# 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. Landfil ls

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 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 tr eat all

solvent

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

hazardous 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.h tml

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 com panies 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

- Contaminate d 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 h ealthy 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 t he 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

Com ment 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 con sultants) 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 reactiv ity 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 oth er purpose. Since the hazards presented are great er 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 Subtitl e 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

Sub mitted 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 exempti ons from RCRA have focused on reviewing rigorous mis management 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 hav e 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 provi sion 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 t o 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 Nationa l

Emissio n 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 wast es’ 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 capab le of being determined in the field. The no drip “test” must be performed by any solvent wipe user without recourse to laboratory analysi s 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 jo bs. 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 wo rkers about the chemical hazards of shop towels solv ents. 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 giv ing 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 al low 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:

Unisea l, Inc. is in favor of the proposed rule to conditionally exclude from Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste for Solvent

Contaminated Industrial Wipes. Implementation of this proposed rule would reduce our hazardous waste by a large percentage,

which would in t urn 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 smal l cleaning tasks.



### Docke t 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 t hat has

unnecessaril y 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 easi er 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 cl oth 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 t he 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 l eveling the regulatory playing field that has long favored laundered shop towels over disposable wipers. My customers will be able to make product choices based o n 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 quick ly as possible because it will 1) Leve l 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 comple x 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 t he regulatory playing field that has unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipes for decades; 2) establish a sound national policy f or 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 Incorpor ated

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 b een 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 industri al wipers. We believe this ruling will assist in allowing our product to be judged on a performance rather than a regulatory compliance basis. It i s imperative for us that the EPA establish this sound national policy for storing, transporting, and disposin g 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 d ue 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 fo r our customers to make a decision based on the traditional factors of pr ice, 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 plac es labeling and transportation requirements on disposable wipers that do not apply to laundered shop to wels.



### 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 f or 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

- 75 9 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 wi pers 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 th is 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 sh op

## 9 towels ove r 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 unnecessa ry 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

Submit ted 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 pro perly 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 s upports 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 nation al 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 t hat has unnecessarily favored rental shop towels over disposable industrial wipers for decades; 2) e stablish 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 complianc e; 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 pro posed 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 definitio n 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 ma y 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 requireme nts.

- 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 enforc emen t 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 ef fectively 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 Mas sachusetts 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 mat erials 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 furthe r 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 intell igent national policy for the transportation, storage, and disposal of used wi ping 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 en sure adequate protection of h uman 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 wr iting 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 Num ber

- 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 h azardous waste solvents from regulation as hazardous waste. The data Kimberly

Clark submitted to EPA at that time, and in the years since, supports our position that these lightly contaminated wipes do n ot pose a threat to human health or the environment w hen 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 Em ployees (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 consist ency in regulations governing industrial wipes, 2) to reduce generators compliance costs and provide greater regulatory flexibility in the manage ment of industrial wipes, and 3) to facilitate pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities.



### Dock et 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 h as 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 s upports 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 po licy 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 solvent

contaminated industrial wipes going to disposal and combustion, including use as fuel. In addition, PING supports the EPA’s

proposa l 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 na tional standard for the management and disposal of solvent contaminated towels , wipe s 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 opt ed 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 In dustries

Comment Text: Jacob Holm Industries urges EPA to finalize this rule at the earliest opportunity. It is strongly expected that this rule wil l have the effect of producing a fair and equitable market for disposable industrial wipers, compared to r ental 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 an d 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 no n

- 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 directi on. We fully agree with EPA’s findings that, from a risk

- management perspective, moving forward with the propose d 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 warra nt 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

- 1 99 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 ren tal 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 d ue primarily to the importation and u se 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, qua lity and delivery. Instead they make their purchasing decision based on the ease of avoiding their di sposal 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 b eing 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 m arket 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 adequ ate 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 environment al 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 regulation s.

...We feel it is critical that that EPA achieve parity between laundered shop t owels 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

Su bmitted 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 f or 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 w ipers 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 b y
- 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

- Ne lson 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 per formed 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, som e 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 waste s. Because hazardous waste regulations are only credible when they are supported by a sound scientific basis and ca refully considered regulatory policy, the industrial wipes risk analysis undertaken by EPA, and its corrective proposal, are long ove rdue. In particular, MPPA supports EPA’s proposed deregulation of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes where alternative

m anagement 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 wit h 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 indus trial wipes (or both) have already been the subject of waste reduction efforts (e.g., volume reduction, substitution, or other efforts). The fact t hat many

non

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

- 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 inciner ator.

- 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 wi th 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 a ny significant risks to health or the environment, and because a wide variety of options will reduce the possibility of illegal or environme ntally adverse disposal practices by others.



### Docket Number

- 314 Comment Key

- 286 Submitted by

- Alan Cobb of Allt ex 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 shi pped 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 wip ers 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, t o 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

laun dering 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 o f solid waste will allow Miller's Textile Service, a Second generation family busines s, 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 matte rs 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 sta te level, reusable shop towels have been l argely 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 specificall y 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 signifi cantly diminished environmental challenge to the well being o f 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 beca use 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 As hland, 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, Ash land 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 unne cessarily 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 Co mpany 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 allo w Star Uniform Company, Ltd., a third generation family business, to continue its tradition of environmental responsibility, resource use an d 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 cont ingent 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 forc ed 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 seven ty 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 a nd 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 handli ng 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 definiti on 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 a nd 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 recy cling

as well as local communi ty 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 recy cling

a s 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 Environmen tal 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, resourc e 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 responsib ility, 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 ou r 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 u niforms, 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 recycl ing as

well as local com munity 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 wit h 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 wit h 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 Corporati on 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 eco nomical 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 Text iles 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 r ule 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

- Charle s 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 tetrachloroethyle ne (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 propo sed 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,

IND A/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 analy sis, 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 wast e 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 perhap s 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 Expedit e 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 othe r 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 as sociated 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 co

disposal of wipes and laundry sludge without special, burdensome and unnecessary disposal re quirements 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 Associatio n (SMART)

Comment Text: Finally, this rule has taken 18 years, 18 years to reach this point. The data has been collected. The various constituents ha ve been heard. Please don't get bogged down in yet another election season or allow another pressing env ironmental 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 a nd 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 handlin g 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 indust ry.



### 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

cond ucted 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 appr oach 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 opportuniti es 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 cu rrent practices, provides facilities with the necessary guidance regarding handli ng 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 providi ng clear direction to the states regarding handling disposal of these types of wiper s 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 E PA’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

- 1 99 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 safe ty 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 s olid 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 n o good reason to adopt this rule.



### Docket Number

- 330 Comment Key

- 1650 Submitted by

- Joseph Hoover of Arkansas Depart ment 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. Interme diate 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 conditiona l 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 a nd

envi ronmental 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 t o the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s definition of solid waste. Materials cur rently 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 propo sed changes will save companies money, but will cost our communities. In the text of the rule, the EPA openly a dmits, 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 conside ring any change to existing rules.

De

- regulating 1.5 million tons of waste puts corporate desire over our s afety, 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 unac ceptable.



### 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 t o 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 questio n 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 beha lf 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 o pen 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 solve nts, 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 adeq uate 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 fo r 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 ri ghts. 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 w ere forced to accept low

- paying jobs because they did not know the language. They were often exploite d, 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 fa il 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, t raining 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 regul ations 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 'bi g 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 contribution s 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' hea lt h is put at risk, so what? Workers don't make big contributions to political parties and Mr. Bush. This move on your part is shame ful, 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 $25 0 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 en vironmental 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 for m is obscene. Our health and well being is suppose d 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 d isputed. 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 c oncerning 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 th is 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 be ing 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 experi ment 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 a nd willfully increase the level of pollution in our life suppor t 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 wit h 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 i s 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 t o a degr ee 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

b usinesses) in comparison to the harm it will cause. Think about who you will hurt with this and not about the pockets you wil l 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 a nd people's health. In September of 2004 Farmerof Cintas Industrial Laundry th rew 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 i ndustrial 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 Te xt: 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. D o 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 ca re 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 helpl ess 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 exempti on.



### 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 absolu tely no positive rationale fo r 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 Corpora te 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 environmen t? 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 pro cess. 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, b ut 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

document ed 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 repu blican 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 e nd 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 not orious 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

no t 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 ca nnot 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 e ffects 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

remove d, 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 m ore 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 Indust rial Wipes should not be excl uded 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 relaxi ng 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 themselve s by

d estroying 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 poi son 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 g reen 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 n othing 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 nothin g 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 E PA 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 heal th.



### 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, str eams, 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 worke rs who handle these soiled shop rag directly, bu t 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 o f 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, t he lives and health of low paid workers and famil ies 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 communit y 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

- Anon ymous 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 wa ge 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! Poison ing 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 RIDICULOU S 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 requiremen ts 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

existen ce 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 wa ste

requ irements.



### 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 healt h of

their workers. Toxic towel waste s hould 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 wr ong 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 consu mes 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 iss ue 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 contribut ions 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 e nvironment, 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, b ecause 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 busi ness 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 providin g occupational health and safety and protecting the envi ronment 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

regu latory oversight. Please do not shift today's costs onto the public and the planet. Industry (and the rest of us) should clea n 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 legislat ion 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 em ployer 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 environmen t 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, n ot 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 encou rage 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 mil lion 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 $2 50 million last year.

This type of quid pro quo by the administration has happened many ti mes 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. Preside nt?

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 hea lth 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 pe ople 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

C omment 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 perc ent of

rich A mericans 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 propos al 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 peopl e 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 ta x

## 32 payers.

Furthermore, this exemption would allow these companies to further expose their low wage workers to known toxins with ev en 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. T he 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 ch ange 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 regul ated corporations. This rule change wil l 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 was te 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

ch ange.



### 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 "con dition" 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 exclus ion 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 non

metallic surfaces.

I have read, unbelieving at first, the description of the proposed rules relative to relaxing the handling of toxic towels an d to the

relative ly 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 work ers but those unidentified citizens who will suffer due to the contaminated liqu id 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

- A nonymous 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 find s 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 environment s 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 Ju stice 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 witho ut any safe guar ds 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 justi ce.



### 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. I t is imperative that the ch emical 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 sol vent

- 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 co uld be accumulated for indefinite time periods in uncontrolled areas. Cloth and plastic bags could be used to transport solvent wipes. Industrial wi pes that are literally saturated with F

- listed and characteristic solvents could be shipped to handlers wit h 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 accumu lation, 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.



### Docke t 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 exe mption 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 w orkers 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 basi s.



### 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 th e laundry industry and their custome rs 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 essentia l 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 wate r 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 recycl ing 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 concer ned 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 handl e the towels in cloth b ags 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 s end dirty towels for "washing" without first removing excess solvents. This allows additional tons of toxins t o spread into local

## 35 sewage plants, rivers and lakes. This is BAD. It also allows industries to store and transport contaminated towels in cloth b ags or other containers that fail to protect workers or prevent leaks. This is BAD. This proposal will allow in dustries 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 h ealth 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 h arm 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 c an 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 do ne, 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 propos al, 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 sug gests 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 man agement 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 solv ent and explore the use of less hazardous substitutes. MEDEP believes the prop osal 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 Si erra Club

Comment Text: Unfortunately, the proposed rule’s conditions fall far short of the controls needed to protect workers and the environment fr om solvents used in conjunction with industrial wipes. The “no free liquids” standard, which requires no thing 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 sol vent

- 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 require ment 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 circums tances, 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 solven ts 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 en vironment 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. Pl ease 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 a dequate 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.

Ov er 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, s uch 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 an d 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 t o maintain a safe workplace.

Not only are the immediate workers at risk, but by allowing these companies to launder dangerous chemicals in the public wate r supply, you are putting all Americans at serious risk.

I am extremely concerned that your new dr aft 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 laun dry workers and drivers who have to carry w et 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 preve nt 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, allo wing 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. Pl ease consider this an official comment.



### Dock et 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 r egulation 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 solve nts on industrial wipes and towels. The solvents and toxins contain ed 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 loc al 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: T his 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 s ure that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not a llowed 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, communit ies and the environment from dangerous solvents on shop towels. Solvents pose serious health risks, most heavily for the laundry workers and drivers who often handl e the towels in cloth bags or other open containers. When solvents escape into the environme nt, 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, th e 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 t o 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 othe r 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

t he 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 r eal 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 yo u 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 wi th

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 "s hop 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 an d 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 r egulation 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 thereb y be exposed to toxic chemicals but also all of those who would be h armed 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 an d 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 toxin s 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 sa fely 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 a nd other toxins, without proper training, handling, labeling and di sposal 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 K ey

- 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 grab bing 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 hea lth 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

trans ported 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 re cords.



### 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 TC E 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 trap ping 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 str eams 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 tra ining

t o 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 b e 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 syste m more. Costs to workers health affect us all, as do ri ver 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 Tex t: 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 off icial 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 lab eling 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 p roposed 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 s ure that:

Excess solvents are removed from shop towels and are not allowe d 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, provi ding 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 wil l be lobbying to have administrators who have casually disregarded their re sponsibilties, and participated knowingly in environmentally destructive administrative behavior (during the Bush administration and any other) to be criminally prosecute d.

You folks in the EPA have a responsibilty to the public. It should be taken seriou sly. 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 n ow, 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 E nvironmental 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 t hese 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 te ll 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 tow els need to be managed properly. It’s a sad day when a representative of the waste manage ment 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 pro vide 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 con taminated industrial wipes; fostering improved solvents management by generators and handling facilities; reducing compliance costs; increasing consistency in the regulations governing solvent

contaminated industrial wipes across the United States; clarif ying 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 ba sed 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 environme nt.



### 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

per mitted 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, w ill

c ertainly 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 th e 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 becau se 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 li ke 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

d isposable wipers going to landfills. Since the sludge from laundered shop towels ends up in landfills just like disposable wi pers, there is no basis for differing conditions.



### Docket Number

- 158 Comment Key

- 1578 Submitted by

- Louis Buty of American Tex tile & 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 underst ood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the proposed rule does not require solvent to be removed from wipers prior to dispos al 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

h old or be offsides or get an extra down every possession? Obviously not! But, this is the game we are playing and it is unfai r!



### Docket Number

- 159 Comment Key

- 453 Submitted by

- Gary Clark of Clark and Associates

Comment Text: EPA's stated goals wit h 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 dis posables. 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 bei ng 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

Sub mitted 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 i s that the current ruling, as proposed, is still too complex and will continue to favor shop towels over disposable s. 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 i s 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 & Fin ishing

Comment Text: We urge the EPA to finalize this rule as quickly as possible because it will level the regulatory playing field that has favo red rental shop towels over disposable wipers for years. AF&F’s business in this area has declined signific antly over the years due primarily to the importation and use of foreign shop towels not subject to the hazardous waste restrictions placed on disposa ble wipers By passing this rule you will ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment wh ile 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 plac es labe ling 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 shou ld 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 land fills 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 understa nd that these changes will b e 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 wou ld

facilitate solvent r ecycling 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 vers ion of the rule places labe ling 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 continu es 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

- Robe rt 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 realis tic,

for exam ple, 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 State s 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 ba sed 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 a ct 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 thin k not.

All I ask is a review of t he 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 equall y. My company has suffered fo r 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 we re 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 t he 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 pot ential 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 th e 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

- launder ed 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 Numbe r

- 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 regulator y 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 solven t 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 pro cess solvents. Should EPA det ermine 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 Employ ees (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 ar e no environmental advantages to shop towels compared to rags or wipes. The solvents on shop towels end up either in landfills via sludge from t he

## 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 reu sable 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 condit ions comparable. By doing so, the rule will be much simpler f or 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 unjusti fied 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 abov e, 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. Se cond, 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 s olvent

extraction c onditions, 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 rationa le 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 dispo sal

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 “pro mote 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 w hich 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 th at
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 paradox ical 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 i t 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 (here inafter 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 absorp tive capacity and greater durability. However, this claim conveniently ignores an important fact that EPA staff have now acknowledged, i.e., th at nonwoven technology has evolved to the point today that non

- laundered wipes are more absorbent, and just as du rable, 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 a mount 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 groundwate r.” 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 wor kers 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 mate rials” 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 t hem 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” ben efits afforded by their wiping products is the f act 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 evalu ated 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 thr ee 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 definiti on of solid waste, (ii) accord SSLWs preferential regulatory treatment, and (iii) ther eby 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 conditi ons 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 reg ulatory playing field so that wipe generators could select products on the basis of what is best for their business rather than on unjustifiable cost differenti als created largely by unjustifiable regulatory differences.

Accordingly, INDA/SMART strongly u rges 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, respec tively.

## 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, trans port and handling regardless of their ultimate destination, and therefore should be subject to the same protective standards.



### Dock et 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 i s 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 curre ntly

associated with no n

- 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 o f 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. Gartl and 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 negativ e spin against other segments.



### Docket Number

- 301 Comment Key

- 683 Submitted by

- Joh n 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 f or laundered and nonlaundered wipes. This will appropriately reflect the fac t 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 non

laundered 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 an d 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:

Th e 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 an d supporti ng 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

C omment 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 st ate 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 requ irements 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 r eclamation 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 exclusio n from

the definition of solid waste and be based o n 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 Nu mber

- 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 b y
- 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 th e 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 - Bo th 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 no n

- 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 no n

- 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 substantia l 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 env ironment.



### 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 solve nt

contaminated wipes. It is ISSA's belief that a single all

- encompassing exclusion would help companies fi lly understand their compliance obligations and would eliminate the preferential treatment that will be afforded reusable industrial wipes under t he proposed rule as it is currently drafted.



### Docket Number

- 341 Comment Key

- 968 Submitted by

- John Stewar t 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 sol vent, 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 no n

- 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 co nfusion 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 sectio ns for disposables and reusables.

Such bifurcation is also r equired 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 stri ngent” 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 t o adopt the new regulations. In contras t, 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 e xisting state programs.” 68 Fed. Reg. a t 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 E PA properly includes co

- contami nants 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 reusab le 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 tr acks

for the different dis posable 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 i t 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 f or 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 Ge orgia

- 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 treat ed 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 de cides that additional conditions should apply, then those conditions should apply equally to both laundered and non

- la undered 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 t he landfill sustains two jobs. This same container load of materials going to a textile recycling facility for processing maintains 22 jobs! Secondly, the vast majori ty of these jobs are located in major urban areas. In a time when jobs are desperately nee ded 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 with in 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 addit ional 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 Goodwi ll

## 52 International and the Salvation Amy...For this industry to survive it must be able to compe te 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 b ecause 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 us er, the laundered shop towel is selected with the belief that they will be relieved of the liability is e nough 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 label ing 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 i t easier for hundreds of thousands of generators

-- many of whom are small businesses

-- to understand and implement in the ir 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

Comme nt 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 landfil ls should, for future liability and environmental protection purposes, be held to a str icter 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 b e 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 condi tions 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 hav e 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 responsib ilities.



### 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 suc h 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

- laun dered wipes. This is certainly understandable and if I were in their position I would want the same thing. The reason for their opp osition 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

Submitte d 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 curren t 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 n on

laundered wiping fields, resulting in allowing the using of th e 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 indust ry 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 exampl es 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 w ipes 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 laundere d 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

C omment 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 t o

non

- la undered 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 w iping 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 Nu mber

- 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 us ed 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 d isposables 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 print ing 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

Com ment Text: We support EPA’s efforts to develop different approaches for wipes to be disposed than for wipes that will be recycled. Takin g into account the different environmental impacts of recycling and disposal is prudent to encourage and support recyc ling 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 condi tions 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 cont ent 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

Com ment 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 ri sks 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/r equirements 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

- M arcia 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 o f affected businesses are small printers, and any rule governing the manage ment 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 agenc ies 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

- mingl ed 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 Tex t: 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

- M arci 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

Co mment 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 heal th, and

the environment.



### Docket Number

- 458 Comment Key

- 1221 Submitted by

- Marcia Yinter of Graphic Arts Coalition

Comment T ext: Currently, there are no federal guidelines for the management of used shop towels. The lack of guidance has caused considerab le confusion regarding the proper management of soiled shop towels and other wipers such as clean up pads or swabs as many o f 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 dis posable

and reusable solvent

- contaminated wipes as a major concern. Du e 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 packagi ng 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 ind ustry.



### 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 st ate

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 bene fits 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 s tates 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 th at 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 in dustry 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

- 1 632 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 recycli ng, 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 Non wovens, Inc.

Comment Text: EPA's stated goals with this effort were to establish a national, common sense approach that would facilitate solvent recycli ng, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, how ever, 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 propo sed rule does not require solvent to be removed prior to disposal or laundering.



### Docket Number

- 174 Comment Key

- 799

Submitted b y
- 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 recycli ng, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wip ing 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 recycli ng, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unfortunately, however, the prop osed 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 sol vents
from enter ing 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

- 4 20 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 unders tood 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

Com ment 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 Comme rcial 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 recycli ng, and could easily be understood by the people who actually use wiping products. Unf ortunately, 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: Objec tive 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 prin ciples 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 con ditions.

- 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 th at 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 d efinition, 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 re covery 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 app roach 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 s ite, 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 prom otes 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 practice s 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 a t the same time as encouraging solvent removal should promote solvent re covery 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 o f 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 upwar d movement on the waste management hierarchy. It is also in direct conflict with all o f 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 man agement hierarchy. This proposal should be no different. It should be modified to discourage land disposal of these wastes by specifically encouraging them to be manage d 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 accom plished 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. W hile 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 str ingent

management p ractices 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 indu strial 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, notifi cation, 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 a nd 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, cho osing to launder them and avoid hazardous waste regulation of the wipes. There is concern that this proposed rule may provide

incen tives 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 so lvent

- 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 toxi city 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 si mply 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 contamin ated industrial wipes. EPA also does not adequately support its statement that the proposed rule will foster improved solvent handling practices by generator s and handling facilities. In fact, the proposed rule may make it easier for generators and handler s to mismanage solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes and evade regulation by storing contaminated wipes in lieu of disposal while claiming intent to dispose at a n indefinite future date. This may occur because the proposed rule does not have adequate contr ols 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 f rom 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 regulation s governing solvent contaminated industrial wipes is suspect. As EPA notes, most states currently regulate dis posable solvent

contaminated 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 consiste ncy 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 m odified 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 conce rned 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

C omment Text: The proposed industrial wipe rule states that the rule will encourage the recovery of solvents by laundry facilities and intr a

company 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 re cycle these solvent mixtures into a marketable product. DEQ does not support the notion that solvents will be widel y 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 s ix 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 a nd 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 pro per statutory vehicle to address worker safety concerns, and worker safety issues s hould 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 mentio n of

## 62 worker safety in the comprehensive list of 11 objectives or goals of RCRA. Leg islative 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 functi ons.

Congress appropriately delegated to the Occupational Safety & Health Administrati on (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 compani es 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 labe ls, Material Safety Data Sheets, and training. Finally, to the extent that individual workers at a particular facility were ever exposed t o potentially unsafe materials that were added to a product, then OSHA (not EPA) should take the appropriate action ag ainst 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

- L arry 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

environmental ly 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 disp osables.

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 f or 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 no n 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

C omment 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 Frumi n 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 rei terate the positions that the Sierra Club and others have taken regarding the need to return to the cri tical 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 t he 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 De fense

Comment Text: Comment: The definition of the term "industrial wipes handling facility" is potentially problematic because it may be interpr eted as referring to a "facility" as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 and because it could also be interpreted to ap ply to generators removing solvent from their own wipes.

Discussion: The proposed definition for “industrial wipes handling facility” is “a facility that removes solvents from indust rial wipes prior to them being sent either to a laundry or dry cleaner f or 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 "tr eating, 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 intermedia te facility used to remove free liquids from excluded wipes prior to bein g 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 ap pear that a generating entity removing solvents from their own excl uded 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 requi rements 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 C FR 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 laborat ories, 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, recomme nd 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 defin ition 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 o f 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, wo ol, and silk, may be considere d 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 potent ially 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, an d 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, s hop 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: W ithin 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 prop osed 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 t owels, 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 wipe s".

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. Th e

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 dispo sal

under RCRA beca use 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 swab s that are used fo r 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

s imilar 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 solv ent 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 definiti on 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 “Definitio ns”

section.



### Docket Number

- 184

Comment Ke y
- 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 w as 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 Com pany 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 refe rence 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 Numb er

- 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 lan guage 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 wi pes."



# 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 w ell 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 Subtitl e 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 jurisdicti on 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 reusa ble 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 exclusi on, 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 me t either now or under the regulatory con ditions 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 excl ude 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 mate rial 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 Mos t, 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 wi th 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 n ot 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 c ontention 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 solven t from SSLWs. Indeed, the guidance provided by the Uniform Textil e & 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 tha t no free liquids are present. Instead, it merely indicates that wipe gener ators 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., “Manage ment 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 requir e 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 demonst rate 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 par tially 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” co ndition 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 “cont ain 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 ea ch 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, consiste nt with the preamble statement regarding use of generator knowledge, this “tes t” 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 liqui d, or

for tha t 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

“consiste nt 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

en sure “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 solv ent 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

tha t 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 un der 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 unde rgone], 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 f rom 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 fai led 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 no t mandate any processing and th at 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) c onsistent 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 Generator s 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 th e 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 ma terials. 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 K ey

- 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 t he 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 c onditions 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 propose d 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 stora ge 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 recogn ized that its overly lenient test for “no free liquids” will result in some cases in free liquids at the bottom of the container s t oring 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 percolatio n 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, a t 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 establi shed for “no free liquids” in containers. Moreover, as discussed below, coupled with the lax container conditions p roposed 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 standar d 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. Simpl y state d, EPA recognizes that plastic and cloth bags might allow liquid solvent to leak even if no free liquids are present, and yet ha s proposed a “no free liquids” test that it knows will result in free liquids in containers, a condition that the Agency acknow l edges 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 formul ation 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” be fore 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 industria l 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, e xtent, 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 regulato ry exclusions from the definition of solid waste t hat 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 t o 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 t he 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 a lso 64 Fed. Reg. 68971 (Dec. 9, 1999) (noti ng 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 hazardou s 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 i s warranted will not be met.



### Docket Number

- 283 Comment Key

- 1131

Subm itted 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 indicat es 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 materi al is like a raw material (or other “commodity”) that wo uld 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 th at 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, 19 85) (“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 store d so as to prevent releases or other losses of the material”.

A thi rd reason is equally apparent. Despite EPA’s assertion that “the conditions for the exclusion from solid waste are appropriat e because they ensure that the manner in which generators and laundries manage these materials is consistent with how companies

wou ld 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 ca re 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 facil ities receive will not know, in the absence of labels, whether the containe rs 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 ca re to meet the conditions of the proposed exclusion and prevent los s 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 determ ination 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 r euse . . . it is more likely that the used industrial wipes will be handled carefully, in appropriate container s, 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 an d 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 a nd discard solvent.

Raw materials and valuable commodities are not typically handled in ways conducive to their destruction, or the destruction o f the facility containing them. Indeed, as EPA has noted in recognizing the fire hazards posed by the flammabl e nature of solvents, “[w]e believe that companies which value their industrial wipes would be likely to manage them in a manner that protects thei r 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 transp orting 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 cond ition. 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.” Lett er 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 “mo st 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.

Sim ilarly, 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 particu lar 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 soi l 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] clot h bags used for transpor t 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 h as candidly acknowledged that while “the potential for air emissions is always present for volatile compounds,” and that “the potential risks and loadings are greates t where the concentrations of hydrocarbons are highest (i.e., during wipe storage) . . . v ery 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 typi cally

discard all the solvent

- and are free to do so

- to t he 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 wipe s

- 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 hazardo us 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 purpo se 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 f actor 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 exclu sion

from the definition of solid waste.

In an August 15, 20 01 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 unles s (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, 2 001. 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 interp retative 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 o r 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 th us 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 definiti on 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 disc retion 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 othe rwise 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 conclude d, in the finalized conditional exclusion for waste

derived 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 t he 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

wa ste

- 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 proff ered 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 su ch

that a ll 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 wou ld 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 polluti on prevention benefits t hat 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 s eek 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 assessi ng 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 presen ce 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 pres ence 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 e xclusion

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 cri teria for evaluating “toxics along f or 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 secondar y 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 not ed, “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 b eing 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 a n analogous product made w ith 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 leve ls 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 te sts must be met to satisfy thi s 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 hazardo us 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 lea d 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 st ated 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 to wels 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 fre quently 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 s hop 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 in to
considerati on 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 t he 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 th e laundering process. While the concentrations of the metals found are enough, in and of themselves, to justify a conclusion that the meta ls are present in “significant amounts”, the exposure analysis and exceedances of health

- based levels established by E PA, ATSDR, and Cal EPA lend further support to that conclusion. That conclusion is buttressed as well by the fact that the number of launder ed (and unlaundered solvent

- contaminated) shop towels containing these metals that were assumed to be handled each d ay 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. Fi rst, 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 provid es 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 F ood 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 z inc fertilizers made from them, upon finding that (i) the concentr ations 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 (co llectively 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 n ot 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 t o new, unused shop towels that would be used in their st ead.



### 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 exclus ion 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, o r . . . 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 sho uld be employed. According to Webster’s Third New Internatio nal 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 ano ther way, “to process” something is “to subject [it] to a p articular 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 langu age 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 offsit e, “must c ontain no free liquids or must have been treated by solvent extraction. . . . ” (proposed 40 C.F.R.§ 261.4(a)(22)(iii). To th e extent a generator chooses to rely on the “no free liquids” performance standard, the proposed rule designates no particular

meth od 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 determine d 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 i f hand

- held.

Even if the proposed rule were to require observation of each and every wipe to determine whether liquid dripped from it, tha t 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 i s in fact releasing free solv ent. 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 c haracteristics 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 (availa ble 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 liqui ds” 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 le vels of solvent.” 68 Fed. Reg. 65593. That statement appears to a cknowledge 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” th at 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 jurisdictio nal 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 “intr a

company” transfer provision (or any such “inter

- company” transfer provision) authorizing off site 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 b een 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 wip e generator to no longer use them but before they are prepared for shipment by initial “reclamatio n”. 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 exclus ion should not apply until the wipes are loaded for shipment offsite and the container can be che cked 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 re claimed”, 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 sol vent 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” ma terials 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 d efinition 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 Fe d. Reg. 65608. For at l east 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 supp orts the conclusion that states are in fact routinely imposing such taxes and/or that they are creating undue economic burdens on industrial laundries or the ir 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 wo uld 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 co nsider “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 wo uld 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 fr om 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” (6 8 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 c onditionally 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 wa ste 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 entitie s 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 E PA’s attention, not the fact that the wipes are reused, functioning as a commodity , after they have been cleaned. When solvent

contaminated 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 solve nts 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 justificatio n 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). Th e 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 defin ition 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 dri p 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 val ue 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 min imize loss. The condition that the EPA has proposed for container transport, however, suggests that solvents will escape from containers. Risks to workers a nd the environment are a likely result.

The EPA has proposed a standard that containers be “designe d, 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.” Beca use 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 conta iner. Allowing for transportation in porous cloth or plastic bags m ay 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 e nforce, 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 th em.

It seems odd that the EPA would re quire 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 exclus ion 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 wi pes 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 exclud e 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 exist ing definition of solid waste. Including reusable wipes as sol id 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 reus able 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 bro ader 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 ma tch 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 th is recycling activity by providing the appropriate regula tory 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 EP A 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 c onsistent 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

Submitte d 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 solven t.



### Docket Number

- 280 Comment Key

- 714 Submitted by

- of Los Al amos National Laboratory

Comment Text: LANL believes that reusable industrial wipes should be conditionally excluded from the definition of solid waste provided the y are not abandoned by being accumulated, stored, or treated before or in lieu of being d isposed, 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 ar e 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 a lso preferable to a conditional exemption from being regulated as hazardo us 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

- Law rence 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 waste

like and can be conditionally excluded from the regulatory definition o f 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 exc lude 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 be en 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 conce rns 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 environment al 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 was te 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 business es.



### 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 th e cleaning facility, POTW pretreatment and NPDES standards, RCRA gen erator 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 th at 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 commo n 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 towel s 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 Was te 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 w aste. 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 pr oposed 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 Colu mbia 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 d estined for legitimate beneficial reuse or recycling are "not part of the waste disposal problem" and thus cannot be subsumed by the definition of s olid waste. American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). This fun damental 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 mater ials "destined for recycling are obviously not of that sort." As EPA is aware, the court recently made clear that this fundamental limitatio n 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 r e

- 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. Mo reover, as certain stakeholde rs 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 o n 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 product s 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 ad dressing 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 pr eamble 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 cr iteria 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 i n 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:

Th e 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, t hrown 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; rathe r 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 “so lid waste” those secondary materials that are “destined for reuse as part of a continuous in dustrial 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” a nd, therefore, are not “part of the was te 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 wit h

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 therefo re 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 explic itly 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 an d, when soiled, are no more waste material than a dull cu tting 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 Existin g 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 t he “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 exclusi on should “encourage properly conducted recycling” and should also “fulfill an agency ob jective 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 ingred ient (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. a t 25998, 26011

- 12 (May 12, 1997)). The proposed solid waste exclusion for reusable towels is a l ogical 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 A nd 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 commodity

like 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 material s (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 servic e 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 custom er use and subsequent collection of soiled textiles. The cornerstone of this service is, of course, the reusable shop towel. Though prices and qual ity vary, reusable shop towels generally cost laundries about $0.20 apiece. Each reusable towel has a life ex pectancy 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 a re factored in, the average profit margin derived for each new reusable towel purchased is approximately 1 0 percent. Industrial laundry profits depend on carefully managing and recycling the supply of reusable towels to provide a service to their custom ers. Mr. Buik’s testimony at the March 9 public hearing recounts how the industry manages shop towels as a cr itical 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 represe nts 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 industria l laundry business as a rented asset

- much like oth er 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 equipmen t 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 cust omer uses. The terms of mos t 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 numb er 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 ca pacity

to service other cust omers.

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

- h azardous “solid wastes.” Some of these State solid waste programs impose fees, detailed permitting requirements, restrictive management conditions, complex site assessments, an d 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

re gulation, 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), th en

re usable 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 reusa ble 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 cu stomers.



### 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 “sol id 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 landfill ed

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 fro m 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 greatl y increase the chance that these solvents will be release d 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 treate d and destroyed through biological treatment at POTWs that rec eive 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 definiti on 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:

I n 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 no t 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 tru ly

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, Presid ent 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

c lassification. 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 ar e 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 industri al

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 us able 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 reduci ng 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

financ ially 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 i s red uced 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 sta tsman 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 wi th 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

- 15 5 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 f rom 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 haza rdous 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 preli minary 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 fou nd 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 ap propriate 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 l andfill 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 facilit y when they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic due to use with solvents; they are contaminat ed with F001

- F005 spent solvents, or comparable P

- and U

- listed commercial chemical products that have been spilled and cleaned up; or they are co

contaminated with a material that makes them characteristically hazardous for ignitability, provided the condi tions 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 propose d rule (col. 1, sec. V.B.2.a), EPA states “The proposed condit ional 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

- contam inated 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 Nu mber

- 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 fro m 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 r ecycling 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 precede nt 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 ful l RCRA hazardous waste regulation of these materials (meaning the wipes defined in the proposed rule) is no t 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 clari fies 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:

- disposa ble 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, a nd 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 fr om 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 dispo sable 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 rel eases 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 Man agement 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 o n the Task Force do not anticipate that such an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for solvent

contaminated 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 preced ent 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 ind ustrial 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 character istics 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 del isting reviews consider disposal in a municipal landfil l 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 solv ents
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

Subm itted 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 ha zardous waste.

- The department views the addition of this exclusion as an attempt to simplify waste management for a waste that is wide sprea d. 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 e xcept 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 generat or 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 requirement s. 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. Emplo yees, 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 wi pes, in certain cases.

Discussion: The proposed regulations (40 CFR 261.4(a)(22)) exempt industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry fro m 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 exclus ions 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 stric t 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 diff erent 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 indu strial 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 pro cess would then be reusable launder ed 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 wi ll be fully protective of human heal th 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

sec tor (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 res ulted 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 for mer

## 88 problems have b een 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, 1 994, 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 prohibit ed 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 con ditions specified below are satisfied by the facility claiming the exclusion: [s ic]



### 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 sol vent used.)

On Page 65589 (second column), USEPA states that the rule would not apply to industrial wipes cont aminated with aqueous

based 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 m ost 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 n ot 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 reusabl e wipes that meet the definition of hazardous waste.

Further, laund ry 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 clea r 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 r ule wherein EPA states, “we also note that this proposed rule would not be a pplicable 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

- hazard ous 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 Sy stems, Inc.

Comment Text: SK is also concerned that the proposal would allow hazardous waste spill cleanups to go into Subtitle D landfills or wastewat er treatment systems. SK believes this would be a mistake and would present a threat to human health a nd 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 Sub title C System.



### Docket Number

- 286 Comment Key

- 1373 Submitted by

- Edward Hammerberg of Maryland Departm ent of the Environment

Comment Text: EPA's stated purpose is that the exclusion include "industrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic ... due to use wit h 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

- li sted 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 su ch 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 N umber

- 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

character istic 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 U

listed wastes, and allows ignitable characteristic co

- contaminants. The propos ed 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 revis ed 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 N umber

- 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 indus trial wipes cont aining 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 MPC A 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 pro posed 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. Specifical ly, 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 c ontaminated

with F001

- F 005 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 int ends

for the co nditional 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 character istic. 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 pr oposed regulatory text ident ifies 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 whe n legitimately reclaimed and recycled. When m aterials 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 E PA 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 fo r 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 Richa rds 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 characterist ic 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 t hose 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 t hose 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 regulato ry 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

C omment 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 F00 5 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. N either 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 co rrosive 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 ope ns 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 hazar dous 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 wipe s (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 onl y 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 reus able 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 c ommodity 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 reusabl e wipes that are defined as hazardous wast e.

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

contaminat ed 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 Pr otection

Comment Text: The MEDEP believes clarification is needed regarding the list of 11 solvents prohibited from being disposed of in a land disp osal 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 t hose 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 U

material needs to have a corresponding solvent before the wi pe 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

Submit ted 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 definit ion 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

- li sted 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 prop osed 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.


### Docket Number

- 346 Comment Key

- 254 Submitted by

- of Utility Solid Waste A ctivities 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 expla ins: “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 th e exclusion from hazardous waste, wipes co

- contaminated with ignitable waste woul d 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 plain ly intends to include the proposal. To correct these drafting errors, the regulato ry 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 te xt 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 Environment al 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

- ha zardous 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 contai n one of the F001

- F005 listed hazardous wastes or a characteristic hazardo us 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 N umber

- 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 r ule. 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

- M ichelle 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 conc erned 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 i n both unlined and composite lined landfills. CKRC agrees that based on these findings EPA should not include this waste in the scop e 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 non

hazardous 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 disc harged 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 Tow el 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 i n

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 ag rees 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 contai ning 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

oper ators 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 conditi on of their wip es 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 contai ning 1,1,1

- trichloroetha ne 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 disti nguish 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 conditi on of their wipes destined fo r 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 Rock well 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 exh ibit 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 Numbe r

- 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 solv ents
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 the se hazardous che micals.



### 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 up on 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 t he 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 Practice s 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 d at a 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 d id

n ot 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 analy sis.” 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 indicat ed 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

- c arbon 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 determine d 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 land fills 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 ra ther 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, wher e 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 elem entally, 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., ignitab ility, 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 w ould 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 wa ste

specific and waste management scenar io

- 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 screenin g analysis provides an ample foundatio n 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 l aundry 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 conser vative

- 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 contain ing 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 wipe s 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 resul ts of risk

assessments d emonstrating 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 t hat

seemed t o 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 rath er than 90 p ercent, 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 ve ry 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 c ontain 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 t o pose a significant risk. Again, EPA's risk data is flawed given current landfill practices provide an adequate margin of safety to p rotect
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 wipe rs 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 .” Tabl e 1 has 11 solvents listed. Our reading of the proposed rule leads us to believe th at 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 exclusio n it could not be land disposed merely because it contained MEK. A rule that se ts 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 suffic ient. 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 prohibit ion 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 fr om 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 fr om the

definition of hazardou s 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 prohibi ts 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 cu rrent 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 a mount 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. Manufac turers 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 1 1 solvents (usually within mixtures) to be landf illed 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 fro m 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 substan tial 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

Nonwove n 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 jus tifiably 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 w ipes 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 co mment 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 t he 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 so lvents. Further discussion of this issue is requested in the final rule. FPA also requests confirmation that industrial wipes with one or mor e of the listed 11 solvents can be disposed at municipal waste combustors or laundered commercially.

FPA's positio n 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 simil ar meth odologies 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 rul e, 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 cons ider 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 o verly conservative assumptio n 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

- contaminate d wipes. None of the evaluated solvents were found to pose adverse ecological risks from disposal of solvent

contaminated wipes in municipal solid waste landfills...Similarly, even under a "potential” risk evaluation, regulation of disposable wipes contain ing 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 so lvent 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 h as 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 m unicipal and non

- hazardous land fills.



### 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 fr om the definition of hazardous waste if incinerated or processed for reuse through a laundering service.



### Docket Number

- 461

Com ment 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 ris k

from PCE

- containing l aundry 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 tow els are being managed appropriate ly. (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 t he 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 solv ents 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 unde rstand 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 N umber

- 199

Comme nt 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

A gency 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 recomm end

that the Agency clearly state in the final rule language that the toxic characteristic if available for each of the solvents liste d 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 thi s 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 chem icals that exhibit very slight effects on humans or no human data available on animals. F or 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 wi th diarrhea and mouth sores in humans. The report relies on a review of all publicly av ailable 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 so lvent used by our industry is considered a low toxic ris k 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 Agen cy 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 lan dfills.

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 th e solvent that seemed to be most easily extracted was MEK. In fact, the report states that MEK’s extraction efficiency was 99

p ercent. 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

- 81 1 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 t he EPA to broaden the definition of "industrial wipes" to inc lude 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 manufacturin g 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 pl aced in suitable containers and shipped as hazardous waste to TSDF facil ities. 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 E PA has used to exempt disposal wipes from regulation as hazardous was te 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 shoul d 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 defi nition of solid waste. The primary reason for this conditional exclusion is that industrial wipes are more "commodity

- like that waste

like." Other materials are similarly commodity

- like and should be similarly regulated. For example, soiled coveralls and w ork uniforms, like industrial wipes, are often partially reclaimed, handled as valuable commodities throughout the laundering pro cess, and owned by the same entity throughout the laundering.

Recommendation: Expand the proposed rule to include other commo dity

- 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 Equip ment (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 solven t. 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

Submi tted 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 contamin ated 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, an d 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 material s 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

- contamin ated 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 solvent

contaminated wipes but also to other solvent

- contaminated solids such as disposable gloves, suits, other personal protective equipm ent, 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 wa ste. 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 sa me 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, w hen 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 cove red 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 dispo sable 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 occur s, 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

- Ali son 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 ma terials 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 E PA 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 Ac tivities 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 h azardous waste. Workers in a wide variety of industries use industrial wipes in conjunction with personal protective clothing, such as coveralls and gloves, and this clot hing often becomes contaminated with the same solvents that contaminate wipes. The sam e 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 sim ilar solvent

contaminated 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 t he 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 Ke y
- 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 reasonabl e 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 ha zardous 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 fil ters 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 us ed

with a listed solvent. Th e 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) ad dresses 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 hazardo us 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 spec ial container requiremen ts 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 i s 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). Th e MPCA would like the EPA to address managing W ipes 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

Submitte d 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 a t 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 w e 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 reusabl e shop towels too expensive for some customer s 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 minimiz e 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 proh ibition 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 whethe r the rule should defer to OSHA regulations for proper accumulation of solvent

contaminated wipes at a generator’s facility. A potential hazard of accumulating solvent

- contaminated wipes, similar to oily rags, is that of spontaneous combustion. According t o 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 a nd 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 “dispose d 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 alon g 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 req uest segregating industrial wipes, but that can be achieved through local agreements and need not be codified in the federal regulation for all disposabl e wipes.

Recommendation: Delete conditions 40 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(ii) regarding transportation in conta iners 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 s hould 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 A ssociation

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 landfil ls 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 giv ing 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 containin g free liquid, but this statemen t 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” perfo rmance 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 prop osal 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 fa cility

where nor mal 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. Ge nerators 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 r equirements 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 i s unreasonable. The sealed containers would require significantly more labor to handle by both the generator and the laundry.

## 107 Addit ionally 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

solv ent.

...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 (plast ic 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 conta iners 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 app ear in regulatory language nor has EPA previously communicated this definition in any published natio nal 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 adequa te 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 elsewher e in the RCRA regulatio ns. 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 t han in the preamble to this prop osed 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

Comme nt 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 Num ber

- 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 transportin g 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 t heir use due to the permeability of such a container and the release of s olvent 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 contaminat ed wipes and no free liquids does not pose an unacceptable risk to han dlers 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 whic h 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” o r “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, w hich by definition would require management of the solvent

- contaminated wipes as hazardous waste and, thus, accumulatio n 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 wip es 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 woul d take additional time. By using a performanc e 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 Electr onics 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 sol vent

- contaminated disposable industrial wipes to store them in non

leaking 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

- haza rdous 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 pl ants 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., u se and handling of flamm able 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 th ese 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 r equirements 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 r egulation 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. Require ments 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 f rom the fi lters, 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 ha zardous 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 imp ortantly, 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 t o 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 t owel 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 pla stic 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 J anuary 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 f or 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 curre nt 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 emphasiz ed 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

differ ent 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 Direct or 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 f or

new an d 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 laun dry industry

- to the detriment of worker and environmental safety:

- No longe r 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 act ually protect workers and reduce air emissions...But the definitio n 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 its elf to be unduly influenced by the “stakeholders” and rejected thi s 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 o f 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 t erm “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 seal ed 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 proposa l, 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 belie ves 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 la undry

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 m ay 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

- Co ntaminated 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 a nd 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 All tex 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 combustio n meet DOT packaging requirements.



### Docket Number

- 320 Comment Key

- 362

Submitt ed 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, addit ional 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 ot her burdensome labeling and container st orage 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

- 1 668 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 r equirement 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 clas s 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 to p and which must be sealed to be considered closed). DP&L opposes the al ternative 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 co ntainer 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 us e of such

a container for collection of the solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes to a void 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

Su bmitted 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 dur ing 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 rest rict volatilization and exposure to solve nt 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 destinatio n scenarios (lau ndry 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.

Howev er 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

unn ecessary 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 stati c igniti on. 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 no t accurately represent the state of the Subpart I criteria requiring closed containers during accu mulation. 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 i n 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 rulemakin g 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 be tween 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 confl icting 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 en vironment.” 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 conta iners” 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 case s.



### 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 i dentifying 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, pap er 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 wi pes. 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 t hat meet DOT packaging requirements to satisfy the performance standards is a logical, common

sense approach.



### Docket Number

- 354 Comment Key

- 577 Submitted by

- Joseph Kinker of Georgia

- Pacific Corporation

Comment Text:

Both non

- laundered wipes and l aundered 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 R ule 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 exclusio n 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 self

contained 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 genera tor 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 Cali fornia

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 pro posal 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 “B est 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 G reenhaus 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 environm ent 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 excl uded 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. Departm ent 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 es tablish 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 w orkers or prevent leaks. This proposal will allow industries to neglect prote ctive 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 o f 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 co nsiders the proposed performance standards to be inadequate for saturated wipes going to another site under same ownership. Shipments of those wipes if allowe d 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 clos ed containers on

site, 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 laundr ies, 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. Coveri ng a container with a piece of plywood o r 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.



### Do cket 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. Plasti c or cloth bags do not affor d 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 pe rsonnel 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 h andlers, 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 pa rticularly 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 place d 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 breache d bag may come into contact with othe r 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 th e bag may wick from the wipes into the bag, facilitating the release of solv ent 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 ge nerators of industrial wipes to transport wipes with free liquids to other facilities within the same company provided that such transport is for th e purposes of processing to meet the “dry” or “no free liquid” standard. In light of the issues outlined abo ve, 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 facil itate

the handl ing 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

contai ners 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 pr eamble (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 an d worker exposures as other types of conta iners, 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 dr ums covered with plywood is not necessary. Sprin g

- 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 r eleases.



### 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 wou ld be allowed under the rule as proposed would be plastic and/or cloth bags. As noted in comment 4 above, CTDEP belie ves that such bags are not adequately protective, and are inappropriate for transportation purposes. With respect to other types of contain ers other than plastic and/or cloth bags (e.g. open drums), serious concerns remain relating to vapor emissions and t he 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 w ould be cumbersome and make the determination of free liquids difficult, CTDEP believes that containers are currently av ailable on the market that would address both of these concerns. For example, generators could accumulate wipes in plastic or cloth bags 3 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 rea sons 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 solvent s 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 abse nce 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 a lready 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 inher ent in transporting hazardous materials in commerce, (ii) offer flexibility in use of containers, and (iii) a lready 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 flexibi lity 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 “leakpro o f” 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).

According ly, 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 Tran sportation 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” wit h 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 t ransport performance s tandards.



### 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 c ondition for all wipe generators that would require storage in “non

leaking, covered containers”. At the same time, the Agency has proposed a container storage requirement for industrial laundr ies

in “non

- leaking covered containers or in containers that ar e 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.

I NDA/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 l aundries. 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 tha t, 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 mer ely 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 t ime, 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 fo r 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 clean ers, 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 "cove red" 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 th e 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

Comme nt 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

acc umulated, 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, EP A 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 stor ed 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 proposa l 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 fre e 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 s teel 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 inclu de 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, resultin g in

increased fire risk.

OSHA standards under 29 CFR § 1910.106 require that flammable (solvent) materials b e 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 co ncerns 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 emissi ons, 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 t o 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 outlin ed 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 Technolog y 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 pro vide as follows: (i) Solvent contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off site, must be trans ported 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 ap plicable 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

- contamin ated 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 th e “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 identif ied below in the 5 grams and “no free liquids” criteria, the full transportation restr ictions 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 dr um 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

towel s; 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

envi ronment 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 a nd 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 ar e 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 fugit ive emissions of volatile solvents that could present an inhalation hazard to employees, contribute to atmospheric emissions of V OCs and present a fire risk. The DOT and various governmental agencies have established specifications for storage and for

tran sportation 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 pot ential 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 spri ng

- 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 evaporatio n of solvents from the wipes.

## 121 Docket Number

- 3 28 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, th e department v iews 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 c ould be

attac ked 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 transpo rt of wipe rs 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

Submitte d 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 mana ged 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 environmen t. 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 ad equate. 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 t he 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 require ments 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 mana ged 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 liqu ids” 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 conta iner. Allowing for transportation in porous cloth or plastic bags may allow for leaks of so lvents 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 th em.



### 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 A ssociation (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, tha n 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 t he 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 th e 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 t ouches 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 cleani ng 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 c leaning 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.



### Dock et 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 i n 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 ou r industry. For example, solv ent 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 s oaked 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

re quired 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 require ment. Our materials are currently transported in containers that are designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment. In addition, PING utilizes contain ers that meet both OSHA and DOT regulations as well as local Clean Air Act require ments.



### 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 ... prio r 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, construc ted and managed to minimize lo ss 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 “over

handling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emis sions. Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario would be for t he operator to use the wipe and drop it into an appropriate container immediately when finished with the job. While addition al 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 hand ing

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 EP As 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 coul d

meet this standar d 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 y et 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 reusa ble 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 cons iders 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 t he "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 t owels in a safe and efficient manner. They also will allow the industry to continue to use the different techniques and equipment (such as cinchi ng plastic or cloth collection bags) that have demonstrated effectiveness in protecting worker health. (See abo ve 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 spil l during transportation on public highways. This conce rn 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 subs tantial contamination. Such a scenario is totally imp lausible. 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 l iquids” 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 acciden t 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

result ing from sealed containerization.

The mandatory use of sealed containers will actually make it more difficult for laundries to enforce a no free liquids condit ion

vis

- a

- vis their customers and transporters. Laundries need the flexibility to access and clo sely 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 p icking 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 pr eclude 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 abil ity

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 fi ber 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. Accumu lation 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 expansi on. Many plants are located in older buildings in d eveloped 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 siz ed 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 a nd 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 cou ld 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 d ifficult 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 resu lt 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 lau ndries 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 limiti ng 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 seale d containers would be substantial, the benefits and co st 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 regulatio n, 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 a n 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 us ed to transport industrial wipes off

- site. As discussed abo ve, 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

Comm ent 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. Ph elps Dodge objects to this alternative bec ause 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 sea led 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 Numbe r

- 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 i s unreasonable. The sealed containers would require significantly more labor to handle by both the generator and the laundry.

Addit ionally 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

solv ent.



# 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
prot ection 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 Solvent

Contaminated 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 knowledg e 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 t o attempt to prescribe specif ic 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 t o 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 propose d 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 solve nt 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 t he 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 rea son 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 t he laundry facility.



### Docket Number

- 267 Comment Key

- 817

Submi tted 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 disposabl e 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

auth orization 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

constructi on and its permit requirements. By specifying language to use on the label of a container of disposable solvent

contaminated wipes, the EPA will be imposing an unnecessary burden on the generator.



### Docket Number

- 267 Comment Key

- 838 Submitted by

- Davi d 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 Numb er

- 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 p ersonnel 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 c ontaminated 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., “e xcluded 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 a nything, 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 towe ls 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 reusabl e 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 Transportati on’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 Solvent

Contaminated Indu strial 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 des igned 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 a ccumulate in separate containers exempted contaminated wipes having met the dry standard. This will create additional regulatory burdens on facilities, especially small entities with limited sp ace 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 th e 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 Transportati on’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 i dentity of the generator so that the responsible party can be engag ed 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 Solvent

Contaminated Wipes”. Idaho DEQ recommends EPA require such containers to be labeled “Exempt Solvent

- contamin ated 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 wip es 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

qu estions 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 t hat 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 bu rden 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 "e xcluded 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

Submitt ed 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, addit ional labeling and container requirements are stil l 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 ot her burdensome labeling and container storag e 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.” N PCA 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

c ontainers 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 preamb le

that a “l abeling 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 disposa ble

and intra

- compa ny 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 environ ment.



### 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 c ombustible, as applicable. This will provide downstream transporters and handlers with relevant information about the hazards posed by th e contaminated wipes.



### Docket Number

- 332 Comment Key

- 481 Submitted by

- Reid A. Urban of CNH America LLC

Comment T ext: 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

unnecessar y, 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 “Ex cluded 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 us ed 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, wh ich 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

reg ulatory obstacles to implementing the reforms, particularly for small operators (of which there are hundreds in the Segregati on and Labeling of Containers Sent To Landfills flexible packaging industry) who even under the current regime, do not handle

## 131 waste s 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 a ny 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 landfil ls will

caus e 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 t he use d 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 wip es 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 proposin g 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 sol vents 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 tow els, 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 a nd 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, l abeling 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 s afety 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, cont aining 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 solve nt

- 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 Solve nt

- 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 labelin g 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 r eceiving 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

excl uded 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 o f

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 wou ld it provide any information that would not be pr ovided 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 s eparately 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 destin ed 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 s tandard. This standard was chosen because it falls within the range indi cating 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 b e 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 disposabl e 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.



### Docke t 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

Com ment 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 launder ed shop towels.



### Docket Number

- 189

Comme nt 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 f or 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 ensu re their proper handling by the employees of SSNW generators, they are equally necessary for em ployees 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 t hose 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 infor mation 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 condition s (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 certa in 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 h olding 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 w ith various soiled wipes in the handling bin, how are laundries supposed to comply with the e xclusion’s proposed condition of either returning free liquids to SSLW generators in the containers in which they arrived, or handling them separately as spent solve nt
hazardous wastes?

In sum, the final rule should either impose a labeling requirement fo r 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, fo r 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 tw o types of materials differently. As such, INDA/SMART recommends that any such condition apply equally to both types of

materials a nd 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 an d 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, a nd 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. Therefo re,

## 135 the same labeling must be required as a warning to intermediate handlers, workers, and the general public, particularly in th e event of a transportation incident. In addition, all solvent contaminated wipes must have labels indicating the start accumul ati on 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 N umber

- 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 ve rsion 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 ar e 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 h ave 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 facilitie s, 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 follo ws:

...

- 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 f or 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

- Raymo nd 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 wast e 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 27 0 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 solven t 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 day s (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 solv ents as hazardous waste become the generator and as such are subject t o 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 eac h 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 limit s would be inconsistent with existing recycling exclusions from hazardous waste and sub ject 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 an y 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 c omponents 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 wipe s daily. Requiring the operator to remove a cover to de posit 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 solven ts 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”

conditio n, 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 and “dry” wipes pose the

same on

- site ri sk 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 mee ting 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 su pports 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 f ree liquids” condition. Requiring the container to be covered and non

- leaking requires the generator to manage the reusable, solvent

contaminated wipes as hazardous waste while on site. This condition assumes the wipes will fail the “no free liquid” conditio n, which by definitio n 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 wip es, 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 wi th 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 dispos able 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 de finition 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 wa ste. Therefore, while launderable wipes would be subject to these provisions under the proposed rule, disposable wipes would not. As a result, launderable wipes woul d

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

- accumul ated.



### 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

c ontaminated wipes to treatment or final disposal. This will result in greater risk of spills, releases and fires. The underly ing goal of RCRA is to prevent adverse incidents and environmental damage by requiring proper control of hazardous waste. Even thou gh 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 control led 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 stora ge 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 deteriorati on 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 “over

handling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emis sions. Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario would be for t he operator to use the wipe and drop it into an appropriate container immediately when finished with the job. While addition al 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 hand ing

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 pr oposed 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 u nder 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 Depa rtment 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 disposa l.



### 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 la ndfilling 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 dr ip 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 con trol 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 no t accurately represent the state of the Subpart I criteria requiring closed cont ainers 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 accumulatio n 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 rulemakin g 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 o f 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 work er safety concerning the proper storage o f 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 propo sed 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 conta iner 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 th e 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 operation s 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 th e 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 p rocess.



### 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 b eing 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 th e 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 ou r industry. For example, solvent soaked rags could b e 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 f ires, 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 go od management practice for this kind of waste material. We r ecommend 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 a ble 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 stor ed, waiting, picked up and transported, we think the mat erial 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.

Discus sion: 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 alr eady 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 accumulatio n 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

w astes (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 4 0 CFR 261.4 (b)(19)(iv)(B) of the proposal bans certain solvents from municipal lan dfills, 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

Submi tted 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 recycl ing 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 contradic t 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 reg ulations 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)

C omment 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 generat or 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

RCR A 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 ma y adequatel y 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 v ary 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 Te xt:

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.



### Docke t 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, i s 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 u se 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 Numb er

- 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 solven t

- 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

C omment 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 o f 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 m anagement 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 El ectronics Industries

Comment Text: IPC opposes establishment of an accumulation time limit for either disposable or reusable wipes. In the proposed rule, EPA se eks comment on the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.106. This regulation, promulgated by the Occup ational 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 bel ieve 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 li mit 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 regulati ons (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 fo r the improper management of this waste stream. For example, interior storage o f 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 t hese materials is impracticable due to other regulatory schemes (e.g. storm wa ter 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 la rge 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 10 4 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)

Comme nt Text: The GAC opposes establishment of accumulation time limit for either disposable or reusable wipes. If the goal of the regulati on is to simplify requirements and exclude properly managed industrial wipes from the burdens associated with the hazard ous waste regulations, limiting accumulation time will be counter to that goal. Traditionally, within the industry, shop wipes are remo ved from the shop floor on a daily basis and reusables are subsequently picked up by the launderer on a weekly basis. Dis posables that are currently considered a hazardous waste must be shipped out under the time frames that are specified by the regulatio n. 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 discusse d, 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 ac cumulation 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 requiremen t for disposable wipes meeting the “dry” standard to eliminate any ambiguity and subjective interpretation. Reusable towels are typically handled by one industrial la undry under contract for an extended period of time with a customer. The handling processe s 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 dis posal 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 Asso ciation

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 mak e 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,

de pending 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

fl ammable 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

launderi ng 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. Th is 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 accu mulation 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 destine d 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 destin ed for disposal that provide ample protection (covered, non

leaking 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 haza rdous 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 on ly 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 a nd 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 oppo ses 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 likeliho od 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 tha t 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 acc umulated 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 de finition 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 was te 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 f or 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 con tainers 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 al ready 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 p otential 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 accumul ation 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 i s 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 So lvent

- 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

. ab ove, 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 appropriat e for dispos able 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 t he marking of conta iners 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 t owels 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 frame s 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 o f 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. T herefore, 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. 655 95, 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 s afety

hazards.



### Docket Number

- 325 Comment Key

- 151 5 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 1 0 days total transit t ime 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

- Kare n 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 segrega ted 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 thi rd party or in time and money expended by the gener ator 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 wipe s to the disposal or combustion facility. The indef inite 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 genera tors 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 li mited 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 transi t time including all periods when contaminated wipes are managed in transportation rel ated 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 P rotection

Comment Text: MEDEP questions the lack of generator accumulation limits. Increased quantities of contaminated wipes will result in increase d 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 accumu lation 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 tha t 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 RCR A purposes, EPA should reference the l anguage 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 barr ier over the container openings such that when the cover and closure devices a re 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 cont ainer (e.g., a lid on a drum or a suitably secured tarp on a roll

- off box) o r 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 l imiting 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 us ed 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 o f 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 i n the preamble. Dow supports EPA’s conclusion (FR 65595) which “recognizes that many generat ors 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 r ecycling. 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. Requirin g 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 t he
generator.



### Docket Number

- 266 Comment Key

- 1063 Submitted by

- Christopher Jones of Ohio EPA

Commen t 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 belie ve 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, t o 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 w ords “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 ty pes of wipes. C TDEP 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

Commen t 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 practice s 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 plac e 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

Submit ted 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 cont ainers.



### 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 environmenta l protection. The imposition of closed containers implies the use of a rigid container with a sealed lid. This would create an u ndue compliance burden on the user of the wipe. Being able to utilize covered containers allows for the ability to also use flexib le containers. For example, common practice in print shops is to use the spring

- closed safety cans to collect the wipes near t he press or other equipment. The wipes are then periodically collected and transferred to a rigid container such as a drum that has be en 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 co ntainer is then removed when filled with wipes for either disposal or laundering. Specifying covered containers pres erves 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 Ma nufacturers

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 “co vering, 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 s hould cover the container between each addition of a wip e 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 impractica l 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 an d 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 emi ssions; 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 reu seable 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 an d 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 “no n

- 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 sa fety 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, thi s 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 non

leaking, covered containers while at the generator’s facility. DuPo nt 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 disp osable 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 accu mulation 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 storag e equipment they already have on

site, rather than having to invest in particular storage vessels that meet detailed specifications. This flexible standard al so encourages generators to come up with innovative and cost

- efficient ways of storing these mater ials, 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 th at 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 vesse ls 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 wa ste 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

19 10.106(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 a nd 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 hazardo us 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) m ay be inappropriate when applied to the storage and accumulation of reusable s olvent

- contaminated industrial wipes. The OSHAct regulations primarily address the potential for spontaneous heating of flammable liquids and combustible waste material rathe r than the potential for releases of the hazardous constituents in hazardous waste s, 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 init ial storage of solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes claiming the exclusion from the definition of solid waste, DOE recommends that the condition specify explici t 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 wel l with how the wipes are handled at point of use, more confusing, and does not give a clear reasona ble 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 propo sed 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 woul d not support such a deferral, since it would not includ e 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 plasti c 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

- Da vid 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 stora ge of solvent contaminated wipes. These standards should includ e 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, p erforming 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 particul ar do not limit the storage time. Also, a generator can claim that contamina ted 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 complai nt 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.



### Dock et 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

towel s 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 accum ulation 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 fed eral, 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 wel l 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 optio ns for management of its conditio nally 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 co ndition, 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 wa ste TSD facility. (Laundries should be able to demon strate 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 Envi ronment

Comment Text: General criteria for transport to landfill or other facility. Proposed 261.4(b)(19)(iv)(A) and (B) provide criteria for situa tions "when [wipes] are transported to" a landfill or other facility. To enhance enforceability, EPA shoul d 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 wip es, 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 d isposal unit are applied up front, thereby protecting against rele ases 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 L **iquids**

Docket Number

- 266 Comment Key

- 1071 Submitted by

- Christopher Jones of Oh io 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 se nt off

- site for disposal. As proposed, the rule prohibits the disposal or combustion of free liquids by disposal facilities, therefore a solvent removal s tandard needs to be instituted that supports attainment of the prohibition.



### Docket Number

- 288

Comme nt 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 propose d

ru le 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 suppor t
docume nts 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

- 00 40. 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 of ten 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 foun d to fail the “no free liquid s” 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 dripp ing. 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 4 0.56 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 acceptabl e 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 t o 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 t hat “over

handling’’ of the solvent by the generator (i.e. handwringing) could cause a loss in solvent through increased fugitive emiss ions. Further, worker exposure to the solvent through increased emissions could also be increased. The best scenario woul d 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 transporta tion, unfortunately it may also reduce the amount of solvent to be ultimately recovered. Generators should be able to delegate hand ing

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 effe ctive 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 transport ation 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 believ es that a differentiation is warranted if qualification to the more stringent criteria of ‘dry’ provides more flexibility in the

m anagement 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” conditi on 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 laundr y, 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 solven t

- 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 com ponents are typically not saturated with solvent initially and the solvent is used up in the cleaning process. Requiring a “test” to prov e what is already known will impose unnecessary financial burden on similar generators.



### Docket Number

- 267

Comment K ey

- 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 solven t

contaminated wipes.



### Docket Number

- 305

Comme nt 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 transpo rted. 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 purp ose of developing a sim plified 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 no n

- 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 t he 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 genera tor (with the wipes and free liquids). NPCA supports this approach.



### Dock et 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 Num ber

- 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 crit eria 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 Du nlap 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.” Th is 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 prop osed no free liquids management condition is a condition that many States already incorporate into their policies on the handling of reusable shop towels. EP A’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 visi ble, 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 defini tions currently used by EPA, States, and the U.S. Department of Transportatio n (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 alread y 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 pre sence 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 fr om the requirements in 40 CFR 264.193. According to 40 CFR 264.190(a), the absence or pr esence of free liquids in waste treated/stored in the tank systems of interest must be demonstrated using Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test) as describe d 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, 4 0 CFR 264.3 14(c) indicates that the absence or presence of free liquids must be demonstrated using the P aint 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 technol ogies (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 wast e 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 shoul d 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 f ree 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 adequa te 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

Com ment 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 26 0.10, 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 fre e liquids with respect to the solvent

- conta minated 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 m isunderstandings 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 t he 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.”) b e incorporated as a subsection within the new regulatory section t hat 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 sp in

rates can b e 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 con tainer to

another.

PING agrees that this condition is acceptable, as it is standard practice. However, we request that the provision for generat or 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 pote ntially 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 par t, 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 o f 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 li quids.



### Docket Number

- 288 Comment Key

- 171 Submitted by

- David Case of Environmental Techno logy 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 object ive 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 th at 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 insp ected 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 liquid s 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 pro cess, free liquid remaining in the wipe could be further compressed or spun out of the wipe, and ultimat ely 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 foll owing 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 bas ed 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. laborator ies, 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, th e 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 E xtraction”

- Solvent removed through the use of centrifuges would be deemed to satisfy the “no free liquids” standard, without the need fo r further testing or verification of the wipes.

- Other “similarly effective” methods should be allowed, provided the me thod 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 Te chnical 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 s imilarly 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 co st benefit afforded by the exemption from R CRA, 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 jus t conjecture but reality. Other flawed asp ects 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 use d to meet the 5 grams test, and the allowa nce 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. Th e 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 l iquids, 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 lik e centrifuging, it is impossible to “know” that free liqu ids 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 1 0 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 st ill available creating risks of environmental releases.



### Do cket 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 liquid s” 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

prac tices (“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 a pproaches 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 requi red to have training or certification, which is in stark contra st 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 full y 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 liq uids” 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 con tain 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 s hould 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:

T he 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 t o

esta blish a “no free Liquid test”. I also believe that such a criteria is needed to provide any practical approach to the wipes i ssue. I suggest that the Agency “no drip test ” proposed is sufficient considering that the generator wipes would be subject to ful l RCRA regulation if free liquids result in any storage or shipping containers. As a generator I know that if I do not provide suffi cient 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 con tainers 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 w ringing 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” condit ion. (e.g., proposed 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(2 2)(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? EP A explains that an inspector could te st 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 i n the bottom of the container, the wipe s 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 9 095) 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 t hat their wipes contain “no free liquid s.”

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 wi th

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 liqui ds"

standard.



### D ocket 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 industr ial wipe ha ndling 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 frequ ency 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)(2 4) 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.” Th is definition presents a potential issue for facilities that have dedicated accumulati on 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 municip al waste combustor. We assume that EPA is concerned about free liquid that may b e 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 t o 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 purpo se, 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

Submit ted 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; an d 2) easy for users to understand, cheap to perform, and simple enough to avoid confusion or misin terpretation 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 rej ected: 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 reclama tion 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 E PA 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 generat or 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 f ree 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 Te chnical 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 user s 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 analysi s or specialized equipment.



### Docket Number

- 35 5 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

condit ions come into play:

[1] Aerospace facilities that generate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are governed by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG the Nationa l Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.

[2] Wh ile 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 hazardo us 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 occu pational and environmental protection.

[4] Since the wipe user is the primary point of compliance at the accumulation site, the requirements must be capable of bein g determined in the field. The no drip “test” must be performed by any solvent wipe user w ithout 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 s hould 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

sp ecialized 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 S tandard 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 depositi ng or removing these materials fro m 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 th e wipe can easily meet a "no free liquid" test upon completion of use without any wringing or further processing. Hand wringing of solvent wipes cou ld 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 particular ly 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 recov ered 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 o ne container to another. I believe that there probably is no procedure that can provide both a practical and infallible method t o establish a “no free Liquid test”. I also believe that such a criteria is needed to provide any practical approach to the wip e s 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 pro vide 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. Add itional test methods (paint filter test, wring wipes) would be burdensome and provide no more assuranc e 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

- flo wing solvent remaining in or on the

material.”

## 166 

# 5.4.2. No Free Liquids When W **rung**

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 standar d 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; thi s 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 suitabl e 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 a s 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 reco vered 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 stan dard 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 t he 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 non

hazardous 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 an d 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 d irect 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 reu se 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 differe nt 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 Land fills and wastewater treatment systems. SK believes this could pres ent 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 contamina ted 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 the n be recycled or treated within RCRA’s Subtitle C System.



### Docket Number

- 283

Co mment 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 sta ndard 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 propo sed 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 e xtraction 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 natu re, 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, w hether 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 l iquids” 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 insuffici ent 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, th e benefits of such an approach, as shown by comments in Section I V.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 combin ed. 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 commun ity given the vast number of wipe generators and industrial launderers that would be subject to this rule. Th at 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 liqui ds” 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 propo sed 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 approxima tely $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. Th e 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 dispos ed of, a failur e 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 material s 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 clas sified 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 d isposal . . . 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 regulat ions
are necessary t o 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 th an the federal progra m, 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 deviation s 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 (SW 846 Method 9095) or Li quids 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 hand

wringing 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 aga inst 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 solven ts in them.

- Third, as discussed further below, this simplistic argument fails to balance the significant benefits (e.g., resource recover y, waste minimization, and reduction of risks to laundry workers) achieved by the substantial amount of solvent that c an 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 exclu sion 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

- ho lding, 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 performan ce 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 in dustrial 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 p rotection 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 addi tional 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

Envir onmental 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 min imize 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 recogni tion 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 ind ustrial 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 a ppropriate 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. Des pite 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 f or 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 requireme nts
to . . . remove solven ts 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 a nd 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, b ut 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 recover y 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 Admini strator 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 Ap ril 8, 2003 statement to the Environmental Council for the States, she sta ted 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 Ad visors entitled “OSWER Priorities FY04/RCRA FY04 Mutual Performance Agreement”, Assistant Administrator Horinko announced her intent to carry this initiative forward, identifying th e RCC as “one of four key areas” where EPA’s leadership and performance wer e “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 Administr ator Fisher characterized the RCC as “a challenge to EPA [and] the states . . . to coordinate resource conservation efforts across programs, across environmental med ia, 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 w ill be applied in the context of a number of relevant environment statutes, [including] the Re source Conservation and Recovery Act. . . .” Moreover, “the Agency, at the highest level, commit[ted] to mobilize its institutional resources to bring sustained, f ocused, and internally aligned attention and responsive decision

- making to achieving these go als.”

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, re cycling, 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 f urther these goals, RCC has developed “a new goal that will seek to further reduce priority chemicals in hazardous was te, 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 ac ting consistent with, and in furtherance of, tha t 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 volu minous 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 standa rd. 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 circumst ances 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 bi t hollow. Put another way, if not here, where?

(b) Adoption of a hand

- wringing p erformance 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). I n fact, EPA may have underestimated the efficacy o f 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 Hand

Wringing. 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 gal lons), 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 awa y, 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 ass umption. 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 so lvent 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 a ssumption 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 capture d

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 v ia 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 adv ancing EPA’s resource conservation and recovery agenda.



### Docket Number

- 283

Co mment 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 alr eady taking place to some significant extent. For example, EPA’s risk screening analysis assumes that wipes qualifying for the conditional exclusi on satisfy the “no free liquids” condition only when meeting a hand

- wrung performance standard. For purposes o f 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 po licies, hand

- wringing of SSIWs is already largely occurring. Given that belief, it is difficult to fathom why EPA would not want to codify that practi ce and ensure that it is being implemented uniformly by all SSIW generators to ensure that (i) those entit ies 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 t his 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 num ber 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 A ll 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, widespre ad 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” c ondition. 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 so me 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 se nse 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 ac tually 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 Environme ntal 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 healt h 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 laundrie s 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 liquid s” condition will continue to allow free liquids to accumulate in SSLW co ntainers 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 f or 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 perform ance standard would clearly reduce the likelihood of direct contact with, and vaporization or spontaneous combustion of, solvent remaining in the wipes. Such a stan dard

would also reduce the likelihood of free solvents in the bottom of containers which occ urs 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 Standar d 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 u niversal hand

wringing 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 extractio n 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 s olvent 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 th e “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 cost s. 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 analyz ed, 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 wou ld 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 th e 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 fore stated factors, current solvent extraction practices are highly uneven. While some environmentally

conscious wipe generators and industrial laundries presumably employ meaningful solvent extraction practices, others

- in the absence of clear, enforceable s tate 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 r esult 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 wi pe 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. M oreover, 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 regulator y 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 Re gulatory 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 leas t 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 liq uids. 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 contai ner 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 t hat 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

- wru ng 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., becaus e 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 appro ach 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 obj ectives 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 pa rt, 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 w ipers. 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 Freem an 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 i s 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 requ irement 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 th e generator be allowed to add an absorbent to the wipes container to manage any free liquid that might percolate out of the wip es.



### 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 (extracte d) 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 press ure 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 workabl e 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 suffic ient

solve nt 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 th at 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 optio n. 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 th at the products had for combustion on wipers going to a combustor

.



### Docket Numb er

- 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 con sidered 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

- launde red 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

Com ment 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 a nd the other solvent is on the wiper i s 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 sol vent 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 implem ent; (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. I n addition, DOE is concern ed 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 f or 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 li quid condition and have systems in place to properl y 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 solvent s can additionally be recovered and recycled s eparately 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 destroye d (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 Am erican 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 coul d 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

Co mment 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 t hat 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 s tandard needs to be instituted that supports at tainment 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 w ould 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, an d 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 wit h the waste (i.e., h and

- 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 appr opriate 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

Su bmitted 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 Massachusett s “one drop when hand wrung” criterion appears t o 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 p oor, 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 perfor med 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 1910.10 6). 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 wo uld 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 “n o 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 purp ose of developing a simplified approach for compliance determination un der 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. D P&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 wip e 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 co nfirmed 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 worke rs, 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 E PA 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, t he Massachusetts test has significant flaws and these concerns would also apply to the “no free liquids w hen 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 depositi ng or

remo ving 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 th e wipe can easily meet a “no free liquid” test upon completion of use without any wringing or further processing. Hand wringing of solvent wipes cou ld 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 so lvent

vapors.

For area sources, requiring facilities to mechanically treat each solvent

- contaminated wipe t o 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 clean ing 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 accomplishe d 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 li quid 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 solvent s can additionally be reco vered and recycled separately from the water used to clean the wipers



# 5.4.3. Dry C **ondition**

Docket Number

- 158 Comment Key

- 1579 Submitted by

- Louis Buty of American Textile & Supply, Inc

Comment Text: [EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gr am 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 Com pany Comment Text: [EPA should consider] removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposable wipers sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram limi t 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 lim it for the amount of solvent that can be on a shop towe l 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

- 40 4 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 lim it 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 i ndustrial 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 t he

a mount 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 Clot hing

Comment Text: [EPA should consider] either removing the 5 gram limit for solvents on disposables sent to landfills, or placing a 5 gram lim it 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 lim it 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 solv ents 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 cond ition.



### 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, th e 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 wate r 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 industr ial 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, t he 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 identifie d 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 durin g 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 cen trifuge 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 amo unts of solvent, and therefore must be restricted from landfill disposal. The rule has provided no means for a generator to measure 5 grams, so th e condition is not enforceable, particularly given the preponderance of evidence in the docket that wipes extr acted 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 c onsider 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

- T erry 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 des tined 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 approac h “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 agre es 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 wast e 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 correspondi ng “secondary” limits on dispo sable 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 amou nt of

solvents allowed on di sposable 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.



### D ocket 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 scenario s 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 Assoc iation (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 regulator y text quoted above, be omitted from the final regulations. As used in the quoted regulato ry 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 u nchanged, the resulting final regulatory provision will be inconsistent with the proposed definition of the term “no free liquids,” which creates the presu mption that wipes subjected to solvent extraction would contain no free liquids (Le., would not conta in 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 condit ion 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 pi ece 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 Ass ociation 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 t he 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 s o by regulation. SWANA does have some concerns that a waste screening program that r elies 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, o r 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 signif icant 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 Te xt: 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 innova tive technologies that may be developed in the future, a process should be included in the rule that would allow the use of an alt ernate extraction technology following evaluation and approval by U.S. EPA.



### Docket Number

- 303 Comment Key

- 259

Submitted b y
- 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 Be hrman 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” requiremen t 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.



### Docke t 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 contain ers 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 haza rd 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 ri sk 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 m eet
thi s condition, EPA’s dry standard appears to favor industries with processes where solvent wipes are used over and over again i n the cleaning or decontamination of equipment or product components. In the paint and coatings industry, however, solvent wipe s

ar e generally used to clean spills or small process equipment; therefore, the amount of solvent on the wipe will vary considera bly depending on the substrate or constituent being cleaned. EPA’s proposed methods to prove the dry standard do not solve this

pro blem. 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 rem aining 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 w ith 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 al so trigger emission reduction analyses and possible stan dards 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 ot hers like it use the wipes for manual cleaning and residue from spill cleanup. Therefore, normal business records wou ld 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 solve nt 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 wip e 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 propose s that wipes contaminated with eligible solvents may be dis posed 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 recom mend 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 th at 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 gen erator 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 generato r uses one or a combination of the specified processes then it is presumed t hat 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 stand ard

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 commo n 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 E PA also clearly states disposable wipes in containers holding fre e 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 in tuition to determine compliance with this condition for excl usion.

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 a nd generator will find it impossible to make a field judgment between a wipe containing 4.5 grams of solvent and a wipe containi ng 5.5 grams of solvent, and thereby determine generator compliance. NEMA recommends that EPA add clarification within the regul ation 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 suggest s it

be includ ed 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 whe n the wipe is wrung using hand pressure. This is a simple field applied test that cou ld 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 gre ater 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 inspec tor 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 Assoc iation (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 thi s 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) usin g 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 Ass ociation (FPA)

Comment Text: The preamble for the proposal does not specify a frequency for sampling if the sampling option is chosen. FPA requests that t he 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 purp ose 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.



### Doc ket 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 th e notice’s Pr eamble 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 pag e 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 agen cy action that the State s 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 Octo ber 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 asses sment 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 d ata 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 a ny risk assoc iated 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 s afe 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 gue sstimate 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,

withou t 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 demonst ration 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,” wher e 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 re sults 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 wou ld 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 oth er 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 follo wing 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 so lvent 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 extr action; 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 o ther 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 analy sis 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 conditio n (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, b eyond 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 l iquids” 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 he ld 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 opera ted 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. Unfo rtunately, 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 u sed and disposed of in the laundry efforts of clea ning 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 Env ironmental 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 res ulted 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 po se an insignificant risk when disposed of in municipal or other non

- hazardous wa ste 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 acqu isition 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 a pproach. 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 disposabl e 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. I n Massachusetts, companies are often uncertain wh ether 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 presumabl y not want to “take a chance” that their wipe s 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” standa rd 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

propo sed 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.

## 1 90 - It is impractical and unrealistic to expect anyone to know whether there is 5 grams of solvent or 2 g rams 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 inter net 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 no n

- 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 St reichen 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 land fills 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 industr ial 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 appl icable 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 replac e 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 un dermine 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, sam pling and recordkeeping will result in many generators aband oning 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 c ontrary to the rule’s intent.

Substituting the “no free liquids” condition for the “dry” condition would provide generators with a simpler and more practic al compliance standard while adequately protecting the environment. This simpler standard would als o prevent employee exposure to solvent vapors from rags and wipes that are inappropriately “air dried” to meet the strict “dry” condition. Also, by makin g 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 o f

## 191 such wipes. The “5 grams of solvent per wipe” standard in the prop osed 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 beneficia l recycling, we do not believe that the enormous amount of relief that is embodied in the proposed rule is appropriate for wastes being landfill ed.



### Docket Number

- 271 Comment Key

- 1097
Submitted by

- Robert Isner of Connecticut Dept. Of Environmental Pr otection 

## \

Comment Text: Although EPA presents a risk analysis to justify the “5 gram” standard, CTDEP believes that the proposed rule invites petitio ns to further weaken of the LDR system, which is the ultimate gatekeeper under the RCRA regulations to e nsure that wastes are not inappropriately disposed of to the land. CTDEP believes that EPA should either remove the landfill option for disposable wipe s (leaving only the combustor option for disposal), or reduce the standards to numbers that are more in l ine 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 landfi lls.

...EPA requests comment on whether it should allow industrial solvents that pose “insignificant” ri sk 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 Solvent

Co ntaminated 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 s tandard, 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 rig orous 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 w ording 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 gra ms are well within the weight range of wipe/rag weights before contamination. We suggest to insure cons istency, the 5 gram limit should be eliminated from the rule and a testing method that addresses different size "wipes" equally such as the paint filte r 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 fo r

## 192 management of reusable solvent

- contaminated industrial wipes also be used for sol vent

- 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 Ins ignificant 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 indust rial wipes containing solvents that pose insignificant risk when meeting the ‘no free liquids’ condition to be placed in municipal or ot her

non

- hazardous waste landfills without being required to meet the ‘dry’ condition.” Id. at 65598

- 99. To ask that ques tion 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

t reated, 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 i n 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 promot e 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 S SNW 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” hazardo us 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 hazardou s 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 c ontainer 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 Fe d. Reg. 78525 (Nov. 25, 1980). The Agency subsequently noted that i t 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 addres s 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 w aste 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 hazar dous solvent.

Given that regulatory determination, it would be arbitrary and capricious for at least reasons for EPA to prohibit landfill d isposal (or to subject to a 5 gram/solvent extraction condition) SSNWs that had been subjected to a “hand

- wrung” per formance standard. First, such SSNWs analogous to “empty containers” in that all the solvent that can be removed using practices commonly used t o remove solvent contained in SSNWs has been removed. Second, the solvent remaining hand

- wrung SSNWs would be le ss than that found in wipers saturated with hazardous solvent residues from an “empty” container that could lawfully be disposed of i n municipal landfills or C.F.R. Part 257, Subpart B landfills.



### Docket Number

- 286 Comment Key

- 1390 Submitted by

- Edwar d 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. Und er this criterion, all a person would hav e 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.

H owever, 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 uni t area" criterion. Weighing the wipe will not work because of the error introduced by material picked up on the wipe through us e.

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 solv ent used for these various uses would be an unacceptable burden.

Relying on sampling may give a valid answer, but inherent variab ilities 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 t o be disp osed 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

propos ed 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 s hould 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 standar d.

The “no f ree 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 containe r.



### Dock et 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 pro vide as

fol lows: (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 Departmen t 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) o r 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 identi fied 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 genera tors
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 porti on of the rule.

We would like to point out to the Ag ency 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 gener ators 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 en vironmental 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 practi cal 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 cri teria 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. Howeve r, the Alliance cannot support the “fi ve 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 w hether 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 liquid s" 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 s ampling 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 administra tive 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 Num ber

- 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 i n 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 landfil l, 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 ap ply 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 s implistic 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 inadequat e 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. Moreove r, the

5

- gram limit would be very difficult for inspectors to evaluate during th e 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 use d by

an indi vidual. 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 beli eve 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 cost s associated with using a ny 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 dro pped.



### 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 tech nically and practically infeasible for industries like the paint and coatings industry to implement, EPA must evaluate a standard tha t would allow for practical implementation. There are precedents based on other RCRA regulation to which EPA should look.

S pecifically, 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 haz ardous materials. This regulation clearly states that if the container meets these criteria, then it is not subject to the requireme nts
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 specifi c performance standard to remove used oil can be disposed of as a solid waste. There are no labeling or special container requirem ents.

Similarly, an exclusion for the disposal of used shop towels should be provided by the existing regulatory structure for haza rdous materials, when they are disposed of in amounts not posing a risk to human health or the environment. Instead of manda ting the “5 gram” limit, which is difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate, EPA could adopt the “no free liquids” standard for the se wipes as well

- almost identical to the RCRA empty standard for hazardous wastes already in place. Additional demonstra tions, testing, labeling and container requirements for disposable towels represent additional regulatory burdens that are unjustifi ed based on the current protective statutory scheme of RCRA for solid wastes.



### Docket Number

- 321 Comment Key

- 369

Submitt ed 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 wo uld necessarily be subject to the 5 grams per wipe criteria. Ashland believ es 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 auth orized 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 a nd 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 wi th 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 b e 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 wi ping) by the number of wipers used per month for wiping operations...is incon sistant 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 complia nce.



### Docket Number

- 336

Co mment 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' '

condit ion 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 regulator y 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 l andfill? 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 lim itation 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 n ot only that particul ar 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 w eight 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 materi als 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 amo unt 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 li quid 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 thi s 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 g rams 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 sa fely 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 wi ll 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 init iative.

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 imp osition 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 complian ce 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 wi pes 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 existin g 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 sub ject to hazardous waste regulation because such de minimis amounts of residuals “do not pose a sub stantial 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” th rough steam

- spraying are

## 198 not subject to hazardous waste regulation). The proposed “dry” standard is inconsistent with this existing practice and at od ds with EPA’s earlier finding that the management of wipes contaminated with such residuals does not warra nt hazardous waste regulation. Indeed, as noted above, EPA readily concedes that, even under its own risk assessment, the “dry” condition is ove rly 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” conditi on 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

reusabl e 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

wou ld 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 f ound 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 durin g 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 com pounds. 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 tha t 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.



### Docke t 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 f lowing 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 indicate s 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 t he “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 t he 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 select ion 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 do ne 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 allowi ng 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 res ults. 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” t hat 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 gram s 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 av erages out. In addition, the “business records approach” may necessi tate 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 mul tiple 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) protecti on 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 wo uld be

one s et 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

- liq uids” 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, o r 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.

Discussio n: 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, certifi cations 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 maint ain

records of th e “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 bec ause none of those proposed (except certifications as to the condition of the wipes prior to shipment) have any relevance to the applicability of the exc lusion. Additionally, if the generator qualified for the exclusion, it would be exempt from solid and h azardous waste recordkeeping requirements. Should the generator fail to meet the conditions of the exclusion and then become subject to the hazardous wast e 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 conditi on 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 e mployees 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 fre e 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 li ke 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 recor d 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 us e of a streamlined manifest should be required. Oft en 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 c onsidered 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 sp in rates can be changed on centrifuges rendering them ineffective. An a lternative 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

Subm itted 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 th at 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 requirem ents would impose unnecessary paperwork burdens while pr oviding 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 unnecess arily 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 n ot 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 defin ition 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, qu antity 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 fro m strict hazardous waste management requirements. Also, if the intent of the exclusion is to remove unwarranted management and disposal standards, then prescriptive time limit s and recordkeeping requirements are also unnecessary. Additionally, requiring wi pes 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 m inimization.

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 oblig ated 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 compl icating 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 t he 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 exclusi on. CTDEP also believes that these records should include the dates of each shipme nt 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 sect ion 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). CTD EP also finds value in EPA’s suggestion to require receiving facilities (i.e., laundries, dry cleaners, wipes handling facilities, and disposal faci lities) to maintain records of shipments which are received with free liquids, and believes that these recor ds, 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 c omment].



### 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 und er 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 Indust ries

## 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 de regulatory 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 ve rify 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 G AC 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 addit ional 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 cl early

stat ed that this is a deregulatory action and as such, imposing additional responsibilities on the generator without clear indica tion as to the environmental benefit for these records is unacceptable. To the best of our knowledge, states that have adopted str i ct 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 b urden, 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 d estination 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 providin g 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 destin ation facility, along with a requirement for the destination facility to maintain records of the identity of the facilities that are sending wipes for sol vent removal. This will provide the regulatory authorities with information essential to providing ade quate 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 volu me of industrial wipes generated, the name and address of the facility where the industrial wipes were sent, the date of the shipments, and the quan tity of the shipments. These records should be maintained for three years. We believe the recordkeeping requ irements would not be overly burdensome to generators and could easily be maintained as part of their existing standard business records. Additiona lly, such recordkeeping requirements would assist implementing agencies ensure solvent

- contaminated industria l 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 provisi ons are discussed in the preamble. 68 FR 65607. Without sufficient recordkeeping provisions, enforcement of the rule will be weak at best and impossib le 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 liab le for the management of these wipes as hazardous waste.

## 204 The recordkeeping requirements must start at the ge nerator’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 limi ted and labels must be applied to both reusable and dis posable 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 t he shipment was made, the reasons why the criterion was not met, and what was done to r emedy 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 reco rd the efforts made to identify the generator, and where the solvent and wipes were sent fo r 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 th ere is traceability to the final point of disposal. Once the exempt status is lost, du e 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 prop er management. As an alternative, the Universal Waste Rule under 40 CFR Part 2 73 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 wip es 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 t he "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 simp lified 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 o f 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 li quids. 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, s uch 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 w ithin 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 hazar dous

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 cu rrent RCRA statutory scheme, Agency notification, review or approval is not required prior to an exclusion becoming effective. Rather, i f operating under a current recycling exclusion, such as the closed loop recycling exclusion, facilities need only maint ain 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.

Maint aining 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, a nd correctly pl aces 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 i n 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 th e current statutory str ucture. 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 suppor t 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 regulator y burden without commensurate en vironmental 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 record keeping 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 t his 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 o f these wastes. A series of notifications would be needed to ensure proper application of the proposed exe mption. A conditional exemption should in fact be conditional. Just as the used oil and universal waste conditional exemptions require notification s of waste activity, the wipes conditional exemption should require the same. There is a possibility of syste m 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 e asily 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 C FR 264.72) At a minimum, EPA should require facilities to:

- Immediately contact the generator so that the generator und erstands 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 li quids 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

gene rators 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 requir ed 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 recordkeep ing 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 communit y by providing cond itional 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 protectio n 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 th e environment. Under such a phil osophy, 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 di sincentive 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 bas ic 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

Submi tted 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 c ontaminated 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 co mpliance 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 regul atory

## 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

com munity 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 ad ditional 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 pr oposal 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 accurat e business records to track the use of sho p 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 w ould 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. Additi onal record keeping would be duplicative and unnecessary. Likewise, customers already are obliged under existing contracts to ensure that shipments meet t he “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, custome r employee training in the responsible handling of soiled shop towels is adequately covered by applic able 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 wh en 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 volum e of reusable shop towels, a certification requirement (particularly based on each batch of towels) would be undu ly 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 exclusio n, 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 re quirements. 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 ge nerators and laundries to certify that there are no free liquids at the bottom of the container when it leaves the generator and when it r eaches the laundry. When free liquids are present, the laundry should be required to notify the EPA and provide the id entity 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 track ed

## 208 and handled properly. A certification that the wipers meet the no free liquid standard is not needed. Training certification abov e that already required by various programs is not needed.



### Docket Number

- 358 Comment Key

- 634 Submitted by

- Patti Krebs of In dustrial Environmental Association (IEA)

Comment Text: Generators using disposable wipers should keep track of the volume disposed through the normal hazardous or solid waste recor d 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 no n

c ompliant 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. Ha **ndling 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 solv ent contaminated wipes in this context. In Massachusetts, most disposable wipes are generated by businesses with less than twenty employees and thes e businesses would generally dispose only small quantities at a time into Massachusetts lined

- landfills. MAD EP 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

- Dav id 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 Departm ent 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 mana ge 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 a ddition, if such liquids are present, the laundry is typicall y 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 com bine

## 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 a t the landfill or combustor facility, and these f acilities 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 accountabili ty 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 complianc e 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 t he level of accountability necessary to e nsure 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 ha ndling 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 th e Universal Waste framework to all solvent contam inated 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.



### Docke t 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 us ed

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 thes e 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 d isposal 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 whol e 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 ar e licensed, and are subject to extensive air emission controls, emission monitoring or testing requirements, and regulation and inspectio ns 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 Ark ansas 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 allowe d, except for facilities with RCRA hazardous waste management permits. Industrial wipes handling facilities, as proposed, could potentially handle unlimited quantities of solve nt contaminated industrial wipes with virtually no regulatory controls or restri ctions. 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 leac hfield 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

Submit ted 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 avoi d 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 sh ould 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 Conserv ation

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 pro hibited.



### 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 annua l

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 dam p. 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

Subm itted 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 laun dering facility, dry cleaners or industrial wipes handling facili ties (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 generat or 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 e xclusions 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

co mpliance 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 sludg es generated by facilities that launder wipes contaminated with F001

- F005 solve nts 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 th at 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 (b ut 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 combus tor 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 sep aration, pH adjustment, flocculation, or other basic wastewater treatment methods that serve only to separate the sludges from the dischargeable wastewaters, and do n ot 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 codif ied in 40 CFR 268.46 and 268.49, or a specific set of standards written directly into t he 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

C omment 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 manufacturin g 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 Fabr ics 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 solven t on reusable wipes sent to a laundering or dry cleani ng 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 (mean ing launderers) through industrial user and pretreatment requirements. Permits issued to these point discharges specifically provide numeric and other limitatio ns that are subject to enforcement actions. It is the responsibility of the permitee to ensure t hat 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 wip es 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 preven tion 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 t hat 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 u se 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 lim itation 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 re quirement. 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 laun dries, 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 reco mmends 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 thei r 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 wip es be

sent to industrial laundries wh ere 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 spec ific 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 assi sted with the development and foundation of the Industr ial 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 exten t. Existing federal, state and local regulations already pr ovide protection for all expected environmental receptors (air, sewer systems receiving wastewater and disposal facilities receiving wastewater treatment sludge). Establishing limits on the amoun t or

## 213 concentration of solvents or on the number of wipes a fa cility 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 receivin g wastewater or disposal facilities by limiting its product ion 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 t hat 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 proces sing. 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 addition al requiremen ts, 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 lau ndry facility’s manag ement 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 resu lt 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 Numb er

- 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. Su ch 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 cost s



### 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 work ers 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 pr ovided 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 ad dress

these issues o n 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 protectiv e 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 d isposal 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 contai ned 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 fail s 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 ca n b e 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 emplo yer’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 d ry 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

- S tephen 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” solv ent

contaminated wipes to have a Clean Water Act perm it 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 residual s, 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 o r 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 “text iles 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 c ases utilizing the verbiage from the BMPs.

These practices include procedures and infrastructure, such as ventilation systems to protect workers handling soiled shop to wels, to imposing rental conditions on our customers including a “no

- free

- liquids” requ irement 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 tow els.

## 215 At Ace Uniform, we work in partnership with our customers to help them minimize the ir 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 p ractices 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 eit her 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

C omment 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

ar e 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 Condi tions 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 irrelevan t.

Further, the Agency’s risk analysis demonstrates that there is no significant risk to human health associated with the proces sing of solvents at industrial laundries. Accordingly, there is no justification or need to limit the quantity or type of solv ents 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 “n o 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 easi er and less costly method for determining compliance. In addition, numeri c 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 bas is. Such a requirement could seriously affect a laundry’s business, while affording no additional environmental benefits. The Agency's r isk analysis provides no support for such a limitation.

As with any industrial facility, volume processing and the eff icient 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 t he 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 reusab le 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 c ollection, 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 h ave been resolved by local pretreatment authorities.

Accordingly, there are no significant potential risks associated with the management and processing by laundries of shop towe ls

soiled with solvents or other contaminants.



### Docket Number

- 350

Comment K ey

- 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 generall y 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 the se 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 o rder 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, o r 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

handl e 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 N umber

- 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 healt h and

th e environment, TRSA is interest in working with EPA to facilitate the disposal of laundry sludge containing solvents of conce rn to lined landfills when EPA agrees to finalize the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for shop towels. TRS A 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 modifi ed 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 solven t

- 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 propo sed 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 treat ment 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 combu stor 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 possibilit y 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 dio xin precursors. Combustor facilities receiving large quantities of such wipes could be burning significant quantities of halogenated solvents, and could therefore constitute a significant sour ce 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 wip es 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 contaminat ed 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 solven t wipes in MWCs is totally ignored by EPA. This risk is from fugitive emissions from storag e 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 conten ts directly onto the operating floor. The pile is not covered and at best may be set in an are a 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 mana gement 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 m anaging 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 p ile, 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 inci nerators 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 emis sions 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 subj ect 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 k ept 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 p it or long conveyance feed systems. Solvent wipes can only be managed in units tha t 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 em issions.



### 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 d ata is provided in the record to support that this exemption is justified. 68 FR 65603. The characteristics of the combustion res idues can vary greatly from one combustion unit to the next. The only way to be certain that combustion residues are suitable f or non

hazardous 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 shoul d be collected and analyzed for the F

solvent LDR constituents to meet the LDR standards for the F

- solvent constituents in order to be managed as an exempt non

hazardous waste. 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 incinerat or performing the same treatment of the same solvent contaminated wipes is required to demonstrate comp liance 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 Flan ders 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 e nd 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

- 3 23 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 reli ef 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 o nce again ignores the availabil ity 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 t he 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 mana ged 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 “increa se” the amount of recycling has become a misguided pattern in the Agency’s regulatory effort s. 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 materia l that will be recycled and its regulatory status. EPA provides no information beyond unsubstantiated industry claims to back up its belief that exemption fr om RCRA will yield an increase in legitimate recycling. Absent such substantiation, EPA has no basi s 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 th at 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 recover y, would be to reverse its potentially damaging policy o f 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 c ontrol 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 reg ulated 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 actio ns 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

Com ment 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 A ctivities Group (USWAG), et al.

Comment Text: USWAG fully supports the management option of burning industrial wipes

- including for use as a fuel

- in qualified non

hazardous 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 disp osal 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 as h 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 b e regulated as

## 220 hazardous only if it independently exhibited a hazardous waste characteristic (and if the combustion ash did not otherwise qu alify 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

recy cling. 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 Frank en 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 a n 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 w ipe.



### Docket Number

- 199 Comment Key

- 1491 Submitted by

- David Case of Environmental Technology Co uncil

Comment Text: Likewise, when material is going to be delivered to a municipal or a waste to energy incinerator, in that case the material d oesn’t even have to be dry. It has to be what I called not quite dripping with solvent. And if you’ve ever b een 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 w ith 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 thes e bins where it is manipulated by heavy equipment. There is a very serious risk of fire in that situat ion. 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 pu tting it onto conveyor systems and that sort of thing allow easy release to the environment and eva poration 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 solv ent 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 laund ries 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 cla iming the exclusion.” This provision is not approp riate 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 r eceipt of these wastes, it is possible that in

- situ concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) might no minally 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 emissi ons 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.



### Do cket 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 2 57 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 t he “5 gram” solvent content standard and must not contain any of the solvents listed in subparagraph (B) of this section, but does not indicate w hat a landfill should do if it receives a shipment of wipes that do not meet either of these requirements. CTDE P 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 wi pes as fully

regulated 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 st andard 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 containi ng 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 C FR 261

– 265, including the standar ds 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 impo sed 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 b e 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 technologie s, 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. A ll are rigorous tests designed to assist faciliti es 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 contai ners 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 th e 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 empt y 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 i f the container meets these criteria, then it is not subject to the requirements cont ained 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 treatmen t.
As disc ussed 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 gra ms 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 haz ardous 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 techni ques 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 t he 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 A gency’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 pos e 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 i s 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 op erating 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 requireme nts 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” inc luding 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 w aste 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 T ext: 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 particul ar, 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 Te xt: There is credible information which suggests that landfills should be used only when there are no viable alternatives. Reusab le shop towels represent a preferred product, offering our society a manner in which landfills can be used less. Extensive

in formation, demonstrating the problems associated with landfills and related details concerning challenges to the health of ou r 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 in to the truck prior to arrival at the landfill. The re 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 s hould 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 Official s 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 inc lude disposal in landfills that meet the 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B standards without first evaluating the associated risks raises great conce rn. 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 th e contents of containers and determine whether or not the wipes meet the "dry standard" or if free liquids are present in the container. Ot her operational criteria that do not apply to non

- municipal non

- hazardous waste landfills include, but are not limite d 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 grea t 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 o f 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 non

hazardous 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

C omment Text: EPA’s first proposed approach [in the NODA] “would allow the disposal of solvents not showing a risk in any municipal landfil l 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, t he 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 abo ut 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).” (7 4 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/en ergy

## 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 encour age 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

ge nerators have the option to either drain the rags and send the solvent to energy recovery or leave the solvent in the rags (a nd perhaps dilute the solvent by adding more rags), generators will choose the least costly option. They will simply use more ra gs 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 introduce s 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 waste s 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.

Anot her concern is that it appears these wastes will be sent to landfills meeting only certain requirements in The Municipal Soli d Waste Landfill Criteria: Part 258. For composite lined landfills, the NODA references a “...Subtitle D municipal or industrial

land fill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, the landfill requirements in 40 CFR 258.40 (a)(2) and (b)...”. The language in thes e 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 m embrane 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 thic k. 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 r elabel 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 implem entation 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 t o 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 EP A

to address t he 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 stress ed 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 en ergy recovery technologies and toward land disposal. This is in direct conflict with both RCRA’s long

standing 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 u nlined 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 analys is, the agency should feel comple tely 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 th e 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 fa cility 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, int o 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 pre sents 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 cont amination, 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 man agement 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 playin g field for the handling of both disposable and reusable industrial wipes. We support the management option to allow contaminat ed towels and wipes to be disposed into a Subtitle C landfill as outlined by the Agency in their Notice of Data Availability. Th e G AC 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), assumi ng 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

Comme nt 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 th e 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 provi de generators with as muc h 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 state s 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, the n 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 lin ed 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

Commen t 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 a nd lined landfills). 74 Fed. Reg. a t 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 lan dfill. 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 furth er reduced and is committed to working with EPA to insure that laundry sludge con taining 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 fo r solvent rags to be segregated based on their solvent risk profile. Rags containing solvents that have not been found to pos e a risk in unlined landfills could be disposed of in such landfills. Part B, rags containing solvents on the NODA’s newly update d 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 t his first

alternative.

EPA’s second alternative states: “Establish conditions that allow all solvent

- contaminated wipes, no matte r 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 ma y 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 t he first approach. Furthermore, i f 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 bas ed 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 gene rally 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 exc lusions 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 pro posed

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 prop osal 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 polluti on prevention. We fail to see the benefit of r equiring 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 techno logies, 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 facili ties 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 contain ers 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 dis posed 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 propose d. 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 deno ting that a shop towel is empty. The additional labeling and container requirements i mposed for disposable towels represent an additional regulatory burden that we fill is not justified based on previous Agency rulemakings or the risk analysis conducte d by the Agency. Imposition of the dry standard meets the requirement to minimize environ mental releases.



# 5.7. Free Liquids R **eceived 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 e ntity 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 re ceiving facility may return the wipes and the liquid to t he 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 c ontainers 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 Te xt: 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 regulato rs. 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 un iverse 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 drum s after being returned by the laundry, they are responsible for managing the liqui ds 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 w ould notify the regulators and then mismanage the liquids, making them subject t o 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 f acility 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 w ould allow the wipes to rem ain 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 man aged 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 me et 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 commen t 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 "acco rding 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 commen t 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 th e 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

Co mment 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 technolo gy for reuse without classifying the liquid as hazardous waste. Facilities should be required to submit notificat ion 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 r eceived 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 t he 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, wip es 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 perco late 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 haza rdous 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 facil ity 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 genera tor's

control at that moment.



### Docket Number

- 267 Comment Key

- 841 Submitted by

- David T. Bo zaan 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 wheth er 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). I n 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” stan dard, 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 poss ible scenarios that may occur in these situations. For example, these options would no t 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 rece iving facility does not have the ability to remove the free liquids. CTDEP therefor e 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 waste s 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 si te of generation, or through cancellation of s ervice 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 inc ident 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 s ame 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 de fine solvent contaminated wipes still containing free liquid as Universal W aste, 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 an d destination facilities. The latter would include the final landfill, co mbustor 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 bee n 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 prom otes the proper management standards, as well as notice and traceability. This provides an optimum balance between no permitting or regulator y controls and full RCRA permits. The universal waste provisions have worked well for pesticides, batteries, mercur y 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 h azards 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 was te provisions will p rovide 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 origi nal 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. Thi s notification must be re quired 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 t hat 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 r ule 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 subsequen t handler(s) to recognize a waste as hazardous, after the waste leaves the generator site, is a preposterous leap of faith on E PA’s part. With the lack of rigorous labeling, tracking and recordkeeping provisions under this rule, EPA cannot enforce or discov er 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 sin ce a manifest is not required, and since no labeling requirements apply.



### Docket Number

- 305 Comment Key

- 348 Submitted by

- St ephanie 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 con tainers are shipped back to the generator and other wise 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 la undry’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 solven ts
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 su ch

solvents.



### Docket Number

- 320

Co mment 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, cons tructed 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 abo ut 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 liqui ds 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 strong ly 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 tha t 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

train ing, 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 f acility. Alternatively, the receiving facility could be required to manage the free hazardous waste liquids as hazardous waste. Contai ners with liquid hazardous waste should not be considered as having met the conditional exclusion and should only be trans ported 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 b e 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 haz ardous 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:

U SWAG 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 possibili ty of this hap pening 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 ret urns 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 su ch 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 li quids" condition. EPA acknowledges that liquids may percolate from wipes during transport, and it has proposed to address these circumstances b y requiring the handler to either return the container with the free solvents to the generator or recover any liq uid solvent and properly manage it in accordance with applicable federal or state hazardous waste requirements. As EPA recognizes, solvents c an percolate from the wipes during transportation without any fault of the generator. Thus, there is little to be g ained by notifying regulators when these cases arise, other than inappropriately suggesting some degree of culpability on the part of the genera tor. Such a notice provision would result only in the unnecessary waste of resources in potentially investigatin g 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 r eturned 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 f ully 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 th e followin g 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 r eturn 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 actuall y 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 transporte d from the generator to the laundry facility. In those rare instances where free liquids are delivered to a laundry facility, it is extremely important f or 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 proce ss 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 correc t 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 ta ke 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 pr event 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 liqui ds. 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 env ironmental 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, to wels that must be returned to the generator may be treated as los t 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 ind ustrial 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 re ceive 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 notifica tion to the generator, the state, and EPA that the "no free liquids" condition

has not been met.



# 5.8. Other Conditions/R **equirements**

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 w ould 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 r ecycled. 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 believ es 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 docu ments 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 ot her 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 produc e 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 na ture 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 th at
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 mis sing 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 goi ng to landfills and into the industrial launderers wastewater by capturing the solvents at the poi nt 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 appro priately 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 evaluat e 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 t he results of that evaluation at the facility where the industrial wipe s 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 sh ould 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 regulat ion, 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 t he 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 th e 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 sc ope 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 constituen ts 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 othe r 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 (IPM I)

Comment Text: Industrial wipes are sometimes used to apply precious metals to a surface, or to clean materials that are made of precious me tals, 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 r eclaimed 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 stre am, 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 solvent

contaminated 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, a nd 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 significa nt 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 t o 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 classifi ed 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 industri al 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, a nd 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 I nstitute (IPMI)

## 238 Comment Text: The Agency has proposed one condition, however, to the exclusion from hazardous waste with which we disagree: “Solvent

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

- contaminants al so are not eligible for the hazardous waste exclusion, unless the characteristic is ignitability.” This could exclude industrial wipes that contain silve r. 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: i ndustrial wipes exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic due to use with solvents...”, suggesting that wipes that are characteristically hazardous due to substan ces 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 serious ly 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 b e 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 th ese 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 e ligible

for the hazard ous 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 wi th the preamble discussio n, 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 nonsol vent substance or to disposable wipes that are contaminated with nonsolvent listed hazardous wastes...Ohio EP A 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 Tabl e 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 wit h 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 wipe s 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

- rel ated 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 belie ves 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 o f allowing non

- solvent

- contaminated wipes to be eligible for the p olicy. 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 contam inants 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 t he proposed rule to indicate that these sludges are subject to the derived

- from rul e (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, d isposable 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 suffi ciently 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

- con taminants 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

- 78 9 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 i s 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 co

contaminated 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 tr eatment facility.

As such, wipes that exhibit the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of wastes with which they are co

contaminated would be eligible for the conditional exclusion if said wipes are disposed at licensed, commer cial 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 wip es, regardless of contamination type,

from their respective regulations if wipes are properly managed. In the proposal, the Agency clearly sets management protocols for reusa ble wipes, which is consistent with many of the current state and EPA Regional pol icies. If properly followed, then all reusable wipes, regardless of contamination types, should be eligible for the exclusion. Disposable wipes that contain contaminants ot her 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 wip es 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 f or 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 pr omote 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 covere d 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 produ ct, 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 rul e to industrial wipes that are co

contaminated 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 SS IWs in the waste management scenarios covered by this rule, it would not be appropriate to include such wipes within the regulatory relief provided by th is rule.



### Docket Number

- 288 Comment Key

- 182 Submitted by

- David Case of Environmental Technology C ouncil (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 administrativ e 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

- contam inants. 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 co

contaminant 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, gen erators 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 pr ocess in which wipes are used. The test should include analysis fo r 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

- wastew ater 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

- constituen ts 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 ann ual 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 constituent s 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 dir ectly from the process. In the docket to this proposed rule is an ana lysis 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 cond itions 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 t his 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 directl y, 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 defin ition 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 p roposal 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

f rom 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 mana ged 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 exc lusion 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 propo sed 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 t ox/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 co nditionally 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 characteris tic 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 hazard ous 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 i s 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 sta ted 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 rag s 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 w aste 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 co

contaminant 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 appli es 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 n ot 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 contamin ants, 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 pre vent 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 ord er to
meet this exclusion?



### Docket Number

- 348 Comment Key

- 1178 Submitted by

- David Du nlap 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 adva nce, 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 sh op 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 Num ber

- 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 justif y 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 co nclusion is premised on three factors: (1) that the shop towels are partially reclaimed before laundering; (2) that shop towels are ha ndled throughout the laundering process as valuable commodities; and (3) that shop towels are owned by the same entity thr oughout 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 th eir towels as valuable commodities (or capital goods). There is no reason for EPA to limit the proposed solid waste exclusion only to solve nt contamination because the exclusion is premised on the jurisdictional limitations of RCRA as applied to the proces s 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 a nd authority that EPA employs to distinguish between the diffe rent 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 w aste 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 was te 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

voi d 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

inadvertentl y 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 presen ce 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 cos t

prohi bitive.

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 great ly outweigh the revenue shop towels generate. Even if analyzing reusable towels could be conducted in a systematic, less expensi ve manner, the compliance risk and threat of qualifying as a non

- permitted TSD facility (in the event a contaminated towel was

i nadvertently 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. T he “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 s olely 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 w ith this sludge.

A s 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 regul ate 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

con templated 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 contamina tion

wou ld 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, a nd

e liminate 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 disp osables (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

- authorize d 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 curre ntly 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 T exas, 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 contamina tion 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 man date 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

i nconsistent 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 contami nated 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 co

contaminated with listed hazardous waste (other than those addre ssed 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 managi ng 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 cos tly 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

conditio ns 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 result s of

the revise d 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

characteristi cs 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 s imply 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 ord er 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 f acility 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 dispos ing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposa l 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 exclusio n? Will DoD military installations involving different commands and/or military ser vices 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 whet her 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, solvent

contaminated 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 co ntaining 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 facili ty,
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”. “Generat or” 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.

Recommendat ion: 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 U S 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 comm odity (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 b y 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 [deletion s 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 su fficient 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 T ext:
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 eligibl e 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 includ ed 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

- Associatio n 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 boundari es 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 ma terials.



### 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 ce ntral location for processing. This practice should be allowed for both reusable as well as disposable wipes and other materials. T he GAC does not support the inclusion of a one

- time notification as we do not see that it would provide any environmental ben efit. 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 req uired. Requiring training under this provision is also unnecessary. Since the recovered solvent is already considered a hazardous wa ste and the facility typically has other wastes classified as hazardous, they have to meet the appropriate training requirem ents specified in the regulations and no additional training is required. Transport of these materials should not be limited to cl osed 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 Coun cil (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 si tes 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 conta ining 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 cr eate 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 enforceme nt 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 i n 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 me mbers 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 pro cess solvent contaminated wipes from a numbe r 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 wo uld be sent off and recycled by being burn ed 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 recog nize 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 majo rity of

th e 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 agen cy 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 regar ding the solvents recovered, train employees and have appropriate extraction/reclamation equipment on

site.



### 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

- hazardo us

## 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

wil l be managed by a third party, there will likely be free liquids present in the container, and the recovered solvent will lik ely be burned for energy recovery. Several Task Force members support the intra

- company transferring of disposable solvent

contamin ated 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 re duce

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,

su bsidiaries, 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 fr ee liquids will significantly increase solvent recycling. This opinion is based on admittedly anecdotal evidence that shows there are few facilities in Nebraska wit h multiple sites and the single and multiple sites are not likely to invest in extraction te chnologies. 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 in tra 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 movem ents 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 considere d 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 int ra

company wipe handling facilities. We question the notion that solvent recovery for recycling occurs at industrial laundries s ince 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 contro l 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 th e 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 transfer s 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 transportin g them back to its processing facility would be the same if those towels were transported by a customer to another facility. The Age ncy should be consistent and treat the transport of free liquids the same no matter the destination.



### Docket Number

- 349

C omment 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 656 01 . 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 interpreta tion 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 th e 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 haz ardous 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

p rocess.



### 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 facilitie s 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” condi tion 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 respon se requirements for such wastes imposes no additional burden t o 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

- tim e 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 so lvent 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 generat or 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 Rockwe ll 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 gener ate smaller quantities to aggregate their reusable wipes with the larger quantities generated at other facilities, thus making the contractual arrangem ents
with laundries cost effective.



### Docket Number

- 271 Comment Key

- 1101 Submitted by

- Robert Isner o f 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 additiona l 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 a nd 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 [anoth er 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, the reby posing greater risks for spills, releases, vapor emissions, and worker exposure. This is particularly true in ligh t 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

facil ities]: CTDEP does not believe that this practice should be allowed within the context of the exclusion from the definition o f hazardous waste, for the reasons cited by EPA in not electing to include such a provision. In addition, CTDEP believes that s uch activities are more akin to traditional waste management activity and should remain subject to full regulation (at least unti l the point that the wipes meet the “no free liquids” or “dry” standard).

## 252 Docket Number

- 286 Comment Key

- 1380 Submitted by

- Ed ward 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 inade quately 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 o ver 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 pro posed 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 t he proposal will provide significant incen tives 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. T o 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 NA ICS

codes.

In the final rule, FPA asks that EPA co nfirm 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

Submi tted 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 l imits 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 do es 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

si te transportation of wipes to another facility owned or operated by the same entity that has a solvent extraction and/or reco very

## 253 process for the purpose of removing sufficient solvent to ensure that the wipes contain no free liquids or less than 5 grams o f solvent as appropriate." In addition, it is recommended that the preamble to the final rule explain that the use of the term “intra

company” is not intended to limit the exclusions to commercial entities, so that it is clear that governmental entities, e ducational 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 solve nts 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 w ould 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 t he protection equal to, or better than, internal company policy (it certainly has greater legal standing). Additionally, communi cation is required during the transportation of hazardous waste, and there is no explanation why such communication would not wo rk 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

opera tions.

Recommendation: Review the intra

- company

- only provisions for opportunities to utilize the expertise and efficiencies of third

party organizations that specialize in management and recovery of solvents. Additionally, discuss in detail why communicat ion 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 D epartment 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 suc h 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 speci alize 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 t hird 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 l iquids 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

- cont aminated 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 hazardo us 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 exclusi on 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

- contamina ted 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 remov al 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

S ubmitted 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 fr om 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 thi s 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 s everal 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

- 107 2 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 so lvent, 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 transf ers should include affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companie s.



### 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 chang e 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 market s for use of the reclaime d 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 tha t the proposed regula tion 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 C oatings 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 exclusio n conditions are met. However, the d epartment 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 wi pers 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:

US WAG 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 i s 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 t heir 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 t his

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 so lvent 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 opti on. 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 t hrough "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, becau se 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, wh ere it is common for inter

- related divisions of a single company to operate collectively in the generation, transmission, and distribution of power to the publi c. In fact, recognizing the unique nature of electric utility operating practices, EPA has take n 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; companie s 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 co

owners 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 conditi onal 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 f or 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 Do dge Corporation

Comment Text: EPA proposes to exclude from “solid” and “hazardous” waste regulation reusable and disposal industrial wipes that contain fre e 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’ bu t 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 pre vent 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 betwe en 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 f acilities 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 co mpany; 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 generato rs, not just a chosen few. This wou ld 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 propo sal would also help minimize ad ministrative 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 prop osed 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 ownershi p of the receiving facility.



# 8. Exotic Solvent **s**

## 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 w etting down the wipe to prevent spontaneous combustion. The Department believes this would result in an increas ed 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 co mbust 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 sp ecial 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 unles s 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

contamina ted 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

- sup pressing 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 contamina nts 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 clea rly

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 Associat ion) 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 tha t 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 Ca se 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 t hat 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 ad dition, the presence of free water could mobilize other hazardous constitu ents, 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 wh ich 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 combust ible solid, but not flammable. It also does not react strongly with oxygen. Li kewise 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 m entioned 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 dissi pation was not occurring. Spontaneous combustion tends to occur with piles stored in th e 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 combusti on. Usually, also, very prolonged time periods must pass before spontaneous combus tion 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 n ew 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 a dequate ventilation in areas where containers with wipes are stored.

The additi on 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 microorganis ms grow in the damp rag s 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 b e 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 reas on 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 a t 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 faciliti es.



### 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 i n 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 sp ontaneously 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 tha t spontaneous combustion could occur and precautions should be taken. One common method is to add water to rags being stored

in con tainers, 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 believ e 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 remov ed 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:

Fin ally, 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 certa in 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 fr ee liquid s, 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 f ar

reaching ap plicability.



### 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 toda y. 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 encour age the use of these types o f 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 b y 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. Inform ation 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 desira ble 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 containe r 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 practi ce. 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 t his point in the final regulation.

[Exhibit (Attachment) P. Industrial Fire Protection: Understanding and Prevention of Spontaneous Combustion Fires in Industri al Laundries. UTSA, March 1996]



### Docket Number

- 358 Comment Key

- 630 Submitted by

- Patti Kre bs 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 Num ber

- 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 o f the playing field does little if t he 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 t o 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

Co mment 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

C omment 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 conside r] 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

- 1 89 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

Comm ent 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

Co mment 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

f rom 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 Departm ent 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 ident ical, 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 comple x 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 th e 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 “fa st

track.”

- 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 nat ional 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) du ring 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 site

specific factors, and most, if not all, interpretations on regulatory status are made on the state level. EPA has expressed i ts 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 th e 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 des ired 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 o n 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 pr ovide 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 t o 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 Regu lations 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 f ailed 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 rulema king 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 solvent

contaminated materials, such as reusable sho p 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 indica ted 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 wast e . . .”. 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 theref ore 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 statut ory 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 neces sary to obviate the full application of applicab le 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 p ublic 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 c an 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 F irst

- 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 con ditional 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 IND A 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 governin g entry of

solvent wastes into the R CRA 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 industri al 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 der ives from

HSWA.

As noted in INDA’s 1999 l etter, 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 ext ent 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 carr y out
their own hazardous wast e 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 regulato ry 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 t he existing state or EPA regional exclusions or policies through th is 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 t han, 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 laun drie s” 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 d iscernable 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 l ed to the clarion call by wipe generators for a uniform, and clearly stated, natio nal 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; S tate 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 l aws of the state provide adequate authority to administer and enforce t he 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 Genera l . . . 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 thr ough 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 reg ulatory 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 [prog ram 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 se t 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 fo r SSLWs, whether that rule is consistent with the changes INDA/SMART has indicated are necessar y 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 t hat may have announced “policies” that are as stringent as one or more of those conditions, in virtual ly 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 applicatio n 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 regulat ions 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 a n 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 t he

exclusio n 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 administr ative regul ation 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

ha zardous 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 mana ged in all states as hazardous wastes. If, on the other hand, EPA’s position is that these wastes are not currently classifie d as solid and hazardous wastes under RCRA, then the Agency’s rule is really an “entry” mechanism for solvent wastes promulgated un der 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 believ e 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 si nce 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 fi nal rulemaking is promulgated to be consistent with the federal requirements and to provide for uniform application. This is especially importa nt for companies with affected facilities in multiple states. Without such, this rulemaking is meaningless.



### Doc ket 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 wish es 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 adop tion 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, gu idance,

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 compan ies with manufacturing facilities located in a variety of states and EPA Regions. This situation has resulted in inconsistencies, re

work, additional potential for non

- compliance, and administrative waste at regulated facilities. It is clear from Alcoa’s e xperience 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 confusi on about management of this wastestream in t he 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 th e 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

- protect ive 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 th e 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 th e 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 w ill 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 curre ntly vary in terms of being more or less stringent than the proposed solid waste exclusion. Id. While a stringency a nalysis 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 f or many States. A significant number of States that exclude reusable towels from either the definition of solid waste (including Illinois and T exas, see Exhibit H) or from regulation as a hazardous waste (including New York and California, see Exhibit I) d o 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, Indus trial 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, f rom 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 Con servation. 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 unintenti onal 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 cont aminant 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 polici es, 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 Se ction 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 6 5612. 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 s hop

towels that are more restrictive tha n 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 reu sable 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 regulat ory

## 268 and preamble language w ill 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

- Amer ican 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 typica lly promulgates regulations that impose more stringent requirements upon the regulated community. State authorized programs in turn adopt requirements that are at least a s stringent as the federal standards. In the case of this rulemaking effort, the agenc y 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 count ry. 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 n on

laundered wipes.



### Docket Number

- 199 Comment Key

- 1426 Submitted by

- Richard Dan iels 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 w ill there then be a consistent national approach, companies with multi

- state oper ations 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. Thi s enforcement interpretation is improper. First, it is inconsistent with the proposed exc lusions 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 e ntity 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 t he 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 pos sible 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 produ ces 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 entit y is not a “generator” under either portion of the regulatory definition ev en 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 inconsist ent 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 wast e is produced only if the receiving facility does not take one of the tw o 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 d oes 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 s hould 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 wi pes 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 a nd 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 ar e 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 foll owing 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 cert ification 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 declini ng 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

- Da vid 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 contai ners 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 w eaker 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

- com pliance 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 t he 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 eq ually strong recordkeeping, notification and certification provisions, this policy is not enforceable. Without the traceability afforded b y 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 assuran ce 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 6 5590. 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 concl ude that the free liquid is not a regulated solvent, and thereby dispose of a hazardous waste illegally. The latter would not be detected by EP A 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 pas s

- 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 t he 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 Te xt: 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 legi timacy 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 operatio ns, 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 EP A’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 othe r 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 acti on 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 deterre nt to beneficial reuse and recovery, but would also mandate violations regardle ss 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 f acility 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 excl usion, 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 exclusi on 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 conti nued 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 t his 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).

USW AG 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 solvent

contamin ated 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 downstre am facili ty (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 o f tha t 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 vi olations 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 “ove r

filing” 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 Harm on Industries v, Browner; 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999); namely, that EPA is prohibited from bringing an “over

filing” action against a particular entity that has already been prosecuted by a RCRA

- authorized State for the same violation.



### Docket Number

- 34 8 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 state s 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 clearl y is in the best position (from both a control and a knowledge standpoint) to re move 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 strictl y 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 potent ially 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 ensur e it does not contain either “free liquids” or “co

- co ntaminants” (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. Industri al

## 272 laundries have attempted through the LaundryESP pro gram 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 compli ance.

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 re sponsible

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 con taminated 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 tha t they are CESQGs, we suggest that many actually would trigger the SQG threshold. It is our bel ief that this issue would not be on the radar screen for these small businesses, yet they would be in jeopardy of violating federal rules by virtue of their use of "over

the

- counter" products. These consumer products, sold to the general public, contain co ncentrations of the target chemicals that are generally acceptable for use. The reality is that the trace concentrations of these target chemicals that ultimately woul d reach a lined municipal landfill (after evaporation during use and dilution in the wast e 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 numbe r of wipes used at those facilities included in data collection varied “from 50 to 6,000” wipes per facility per day. While man y of the 3,900 colleges and universities across the United States use industrial wipes, the number of wipes used daily on a campu s 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 vehic le 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 Universit y 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 wi th 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 hav e an adverse economic impact on ge nerators 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 Environm ental 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 resu lt of more solvent wipes being managed by launde rers 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 transpo rtation 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 t reatment 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 an d 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 incre ased 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 o r 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 landf ill

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 wip e 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 p er 55 gallon drum equivalent for wipes that me t 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 for ces 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 cos t 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 ru le, 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 reve nue 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 wipe s. The loss of this re venue 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 marke t
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 fac tors, 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 t o 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 industri al wipes, covering CESQGs, SQGs and LQGs. The net estimated annual benefit predicted by EPA of $28 to $72 million, when

s pread 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 wei ghted 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 addi tion, auto repair shops typically pass these costs along to their customers, along with fees charged for tire disposal, used oi l management and battery recycling. If a small body shop services 100 customers in a year, the savings to these customers is on ly $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 s m all 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 assumi ng the maximum benef it 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 id entified 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 a ssumed 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. Y et 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 der ived

from waste in Subtitle C Landfills. Yet curr ently 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. A lso the recovered solvents likely hav e 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 vir gin 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 (s ee 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. Furth er, the negative environmental impacts to POT Ws 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 i s 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 o f 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 neces sary 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 avera ge 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 us ers 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 o n Economic Impact Because of all of the above factors, EPA’s overall economic conclusions in the proposed rule are flawed and incorrect for thr ee 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 pro per recordkeeping, free liquids management, and training. The net benefit to the overal l 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 de aling with RCRA exemption issues, the purported

## 27 5 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 fac tors 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 fro m $72 million to $19 million. In fact the true range of national impact of thi s 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 transporta tion, 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 bene fit 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 oth er 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 devic es 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 benef it 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 wo uld 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 w ill 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 A dditional 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 elimin ating 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 perc ent 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 currentl y 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 o f small businesses, thereby, requiring EPA to initiate a formal SBREFA revi ew 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 exc luding 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 u nnecessary 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 m itigate 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, wit h 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 regul ated differently depending upon what an authorized state decides to do. In addition, the rule will become effective in unauthorized states. The discontinuity crea ted in the RCRA regulation of solvent contaminated wipes, will add further complications to en forcement 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 i ssues.

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 requirem ents 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 contaminat ed wipes man aged 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 pr ogram 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 enforce ment 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 no t been evaluated. Also, the complication of enforcement ca ses 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 o f 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 highligh t 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 a nd 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 laundrie s 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 proc essors of shop towels. Cintas Corp. has been found to have repeatedly violated its wastewater permits fo r toxic solvents and other wastewater contaminants in many of its laundries around the nation, sometimes as much as 20 times the permitted levels. In it s Branford, CT laundry, for instance, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in 2000 sue d 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 m etals 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 Commissi oner 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 is sues 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 Cleve land, 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 it s 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 pro vided 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 ass ure 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, c itation 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. [Commen t 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.]



### Do cket 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 Tex t: It is painfully evident that workers at Cintas and Coyne Textile Services are at risk from the management’s mishandling of sh op 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

o ffices 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’

gro ss 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 wast ewater 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 w hose 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 Though t 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 c ooperate 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 cus tomers, 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 th e 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 s uch 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 w ithout utilizing any removal technology . . . prior to transportation

off

- site" (footnote 3 : "discussions with several inspectors from local POTW’s . . . confirmed this finding by identifying situat ions where ‘‘free liquids” were found in containers and i n 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 T ext: 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 solvent s. 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 indus try 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 equipm ent like rubber gloves or effective masks. It is essential that EPA withdraw this proposal and reconsider the options it had prepared in Janu ary 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 tru ck, 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 coul d be washed. We would rip open the bags, and the towels would fall on the grou nd. 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 hand s 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 towe ls and

uniform s, 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 wit h

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 a nything. 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 woul d have maggots, lots of them! The smell of ro tten 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 towel s 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 an d 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 co

worker 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 we re in contact with chemicals all the way up our arms and even on our faces and heads someti mes! 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 t he 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 con taining 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 h ad to

be inside the t rucks 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 manageme nt 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 w ith applicable regulations. Cintas is also a chart er 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 corpor ate headquarters.

There have been multiple vi olations 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 th e 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 end ure, including management's refusal to prevent the illegal transportation of heavily contamina ted 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 wi th 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 force d to undergo abusive treatment? Worse, how many will be forced to put their jobs and fam ilies 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 exemptio ns by refusing to pick up non compliant loads, you’re deluding yourself and the public...Co yne 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 lau ndry 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 carr ied every day. I also had to carry towels and mats from restaurants that were filled with mold and fungus. The con ditions 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 ove r again. We usually had to put the towels in co tton 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 befo re 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 w as 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 Tex t: 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

war nings and Cintas never even cut them off as customers. I don't recall Cintas ever telling me to refuse to take these dangerou s loads from customers. They're just interested in getting all the business they could.



### Docket Number

- 322 Comment Key

- 957

Subm itted 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 w hen 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 str ong 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 to ld 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 payi ng off

the debt toda y. 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 m y doctor about the danger the job posed to my breathing, but they refuse I to accommodate me. Mike s aid 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 regulato ry 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 t hrough 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 meeti ng 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 ind ustrial 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 th e 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 solv ents and other regulated substances are wel l 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 tha t Coyne has invested millions of dollars in env ironmental 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 workpla ce 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 th e 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. Thi s reduction is due, in large pa rt, 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 m ore 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 laun dries 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

- 1 633 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, b ut 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 Depart ment 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 fo r 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 industr ial 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 pretreat ment limits...The EPA should require that the transportation of solve nt

- 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 fr om solvents used in conjunction with industria l 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 worke d 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 deni ed 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 an d 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 accu sed 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

Com ment 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 loc al agencies to find long

- term solutions, rather than a temporary solution. In these situations, the time necessary to install lon g

- 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 o ur 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 a ware 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 fo rmer employee during the hearing on March 9th contradicts th e 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 compan y 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 clot h bags or other opened containers. And it is not only workers who handle these towels who are exposed to these chemicals and the ir 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 op en 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, Cin tas 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 200 0 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 th e charges in our state=s Super ior 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 sh op towels in September 2002 afte r 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 tow el 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 envir onmental violations, the EPA will, in fact, encourage such

behavior.

## 285 Docket Nu mber

- 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 sh are the American dream. The jobs at companies like Cintas are hardly glamorou s. 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 t he 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, protecti on from hazardous materials and personal protective equipment. One such potential viol ation 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 medica l 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

Sub mitted 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 Coyn e employees from those hazards. And in my testimony the documents indicating Coyn e’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 pr evention. 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 199 6 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 ref erenced 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 ul timate disposition. The r esults 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 t owels 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 so iled 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 ar e 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 standar d for reusable shop towels. Laundries have since been working with customers to reduce the amount of so lvents 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 a fter 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 o f 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 lau ndering 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 th at 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 loc al 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, UST A 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 E SP is not just limited to reusable wipes though. It also extends laundry’s entire line of textiles. More importantly, laundry ESP facilitates an exchan ge in cooperation in critical environmental matters across industries including the various businesses th at 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 u se. 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 trilli on 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, af ter 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 reu se, 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, sta te 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 an d 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 t he 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 faci lities.

These studies demon strated 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 textil e 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 fo r 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 Ad ministration, 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 wer e 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 drive r’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 dr iver 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 ho urs and a monitor was also pla ced 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 th at these results provided conserva tive 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 compa ny confidence that worker health is not jeopardized this data demonstrates that existing industry practices and regulatory responsibilities under state law an d OSHA adequately and comprehensively address worker exposure concerns associated with solvent vap ors 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 educati on of our own folks. We continually stress the requirement consistent with company policy, industrial management standards and state regulation that return towels contain n o 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 abilit y 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 p rimary 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 v arious 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 infrast ructure 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 ret urn shop towels and finally comprehensive employee training so that our rout e 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 S ervices 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

Submi tted 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, w e 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 reusab le 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 make s sense and therefo re 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 tha t 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 industria l 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 w ipers, 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 th at 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 towe ls 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 suppo rt 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

Submi tted 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 s olid 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, the re 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.



### Docke t 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 slu dge 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

- Ste phen 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 wast e 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 dispo sables 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 s ludge

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 I ndustrial 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 d efinition 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:

B oth 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 s tudy 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 exclusi on 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 sol id 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 was te 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

a nd the environment must only be based on the solvent and not the wipe that the solvent is on. The only acceptable rule will b e 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 definiti on 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 t owels 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 municipali ties 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

C omment 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 th e overwhelming bulk of these three component wastes. Because the solvents are intended for disposal they are, by definition, a waste. Excluding reus able shop towels from solid waste regulation is inappropriate and sets a very dangerous precedent for the EP A’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. Th e first would exclude both reusable and disposable solvent contaminated wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. Under this proposal, all other components of th e proposed rule remain the same. IPC supports this alternative approach if the conditions f or 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 th e proposed rule remain the same. The G AC 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 la undered 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 Ma rch 9, 2004 indicate that there has been substantially more public heal th 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 environmen tal 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 cl oth 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 impa cts to the public from laundered indust rial 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 dis charges 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, w ith 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 Technol ogy 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 Ma rch 9, 2004 indicate that there has been substantially more public health impact (worker injury) and environment al 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 laun dered 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 Tod ay’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. Thi s 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. Th e 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 sludg e) 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 u ses that as an unfair advantage by claiming disposable w ipes 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 acknowledge d 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 weekl y 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 laun dries and generators to handle the towel as waste would defeat the p urpose 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 do cuments) 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 t owels 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 en vironment. 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 regul atory 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 sur ely 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 th e 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, b ut 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 rev enue 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 t he 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 co ntinue 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 constitue nts 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 involve d 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 an d subsequently disposing or discharging the hazardous constituents is not the same thing and is clearly inferior environmentall y. 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 t o 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 pr ocesses 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 w ipes and non

laundered 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 n ot 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 re gulatory definition of hazardous waste rather than from the regulatory definition of solid waste. In effect, this approach would make no differentia tion 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 applicabl e 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 destine d for reuse via laundering or dry cleaning in the proposed rule was that they ar e 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 (altho ugh 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 wh ile 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 whe n 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 genera tors to reuse the wipes by having them cleaned.



### Docket Numb er

- 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 r ole 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 wo uld 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 t oo 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:

Exclu ding 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 ou r 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 i mpact 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 contingen t 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 co sts. 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 employ ee 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 nece ssary 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 l andfills 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 d istinction 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 C orporation

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:

Com ment 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 produc t
is wast e 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 co nsider 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

m ight 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 laund erer 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 land fills, then they must be permitted to landfills in sludge and neither can they be laundered.

The conditio nal 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 Num ber

- 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 landfil l than

from non

- laundered wipes. This will have the marked impact of enc ouraging 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 genera tors 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, a s 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 definit ion

of solid waste. L ike 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. Excludin g 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 non

laundered wiping products, in fact, INDA contends it would be much more appropriate for EPA to establish conditions by which

all t ypes 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 E nvironmental 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 sl udge 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 def inition 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 i s 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

pr oposed 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 an d 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, transporter s, 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 Nu mber

- 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 disp osal 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 condition s for both reusabl e 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 w ith 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 emi ssions

and solid waste a ctivities. 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 th e 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 th ere 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 S ieg 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 exc lusion 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 propo sed, 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 re gular 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 f ree 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

Co mment 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 par agraph 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 Bur ke

Comment Text: [in footnote 7] After the word "higher" should read, "except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 110F (37.8C) o r 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) foll ows 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 mus t contain no free liquids or must have been treated by so lvent 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 th e 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 st ating 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 s uggests 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 o f 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 St ate 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 Departme nt 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), US EPA suggests that ash from the burning of excluded industrial wipes cannot be F

- listed hazard ous 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 wip es to be disposed of as non

- listed waste. It appears to be inconsistent to state that solven t derived from excluded wipes can be F

listed hazardous waste, but that ash and laundry sludges derived from excluded wipes cannot, and we request clarification. Al so, it is unclear whether solvents leaked during transportation would be ‘reacquire’ F

- listi ng (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)

Comme nt 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 h as 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, r emain subject to hazardous waste regulations, API requests EPA to provide clarification on this issue as a matter of federal policy. Regulator y 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 descrip tion 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 tw o

separa te 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 fin al

rule , the legal basis for jurisdiction over wipers contaminated with listed solvents before they release them from their jurisdic tion through a conditional exclusion. U.S. EPA's use of policy to regulate hazardous waste presents difficulty for Ohio because ou r 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 relatio nship 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 w ith regards to solvent contaminated wipes.



### Docket Number

- 270 Comment Key

- 1582

Su bmitted 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 no t 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 manage d in a fashion that would meet the requirements in the exclusion. A s 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 typographic al error in the first sentence. It would appear that this first sentence should actually read, “‘[f]lammable liquid’ means any l iquid 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 typ es of fuel. Absorbent wipes are typically used to clean up fuel spills and as a result may exhibit an ignitability or TC charact eri stic. 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 F uel 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

- 14 0 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

- 1 85 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 me et 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 Dep artment 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 predomina ntly 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 in dustrial 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 ‘dir ty’ 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 we nt
in to 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

- contami nated 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 complai ned 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. I n 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 witho ut any regulatory requirements, but if they use a rag or wipe they have to treat it as ha zardous 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, becaus e 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 reu sable 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 pr oposal 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 Env ironmental 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 f ollowing 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 eas ier 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 man y small businesses that would be classified as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) under RCRA. Wipes are

al so 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, simil ar to those c urrently 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 wast e 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 ag encies 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 cou ld not simply cite the handlers for failing to comply with the condition in question. Rathe r, 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, fa ilure 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 cit e 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 a t 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 destinatio n 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 bel ieves 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 ma nagement 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 whi ch 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 req uirements, 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” stan dards, 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 c ould specify how each type of facility should manage the wipes. g.) No need f or 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 t he 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 wi pes that are contaminated with listed wastes and/or exhibit characteristics other than those associated with solvents. Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, all w ipes could be addressed, as opposed to just those that are contaminated with solvents. The se parate 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 i n 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 prote ctive

of human health and the environment . Under a Universal Waste Rule approach, this result would essentially be self

implementing, 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 requi rements. 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 comp anies engaging in intr a

- 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 fo r all types of in dustrial 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 viola tions, 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 a nd 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). Altho ugh 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 belie ve that it is important to have proper controls in place to ensure tha t 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 wo uld be subject to the training, response to releases, and tra cking 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 promptl y and properly cleaned up). l.) Could allow addition of wate r 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 ba tteries 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 Conn ecticut Dept. Of Environmental Protection

Comment Text: Section VIII of the proposed rule preamble discusses the relationship of the proposed rule to other rulemakings. However, thi s 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 a bout 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 neit her rule supersede the other? The current federal pro vision 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 re gulations. 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 fre e

draining oil” or if they are burned for energ y 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 ques tion 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 suc h 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 t hey would not be subject to regulation under Part 279. (2) Used oil rules supersede proposed exclusions. Under this interp retation, 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 us ed 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 pp m total halogens). (3) Neither rule supersedes the other. Under this interpretat ion, 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) un der 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 oil s 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 exclus ions 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 haza rdous, say, due to lead contamination (i.e., they would not eligible for the propo sed 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 Connectic ut 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 re gulations 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 “a ny 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 solvent s 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 liq uid 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, propose d section 261.4(a)(22)(vii) states that sludge from industrial laundries “may be disposed of in so lid 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 disp osed 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 Backg round 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 ind ustrial wipes meet a 5 gram li mit 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 a lso 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 To wels”, 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 In dustrial 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 Landfi lls 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: App lying “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 Appe ndix 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 indus trial 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 regula tory 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 no t 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 regulato ry 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 Ut ility 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 wi pes 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 o perations 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 t he

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 Tex t: 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.

Exhibi t 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., Summ ary 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. Inf ormation 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 Coat ings 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 w aste.

## 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 fr om 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 consti tute treatment. We fully understand that it remains the responsibility of the facility to correctly h andle 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 manag ement 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 busi ness 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 unif orms and floor maps.