all the necessary 

training and protective equipment to meet federal, State, and local requirements.

Several industrial laundries have conducted comprehensive worker exposure studies. See Exhibit J. Combined, these studies 

cover shop towel pickup, delivery, soil dock, washroom, and maintenance staff. One of these studies even predates the adoption 

of the industry Management Practices establishing procedures to minimize free liquids on soiled towels (which was established in 

the early 1990s). In each case, the measured exposure levels do not approach applicable OSHA workplace standards. 

[Exhibit (Attachment) J. Various Worker exposure studies conducted at laundries]

Coyne conducted breathing zone sampling for comparison with the eight hour time weighted average PEL established by OSHA, 

in accordance with applicable NIOSH standards. The results of the study demonstrated no significant health risk associated with 

any of the evaluated solvent compounds. See Exhibit J. Concentrations of the solvents were at least 100 times less than the 

OSHA PEL, and in some cases 1,000 times less than the standard. Similar studies conducted at other laundries reached the same 

conclusion. See id. 

Coyne has also conducted an independent study to evaluate solvent vapor exposure from soiled textiles to a driver on a “heavy

soil” pick-up day. See Exhibit K. All test results for 36 solvents were far below OSHA PEL values. Only two values were more 

than one percent, and both were less than 1.5 percent, of the PEL. 

[Exhibit (Attachment) K. Evaluation of solvent vapor exposure]

Aside from giving the laundry industry confidence that worker health in not jeopardized, these data demonstrate that existing 

industry practices and regulatory responsibilities under state law and OSHA adequately and comprehensively address worker 

exposure concerns associated with solvent vapors in the industrial laundry workplace. The data also demonstrate that the amount 

of and exposures to solvents contained on soiled towels returned to industrial laundries has been reduced over the years. This 

reduction is due, in large part, to laundries’ customer education efforts. Laundries continually stress the requirement - consistent 

with company policy, industrial management standards, and State regulation - that returned towels contain no free liquids. 

Customers are also becoming more aware of their responsibilities and the need to focus on environmental requirements. The 

reduction in solvent use is also reflected in the volume of wastewater sludge generated by advanced wastewater treatment 

systems at Coyne and other industrial laundries that recover the sludge for recycling and beneficial reuse. Consequently, Coyne 

has witnessed a reduction of over 25 percent in the amount of sludge recovered per volume of towels processed between 1998 

and 2002. 

Docket Number - 351

Comment Key - 1633

Submitted by - Sierra Club 

Comment Text:

When the EPA withdrew its proposed rule to establish effluent limitation guidelines for the industrial laundry industry, it 

concluded that local wastewater treatment facilities had the authority to set local limits to address indirect discharges of toxic 

pollutants from industrial laundries...Any problems could be addressed at the local level. (64 Fed. Reg. 45072) Local POTWs 
283

clearly have the authority to address solvent discharges from industrial laundries, but that has not prevented serious problems 

from occurring. For example: 

-- In Traverse City, Michigan, an industrial laundry exceeded local pretreatment limits for solvents on multiple occasions in 

2002.

-- In Branford, Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has sued an industrial laundry for hundreds 

of violations of the Clean Water Act, including exceedences of solvent permit limits. This case is ongoing.

-- An industrial laundry in Central Islip, New York, violated limits for lead, chromium, zinc, copper and acetone in 2001 and 

2002.

Far from isolated examples, the violation of limits established in local pretreatment ordinances seems common at many industrial 

laundries that wash industrial wipes contaminated with solvents. In some cases, laundries exceeded pretreatment limits by more 

than 100 percent. Sierra Club is aware of dozens of industrial laundries across the country that have violated local pretreatment 

limits...The EPA should require that the transportation of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to laundries prevent loss, not just 

minimize loss.

Unfortunately, the proposed rule’s conditions fall far short of the controls needed to protect workers and the environment from 

solvents used in conjunction with industrial wipes. The “no free liquids” standard, which requires nothing from the generator 

other than “to use their knowledge of the processes to ensure that they meet the standard,” (68 Fed. Reg. 65600) 

[Attachment included in submission: "Analysis of selected Cintas Corporation sewage discharge records collected from local 

sewage treatment plants by Sierra Club and UNITE, 2000 - 2004"] 

Docket Number - 356

Comment Key - 1621

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

My name is Jorge Lara and 1 worked at Cintas Corporation in Schaumburg, IL for 3 years in the wash alley. Everyday we 

washed towels thak carried chemicals. Wt had to put up with the strong smell from the chemicals for 8 hours a day. The shop 

towels carried very strong chemicals an toxins that made me and my co-workers dizzy and gave us headaches. Also, the shop 

towels carried small pieces of iron and sometime we cut our hands from them.

The bosses never provided us with masks, gloves, or any other protection for our health. They also denied us medical treatment 

when needed because of work-related injuries. They made us work without protection even though the white, full-body aprons 

carried infections and magets [sic].

One day I hurt myself on the job. I was putting clothes in the dryer and a large iron ball fell on my head. The boss did not atend 

to me. They did not take me to the hospital. They simply told me to go to the cafeteria to rest. A few months later they accused 

me of stealing a shirt, and for that reason they fired me.

All of this that I am telling is real. ilt happened to me. The policy of Cintas is to accuse someone of stealing in order to be able to 

fire them. It is not in their interest to have injured people in their company. This is Cintas' policy

Docket Number - 359

Comment Key - 450

Submitted by - Steve Pucke of Cintas Corporation 

Comment Text:

You should be aware that Cintas is the current target of a union organizing campaign and, as such, is the frequent victim of 

allegations and other efforts to generate negative publicity. 

We believe UNITE’s (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) attempts to introduce false allegations at the 

hearing through certain organizations and representatives are driven solely by its organizing campaign against Cintas and not out 

of any real concern about industry practices. We ask that UNITE’s own agenda be taken into consideration when considering 

these allegations.

Docket Number - 359

Comment Key - 451

Submitted by - Steve Pucke of Cintas Corporation 

Comment Text:

In some situations, our efforts to make adjustments and corrections to our treatment processes takes time in working with local 

agencies to find long-term solutions, rather than a temporary solution. In these situations, the time necessary to install long-term 
284

solutions is a reflection of our ongoing efforts to research the best solutions, coordinate approvals with local authorities, and 

complete the installation and testing of the new processes. 

[Submission provides several examples]

Our concern for our employees’ safety is further demonstrated in our 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. In no case will hazardous materials be present to the extent that they 

may be harmful to the Company’s employees”. 

Cintas has had self-imposed restrictions on the kinds of businesses we serve with our laundry services for many years. If a 

potential customer or existing customer is believed to use constituents at their place of business that may be harmful to our

employees, our service agreement is denied or terminated.

In the history of our company, we have not been made aware of a single incident where an employee has incurred physical harm 

as a result of their responsibilities in servicing shop towels. Our preliminary investigation of the allegations made by a former 

employee during the hearing on March 9th contradicts the statements made during the employee’s testimony. A workers 

compensation claim, filed by the employee in 2002, was denied due to lack of evidence that his responsibilities at the company 

had an adverse affect on his health. To our knowledge, the employee has not made any attempts to refute the state’s 

determination in 2002, nor has the employee attempted to contact our company since that time.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1437

Submitted by - Rosa DeLauro of US Congress, CT 3rd District 

Comment Text:

The effects of solvents such as benzene fall most heavily for the laundry workers and drivers that handle them, be it in cloth bags 

or other opened containers. And it is not only workers who handle these towels who are exposed to these chemicals and their 

often harmful side effects, so too is the public where laundries dump these chemicals into their waste waters causing serious air 

and water pollution in surrounding communities and waterways.

To give you an idea of the severity of the problem, if only half of the 100,000 tons of solvent makes it into the washing machines 

at laundries, that means about 860,055 gallon drums of toxic solvents are being dumped into the nation's waste water stream 

every single year. My concern is that EPA's exemption will open up loopholes in federal hazardous waste regulations ordinarily 

used by government agencies and employers to protect workers and the environment from toxic materials.

Docket Number - 1006

Comment Key - 1439

Submitted by - Rosa DeLauro of US Congress, CT 3rd District 

Comment Text:

Let me take a moment to speak about the Cintas Corporation and why I think they are an example of why these tougher remedies 

are required. With over a half million customers and nearly 2.3 billion dollars in annual sales, Cintas controls a third of the 

uniform market and its market share is growing as it acquires more industrial laundries throughout the country. The nation=s 

largest industrial laundry company, Cintas is also one of the biggest processors of shop towels. In 2000 the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection sued the Cintas plant in Branford, Connecticut which is located in my district for 250

violations of the Clean Water Act which occurred between September 1994 and April 2000.

These charges included excessive emissions of cancer causing solvents like methylene chloride, tetrachloroethyene and other 

solvents such as methylethylketone and metals such as lead and cadmium. Right now Cintas awaits a pending trial to address the 

charges in our state=s Superior Court. But we only need to look at the company=s environmental record elsewhere in the country 

to understand how seriously Cintas takes these alleged violations. In Michigan, Traver City forced Cintas to stop handling shop 

towels in September 2002 after ten violations of the emissions limits for organic solvents. Rather than commit to compliance with 

city law, Cintas opted to move its operations to Grand Rapids which has no limits required for waste water contaminants for 

monitoring for toxic solvents. It is clear, however, that regulations at the state level is not enough either. 

Following the enforcement efforts by the Connecticut DEP, the Department of Environmental Protection, Cintas stopped 

processing shop towels in Branford and moved its shop towel operations to its plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. In essence, 

rather than comply with the regulators, the company opts time and time again to move operations elsewhere, be it another city, 

another state until, of course, regulators cite the company for similar violations. The bottom line is that regulations proposed 

today by the EPA will not do anything to change Cintas' behavior or the behavior of similar companies. If anything, but not 

holding laundry companies accountable for waste water and environmental violations, the EPA will, in fact, encourage such 

behavior.
285

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1440

Submitted by - Rosa DeLauro of US Congress, CT 3rd District 

Comment Text:

Roughly, let me say a word about how all this affects workers at these laundries. Many of them are immigrants, hard-working 

people who have come to this country in search of the better life for their families, a living wage and the opportunity to share the 

American dream. The jobs at companies like Cintas are hardly glamorous. Workers at Cintas’ Branford plant have no pension 

plan. Health care for their family coverage costs $400 per month which is nearly impossible to pay on an $8 hourly wage. In the 

last 20 years OSHA has cited Cintas for multiple serious safety and health violations, more than 100 violations of OSHA 

standards. Out of Branford plant alone, these have included countless management failures involving worker training, protection 

from hazardous materials and personal protective equipment. One such potential violation concerned former Cintas worker Mark 

Fragola whose doctors believe he may have been seriously injured by his work with shop towels in Branford. As you’ll be 

hearing from Mr. Fragola later today, his injuries required surgery in his sinuses. His medical bills have cost him to incur 

substantial debt. Mr. Fragola’s case has brought the most public example of a laundry worker whose life has been changed 

because of prolonged exposure to solvents in the workplace. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1468

Submitted by - Eric Frumin of UNITE 

Comment Text:

For instance, Coyne has also failed to assure that its customers provide Coyne with the information necessary to protect Coyne 

employees from those hazards. And in my testimony the documents indicating Coyne’s ability to skirt OSHA’s hazard 

communications standard and avoid the obligation to get exactly that kind of information essential to protecting workers and 

running safe operations. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1470

Submitted by - David Dunlap of Uniform and Textile Service Association (UTSA) 

Comment Text:

Industrial laundries provide environmental benefits by decreasing natural resource consumption, saving energy and providing 

effective pollution management and prevention. When compared to home laundering, industrial laundries on average use 64 

percent less water, 73 percent less energy and 90 percent less detergent is what is required to launder the same quantity of towels 

in small home washers and dryers.

In 1996 EPA’s Office of Research and Development conducted a life cycle assessment study of reusable and disposable wipes 

entitled Environmental Assessment of Shop Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries. That’s the Lockheed study 

that has been referenced a couple of times today. The environmental assessment looked at the raw material requirements and 

pollutant emissions associated with each type of wipe for its entire life cycle, from manufacture through usage and to the ultimate 

disposition. The results of the study are impressive, particularly when adjustments are made to account for multiple use cycles for 

reusable towels. Now this is something that Lockheed failed to do in their initial analysis. 

As measuring terms of poundage, reusable shop towels use 94 percent less water, 99 percent less energy and generate 52 percent 

less solid waste when compared to an equivalent amount of disposable paper towels. Because uniform and textile service 

companies deliver clean wipes to customers and pick up soiled wipes for cleaning and reuse, all the most efficient way possible, 

we are one of the nation’s largest recycling industries. Unlike single use disposable wipes and rags, reusable shop towels are not 

discarded after use but are rather used to clean and then reused over and over. 

On the other hand disposables are used once and then sent to a landfill or incinerator. All the solvents on disposable wipes are 

never treated. In most cases end up going directly untreated to landfills. In contrast there’s no direct water or solid waste 

discharges to the environment from laundries. More than 15 years ago the laundry industry self imposed no free liquid standard 

for reusable shop towels. Laundries have since been working with customers to reduce the amount of solvents and other 

pollutants found on these towels. The no free liquid standard remains the foundation of most state shop towel guidelines and 

therefore is a principle upon which the proposed rule is modeled.

Those minimal solvents that are still present after meeting the no free liquid standard are then effectively removed during 

sequential stages. The initial laundering process, the subsequent waste water pre-treatment process and finally the ultimate 

treatment at the downstream publicly treatment works of POTW. All industrial laundries are indirect discharges unless their 

waste water is controlled via local pre-treatment limits, private discharge in municipal sewer systems. In the past ten years, 

numerous data collection efforts by EPA, the industrial laundering industry and third parties to document the overall 
286

effectiveness of laundry waste water treatment. In fact, and this was during the Clinton Administration, EPA’s 1999 decision to 

withdraw proposed guidelines of the industry was based on the fact that industrial laundry effluent is already effectively treated at 

laundries and their POTWs and is no way adversely impacting the environment.

As required under -- [sic] industrial laundries examine the characteristics of waste water sludge and other solid waste generated 

by their waste water treatment systems. US EPA’s comprehensive risk analysis, screening analysis properly concludes that the 

sludge produced by industrial launderers does not contain constituents in concentrations which would exceed any of the 

allowable health benchmarks. Due to the industry’s extensive waste water permitting laundries are in regular contact with local 

regulators. This ensures a laundry complies with no just local waste water rules but with the rules that govern the proper disposal 

solid waste generated by the laundry treatment systems as well as state regulations and policies that require the proper 

management for reusable shop towels.

Because recycle and research conservation is such an essential part of our industry, USTA and TSA together with EPA created 

the laundry environmental stewardship program, laundry ESP. That was in 1999. Laundry ESP is a voluntary program by which 

industrial laundries both large and small raise their overall environmental performance. Laundry ESP is not just limited to 

reusable wipes though. It also extends laundry’s entire line of textiles. More importantly, laundry ESP facilitates an exchange in 

cooperation in critical environmental matters across industries including the various businesses that use and rely on reusable shop 

towels. 

Laundry ESP documents the industry’s environmental performance as whole and it has been a resounding success. Through 

program participation, laundries have achieved the following. An 11 percent decrease in water use. That means we saved over 4.9 

billion gallons of water since 1997. We’ve also achieved an 11 percent reduction in energy consumption. That’s over 10 trillion 

BTUs of energy saved since 1997 also. And since 1998 we have reduced the toxicity of our waste water discharges by over 40 

percent. As I say Laundry ESP has been a great success for us. 

One last point, that the record is clear, reusable shop towels and the materials found in reusables after use are handled, after 

reusables are handled. Excuse me, let me start over. The record is clear. Reusable shop towels and the materials found on 

reusables after use are handled in a more environmentally sensitive way than disposal wipes and rags. EPA should create 

regulatory incentives not barriers to permit reuse, recovery, recycling of reusable towels through the environmentally beneficial 

services provided by laundries. All of the industrial laundry waste streams are already subject to comprehensive federal, state and 

local environmental regulation, the Clean Water Act and RIPRA as well as the related pre-treatment permits and state policies 

and the proper management of shop towels. There will be no environmental basis or justification to impose duplicative 

regulations on laundries or their customers. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1472

Submitted by - Robert Schaffer of Coyne Textile Services/TRSA 

Comment Text:

Coyne like other TRSA and UTSA member companies has a strong commitment to protection of worker health and safety. We 

conduct routine sampling of air, water to ensure that the concentration of solvents and other regulated substances are well within 

acceptable limits. Coyne has invested millions of dollars in treatment facilities, in environmental worker safety controls and we 

have an annual budget in excess of $2,000,000 to cover these matters. Coyne provides its workers with all necessary training and 

protective equipment to meet federal, state and local requirements. We’ve conducted several comprehensive worker exposure 

studies. We have provided the results to the Agency. In those studies we performed detailed analysis of air samples collected in 

personal breathing zones, of two workers, for instance, and this is an example, in the receiving and sorting area of our facilities. 

These studies demonstrated as all of our workplace exposure data has confirmed that our employees’ workplace exposures are 

well within safety levels. One study evaluated the presence of approximately 40 compounds in the breathing zone of two textile 

sorting workers at one of our facilities. At the facility bagged soiled towels are delivered via truck and manually loaded at an 

open air exterior loading dock. Weighed on four scales and then manually removed from the bags for sorting. Towels are then 

loaded onto another truck for delivery to one of Coyne’s laundering facilities. Breathing zone sampling was conducted for 

comparison with an eight hour time related average for TWA for permissible exposure limit, PEL, established by the United 

States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. 

The study was, of course, conducted under applicable OSHA and NIAGE standards. The results of the study demonstrated no 

significant health risk associated with any of the evaluated solvent compounds. Concentrations of the solvents were at least 100 

times less than the OSHA PEL and sometimes a thousand times less than the OSHA PEL.

A second study involved solvent vapor exposure from soiled textiles to a Coyne driver on a heavy soil pickup route. The driver’s 

basic task involved picking up, making stops at various customer locations and delivering clean and picking up soiled products. 

The driver stated that during this task, the greater than average number of soiled towels were picked up during his 22 stops on 
287

that particular run. The driver also unloaded 20 -- bags of soiled towels. Consultants using personal monitoring devices on the 

driver to measure concentrations in his breathing zone conducted the tests. The duration of tests were slightly over eight hours 

and a monitor was also placed in the truck. All test results for the 36 solvents found were far below OSHA’s PEL. Only two 

values or more than one percent of this and all were less than one and a half percent of the PEL. A consultant reminded us that 

these results provided conservative estimate of worker exposure.

The most important aspect of these studies, and Coyne has conducted a number of them over the years is that the concentration of 

solvents detected are always a minute fraction of the OSHA PELs. Aside from giving the company confidence that worker health 

is not jeopardized this data demonstrates that existing industry practices and regulatory responsibilities under state law and 

OSHA adequately and comprehensively address worker exposure concerns associated with solvent vapors in the industrial 

laundry workplace.

Furthermore, the amount of solvents contained on soil towels returned to Coyne’s facilities has been reduced over the years. This 

reduction is due in large part to Coyne’s customer education efforts and the education of our own folks. We continually stress the 

requirement consistent with company policy, industrial management standards and state regulation that return towels contain no 

free liquid. And customers seem to be more conscious of using the least amount of solvent products necessary for their given 

tasks at their locations. The reduction of solvent use is also reflected in the waste water generated by Coyne and our ability to 

meet our discharge requirements. We had noticed a 25 percent reduction in the last few years between 1998 and 2003 of solvents 

we had recovered from our waste water treatment operations for beneficial reuse.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1476

Submitted by - William Guerry of UTSA/TRSA 

Comment Text:

One of the laundry industry’s primary goals as you just heard from Bob Schaffer is to protect workers and to provide a safe 

workplace at all laundry facilities. As you know Congress appropriately delegated to OSHA the role of protecting employees 

from unsafe working conditions. OSHA has implemented this authority and established comprehensive permissible exposure 

limits or PELs for all of the hazardous solvents regulated under RICRA. As Mr. Schaffer testified, laundry workplace exposure to 

solvent vapors is a de minimus fraction of the various OSHA PELs for solvents.

Moreover, industrial laundries are already subject to and must meet OSHA Hazard communications standard requirements which 

require employers to inform their employees of chemical hazards via container labels, MSD sheets and training. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1478

Submitted by - Jim Buik of Rosco Company 

Comment Text:

Over the years, Roscoe’s gathered the best practices for managing shop towels.

These practices range from our own company’s procedures and infrastructure such as ventilation systems to protect workers 

handling shop towels to imposing strict rental conditions on our customers including a no free flowing liquids policy for return 

shop towels and finally comprehensive employee training so that our route drivers can discriminate whether or not to accept a 

load of soiled shop towels. 

13.0. Alternative Option 1: Exclude Reusables and Disposables from 

Hazardous Waste Definition

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 753

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

The conditions for wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste regulation should be the same for laundered shop towels and 

disposable wipers going to landfills. Since the sludge from laundered shop towels ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers, 

there is no basis for differing conditions.
288

Docket Number - 148

Comment Key - 755

Submitted by - James Alexy of Network Services Company 

Comment Text:

Both laundered and disposable wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation. There is no logical basis to exclude 

laundered wipes from solid waste regulation when MORE solid waste goes to landfills in the form of sludge from laundered 

wipes than from disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1001

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: On page 65608, Column 1, paragraph F, EPA provides an alternative approach that would exclude both reusable and 

disposable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. However, we believe EPA should maintain the proposed approach of 

establishing separate exclusions for reusable and disposable industrial wipes.

Discussion: Although this alternative option may be easier to implement since there will be no distinction between reusable and 

disposable wipes, we concur with the stakeholders that have already strongly opposed this alternative. 

As discussed in the preamble, reusable wipes can be viewed as commodities and are therefore not solid wastes. This logic makes 

sense and therefore the regulatory status of reusable wipes should continue to be excluded from the definition of solid waste. 

There appears to be a clear distinction between waste management of wipes that are laundered, cleaned, etc., versus those that are 

disposed of in landfills or combustors. Accordingly, it makes sense that the wipes be managed differently.

Recommendation: Maintain the approach of establishing separate exclusions, one from solid waste and one from hazardous 

waste, for reusable and disposable industrial wipes, respectively.

Docket Number - 158

Comment Key - 1580

Submitted by - Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels fkom the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 159

Comment Key - 454

Submitted by - Gary Clark of Clark and Associates 

Comment Text:

The conditions for wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste regulation should be the same for laundered shop towels and 

disposable wipers going to landfills. Since the sludge from laundered shop towels ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers, 

there is no basis for differing conditions.

Docket Number - 160

Comment Key - 766

Submitted by - Louis Buty of Peerless Materials Company 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 166

Comment Key - 738

Submitted by - Alan Frankhariel of Mercantile Development, Inc. (MDI) 

Comment Text:

With consideration to the large amount of sludge generated by laundered shop towels and disposed of as solid waste, it seems 

illogical to remove shop towels from the definition of solid waste.
289

Docket Number - 168

Comment Key - 20

Submitted by - Robert Peterson of DuPont Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste.

Docket Number - 169

Comment Key - 516

Submitted by - Gary Chittaro of EIS, Inc. 

Comment Text:

I am in support of this EPA effort. However, the proposed rule is more complicated than it needs to be. There is no reason for 

laundered shop towels and disposable wipers to be treated differently, this giving an unwarranted preferential treatment for 

laundered towels. Laundered show towels and disposable wipes should be required to have the same labeling and transportation 

requirements. My recommendation is for disposable wipes to be excluded from hazardous waste regulations just like the 

laundered shop towels. I would like to see laundered shop towels and disposable wipers regulatory treatment be equal so that 

neither receives preferential treatment from the EPA. I also would like this rule finalized as quickly as possible.

Docket Number - 170

Comment Key - 1628

Submitted by - Ronald K. Kramer of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] reviewing the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these

towels produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 171

Comment Key - 603

Submitted by - John Michaud of Green Bay Nonwovens, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste. 

Docket Number - 176

Comment Key - 744

Submitted by - Tom Robertshaw of Motion Industries 

Comment Text:

Conditions for wiping products to exclude from hazardous waste regulation should be the same for laundered shop towels and 

disposable wipers going to landfills. Sludge from laundered shop towels ends up in landfills just like disposable wipers, there is 

no basis for differing conditions. To exclude both disposable wipers and laundered shop towels from hazardous waste regulation, 

considering there is no logical basis to exclude laundered wipes from solid waste regulation when more solid waste goes to 

landfills in the form of sludge from laundered wipes than from disposable wipers.

Docket Number - 178

Comment Key - 405

Submitted by - Ross H. McMillan of BBA Fiberweb 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 185

Comment Key - 15

Submitted by - Steven Hamilton of Urban Environmental Affairs Council 

Comment Text:

Do NOT provide an exclusion from solid waste for reusable industrial wipes. The solvent, if not meeting the conditions of the 

exclusion, are hazardous waste. The exclusion should be from hazardous waste regulation, not solid waste regulation.
290

Docket Number - 190

Comment Key - 845

Submitted by - George Cotter of Row Clothing 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing ship towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1363

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

We support USEPA’s suggestion (Page 65808, first column) that the reusable industrial wipes exclusion be changed from being a

solid waste exclusion to a hazardous waste exclusion. The reusable wipes, like their disposable wipes counterpart, are spent 

materials, as discussed in Comment 3. Currently, New York’s policy for reusable wipes is to only exclude them from the 

definition of hazardous waste when certain conditions are met. We don’t believe this has presented any serious problems, and 

retaining their status as a solid waste is intuitively more in keeping with the nature of these “dirty rags.” Hazardous disposables in 

New York State must be managed under the ordinary hazardous waste regulations, as correctly stated on Page 65995 (second 

column).

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1406

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

MADEP disagrees with EPA’s basis for excluding reusables because they are “more commodity-like” than disposables. Focus 

should be on the solvent, which has the same toxicity regardless of whether it is discharged, landfilled, combusted or in a sludge 

that is landfilled. While the reused wipe may be commodity-like, the solvent in the wipe is not if it ends up in an industrial 

laundry’s wastewater sludge.

Docket Number - 198

Comment Key - 902

Submitted by - Louis LeCalsey of Tufco Technologies, Inc. 

Comment Text:

[EPA should consider] the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste;

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1551

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Comment on option to exclude both disposable and reusable wipes from hazardous waste classification. EPA should keep the two 

types of wipes separate. A reusable wipe is commodity like and does not meet the EPA definition of waste. A disposable product 

is waste by definition and intent. 

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 703

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be conditionally excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. It is 

inappropriate and environmentally unjustified to exempt laundered wipes from the definition of solid waste.

Docket Number - 257

Comment Key - 704

Submitted by - Jan Spencer of Kimberly Clark 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be conditionally excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. It is 

inappropriate and environmentally unjustified to exempt laundered wipes from the definition of solid waste...As demonstrated in 

the study conducted by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services on behalf of EPA, 30 percent MORE solid waste is generated 

per 1,000 laundered wipes than per 1,000 non-laundered wipes due to the sludge industrial launderers send to landfills. Providing 
291

an exclusion from solid waste regulation for laundered wipes will encourage generators to shift from non-laundered wipes to 

laundered 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. The subject of this rulemaking is the hazardous solvent, not the wipe. While laundered wipes will be 

reused, the hazardous solvent on them is intended for disposal. Therefore, the exclusion should be from hazardous waste 

regulation, not solid waste regulation. 

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 522

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

I urge your agency to acknowledge that this rule making is about “SOLVENT’ and only about solvent. The risks to human health 

and the environment must only be based on the solvent and not the wipe that the solvent is on. The only acceptable rule will be 

one that treats solvent soiled wipes – whether laundered or non-laundered – in a similar manner.

Docket Number - 261

Comment Key - 527

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of ERC Wiping Products, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Establish a conditional exemption from the definition of Hazardous Waste ONLY for both laundered and non-laundered wipes 

(i.e., there should be no exemption from the definition of solid waste for laundered shop towels)

-The effects on the solid waste stream are the same for laundered and non-laundered wipes. As stated in studies; more solid waste 

is generated by laundry sludge than by non laundered wipes.

-All laundered shop towels end up in a landfill eventually.

-Having separate exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wipes will allow the laundry industry to perpetuate their 

misrepresentations that shop towels are environmentally preferable. 

-Many companies and municipalities have “solid waste reduction” programs. If laundered shop towels are excluded from the 

definition of solid waste it would give generators the FALSE impression that they are reducing the amount of solid waste that

goes to landfills when EPA studies show that the opposite is really true. 

Docket Number - 265

Comment Key - 1047

Submitted by - Tim Bahr of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Both disposable and reusable wipes should be conditionally exempt from the definition of hazardous waste. Neither should be 

exempt from the definition of solid waste. Both should be subject to management standards.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1108

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

On page 65608 of the proposed rule preamble (section V.F.), EPA solicits comment on two alternative approaches to the 

proposed rule. CTDEP does not believe either of these options is preferable over the proposed rule, and would urge EPA not to

consider either of them. However, as noted in [another comment], CTDEP would like to see EPA pursue the option of listing 

industrial wipes as Universal Wastes.

Docket Number - 273

Comment Key - 1040

Submitted by - Mervyn Dymally of California State Legislature 

Comment Text:

The exclusion for reusable shop towels should be from hazardous waste regulation, not solid waste regulation. Ultimately, the

solvents on reusable industrial towels—which are at the heart of the matter—end up (a) in the air from evaporation that occurs 

before laundering; (b) in a landfill as sludge from the wastewater treatment process; or (c) in public rivers and streams if they are 

not filtered out by the water treatment system. By far, the sludge that ends up in the landfill constitutes the overwhelming bulk of 

these three component wastes. Because the solvents are intended for disposal they are, by definition, a waste. Excluding reusable 

shop towels from solid waste regulation is inappropriate and sets a very dangerous precedent for the EPA’s mission to protect the 

environment.
292

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 674

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

EPA seeks comment on two alternative regulatory approaches to the proposal. The first would exclude both reusable and 

disposable solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. Under this proposal, all other components of the 

proposed rule remain the same. IPC supports this alternative approach if the conditions for the handling and disposal of reusable 

towels are the same as specified in the current proposal. 

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 597

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The Agency seeks comment on two alternative regulatory approaches to the proposal. The first would exclude both reusable and 

disposable solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. Under this proposal, all other components of the 

proposed rule remain the same. The GAC could support this alternative approach as long as the conditions specified for the 

handling and disposal of reusable towels did not change from the current proposal. Again, our long stated goal is to maintain the 

status quo regarding the handling of laundered or dry cleaned wipes. The other option proposed would set one set of conditions 

for both reusable and disposable wipes. For the reasons stated above, the GAC does not support this alternative option.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 187

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA requests comment on applying the same conditions to both reusable and disposable wipes. 68 FR 65608. The ETC agrees 

that the same regulatory framework should apply to both, and there is no basis for exemption of reusable wipes from the 

definition of solid waste. Both the administrative record and the testimony at the public hearing on this proposed rule on March 9, 

2004 indicate 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. 

Given these more frequent incidents of worker exposure and environmental releases, the scope of the exemption of reusable 

solvent wipes needs to be reconsidered.

A broad exemption from the solid waste definition may create opportunities for even more damage cases and injury. Again, the 

commodity- like nature of the wipe cloth does not justify ignoring the hazards posed by the solvent, which is not being recycled 

but disposed, emitted in the work place, and discharged to water. In fact, there are more opportunities for releases and impacts to 

the public from laundered industrial wipes than from disposable wipes. Laundered wipes are being managed in un-regulated 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, 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. These worker exposure issues have not been fully evaluated in the risk assessment, and raise 

substantial concern over the validity and wisdom of any exemption for laundered wipes.

Docket Number - 288

Comment Key - 472

Submitted by - David Case of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) 

Comment Text:

EPA requests comment on applying the same conditions to both reusable and disposable wipes. 68 FR 65608. The ETC agrees 

that the same regulatory framework should apply to both, and there is no basis for exemption of reusable wipes from the 

definition of solid waste. Both the administrative record and the testimony at the public hearing on this proposed rule on March 9, 

2004 indicate 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. 

Given these more frequent incidents of worker exposure and environmental releases, the scope of the exemption of reusable 

solvent wipes needs to be reconsidered.

Docket Number - 299

Comment Key - 26

Submitted by - E. Carle Shotwell of American Fiber & Finishing 

Comment Text:

AF&F further urges the EPA to establish conditional exemptions and exclusions for laundered and non-laundered wiping 
293

products that are as equitable as possible. This would be achieved by retaining the solid waste classification for laundered shop 

towels, as discussed in Section F, Part 1 Subtitled “Alternative Options to the Approach of Today’s Proposed Rule” on Page 24 

of the Federal Register published November 20th 2003. The justification for this approach is twofold; first a laundered shop 

towel eventually is disposed of in a landfill after the shop towel’s reusable life is exhausted. This is on average after only eight 

washings. Secondly, the effluent that is generated by the laundering process for shop towels generates sludge at the POTW. The 

sludge that is generated by the POTW is disposed of in landfills. 

Docket Number - 302

Comment Key - 680

Submitted by - William Wright of John R. Lyman Company 

Comment Text:

Laundered wipes should NOT be excluded from the definition of solid waste because according to EPA’s own documents more 

solid waste is generated from laundries (through sludge) than from wipes destined for landfills. Also, laundered wipes end up in 

landfills after eight to twelve washings. Currently, laundered wipes are not considered solid waste and the rental industry uses 

that as an unfair advantage by claiming disposable wipes are solid waste. We simply want to level the regulatory playing field.

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 353

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK disagrees with the alternative proposal in which reusable towels that meet the “no free liquids’’ standard would be 

excluded from the definition of “hazardous waste” rather than from the regulatory definition of “solid waste.” As acknowledged 

by EPA, the reusable towel is considered “commodity like” since the wiper is owned by the laundry and is part of a “systematic 

handling system”. Since the towels are treated by the laundry industry as a commodity and represent value, the towels are 

consistently inventoried and accounted for, typically weekly and seldom less than every other week. The use of the towel is 

extended to the generator as a service by the laundry. As a result, the towels are maintained (i.e. laundered) and the towels

returned to service. A material is considered a waste when it can no longer be used or when it is discarded. The way in which a 

reusable towel is handled by the industrial laundry industry is not consistent with the definition of “waste”. 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 use of reusable towels fosters 

pollution prevention. Many states (as outlined in many P-2 documents) encourage the use of reusable towels to reduce waste 

generation.

Docket Number - 306

Comment Key - 488

Submitted by - Gregory Roscoe of Colbond Nonwovens 

Comment Text:

EPA should also consider the logic of removing shop towels from the definition of solid waste when laundering of these towels 

produces significant amounts of sludge that is disposed of as solid waste.

Docket Number - 307

Comment Key - 812

Submitted by - Dan Clay of Rentwear, Inc. 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 308

Comment Key - 607

Submitted by - James F. Vaudreuil of Huebsch 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 
294

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and certainly would lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 315

Comment Key - 467

Submitted by - Richard Spitzfaden of Clean The Uniform Company St. Louis 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 323

Comment Key - 431

Submitted by - Mike R. Benoit of Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

Comment Text:

EPA should not distinguish between the exemption status of reusable and disposable wipes. In the proposal (Is. 65590), EPA 

describes the criteria for reusable solvent-contaminated wipes going to be reclaimed and reused being required to meet the 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste. EPA then describes the criteria for industrial wipes to continue meeting the 

exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. There is no difference in the hazards posed between types of wipes based 

merely on their intended destinations that is sufficient to warrant the differentiation made in the proposed rule. EPA frequently 

claims in the proposal that the fact that they are “recyclable” justifies exemption of reusable wipes from the solid waste 

determination. However, this proposal provides that in the normal disposition of these wipes, the hazardous constituents that 

make them potentially subject to RCRA rules would not be recycled but would be disposed instead. EPA cites the “Battery 

Recyclers” court decision as a basis for this, but unlike the situation with industrial wipes, the facts of that case involved the 

“recycling” of the hazardous components, not simply the non-hazardous portions. If a wipe were processed to remove solvent and 

the solvent were then recovered or reused, we agree that would constitute actual recycling. But simply laundering the wipe and 

subsequently disposing or discharging the hazardous constituents is not the same thing and is clearly inferior environmentally. 

Therefore, the proposed exemption distinctions between reusable and disposable wipes are inappropriate. CKRC suggests that 

EPA modify the proposal to ensure that the exemption for both reusable and disposable wipes is from the definition of hazardous 

waste, not solid waste.

Docket Number - 324

Comment Key - 411

Submitted by - Edwin Freeman of Bro Tex 

Comment Text:

According to EPA’s own documents more solid waste is generated from laundries (through sludge) than from wipes destined for 

landfills, in addition laundered wipes also end up in landfills after 8-12 washings. The laundering process does NOT recycle the 

solvent; it processes it as a waste. While the towel will be reused, the solvent is intended for disposal from the time the launderer 

picks up the wipe at the generator’s facility. Disposal of the solvent on a laundered wipe eventually ends up in the landfill just as 

a non-laundered wipe.

It is common sense the solvents on the laundered wipes don’t magically disappear. EPA’s studies prove that they end up in 

landfills – just like the solvents on non-laundered wipes – in sludge whose liquid composition presents a greater potential threat 

than non-laundered wipes scattered throughout a landfill. Rather than reducing the amount of solid waste going to landfills, 

laundered wipes actually increases the amount of solid waste going to landfills. The facts prove that laundered wipes and nonlaundered wipes present EQUAL potential risks and as such should be regulated EQUALLY.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1614

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe there is any advantage to a proposal that would not exclude reusable wipers being managed at a 

laundry or dry cleaners from the definition of solid waste. 
295

Docket Number - 329

Comment Key - 496

Submitted by - Scott Arentsen of Dayton Power and Light Company 

Comment Text:

USEPA includes in the proposal two alternative schemes by which it is considering regulating solvent-contaminated industrial 

wipes. Under the first alternative approach, reusable industrial wipes would be excluded from the regulatory definition of 

hazardous waste rather than from the regulatory definition of solid waste. In effect, this approach would make no differentiation 

in the regulatory status of industrial wipes whether they are disposed of or are recycled by laundering or dry cleaning. All 

conditions related to the exclusions as presented in the proposal would continue to apply, but reusable solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipes would remain classified as a solid waste (although not a hazardous waste) when the applicable conditions are 

met. DP&L opposes this approach.

The basis upon which USEPA provided the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for industrial wipes destined 

for reuse via laundering or dry cleaning in the proposed rule was that they are not being disposed of and are, in fact, being treated 

as a commodity. At such time as the wipes would be ultimately disposed of, they then would be treated as a solid waste (although 

not a hazardous waste if the conditions applicable to industrial wipes destined for disposal are met as outlined in the proposed 

rule). To alter the proposal so that such wipes would be classified as a solid waste defeats the purpose of the exemption. DP&L 

can think of no other commodity that is classified as a solid waste while it is still in use. The first alternative approach as outlined 

in the proposed rule would undercut the very foundation of solid waste regulations by opening material to regulation even when it 

is not a waste. DP&L agrees with stakeholder comments that express concern that this alternative approach subjects the industrial 

wipes to solid waste fees imposed by state and/or local jurisdictions which ultimately could act as a disincentive for generators to 

reuse the wipes by having them cleaned.

Docket Number - 334

Comment Key - 1622

Submitted by - Pat Farris of Clean The Uniform Company O'Fallon 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 335

Comment Key - 1623

Submitted by - Bill Albright of Clean Uniform Company Joplin 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 339

Comment Key - 1624

Submitted by - David Hinkle of Eagle Uniform and Linen supply 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.
296

Docket Number - 344

Comment Key - 763

Submitted by - Travis Keeler of Overall Laundry Services 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been considered 

but not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 349

Comment Key - 509

Submitted by - David W Timmons of Dupont 

Comment Text:

The Agency has proposed to exclude from the regulatory definition of solid waste reusable industrial wipes that are recycled and 

to exclude from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste disposable industrial wipes that are incinerated or landfilled. The 

alternative proposal would exclude both types of wipes only from the definition of hazardous waste. DuPont is unsure that a 

distinction is necessary and therefore supports the second approach. If the Agency has decided that wipes which meet the criteria 

may be managed as nonhazardous wastes, with its attendant paperwork and recordkeeping requirements, then sending such wipes 

to incinerators and landfills will involve the same paperwork (bill of lading, etc) regardless of whether or not it is classified as a 

RCRA solid waste or not. If disposed, these wipes are in effect solid wastes and the need to designated them as such seems 

redundant. If the distinction is based on a belief that the wipes sent for disposal pose a threat to human health and the 

environment, then the same is true of those sent for laundering.

Docket Number - 354

Comment Key - 576

Submitted by - Joseph Kinker of Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Comment Text:

Both non-laundered wipes and laundered wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation

Docket Number - 358

Comment Key - 636

Submitted by - Patti Krebs of Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) 

Comment Text:

Comment on option to exclude both disposable and reusable wipes from hazardous waste classification. EPA should keep the two 

types of wipes separate. A reusable wipe is commodity like and does not meet the EPA definition of waste. A disposable product 

is waste by definition and intent.

Docket Number - 361

Comment Key - 401

Submitted by - John Tessmann of Band Box Cleaners & Laundry, Inc 

Comment Text:

Excluding reusable shop towels from the definition of hazardous waste only (and thus defining them as solid waste) makes no 

sense considering the role that reusable shop towels play in our business. The management conditions we adhere to insure 

protection of our workers and the environment. A solid waste exclusion contingent on elaborate testing (as has been consider but 

not proposed) rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 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. These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue and might lead to employee layoffs.

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1495

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Laundering does not recycle the solvent, it processes it as a waste. While the towel will be reused, the solvent is intended for 
297

disposal from the time the launderer picks up the wipe at the generator's facility. Disposal of the solvent from the laundered wipe 

eventually ends up in a landfill just as a non-laundered wipe. 

Docket Number - 362

Comment Key - 1498

Submitted by - Timothy Limsenben of Exchange Center of California 

Comment Text:

Both laundered and non-laundered wipes should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1418

Submitted by - Larry Groipen of Secondary Materials That Recycle Textiles Association (SMART)

Comment Text:

The rule in its final form must treat laundered and non-laundered wipes in a similar manner. If the rule is non dripping or non 

dripping when rung or a five gram limit, the rule must apply to both. If the rule requires special containers or no containers, labels 

or no labels, it must apply to both. If the rule says there are 11 nasty solvents or six nasty solvents that can't go to landfills, then 

they must be permitted to landfills in sludge and neither can they be laundered.

The conditional exemption from hazardous waste regulation should be given to both. After all, EPA's data shows more solid 

waste is generated by sludge than by non-laundered wipes. Therefore, a solid waste exemption is not warranted. The laundry 

industry believes that a fair and evenly proposed rule will hurt them financially. They only need to look at the State of 

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has had a rule allowing non dripping solvent soiled 

wipes to be disposed of as solid waste for almost ten years. To my knowledge, no area shop towel laundries have gone out of 

business. However, half the non-laundered wipe companies have gone out of business with several more suffering.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1431

Submitted by - Art Abell of Cando Company 

Comment Text:

Providing an exclusion for laundered wipes with solid waste regulation despite the fact that more solid waste goes to landfill than 

from non-laundered wipes. This will have the marked impact of encouraging generators to switch from non-laundered wipes to 

laundered wipes to achieve solid waste reduction objectives which, in fact, when in fact there are no solid waste benefits.

In effect, EPA would be sponsoring a reporting deception, enabling generators to report their share from non-laundered wipes to 

laundered wipes as a solid waste reduction when solid waste is actually increasing. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1456

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

First and foremost, as proposed the rule would needlessly perpetuate several inequities regarding handling, treatment and disposal 

of industrial wiping products. Specifically, INDA contends that laundered shop towels should not be excluded from the definition 

of solid waste. Like non-laundered wiping products, in fact, INDA contends it would be much more appropriate for EPA to 

establish conditions by which all types of wiping products laundered and non-laundered could be exempted from the definition of 

hazardous waste. Excluding laundered shop towels from the definition of solid waste implies that these products do not produce 

solid waste. Yet, a study entitled Environmental Assessment for Shop Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries 

that was conducted on behalf of the EPA by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services concluded that 30 percent more solid 

waste goes to landfills from laundered wipes than from non-laundered wipes.

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1457

Submitted by - Peter Mayberry of INDA 

Comment Text:

Specifically, INDA contends that laundered shop towels should not be excluded from the definition of solid waste. Like nonlaundered wiping products, in fact, INDA contends it would be much more appropriate for EPA to establish conditions by which 

all types of wiping products laundered and non-laundered could be exempted from the definition of hazardous waste. Excluding 

laundered shop towels from the definition of solid waste implies that these products do not produce solid waste. Yet, a study

entitled Environmental Assessment for Shop Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries that was conducted on 

behalf of the EPA by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services concluded that 30 percent more solid waste goes to landfills from
298

laundered wipes than from non-laundered wipes. This due to the substantial volume of sludge produced during the industrial 

laundering process. According to Lockheed Martin’s findings, in fact, the landfill volume taken up through the disposal of sludge 

generated when 100 shop towels are laundered is 30 percent greater than the volume taken up by the disposal of 100 spent 

wipers.

Moreover, the Lockheed Martin study concluded that landfill disposal and industrial laundry sludge is potentially more 

threatening to human health and the environment that landfill disposal of spend nonwoven wipers. [Testimony quotes from 

Lockheed Martin report]...All told therefore, INDA sees no reason why EPA should treat laundered and non-laundered wiping 

products differently when it comes to the definition of solid waste. 

14.0. Alternative Option 2: Exclude Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Being 

Combusted and Wipes being Landfilled Under a Single Set of Conditions

Docket Number - 246

Comment Key - 1552

Submitted by - David Leef of Industrial Towel and Uniform 

Comment Text:

Comment of the option to have one set of conditions for all types of disposable wipes. The potential for environmental harm is 

significantly increased if the "dry" condition for land filled wipes is removed.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1678

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

On page 65608 of the proposed rule preamble (section V.F.), EPA solicits comment on two alternative approaches to the 

proposed rule. CTDEP does not believe either of these options is preferable over the proposed rule, and would urge EPA not to 

consider either of them. However, as noted in [another comment], CTDEP would like to see EPA pursue the option of listing 

industrial wipes as Universal Wastes.

Docket Number - 278

Comment Key - 1610

Submitted by - Fern Abrams of IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries 

Comment Text:

The other option proposed would establish a single set of conditions for both reusable and disposable wipes. IPC believes this 

option is inappropriate given the differences in issues, risks, and environmental impacts associated with reuse, incineration, and 

landfill disposal.

Docket Number - 280

Comment Key - 724

Submitted by - of Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Comment Text:

Potentially regulating all disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes under a single set of conditions would certainly be 

easier to implement and would serve to simplify the regulations for generators, transporters, and disposal facilities...EPA could 

limit the solvent-contaminated rags for disposal to the 16 solvent constituents that passed the risk screening analysis in Section 

VII.C of this proposed rule and require that they contain “no free liquid.”

Docket Number - 281

Comment Key - 1558

Submitted by - Marcia Y. Kinter of The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) 

Comment Text:

The Agency seeks comment on two alternative regulatory approaches to the proposal. The first would exclude both reusable and 

disposable solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. Under this proposal, all other components of the 

proposed rule remain the same. The GAC could support this alternative approach as long as the conditions specified for the 

handling and disposal of reusable towels did not change from the current proposal. Again, our long stated goal is to maintain the 

status quo regarding the handling of laundered or dry cleaned wipes. The other option proposed would set one set of conditions 

for both reusable and disposable wipes. For the reasons stated above, the GAC does not support this alternative option.
299

Docket Number - 305

Comment Key - 354

Submitted by - Stephanie M. Walter of ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. 

Comment Text:

ARAMARK disagrees with the alternative proposal to exclude all disposable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste solely 

on meeting the “no free liquids” standard. Laundries are regulated by federal, state and/or local law for wastewater, air emissions 

and solid waste activities. Solvents brought into a laundry are tightly controlled by these regulations. However, introducing 

disposable solvent-laden wipes into a municipal or non-hazardous landfill not properly equipped to handle hazardous waste 

materials, would allow the entry of uncontrolled quantities of solvents into a comparatively uncontrolled environment and 

thereby greatly reduce the effectiveness of the regulation.

Docket Number - 328

Comment Key - 1615

Submitted by - David Haldeman of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment Text:

The department does not believe that alternative option number 2 at 68 FR 65608 should be implemented. Based on our 

comments at paragraph 1 above, the department does not believe that spent wipers destined for disposal should be regulated 

differently than they are currently regulated. The statement made at 68 FR 656 10, namely; "Another factor to note is that there is 

considerable uncertainty in a large number of parameters used in the analysis" and the examples that followed, indicate the risk 

analysis approach to using the 5-gram criteria is not yet precise enough to change our regulatory approach.

Docket Number - 365

Comment Key - 806

Submitted by - Richard L Sieg of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 

Comment Text:

From a practical standpoint, it seems unnecessarily burdensome to have special procedures for the management of rags that 

qualify as exempt from the rule. If a wipe meets all of the hazardous waste exclusion requirements, then it should be allowed to 

be discarded in the regular trash. 

In the normal setup within a plant, there are essentially two wipe disposal waste streams - hazardous waste and the regular trash. 

If the Rule becomes effective as proposed, a third waste stream with specific requirements will burden plant personnel with all 

the problems associated with the management of a new waste stream - centralized collection, labeling, and logistics. The end 

result of all of this effort would be the unnecessary handling of rags that are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste, 

even though the waste stream could ultimately be discarded in the landfill. Again, our position is that we should be able to 

discard these non-hazardous wipes in the regular trash.

15.0. Clarifications and Typographical Errors

Docket Number - 133

Comment Key - 1341

Submitted by - Russell S. Hanson 

Comment Text:

On page 65618 of the proposed rule published in 68 FR 65858 (11-20-2003), definitions for the terms "No free liquids" and 

"Solvent extraction" are being added. The definition for each of these terms begins "as used in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)..." This 

appears to be a typographic error and should have read "as used in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)..."

Docket Number - 134

Comment Key - 1342

Submitted by - Russell S. Hanson 

Comment Text:

On page 65619 of the proposed rule published in 68 FR 65858 (11-20-2003), a new exclusion is being added as 40 CFR 

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)."
300

Docket Number - 135

Comment Key - 1347

Submitted by - Thomas Burke 

Comment Text:

[in footnote 7] After the word "higher" should read, "except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 110F (37.8C) or 

higher,"

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 994

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Requirement to manage liquids removed from wipes as hazardous waste appears out of place in proposed 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(19)(v).

Discussion: 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 requirement that liquids removed must be managed as hazardous waste is an 

important requirement and should stand alone.

Recommendation: Create a new 40 CFR 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.” Move 

the current proposed Section (vi) through (xi) (which is improperly numbered (see next issue); it should be (x)) to a new (vii) 

through (xi).

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 995

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Typographical error in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(19).

Discussion: Section (xi) follows section (viii); it should be section (ix). 

Recommendation: Correctly renumber this section.

Docket Number - 155

Comment Key - 1009

Submitted by - Raymond Fatz of US Department of Defense 

Comment Text:

Comment: Within proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)(iii), the reference to "(a)(24)(iv)" should be changed to "(a)(22)(iv)".

Discussion: Regarding transfer of wipes containing free liquids, proposed 261.4(a)(22)(iii) states, "... industrial wipes must 

contain no free liquids or must have been treated by solvent extraction, except as stated in paragraph (a)(24)(iv) of this section." 

The exception is in (a)(22)(iv), not (a)(24)(iv).

Recommendation: Correct the typographical error in the final rule.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 36

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 

Comment Text:

DOE requests that the notice of final rulemaking discuss 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 266, Subpart N]. DOE believes it may be possible for some solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to qualify 

for both conditional exclusions.

Docket Number - 184

Comment Key - 37

Submitted by - Thomas Traceski of US Department of Energy 
301

Comment Text:

DOE notes that the proposed regulatory language goes beyond simply stating conditions that must be met by the waste generator 

in order to qualify for the exclusions. Specifically, 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 including municipal waste landfills and other non-hazardous waste landfills, 

municipal waste combustors, other combustion facilities, laundries, dry cleaners, and handling facilities. 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 recycle. For this reason, DOE suggests that EPA consider relocating the final 

regulations in their entirety to 40 CFR Part 266, “Standards for Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of 

Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.” This approach would be consistent with EPA’s intended use of Part 266 i.e., for 

tailored management standards [48 FR 14472 (April 4, 19831) and would facilitate access to the standards by the regulated 

community.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1355

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

The first sentence of Footnote 7, on Page 65595, appears to contain the extra words “or higher”.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1358

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

On Page 65600 (third column), USEPA indicates that solvent removed from excluded wipers 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, on Page 65603 (first column), USEPA 

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, 261.4(a)(22)(vii) allows laundry sludges derived from the cleaning of solvent wipes 

to be disposed of as non-listed waste. It appears to be inconsistent to state that solvent derived from excluded wipes can be Flisted hazardous waste, but that ash and laundry sludges derived from excluded wipes cannot, and we request clarification. Also, 

it is unclear whether solvents leaked during transportation would be ‘reacquire’ F-listing (see Page 65596, third column).

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 301

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

The language proposed for the definition of “No free liquids” appears to contain an incorrect reference. As proposed, there is a 

reference to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)”, but it appears the correct reference should be to “40 CFR 261.4(a)(22).”

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 306

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

API requests clarification that 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 cross-industry transfers for purposes of this industrial 

wipes exclusion.

Docket Number - 264

Comment Key - 311

Submitted by - Ted Streichen of American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment Text:

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, API requests EPA to provide clarification on this issue as a matter of federal policy. Regulatory 

clarification here will help to avoid the potential waste determination problems in the field and the associated transaction costs 

resulting from protracted debates with local inspectors regarding when or under what specific circumstances the exclusions 

would apply.
302

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1061

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Over the years, Ohio EPA has encountered generators who argue that solvent contaminated wipes are not listed hazardous waste.

The arguments include claims that solvent contaminated wipes are manufacturing wastes and are not included in the listing 

description for spent solvents. In addition, 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 apply because the resulting waste was not the mixing of two 

separate waste streams. This federal register does not provide a regulatory explanation as to why wipers contaminated with listed 

solvents must be managed as listed hazardous waste. We believe that U.S. EPA should clearly state, in the preamble to the final 

rule, the legal basis for jurisdiction over wipers contaminated with listed solvents before they release them from their jurisdiction 

through a conditional exclusion. U.S. EPA's use of policy to regulate hazardous waste presents difficulty for Ohio because our

state laws prohibit us from applying policies as if they are rules.

Docket Number - 266

Comment Key - 1062

Submitted by - Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA 

Comment Text:

Ohio EPA suggests that in the preamble to the final rule U.S. EPA explain the relationship or interaction the final rule will have 

on the applicability of the derived from rule and the land disposal restrictions alternative treatment standards for debris with 

regards to solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 270

Comment Key - 1582

Submitted by - Heather S. Bowman of Electronic Industries Alliance 

Comment Text:

EIA is concerned about the need to segregate solvent contaminated industrial wipes subject to the conditional exclusion from 

other non-hazardous wipes. Such segregation is not currently practiced within the industry for non-hazardous solvent waste 

wipes, nor does it appear to be necessary under the proposed rule. However, the proposed rule does not address this issue. 

Accordingly, EIA requests that EPA clarify that disposable solvent contaminated industrial wipes do not need to be managed 

separately from other solid wastes so long as the waste materials are not incompatible and provided all the wastes are managed in 

a fashion that would meet the requirements in the exclusion. As such, the industry would not be required to segregate its solvent 

contaminated wipes from other contaminated wipes for purposes of waste management, provided the other types of solid waste 

were not incompatible with the solvent contaminated wipes.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1093

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Apparent typographical error in Footnote #7. On page 65595 of the proposed rule preamble, there appears to be a typographical 

error in the first sentence. It would appear that this first sentence should actually read, “‘[f]lammable liquid’ means any liquid 

having a flashpoint below 100 deg. F. (37.8 deg. C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 100 deg. F. (37.8 

deg. C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.”

16. Miscellaneous

Docket Number - 139

Comment Key - 1112

Submitted by - Anonymous 

Comment Text:

Request EPA consider excluding from the definition of hazardous waste industrial wipes that are contaminated with various types 

of fuel. Absorbent wipes are typically used to clean up fuel spills and as a result may exhibit an ignitability or TC characteristic. 

TC characteristic may be for benzene even when free liquids have been removed. Benzene levels, however, are typically very 

low but exceed TC regulatory levels. These low levels of benzene likely pose little risk to human health and the environment.
303

Fuel value could be obtained similar to solvent contaminated wipes when burned in a combustion device. Request similar 

exclusion either similar to the UST contaminated media exclusion or for use in non-hazardous waste combustion devices.

Docket Number - 140

Comment Key - 1060

Submitted by - Douglas Green of on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) 

Comment Text:

...USWAG respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the comment period for the contaminated wipes proposal. 

Docket Number - 185

Comment Key - 10

Submitted by - Steven Hamilton of Urban Environmental Affairs Council 

Comment Text:

A few years ago, EPA’s Office of Water published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would have required industrial 

laundry facilities to meet national wastewater pretreatment standards. 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.

Docket Number - 193

Comment Key - 1354

Submitted by - Stephen Hammond of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment Text:

On Page 65593 (second and third columns [Solvent Removed from Industrial Wipes]), USEPA states: Even though [a reusable 

solvent-contaminated industrial wipe] contains solvent, the material is predominantly a product that needs servicing (i.e., solvent 

removal) before it can be used. Therefore, no discard occurs until after the contamination is removed from the wipe.

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. As a spent material, the used industrial wipe would 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.

Docket Number - 194

Comment Key - 1404

Submitted by - Steven DeGabriele of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

Comment Text:

EPA’s proposal states that the Common Sense Initiative printer industry stakeholders complained about regulatory confusion 

pertaining to solvent contaminated wipes. MADEP is not aware that this has been the case in Massachusetts since its policy went 

into effect in 1994. MADEP worked closely with the printers trade association to design and implement the Environmental 

Results Program for printers in Massachusetts and has not received negative feedback from the trade association on MADEP’s 

solvent-contaminated wipes policy. MADEP believes its 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.

Docket Number - 263

Comment Key - 121

Submitted by - Willie L. Pelote of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Comment Text:

AFSCME members routinely use shop towels, rags and wipes for a wide range of jobs. In situations where solvents are involved, 

our members almost always use shop towels. This is because they can send the spent shop towels to an industrial laundry without 

any regulatory requirements, but if they use a rag or wipe they have to treat it as hazardous waste (with all the costs, paperwork 

and special handling requirements). Oftentimes, our members would prefer to use a clean rag or wipe instead of a shop towel, but 

they don’t have the choice because management doesn’t want to deal with hazardous waste. 

Many members don’t like shop towels. They frequently arrive “new” with residues, metal chips and other contaminants from 
304

previous users. These contaminants can create issues with the job (e.g. scratching workers’ hands and faces). However, because

of the regulatory advantage shop towels have over rags and wipes, the workers are often required to use shop towels. 

This is why AFSCME is a key supporter of Assembly Bill 2732, by California State Assembly Member Mervyn Dymally. The 

bill seeks to give workers better protection against toxic chemicals in the workplace. 

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 1519

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports the proposed rule that solvents removed from reusable wipes may be subject to regulations as a 

hazardous waste and to conditionally exempt solvent removal technologies from RCRA rules and permitting requirements.

Docket Number - 267

Comment Key - 825

Submitted by - David T. Bozaan of Rockwell Collins, Inc 

Comment Text:

Rockwell Collins supports regulation of solvent removed by the generator as hazardous waste if the solvent is not reused and is a 

listed waste or exhibits characteristics of hazardous waste. We also support the proposal that solvent removal techniques would 

not trigger RCRA treatment standards for industrial wipes that are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste.

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1087

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

CTDEP recommends that EPA consider listing industrial wipes as universal waste in lieu of its proposed exclusions from the 

definition of solid and hazardous waste. CTDEP believes that such an approach would have the following advantages:

a.) Would utilize a pre-existing program with which the regulated community is familiar...Expanding the current list of wastes to 

include wipes would leverage this familiarity to produce a system for the management of wipes that is easier to comply with and 

that would achieve higher compliance rates within the regulated community than two new and unfamiliar exclusions.

b.) Wipes meet criteria for Universal Waste designation. Wipes are generated in a wide variety of businesses (not just the 

traditional manufacturing sector industries that are typically familiar with hazardous waste requirements). These include many 

small businesses that would be classified as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) under RCRA. Wipes are 

also generated in households as well as in commercial and industrial settings. As you know, the Universal Waste Rule is 

specifically designed to accommodate all of the above types of wipes (including CESQG and household wipes), unlike the 

proposed exclusions, which would only address wipes would otherwise be fully-regulated under RCRA. Wipes are also relatively 

low-risk wastes relative to other hazardous wastes, and are often recyclable (i.e. the wipes themselves, or the solvents they 

contain). 

c.) Provides a vehicle for implementing appropriate management standards at all levels of the handling chain. All of the handlers 

and facilities envisioned under the proposed exclusions could be addressed within the universal waste system. Generators, as well 

as wipes handling facilities, and companies managing wipes in intra-company transfers would all be regulated as small or large 

quantity universal waste handlers. These handler requirements could include provisions for removing liquids from wipes, similar 

to those currently in the universal waste rule for removing mercury ampules from thermostats, and for managing batteries. 

Entities that transfer wipes from one site to another (including those engaging in intra-company transfers) could be regulated as 

universal waste transporters. Laundries, combustors, and solid waste landfills could be regulated as destination facilities (albeit 

with special provisions, as noted in e). below).

d.) Would be more readily and practicably enforceable. In situations where enforcement agencies find that handlers of wipes have 

failed to manage wipes in accordance with any of the conditions of the proposed exclusions (even a minor condition), they could 

not simply cite the handlers for failing to comply with the condition in question. Rather, such agencies would have to cite the 

handlers in violation of full hazardous waste requirements (including such big-ticket items as failing to comply with hazardous 

waste generator requirements, disposing of hazardous waste at unpermitted facilities, failure to use manifests, operation without a 

TSDF permit, etc.). Under the Universal Waste Rule, however, enforcement agencies would be in a better position to simply cite 

the handler in violation of the specific requirement, since the Universal Waste Rule was crafted as an alternative set of 

requirements in lieu of the hazardous waste regulations, rather than as a conditional exclusion from those regulations. 

e.) Disposable and recyclable wipes may be handled in the same manner up to the point of receipt at the destination facility. As 

noted in comment 3.c. above, most of the handlers could be managed under the pre-existing universal waste requirements (or 

slightly tailored versions thereof). However, this leaves the issue of how to deal with the destination facilities, since the current 

Universal Waste Rule imposes full hazardous waste requirements on such facilities (including the need to obtain TSDF permits,

if needed for the specific activities which occur at the destination facility). However, CTDEP believes that EPA could craft a 

universal waste approach for wipes that includes an exemption from TSDF storage and treatment permit requirements for 

industrial laundries, while at the same time requiring appropriate storage standards and standards for the management of 
305

wastewater treatment sludge. CTDEP further believes that EPA should require destination facilities managing disposable wipes 

be subject to full regulation (including TSDF permitting). Although this would not put launderable and disposable wipes on 

precisely the same footing, it would provide regulatory relief for both types of wipes throughout most of the handling chain (i.e., 

up to the point where disposal occurs), and would also provide a key incentive for recycling over disposal (an issue which 

CTDEP feels should be embodied in any final rule).

f.) No need for somewhat arbitrary “dry” or “free liquid” standards for most handlers. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach,

all wipes could be managed under a single set of handler and transporter requirements, specifying the same containerization 

requirements. As a result, as long as these standards were appropriately protective (i.e., closed, non-leaking containers), there 

would be no need for any of these handlers to meet “dry” or “free liquid” standards, up until the point that the wipes are actually 

recycled (i.e., laundered) or disposed of. And, as indicated in the previous comment, the destination facility requirements could 

specify how each type of facility should manage the wipes.

g.) No need for list of “banned” solvents. If a EPA adopted a Universal Waste Rule approach as described above, the list of 

solvents identified in Table 4 on page 65597 of the proposed rule which are not allowed in municipal waste landfills, may 

become unnecessary. The separate rules for destination facilities could be crafted to ensure that disposal in landfills is protective 

of human health and the environment, such as by imposing permit requirements on landfills, or subjecting disposable wipes to 

full regulation at the time of disposal (including the LDRs).

h.) Can accommodate wipes that are hazardous for constituents other than solvents (e.g. TCLP metals or non-solvent listed 

waste). One problem with the proposed exclusions is that they do not address the issue of wipes that are contaminated with listed 

wastes and/or exhibit characteristics other than those associated with solvents. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, all wipes 

could be addressed, as opposed to just those that are contaminated with solvents. The separate rules for destination facilities 

could be crafted to ensure that industrial laundries, and the disposal of wipes in combusters and landfills are protective of human 

health and the environment (such as by imposing permit requirements on landfills and combusters, or subjecting residues from 

the facilities to full regulation, including the LDRs).

i.) Management as universal waste would allow laundry sludges to be “derived-from” hazardous wastes, thereby ensuring proper 

disposal of the sludge. As noted in comment 5.t. below, CTDEP believes that the “derived-from” rule should apply to laundry 

sludges that are derived from listed hazardous wastes, to ensure that these sludges are disposed of in a manner that is protective 

of human health and the environment. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, this result would essentially be selfimplementing, since the Universal Waste Rule does not exclude wastes from the definition of solid or hazardous wastes, but 

merely allows them to be managed under different requirements. As a result, residues from the processing of a listed

universal waste would retain the listing(s) of the original waste.

j.) Management as Universal Waste would remove potentially applicability of solid waste permitting requirements. An 

unintended consequence of the proposed exclusions in some states is that they may result in solid waste permitting requirements 

applying to wipes where such rules did not apply in the past. If wipes are excluded from the definition of solid or hazardous

waste under RCRA Subtitle C, they may fall under some state solid waste programs, thereby requiring solid waste facility 

permits in some states (Connecticut being one). As a result, facilities such as Industrial Wipes Handling Facilities and companies 

engaging in intra-company transfers of wipes may have to obtain solid waste transfer station or other similar permits. This would 

certainly not serve to promote more recycling of launderable wipes or provide the desired regulatory relief that is sought for all 

types of industrial wipes. However, under a Universal Waste Rule approach, the materials would remain clearly within the 

hazardous waste program, and the above types of facilities would not require solid waste permits.

k.) Compliance history of laundries justifies a more structured approach and additional requirements. CTDEP has been involved 

in numerous enforcement actions involving the several industrial laundry facilities located in Connecticut. These enforcement

actions have not just involved hazardous waste violations, but also other media as well (e.g., water, air, etc.). CTDEP has also 

had a major spill which originated from an industrial laundry facility. Problems CTDEP has historically observed with these 

facilities have included: (1) a lack of understanding and commitment to environmental requirements; (2) a lack of qualified 

technical staff (even among the large, national, multi-facility companies); and, (3) lack of support for local operations from 

corporate headquarters (for multi-facility companies). Although CTDEP believes that regulatory relief is appropriate for 

launderable industrial wipes (particularly for the portion of the handling chain up to receipt by the laundry), we also believe that 

it is important to have proper controls in place to ensure that these facilities handle the materials properly and do not engage in 

activities that result in releases to the environment. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, laundries and other handlers would 

be subject to the training, response to releases, and tracking requirements of the Universal Waste Rule, which would provide an 

enforceable tool to ensure that wipes are handled properly and releases do not occur (or if they occur, that they are promptly and 

properly cleaned up).

l.) Could allow addition of water to stabilize “exotic” solvents or other wipes that may be prone to spontaneous combustion. As 

noted in comment 5.m. below, EPA and CTDEP share a concern about the possibility of spontaneous combustion for wipes 

contaminated with certain substances. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, this issue could be easily addressed through a 

provision similar to those in the current Universal Waste Rule allowing certain “treatment” activities such as the removal of

ampules from thermostats and the management of batteries and battery cells. 

m.) Could allow items other than just wipes. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, items other than wipes could be included 

in the universal waste designation (e.g. swabs, mops, sponges, “walk-off” mats, etc.). This would allow generators that may be 

generating similar items and industrial laundries that may wish to launder similar items together to manage these items under the 

same set of requirements. 
306

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1109

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Section VIII of the proposed rule preamble discusses the relationship of the proposed rule to other rulemakings. However, this 

section does not specifically address the relationship of this rule to the federal used oil regulations of 40 CFR 279. CTDEP is 

unclear on certain aspects of how the proposed rule would interact with the pre-existing used oil rules, and requests that EPA 

clarify this matter. In particular, CTDEP has the following questions about the interplay between these two rules that it would 

request EPA clarify:

a.) 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? The current federal provision at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(4) indicates that used oil that is recycled and that is 

hazardous solely because it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste is not regulated under parts 260 through 268, but is

instead regulated under the Part 279 used oil regulations. Within these used oil rules, section 279.10(c) indicates that “materials 

containing or otherwise contaminated with used oil” are subject to regulation as used oil, if they have “visible signs of freedraining oil” or if they are burned for energy recovery. One category of materials that can qualify under this provision is spent 

wipes that are contaminated with used oil. Such wipes can often also be contaminated with solvents (e.g., mineral spirits or other 

degreasing agents). This raises the question of which set of rules would apply to such dually contaminated materials. CTDEP 

envisions three possible ways to view this scenario:

(1) Proposed exclusions supersede used oil rules. Under this interpretation, the proposed exclusions would apply to such wipes, 

rendering the provision at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(4) moot. As a result, the used oil content of the wipes would be irrelevant, and they 

would not be subject to regulation under Part 279.

(2) Used oil rules supersede proposed exclusions. Under this interpretation, the proposed exclusions would not apply to the 

wipes, owing to the wording in 40 CFR 261.6(a)(4) that says that used oils (including materials that are contaminated with used 

oil, pursuant to 40 CFR 279.10(c)) are not subject to 40 CFR 260 – 280, which would include the proposed exclusions. As a 

result, the wipes would be subject to regulation as used oil (and potentially as hazardous waste if they contain over 1000 ppm 

total halogens).

(3) Neither rule supersedes the other. Under this interpretation, neither the proposed provisions nor the provision at 40 CFR 

261.6(a)(4) supersede each other, and the two sets of provisions stand on their own. This would mean that wipes contaminated 

with both used oil and solvents would be subject to regulation as used oil, but not as hazardous waste.

b.) Effect of the Used Oil Recycling Act (“UORA”) on the above analysis. As noted in the final rule preamble for the Part 279

used oil regulations, 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, wipes that are contaminated with used oils that are not characteristically hazardous 

would be subject to the Part 279 regulations. This complicates the analysis in comment 8.a. above in that the proposed exclusions 

for wipes are clear that wipes that are hazardous for anything other than solvents are not eligible for the exclusions. 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), 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. 

Docket Number - 271

Comment Key - 1110

Submitted by - Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

Uncertainties concerning the status of residues derived from excluded wipes. Another area of potential confusion with respect to 

the interplay between the proposed exclusion and the Part 279 used oil regulations has to do with the status of residues from the 

processing of wipes to remove liquids. Proposed sections 261.4(a)(22)(iii), 261.4(a)(22)(iv)(B), 261.4(a)(22)(vi)(A), 

261.4(b)(19)(v), 261.4((b)(19)(vi)(B), and 261.4(b)(19)(viii)(A) indicate that “any liquids removed from the wipes must be 

managed as hazardous wastes according to regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270...”. 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 (“MEK”), and is also contaminated with used oil, is 

processed to remove liquids, 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 40 CFR 279.10(b)? In addition, proposed 

section 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 what if this sludge meets the definition of a used oil? Could it still be disposed of in 

a landfill, or would it continue to be subject to regulation under Part 279? 

Docket Number - 272

Comment Key - 598

Submitted by - George Larson of George H. Larson and Associates, Inc. 
307

Comment Text:

EPA’s Technical Background Document showed two very different sets of assumptions for evaluating the potential risks at 

landfills. For disposable industrial wipes, EPA used high-end parameter assumptions. For reusable industrial wipes, EPA used 

central tendency assumptions. Interestingly, when a Large-Sized Laundry (high-end parameter) was evaluated (Table 23, P.133 

of the Technical Background Document), 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.

Docket Number - 283

Comment Key - 1619

Submitted by - of INDA/SMART 

Comment Text:

Attachments to this submission (assigned docket #284). Non-risk attachments are also noted under the relevant comment:

Appendix A - Letter from Karl Bourdeau, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., to Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste, 

August 15, 2001

Appendix B - “Evaluation of Potential Exposure to Metals in Laundered Shop Towels”, Gradient Corporation, International 

Nonwovens Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, Winter 2003

Appendix C - Amount of Additional Liquid Removable from Individual Launderable Wipes by Hand-Wringing

Appendix D - Estimate of Additional Solvent on Solvent-Soiled Industrial Wipes That Potentially Can Be Recovered and 

Recycled Annually on a Nationwide Basis

Appendix E - High-End Parameter Assumptions Used By EPA For Non- Laundered Wipes Destined For Landfills And Central 

Tendency Assumptions For Sludge Going To Landfills From Laundered Wipes

Appendix F - ERG Mass Balance Estimation For Solvents On Laundered Soiled Printers Towels - Solvent Loading To Laundry 

Sludge Results Compared To EPA Risk Loading Thresholds For Landfills

Appendix G1 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Applying “Central Tendency” Assumptions For Non-Laundered Wipes 

“Equivalent” To Those Used By EPA For Laundered Wipes

Appendix G2 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Restating Non- Laundered Wipes Solvent Loading Calculations Using 

“Central Tendency” Assumptions

Appendix G3 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Evaluation Of Landfill Eligibility Of Solvents In Non-Laundered Wipes 

Using “Central Tendency” Assumptions

Appendix H1 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Applying “High-End Parameter” Assumptions For Laundered Wipes 

“Equivalent” To Those Used By EPA For Non-Laundered Wipes

Appendix H2 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Restating Laundered Wipes Solvent Loading Calculations Using “High-End 

Parameter” Assumptions

Appendix H3 - POTENTIAL LANDFILL RISKS: Evaluation Of Landfill Eligibility Of Average Size Laundry Sludge Using 

“High- End” Assumptions

Appendix I - “Environmental Life Cycle Analysis Of Disposable Wipers And Laundered Shop Towels”, Project Performance 

Corporation, 1999 (Reprinted April 2, 2004)

Docket Number - 316

Comment Key - 975

Submitted by - Howard Flanders of Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Program 

Comment Text:

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, it may be more appropriate for EPA to revisit the whole concept of the F001-

FO05 listing of spent solvents and consider regulating these materials on the basis of their physical properties and toxicity

characteristics.

Docket Number - 320

Comment Key - 378

Submitted by - Alison Keane of National Paint and Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

[re. Regulatory Status of Removed Solvents] NPCA supports EPA’s proposed language that solvent removed from an industrial 

wipe and is reused would not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. Likewise, NPCA also supports 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.
308

Docket Number - 331

Comment Key - 1024

Submitted by - Stephen Davis of Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment Text:

MEDEP notes that the EPA Technical Background Document used for this proposed rule inaccurately describes Maine’s current 

regulatory status for wipes. Table 6 listed Maine, as regarding reusable wipes as non-hazardous if water washed or dry-cleaned. 

Maine regulates all F-listed solvent contaminated wipes as hazardous wastes.

Docket Number - 346

Comment Key - 262

Submitted by - of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. 

Comment Text:

[re. Regulatory Status of Solvent Removal Technologies] USWAG concurs with EPA’s explanation that the removal of solvents 

from wipes for purposes of meeting a condition of the exclusion (e.g., to ensure that no free liquids are contained in the wipes 

prior to disposal) does not constitute RCRA ”treatment” because such materials would not be hazardous waste during the 

removal process. EPA correctly reasons that generators will be more likely to recover solvents from their contaminated wipes if 

such removal operations do not implicate RCRA’s treatment standards. Indeed, if the removal of solvents from wipes were 

considered “RCRA treatment,” there would be little, if any, incentive for regulated entities to even attempt to qualify for the 

conditional exclusion as the burden of becoming subject to RCRA’s treatment standards (including RCRA‘s permit requirement) 

would far outweigh any benefit of the conditional exclusion. 

Docket Number - 348

Comment Key - 1216

Submitted by - David Dunlap of UTSA/TRSA

Comment Text:

Attachments to docket #348 (non-risk attachments are also noted in the relevant comment):

Exhibit A. Comments on USEPA’S Environmental Assessment of Shop Towel Usage in the Automotive and Printing Industries 

March 23,1998, (Revised 3/2/04).

Exhibit B. Exhibit B. Industrial Laundry Wastewater is Already Effectively Regulated and Does Not Adversely Impact the 

Environment.

Exhibit C. Letter to Dick Kreutzen, Kaul Associates, from Rich Valle, Waste Compliance Branch, USEPA Region IX, June 29, 

1995.

Exhibit D. Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Ted Rauh, Hazardous Waste Management Program, California Dept. of 

Toxic Substances Control. July 9, 1996.

Exhibit E. TRSA 2003 Profit Report.

Exhibit F. Summary of Pennsylvania Residual Waste Requirements., Summary of California Solid Waste Requirements.

Exhibit G. Shop Towel Regulation Under State Law.

Exhibit H. Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Minor Hibbs, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division, Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission, April 30, 1996 and Explanation of Illinois EPA Policy on Industrial Towel and Sorbent 

Disposal.

Exhibit I. Letter to Lee Terry, Prudential Overall Supply, from Peggy Harris, Hazardous Waste Management Program, California 

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. June 21, 1996. and Letter to Mary Ann Dolbeare, UTSA, from Norman Nosenchuck, 

Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation. April 19, 1996.

Exhibit J. Personal Air Sampling Results.

Exhibit K. Vapor Exposure study.

Exhibit L. Best Management Practices for Soiled Reusable Textile Handling, TRSA. Undated.

Exhibit M. Comments: EPA’s Risk Screening Assessment Over Estimates the Risk from Laundry Wastewater Sludge.

Exhibit N. EPA Letter to LaundryESP Participants.

Exhibit O. Information on citrus solvents.

Exhibit P. Industrial Fire Protection: Understanding And Prevention of Spontaneous Combustion Fires in Industrial Laundries. 

UTSA, March 1996.

Docket Number - 462

Comment Key - 1646

Submitted by - Alison Keane of American Coatings Association 

Comment Text:

...ACA expects that EPA will then 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.
309

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1462

Submitted by - Gary Jones of Graphic Arts Technical Foundation/ Printing Industries of America 

Comment Text:

A secondary goal concerned the definition of treatment as it applies to removal of the solvents from the wipes. We also believe 

that the rule both addresses and resolves this issue. The rules states that removal of solvent from the towel does not constitute 

treatment. We fully understand that it remains the responsibility of the facility to correctly handle and dispose of the solvent that 

is extracted from the towels. 

Docket Number - 199

Comment Key - 1481

Submitted by - Jim Buik of Rosco Company 

Comment Text:

A solid waste exclusion contingent on a lab or testing rather than the common sense management conditions we already employ 

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.

These costs would surely impact our ability to generate revenue that may lead to employee layoffs. Unnecessary regulation of 

reusable shop towels would also impact other aspects of our business because customers frequently run a collection of textiles in 

addition to shop towels. If a shop towel component of a customer account becomes too expensive or unavailable customers may 

be inclined to satisfy their needs for other textiles such as uniforms and floor maps.