Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 147 July 31, 2013 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

Conditional Exclusions From Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste for 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes; Final Rule 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46448 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2003–0004; FRL–9838–2] 

RIN 2050–AE51 

Conditional Exclusions From Solid 

Waste and Hazardous Waste for 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

publishing a final rule that modifies its 

hazardous waste management 

regulations for solvent-contaminated 

wipes under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. Specifically, this rule 

revises the definition of solid waste to 

conditionally exclude solventcontaminated wipes that are cleaned 

and reused and revises the definition of 

hazardous waste to conditionally 

exclude solvent-contaminated wipes 

that are disposed. The purpose of this 

final rule is to provide a consistent 

regulatory framework that is appropriate 

to the level of risk posed by solventcontaminated wipes in a way that 

maintains protection of human health 

and the environment, while reducing 

overall compliance costs for industry, 

many of which are small businesses. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2003–0004. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room 

and the OSWER Docket is 202–566– 

1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more detailed information on specific 

aspects of this rulemaking, contact 

Amanda Kohler, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, Materials 

Recovery and Waste Management 

Division, MC 5304P, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 at 

(703) 347–8975 

(kohler.amanda@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by today’s 

action include an estimated 90,549 

facilities in 13 economic sub-sectors 

that generate solvent-contaminated 

wipes, which include printing, 

publishing, business services, chemical 

and allied product manufacturing, 

plastics and rubber, fabricated metal 

products, industrial machinery and 

equipment, furniture and fixtures, auto 

dealers, military bases, electronics and 

computer manufacturing, transportation 

equipment, and auto repair and 

maintenance. EPA (or the Agency) also 

estimates that 3,730 solid waste 

management facilities and 359 

industrial laundries and dry cleaners 

will be affected by the final rule. In 

addition, approximately, 2.2 billion 

solvent-contaminated wipes generated 

and handled annually by these entities 

may be affected. 

Today’s action is expected to result in 

net benefits estimated at between $21.7 

million and $27.8 million annually 

(2011 dollars), including $18.0 million 

per year in net regulatory cost savings 

to these industries. More detailed 

information on the potentially affected 

entities and industries, as well as the 

economic impacts of this rule, is 

presented in section XI.A of this 

preamble and in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for Conditional Exclusions 

from Solid and Hazardous Waste for 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes’’ available 

in the docket for this final rule. 

B. Why is EPA taking this action? 

Today’s final rule resolves, at the 

federal level, long-standing issues 

associated with the management of 

solvent-contaminated wipes by 

providing consistency in the regulations 

governing solvent-contaminated wipes 

across the United States. This rule 

maintains protection of human health 

and the environment, while creating 

flexibility and reducing compliance 

costs for generators of solventcontaminated wipes. Finally, this rule is 

the Agency’s final response to 

rulemaking petitions filed by the 

Kimberly-Clark Corporation and the 

Scott Paper Company. 

Acronyms 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small 

Quantity Generator 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMTP Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products 

CSI Common Sense Initiative 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DAF Dilution and Attenuation Factors 

DOT Department of Transportation 

ELLR Estimated Landfill Loading Rates 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

IRIS EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 

System 

LFCR Landfill Coupled Reactor Model 

LQG Large Quantity Generator 

MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

RB–MLL Risk-based Mass Loading Limits 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

SQG Small Quantity Generator 

TC Toxicity Characteristic 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure 

Preamble Outline 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Summary of Final Rule 

III. History of This Rulemaking 

IV. How do the provisions in the final rule 

compare to those proposed on November 

20, 2003? 

V. When will the final rule become effective? 

VI. Conditional Exclusion From the 

Definition of Solid Waste for SolventContaminated Wipes That Are Cleaned 

and Reused 

VII. Conditional Exclusion From the 

Definition of Hazardous Waste for 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes That Are 

Disposed 

VIII. Major Comments on the November 2003 

Proposed Rule 

IX. Major Comments on Risk Analysis 

X. How will these regulatory changes be 

administered and enforced? 

XI. Administrative Requirements for This 

Rulemaking 

I. Statutory Authority 

These regulations are promulgated 

under the authority of sections 2002, 

3001–3010 and 7004 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 

U.S.C. 6912, 6921–6930, and 6974. 

These statutes, combined, are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘RCRA.’’ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46449 

1A summary chart providing an overview of the 

conditional exclusions for reusable wipes and 

disposable wipes is available in the docket for 

today’s rule. 

2Although wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene are not eligible for the exclusion 

for disposable wipes, these wipes are eligible for the 

exclusion for reusable wipes because, under the 

reusable wipe exclusion, these wipes are not solid 

wastes subject to hazardous waste regulation, 

including the TC regulations. 

3Technical Background Document, August 2003. 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2003–0004–0003 

II. Summary of Final Rule 

In today’s rule, EPA is conditionally 

excluding from the definition of solid 

waste solvent-contaminated wipes that 

are cleaned and reused (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘reusable wipes’’) and 

excluding from the definition of 

hazardous waste solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are disposed (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘disposable wipes’’).1

Solvent-contaminated wipes include 

wipes that, after use or after cleaning up 

a spill, either (1) contain one or more of 

the F001 through F005 solvents listed in 

40 CFR 261.31 or the corresponding Por U-listed solvents found in 40 CFR 

261.33; (2) exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic found in 40 CFR part 261 

subpart C when that characteristic 

results from a solvent listed in 40 CFR 

part 261; and/or (3) exhibit only the 

hazardous waste characteristic of 

ignitability found in 40 CFR 261.21 due 

to the presence of one or more solvents 

that are not listed in 40 CFR part 261. 

The exclusions are only applicable to 

the solvent-contaminated wipes 

themselves. Free liquid spent solvent 

would still be considered solid waste 

and potentially subject to the hazardous 

waste regulations under RCRA Subtitle 

C upon removal from the solventcontaminated wipe or from the 

container holding the wipes. In 

addition, the exclusions are not 

applicable to wipes that contain listed 

hazardous waste other than solvents, or 

exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, 

corrosivity, or reactivity due to 

contaminants other than solvents (such 

as metals). Furthermore, solventcontaminated disposable wipes that are 

hazardous waste due to the presence of 

trichloroethylene are not eligible for the 

exclusion from hazardous waste and 

remain subject to all applicable 

hazardous waste regulations.2

Under the final rule, reusable and 

disposable solvent-contaminated wipes 

are excluded from regulation under 

RCRA Subtitle C provided certain 

conditions are met. Specifically, both 

types of the wipes, when accumulated, 

stored, and transported, must be 

contained in non-leaking, closed 

containers. The containers must be able 

to contain free liquids, should free 

liquids occur, and the containers must 

be labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes.’’ The solventcontaminated wipes may be 

accumulated by the generator for up to 

180 days prior to being sent for cleaning 

or disposal. At the point of transport for 

cleaning or disposal, the solventcontaminated wipes and their 

containers must contain no free liquids 

as determined by the Paint Filter 

Liquids Test (EPA Methods Test 9095B). 

Generators must maintain 

documentation that they are managing 

excluded solvent-contaminated wipes 

and keep that documentation at their 

sites. Lastly, the solvent-contaminated 

wipes must be managed by one of the 

following types of facilities: 

• An industrial laundry or a dry 

cleaner that discharges, if any, under 

sections 301 and 402 or section 307 of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA)); 

• A municipal solid waste landfill 

that is regulated under 40 CFR part 258, 

including § 258.40, or a hazardous waste 

landfill regulated under 40 CFR parts 

264 or 265; or 

• A municipal waste combustor or 

other combustion facility that is 

regulated under section 129 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA); a hazardous waste 

combustor regulated under 40 CFR parts 

264 or 265, or a hazardous waste boiler 

or industrial furnace regulated under 40 

CFR part 266 subpart H. 

(These facilities that can receive 

reusable and disposable wipes under 

today’s rule are collectively referred to 

as ‘‘handling facilities.’’) 

III. History of This Rulemaking 

A. Description of Solvent-Contaminated 

Wipes 

Wipes come in a wide variety of sizes 

and materials to meet a broad range of 

applications. For the purposes of this 

final rule, EPA is distinguishing 

between two categories of wipes: 

Reusables, which are laundered or dry 

cleaned and used again; and 

disposables, which are disposed in a 

landfill or combustor. In the November 

2003 proposal, we estimated the 

respective annual market share of 88 

percent for reusable wipes and 12 

percent for disposable wipes (68 FR 

65613). 

Wipes are used in conjunction with 

solvents by tens of thousands of 

facilities in numerous industrial sectors 

for cleaning and other purposes. 

Printers, automobile repair shops, and 

manufacturers of automobiles, 

electronics, furniture, and chemicals, to 

name a few, use large quantities of 

wipes, but practically every industrial 

sector uses wipes in conjunction with 

solvents. The types and amount of 

solvents applied to wipes varies 

considerably; sometimes the amount of 

solvent used on each wipe is small, but 

other times it may be two or more times 

the weight of the dry wipe. Also, some 

facilities use small numbers of wipes on 

a daily basis, while others use 

hundreds, if not thousands of wipes per 

day.3 Finally, the types and 

concentration of solvent used is often 

unique to the facility. Most often, the 

solvents used represent a blend of two 

or more chemicals. Some of these spent 

solvents are hazardous because of their 

toxicity or ignitability, whereas others 

have been listed by EPA as a hazardous 

waste when discarded (i.e., F001–F005 

listed solvents found in 40 CFR 261.31 

or the corresponding P- or U-listed 

solvent found in 40 CFR 261.33). 

A generator’s decision to use a certain 

type of wipe depends primarily on its 

processes. For example, the amount of 

lint a wipe generates can play a very 

significant role in deciding whether to 

use disposable or reusable wipes. Some 

processes, such as those in electronics 

and printing applications, cannot 

tolerate any lint, whereas other 

processes, such as cleaning auto parts, 

can tolerate large amounts of lint. 

Absorbent capacity is also another factor 

in some processes, as is durability of a 

wipe in both retaining its structural 

integrity and its ability to withstand 

strong solvents. Another factor a 

generator may use in making its 

decision is its waste management 

strategy: For example, choosing to use 

reusable wipes to reduce the amount of 

waste it disposes. 

As with other commodities, a wipe’s 

life cycle depends on its ultimate 

disposition. The following description 

illustrates generally how wipes are 

used, but is not exhaustive of all 

possibilities. 

• Reusable wipes tend to be 

standardized in composition (e.g., 

cotton) and size and are part of a 

systematic handling system. In general, 

a laundry owns the reusable wipes, 

rents them to its customers, and collects 

them for laundering on a regular basis. 

Customers receive deliveries of wipes 

from the laundries, use them, and 

accumulate the used wipes. Drivers, 

most often employed by the laundries, 

pick up the contaminated wipes, 

replacing them with clean wipes at the 

same time, and then return the 

contaminated wipes to the laundry. 

Once at the laundry, the wipes are 

counted to ensure the laundry is getting 

back from the customer the same 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46450 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

4A copy of all three petitions can be found in the 

docket for today’s rule. 

5This memo can be found in RCRA Online, 

Number 11813 and in the docket for today’s rule. 

6The Office of Solid Waste has been renamed the 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. 

7 In comments submitted on the 2003 proposal, 

the Maine Department of Environment noted that 

the EPA Technical Background Document 

inaccurately reports that Maine excludes reusable 

solvent-contaminated wipes when in fact Maine 

regulates all wipes contaminated with F-listed 

solvents as hazardous wastes. 

number sent out. Finally, the wipes are 

cleaned before being returned to service. 

• Disposable wipes are diverse in 

composition and size (e.g., paper towels, 

cloth rags). Some disposable wipes 

arrive dry, whereas others are packaged 

already containing the solvent and, 

therefore, are ready for use immediately. 

Either way, the wipe is used and then 

often discarded. These wipes are 

typically disposed of either in a landfill 

or by combustion. 

Solvent removal and recovery can 

happen at various points in the life 

cycle of both disposable and reusable 

wipes. Generators may choose to 

recover solvent either to reduce virgin 

solvent use and reduce costs or to 

reduce their environmental footprint. 

Generators may generally recycle 

solvents within their allowed 

accumulation period (e.g., 90 or 180 

days) without a RCRA permit under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 261.6(c), which 

exempts the recycling process itself 

from certain hazardous waste 

regulations. In addition, laundries or 

dry cleaners may recover solvents from 

the solvent-contaminated wipes that 

arrive at their facilities to minimize the 

amount of solvent in their effluent in 

order to comply with pretreatment 

requirements imposed by a Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or to 

recover solvent, which can be sold, 

refined and reused. 

B. Petitions From Industry and the 1994 

Shapiro Memo 

After the initial promulgation of the 

federal hazardous waste regulations in 

May 1980, EPA began receiving inquires 

from makers and users of disposable 

wipes, who stated that the hazardous 

waste regulations were too stringent for 

solvent-contaminated wipes based on 

the risks they pose. Then, in 1985, EPA 

received a rulemaking petition, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20, from the 

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a 

manufacturer of disposable wipes, that 

requested EPA exclude disposable 

wipes from the definition of hazardous 

waste. The petition argued that these 

materials are over-regulated because the 

amount of solvent in the wipes is 

insignificant and because the disposable 

wipes do not pose a threat to human 

health and the environment even when 

disposed of in a municipal solid waste 

landfill. In 1987, EPA received a second 

rulemaking petition from the Scott 

Paper Company that reiterated many of 

the same arguments made by the 

Kimberly-Clark Corporation and added 

arguments that the hazardous waste 

regulations were not necessary because 

solvent-contaminated disposable wipes 

are handled responsibly, make up just 

one percent of a generator’s waste 

stream, and could be beneficial to the 

operation of incinerators because of 

their heat value. 

In addition to these petitions from the 

makers of disposable wipes, in 1987, 

EPA received a rulemaking petition 

from the Alliance of Textile Care 

Associations requesting that solventcontaminated reusable wipes be 

excluded from the definition of solid 

waste.4 However, in 2000, the Alliance 

withdrew their petition. 

A rule addressing both types of wipes 

is important because generators of 

solvent-contaminated wipes have asked 

EPA over the years to clarify our 

position on both disposable and 

reusable wipes. In the early 1990s, EPA 

developed a policy that deferred 

determinations and interpretations 

regarding the regulation of solventcontaminated wipes to the states 

authorized to implement the federal 

hazardous waste program or to the EPA 

region, where a state is not authorized 

(see ‘‘Industrial Wipers and Shop 

Towels under the Hazardous Waste 

Regulations,’’ Michael Shapiro, 

February 14, 1994).5 At that time, the 

Office of Solid Waste concluded that 

these determinations were best 

addressed by the regulatory officials 

responsible for implementing the 

regulations.6

This policy has led to the application 

of different regulatory schemes for both 

types of wipes in the EPA regions and 

states. Although the states differ in the 

details of their policies, in general, they 

regulate disposable wipes as hazardous 

waste when they are contaminated with 

a solvent that either meets a hazardous 

waste listing or exhibits a hazardous 

waste characteristic. On the other hand, 

45 7 states have provided regulatory 

relief for solvent-contaminated reusable 

wipes sent to an industrial laundry or 

other facility for cleaning and reuse. In 

about half the cases, the states have 

excluded reusable wipes from the 

definition of solid waste, whereas the 

other states have excluded them from 

the definition of hazardous waste. 

For reusable wipes, the conditions for 

the various exclusions vary from state to 

state, but most require that the wipes 

contain no free liquids and require that 

the laundry discharge to a POTW or 

have a permit for discharge under the 

CWA. Some states have established 

other requirements, such as requiring 

generators to manage solventcontaminated wipes according to the 

hazardous waste accumulation 

standards prior to laundering and to file 

a one-time notice under the land 

disposal restriction program (see 40 CFR 

part 268) when such wipes are sent to 

be laundered. 

The EPA policy laid out in the 1994 

Shapiro memo has led to confusion 

because the regulations and policies 

differ from state to state. One goal of 

today’s rule is to establish consistent 

federal regulations to reduce this 

confusion. Thus, today’s rule 

supersedes the 1994 Shapiro memo. See 

section X for more information on how 

this rule affects existing state policies. 

In late 1994, EPA’s policy regarding 

solvent-contaminated wipes came under 

further review as part of the Common 

Sense Initiative (CSI) for the printing 

industry (59 FR 27295). The CSI 

committee sought the insight and input 

of multiple stakeholders on how to 

make environmental regulation more 

easily implementable and/or less costly, 

while still maintaining protection of 

human health and the environment. The 

one significant problem posed by the 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations that 

was identified by the representatives 

from the printing industry was the 

ambiguity of the regulations applicable 

to solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Specifically, printing industry 

representatives requested that EPA do 

three things: (1) Clarify the definition of 

‘‘treatment’’ as it pertains to printers 

wringing solvent from their wipes; (2) 

examine whether disposable wipes are 

over-regulated; and (3) increase 

regulatory consistency among the states. 

C. Summary of November 2003 Proposal 

To address stakeholder concerns 

about the Agency’s (and states’) current 

policies regarding solvent-contaminated 

wipes and to ensure greater consistency 

in regulation, EPA published a proposed 

rule that would exclude reusable wipes 

from the definition of solid waste and 

exclude disposable wipes from the 

definition of hazardous waste, provided 

certain conditions were met (68 FR 

65586, November 20, 2003). 

Specifically, EPA proposed to exclude 

from the definition of solid waste 

reusable wipes that are laundered or 

dry-cleaned when they contain an Flisted spent solvent, a corresponding Por U- listed commercial chemical 

product, or when they exhibit the 

hazardous characteristic of corrosivity, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46451 

8The Agency stated in the preamble that solventcontaminated wipes co-contaminated with ignitable 

waste would remain eligible for the exclusion 

because the solvent-contaminated wipes are already 

likely ignitable and this risk would be managed by 

the conditions of the exclusion (68 FR 65602). 

However, EPA had not made this clear in the 

proposed regulatory language on 68 FR 65619. This 

was noted by commenters and is addressed in 

today’s final rule. 

9Under the proposed rule, a solventcontaminated wipe that contained less than five 

grams of solvent would be considered ‘‘dry.’’ 

10These 11 solvents include 2-Nitropropane, 

Nitrobenzene, Methyl ethyl ketone, Methylene 

chloride, Pyridine, Benzene, Cresols, Carbon 

tetrachloride, Chlorobenzene, Tetrachloroethylene, 

and Trichloroethylene. 

11The solvents listed in F001 through F005 in 40 

CFR 261.31 are 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 

trifluoroethane, ortho-Dichlorobenzene, 2- 

Ethoxyethanol, 2-Nitropropane, Acetone, Benzene, 

n-Butyl alcohol, Carbon disulfide, Carbon 

tetrachloride, Chlorinated Fluorocarbons, 

Chlorobenzene, Cresols, Cyclohexanone, Ethyl 

acetate, Ethyl benzene, Ethyl ether, Isobutanol, 

Methanol, Methyl ethyl ketone, Methyl isobutyl 

ketone, Methylene chloride, Nitrobenzene, 

Pyridine, Tetrachloroethylene, Toluene, 

Trichloroethylene, Trichlorofluoromethane, Xylene. 

reactivity, or toxicity when that 

characteristic results from the F-listed 

spent solvent or corresponding P- or Ulisted commercial chemical product.8

The reusable wipes would have to be 

accumulated, stored, and managed in 

non-leaking, covered containers and, if 

transported off-site, would have to be 

transported in containers designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize 

loss to the environment. Additionally, 

the solvent-contaminated wipes could 

not contain free liquids or would have 

to be treated by solvent extraction. Any 

liquids removed from the solventcontaminated wipes would be managed 

according to the regulations found 

under 40 CFR parts 261 through 270. 

EPA also proposed that if free liquids 

are in containers that arrive at a laundry 

or dry cleaner, the receiving facility 

would either remove the free liquids 

and manage them according to the 

hazardous waste regulations or return 

the closed container with the wipes and 

free liquids to the generator as soon as 

reasonably practicable. The Agency 

proposed that industrial laundries and 

dry cleaners could dispose of sludge 

from cleaning solvent-contaminated 

wipes in solid waste landfills if the 

sludge does not exhibit a hazardous 

waste characteristic. 

EPA also proposed to exclude from 

the definition of hazardous waste 

disposable wipes when they contain an 

F-listed spent solvent, a corresponding 

P- or U-listed commercial chemical 

product, or when they exhibit the 

hazardous characteristic of corrosivity, 

reactivity, or toxicity when that 

characteristic results from the F-listed 

spent solvent or corresponding P- or Ulisted commercial chemical product. 

The disposable wipes would have to be 

accumulated, stored, and managed in 

non-leaking, covered containers and, if 

transported off-site, would have to be 

transported in containers designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize 

loss to the environment. The containers 

also would have to be labeled ‘‘Exempt 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.’’ If the 

solvent-contaminated wipes were sent 

to a municipal waste combustor or other 

combustion facility, the wipes could not 

contain free liquids or would have to be 

treated by solvent extraction. Any 

liquids removed from the wipes would 

have to be managed according to the 

regulations found under 40 CFR parts 

261 through 270. If the solventcontaminated wipes were sent to a 

municipal waste landfill or other nonhazardous waste landfill that meets the 

standards under 40 CFR part 257 

subpart B, each wipe could not contain 

more than five grams of solvent or 

would have to be treated by solvent 

extraction.9 Additionally, EPA proposed 

to make 11 solvents ineligible for the 

conditional exclusion based on the 

results of the risk screening analysis 

conducted for the November 2003 

proposal and based on the fact that six 

of the solvents are included in EPA’s 

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) 

regulations.10

EPA also proposed to allow intracompany transfers of both reusable and 

disposable wipes for the purpose of 

removing sufficient solvent from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes in order to 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition (for 

wipes sent to combustors, laundries, or 

dry cleaners) or so that each wipe would 

contain less than five grams of solvent 

(for wipes sent to landfills). The Agency 

also proposed definitions for 

‘‘disposable industrial wipes,’’ 

‘‘industrial wipe,’’ industrial wipe 

handling facility,’’ intra-company 

transfer of industrial wipe,’’ ‘‘no free 

liquids,’’ ‘‘reusable industrial wipe,’’ 

and ‘‘solvent extraction.’’ 

D. Risk Analysis 

1. Risk Screening Analysis for the 

November 2003 Proposed Rule 

In the November 2003 proposed rule, 

EPA evaluated the appropriate 

regulatory status for solventcontaminated wipes by considering the 

risks to human health and the 

environment from the management of 

solvent-contaminated wipes and 

wastewater treatment sludge from 

laundries (laundry sludge) in unlined 

non-hazardous waste landfills. This was 

done by conducting a risk screening 

analysis to determine the constituentspecific risks from landfilling solventcontaminated wipes and laundry sludge 

contaminated with the F001–F005 listed 

solvents.11 We estimated the potential 

risks from exposure to the F001–F005 

listed solvents, assuming disposal in an 

unlined solid waste landfill. We 

examined potential risks from 

inhalation of spent solvents volatilizing 

from the landfill, from ingestion of 

groundwater contaminated by spent 

solvents leaching from the landfill, and 

from inhalation of spent solvent vapors 

released from contaminated 

groundwater during showering. The 

Technical Background Document for the 

proposed rule provides details on the 

risk screening analysis conducted in 

support of the November 2003 proposed 

rule and is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Based on the 2003 risk screening 

analysis, we proposed that solventcontaminated wipes containing 19 of 

the 30 solvents could be disposed in an 

unlined landfill if the wipes met a dry 

standard (i.e., each wipe contained less 

than five grams of solvent). EPA also 

tentatively concluded that solventcontaminated wipes containing any of 

the other 11 solvents would continue to 

be regulated as hazardous waste when 

disposed, because these solventcontaminated wipes could pose a 

substantial hazard to human health and 

the environment if disposed in an 

unlined landfill. Six of the eleven 

solvents did not pose an unacceptable 

risk in the 2003 risk screening analysis; 

however, these six were deemed 

ineligible for the exclusion because they 

are included in the TC regulations in 40 

CFR 261.24. Based on the results of the 

2003 risk screening analysis, we also 

proposed that municipal waste 

combustors and other combustion 

facilities be allowed to burn solventcontaminated wipes that meet the 

proposed conditions for the exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste. 

2. Revised Risk Analysis and October 

2009 NODA 

During the comment period on the 

November 2003 proposed rule, we 

received substantive comments on the 

risk screening analysis and the solvent 

loading calculations. In addition to 

public comments, we received 

comments from external peer reviewers. 

Both the public and the peer reviewers 

questioned aspects of the 2003 risk 

screening analysis and the modeling 

assumptions. (These comments are 

available in the docket for today’s final 

rule.) After reviewing the comments, we 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

12We eliminated Carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane, Trichlorofluoromethane, 

Dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,2- 

Trichlorotrifluorethane, Carbon disulfide, Ethyl 

ether, Nitrobenzene, 2-Nirtopropane, and Pyridine. 

For a detailed discussion on these solvents, see the 

‘‘Landfill Loadings Calculations for Disposed 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes and Laundry Sludge 

Managed in Municipal Landfills,’’ Section 1.2. 

13 Guidance for Risk Characterization, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. 

14These risk criteria are consistent with those 

discussed in EPA’s hazardous waste listing 

determination policy (December 22, 1994; 59 FR 

66072). Also see 40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2), 

which establishes a cancer risk range of 10¥4 to 

10¥6 in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for responding to 

releases of hazardous substances under Superfund. 

decided to undertake a more robust risk 

analysis to determine the potential risk 

from disposal of solvent-contaminated 

wipes and laundry sludge in both 

unlined and lined non-hazardous waste 

landfills, including municipal solid 

waste landfills (MSWLFs). This revised 

risk analysis was subjected to external 

peer review and presented for public 

comment, along with the peer review 

comments and EPA’s response to those 

comments, in a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) on October 27, 

2009 (74 FR 55163). 

The 2009 revised risk analysis is 

considered to be ‘‘influential scientific 

information’’ under both EPA’s and the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB’s) peer review policies. As 

described in the October 2009 NODA, 

we conducted an external peer review 

in which we asked the peer reviewers to 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

risk analysis. The Agency asked the peer 

reviewers to respond to a set of 

questions, which are included in the 

public docket for this rule, addressing 

the technical basis of the approaches we 

used and to prepare a report 

highlighting their comments and 

recommendations. EPA revised the risk 

documents by incorporating the peer 

reviewers’ comments, where necessary 

and appropriate. The docket contains 

the individual peer reviewer reports, 

EPA’s response to the peer reviewers’ 

comments, and supporting documents 

for the peer reviews. For more 

information about the peer review 

process, see EPA’s Peer Review 

Handbook at http://www.epa.gov/ 

peerreview/pdfs/ 

peer_review_handbook_2006.pdf. 

The 2009 revised risk analysis 

included additional data and 

information, a new model to evaluate 

the behavior of solvents in a landfill, 

revised fate and transport modeling, and 

an improved approach from the 2003 

risk screening analysis to compare the 

estimates of the solvent quantities 

disposed to the risk-based solvent 

loading levels. 

The 2009 revised risk analysis 

estimated the amount of each F-listed 

solvent contained in solventcontaminated wipes and laundry sludge 

disposed of in MSWLFs (i.e., estimated 

landfill loading rates). We compared 

these amounts to the estimated 

quantities of spent solvents that may be 

disposed of in MSWLFs without 

presenting unacceptable risks to human 

health and the environment (risk-based 

landfill mass loadings). The 2009 

revised risk analysis consists of three 

separate documents, all of which are in 

the docket for today’s final rule: 

• ‘‘Landfill Loadings Calculations for 

Disposed Solvent-Contaminated Wipes 

and Laundry Sludge Managed in 

Municipal Landfills,’’ October, 2008 

• ‘‘Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits 

for Solvents in Disposed Wipes and 

Laundry Sludges Managed in Municipal 

Landfills,’’ October, 2009 

• ‘‘F001–F005 Solvent-Contaminated 

Wipes and Laundry Sludge: Comparison 

of Landfill Loading Calculations and 

Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits,’’ 

August, 2009 

We evaluated the use of the F001– 

F005 listed solvents on wipes through a 

comprehensive review of the available 

information (including site visits, data 

collected by EPA for RCRA and other 

regulatory programs, public comments, 

and other available information). We 

eliminated 10 of the 30 listed solvents 

from the analysis because EPA has 

found that they are not widely used on 

wipes.12 Of the ten eliminated solvents, 

five are ozone-depleting or present other 

serious hazards and are therefore 

banned or restricted from use. The other 

five solvents eliminated from the 

analysis may have been used on wipes 

in the past; however, our research found 

that these solvents are currently not 

used or are used only in very limited 

quantities in conjunction with wipes. 

For the remaining 20 solvents, we 

estimated the amount of solvent that 

could plausibly be on a wipe and in 

laundry sludge before disposal and then 

estimated the number of generators 

potentially disposing of solventcontaminated wipes or laundry sludge 

into a MSWLF. Through our 

calculations, we derived estimated 

landfill loading rates (ELLRs) for each of 

the solvents on an annual basis (i.e., 

kilograms of solvent disposed in each 

landfill per year). To account for 

uncertainty and variability in the input 

parameters, we used a Monte Carlo 

simulation to develop a single 

distribution of mass loading rates (in 

kilograms per year per landfill) for each 

solvent from the disposed solventcontaminated wipes and laundry 

sludge. These landfill loading 

distributions represent the amount of 

‘‘wipes-related’’ solvent in the 

respective waste streams (i.e., wipes and 

sludge). For both the disposed solventcontaminated wipes and laundry 

sludges, the output of the method is a 

probability distribution of ELLRs based 

on the best available data. The October 

2009 NODA and the full Landfill 

Loadings Report describe the 

assumptions made, the methodologies 

used, and the results of the analysis. 

To assess the potential risks from the 

estimated landfill loadings of hazardous 

spent solvents that could be disposed of 

in MSWLFs (unlined and lined), we 

developed a methodology to estimate 

the amount of these spent solvents that 

could be disposed and still be protective 

of human health and the environment at 

the point of exposure. This methodology 

uses a probabilistic risk analysis of 

solvent-contaminated wipes to produce 

a distribution of risk estimates, which 

we then used to calculate a protective 

mass loading rate for each individual 

solvent. These ‘‘allowable amounts’’ are 

risk-based mass loading limits (RB– 

MLL) expressed in kilograms of each 

spent solvent that can be added to a 

landfill in a given year, with a certain 

probability of the risk remaining at or 

below the risk-based criteria evaluated 

by EPA. These RB–MLLs were derived 

from modeling scenarios defined in 

terms of the solvent, landfill type (lined 

or unlined), exposure route (ingestion, 

inhalation, dermal absorption), contact 

media (groundwater, ambient air), and 

receptor (child or adult). 

We identified RB–MLLs for each 

solvent such that the exposure at the 

50th and 90th percentiles of the risk 

distribution would not exceed the 

identified target risk criteria if these 

materials were disposed of in a MSWLF. 

The Agency typically uses the 50th and 

90th percentiles to characterize risk. 

The 90th percentile represents a ‘‘high 

end’’ estimate of individual risk, and the 

50th percentile reflects the central 

tendency estimate of the risk 

distribution.13 For this analysis, the 

target risk criteria were selected so that 

90 percent of the hypothetical 

individuals living near a landfill would 

not be exposed to solvent releases 

resulting in an excess lifetime cancer 

risk above 1 chance in 100,000 (10¥5).14

For noncancer health effects, we used a 

hazard quotient (HQ) of one as our risk 

criterion, such that HQ values below or 

equal to one were not of concern (the 

noncancer HQ is defined as the ratio of 

predicted intake levels to safe intake 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46453 

15High and low cancer potency factors were used 

to calculate risks for benzene and 

tetrachloroethylene, because these were available. 

Therefore, two cancer risks were calculated for 

these two solvents. 

16The final health assessment for 

trichloroethylene was posted on IRIS on September 

28, 2011 (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0199.htm). 

The assessment for tetrachloroethylene was posted 

on February 10, 2012 (http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/ 

subst/0106.htm). 

levels). The full RB–MLL report in the 

docket describes the assumptions made, 

the methodologies used, and the results 

of the analysis. 

3. Results of the Revised Risk Analysis 

in the October 2009 NODA 

To determine whether the landfill 

loading rates exceed the risk-based 

loading limits, EPA compared the 

ELLRs to the calculated RB–MLLs for 

each solvent. If the estimated landfill 

loading rates exceed the risk-based mass 

loading limits for a solvent, then this 

solvent could pose a potential risk for 

persons living near a landfill. To 

perform the comparison, EPA evaluated 

and considered a 90th percentile risk 

criterion for the risk-based mass loading 

limit to be protective of 90 percent of 

hypothetically exposed individuals 

across all of the landfill sites in the 

United States. Thus, we compared the 

90th percentile estimate of the ELLRs to 

the 90th percentile of the RB–MLLs to 

determine whether the loading rates in 

landfills that can be attributed to 

solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundry sludge exceed the RB–MLLs 

that correspond to selected health-based 

limits. 

The comparisons of the ELLRs and 

RB–MLLs can be expressed as ratios, 

i.e., the 90th percentile ELLRs 

(kilograms solvent per year) are divided 

by the 90th percentile RB–MLLs 

(kilograms solvent per year) for a 

specific solvent to yield a ratio. The 

ELLR is an estimate of the mass loading 

into the landfill and the RB–MLL is an 

estimate of the mass loading for each of 

the 20 solvents that would correspond 

to an exposure equivalent to the chosen 

risk criterion, or ‘‘target’’ risk. Therefore, 

if the ratio exceeds one, this indicates 

the degree to which the ELLR exceeds 

the evaluation criteria used to establish 

the RB–MLLs (i.e., a cancer risk of 1 × 

10¥5 and an HQ of 1 for 

noncarcinogenic risk). 

The comparison of the 90th percentile 

values of the ELLRs and the RB–MLLs 

indicates that 8 of the 20 spent solvents 

could pose potential risks above EPA’s 

evaluation criteria for unlined landfills. 

The 90th percentile risks for benzene 

(using the high end cancer potency 

factor only),15 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 

methylene chloride, 

tetrachloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene exceeded the 10¥5

cancer risk criteria. The 90th percentile 

risks for chlorobenzene, toluene, and 

xylenes exceeded the criteria for noncancer health effects (HQ = 1). 

As expected, the predicted risks for 

the composite-lined landfill were 

always less than those for the unlined 

landfill analysis. Using the comparison 

of the 90th percentile results, the 

potential risks from all solvents 

examined in the composite-liner 

scenario, except for tetrachloroethylene, 

were well below the health-based 

criteria used in this 2009 risk analysis. 

The ratio of the 90th percentile ELLR 

divided by the 90th percentile RB–MLL 

for tetrachloroethylene was 1.1 using 

the higher end cancer risk value, and 0.9 

using the lower end cancer risk value. 

For a more detailed explanation of how 

the ELLR and RB–MLL were compared, 

see the document ‘‘F001–F005 SolventContaminated Wipes and Laundry 

Sludge: Comparison of Landfill Loading 

Calculations and Risk Based Mass 

Loading Limits’’ in the docket. 

The results of the revised risk analysis 

presented in the October 2009 NODA 

were different than the results of the 

2003 risk screening analysis presented 

in the November 2003 proposal. The 

number and identity of the solvents that 

showed a potential risk for disposal in 

an unlined landfill changed in the 2009 

revised risk analysis. Also, we did not 

consider risks from disposal in lined 

landfills in the original 2003 risk 

screening analysis, whereas the 2009 

revised risk analysis does consider risks 

from composite-lined non-hazardous 

waste landfills. In the NODA we sought 

comment on all aspects of the 2009 

revised risk analysis, including the 

assumptions of the analysis, the data 

used, and the methodology employed. 

4. Changes in the Final Risk Analysis 

In responding to comments on the 

2009 revised risk analysis (see the Major 

Comments on the Risk Analysis in 

section IX of this notice), we revised the 

Landfill Loadings document. We 

included updated information for 

various input parameters for reusable 

wipes that were gathered from surveys 

and submitted in comments by a trade 

association. Using the updated data 

lowered the solvent landfill loadings 

calculated for the sludges generated by 

laundries. (See the revised document, 

‘‘Landfill Loadings Calculations For 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes, January 

2012’’ in the docket.) However, these 

changes had a limited impact on the 

overall risks presented by the combined 

disposal of disposable wipes and 

laundry sludges, because the sludges 

represented a relatively small fraction of 

the combined risk for the solvents. 

Nevertheless, the changes were 

sufficient to reduce the combined risk 

results for tetrachloroethylene in a 

composite-lined landfill, such that the 

ratio of ELLR to RB–MLL decreased 

from 1.1 to 1.0 (i.e., the ratio would 

meet the target cancer risk criteria of 1.0 

× 10¥5). 

The Agency also issued new health 

assessments since the October 2009 

NODA, which included updated 

reference values for two of the solvents, 

tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene. EPA posted these 

human health assessments, which are 

scientific reports that provide 

information on chemical hazards as well 

as quantitative dose-response 

information, on EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS).16 We 

recalculated the RB–MLLs for 

tetrachloroethylene using the revised 

reference values. As a result, the 

combined risks for this chemical in a 

composite-lined unit dropped 

significantly, such that the risks were 

well below the target risk criteria (with 

or without the modifications to the 

sludge data discussed in the previous 

paragraph, the final ratio of the ELLR to 

the RB–MLL is less than 0.10). Thus, the 

results for tetrachloroethylene, which 

now include the revised landfill 

loadings and reflect the updated 

reference value, indicate that including 

this solvent in the conditional exclusion 

would not present a significant risk if 

the solvent-contaminated wipes and 

sludges are disposed in a compositelined landfill. 

On the other hand, using the updated 

reference values for trichloroethylene in 

our 2012 final risk analysis resulted in 

an increase in projected risks, such that 

the estimated landfill solvent loadings 

exceeded the risk-based mass loading 

limit with the ratio of the ELLR to the 

RB–MLL calculated at 1.4. These 

revisions to the risk analysis are 

summarized in addendums to the 2009 

risk analysis document (‘‘Impact of 

Revised Health Benchmarks on Solvent 

Wipes Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits 

(RB–MLLs),’’ April 2012) and the 

revised document comparing ELLRs to 

RB–MLLs (‘‘F001–F005 SolventContaminated Wipes and Laundry 

Sludge: Comparison of Landfill Loading 

Calculations and Risk-Based Mass 

Loading Limits,’’ revised April 2012). 

Therefore, based on the 2012 final risk 

analysis using the updated reference 

values, wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene (i.e., wipes 

contaminated with trichloroethylene 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

17Although wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene are not eligible for the exclusion 

for disposable wipes, these wipes are eligible for the 

exclusion for reusable wipes because, under the 

reusable wipe exclusion, these wipes are not solid 

wastes subject to hazardous waste regulation, 

including the TC regulations. 18See ‘‘Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits for 

Solvents in Disposed Wipes and Laundry Sludges 

Managed in Municipal Landfills,’’ October 2009, 

pages 3–60 and 4–30. 

solvent itself or in F-listed solvent 

blends) are ineligible for the conditional 

exclusion for disposable wipes.17 That 

is, the updated results of our 2012 final 

risk analysis indicate that 

trichloroethylene may present a 

substantial hazard to human health, 

even if disposed in a composite-lined 

unit. Updated reference values for 

trichloroethylene and for 

tetrachloroethylene are similarly 

reflected in the final risk results for 

disposal in an unlined landfill; wipes 

containing these solvents nonetheless 

continue to present risks above the risk 

criteria in the unlined landfill scenario. 

Use of the updated reference values 

ensures that the final rule incorporates 

the most recent scientific data available 

and will prevent potential risks from 

disposal of wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene. The updating of the 

reference values does not impact our 

overall assessment methodology, which 

was externally peer reviewed and 

published for public comment in a 2009 

NODA. The IRIS assessment 

development process includes an 

internal Agency review, two 

opportunities for science consultation 

and discussion with other federal 

agencies, a public hearing, public 

review and comment, and an 

independent external peer review, all of 

which is part of the official public 

record. In addition to this rigorous 

review process, trichloroethylene was 

reviewed by the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board and tetrachloroethylene 

underwent review by the National 

Academies of Science. Because both the 

risk analysis methodology and the IRIS 

assessments have been peer and 

publicly reviewed separately, it is 

appropriate to use the updated IRIS 

reference values in evaluating which 

solvents should be included in the 

conditional exclusion for solventcontaminated wipes. Furthermore, in 

the background document presenting 

the revised risk analysis for the October 

2009 NODA, the Agency noted that the 

health assessments for 

tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene were undergoing 

review as part of its process for updating 

the health assessments for the IRIS 

program.18 Moreover, we note that 

trichloroethylene’s eligibility status in 

today’s rule has not changed from the 

2003 proposed rule, in which EPA 

proposed to make wipes contaminated 

with trichloroethylene (in addition to 

ten other solvents) ineligible for the 

exclusion from the definition of 

hazardous waste for disposable wipes. 

Additionally, EPA notes that its 2009 

revised risk analysis demonstrated, for 

the composite-liner scenario, that 

tricholorethylene at the 90th percentile 

would fall below target risk thresholds 

for the 10¥5 cancer level (ratio = 0.1), 

but would exceed target risk thresholds 

for the 10¥6 cancer level (ratio = 1.5). 

IV. How do the provisions in the final 

rule compare to those proposed on 

November 20, 2003? 

EPA is finalizing the conditional 

exclusions largely as proposed in 

November 2003, with some revisions. 

The following is a brief overview of the 

revisions to the proposal, with 

references to additional preamble 

discussions for more detail. 

For the conditional exclusion for 

reusable wipes, we have determined 

that the Paint Filter Liquids Test 

(Method 9095B) is most appropriate to 

determine whether solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids. We have also made some 

revisions to the container standard and 

have added a labeling requirement. 

Furthermore, we have specified that the 

solvent-contaminated wipes may be 

accumulated by the generator for up to 

180 days prior to being sent for cleaning 

and have added recordkeeping 

requirements to assist in monitoring 

compliance with the conditional 

exclusion. Lastly, we have also specified 

that reusable wipes are only allowed to 

go to an industrial laundry or dry 

cleaner whose discharge, if any, is 

regulated under sections 301 and 402 or 

section 307 of the CWA, provided the 

conditions of the exclusion are being 

met. For further discussion on the 

conditional exclusion for reusable 

wipes, see section VI of this preamble. 

For the conditional exclusion for 

disposable wipes, we have determined 

that the Paint Filter Liquids Test 

(Method 9095B) is most appropriate to 

determine whether solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids. Additionally, we have 

eliminated the condition that solventcontaminated wipes going to landfills 

must contain less than 5 grams of 

solvent: Instead, these wipes must 

contain no free liquids. We have also 

made some revisions to the container 

standard. Furthermore, we have 

specified that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes may be accumulated by the 

generator for up to 180 days prior to 

being sent for disposal and have added 

recordkeeping requirements to assist 

with monitoring compliance with the 

conditional exclusion. We have also 

specified that solvent-contaminated 

wipes being land disposed must be 

managed by a landfill that is regulated 

under the MSWLF regulations under 40 

CFR part 258, including the design 

criteria in section 258.40, or is operating 

under the hazardous waste regulations 

in 40 CFR parts 264 or 265. Solventcontaminated wipes being combusted 

are allowed to go to a municipal waste 

combustor or other combustion facility 

that is regulated under section 129 of 

the CAA or is operating under the 

hazardous waste standards in 40 CFR 

parts 264, 265, or 266 subpart H, 

provided the conditions of the exclusion 

are being met. Lastly, we have expanded 

the scope of solvent-contaminated 

wipes eligible for this exclusion based 

on the revised risk analysis presented in 

the October 2009 NODA: Only one 

solvent, trichloroethylene, remains 

ineligible for this conditional exclusion 

based on the results of EPA’s 2012 final 

risk analysis for this rulemaking. For 

further discussion on the conditional 

exclusion for disposable wipes, see 

section VII of this preamble. 

Additionally, we have chosen not to 

finalize the provision allowing intracompany transfer of reusable and 

disposable wipes for the purpose of 

removing sufficient solvent to meet the 

‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

Furthermore, we have modified certain 

definitions in today’s rule, such as the 

definition for ‘‘wipe,’’ ‘‘solventcontaminated wipe,’’ and ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ and have eliminated some 

definitions (‘‘intra-company transfer of 

industrial wipes,’’ ‘‘industrial wipes 

handling facility,’’ ‘‘reusable industrial 

wipe,’’ ‘‘disposable industrial wipe,’’ 

and ‘‘solvent extraction’’) that we 

determined are not needed for the final 

rule. For further discussion, see section 

VIII of this preamble. 

V. When will the final rule become 

effective? 

This rule is effective on January 31, 

2014. Section 3010(b) of RCRA allows 

EPA to promulgate a rule with a period 

for the effective date shorter than six 

months where the Administrator finds 

that the regulated community does not 

need additional time to come into 

compliance with the rule. Although 

most provisions in today’s rule do not 

impose additional requirements on the 

regulated community and, instead, 

provide flexibility in the regulations 

with which the regulated community is 

required to comply, some provisions in 

today’s conditional exclusions may 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46455 

19 ‘‘Handling facilities’’ is a term used throughout 

today’s preamble to refer to facilities that receive 

and either clean or dispose of solvent-contaminated 

wipes under today’s conditional exclusions. These 

include laundries, dry cleaners, landfills, and 

combustors as well as RCRA interim status or 

permitted facilities. 

differ from existing state regulations and 

policies (such as specific recordkeeping 

requirements). Taking this into account, 

we find it is appropriate for the rule to 

come into effect six months after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

VI. Conditional Exclusion From the 

Definition of Solid Waste for SolventContaminated Wipes That Are Cleaned 

and Reused 

A. What is the purpose of this 

conditional exclusion? 

EPA is finalizing 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) 

to exclude solvent-contaminated 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste in order to establish 

consistent federal regulations regarding 

the management of reusable wipes. As 

stated in section III, in the 1990s, EPA 

developed a policy that deferred 

determinations and interpretations 

regarding regulation of solventcontaminated wipes to authorized states 

or the EPA regions. This policy has led 

to the application of different regulatory 

schemes for reusable wipes: Some states 

exclude reusable wipes from the 

definition of solid waste, while others 

exclude reusable wipes from the 

definition of hazardous waste, and five 

states regulate reusable wipes as 

hazardous waste. Additionally, the 

specific management standards vary 

from state to state. Today’s rule aims to 

provide national consistency in regards 

to regulations for reusable wipes. 

B. Basis for Conditional Exclusion From 

the Definition of Solid Waste 

Under RCRA, for a material to be 

regulated as a hazardous waste, it must 

first be a solid waste. There are three 

key considerations specific to solventcontaminated reusable wipes that 

demonstrate they are not solid wastes. 

The first consideration is the physical 

and chemical characteristics of the 

solvent-contaminated wipe. Under 

today’s conditional exclusion, reusable 

wipes must have no free liquids at the 

point of transport by the generator for 

cleaning. This ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

standard minimizes the potential for 

releases of hazardous constituents into 

the environment (e.g., through spills). 

Furthermore, the wipes must be 

accumulated, stored, and transported in 

non-leaking, closed containers, which 

reduces the possibility the solvents will 

be released to the environment. 

The second consideration is that the 

solvent-contaminated wipes have 

recognized value. Laundries own the 

wipes and routinely count the soiled 

wipes received from their customers. If 

a wipe is missing, the customer is 

charged a fee. Therefore, generators 

have an economic incentive to manage 

dirty wipes appropriately and ensure 

they are returned to the laundry or dry 

cleaner. The contaminated wipes are 

thus managed as valuable commodities 

throughout their lifecycles. 

The third consideration includes the 

characteristics of the recycling market 

for reusable wipes. Reusable wipes are 

typically managed under service 

contracts in which a customer contracts 

with a laundry or dry cleaner for the 

service of clean wipes. This type of 

business model is noteworthy because it 

differs from traditional hazardous waste 

recycling markets in which a reclaimer 

is typically paid by a generator to 

receive and manage the hazardous 

secondary materials and is not typically 

paid to send the recycled product back 

to the generator. In some cases, 

hazardous waste reclaimers gain their 

primary revenue from the fees charged 

to generators to receive and manage the 

hazardous waste and not from the sale 

of the recycled product. This creates an 

incentive for the hazardous waste 

reclaimer to overaccumulate materials, 

which increases the possibility of 

mismanagement of the hazardous 

wastes. However, this incentive does 

not exist for laundries and dry cleaners 

managing solvent-contaminated wipes 

because the laundry or dry cleaner 

derives its primary revenue from the 

service of clean wipes back to the 

customer. There is thus no economic 

incentive for a laundry or dry cleaner to 

overaccumulate solvent-contaminated 

wipes. 

C. Scope and Applicability 

The conditional exclusion for solventcontaminated wipes that are cleaned 

and reused is applicable to wipes that, 

after use or after cleaning up after a 

spill, are contaminated with solvents 

and that would otherwise be regulated 

as hazardous waste. Specifically, this 

includes wipes that (1) contain one or 

more of the F001 through F005 solvents 

listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the 

corresponding P- or U-listed solvents 

found in 40 CFR 261.33; (2) exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic found in 40 

CFR part 261 subpart C when that 

characteristic results from a solvent 

listed in 40 CFR part 261; and/or (3) 

exhibit only the hazardous waste 

characteristic of ignitability found in 40 

CFR 261.21 due to the presence of one 

or more solvents that are not listed in 

40 CFR part 261. Solvent-contaminated 

wipes that contain listed hazardous 

waste other than solvents, or exhibit the 

characteristic of toxicity, corrosivity, or 

reactivity due to contaminants other 

than solvents (such as metals), are not 

eligible for the exclusion at 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(26). 

The conditional exclusion is only 

applicable to the contaminated wipes 

themselves. At the point of on-site 

laundering or dry cleaning or at the 

point of off-site transport from the 

generator to a laundry or dry cleaner, 

the solvent-contaminated wipes must 

contain no free liquids as defined in 

section 40 CFR 260.10. Free liquid spent 

solvent itself remains solid waste and 

thus, is subject to the applicable 

hazardous waste regulations under 

RCRA Subtitle C upon removal from the 

solvent-contaminated wipe and/or from 

the container holding the wipes. 

D. Conditions of Exclusion 

Under today’s rule, generators have 

primary responsibility for assuring that 

their solvent-contaminated reusable 

wipes meet the conditions of the 

exclusion. Additionally, handling 

facilities that receive and process 

reusable wipes, such as industrial 

laundries or dry cleaners, also need to 

meet certain conditions for the wipes to 

remain excluded.19

1. Container Standard 

Under today’s conditional exclusion, 

solvent-contaminated reusable wipes 

must be accumulated, stored, and 

transported in non-leaking, closed 

containers that are labeled ‘‘Excluded 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.’’ 

Additionally, the container must be able 

to contain free liquids should free 

liquids occur, for example, from 

percolation and compression of the 

wipes. Today’s container standard 

applies to accumulation and storage at 

the generating facility, transportation 

either on-site or off-site, and, finally, 

storage and management at the handling 

facility. 

Managing reusable wipes in nonleaking, closed containers ensures that 

the solvents are unlikely to be released 

to the environment. Closed containers 

serve to minimize emissions, prevent 

spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for 

example, by securing the solventcontaminated wipes from potentially 

incompatible wastes or ignition sources. 

During accumulation of solventcontaminated wipes, a closed container 

does not necessarily mean a sealed 

container. Instead, when solventcontaminated wipes are being 

accumulated, the container is 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46456 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

20This is consistent with EPA’s policy on closed 

containers (see ‘‘Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) 

and 265.173(a): Closed Containers’’ Robert 

Dellinger, December 3, 2009). 

21 Generators may transfer solvent-contaminated 

wipes between containers to facilitate 

accumulation, storage, off-site transportation, or 

removal of free liquids. For example, a generator 

may wish to consolidate several partially filled 

containers of solvent-contaminated wipes. 

However, the 180-day ‘‘clock’’ for accumulation 

does not restart if the solvent-contaminated wipes 

are merely transferred to another container. This is 

consistent with EPA’s policy on generator 

accumulation under the hazardous waste 

regulations (see ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions about 

Satellite Accumulation Areas’’ Robert Springer, 

March 17, 2004). 

22http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/ 

testmethods/sw846/index.htm. 

considered closed when there is 

complete contact between the fitted lid 

and the rim.20 However, when the 

container is full, or when the solventcontaminated wipes are no longer being 

accumulated, or when the container is 

being transported, the container must be 

sealed with all lids properly and 

securely affixed to the container and all 

openings tightly bound or closed. The 

objective of this is to prevent the release 

of any volatile organic emissions and to 

prevent a spill if the container is tipped 

over. 

The closed container condition in 

today’s rule is a performance-based 

standard and, thus, facilities have 

flexibility in determining how best to 

meet this standard based on their 

specific processes. For example, 

solvent-contaminated wipes can be 

accumulated in an open-head drum or 

open top container (e.g., where the 

entire lid is removable and typically 

secured with a ring and bolts or a snap 

ring) and be considered closed when the 

cover makes complete contact between 

the fitted lid and the rim, even though 

the rings are not clamped or bolted. A 

tight seal minimizes emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (however, 

generators should be aware that the 

seals on containers can erode because of 

time and use, and should be checked 

periodically for wear and replaced as 

necessary). After accumulation and 

during transportation, this same 

container must be sealed in order to 

meet the closed container standard and 

thus, the rings must be clamped or 

bolted to the container. Containers with 

covers opened by a foot pedal (e.g., fliptop or spring loaded lid) or with a selfclosing swinging door could also be 

appropriate. Bags can be used, provided 

they meet today’s closed container 

standard. EPA considers bags closed 

when the neck of the bag is tightly 

bound and sealed to the extent 

necessary to keep the solventcontaminated wipes and associated air 

emissions inside the container. The bag 

must be able to contain liquids and 

must be non-leaking. (Of course, a bag 

leaving a trail of liquid on the ground 

does not meet today’s container 

standard.) These examples of closed 

containers are consistent with EPA’s 

policy on closed containers (see 

‘‘Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) and 

265.173(a): Closed Containers’’ Robert 

Dellinger, December 3, 2009, and 

subsequent ‘‘Closed Container 

Guidance: Questions and Answers’’ 

Betsy Devlin, November 3, 2011 (RCRA 

Online 14826)). 

Containers of reusable wipes also 

must be properly labeled as ‘‘Excluded 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes’’ to ensure 

that facility employees, emergency 

response personnel, motor carrier 

inspectors, downstream transporters 

and handlers, and state and EPA 

enforcement are aware of the contents of 

these containers. This ensures that 

containers can be properly stored, 

handled, and inspected. Requiring a 

specific label establishes a national 

standard that can be easily recognized 

among different facilities, industries, 

and state programs. 

2. Accumulation Time Limit 

Generators may accumulate reusable 

wipes for up to 180 days prior to 

sending the wipes for cleaning. This 

180-day clock begins at the start date of 

accumulation for each container (i.e., 

the date the first solvent-contaminated 

wipe is placed in the container).21

During accumulation, wipes may 

contain free liquids or free liquids may 

result from percolation or compression 

of the solvent-contaminated wipes in a 

container. These free liquids, upon 

removal from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes and/or from the container holding 

the wipes, must be managed according 

to the applicable hazardous waste 

regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273. Today’s accumulation 

standard ensures that free liquids are 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes and the container within the 180- 

day time frame and thus, cannot be 

stored indefinitely. Generators taking 

advantage of today’s conditional 

exclusion likely already have 

contractual arrangements with laundries 

or dry cleaners that schedule periodic 

(e.g., weekly) pickup of solventcontaminated wipes and, thus, this 

accumulation time limit should not 

present an undue burden to generators. 

Under today’s rule, reusable wipes 

managed according to 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(26) are not solid wastes and, 

thus, not hazardous wastes. Therefore, 

solvent-contaminated wipes managed 

under today’s conditional exclusion do 

not count towards a generator’s 

hazardous waste regulatory status. 

However, free liquid spent solvent 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes or from the container holding the 

wipes must be managed according to the 

applicable hazardous waste regulations 

found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273, 

which would include counting towards 

determining monthly generator status. 

3. No Free Liquids 

Under today’s conditional exclusion 

for reusable wipes, generators must 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition as 

defined in 40 CFR 260.10 at the point 

of transporting the solventcontaminated wipes for cleaning, either 

off-site or on-site. Additionally, the 

container holding the solventcontaminated wipes must not contain 

free liquids at the point of transporting 

the wipes for cleaning. Free liquids 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes must be collected and managed 

according to the applicable hazardous 

waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 

260 through 273 and may count towards 

determining monthly generator status. 

EPA explained in the November 2003 

proposal that the Agency intends for 

compliance with the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition to be determined by a 

practical test and requested comment on 

the proposed approach for determining 

if the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition is met 

and whether there are other approaches 

EPA should have considered in the 

proposal (68 FR 65605). Comments 

received on the proposal urged EPA to 

define a clear and objective standard, for 

example, by defining which 

technologies would meet the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition. However, defining a 

list of specific technologies is not 

practical, particularly if such specific 

technologies are not necessary to meet 

the condition and also because 

technology changes over time. Rather, 

EPA understands that the spirit of these 

comments reflects the need for a 

standard that clearly demonstrates 

whether a solvent-contaminated wipe 

does or does not contain free liquids. 

EPA has established an official 

compendium of analytical and sampling 

methods that have been evaluated and 

approved for use in complying with the 

RCRA regulations. This compendium is 

entitled ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 

Methods’’ (EPA Publication SW–846).22

As explained in the November 2003 

proposal, many state policies regarding 

solvent-contaminated wipes already use 

various test methods from this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46457 

23Technical Background Document, August 2003. 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2003–0004–0003. 

compendium (68 FR 65599). The 

majority of these states require the use 

of the Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW–846 

Method 9095B), although other 

specified methods include the Liquids 

Release Test (SW–846 Method 9096), 

and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) (SW–846 Method 

1311).23

Thus, for the purpose of today’s final 

rule, EPA finds that use of one of its 

own established test methods is 

appropriate to clearly and objectively 

determine that there are no free liquids. 

The Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW–846, 

Method 9095B) was specifically chosen 

because it is currently being used by the 

majority of states to determine whether 

solvent-contaminated wipes contain free 

liquids and is also the test used to 

implement the restrictions on disposal 

of free liquids in the MSWLF 

regulations (40 CFR 258.28). The test is 

also simple and inexpensive to perform 

and typically produces clear results. It 

includes placing a predetermined 

amount of material in a paint filter and 

if any portion of the material passes 

through and drops from the filter within 

five minutes, the material is deemed to 

contain free liquids. 

This does not mean that generators 

must conduct this test for every solventcontaminated wipe. Rather, generators 

must ensure that if the Paint Filter 

Liquids Test was performed, the 

solvent-contaminated wipe would pass. 

In order to meet the performance 

standard, generators may use any of a 

range of methods to remove solvent 

from the wipe such as centrifuging, 

mechanical-wringing, screen-bottom 

drums, microwave technology, and 

vacuum extractors. To ensure that the 

solvent-contaminated wipes meet the 

standard, generators may conduct 

sampling or use knowledge regarding 

how much solvent is present in each 

wipe. Solvent-contaminated wipes that 

have been subject to advanced solvent 

extraction processes, such as 

centrifuges, or any other similarly 

effective method to remove solvent from 

the wipes, are likely to meet this 

standard. Additionally, generators must 

document how they are meeting the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition (see section 

VI.D.4 below for additional 

information). 

As mentioned above, some states 

presently rely on other test methods 

(e.g., Liquids Release Test or Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure) to 

determine whether solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids under their state policies. Where 

an authorized state has specified a 

standard or test method for determining 

that solvent-contaminated wipes 

contain no free liquids, generators must 

meet that standard in lieu of the Paint 

Filter Liquids Test for purposes of 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

Of course, the authorized state standard 

must be no less stringent than today’s 

definition of ‘‘no free liquids.’’ 

4. Recordkeeping 

Generators must maintain at their site 

documentation that they are managing 

wipes excluded under 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(26). This documentation must 

include (1) the name and address of the 

laundry or dry cleaner that is receiving 

the reusable wipes; (2) documentation 

that the 180-day accumulation time 

limit is being met; and (3) a description 

of the process the generator is using to 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

The purpose of documenting the 

name and address of the laundry or dry 

cleaner is to allow the state and EPA to 

ensure compliance with the conditions 

of the exclusion. EPA is not requiring a 

specific template or format for this 

information and anticipates that routine 

business records, such as contracts or 

invoices, contain the appropriate 

information for meeting this 

requirement. This documentation only 

needs to be updated in the event of a 

change to the name or address of the 

laundry or dry cleaner. 

Documenting the 180-day 

accumulation time limit enables 

regulatory authorities to ensure the 

solvent-contaminated wipes are being 

sent for cleaning in compliance with the 

exclusion and are not being stored 

indefinitely at the generating facility. 

This documentation can take one of 

many forms, such as a service contract 

or invoice from the laundry or dry 

cleaner which describes the frequency 

of scheduled delivery and pick-up of 

wipes; a log that lists the start date of 

accumulation for each container of 

solvent-contaminated wipes; or labels 

on each container which include the 

start date of accumulation (i.e., the date 

the first solvent-contaminated wipe is 

placed in the container). 

The purpose of documenting the 

process the generator is using to meet 

the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition is to 

demonstrate that the generator is 

implementing a process that ensures 

that it will not illegally transport free 

liquid hazardous waste off-site. This 

documentation should include a 

description of any technologies, 

methods, sampling, or knowledge that a 

generator is using to ensure that solventcontaminated wipes sent to a laundry or 

dry cleaner for cleaning contain no free 

liquids. State and EPA regulators may 

use this documentation to assess 

whether the generator is adequately 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

This documentation only needs to be 

updated in the event that the generator 

changes its process for meeting the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition. 

5. Handling Facility Requirements 

Handling facilities must accumulate, 

store, and manage reusable wipes in 

non-leaking, closed containers that are 

labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes’’ when the wipes 

are not being processed or cleaned. 

Additionally, the container must also be 

able to contain free liquids should free 

liquids occur, for example, from 

percolation and compression of the 

wipes. See section VI.D.1 for more 

information regarding this closed 

container standard. 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

explained that solvent discharges from 

laundries or dry cleaners to POTWs are 

allowed under the wastewater exclusion 

found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2) and that 

local POTWs have the authority to set 

limits applicable to individual indirect 

dischargers to prevent releases and to 

prevent interference with operations at 

the POTW (68 FR 65605). Additionally, 

EPA noted that most states require that 

the laundry discharge to a POTW or 

have a permit for discharge under the 

CWA (68 FR 65592). 

Some commenters were concerned 

that contaminated solvents removed 

from the solvent-contaminated wipes in 

laundering and discharged into 

waterways would adversely affect 

human health and the environment. 

Commenters believed that laundries and 

dry cleaners should be required to 

demonstrate that they are appropriately 

managing the solvent removed from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes during 

cleaning. However, as explained in the 

proposed rule, the regulations under the 

CWA effectively control solvent 

discharges either through the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) or, for indirect discharges to 

POTWs, under the National 

Pretreatment Program. To eliminate 

confusion regarding how the CWA 

applies to solvent discharges from 

laundries and dry cleaners, we are 

clarifying in the regulatory language that 

we are allowing reusable wipes that 

meet the conditions of today’s rule to be 

sent to laundries and dry cleaners 

whose discharges, if any, are regulated 

under sections 301 (effluent discharge 

restrictions) and 402 (permitting 

requirements) or section 307 (indirect 

discharge to a POTW of the CWA). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46458 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

24Based on EPA’s final risk analysis, wipes that 

are hazardous waste due to the presence of 

trichloroethylene are not eligible for the exclusion 

from hazardous waste for disposable wipes and 

thus are subject to all applicable hazardous waste 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273. 

However, wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene are eligible for the exclusion for 

reusable wipes because, under the reusable wipe 

exclusion, these wipes are not solid wastes subject 

to hazardous waste regulation, including the TC 

regulations. 

Though rare, free liquids may 

inadvertently make their way to the 

handling facility as a result of 

compression, gravity, or percolation 

effects on the wipes during transport or 

by improper management of the solventcontaminated wipes by the generator 

prior to transport. In this case, free 

liquids must be removed from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes or 

containers and must be managed 

according to the applicable hazardous 

waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 

260 through 273 and may count towards 

the handling facility’s generator status. 

EPA does not intend for this provision 

to require any additional effort beyond 

that of a handling facility’s normal 

operations and monitoring practices. 

However, should free liquids be 

discovered at any point, these free 

liquids must be managed according to 

applicable hazardous waste regulations. 

The handling facility can ship the free 

liquid off-site as hazardous waste or can 

manage them as hazardous waste in an 

on-site recovery system. 

Under this provision, removal of free 

liquid spent solvent by the handling 

facility would not automatically affect 

the regulatory status of the solventcontaminated wipes. Solventcontaminated wipes would still remain 

subject to the conditional exclusion 

provided the generator complied with 

the conditions of the exclusion. 

Any residuals generated from 

cleaning solvent-contaminated wipes 

(e.g., wastewater treatment sludge) that 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic 

according to subpart C of 40 CFR part 

261 must be managed according to the 

applicable hazardous waste 

requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273. This is consistent with the 

way the existing hazardous waste 

regulations apply to any waste stream. 

VII. Conditional Exclusion From the 

Definition of Hazardous Waste for 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes That Are 

Disposed 

A. What is the purpose of this 

conditional exclusion? 

EPA is finalizing 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18) 

to exclude solvent-contaminated 

disposable wipes from the definition of 

hazardous waste in order to provide a 

regulatory framework that is more 

appropriate to the level of risk posed by 

disposable wipes while reducing 

regulatory burden for the industry, 

many of which are small businesses. 

B. Basis for Conditional Exclusion From 

Hazardous Waste 

Under RCRA, for a solid waste to be 

a hazardous waste, it must either be 

listed as a hazardous waste under 40 

CFR part 261 subpart D or exhibit a 

hazardous characteristic under 40 CFR 

part 261 subpart C. Secondary materials 

can also become hazardous wastes if 

they contain listed hazardous wastes. 

Thus, wipes contaminated with solvents 

that are listed hazardous wastes when 

discarded become listed hazardous 

wastes themselves. When wipes are 

contaminated with solvents that are not 

listed hazardous wastes when 

discarded, the contaminated wipe is 

regulated as a hazardous waste if it 

exhibits a hazardous waste 

characteristic. 

As discussed above, EPA has received 

multiple petitions from industry that 

argued that regulating solventcontaminated disposable wipes as 

hazardous waste is burdensome and 

unnecessary to protect human health 

and the environment. These 

stakeholders argued that the wipes 

contain insignificant concentrations of 

solvents and, thus, do not pose an 

environmental risk when disposed. 

In response to stakeholders’ concerns 

and in support of this rulemaking, EPA 

evaluated the potential risks from wipes 

contaminated with 20 listed solvents 

when those solvent-contaminated wipes 

are disposed in either a lined or unlined 

landfill. The results of the 2012 final 

risk analysis demonstrate that wipes 

contaminated with 19 of the 20 listed 

solvents evaluated do not exceed target 

risk criteria when disposed in a 

composite-lined landfill. (For more 

information on the 2012 final risk 

analysis, including the October 2009 

NODA, see section III.D.) 

The results of the 2012 final risk 

analysis support stakeholders’ 

arguments that full hazardous waste 

regulation for most solventcontaminated wipes is not necessary to 

ensure protection of human health and 

the environment. Requiring full 

hazardous waste regulation for 

disposable wipes results in needless 

regulatory burden on thousands of 

entities, many of which are small 

businesses. EPA is thus finalizing today 

a conditional exclusion for disposable 

wipes which applies a more appropriate 

regulatory framework to these materials 

based on the results of our 2012 final 

risk analysis. 

C. Scope and Applicability 

The conditional exclusion for 

disposable wipes is applicable to most 

wipes that, after use or after cleaning up 

a spill, are contaminated with solvents 

and that would otherwise be regulated 

as hazardous waste. Specifically this 

includes wipes that (1) contain one or 

more of the F001 through F005 solvents 

listed in 40 CFR 261.31 or the 

corresponding P- or U-listed solvents 

found in 40 CFR 261.33, with the 

exception of trichloroethylene; 24 (2) 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic found 

in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C when that 

characteristic results from a solvent 

listed in 40 CFR part 261; and/or (3) 

exhibit only the hazardous waste 

characteristic of ignitability found in 40 

CFR 261.21 due to the presence of one 

or more solvents that are not listed in 

40 CFR part 261. Solvent-contaminated 

wipes that contain listed hazardous 

waste other than solvents, or exhibit the 

characteristic of toxicity, corrosivity, or 

reactivity due to contaminants other 

than solvents (such as metals), are not 

eligible for the exclusion at 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(18). 

The conditional exclusion is only 

applicable to the contaminated wipes 

themselves. At the point of transport 

from the generator to a landfill or 

combustor, the solvent-contaminated 

wipes must contain no free liquids as 

defined in section 260.10. Free liquid 

spent solvent itself remains solid waste 

and thus, is subject to the applicable 

hazardous waste regulations under 

RCRA Subtitle C upon removal from the 

solvent-contaminated wipe and/or from 

the container holding the wipes. 

D. Conditions of Exclusion 

Under today’s rule, generators have 

primary responsibility for assuring that 

their solvent-contaminated wipes meet 

the conditions of the exclusion. 

Additionally, handling facilities which 

receive and process disposable wipes, 

such as municipal waste combustors, 

also need to meet certain conditions for 

the solvent-contaminated wipes to 

remain excluded. 

1. Container Standard 

Under today’s conditional exclusion, 

solvent-contaminated disposable wipes 

must be accumulated, stored, and 

transported in non-leaking, closed 

containers that are labeled ‘‘Excluded 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.’’ 

Additionally, the container must be able 

to contain free liquids should free 

liquids occur, for example, from 

percolation and compression of the 

wipes. Today’s container standard 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46459 

25 Generators may transfer solvent-contaminated 

wipes between containers to facilitate 

accumulation, storage, transportation, or removal of 

free liquids. For example, a generator may wish to 

consolidate several partially filled containers of 

solvent-contaminated wipes. However, the 180-day 

‘‘clock’’ for accumulation does not restart if the 

solvent-contaminated wipes are merely transferred 

to another container. This is consistent with EPA’s 

policy on generator accumulation under the 

hazardous waste regulations (see ‘‘Frequently 

Asked Questions about Satellite Accumulation 

Areas’’ Robert Springer, March 17, 2004). 

applies to accumulation and storage at 

the generating facility, transportation 

either on-site or off-site, and, finally, 

storage and management at the handling 

facility. 

Managing disposable wipes in nonleaking, closed containers ensures that 

the solvents are unlikely to be released 

to the environment. Closed containers 

serve to minimize emissions, prevent 

spills, and reduce the risk of fires, for 

example, by securing the solventcontaminated wipes from potentially 

incompatible wastes or ignition sources. 

Today’s container standard for 

disposable wipes is the same as the 

container standard we are finalizing for 

the conditional exclusion for reusable 

wipes. See section VI.D.1 for more 

information regarding this standard. 

2. Accumulation Time Limit 

Generators may accumulate 

disposable wipes for up to 180 days 

prior to sending the wipes for disposal. 

This 180-day clock begins at the start 

date of accumulation for each container 

(i.e., the date the first solventcontaminated wipe is placed in the 

container).25 This is the same condition 

finalized under the conditional 

exclusion for reusable wipes; see section 

VI.D.2 for more information. 

During accumulation, wipes may 

contain free liquids or free liquids may 

result from percolation or compression 

of the solvent-contaminated wipes in a 

container. These free liquids, upon 

removal from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes or from the container holding the 

wipes, must be managed according to 

the applicable hazardous waste 

regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273. Today’s accumulation 

standard ensures that free liquids are 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes and the container within the 180- 

day time frame and thus, cannot be 

stored indefinitely in lieu of being 

disposed. Because disposable wipes 

meeting the conditions of today’s rule 

can be discarded with other solid waste 

trash and since the vast majority of 

generator facilities, if not all, regularly 

dispose of other solid waste trash, this 

accumulation time limit should not 

present undue burden for facilities. 

Under today’s rule, disposable wipes 

managed according to the conditions 

established in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18) are 

not hazardous wastes. Therefore, 

solvent-contaminated wipes managed 

under today’s conditional exclusion do 

not count towards a generator’s 

hazardous waste regulatory status. 

However, free liquid spent solvent 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes or from the container holding the 

wipes must be managed according to the 

applicable hazardous waste regulations 

found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273, 

which would include counting towards 

determining monthly generator status. 

3. No Free Liquids 

Under today’s conditional exclusion 

for disposable wipes, generators must 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition as 

defined in 40 CFR 260.10 at the point 

of transporting the solventcontaminated wipes to be disposed at a 

combustor or landfill. Additionally, the 

container holding the solventcontaminated wipes must not contain 

free liquids at the point of transporting 

the wipes for disposal. Free liquids 

removed from the solvent-contaminated 

wipes or the container holding the 

wipes must be collected and managed 

according to the applicable hazardous 

waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 

260 through 273 and may count towards 

determining monthly generator status. 

This is the same standard finalized 

under the conditional exclusion for 

reusable wipes (see section VI.D.3 for 

more information). 

As described above, EPA has 

determined that the Paint Filter Liquids 

Test (SW–846, Method 9095B) is most 

appropriate for determining whether 

solvent-contaminated wipes contain free 

liquids. This does not mean that 

generators must conduct this test for 

every solvent-contaminated wipe. 

Rather, generators must ensure that if 

the Paint Filter Liquids Test was 

performed, the solvent-contaminated 

wipe would pass. In order to meet the 

performance standard, generators may 

use any of a range of methods to remove 

solvent from the wipe such as 

centrifuging, mechanical-wringing, 

screen-bottom drums, microwave 

technology, and vacuum extractors. To 

ensure that the wipes meet the standard, 

generators may conduct sampling or use 

knowledge regarding how much solvent 

is contained in each wipe. Solventcontaminated wipes that have been 

subject to advanced solvent extraction 

processes, such as centrifuges, or any 

other similarly effective method to 

remove solvent from the wipes, are 

likely to meet this standard. 

Additionally, generators must document 

how they are meeting the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition (see section VII.D.4 

below for additional information). 

Authorized states may establish other 

methods for defining ‘‘no free liquids.’’ 

Where an authorized state has specified 

a standard or test method for 

determining that solvent-contaminated 

wipes contain no free liquids, generators 

must meet that standard in lieu of the 

Paint Filter Liquids Test for purposes of 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition 

(see section VI.D.3 for more 

information). Of course, the authorized 

state standard must be no less stringent 

than today’s definition of ‘‘no free 

liquids.’’ 

4. Recordkeeping 

Generators must maintain at their site 

documentation that they are managing 

solvent-contaminated wipes excluded 

under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18). This 

documentation must include (1) the 

name and address of the landfill or 

combustor that is receiving the 

disposable wipes; (2) documentation 

that the 180-day accumulation time 

limit is being met; and (3) a description 

of the process the generator is using to 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

The purpose of documenting the 

name and address of the combustor or 

landfill is to allow the state and EPA to 

ensure compliance with the conditions 

of the exclusion. EPA is not requiring a 

specific template or format for this 

information and anticipates that routine 

business records, such as contracts or 

invoices, contain the appropriate 

information for meeting this 

requirement. This documentation only 

needs to be updated in the event of a 

change in the name or address of the 

combustor or landfill. 

Documenting the 180-day 

accumulation time limit enables 

regulatory authorities to ensure the 

solvent-contaminated wipes are being 

sent for disposal in compliance with the 

conditional exclusion and are not being 

stored indefinitely at the generating 

facility. This documentation can take 

one of many forms, such as a service 

contract or invoice from the combustor, 

landfill, or other transporter which 

describes the frequency of scheduled 

pick-up of solvent-contaminated wipes; 

a log that lists the start date of 

accumulation for each container of 

solvent-contaminated wipes; or labels 

on each container which include the 

start date of accumulation (i.e., the date 

the first solvent-contaminated wipe is 

placed in the container). 

The purpose of documenting the 

process the generator is using to meet 

the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition is to 

demonstrate that the generator is 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

26The 40 CFR part 258.40 regulations allow for 

composite liners or for a state-approved design of 

the landfill that ensures that the concentration 

values of certain contaminants listed in the rules 

will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the 

relevant point of compliance. 

implementing a process that ensures 

that it will not illegally transport 

hazardous waste (i.e., free liquid spent 

solvent) off-site. This documentation 

should include a description of any 

technologies, methods, sampling, or 

knowledge that a generator is using to 

ensure that solvent-contaminated wipes 

sent to a combustor or landfill contain 

no free liquids. State and EPA regulators 

may use this documentation to assess 

whether the generator is meeting the 

‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. This 

documentation only needs to be 

updated in the event that the generator 

changes its process for meeting the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition. 

5. Handling Facility Requirements 

Handling facilities must accumulate, 

store, and manage disposable wipes in 

non-leaking, closed containers that are 

labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes’’ when the wipes 

are not being processed or disposed, 

such as during storage at a combustor 

prior to being burned. Additionally, the 

container must also be able to contain 

free liquids should free liquids occur, 

for example, from percolation and 

compression of the wipes. See section 

VI.D.1 for more information regarding 

this standard. 

Regarding solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are sent to a landfill for 

disposal, in the October 2009 NODA, 

EPA requested comment on two 

approaches based on the revised risk 

analysis for the rulemaking. The first 

approach would allow the disposal of 

solvent-contaminated wipes that did not 

exceed target risk criteria for an unlined 

landfill, based on the Agency’s risk 

analysis, to be disposed in landfills 

without a liner. On the other hand, 

solvent-contaminated wipes that do 

pose a potential risk if disposed in an 

unlined landfill could only be disposed 

in a lined landfill. The second approach 

would direct all excluded solventcontaminated wipes, including those 

that EPA estimated could be safely 

disposed in an unlined landfill, to be 

sent to a MSWLF subject to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and 

(b) (74 FR 55167–8). EPA stated in the 

October 2009 NODA that the second 

approach could be simpler since the 

generator would not need to separate 

the solvent-contaminated wipes and 

send them to separate disposal 

locations. 

Comments were split on the two 

approaches; however, EPA agrees with 

those commenters that supported the 

second approach, because this approach 

avoids the need for generators to 

separate wipes contaminated with 

different solvents and to determine to 

which landfill the solvent-contaminated 

wipes may be sent. Based on these 

comments, EPA chose to allow 

disposable wipes to be sent to MSWLFs 

that are regulated under 40 CFR part 

258, including the design criteria under 

§ 258.40. This condition simplifies 

compliance for the tens of thousands of 

small businesses that are likely to take 

advantage of today’s conditional 

exclusion, as well as for regulatory 

authorities that are responsible for 

monitoring compliance with this rule, 

while ensuring protection of human 

health and the environment for all 

solvent-contaminated wipes. Thus, 

under today’s conditional exclusion, 

solvent-contaminated wipes are not 

allowed to be disposed in other types of 

landfills, such as non-hazardous waste 

industrial landfills operating under 40 

CFR part 257, because these landfills are 

not required to meet design standards, 

such as liners. If EPA would have 

allowed use of the part 257 landfills, 

additional requirements would have 

been necessary to ensure that solventcontaminated wipes are disposed in 

appropriate landfills, thereby increasing 

the burden on the regulatory community 

and the regulatory agencies. See section 

VIII for more information. 

Landfills operating under the 40 CFR 

part 258 MSWLF standards must 

comply with design standards,26

groundwater monitoring, leachate 

collection, and other specific 

management standards. These standards 

ensure that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes included under today’s rule can 

be safely disposed without exceeding 

target risk criteria. All MSWLFs are 

required to meet the part 258 MSWLF 

standards. Generator facilities likely 

already use these landfills for disposal 

of other solid waste trash and thus, 

should not encounter difficulty in 

complying with this requirement. 

Of course, generators may continue to 

send solvent-contaminated wipes to a 

permitted hazardous waste landfill 

regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 

265. If all the conditions of the 

exclusion are met, these solventcontaminated wipes would not be 

hazardous wastes under today’s rule 

and thus, would not be subject to the 

hazardous waste standards (such as a 

manifest) when transported to a 

hazardous waste landfill. 

Regarding solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are sent to a combustor for 

disposal, in the November 2003 

proposed rule, we proposed that 

municipal and other non-hazardous 

waste combustors be allowed to burn 

solvent-contaminated wipes that meet 

the proposed conditions for the 

exclusion from the definition of 

hazardous waste. The Agency explained 

that allowing combustion of solventcontaminated wipes in municipal waste 

combustors and other non-hazardous 

waste combustion units, such as 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (circumstances when the 

wipes are used a fuel are included), is 

a viable alternative for managing 

conditionally-excluded wipes. First, 

combustion facility owners/operators 

would be screening wipes contaminated 

with hazardous solvents that arrive at 

their facilities to ensure they do not 

violate local permit conditions. In 

addition, these combustors are easily 

capable of destroying the solvent, as 

described in section IV.F.11 of the 

Technical Background Document (68 FR 

65602). EPA went on to explain that 

EPA has promulgated revised air 

emission standard requirements under 

the New Source Performance Standards 

for municipal waste combustors and 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (68 FR 65602). 

Some commenters raised the concern 

that some combustion units allowed in 

the November 2003 proposal would not 

address dioxin and furan formation and 

that combustors receiving large 

quantities of solvent-contaminated 

wipes containing halogenated solvents 

(listed F001 and F002 solvents) could 

become a significant source of dioxin 

emissions. However, the New Source 

Performance Standards, which are 

promulgated under section 129 of the 

CAA, already require that municipal 

waste combustors and other solid waste 

combustion facilities comply with 

numerical emission limitations and 

performance standards that address 

emissions of dioxin and furans, as well 

as other air pollutants, such as mercury, 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, semi-volatile metals, 

lead, cadmium, hydrogen chloride, and 

carbon monoxide. To eliminate 

confusion regarding how the New 

Source Performance Standards apply to 

municipal waste combustors and other 

solid waste combustion facilities, we are 

clarifying in the regulatory language that 

we are allowing disposable wipes that 

meet the conditions of today’s rule to be 

sent to municipal waste combustors and 

other combustion facilities that are 

regulated under the New Source 

Performance Standards in section 129 of 

the CAA. 

Of course, generators may also 

continue to send solvent-contaminated 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46461 

27Response to comments on the definition of ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ can be found under section G in this 

section. 

wipes to a hazardous waste combustor 

regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 or 

265, or a hazardous waste boiler and 

industrial furnace regulated under 40 

CFR part 266 subpart H. If all of the 

conditions of the exclusion are met, 

these solvent-contaminated wipes 

would not be hazardous waste under 

today’s rule and thus, would not be 

subject to the hazardous waste 

standards (such as a manifest) when 

transported to a hazardous waste 

combustor. 

Though rare, free liquids may 

inadvertently make their way to the 

handing facility as a result of 

compression, gravity, or percolation 

effects on the wipes during transport or 

by improper management of the solventcontaminated wipes by the generator 

prior to transport. Under today’s 

conditional exclusion for disposable 

wipes, free liquids must be removed by 

the handling facility and must be 

managed according to the applicable 

hazardous waste regulations under 40 

CFR parts 260 through 273. EPA does 

not intend for this provision to require 

any additional effort beyond that of a 

handling facility’s normal operations 

and monitoring practices. However, 

should free liquids be discovered at any 

point, these free liquids must be 

managed according to applicable 

hazardous waste regulations. Under this 

provision, removal of free liquid spent 

solvent by the handling facility would 

not automatically affect the regulatory 

status of the solvent-contaminated 

wipes. Solvent-contaminated wipes 

would still remain subject to the 

conditional exclusion provided the 

generator complied with the conditions 

of the exclusion. 

Any residuals generated from the 

combustion of solvent-contaminated 

wipes (e.g., ash) that exhibit a hazardous 

characteristic according to Subpart C of 

40 CFR part 261 must be managed 

according to the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273. This is consistent with the 

way the existing hazardous waste 

regulations apply to any waste stream. 

VIII. Major Comments on the November 

2003 Proposed Rule 

EPA received several hundred 

comments on the November 2003 

proposed rule. Commenters included 

generating facilities, reusable wipe 

suppliers and industrial laundries, 

disposable wipe manufacturers, 

environmental organizations, state 

agencies, and individual citizens. This 

section of the preamble addresses the 

major comments received on this 

rulemaking. (All comments received 

during the comment periods on the 

proposed rule and the October 2009 

NODA are addressed in response to 

comments documents, which are 

available in the docket for today’s rule.) 

A. Definitions 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

proposed to add several definitions to 

40 CFR 260.10 that related to the two 

exclusions for solvent-contaminated 

reusable and disposable wipes. These 

definitions were ‘‘disposable industrial 

wipe,’’ ‘‘industrial wipe,’’ ‘‘industrial 

wipes handling facility,’’ ‘‘intracompany transfer of industrial wipes,’’ 

‘‘no free liquids,’’ 27 ‘‘reusable industrial 

wipe,’’ and ‘‘solvent extraction.’’ 

Comments: Definitions 

Some commenters argued that 

definitions for ‘‘disposable industrial 

wipe’’ and ‘‘reusable industrial wipe’’ 

are not needed because these terms are 

only used in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and are not used in the 

regulatory language. 

Another commenter urged EPA to add 

a definition of ‘‘solvent-contaminated 

industrial wipe’’ to the final rule 

because the phrase is used several times 

in the proposed regulatory language. If 

added, the commenter felt that this 

definition could then replace the 

language in the two proposed 

exclusions that explains which solvents 

are included in the exclusions. Still 

other commenters wanted EPA to 

expand the scope of ‘‘solventcontaminated industrial wipe’’ to 

include non-listed spent solvents that 

are ignitable hazardous wastes. 

Additionally, many commenters urged 

EPA to clarify the scope of the 

conditional exclusions to include 

solvent-contaminated wipes that exhibit 

the characteristic of ignitability due to 

co-contaminants, arguing that EPA’s 

proposed regulatory language did not 

match with its preamble discussion at 

68 FR 65602. 

Other commenters suggested deleting 

the word ‘‘industrial’’ from ‘‘industrial 

wipe’’ because this term may block nonindustrial sources, such as laboratories, 

academic institutions, and government 

entities, from using the exclusions. 

Some commenters suggested modifying 

the definition of ‘‘industrial wipe’’ to 

include sponges, coveralls, uniforms, 

floor mats, and personal protective 

equipment, as these may also become 

contaminated with solvent and could be 

safely managed under the rule’s 

conditions. Commenters also said that 

EPA should add other fabrics to the 

definition of ‘‘industrial wipe,’’ to 

include materials such as acrylic, rayon, 

acetate, and cotton tip swabs. Similarly, 

commenters suggested including the 

term ‘‘absorbent materials’’ to account 

for future material types. 

EPA Response: Definitions 

We agree with commenters that said 

‘‘disposable industrial wipe’’ and 

‘‘reusable industrial wipe’’ do not need 

to be defined in the regulations because 

these terms are only used in the 

preamble to the November 2003 

proposed rule (as well as the preamble 

to today’s rule) and are not used in the 

regulatory language. We have thus 

deleted these definitions from the final 

rule. 

We also agree with the comments that 

suggested adding a definition of 

‘‘solvent-contaminated wipe’’ to the 

regulations. This definition simplifies 

the exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) 

and (b)(18) because these exclusions can 

now simply refer to the term ‘‘solventcontaminated wipe’’ without having to 

duplicate the entire definition in those 

places. The definition of ‘‘solventcontaminated wipe’’ in today’s final rule 

is generally consistent with the 

November 2003 proposed regulatory 

language, with some modifications. In 

response to comments that pointed out 

EPA’s inconsistency between its 

preamble and proposed regulatory 

language, EPA has made clear in the 

regulatory language that solventcontaminated wipes that are cocontaminated with contaminants that 

exhibit only the hazardous waste 

characteristic for ignitability found in 40 

CFR part 261 subpart C are eligible for 

today’s rule. (However, the exclusions 

are not applicable to wipes that contain 

listed hazardous waste other than 

solvents, or exhibit the characteristic of 

toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity due to 

contaminants other than solvents.) 

Additionally, EPA agrees with 

commenters that wipes containing nonlisted spent solvents that exhibit only 

the hazardous waste characteristic for 

ignitability should also be included in 

the scope of this rulemaking because the 

same arguments presented in EPA’s 

proposed rule (that the wipes are 

already likely to be ignitable because of 

the nature of the solvents on them and 

because this risk is managed by the 

conditions of the exclusion) also apply 

to this category of wipes. 

Furthermore, we agree with the 

comments stating that the term 

‘‘industrial’’ should be deleted from 

‘‘industrial wipe.’’ We did not intend to 

make ‘‘non-industrial’’ entities, such as 

laboratories, academic institutions, and 

government agencies, ineligible for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

28These benefits are estimated in section 5.4 of 

the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ for today’s rule. 

these conditional exclusions and agree 

that the term ‘‘industrial’’ confuses this 

issue. In today’s rule we, therefore, refer 

to ‘‘solvent-contaminated wipe’’ or 

simply ‘‘wipe’’ and have deleted all 

references to ‘‘industrial’’ wipe. 

We have simplified the definition of 

‘‘wipe’’ to include several types of 

material and have added ‘‘other 

material’’ to include materials not 

specifically listed or potential future 

materials. However, we do not agree 

with adding items such as uniforms or 

personal protective equipment because 

these do not meet the common sense 

definition of ‘‘wipe.’’ We also have not 

evaluated whether these items could be 

safely managed under the rule and thus, 

are not including these in today’s rule. 

Additionally, a device or unit (such as 

a cartridge) that contains a solventcontaminated wipe as part of the unit 

does not fit today’s definition of ‘‘wipe’’ 

and is not eligible for today’s 

exclusions. However, if the wipes are 

removed from the unit, these wipes 

could be eligible for the exclusions, 

provided the conditions of the 

exclusions are met. Lastly, EPA 

confirms that cotton swabs, such as 

those used to clean ink jet heads, are 

eligible for the exclusions in today’s 

rule, provided the conditions of the 

exclusions are met. 

Lastly, we note that we have deleted 

the proposed definitions ‘‘industrial 

wipes handling facility’’ and ‘‘intracompany transfer of industrial wipes’’ 

because these definitions relate to the 

intra-company transfer provision, which 

we are not finalizing in today’s rule. See 

section VIII.J below for our response to 

comments on intra-company transfers. 

We also deleted the definition of 

‘‘solvent extraction’’ because, due to 

changes to the definition of ‘‘no free 

liquids,’’ the final rule does not use this 

term. 

B. Solid Waste vs. Hazardous Waste 

Exclusion for Reusable Wipes 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

proposed to exclude reusable wipes 

from the definition of solid waste on the 

basis that reusable wipes are more 

commodity-like than waste-like. EPA 

used the criteria in 40 CFR 260.31(c), 

which states that a material’s 

commodity-like properties can be a 

basis for a variance from being a solid 

waste. EPA stated that reusable wipes 

are more commodity-like because (1) the 

solvent-contaminated wipe is being 

partially reclaimed (that is, spun in a 

centrifuge, wrung out, or allowed to 

drain solvent); (2) the reusable wipes are 

counted at the laundry and the process 

keeps users financially accountable for 

the wipes; and (3) the reusable wipes 

are owned by the same entity (the 

laundry) throughout the process. EPA 

also requested comment on an 

alternative option to exclude reusable 

wipes from the definition of hazardous 

waste, which would be the same 

exclusion as proposed for disposable 

wipes. 

Comments: Solid Waste vs. Hazardous 

Waste Exclusion for Reusable Wipes 

Several commenters argued that EPA 

should maintain the proposed approach 

to exclude solvent-contaminated 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste. These commenters argued 

that there is no element of discard in the 

case of sending reusable wipes to 

laundering or dry cleaning facilities. 

The solvent-contaminated wipes are 

collected, handled, and re-used as 

valuable commodities and are not being 

discarded, thrown away, or abandoned. 

Thus, reusable wipes are not solid 

wastes and should be treated separately 

from disposable wipes. Some 

commenters also warned that EPA 

would be overriding the decisions of at 

least 20 states that already exclude 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste. Commenters believed that 

this would result in facilities in those 

states becoming subject to state solid 

waste programs, including the 

imposition of fees, detailed permitting 

requirements, restrictive management 

conditions, complex site assessments, 

and frequent testing and recordkeeping 

requirements on ‘‘solid waste’’ 

generators and processors. Furthermore, 

commenters believed including reusable 

wipes as solid wastes would discourage 

reuse. 

Other commenters argued in favor of 

EPA’s alternative option and supported 

excluding reusable wipes from the 

definition of hazardous waste. These 

commenters believed that reusable 

wipes were spent materials and thus, 

should be considered solid wastes along 

with disposable wipes. These 

commenters argued that the subject of 

the rulemaking should be the hazardous 

solvent, not the wipe itself. While 

laundered wipes will be reused, 

commenters noted that the hazardous 

solvent on them is intended for disposal 

and, therefore, the exclusion should be 

from hazardous waste regulation, not 

solid waste regulation. At least one 

commenter argued that EPA failed to 

consider all the criteria in 40 CFR 

260.31(c) (partial-reclamation variance). 

These comments concluded that 

reusable wipes could not meet the 

specific criteria in the partial 

reclamation variance, and thus, should 

not be excluded from the definition of 

solid waste. 

At least two commenters believed 

both reusable and disposable wipes 

should be managed as hazardous waste 

under the universal waste regulations. 

Several commenters urged EPA to make 

the conditions for both reusable and 

disposable wipes the same, regardless of 

the type of exclusion, to reduce burden 

of implementation and compliance 

monitoring. 

EPA Response: Solid Waste vs. 

Hazardous Waste Exclusion for 

Reusable Wipes 

EPA agrees with those commenters 

that argued that EPA should exclude 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste as the Agency proposed in 

the November 2003 proposed rule (and 

consequently, disagrees with those 

commenters that argued for a hazardous 

waste exclusion). Given the nature of 

the solvent-contaminated wipe, the 

inherent economic value of the wipe, 

and the characteristics of the reusable 

wipe market, reusable wipes managed 

under today’s exclusion are not solid 

wastes. See the Agency’s basis for this 

solid waste exclusion in section VI.B 

above. 

Because reusable wipes are not solid 

wastes under today’s conditional 

exclusion, today’s rule should not 

impact how state solid waste programs 

currently apply to generators and 

handlers of solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Additionally, we generally agree with 

commenters that believed excluding 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste may encourage reuse 

because it removes the label of ‘‘solid 

waste’’ from the reusable wipes.28

Additionally, we do not agree with 

comments that argued that the solventcontaminated wipe itself is a solid waste 

because the residuals (solvents) from the 

reclamation process will eventually be 

discarded. EPA’s long-standing policy 

regarding legitimate recycling does not 

require that 100% of the hazardous 

secondary material be reclaimed in 

order to be legitimately recycled. In 

addition, as a condition of the 

exclusion, at the point of transport for 

cleaning or disposal, the solventcontaminated wipes and their 

containers must contain no free liquids 

as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, thus 

helping to ensure that free liquid spent 

solvents are not being discarded. 

In response to comments on the 

application of the partial reclamation 

variance criteria to reusable wipes, it 

was not EPA’s intention in the proposal 

to specifically apply the criteria found 

in 40 CFR 260.31(c) to solventVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:05 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46463 

29The six TC solvents are Benzene, 

Chlorobenzene, o-,m-,p-Creosols, Methyl ethyl 

ketone, Tricholorethylene, and Tetrachloroethylene. 

30However, wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene would still be subject to the TC 

because the results of the final risk analysis 

demonstrate that these wipes present a significant 

risk when disposed in a composite-lined landfill. 

See section III.D for further discussion. 

contaminated wipes being laundered or 

dry cleaned. Rather, the Agency 

intended to present the concept of the 

partial reclamation variance as a general 

framework to determine whether 

reusable wipes are ‘‘commodity-like.’’ 

The proposal then lists the three 

considerations underpinning our 

position that reusable wipes are 

‘‘commodity-like’’ and thus, not solid 

wastes. 

As stated in RCRA section 1004(27), 

‘‘solid waste’’ is defined as ‘‘any 

garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste 

treatment plant, or air pollution control 

facility and other discarded material 

. . . resulting from industrial, 

commercial, mining, and agricultural 

activities.’’ While the spent solvent 

removed from solvent-contaminated 

wipes in the form of free liquids may be 

solid and hazardous wastes, the 

reusable wipes are not. In the November 

2003 proposed rule, EPA used the 

‘‘commodity-like’’ criteria as a 

framework for explaining why solventcontaminated reusable wipes are not 

solid wastes when they meet the 

conditions of the exclusion, and those 

same considerations remain valid, 

including (1) the fact that solventcontaminated wipes can be processed to 

remove free liquids, (2) the fact that the 

wipes are managed as valuable 

commodities throughout their lifecycle, 

and (3) the fact that ownership of the 

wipes remains the same throughout the 

process (68 FR 65593, November 20, 

2003). However, the Agency did not 

intend to imply that the solid waste 

exclusion for solvent-contaminated 

wipes was the same as a partial 

reclamation variance. See section VI.B 

for further discussion of the Agency’s 

basis for excluding reusable wipes from 

the definition of solid waste. 

Lastly, we do not agree that reusable 

wipes should be managed under the 

universal waste standards. Universal 

wastes are hazardous wastes and EPA 

believes that reusable wipes managed 

under today’s exclusion are not solid 

and hazardous wastes. Additionally, 

managing reusable wipes as hazardous 

wastes under the universal waste 

regulations may, as some commenters 

argued, increase burden on facilities 

generating and managing reusable wipes 

as a result of state solid waste program 

requirements. 

We note that today’s solid waste 

exclusion for reusable wipes results in 

the least interference with individual 

state programs. It is consistent with 

those states that already exclude 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste. Additionally, under RCRA, 

authorized states can be more stringent 

than the federal program. Thus, states 

that currently exclude reusable wipes 

from the definition of hazardous waste 

may continue to do so, provided the 

conditional exclusion is as stringent as 

today’s final rule. The same applies for 

those states that wish to manage 

reusable wipes as hazardous waste. 

C. Toxicity Characteristic Solvents 

Of the listed solvents that EPA 

examined under the November 2003 

proposal, six are solvents that are also 

subject to the toxicity characteristic (TC) 

levels found in 40 CFR 261.24.29 For the 

TC solvents, EPA proposed to defer to 

the TC regulations, noting: ‘‘EPA’s 

analysis finds that even when they have 

been through an advanced solventextraction process and contain less than 

five grams of solvent, the levels of these 

solvents in contaminated industrial 

wipes are likely to be higher than the 

regulatory levels indicated in 40 CFR 

261.24. Therefore, these TC solvents are 

ineligible for disposal in municipal and 

other non-hazardous waste landfills 

because of their potential risk, as 

determined when they were originally 

identified by EPA as TC wastes’’ (68 FR 

65598). In other words, under the 

November 2003 proposal, wipes 

contaminated with one or more of these 

six solvents would be ineligible for the 

conditional exclusion for disposable 

wipes and would continue to be 

regulated as hazardous waste because 

they exhibit the toxicity characteristic. 

EPA requested comment on this issue. 

EPA included the TC solvents in the 

revised risk analysis presented in the 

October 2009 NODA and has since 

updated the analysis with the recently 

published IRIS reference values for 

tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene (see section III.D for 

further discussion of the 2009 revised 

risk analysis). The results of the 2012 

final risk analysis using the revised IRIS 

values demonstrates that wipes 

contaminated with five of the six TC 

solvents do not present elevated risks 

when disposed in a composite-lined 

landfill. Wipes contaminated with 

trichloroethylene, however, do exceed 

risk-based criteria when disposed in a 

composite-lined landfill. 

Comments: Toxicity Characteristic 

Solvents 

Commenters objected to EPA’s use of 

the TC criteria to prohibit solventcontaminated wipes from being 

landfilled as a non-hazardous waste 

arguing that the TC uses assumptions 

and parameters that are not applicable 

to wipes. Commenters, therefore, 

requested that EPA remove the 

provision that prohibits solventcontaminated wipes exhibiting the 

characteristic of toxicity solely as a 

result of contamination with a TC 

solvent from being disposed in 

municipal and other non-hazardous 

waste landfills if those solvents were 

not found to pose a significant risk. 

EPA Response: Toxicity Characteristic 

Solvents 

For solvent-contaminated wipes, EPA 

agrees with those commenters who 

argued that the TC criteria should not be 

used to prohibit solvent-contaminated 

wipes from being conditionally 

excluded from hazardous waste 

regulation. We have decided to use the 

results of the 2012 final risk analysis 

rather than apply the TC regulations to 

determine whether solventcontaminated wipes can be disposed as 

solid wastes in MSWLFs. Therefore, 

wipes contaminated with benzene; 

chlorobenzene; o-,m-,p-creosols; methyl 

ethyl ketone; and/or tetrachloroethylene 

are eligible for the conditional exclusion 

for disposable wipes provided they meet 

the conditions of the exclusion.30

The Agency undertook a 

comprehensive risk analysis to estimate 

the potential risk from disposal of 

solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundry sludge in MSWLFs. The 2009 

revised risk analysis was subjected to 

external peer review and presented for 

public comment in a NODA (October 

27, 2009; 74 FR 55163). In support of 

this analysis, EPA (1) collected and 

reviewed information (e.g., current 

industry practices, state programs, 

landfill loadings) from a wide variety of 

sources (e.g., site visits, data collected 

by EPA for RCRA and other regulatory 

programs, public comments, and other 

available information); (2) used 

probabilistic methods to characterize 

the variability and uncertainty 

associated with the risk modeling; (3) 

developed and used a state-of-the-art 

landfill model and examined the 

exposure pathways that pose the 

greatest potential risk; (4) included 

updated information for various input 

parameters, when such information was 

provided in the comments; and (5) 

recalculated the potential risks by using 

the most up-to-date human health 

toxicity benchmarks made available 

after the October 2009 NODA was 

published. For further discussion of the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

31Risks for the five solvents in composite-lined 

landfills were below one tenth of the target risk 

criteria. See the risk results in ‘‘F001–F005 SolventContaminated Wipes and Laundry Sludge: 

Comparison of Landfill Loading Calculations and 

Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits,’’ revised, April 

2012, in the docket for the final rule. 

risk analysis, including peer review, see 

section III.D. 

The 2009 revised risk analysis 

presented in the October 2009 NODA 

included a variety of conservative 

assumptions to ensure that potential 

risks from landfill disposal were 

assessed protectively. Furthermore, our 

evaluation was based on the risks at the 

upper end of the risk distributions, i.e., 

the 90th percentile in the probabilistic 

analyses. Therefore, we are confident 

that the solvents present in the wipes 

and sludge would not present a 

significant risk. The 2012 final risk 

analysis represents a comprehensive 

characterization of the risk posed by 

these solvent-contaminated wipes and, 

therefore, EPA concludes that this is 

appropriate information to use in 

determining whether solventcontaminated wipes should be excluded 

from the definition of hazardous waste. 

The 2012 final risk analysis for the six 

solvents that are also TC chemicals 

(benzene, chlorobenzene, cresols, 

methyl ethyl ketone, 

tetrachloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene) indicated that five of 

the chemicals have risks well below the 

target criteria used.31 The one solvent 

that presents risks above the criteria is 

trichloroethylene, which is therefore 

ineligible for the conditional exclusion 

for disposable wipes being promulgated 

today. In addition, the exclusion only 

applies to disposable wipes; other 

industrial wastes, including solvent 

wastes not associated with wipes, will 

continue to be regulated as listed or 

characteristic hazardous waste, as 

applicable. Therefore, there are 

regulations in place to restrict disposal 

of solvent chemicals from other sources 

in municipal landfills. 

D. Containers 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

proposed that solvent-contaminated 

reusable and disposable wipes must be 

stored in non-leaking, covered 

containers. The preamble explained that 

a covered container could range from a 

spring-operated safety container to a 

drum with its opening covered by a 

piece of plywood. EPA stated in the 

proposal that generators would not need 

to seal, secure, latch, or close the 

container every time a solventcontaminated wipe is placed inside the 

container; rather, they would only need 

to ensure that the container was 

covered. EPA also proposed that 

solvent-contaminated wipes must be 

transported in containers that are 

designed, constructed, and managed to 

minimize loss to the environment. EPA 

explained this to mean that the 

containers must not leak liquids and 

must control emission releases to the 

air. The Agency stated it would consider 

containers that met the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) packaging 

requirements for hazardous materials to 

meet the proposed performance 

standard, as would closed, sealed, 

impermeable containers. Finally, EPA 

proposed that handling facilities, such 

as laundries and combustors, must 

contain solvent-contaminated wipes in 

containers that met the transportation 

container standard or containers that 

met the generator container standard. 

EPA also requested comment on 

requiring the transportation of wipes in 

impermeable ‘‘closed’’ containers. In 

this context, closed containers were 

defined as containers with a lid that 

screws on to the top and must be sealed 

to be considered closed. EPA also 

requested comment on whether or not 

EPA should defer to the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations for the management 

of solvent-contaminated wipes during 

accumulation at the generator’s facility. 

In addition, for reusable wipes, EPA 

sought comment on adding a provision 

that allows wipes containing less than 

five grams of solvent to be transported 

without any management standards and 

on whether cloth bags have the ability 

to meet the proposed performance 

standard of minimizing loss to the 

environment. 

Comments: Containers 

Over half of the commenters 

supported the covered standard for 

containers and agreed with a 

performance-based standard, which 

allows companies flexibility in meeting 

the standard. Many of these commenters 

noted that the covered standard reflects 

current industry practice and that this 

standard is adequate to control fugitive 

air emissions and potential risk of fire. 

These commenters stated that many 

businesses use large quantities of 

solvent-contaminated wipes each day, 

so to unseal and seal a container every 

time a wipe is placed inside it would be 

overly burdensome. Other commenters 

supported the performance-based 

standard because they feared a specific 

container standard (e.g., a 55-gallon 

drum) could force laundries to purchase 

new vehicles in order to transport the 

required containers. Commenters also 

argued that EPA regulations should be 

consistent with DOT and OSHA 

standards for covered containers. 

The remaining commenters opposed 

the covered standard, arguing it would 

not sufficiently protect human health 

and the environment. These 

commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

assertion that containers covered with 

plywood or cardboard would be 

sufficient to prevent air emissions or 

prevent spills during accumulation and 

transportation. These commenters also 

opposed the use of cloth and woven 

polypropylene bags to store solventcontaminated wipes because these bags 

are permeable and thus, would not 

prevent releases of free liquid spent 

solvent. They urged EPA to strengthen 

the container standard by requiring a 

performance-based ‘‘closed’’ container 

standard and requiring the use of 

impermeable bags. These commenters 

also called for one consistent container 

standard throughout the handling 

process, because there was no reason for 

having different standards for on-site 

accumulation, transportation, and 

handling. 

EPA Response: Containers 

EPA agrees with those commenters 

who argued that a strengthened 

container standard is necessary to 

protect human health and the 

environment. In the proposal, EPA 

explained that plywood over a container 

would meet the covered container 

standard; however, EPA acknowledges 

that this scenario would not always 

prevent releases, especially if the 

container was accidentally overturned. 

Therefore, EPA is not finalizing the 

proposed covered container standard 

and is instead requiring that solventcontaminated wipes be accumulated, 

stored, and transported in non-leaking, 

closed containers, such as containers 

with a spring-loaded lid or an 

impermeable bag. Today’s standard 

addresses commenters’ concerns 

regarding spills and exposures to 

solvents in a covered container (e.g., 

simply covering a container with 

plywood would not meet today’s 

container standard and cloth bags, if 

used, would have to be non-leaking). 

Regarding the closed container 

standard, EPA agrees with those 

commenters that argued that it is 

burdensome to unseal and seal a 

container every time a wipe is placed in 

the container. Therefore, today’s closed 

container standard is defined to allow 

for flexibility during accumulation of 

solvent-contaminated wipes; during 

accumulation, a closed container does 

not need to be sealed and is considered 

closed when there is complete contact 

between the fitted lid and the rim, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46465 

except when it is necessary to add or 

remove solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Then, when the container is full, or 

when the solvent-contaminated wipes 

are no longer being accumulated, or 

when the container is being transported, 

the container must be sealed with all 

lids properly and securely affixed to the 

container and all openings tightly 

bound or closed sufficiently to prevent 

leaks and emissions. 

Today’s closed container standard 

more adequately addresses fugitive air 

emissions from the solventcontaminated wipes than the proposed 

covered container standard and thus, 

will adequately protect facility 

employees, inspectors, emergency 

response personnel, transporters, and 

other downstream handlers. Moreover, 

EPA’s non-leaking, closed container 

standard remains a performance-based 

standard, which many commenters 

supported because it provides 

generators the flexibility to meet the 

standard in a way that best suits their 

business without increasing compliance 

costs. Today’s container standard 

should not be overly burdensome since 

several trade associations and laundries 

already encourage their members and 

customers to use closed or sealed 

containers during storage and 

transportation of solvent-contaminated 

wipes. 

EPA also agrees with those 

commenters that argued that 

substantively different container 

standards for solvent-contaminated 

wipes during accumulation, 

transportation, and handling are not 

necessary. Today’s container standard 

applies to solvent-contaminated wipes 

under both conditional exclusions and 

applies to accumulation and storage at 

the generating facility, transportation 

either on-site or off-site, and, finally, 

storage and management at the handling 

facility. This represents a simple and 

straightforward approach that eases 

implementation and compliance 

monitoring. Additionally, this condition 

replaces the proposed management 

condition for transporters and handlers 

to manage solvent-contaminated wipes 

in containers ‘‘designed, constructed, 

and managed to minimize loss to the 

environment,’’ which was subjective 

and thus, more difficult to interpret than 

today’s container standard. 

Furthermore, although today’s rule 

does not impact how DOT or OSHA 

regulations apply to solventcontaminated wipes, EPA has 

determined that it is not appropriate to 

rely solely on these regulations in lieu 

of a container standard. 

E. Accumulation Time Limit 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

did not propose a time limit on 

accumulation for disposable wipes. 

However, EPA did propose to apply the 

speculative accumulation limits on 

reusable wipes consistent with other 

conditional exclusions from the 

definition of solid waste for recycling 

activities. The speculative accumulation 

provision requires that, in any calendar 

year, 75 percent of the material 

accumulated for recycling must actually 

be recycled. In addition, EPA requested 

comment on whether specific time 

limits should be imposed for 

accumulation and storage of both 

reusable and disposable wipes and 

specifically requested comment on 

whether generators should follow the 

accumulation time limits in 40 CFR 

262.34 that are applicable for their 

generator status (i.e., 90 days for large 

quantity generators and 180 days for 

small quantity generators). If the 

accumulation time limits in 40 CFR 

262.34 were included in the final rule, 

generators would have to mark any 

container in which the solventcontaminated wipes were being 

accumulated with a label that included 

the date accumulation started. 

Comments: Accumulation Time Limit 

The majority of commenters believed 

accumulation time limits for solventcontaminated wipes are unnecessary 

and unwarranted. These commenters 

argued that because the wipes are no 

longer subject to regulation as 

hazardous waste there was no need for 

an accumulation time limit (and noted 

that EPA does not require accumulation 

limits on other solid non-hazardous 

wastes). Other commenters indicated 

that requiring transportation at 90 or 

180 days would be burdensome for 

facilities generating small quantities of 

solvent-contaminated wipes. For 

reusable wipes, most commenters 

believed accumulation time limits were 

unnecessary because the vast majority of 

generators have contracts with laundries 

that stipulate weekly pickup of their 

solvent-contaminated wipes. 

The remaining commenters suggested 

adopting an accumulation time limit. 

These commenters argued that 

accumulation limits would decrease the 

time solvent-contaminated wipes are 

managed on-site, thereby decreasing the 

risk of adverse affects to human health, 

such as from fires and volatilization. 

Furthermore, these commenters 

believed that generators do not have an 

incentive to remove solventcontaminated wipes, and thus, specific 

accumulation time limits would be 

necessary in order to prevent over 

accumulation of wipes at generator 

facilities. 

Several commenters supported 

applying the speculative accumulation 

provision to reusable wipes. These 

commenters believed reusable wipes 

should have the same management 

standards as other recycled hazardous 

secondary materials that are excluded 

from regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(a). 

EPA Response: Accumulation Time 

Limit 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

argued accumulation time limits for 

solvent-contaminated wipes are 

necessary. During the accumulation 

period, solvent-contaminated wipes 

may contain free liquids or free liquids 

may occur, for example, from 

percolation or compression of wipes in 

a container. Thus, in the absence of 

accumulation limits, generators may 

have an incentive to store solventcontaminated wipes containing free 

liquids indefinitely in order to avoid 

potential hazardous waste disposal costs 

of the free liquid spent solvent. This 

accumulation time limit is appropriate 

because, although the solventcontaminated wipes are not hazardous 

wastes when managed under today’s 

exclusions, the free liquid spent solvent 

is subject to the applicable hazardous 

waste regulations upon its removal from 

the wipe and/or the container holding 

the wipe. 

EPA, therefore, agrees with 

commenters that supported an 

accumulation time limit. An 

accumulation time limit ensures that 

free liquid hazardous waste solvent is 

removed within an appropriate 

timeframe. This condition also 

decreases the maximum amount of time 

that solvent-contaminated wipes are 

managed on-site, which further 

decreases the risk of adverse affects to 

human health, such as from fires and 

volatilization. Therefore, in today’s final 

rule, EPA is establishing an 

accumulation time limit for both 

reusable and disposable wipes which 

allows solvent-contaminated wipes to 

be accumulated by the generator for up 

to 180 days prior to cleaning or 

disposal. Today’s accumulation 

standard is necessary to ensure the 

proper disposition of the solventcontaminated wipes and the free liquids 

that may accumulate in containers. 

The regulations at 40 CFR 262.34 

establish accumulation time limits 

based on the quantity of hazardous 

waste generated; however, solventcontaminated wipes under today’s 

exclusions are not hazardous wastes and 

thus, do not count towards the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46466 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

32The regulations at 40 CFR 262.34 also allow 

small quantity generators to accumulate hazardous 

wastes for up to 270 days if the generator must 

transfer the waste to a facility located more than 

200 miles from the generator. However, because 

solvent-contaminated wipes managed under today’s 

rule can go to municipal solid waste landfills, we 

anticipate that transportation distances will be 

shortened given the greater number of available 

options under today’s rule. 

generator’s status. Therefore, strict 

compliance with the hazardous waste 

accumulation time limits presents an 

odd situation where a generator could 

be generating large amounts of excluded 

solvent-contaminated wipes, but only a 

small amount of other hazardous waste. 

It would seem inappropriate to require 

an accumulation time limit for solventcontaminated wipes that are based on 

quantities of hazardous waste that don’t 

include the solvent-contaminated 

wipes. 

Furthermore, applying speculative 

accumulation limits, which is consistent 

with how other hazardous secondary 

materials excluded from the definition 

of solid waste are managed, is not 

appropriate. Solvent-contaminated 

wipes may contain free liquids during 

accumulation and applying speculative 

accumulation limits to today’s 

exclusions would have allowed 

generators to accumulate solventcontaminated wipes, and the associated 

free liquid spent solvent, for up to a 

year. This amount of time would likely 

have increased the quantity of free 

liquid spent solvent managed onsite and 

thus, may increase adverse affects to 

human health, such as from fires and 

volatilization. 

To ensure solvent-contaminated 

wipes and any associated free liquid 

spent solvent are managed 

appropriately, while at the same time 

allowing the greatest flexibility and ease 

of compliance for generators, EPA chose 

to establish a flat 180-day accumulation 

time limit for all facilities generating 

solvent-contaminated wipes. This 

straightforward accumulation time limit 

is easier to implement by the tens of 

thousands of facilities that generate 

solvent-contaminated wipes. The 180- 

day accumulation time limit is what is 

currently required for small quantity 

generators under 40 CFR 262.34 and 

thus, provides the greatest flexibility for 

generators managing excluded solventcontaminated wipes.32

We agree with commenters that 

reusable wipes are routinely picked up 

by laundries on a periodic (e.g., weekly) 

basis and, thus, today’s accumulation 

time limit is not likely to impose an 

undue burden. Additionally, disposable 

wipes meeting the conditions of today’s 

rule may be discarded with a facility’s 

other solid waste trash, which is likely 

collected on a frequent basis. We also 

note that the free liquids, upon removal 

from the solvent-contaminated wipes or 

from the container holding the wipes, 

are subject to the applicable hazardous 

waste regulations, including 

accumulation time limits in 40 CFR 

262.34. 

F. Labeling 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

proposed that containers managing 

disposable wipes be labeled ‘‘Exempt 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes’’ to alert 

downstream handlers to the contents of 

the container and ensure proper 

handling and/or inspection of the 

materials. EPA did not propose a similar 

labeling condition for reusable wipes 

because laundries and dry cleaners 

typically have agreements with their 

customers and thus, already know what 

is in the container of wipes that arrive. 

However, EPA requested comment on 

whether a labeling requirement was 

necessary for reusable wipes containers. 

Comments: Labeling 

Some commenters agreed with EPA 

that containers that hold disposable 

wipes should be labeled. These 

commenters believed that labeling was 

necessary in order to allow 

identification of the containers’ contents 

for emergency response personnel, 

motor carrier inspectors, transporters, 

and downstream handlers. Other 

commenters also believed that labeling 

is good business practice and that it 

would not be burdensome to 

implement. 

On the other hand, other commenters 

were opposed to the labeling 

requirement because it constituted an 

undue burden on generators. These 

commenters also argued that the DOT 

labeling requirements would be 

sufficient and that EPA should not 

create a duplicative label. Furthermore, 

these commenters noted that since 

generators would have contractual 

arrangements with any handling facility, 

the downstream handlers would already 

know the contents of the containers. 

Some commenters also argued that 

facilities generating both non-hazardous 

wipes—that is wipes that are not used 

with listed hazardous waste and do not 

exhibit characteristics of hazardous 

waste—and excluded disposable wipes 

would need to separate the wipes in 

order to meet the labeling condition, 

even though both types would be sent 

to, for example, the same MSWLF. 

The majority of commenters, 

however, recommended the same 

labeling requirement should apply to 

both disposable and reusable wipes. 

Most of these commenters did not take 

a position on whether or not such a 

requirement was necessary, but argued 

that, if a label was necessary, then it 

should apply equally to both disposable 

and reusable wipes. 

EPA Response: Labeling 

EPA agrees with the majority of 

commenters that the labeling 

requirement should be applied to both 

disposable and reusable wipes. 

Concerns regarding air emissions and 

potential fire risk apply to all solventcontaminated wipes regardless of their 

ultimate disposition. Although DOT 

packaging requirements may apply, as 

appropriate, to the transport of reusable 

and disposable wipes, it is important to 

require labeling during accumulation, 

storage, and at the handling facility in 

order to communicate the contents to 

facility employees, emergency response 

personnel, downstream handlers, and 

state and EPA inspectors, as well as 

transporters and motor carrier 

inspectors. Thus, in today’s rule, we are 

requiring that solvent-contaminated 

wipes must be managed in containers 

labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes.’’ Imposition of 

this condition addresses comments that 

urged EPA to adopt the same labeling 

standard for both types of wipes in 

order to ease implementation and 

understanding of the regulations, 

especially for facilities that use both 

reusable and disposable wipes. 

The Agency does not believe that this 

condition places an undue burden on 

facilities, as labels are relatively 

inexpensive and can be affixed to 

containers with relative ease. 

Additionally, generators of disposable 

wipes, which have generally been 

heretofore regulated as hazardous 

wastes, have already had to comply 

with labeling requirements under the 

hazardous waste regulations. 

G. ‘‘No Free Liquids’’ and ‘‘Dry’’ 

Conditions 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

proposed that reusable wipes going to 

an industrial laundry or dry cleaner and 

disposable wipes going to a combustor 

must have no free liquids when sent offsite. We proposed defining ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ as allowing no liquid solvent to 

drip from the wipe when sent off-site 

and no free liquids in the bottom of the 

container in which the wipes are 

transported for cleaning or disposal. 

EPA explained that generators could 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition by 

ensuring that a solvent-contaminated 

wipe held for a short period of time, 

such as when being moved from one 

container to another, does not drip. 

Facilities could use mechanical 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46467 

wringers, solvent extraction 

technologies or process knowledge to 

meet the standard. Screen-bottom drums 

could also be used to ensure no liquid 

solvent was in the bottom of the 

container used to transport the solventcontaminated wipes for cleaning or 

disposal. 

For wipes going to a landfill, EPA 

proposed that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes meet a ‘‘dry’’ condition. ‘‘Dry’’ 

was defined as a wipe containing less 

than five grams of solvent. To meet the 

‘‘dry’’ condition, generators could use a 

centrifuge or other solvent extraction 

technologies, use less than five grams of 

solvent per wipe, or use normal 

business records that indicate solvent 

usage rates, such as the total amount of 

solvent used each month divided by the 

number of wipes used each month. 

Generators could also conduct sampling 

to ensure the solvent-contaminated 

wipes met the condition. 

EPA also requested comment on a ‘‘no 

free liquids when wrung’’ condition that 

would require that each wipe not drip 

solvent when hand wrung. 

Comments: No Free Liquids 

Many commenters supported the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition for solventcontaminated wipes going to laundries/ 

dry cleaners and combustors. Some 

commenters noted that this is already 

standard practice for solventcontaminated wipes going to laundries 

and dry cleaners and is used by many 

states in their regulations for reusable 

wipes. Commenters believed that 

ensuring that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes do not contain free liquids would 

prevent releases of solvents in 

transportation to handling facilities. 

Most commenters urged EPA not to 

place a specific limit on the maximum 

amount of solvent or the concentration 

of solvent on a wipe and not to place a 

numerical limit on the number of shop 

towels laundries or dry cleaners can 

accept on an annual basis. They asserted 

that a limit on the number of solventcontaminated wipes that can be sent for 

cleaning would adversely impact the 

manufacturing process and would be 

confusing and essentially impossible to 

implement. They also argued that limits 

on the amount or concentration of 

solvent are unnecessary, particularly 

because CWA/NPDES permits impose 

enforceable limits on point source 

discharges to waterways from laundries 

and dry cleaners through industrial user 

and pretreatment requirements. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

clarify the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition 

and recommended that EPA specify 

permissible technologies that are 

presumed to meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition. Other commenters disagreed 

that EPA should compile a list of 

acceptable technologies. Moreover, 

some commenters urged EPA to finalize 

a standard that is simple enough for 

hundreds of thousands of businesses to 

apply daily and clear enough to avoid 

confusion during inspections and 

enforcement. 

Many commenters did not support 

EPA’s alternative condition of ‘‘no free 

liquids when wrung’’ because requiring 

each solvent-contaminated wipe to be 

wrung would unnecessarily expose 

employees to solvents. Additionally, 

‘‘when wrung’’ is too subjective a 

standard and creates confusion (for 

example, ‘‘when wrung’’ is dependent 

on the size and strength of the 

individual doing the wringing). Still 

other commenters supported the ‘‘when 

wrung’’ alternative, arguing that the 

condition would result in more solvent 

removed from the wipe. 

EPA Response: No Free Liquids 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

supported the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition, particularly because this is 

currently standard industry practice and 

is used by many states in their 

programs, and thus, is already familiar 

to the regulated community and state 

regulators. One concern, however, is 

how to define and make the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition an objective, clear, 

and enforceable standard. Some 

commenters suggested defining a list of 

solvent extraction technologies to meet 

this standard; however, it is not 

appropriate to require the use of specific 

technologies, particularly if such 

specific technologies are not necessary 

under certain circumstances to meet the 

condition and may impose unnecessary 

cost on businesses. Furthermore, 

technologies evolve over time and 

rulemaking would be required to 

incorporate new technologies into the 

rule. To reduce confusion, we have 

deleted the definition of ‘‘solvent 

extraction’’ from the final rule and have 

eliminated any reference to this term in 

the definition of no free liquids. 

Presently, many state agencies have 

established several methods for 

verifying compliance with stateimposed ‘‘no free liquids’’ conditions. 

The majority of states require the use of 

the Paint Filter Liquids Test (SW–846, 

Method 9095), while other states require 

the Liquids Release Test (SW–846, 

Method 9096) or the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) (SW–846, Method 1311), among 

other state defined standards. Defining 

‘‘no free liquids’’ in terms of an 

objective test enables better 

implementation and compliance 

monitoring. By defining ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ in terms of a standard test, we 

are also addressing the spirit of many 

commenters that argued that EPA 

should specify technologies that would 

meet this condition (i.e., EPA should 

finalize a more objective definition of 

‘‘no free liquids’’). While all of the 

above tests are objective, for today’s 

rule, EPA is using the Paint Filter 

Liquids Test for determining whether 

solvent-contaminated wipes contain free 

liquids. The Paint Filter Liquids Test is 

already used for determining 

compliance with the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition by many states and is also the 

test used to implement the restrictions 

on disposal of free liquids in the 

MSWLF regulations (40 CFR 258.28). 

The Paint Filter Liquids Test is simple, 

straightforward, and generally less 

costly than the other test methods 

considered. 

EPA notes that generators do not have 

to conduct the Paint Filter Liquids Test 

for every solvent-contaminated wipe. 

Rather, generators must ensure that if 

the Paint Filter Liquids Test was 

performed, the wipe would pass. 

Where authorized states have defined 

‘‘no free liquids’’ using a different 

standard, generators in those states must 

meet the state standard for purposes of 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. 

This ensures that today’s rule 

complements existing state policies and, 

thus, does not place an unnecessary 

burden on states and the regulated 

community to change existing practices. 

Of course, the authorized state standard 

must be no less stringent than today’s 

definition of ‘‘no free liquids.’’ See 

section VI.D.3 for more information. 

EPA agrees with the majority of 

commenters that argued a specific limit 

on the maximum amount of solvent, or 

the concentration of solvent on a wipe, 

or a numerical limit on the number of 

shop towels laundries or dry cleaners 

can accept on an annual basis is not 

necessary and would be burdensome to 

implement. We agree that the 

regulations under the CWA already 

impose enforceable limits on point 

source discharges to waterways through 

industrial user and pretreatment 

requirements. Today’s rule enforces this 

by requiring that solvent-contaminated 

wipes only be sent to laundries and dry 

cleaners whose discharge, if any, are 

regulated under applicable sections of 

the CWA. 

Moreover, EPA agrees that the ‘‘no 

free liquids when wrung’’ condition 

could increase, or at least be perceived 

to increase, workers’ exposure to 

solvents. Today’s definition of when 

solvent-contaminated wipes contain no 

free liquids is sufficient to reduce the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

probability of free liquids being 

transported under today’s rule. 

Comments: ‘‘Dry’’ Condition 

The majority of comments on this 

issue disagreed with EPA’s proposed 

‘‘dry’’ condition for disposable wipes 

going to landfills. Specifically, 

commenters argued that the five gram 

limit per wipe was arbitrary, 

inconvenient, unworkable, timeconsuming, and potentially costprohibitive to businesses, many of 

which are small businesses. 

Additionally, some commenters pointed 

out that wipes vary in terms of size, 

composition, absorbency, and thickness 

and that, in some cases, a wipe may 

meet the ‘‘dry’’ condition (less than five 

grams of solvent) but still have liquid 

solvent that could drip from the wipe 

and thus, be released to the 

environment. In response to EPA’s 

proposed methods of meeting the ‘‘dry’’ 

condition, commenters stated that 

solvent extraction technology was not 

easily attainable or affordable. 

Commenters also argued that EPA’s 

proposal to use normal business records 

to comply with the condition would be 

difficult to implement and may in fact 

be an incentive for facilities to use more 

disposable wipes than necessary, such 

as dividing the amount of solvent by an 

even larger amount of wipes used each 

month. Therefore, many commenters 

urged EPA to abandon the ‘‘dry’’ 

condition and require solventcontaminated wipes going to landfills to 

meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ or ‘‘no free 

liquids when wrung’’ condition instead. 

Many commenters also argued that the 

same standard should be applied to both 

reusable and disposable wipes in order 

to ease implementation, especially for 

facilities that use both types of wipes. 

Of the few commenters that did 

support the ‘‘dry’’ condition, some 

argued that this approach is the only 

practical way to assure disposable wipes 

do not contain excessive levels of 

solvents when sent to municipal or nonhazardous waste landfills. Other 

commenters supported the ‘‘dry’’ 

condition as long as EPA specified in 

the regulations which extraction 

technologies can be presumed to meet 

the five gram standard, which would 

assist implementation and compliance 

monitoring. 

Still another commenter argued that 

the five gram limit per wipe was not 

stringent enough because the solvent 

would exceed the Land Disposal 

Restriction standards for disposal. 

EPA Response: ‘‘Dry’’ Condition 

Based on the comments, the Agency 

has decided not to finalize the ‘‘dry’’ 

condition for disposable wipes going to 

landfills, as it would be burdensome to 

implement and enforce. In addition, as 

noted by commenters, setting a firm 

quantitative limit on the amount of 

solvent in each wipe does not take into 

account the diverse sizes and types of 

wipes in the marketplace. For example, 

it’s possible that some wipes could 

contain less than five grams of solvent 

and still have free liquids. Some 

commenters believed we could improve 

the ‘‘dry’’ condition by specifying a list 

of technologies that could be used to 

achieve the standard; however, we 

understand that these technologies are 

expensive and may not always be 

necessary depending on the type of 

wipe and the amount of solvent used. 

Furthermore, technology changes over 

time and thus, specifying a list in the 

regulations may unnecessarily preclude 

newer technologies. 

In choosing what standard to use in 

place of the ‘‘dry’’ condition, we relied 

on the results of our risk analysis, which 

evaluated various industries, the 

amount of solvent that was typically 

placed on wipes, and how much solvent 

would eventually be placed into 

landfills. After estimating the amount of 

solvent that could be on a wipe before 

disposal and the number of generators 

potentially disposing of solventcontaminated wipes into a MSWLF, the 

2012 final risk analysis demonstrated 

that 19 of the 20 solvents evaluated did 

not exceed target risk criteria when 

placed into a composite-lined landfill. 

Therefore, the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition is appropriate to use to ensure 

that solvent-contaminated wipes going 

to landfills do not exceed the risk 

thresholds. Furthermore, the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition is consistent with 

what is currently required in the 40 CFR 

part 258 MSWLF standards. By using 

the same standard for disposable and 

reusable wipes, we are able to address 

those comments that urged EPA to 

finalize the same condition for both 

types of wipes in order to ease 

implementation and understanding of 

the regulations, especially for facilities 

that use both reusable and disposable 

wipes. 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenter that argued that the five 

gram limit per wipe was not stringent 

enough because the solvent would 

exceed the Land Disposal Restriction 

standards for disposal. The Agency has 

conducted a robust risk analysis that 

demonstrates the solvent-contaminated 

wipes included under the exclusion for 

disposable wipes do not exceed risk 

thresholds when disposed in a 

composite-lined landfill. 

H. Recordkeeping 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

did not propose any recordkeeping 

requirements for the conditional 

exclusion for reusable wipes or for the 

conditional exclusion for disposable 

wipes. However, we did request 

comment on a number of recordkeeping 

options, such as requiring handling 

facilities that receive shipments of 

solvent-contaminated wipes with free 

liquids to submit a notification to the 

state or EPA region. Additionally, we 

requested comment on whether we 

should require generators to keep basic 

information, such as the volume of 

solvent-contaminated wipes generated, 

where the wipes were sent, and how 

many shipments were sent off-site. We 

also requested comment on whether 

generators and handlers should certify 

that shipments sent and received met 

either the ‘‘no free liquids’’ or ‘‘dry’’ 

condition, as appropriate, and whether 

generators should certify that their 

employees are adequately trained to 

manage the solvent-contaminated 

wipes. Lastly, we requested comment on 

whether the accumulation time limits in 

40 CFR 262.34 should be required. If so, 

then the generator would have to 

include a label stating the date 

accumulation started. 

Comments: Recordkeeping 

Many commenters urged EPA not to 

finalize any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. These commenters argued 

that these requirements would be 

duplicative of other regulations, for 

example, OSHA training requirements 

and 40 CFR 261.2(f). These commenters 

stated that additional recordkeeping, 

such as one-time notifications, 

certifications, or shipping records 

would place unnecessary burdens on 

generators and handling facilities, while 

providing little, if any, additional 

environmental benefit. Additionally, 

commenters stated that the goal of this 

regulation is to simplify requirements 

and exclude properly managed solventcontaminated wipes from hazardous 

waste regulations; requiring additional 

recordkeeping thus runs counter to that 

goal. 

Other commenters argued for 

recordkeeping requirements, including 

records of volumes of solventcontaminated wipes generated, 

employee training certifications, records 

of shipments, a management plan for 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition, 

manifests, biennial reports, 

notifications, and certifications of 

meeting the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition, 

as well as a log or notifications to the 

generator, state, or EPA when shipments 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46469 

of solvent-contaminated wipes are 

received that contain free liquids. These 

commenters stated that recordkeeping 

requirements are essential to hold 

generators and handling facilities 

accountable under today’s rule. The 

commenters argued that recordkeeping 

requirements would not be overly 

burdensome to generators and could 

easily be maintained as part of existing 

standard business records. Additionally, 

such recordkeeping would assist 

implementing agencies with ensuring 

that solvent-contaminated wipes are 

properly managed. 

EPA Response: Recordkeeping 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

support incorporating recordkeeping 

requirements into the final rule. In 

evaluating whether to require 

recordkeeping for the conditional 

exclusions for reusable wipes and 

disposable wipes, we balanced the need 

to enable proper implementation and 

compliance monitoring of the rule’s 

conditions with the desire to avoid 

needless paperwork requirements that 

may be burdensome to generators and 

handling facilities, a concern raised by 

the commenters who argued against 

recordkeeping requirements. We also 

considered which recordkeeping 

requirements would be appropriate for 

these conditionally excluded materials. 

After reviewing the comments, we 

chose to require generators to maintain 

records at their site that document (1) 

the name and address of the handling 

facility (i.e., laundry, dry cleaner, 

landfill, or combustor); (2) that the 180- 

day accumulation time limit is being 

met; and (3) the description of the 

process the generator is using to ensure 

the solvent-contaminated wipes meet 

the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition at the 

point of being sent for cleaning or 

disposal. 

The purpose of requiring the name 

and address of the handling facility is to 

ensure that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes are being managed in compliance 

with the conditional exclusion (e.g., for 

reusable wipes, that they are sent for 

cleaning and, for disposable wipes, that 

they are sent to an appropriate landfill 

or combustor). This information can be 

easily maintained by the generator using 

routine business records, such as 

contracts and invoices and, thus, should 

not pose significant burden on a facility. 

Documenting the accumulation time 

limit is important to enable regulatory 

authorities to monitor compliance with 

the condition and to ensure that solventcontaminated wipes are not stored 

indefinitely in lieu of sending the 

solvent-contaminated wipes to be 

cleaned or disposed. This condition is 

particularly important because the 

solvent-contaminated wipes can be 

accumulated with free liquids under the 

exclusion. Thus, there may be an 

incentive for a generator to store such 

wipes indefinitely in order to avoid the 

hazardous waste disposal costs 

associated with the free liquid spent 

solvent. 

Requiring the description of the 

process the generator is using to ensure 

that the solvent-contaminated wipes 

contain no free liquids is critical for 

assisting implementation and 

compliance monitoring of this key 

condition of today’s rule. Today’s rule 

only extends to the solventcontaminated wipe and the conditional 

exclusions do not include any free 

liquid spent solvent, which would 

continue to be subject to the hazardous 

waste regulations, as appropriate. It is 

therefore imperative that the condition 

of ‘‘no free liquids’’ be met. In order to 

ensure that this condition is properly 

implemented, it is appropriate to 

require documentation of the process, 

methodology, and/or knowledge that is 

being used to ensure the solventcontaminated wipes managed under 

today’s rule meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition. 

We disagree with commenters who 

wanted additional recordkeeping 

requirements, such as biennial reports 

or records on amounts of solventcontaminated wipes generated. We do 

not find these records are necessary to 

ensure that solvent-contaminated wipes 

meet the conditions of today’s rule. 

Records of shipments are also 

unnecessary as long as the generator 

documents the name and address of the 

laundry, dry cleaner, combustor, or 

landfill where the solvent-contaminated 

wipes are being sent. This 

documentation then would only have to 

be updated in the event the name or 

address of the destination facility 

changed. This serves to keep paperwork 

burden to a minimum. 

Furthermore, we are convinced that 

requiring a log or notification to the 

generator, state or EPA region by a 

handler (e.g., laundry) that receives 

solvent-contaminated wipes containing 

free liquids is not necessary. First, 

under today’s rule, free liquid spent 

solvent must be managed according to 

the hazardous waste regulations, as 

appropriate. Thus, any liquid spent 

solvent that is discovered upon receipt, 

for example, by a laundry, must be 

managed as hazardous waste, if 

applicable. (Under today’s rule, 

handlers are not allowed to send back 

shipments of free liquid waste to the 

generator as was proposed in November 

2003. See section VIII.I below for more 

information.) This creates a strong 

incentive for generators to ensure that 

the solvent-contaminated wipes meet 

the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition prior to 

sending the wipes to a handler because 

the generator is likely to incur a fee 

imposed by the handling facility for the 

hazardous waste disposal of the free 

liquid spent solvent wastes. 

Additionally, in today’s rule we have 

more clearly defined ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

using a performance standard based on 

the Paint Filter Liquids Test. This test 

provides a more objective definition 

than the November 2003 proposed 

definition, which specified only that no 

liquid solvent could drip from the wipe. 

Today’s standard strengthens the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition sufficiently so 

that solvent-contaminated wipes 

meeting the standard are not likely to 

produce free liquids in transit (as a 

result of compression, gravity, or 

percolation). 

Secondly, if a handling facility did 

receive a shipment of solventcontaminated wipes that contained free 

liquid spent solvent, the spent solvent 

would become subject to the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements of the 

hazardous waste regulations as 

appropriate to the amount of hazardous 

waste generated in that month by the 

handling facility. EPA finds that any 

additional reporting requirements 

would be duplicative of what is already 

required under the hazardous waste 

regulations. 

I. Handling Facilities 

Laundries and Dry Cleaners 

EPA proposed to conditionally 

exclude from the definition of solid 

waste solvent-contaminated reusable 

wipes that are sent to an industrial 

laundry or dry cleaner. Specifically, 

EPA proposed to require that these 

handling facilities manage the solventcontaminated wipes in non-leaking, 

covered containers or in containers that 

are designed, constructed, and managed 

to minimize loss to the environment 

before the wipes enter the handling 

process. If free liquids accumulate in 

containers that arrive at a laundry or dry 

cleaner, EPA proposed that the handling 

facility either remove the free liquids 

and manage them as hazardous waste or 

return the closed container to the 

generator. Additionally, laundries and 

dry cleaners could dispose of the 

treatment residuals in solid waste 

landfills if they did not exhibit a 

hazardous waste characteristic. 

Comments: Laundries and Dry Cleaners 

Some commenters were concerned 

that contaminated solvents removed 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46470 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

33The 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF regulations 

include design standards, groundwater monitoring, 

and other specific management standards. The 40 

CFR part 257 Subpart B Non-Municipal NonHazardous Waste Disposal Unit regulations 

establish minimum federal criteria, such as location 

restrictions and groundwater monitoring, but do not 

require liners or other design and management 

standards (although states may require additional 

standards). 

from the solvent-contaminated wipes in 

laundering and discharged into 

waterways would adversely affect 

human health and the environment. 

Commenters believed that laundries and 

dry cleaners should be required to 

demonstrate that they are appropriately 

managing the solvent removed from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes during 

cleaning. At least one commenter stated 

that generators should only be allowed 

to send solvent-contaminated wipes to 

facilities that have been issued a valid 

NPDES or State Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit, pursuant to 

section 402 of the CWA, or that have a 

pretreatment permit with a POTW, 

pursuant to section 307 of the CWA. 

A few commenters believed that the 

conditions for management of solventcontaminated wipes at laundries and 

other such handling facilities needed to 

be strengthened and that EPA should 

require more specific provisions for 

container management, storage time 

limitations, and notification 

requirements. 

Some commenters argued against 

additional requirements on laundries 

and dry cleaners and other such 

handling facilities because the proposed 

conditions, in conjunction with existing 

regulatory programs, such as the 

effluent limitation guidelines for 

wastewater discharges from industrial 

laundries and applicable OSHA 

workplace exposure standards, already 

provide appropriate safeguards to 

protect the environment and human 

health. These commenters pointed out 

that solvent-contaminated wipes 

arriving at a laundry or dry cleaner 

already meet the standard of ‘‘no free 

liquids.’’ Commenters added that the 

solvents contaminating the wipes and 

removed during the laundering process 

are captured by laundry wastewater 

treatment systems designed to ensure 

compliance with applicable wastewater 

pretreatment permits. Comments stated 

that solvents not captured by an 

industrial laundry’s wastewater 

treatment system are safely conveyed to 

a POTW where secondary biological 

treatment effectively destroys these 

organic compounds. Additionally, in 

response to EPA’s request for comment 

on placing specific limits on the 

maximum amount of solvent on a wipe 

or a numerical limit on the number of 

shop towels laundries or dry cleaners 

can accept on an annual basis, most 

commenters asserted that limits on the 

amount or concentration of solvent are 

unnecessary because CWA/NPDES 

permits impose enforceable limits on 

point source discharges to waterways 

(from laundries and dry cleaners) 

through industrial user and 

pretreatment requirements. 

EPA Response: Laundries and Dry 

Cleaners 

We agree with those commenters that 

argued against additional requirements, 

beyond the management conditions 

included in today’s rule, because, as the 

commenters argued, laundry and dry 

cleaner discharges are regulated under 

the CWA, which ensures that the 

solvents removed from solventcontaminated wipes during the cleaning 

process are properly managed to avoid 

adverse affects on human health and the 

environment. EPA also agrees with 

commenters that placing specific limits 

on the maximum amount of solvent, or 

the concentration of solvent on a wipe, 

or a numerical limit on the number of 

shop towels laundries or dry cleaners 

can accept on an annual basis is 

unnecessary because the CWA already 

imposes enforceable limits on point 

source discharges to waterways through 

industrial user and pretreatment 

requirements. (See section VI.D.5 for 

more information.) Thus, to reduce 

confusion, we are clarifying in the 

regulatory language that we are allowing 

reusable wipes (that meet the conditions 

of today’s rule) to be sent to laundries 

and dry cleaners whose discharges, if 

any, are regulated under the applicable 

provisions of the CWA. 

Because we agree with commenters 

seeking strengthened management 

conditions, we are requiring in today’s 

rule that handling facilities must 

accumulate, store, and manage reusable 

wipes in non-leaking, closed containers 

that are labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes’’ when the wipes 

are not being processed or cleaned. 

Additionally, the container must also be 

able to contain free liquids should free 

liquids occur, for example, from 

percolation and compression of the 

wipes. (See section VI.D.1 for further 

discussion on this requirement.) 

However, we disagree that conditions, 

such as accumulation time limits for the 

laundry or further recordkeeping, are 

necessary. The business of a laundry or 

dry cleaner is to clean wipes in order to 

provide them to their customers in 

exchange for revenue. We do not see an 

incentive for a laundry or dry cleaner to 

overaccumulate solvent-contaminated 

wipes and thus, do not see a need to 

regulate to this end. As for 

recordkeeping, please see section VIII.H 

below for our response to comments 

regarding this issue. We also agree with 

commenters that compliance with 

applicable OSHA workplace exposure 

standards, in conjunction with today’s 

requirement that solvent-contaminated 

wipes be managed in closed, nonleaking containers, provide appropriate 

safeguards to protect workers. 

Landfills 

In the Agency’s November 2003 

proposal, EPA proposed to allow 

solvent-contaminated wipes to be 

disposed in either a MSWLF or another 

non-hazardous waste landfill that meets 

the standards under 40 CFR part 257 

subpart B.33 In addition, EPA also 

proposed to make 11 solvents ineligible 

for the exclusion because these solvents 

are included in the TC or because they 

failed EPA’s risk screening analysis for 

the November 2003 proposed rule. In 

EPA’s October 2009 NODA, which 

requested comment on EPA’s 2009 

revised risk analysis for the solventcontaminated wipes rulemaking, EPA 

requested comment on two additional 

approaches for managing disposable 

wipes. The first approach would allow 

the disposal of solvent-contaminated 

wipes that did not exceed target risk 

criteria for an unlined landfill, based on 

the Agency’s risk analysis, to be 

disposed in landfills without a liner; 

solvent-contaminated wipes that did 

exceed target risk criteria for an unlined 

landfill could only be disposed in a 

lined landfill. The second approach 

would direct all excluded solventcontaminated wipes, including those 

that could safely be disposed in an 

unlined landfill, be sent to a Subtitle D 

MSWLF subject to the requirements in 

40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b) (74 FR 

55167–8). 

Comments: Landfills 

Some commenters supported EPA’s 

first approach to allow solventcontaminated wipes to be disposed in 

both types of landfills (lined and 

unlined) depending on the type of 

solvent used on the wipe and whether 

that solvent posed a risk, based on the 

Agency’s 2009 revised risk analysis. 

Other commenters supported the 

second approach to allow solventcontaminated wipes to be disposed only 

in MSWLFs. These commenters argued 

that this approach would be easier to 

implement because it avoids the need 

for generators to separate wipes by 

solvent, particularly for wipes used in 

different parts of a facility, and then 

determine whether the solventVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:05 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46471 

34Solvent-contaminated wipes could also be sent 

to hazardous waste landfills operating under 40 

CFR parts 264 and 265. 

35 Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, 

and Disposal in the United States Tables and 

Figures for 2010, November 2011 http:// 

www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ 

msw_2010_data_tables.pdf. 

contaminated wipes could be sent to an 

unlined or lined landfill. 

EPA Response: Landfills 

EPA agrees with those commenters 

that supported a requirement that all 

solvent-contaminated wipes be sent 

only to MSWLFs operating under the 40 

CFR part 258 standards.34 This 

represents the most straightforward 

approach and imposes the least burden 

to implement and enforce. Under this 

approach, generators will not need to 

keep track of which excluded wipes are 

contaminated with which solvents and 

whether those solvent-contaminated 

wipes are being sent to a lined or an 

unlined landfill. 

Although this approach may 

technically narrow the number of 

options for a generator from those in our 

proposal (because a generator will not 

be able to use a 40 CFR part 257 nonhazardous waste landfill), this will not 

constitute an undue restriction for the 

following reasons: (1) Generators are 

likely already using one or more of the 

1,908 MSWLFs that operate under the 

40 CFR part 258 standards for disposal 

of their other solid waste trash; 35 (2) a 

40 CFR part 257 non-hazardous waste 

landfill may not accept solventcontaminated wipes as these landfills 

are often set up for specific purposes, 

such as for large quantities of 

construction and demolition waste; and, 

(3) we do not have any indication that 

there is a significant cost advantage for 

using a 40 CFR part 257 non-hazardous 

waste landfill as compared to a 40 CFR 

part 258 MSWLF. 

Any potential benefit gained from 

allowing the use of a non-hazardous 

waste landfill is likely to be 

insignificant, especially in light of the 

increased complexity for 

implementation and compliance 

monitoring that would be required to 

ensure that certain solventcontaminated wipes were being sent to 

the appropriate landfill. 

Combustors 

EPA proposed that municipal and 

other non-hazardous waste combustors 

be allowed to burn solventcontaminated wipes that meet the 

proposed conditions for the exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste. 

For solvent-contaminated wipes going 

to combustors, EPA proposed to require 

that these handling facilities manage the 

solvent-contaminated wipes in nonleaking, covered containers or in 

containers that are designed, 

constructed, and managed to minimize 

loss to the environment before the wipes 

enter the handling process. If free 

liquids accumulate in containers that 

arrive at a combustor, EPA proposed 

that the handling facility either remove 

the free liquids and manage them as 

hazardous waste or return the closed 

container to the generator. Additionally, 

combustors could dispose of the 

residuals in solid waste landfills if they 

did not exhibit a hazardous waste 

characteristic. 

Comments: Combustors 

Several commenters supported 

allowing combustion of solventcontaminated wipes in a municipal 

waste combustor or other combustion 

facility. These commenters stated that 

EPA’s 2003 risk screening analysis 

demonstrates that such combustion 

practices would be protective of human 

health and the environment when 

conducted in accordance with 

applicable permit conditions. 

Additionally, commenters stated that 

this management option would provide 

an environmentally beneficial recycling 

alternative to disposal and would allow 

facilities to use solvent-contaminated 

wipes as supplemental fuels in lieu of 

virgin fuels. 

Some commenters raised the concern 

that some combustion units allowed in 

the November 2003 proposal would not 

address dioxin and furan formation and 

that combustors receiving large 

quantities of solvent-contaminated 

wipes containing halogenated solvents 

(listed F001 and F002 solvents) could 

become a significant source of dioxin 

emissions. 

Additionally, at least one commenter 

argued that the proposed management 

conditions for combustors were not 

adequately protective of human health 

and the environment. This commenter 

argued that combustors routinely dump 

incoming waste into a large bin or 

concrete pit where it is then placed into 

the combustion unit via a clam shell, 

backhoe, or similar equipment. This 

commenter stated that the solventcontaminated wipes could pose a risk to 

the environment, either through 

volatilization, release of free liquids, or 

potential fire. Commenters urged EPA to 

specify some minimum standards for 

management of solvent-contaminated 

wipes to be burned in combustors to 

address risk from fugitive emissions 

during the storage and processing of 

these wipes prior to and during 

combustion. 

At least one commenter stated that 

EPA should allow the solventcontaminated wipes to be used for 

energy recovery in cement kilns (which 

are generally regulated under hazardous 

waste regulations and thus, have been 

heretofore receiving disposable wipes). 

EPA Response: Combustors 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

support allowing combustion of solventcontaminated wipes in municipal waste 

combustors and other combustion 

facilities. As explained in the November 

2003 proposal, combustion facility 

owners/operators will be screening 

wipes contaminated with hazardous 

solvents that arrive at their facilities to 

ensure they do not violate local permit 

conditions. In addition, these 

combustors are easily capable of 

destroying the solvent, as described in 

section IV.F.11 of the Technical 

Background Document (68 FR 65602). 

EPA does not agree with commenters 

that raised concerns that certain 

combustion units would not address 

dioxin and furan formation from 

combustors receiving large quantities of 

solvent-contaminated wipes containing 

halogenated solvents. As explained in 

the November 2003 proposal, EPA has 

promulgated revised air emission 

standard requirements under the New 

Source Performance Standards for 

municipal waste combustors and 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (68 FR 65602). Thus, 

municipal waste combustors and other 

combustion facilities must comply with 

emission standards, including those that 

address dioxin and furan emissions. To 

reduce confusion, we have revised the 

regulatory language to be clear that we 

are allowing disposable wipes (that 

meet the conditions of today’s rule) to 

be sent to municipal waste combustors 

and other combustion facilities that are 

regulated under the New Source 

Performance Standards in section 129 of 

the CAA. 

EPA agrees with commenters’ concern 

about the management of solventcontaminated wipes prior to 

combustion. The provisions in today’s 

rule will adequately address those 

commenters’ concerns. Specifically, 

under today’s rule, solventcontaminated wipes must not contain 

free liquids when transported to a 

municipal waste combustor or other 

combustion facility. EPA has clarified 

this standard by defining ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ using the Paint Filter Liquids 

Test. The use of this test enables proper 

implementation of the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition and, combined with today’s 

requirement that generators document 

how they are meeting this condition, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46472 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

should minimize the possibility of free 

liquids occurring after the solventcontaminated wipes leave the generator. 

If, however, free liquids do reach the 

combustor, they must be removed and 

managed under the applicable 

hazardous waste regulations. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring that 

solvent-contaminated wipes be 

accumulated, stored, and transported in 

non-leaking, closed containers that are 

labeled as ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes.’’ This container 

standard will prevent release of the 

solvent to the air or through spills while 

being managed by the combustor. 

EPA confirms that solventcontaminated wipes may continue to be 

sent to RCRA hazardous waste 

combustors, boilers, and industrial 

furnaces (as well as hazardous waste 

landfills) regulated under 40 CFR parts 

264, 265, or 266 subpart H, which 

includes cement kilns that are operating 

under these regulations. To further 

clarify this point, we have added these 

citations to the final regulatory language 

for this exclusion. 

Comments: Free Liquids Received by 

Handling Facilities 

Some commenters agreed with EPA’s 

proposal to maintain the conditional 

exclusion for solvent-contaminated 

wipes that contain some free liquids 

when received by the handling facility. 

Commenters argued that free liquids 

may inadvertently make their way to the 

handling facility as a result of 

compression, gravity, or percolation 

effects on the wipes during transport or 

by improper management of the solventcontaminated wipes by the generator 

prior to transport. These commenters 

agreed that the handling facility should 

be allowed to manage the liquids as 

hazardous waste or send the shipment 

back to the generator. At least one 

commenter stated that the handling 

facility should not be considered the 

generator of the solvents contained on 

the solvent-contaminated wipes and 

should not be responsible for removing 

the free liquids. Some commenters 

argued that EPA should allow handling 

facilities to recover the free liquid spent 

solvent through use of appropriate 

technology without classifying the 

liquid as hazardous waste. 

Other commenters disagreed with 

EPA’s proposed approach and argued 

that a handler who discovers free 

liquids should not be allowed to return 

the container with the solventcontaminated wipes and free liquid to 

the generator. These commenters argued 

that containers with liquid hazardous 

waste should not be considered as 

having met the conditional exclusion 

and should only be transported by 

licensed hazardous waste transporters to 

permitted hazardous waste facilities. 

Additionally, commenters argued that 

allowing shipments to be returned to the 

generator may create problems in which 

the generator refuses to accept the 

returned solvent-contaminated wipes, or 

goes out of business after sending the 

wipes to the receiving facility. 

In a similar vein, some commenters 

noted that generators have their own 

incentives to ensure there are no free 

liquids because generators could incur 

additional transportation (if the 

container is returned) or additional 

disposal costs (if the container and its 

contents are managed by the receiver as 

hazardous waste). 

EPA Response: Free Liquids Received 

by Handling Facilities 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

supported EPA’s proposal to maintain 

the conditional exclusion for solventcontaminated wipes that contain some 

free liquids when received by the 

handling facility. In the November 2003 

proposal, EPA acknowledged that free 

liquids may be generated during 

transport to a handling facility, despite 

best efforts by the generator. Today’s 

final rule further decreases the 

frequency of free liquids occurring 

during transport by defining the ‘‘no 

free liquids’’ condition for wipes using 

an objective test method and requiring 

generators to document their method for 

meeting this condition. Additionally, 

we agree with commenters who stated 

that generators have an economic 

incentive to ensure the solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids. 

However, if free liquids are observed 

in a container at the handling facility, 

EPA is requiring handlers to manage the 

free liquids according to all applicable 

hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 

parts 260 through 273. The wipes 

themselves may remain under the 

exclusion provided that the conditions 

of the exclusion were met (e.g., the 

solvent-contaminated wipes and the 

container contained no free liquids at 

the point of transport by the generator). 

We do not agree with commenters that 

argue the handling facility should not be 

responsible for removing free liquids 

and that the containers with free liquids 

should be sent back to the generator. 

This approach would be inconsistent 

with the requirements for managing 

hazardous waste and increases the time 

the free liquids spend in transit, and the 

possibility of their release, since the 

generator would likely have to send 

them off-site again for their ultimate 

disposition. This approach supports 

those commenters who argued that 

containers with liquid hazardous waste 

should only be transported by licensed 

hazardous waste transporters to 

permitted hazardous waste facilities and 

should not be sent back to generators 

because these generators may refuse to 

accept the waste or may have gone out 

of business. 

Laundries or dry cleaners may also 

recycle free liquid spent solvent within 

their allowed accumulation period (e.g., 

90 or 180 days) without a RCRA permit 

under the provisions of 40 CFR 261.6(c), 

which exempts the recycling process 

itself from certain hazardous waste 

requirements. 

If the generator complies with the 

conditions of today’s rule, free liquids 

during transport should be a very rare 

occurrence. Today’s rule provides a 

strong incentive for generators to meet 

the ‘‘no free liquids’’ condition because 

handling facilities will likely expect 

them to bear the additional costs to 

manage the free liquids as hazardous 

waste. 

J. Other Major Comments 

EPA also sought comment on a few 

additional issues, including (1) cocontaminants; (2) intra- and intercompany transfers; (3) exotic solvents; 

and (4) state authorization. 

Co-Contaminants 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

stated that the rule ‘‘is not intended to 

override EPA’s mixture and derived 

from rule regarding contaminants on 

industrial wipes other than the solvents 

specified in this proposal’’ (see 68 FR 

65602). Thus, if the solventcontaminated wipes contain a listed 

waste other than the identified solvents, 

the wipes would remain listed 

hazardous waste and would not be 

eligible for the exclusion. EPA also 

proposed that solvent-contaminated 

wipes that exhibit a characteristic of 

hazardous waste other than ignitability 

due to co-contaminants (i.e., any 

contaminant other than a solvent) 

would not be eligible for the conditional 

exclusions. However, EPA proposed 

that wipes co-contaminated with 

ignitable waste would remain eligible 

for the exclusions if they met the other 

conditions. EPA based this proposal on 

the fact that the solvent-contaminated 

wipes could be ignitable due to the 

nature of the solvents on them, and 

because the conditions would 

adequately address this risk. 

Comments: Co-Contaminants 

Some commenters encouraged EPA to 

allow the conditional exclusions to 

apply regardless of the presence of coVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:05 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46473 

contaminants, including the presence of 

other listed hazardous waste or 

characteristic waste. These comments 

claimed prohibiting solventcontaminated wipes that contain cocontaminants will reduce or eliminate 

the eligibility of the majority of wipes 

from the exclusions. 

Other commenters agreed with EPA’s 

proposal not to allow solventcontaminated wipes to be excluded if 

they were hazardous due to cocontaminants arising from other listed 

hazardous waste or exhibiting a 

hazardous waste characteristic. They 

argued that no assessment was made of 

the co-contaminants associated with the 

solvent-contaminated wipes, in 

particular metals, and EPA must ensure 

that other hazardous constituents do not 

result in adverse risk or environmental 

impact. These commenters also opposed 

allowing ignitable wipes to be eligible 

for the exclusions if the co-contaminant 

is an ignitable non-solvent constituent. 

EPA Response: Co-Contaminants 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

solvent-contaminated wipes that are 

hazardous due to the presence of cocontaminants that are other listed 

hazardous waste or that exhibit a 

hazardous waste characteristic (other 

than ignitability) should not be eligible 

for the conditional exclusions. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

provision regarding co-contaminants as 

proposed. That is, wipes contaminated 

with non-solvent listed waste (for 

example, as a result of a hazardous 

waste spill clean-up) or that exhibit a 

hazardous waste characteristic other 

than ignitability due to a non-solvent 

contaminant are not eligible for the 

conditional exclusions. EPA agrees with 

commenters that we did not evaluate 

the risks posed by solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are contaminated with other 

listed hazardous wastes and thus, it is 

not appropriate to exclude them in this 

rulemaking. Likewise, solventcontaminated wipes that exhibit a 

characteristic due to constituents other 

than one of the excluded solvents (e.g., 

co-contaminant metals) are not included 

in the conditional exclusions (with one 

exception for ignitable-only wastes) for 

similar reasons (i.e., solventcontaminated wipes contaminated with 

these other co-constituents were not 

evaluated). 

We agree with commenters who 

sought to make solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are co-contaminated with 

ignitable-only wastes eligible for the 

conditional exclusion. Because solvents 

are often ignitable, as a practical matter 

it would be difficult to distinguish 

between those solvent-contaminated 

wipes that are ignitable due to the 

solvent from those that are ignitable due 

to a non-solvent co-contaminant. And 

such a distinction is unnecessary 

because the conditions of the exclusion 

(e.g., no free liquids and closed, nonleaking containers) address the issue of 

ignitibility no matter what the source. 

Intra- and Inter-Company Transfers 

EPA proposed to allow intra-company 

transfers of solvent-contaminated wipes 

with free liquids, which would allow 

facilities to send their wipes to another 

facility within their same company that 

would remove sufficient solvent from 

the wipes so they could meet the ‘‘dry’’ 

condition or the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition, as appropriate. The receiving 

facility would have to manage the 

extracted solvent according to the 

applicable hazardous waste regulations 

found under 40 CFR parts 260 through 

273. We proposed this provision to 

encourage additional solvent recycling 

and energy recovery, as well as to assist 

facilities in meeting the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ or ‘‘dry’’ condition. 

The Agency also requested comment 

on allowing inter-company transfers of 

solvent-contaminated wipes with free 

liquids, which would allow generators 

to ship solvent-contaminated wipes 

with free liquids to any facility if the 

receiving facility uses a solvent 

extraction and/or recovery process to 

remove enough solvent from the wipes 

for them to meet the ‘‘no free liquids’’ 

condition. 

Comments: Intra- and Inter-Company 

Transfers 

Some commenters supported allowing 

intra-company transfers of solventcontaminated wipes containing free 

liquids, if the receiving facility has a 

solvent-extraction and/or recovery 

process. These commenters argued that 

intra-company transfers would allow 

smaller facilities access to solvent 

extraction equipment or technologies at 

larger facilities, thus increasing solvent 

reuse while decreasing off-site disposal 

costs. At least one commenter, however, 

did not agree that allowing intracompany transfers would significantly 

increase solvent recycling because 

facilities are unlikely to invest in such 

extraction technologies. 

Other commenters argued that intraand inter-company transfers of solventcontaminated wipes with free liquids 

should not be eligible for the exclusions. 

These commenters stated that excluding 

saturated solvent-contaminated wipes 

transported off-site for solvent 

reclamation runs counter to the premise 

that wipes contain no free liquids. They 

argued that it is not appropriate to allow 

free liquid spent solvent waste to be 

transported without RCRA controls, 

such as a manifest and other minimum 

protections. They further argued that 

allowing free liquid spent solvents to be 

transported freely to multiple sites 

creates an opportunity for further 

exposure and potential for 

environmental releases. 

EPA Response: Intra- and InterCompany Transfers 

EPA has chosen not to finalize the 

provision allowing intra-company or 

inter-company transfers for solvent 

extraction. We agree with those 

commenters who argued that allowing 

off-site transport of saturated solventcontaminated wipes runs counter to the 

premise of today’s rule. Saturated 

solvent-contaminated wipes inherently 

present greater risk of environmental 

release than wipes containing no free 

liquids and the conditions of today’s 

rule may not be adequate to address the 

risks posed by transport of solventcontaminated wipes containing free 

liquids. 

Although we acknowledge 

commenters’ arguments that intracompany transfers may allow smaller 

facilities access to solvent extraction 

equipment and technologies and 

therefore increase solvent reuse, we note 

that, since this rule was proposed in 

November 2003, EPA has finalized 40 

CFR 261.4(a)(23), which allows off-site 

transfers of hazardous secondary 

materials being reclaimed under the 

control of the generator, provided 

certain conditions are met. Therefore, 

generators of solvent-contaminated 

wipes that wish to transfer their wipes 

within the same company for the 

purposes of reclamation may use this 

exclusion, promulgated in October 2008 

(73 FR 64668). 

Exotic Solvents 

In the November 2003 proposal, EPA 

stated that it had learned of new, 

‘‘exotic’’ solvents on the market, such as 

terpenes and citric acids, that, while 

labeled as non-hazardous, could 

actually be flammable (68 FR 65600). 

Stakeholders had informed the Agency 

that, under certain conditions that have 

yet to be determined, the solventcontaminated wipes that contain these 

exotic solvents may spontaneously 

combust. To prevent combustion, 

generators have wet down the wipes 

with water. 

In the proposal, EPA requested 

information and comments on these 

exotic solvents and how they are 

presently managed. The Agency stated 

that some stakeholders have suggested 

that EPA should allow generating 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

facilities that are using one of these 

exotic solvents to wet down the wipes 

with water and thus, allow the off-site 

transport of these solvent-contaminated 

wipes with free liquids. 

Comments: Exotic Solvents 

A few commenters urged EPA to 

include special conditions for handling 

of such exotic solvents in the final rule, 

noting that wipes that contain certain 

vegetable-based oils could increase the 

possibility of spontaneous combustion 

during storage. These commenters 

recommended that EPA give special 

consideration to the use of water to 

mitigate potential spontaneous 

combustion due to these exotic solvents. 

Another commenter argued that there 

is no need to address exotic solvents in 

the final regulation since the current 

hazardous waste regulations adequately 

cover such waste streams. The 

commenter added that while adding 

water to the wipes might reduce 

ignitability, it would also add waste 

volume and confuse the issue of free 

liquids. 

Still another commenter disagreed 

with the term exotic solvents because 

the term suggests that such solvents are 

particularly dangerous, when, in fact, 

these solvents are almost always less 

potentially harmful to human health 

and the environment than the 

petroleum-based solvents they often 

replace. The commenter stated that 

these solvents typically exhibit a high 

flash point (>140 degrees F), are readily 

biodegradable, and have a low human 

and environmental toxicity than the 

more flammable petroleum-based 

solvents. This commenter stated that the 

most common concern with citrus-based 

solvents is their biodegradability, 

because, as the substance breaks down, 

heat is generated. This commenter also 

said that some citrus-based solvents 

biodegrade rapidly enough to generate 

significant quantities of heat and, if this 

heat is not allowed to dissipate, as with 

a closed container of solventcontaminated wipes, the heat can raise 

the solvent to its flash point, thus 

causing spontaneous combustion. 

This commenter argued that the safety 

considerations in preventing 

spontaneous fires have long been 

considered an acceptable practice. This 

commenter stated that often, wipes are 

wetted to the point where they would 

not pass a ‘‘no free liquids’’ test. This 

practice, the commenter stated, 

however, does not violate current state 

policies nor would it violate the 

Agency’s proposed solventcontaminated wipes rule because citrusbased solvents are not RCRA regulated 

hazardous waste. As long as citrusbased solvents are not commingled with 

other RCRA regulated solvents, the 

commenter argued that the wetting of 

wipes containing citrus-based solvents 

to the point at which the wipes contain 

free liquids is not of regulatory concern. 

EPA Response: Exotic Solvents 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

stated wipes contaminated with exotic 

solvents that do not exhibit a hazardous 

waste characteristic and which are not 

listed hazardous wastes are not subject 

to RCRA hazardous waste regulation 

and are thus, outside the scope of 

today’s rulemaking. In some cases, 

however, although the solvent may not 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic based 

on its flash point, a wipe contaminated 

with that solvent may be hazardous 

because it can oxidize and 

spontaneously combust. EPA did not 

intend to imply in the November 2003 

proposal that wipes contaminated with 

these solvents would not be ignitable 

under RCRA. EPA considers wastes that 

can spontaneously combust at any point 

in their management as potentially 

meeting the definition of ignitibility 

under 40 CFR 261.21(a)(2). Generators 

are responsible for making a hazardous 

waste determination as is required for 

any wastestream. 

We recognize that generators and 

handlers may sometimes wet down 

wipes contaminated with exotic 

solvents to prevent spontaneous fires 

from occurring. Although wetting these 

wipes may be appropriate for managing 

the on-site risk of spontaneous 

combustion, we do not agree that these 

wipes should be allowed special 

consideration under today’s exclusions. 

If wipes contaminated with solvents 

must be wetted to the point where they 

would not pass a ‘‘no free liquids’’ test 

at the point of transport for cleaning or 

disposal, then EPA believes they should 

not be eligible for today’s exclusions. 

This approach is consistent with wipes 

containing F-listed solvents that would 

not pass the ‘‘no free liquids’’ test at the 

point of transport from the generator to 

the handling facility in order to 

minimize release of solvents to the 

environment. While EPA supports 

generators’ choices to use less toxic 

solvents, we encourage generators to 

work with their suppliers to understand 

and become aware of any potential 

hazards that could arise from using 

solvents in conjunction with wipes, and 

to appropriately classify and manage 

them. 

Comments: State Authorization 

Some commenters argued that EPA 

should require the rule be implemented 

in all 50 states to ensure national 

consistency of the regulations regarding 

solvent-contaminated wipes. At least 

one commenter noted that, 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 and thus, EPA should conduct 

comprehensive outreach with the states 

to adopt the proposed conditional 

exclusions when they are finalized. 

Other commenters argued that EPA’s 

final rule should allow states to adopt 

the federal rule with modifications and 

should allow states to adopt equally 

protective provisions, which will enable 

consistency with the states’ current 

policies, many of which have been in 

effect since 1994. Additionally, these 

commenters urged EPA to be cognizant 

of the fact that many states have had 

over a decade of experience in 

establishing cost-effective, practical, and 

protective regulatory programs for 

solvent-contaminated wipes. The 

commenters argued that EPA should be 

cautious to avoid interfering with preexisting and equally-protective state 

programs that already are in place for 

the management of solventcontaminated wipes. 

Another commenter argued that, with 

respect to the rule’s reusable wipes 

provision, EPA has not made clear 

whether it considers the exclusion to be 

an ‘‘exit’’ mechanism from otherwise 

applicable hazardous waste regulatory 

requirements or, in light of EPA’s preexisting decision to allow states to 

determine their own regulatory status of 

reusable wipes, a first-time hazardous 

waste ‘‘entry’’ mechanism for listed 

solvent-containing laundered wipes. 

This commenter argued, if the former is 

the case, EPA should clarify that as a 

matter of federal law, the full set of 

RCRA-authorized state hazardous waste 

regulations should be immediately 

applicable to reusable wipes unless and 

until the provisions of the final rule for 

reusable wipes are implemented 

lawfully by authorized states. If the 

latter is the case, then consistent with 

EPA’s prior determinations regarding 

the status of hazardous waste listings 

involving solvent ‘‘mixtures’’ under the 

HSWA amendments, the commenters 

argued those provisions of the final rule 

must be classified as a ‘‘HSWA rule’’ 

that is immediately effective in all 

respects in all states. In either case, in 

order to comply with its own RCRA 

state authorization regulations and 

guidance, the commenters stated that 

EPA needs to clarify that states whose 

current policies governing reusable 

wipes are less stringent in any respect 

than the new federal conditional 

exclusion must amend their RCRAVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:05 Jul 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR3.SGM 31JYR3

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46475 

36See ‘‘Industrial Wipers and Shop Towels under 

the Hazardous Waste Regulations,’’ Michael 

Shapiro, February 14, 1994. This memo can be 

found in RCRA Online, Number 11813 and in the 

docket for today’s rule. 

authorized hazardous waste regulations 

as necessary to ensure that all the 

conditions of the final exclusion for 

reusable wipes are provided for in duly 

promulgated regulations of those states. 

EPA Response: State Authorization 

EPA does not agree that we should 

require the rule be implemented in all 

50 states. Under RCRA section 3006, 

EPA may authorize qualified states to 

administer the RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste program within the 

state. Following authorization, the 

authorized state program operates in 

lieu of the federal regulations. 

Authorized states are required to modify 

their programs only when EPA 

promulgates federal requirements that 

are more stringent or broader in scope 

than existing federal requirements. 

RCRA section 3009 allows states to 

impose standards more stringent than 

those in the federal program (see 40 CFR 

271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, 

but are not required to, adopt federal 

regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less 

stringent than previous federal 

regulations. See section X for more 

information on state authorization 

under RCRA. Because today’s rule 

finalizes conditional exclusions from 

the definition of solid and hazardous 

waste, it is less stringent than previous 

federal regulations and thus, EPA 

cannot mandate that the rule become 

effective in all 50 states. However, we 

encourage states to adopt today’s 

exclusions to reduce regulatory burden 

and maximize national consistency of 

regulations regarding solventcontaminated wipes. 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

states may adopt the federal rule with 

modifications provided their state 

programs are at least as stringent as the 

federal program per the provisions of 40 

CFR 271.21(e). This allows some 

consistency with the states’ current 

policies, which have been in effect for 

many years. For example, we 

specifically allow authorized states to 

specify a different standard or test 

method for determining that solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids. Where an authorized state 

standard exists, generators must meet 

that standard in lieu of the Paint Filter 

Liquids test for purposes of meeting the 

‘‘no free liquids’’ condition. Of course, 

the authorized state standard must be no 

less stringent than today’s definition of 

‘‘no free liquids.’’ 

EPA does not agree that today’s rule 

establishes for the first time that 

solvent-contaminated wipes are solid 

and hazardous wastes. In fact, the 1994 

Shapiro memo plainly describes that a 

‘‘wiper can only be defined as listed 

hazardous waste if the wiper either 

contains listed waste, or is otherwise 

mixed with hazardous waste. Whether 

or not a used wiper contains listed 

hazardous waste, is mixed with listed 

hazardous waste, only exhibits a 

characteristic of hazardous waste, or is 

not a waste at all, is dependent on sitespecific factor(s); this is not a new 

policy.’’ 36 Clearly, EPA has always 

considered solvent-contaminated wipes 

subject to solid and hazardous waste 

determinations. Therefore, today’s rule 

conditionally excluding solventcontaminated wipes is promulgated 

under the authority of sections 2002, 

3001–3010 and 7004 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1965 and is not a HSWA 

rule. 

In response to the argument that 

reusable wipes must be managed as 

hazardous wastes unless and until the 

state adopts the conditional exclusion, 

we note that, as stated in the November 

2003 proposal, the 1994 Shapiro memo 

established federal policy with regard to 

solvent-contaminated wipes that 

deferred the determination of their 

regulatory status in case-specific 

scenarios to the states and EPA Regions 

(68 FR 65617). This deferral has resulted 

in the development of various state 

programs for reusable wipes. Therefore, 

authorized states whose programs 

include less stringent requirements than 

today’s final rule are required to modify 

their programs to maintain consistency 

with the federal program per the 

provisions of 40 CFR 271.21(e). In 

addition, any states that delineate their 

program for reusable wipes in guidance 

documents or interpretive letters will 

need to promulgate enforceable 

regulations, as required by 40 CFR 

271.21(a). Because today’s rule is a nonHSWA rule, the current state 

requirements remain in place until the 

state adopts requirements equivalent to 

these federal requirements. 

IX. Major Comments on Risk Analysis 

The Agency received comments on 

both the risk screening analysis from the 

November 2003 proposal and on the 

revised risk analysis presented in the 

October 2009 NODA. Many of the 

comments and criticisms of the original 

analysis from November 2003 were 

addressed by the revisions to the risk 

analysis undertaken and published for 

comment in the October 2009 NODA. In 

the following responses, we will first 

address the comments on the landfill 

loading calculations (i.e., how much of 

the solvents and sludges might be 

disposed in landfills under an 

exclusion) in the 2003 risk screening 

analysis for the November 2003 

proposal and in the 2009 revised risk 

analysis for the October 2009 NODA. 

We will then respond to the comments 

on how the Agency calculated the riskbased mass loading limits for the 

solvents and the sludges in the 2003 risk 

screening analysis for the November 

2003 proposal and in the 2009 revised 

risk analysis for the October 2009 

NODA. 

Comments: November 2003 Solvent 

Loading Calculations 

The Agency received many public 

comments in response to EPA’s 

November 2003 proposed rule regarding 

the approach and assumptions used in 

estimating the quantity of solvent which 

might be disposed in a landfill, known 

as landfill loading. Most of these 

comments were related to how the 

Agency chose the various values used as 

inputs to the calculations. Some 

commenters criticized the use of ‘‘highend assumptions’’ for key input data, 

while other commenters suggested we 

underestimated these input data. For 

disposable wipes, the input data 

questioned included the following: 

number of generators, quantity of 

solvent on a wipe, the percent of wipes 

in a sector containing the solvents, and 

number of generators using a single 

landfill for disposal. For reusable wipes, 

the key input data at issue included 

quantity and distribution of wipes 

washed at each laundry, concentrations 

of solvents in washwater, partitioning of 

solvents to the sludge, and number of 

laundries using a single landfill for 

sludge disposal. 

EPA Response: November 2003 Solvent 

Loading Calculations 

In response to these comments, we 

completely revised the landfill loading 

calculations and presented our new 

analysis in the October 2009 NODA (see 

the document entitled ‘‘Landfill 

Loadings Calculations for Disposed 

Solvent-Contaminated Wipes and 

Laundry Sludge Managed in Municipal 

Landfills,’’ October 2008; this is referred 

to below as the ‘‘Landfill Loadings 

Report’’). The Landfill Loadings Report, 

and the associated appendices, includes 

improvements in referencing and 

describing the assumptions used for the 

above input data, such as the amount of 

solvent on each wipe, the fraction of 

wipes containing the listed solvent, and 

the number of wipes used per facility. 

To account for the variability in these 

parameters (e.g., facilities using 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

37See the docket for ‘‘Response to Comments on 

the 2003 Proposal on the Landfill Loadings 

Calculations for Solvent-Contaminated Wipes,’’ and 

‘‘Response to Comments on the 2009 NODA on the 

Landfill Loadings Calculations for SolventContaminated Wipes,’’ and ‘‘EPA’s Response to 

Peer Reviewer Comments on the Landfill Loadings 

Calculations for Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.’’ 

38Many of these comments concerned our 

assumptions for the amount of solvent contained on 

the wipes; the new Landfill Loadings Report 

presented in the October 2009 NODA addressed 

these comments, as described previously. 

different quantities of solvent), we used 

a probabilistic analysis, such that the 

calculation inputs account for the full 

range of data available. Therefore, we 

did not use ‘‘high-end’’ parameters in 

our analysis, except as part of a range 

which also includes less conservative 

values. The probabilistic approach used 

in the revised landfill loading analysis 

addresses the potential to overestimate 

or underestimate the input data used in 

the solvent loading calculations. The 

Landfill Loadings Report also includes 

an analysis of uncertainty and 

sensitivity, which were evaluated using 

a probabilistic analysis. Therefore, we 

believe that this analysis presented in 

the October 2009 NODA addresses the 

comments received on the landfill 

loading calculations presented in the 

November 2003 proposal. 

Comments: 2009 Revised Risk Analysis 

Solvent Loading Calculations 

As described earlier in the 

background section of this notice, we 

undertook an external peer review of the 

2009 revised risk analysis and 

addressed those comments prior to 

presenting the new risk analysis in the 

October 2009 NODA. Commenters 

generally supported our conclusion that 

10 of the 30 solvents have no use, or 

very limited use, as solvents on wipes. 

However, some commenters stated that 

EPA used limited data sets, resulting in 

over-conservative mass loading levels 

for the disposable wipes. One 

commenter indicated that extreme 

solvent loading values are inconsistent 

with the implicit assumption that the 

solvent-contaminated wipes meet the 

conditions of the exclusion (e.g., no free 

liquids). The commenter stated that 

establishing an ‘‘upper bound’’ for the 

amount of solvent on each wipe would 

more accurately account for the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition. 

Another commenter provided 

comments specific to the analysis for 

solvent loadings for reusable wipes. 

This commenter provided updated 

information collected in surveys for 

various input parameters related to the 

sludge generated by facilities that 

laundered reusable wipes (e.g., the 

quantity of wastewater generated and 

the quantity of towels being processed). 

EPA Response: 2009 Revised Risk 

Analysis Solvent Loading Calculations 

In response to comments on overconservative mass loading levels for 

disposable wipes, we note that the 

report typically used distributions that 

resulted in the best fit of the available 

data. While setting an upper bound for 

the amount of solvent on a wipe is one 

approach to account for the ‘‘no free 

liquids’’ condition, selecting a precise 

value for this upper bound is difficult. 

The initial sensitivity analysis presented 

in the report (i.e., section 2.4.2 of the 

Landfill Loadings Report) suggests that 

the amount of solvent on the solventcontaminated wipes is not a particularly 

sensitive input parameter, so 

modifications in this parameter are not 

expected to affect the results 

significantly. To fully respond to the 

comment, we conducted further 

sensitivity analyses by truncating this 

parameter at a lower value (to be more 

consistent with observed data) and 

confirmed that this change would lower 

the landfill loading estimates by less 

than 10%. Therefore, we find that the 

slightly more conservative approach 

used in conducting the analysis is 

reasonable. 

Regarding the information provided 

by one commenter for reusable wipes, 

we decided to modify our analysis to 

incorporate the more recent data, where 

appropriate. We made a case-by-case 

evaluation of the data provided by the 

commenter, and modified the 

calculations accordingly. Using the 

updated data on the pounds of towels 

processed per year and the resulting 

washwater used lowered the mass 

loadings calculated for sludges 

generated by the laundries by about 

50%. These changes had little effect on 

the overall risks presented by the 

combined disposal of disposable wipes 

and laundry sludges, because the 

sludges represented a relatively small 

fraction of the combined risk for the 

solvents. However, the effect of these 

modifications was sufficient to reduce 

the combined risk results presented in 

the October 2009 NODA for 

tetrachloroethylene in a composite-lined 

landfill, such that this chemical would 

meet the target risk criteria (a cancer 

risk of 1.0 x 10¥5, based on the 90th 

percentile estimated landfill loading 

and the 90th percentile risk-based mass 

loading limit). As noted in the 

background section of this notice, the 

Agency has since issued a new human 

health assessment for 

tetrachloroethylene, which included 

updated health-based values. When we 

substituted the new health-based values 

for tetrachloroethylene in our final risk 

evaluation (see the Addendum in the 

docket for this rulemaking), the 

combined risks for this chemical in a 

composite-lined unit dropped even 

further, such that the risks were well 

below the target risk criteria, with or 

without the modifications to the sludge 

data based on the commenter’s new 

data. 

Responses to all comments on the 

landfill loading estimate used in the 

November 2003 proposal and the 

October 2009 NODA are provided in the 

docket.37 The docket also contains the 

final landfill loadings report (‘‘Landfill 

Loadings Calculations For SolventContaminated Wipes,’’ January 2012), 

which reflects the modifications made 

in response to the public comments and 

external peer reviewer comments on the 

risk analysis. 

Comments: Other Aspects of 2003 Risk 

Screening Analysis for November 2003 

Proposal 

EPA received many comments on 

other aspects of the 2003 risk screening 

analysis used to support the November 

2003 proposal. Most of these comments 

were addressed in the 2009 revised risk 

analysis in the October 2009 NODA. 

Several commenters expressed concern 

that the 2003 risk screening analysis 

was overly conservative. Concerns 

expressed included the following: use of 

a simple deterministic approach based 

on high end or average input values; 

landfill assumptions did not consider 

liners or chemical degradation 

mechanisms; use of the highest leachate 

concentrations; use of fixed distance to 

receptors, as well as others. 

Other commenters expressed 

concerns that the 2003 risk screening 

analysis underestimated risk.38 Other 

comments questioned our exposure 

assumptions, our use of generic Dilution 

and Attenuation Factors (DAFs) to 

estimate exposure point concentrations, 

and our lack of response to the peer 

reviewer comments. We also received 

comments that the 2003 risk screening 

analysis failed to consider other 

important indirect exposure pathways 

for humans and the environment (e.g., 

runoff and erosion, particulate 

emissions, and possible food chain 

risks). 

Commenters also stated that the 2003 

risk screening analysis only considered 

a single solvent constituent from a 

single source going to a single landfill, 

and that EPA assumed that the landfill 

receives wipes from no other sources. 

Commenters noted that the target risk 

criteria used were inadequate to allow 

margins for other contaminants 

migrating from the landfill. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46477 

39For example, see EPA’s evaluation of potential 

risks from landfill disposal for paint production 

wastes as described in the proposed rule; 66 FR 

10060, February 13, 2001. 

40See Table 5 in ‘‘F001–F005 SolventContaminated Wipes and Laundry Sludge: 

Comparison of Landfill Loading Calculations and 

Risk-Based Mass Loading Limits,’’ revised, April 

2012, in the docket for the final rule. 

EPA Response: Other Aspects of 2003 

Risk Screening Analysis for November 

2003 Proposal 

In response to comments on the 2003 

risk screening analysis for the November 

2003 proposal, the Agency undertook a 

more robust risk analysis. This 2009 

revised risk analysis, which was 

presented in the October 2009 NODA, 

was probabilistic in nature and used 

Monte Carlo methods to characterize the 

variability and uncertainty associated 

with the modeling. The 2009 revised 

risk analysis results included solventspecific, risk-based mass loading limit 

(RB–MLL) estimates for both unlined 

and composite-lined landfill scenarios. 

In addition, the Agency developed and 

used a new landfill coupled reactor 

model (LFCR), which allowed the 

modeling to account for solvent 

biodegradation and partitioning 

between air, water, and solid phases 

while in the landfill. The LFCR model 

was run to develop distributions of 

estimates of landfill leachates, which 

were used as input to EPA’s Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (CMTP) 

groundwater model. The time-averaged 

solvent concentrations were used as 

input to the downstream exposure 

model. 

The probabilistic approach used in 

the 2009 revised risk analysis addresses 

the potential to either overestimate or 

underestimate the risks from disposal of 

solvent-contaminated wipes and sludges 

in landfills. For example, the 2009 

revised risk analysis presented in the 

October 2009 NODA addresses the 

exposure assumption comments 

primarily through the use of data 

distributions for exposure factors, which 

were developed based on EPA’s 

guidance (e.g., the EPA Exposure 

Factors Handbook). Regarding the use of 

generic DAFs, the 2009 revised risk 

analysis did not use generic DAFs, but 

rather reflected solvent-specific 

modeling with a probabilistic analysis, 

which included national-level modeling 

using EPA’s CMTP groundwater model. 

As noted in the background section of 

this notice, we submitted the 2009 

revised risk analysis for extensive peer 

review and responded to the comments, 

as appropriate. Our full response to the 

peer reviewer comments on the 2009 

revised risk analysis is in the docket for 

today’s final rule. 

In the 2009 revised risk analysis, we 

also reevaluated the potential for risk 

via indirect exposure pathways, as well 

as the potential for significant impacts 

on the environment. We developed the 

RB–MLLs for the exposure pathways 

that pose the greatest potential concern. 

We considered the physical and 

chemical properties of the chemicals of 

interest and focused our evaluation 

primarily on direct exposure pathways. 

The 20 solvents evaluated include a 

range of volatile and semi-volatile 

organic chemicals, most of which have 

relatively short environmental half-lives 

(as compared to persistent organic 

chemicals). The primary release 

mechanisms from landfills are diffusion 

and advection into the air and leaching 

to groundwater. The generally low 

values for partition coefficients for these 

solvents strongly suggest that indirect 

exposure pathways will either be 

incomplete or contribute negligibly to 

total exposure. The conclusion that 

these solvents are insignificant 

contributors to risk via indirect 

exposure pathways (for a landfill 

source) is consistent with other risk 

analyses of landfill waste management 

scenarios undertaken by the Agency.39

Furthermore, landfills maintain controls 

for particulate air releases and for soil 

erosion and runoff; regulations for 

MSWLFs include run-on/runoff controls 

(40 CFR 258.26), daily cover (§ 258.21), 

and compliance with the CAA 

requirements (§ 258.24). Thus, the 

primary focus of the risk modeling was 

to assess direct exposure pathways to 

the air and groundwater. The 

commenters did not provide any 

information to suggest that these 

indirect exposure pathways would alter 

the RB–MLLs. 

Regarding multiple facilities using the 

same landfill, the 2009 risk analysis 

presented in the October 2009 NODA 

evaluated multiple facilities disposing 

of solvent-contaminated wipes in one 

landfill. We used a Monte Carlo analysis 

to represent the variability of generator 

and landfill locations; the distribution 

used ranged from 2 to 67 generators per 

landfill. In addition, the overall loadings 

assumed were conservative estimates, as 

described in the Landfill Loadings 

Report. 

EPA disagrees with suggestions by a 

commenter that EPA should use more 

restrictive target risk criteria to address 

other possible sources of the solvents of 

concern. The Agency believes that the 

risk criteria used (1E–5 cancer risk and 

HQ less than or equal to 1.0 for noncancer risk) are appropriate for a listing 

decision, especially in light of the 

conservative approach used in the 

overall risk evaluation. Furthermore, we 

point out that the 2012 final risk 

analysis indicates that the risks for the 

solvent-contaminated wipes in 

composite-lined landfills were well 

below the target risk criteria for all of 

the solvents (except for 

trichloroethylene, which is not eligible 

for the exclusion for disposable wipes), 

i.e., the solvent landfill loadings are 

more than a factor of ten below the riskbased mass loading limits.40 Therefore, 

even if the Agency used lower target 

risk criteria, as suggested by the 

commenter, the disposal of solventcontaminated wipes and sludge in 

composite-lined landfills would not 

present a significant risk for the solvent 

chemicals included in the exclusion. 

Comments: Assumptions for Reusable 

Wipes 

Commenters on the 2003 risk 

screening analysis for the November 

2003 proposal stated that EPA did not 

consider exposures resulting from 

solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundering processes, other than to 

evaluate the sludge and solventcontaminated wipes disposed in a 

MSWLF. Other possible exposure 

pathways noted were worker exposure 

at the laundering facility; the release of 

constituents not treated at the POTW; 

and air emissions from laundries 

affecting nearby residences. 

Some commenters also noted that 

EPA neglected to consider 

contamination of wipes from the 

materials that the solvent removes from 

the equipment. Information submitted 

by one commenter indicated that even 

after processing by a professional 

laundering service, cloth shop towels 

may contain levels of chemicals (metals) 

that are potentially harmful to workers 

using the wipes. However, another 

commenter dismissed this point, stating 

that claims about residual metals in 

clean, laundered shop towels are 

entirely without merit. 

EPA Response: Assumptions for 

Reusable Wipes 

The purpose of the 2003 risk 

screening analysis for the November 

2003 proposed rule and the 2009 

revised risk analysis presented in the 

October 2009 NODA was to characterize 

the potential risk from the disposal of 

solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundry sludge in landfills. Therefore, 

occupational exposures, such as 

exposures resulting from the 

partitioning of solvents to air and 

wastewater during laundering and dry 

cleaning operations, were not 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

41For example, worker exposures to airborne 

contaminants are limited based on 29 CFR 

1910.1000 Tables Z–1 and Z–2. 

considered. Our analyses assumed that 

workers are appropriately protected by 

regulation and guidance provided by 

OSHA.41

Concerning exposure to residents 

living in close proximity to laundering/ 

dry cleaning facilities, given the range of 

exposures captured by the modeling 

scenarios in the 2009 revised risk 

analysis presented in the October 2009 

NODA, and the fact that ambient air 

exposures were not significant, any 

ambient air impacts from laundering/ 

dry cleaning operations should be less 

significant than those considered under 

our landfill disposal scenario. The 2009 

revised risk analysis assumed that 

ambient air exposure could occur as 

close as 25 meters from the landfill, a 

fairly conservative assumption. Despite 

this, none of the 90th percentile RB– 

MLLs were based on ambient air 

exposures. Indoor air exposures 

resulting from showering with 

contaminated groundwater and 

groundwater ingestion were found to be 

the key exposures considered, and these 

risks drove the analysis. With regard to 

partitioning of solvents to wastewater, 

any risks associated with these 

discharges would be addressed by the 

CWA, under NPDES permits or local 

POTW pretreatment standards, if 

necessary. 

In response to the possibility of cocontaminants, we first note that solventcontaminated wipes that exhibit a 

characteristic (except for ignitability) 

due to constituents other than one of the 

excluded F- and corresponding P- and 

U-listed solvents (e.g., co-contaminant 

metals) are not eligible for the 

conditional exclusions. Similarly, wipes 

contaminated with other listed 

hazardous wastes would not be eligible 

for the conditional exclusions. 

Regarding other possible contaminants, 

we note that the F-, P-, and U-code 

solvent listings are based on the toxicity 

and/or ignitability hazards presented by 

the specific solvents included in the 

listing descriptions. The language in the 

listings illustrates EPA’s concern with 

the solvent chemicals. Other potential 

constituents in the solvent wastes vary 

widely across industries, such that it 

would be exceedingly difficult, if not 

impossible, to categorize and evaluate 

risks associated with these wastes if we 

considered all other hazardous 

constituents and characteristics. 

Because of the wide variability in 

constituents that might be present in 

wastes from use of the solvents and the 

identified hazards posed by the 

solvents, we focused our evaluation on 

the solvent chemicals themselves. We 

find that this is the most practical 

approach to evaluating risks posed by 

solvent-contaminated wipes. 

Regarding the potential for laundered 

towels to contain residual metals, we 

note that the study cited by the 

commenter was limited to metal 

contaminants, not listed solvents. As 

described in the above paragraph, EPA 

did not attempt to evaluate possible cocontaminants on the wipes. The 

exclusion is for wipes contaminated 

with F-listed solvents, not metalcontaminated wipes. The solventcontaminated wipes are still subject to 

the TC for metals, which would help to 

address any potential metal residuals in 

the laundered wipes. In addition, any 

residual metals still on the towels after 

laundering would likely be tightly 

bound to the fibers, making any transfer 

from laundered towels to workers 

unlikely. 

Comments: Other Aspects of the 2009 

Revised Risk Analysis Presented in the 

October 2009 NODA 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of the 2009 revised risk 

analysis presented in the October 2009 

NODA. However, we received 

comments on some aspects of the 

analysis. Many of the comments 

submitted were related to the way EPA 

calculated the estimated landfill loading 

rates (ELLRs) for solvents disposed in 

landfills; we addressed these comments 

as described previously (see comments 

on the revised solvent loading 

calculations above). Comments on other 

aspects of the 2009 revised risk analysis 

are described below. 

One commenter stated that EPA 

should use data for laundry sludge 

measured using a leaching test in its risk 

analysis (i.e., the TCLP). The commenter 

also argued that EPA was overlyconservative in not considering the 

likelihood that the monitoring of 

groundwater wells near the landfill 

would limit exposure and in the 

assumptions EPA used for well 

locations near landfills. In addition, the 

commenter provided results of a survey 

that indicated a ‘‘majority’’ of laundry 

facilities send their sludges to lined 

landfills, arguing that this reflected the 

general trend over the past 20 years 

away from unlined landfills. 

Another commenter generally 

concluded that EPA’s 2009 revised risk 

analysis is ‘‘scientifically defensible.’’ 

The commenter suggested that the use 

of lined Subtitle D landfills for disposal 

of solvent-contaminated wipes and 

laundry sludge ‘‘would be permissible, 

but not required, to adequately protect 

human health and the environment.’’ 

However, the commenter indicated that 

a number of input assumptions used in 

EPA’s 2009 revised risk analysis are 

unnecessarily conservative, resulting in 

significant over-estimation of the risks 

posed. In particular, the commenter 

stated that EPA used population 

distribution assumptions to calculate 

exposure concentrations for both the 

groundwater and air pathways that 

assumed higher population percentages 

located closer to a landfill than actually 

occurs. The commenter also states that, 

because exposure concentration is a 

function of distance from the source, 

using the EPA distributions result in an 

overestimation of calculated risk. 

The commenter also stated that our 

modeling underestimated the effect of 

biodegradation, noting that this could 

lower the peak contaminant 

concentration to which individuals 

would be exposed. Finally, the 

commenter criticized the Agency’s 

approach in comparing the ELLRs to the 

RB–MLLs for the various solvents, 

which used a comparison of two upper 

bound values (i.e., the 90th percentile 

ELLR and 90th percentile RB–MLL). 

The commenter stated that this results 

in a level of protectiveness that exceeds 

EPA’s stated goal of ensuring that 90 

percent of the hypothetical individuals 

living near a landfill will not be exposed 

to solvent releases at levels of concern. 

As an alternative, the commenter 

suggested the use of ratios that combine 

the 90th percentile RB–MLLs and the 

50th percentile ELLRs. 

EPA Response: Other Aspects of the 

2009 Revised Risk Analysis Presented in 

the October 2009 NODA 

EPA disagrees with the comments 

regarding the use of TCLP data from 

laundry sludge and finds that using the 

new landfill model (LFCR) rather than 

TCLP leachate data for modeling solvent 

releases from disposed solventcontaminated wipes and sludge 

presented several advantages. The 

landfill model we used captured a broad 

variety of conditions needed to backcalculate acceptable levels of solvent 

loadings for a national rule. Our 

approach allowed calculation of releases 

to all media, including air. Using this 

approach, we were able to consider the 

potential risk for a range of chemicals 

based on their properties and transport 

characteristics, regardless of whether 

empirical release data, such as TCLP, 

were available. Furthermore, the TCLP 

data submitted by the commenter were 

severely limited (e.g., the submitted 

samples were taken in the 1990s, some 

samples were not analyzed for the 

organic constituents of interest, and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46479 

42See ‘‘Guidance for Risk Characterization,’’ 

accessible at http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/ 

2riskchr.htm. 

43See the docket for the documents ‘‘Response to 

Comments on the Solvent Contaminated Wipes 

2003 Screening Risk Analysis’’ and ‘‘Response to 

Comments on the Solvent Contaminated Wipes 

2009 Risk Analysis: Risk-Based Mass Loading 

Limits.’’ 

there was no supporting QA/QC data 

provided). 

EPA disagrees that the groundwater 

modeling scenario we used was based 

on overly conservative assumptions. 

This reasonable groundwater exposure 

scenario, developed to be protective of 

highly exposed individuals, has been 

implemented to support various EPA 

risk analyses, which have withstood 

extensive external peer reviews. EPA 

also disagrees with the commenter’s 

assumption that, in an unlined landfill 

scenario, comprehensive monitoring is 

being done to assess potential impacts 

to groundwater, and that such 

monitoring would prevent potential 

risk. While monitoring is required for 

many landfills, there are exceptions to 

this requirement (e.g., for smaller 

landfills, as defined in § 258.1(f)(1)). In 

any case, protectiveness should not rely 

on groundwater monitoring to protect 

nearby residents from potential 

exposures. Rather, our risk analysis 

seeks to estimate risks to highly exposed 

individuals that rely on groundwater 

sources near landfills. If we rely on well 

monitoring, then groundwater releases 

might not be detected until aquifers 

have been contaminated. That approach 

would be inconsistent with the 

preventive intent of RCRA to 

prospectively avoid releases into the 

environment that may threaten human 

health and the environment. Therefore, 

relying on monitoring is not appropriate 

in our risk analysis. 

With respect to the issue of landfill 

and well locations, we note that these 

locations can change over time. 

Therefore, EPA used probabilistic 

analyses to incorporate the variability 

and uncertainty in the data. Landfill 

locations for this risk analysis were 

based on the locations found in EPA’s 

landfill database. We implicitly 

assumed that off-site landfills provide a 

reasonable representation of the 

distribution of MSWLFs across the 

United States. From this database, we 

obtained a sample population of 

locations and correlated parameters 

(e.g., aquifer type, climate center, soil 

types, and aquifer temperature) 

necessary to run the source and fate and 

transport models. The commenter’s 

claim that their survey shows that the 

‘‘majority’’ of laundry facilities dispose 

of their sludge in a lined landfill is not 

sufficient to demonstrate that there are 

no potential risks from disposal in 

unlined units. Nonetheless, we modeled 

both an unlined and composite-lined 

landfill scenario to assess the full range 

of potential risks. The Agency found 

that disposal in composite-lined 

landfills was a necessary condition for 

the exclusion to adequately protect 

human health and the environment. 

With respect to population 

distributions, we acknowledge that the 

2009 revised risk analysis used 

conservative receptor locations. 

However, our analysis does not directly 

consider population risk; rather this 

national-level risk analysis was 

designed to be protective of highly 

exposed individuals. Regarding the 

groundwater pathway, we used a 

probabilistic approach for well 

placement that was based on residential 

well locations taken from surveys of 

MSWLFs. Similarly for the air risk 

evaluation, the specific distances to 

receptors were selected to ensure 

complete coverage in the air estimates, 

particularly near the source of the 

emissions where the greatest impact can 

be observed; this analysis was 

conducted using a conceptual site 

model that is plausible anywhere in the 

contiguous 48 states. 

This approach for receptor location is 

reasonable for this national-level 

analysis. In a supplemental report, one 

commenter provided an alternative 

assessment that evaluated the well 

distances with respect to population 

density surrounding twelve landfills in 

four states. However, the commenter’s 

density analysis and the referenced state 

regulations are only snapshots of a 

limited number of existing landfill 

scenarios and are not sufficiently 

representative of potential exposures to 

releases from other landfill scenarios 

throughout the nation. Landfills are 

subject to various state requirements 

(e.g., different buffer zones), and twelve 

landfills in four states are clearly less 

representative than the data used by 

EPA for the nation as a whole. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

who stated that our modeling 

underestimated the effect of 

biodegradation. The landfill model we 

used incorporated biodegradation of the 

solvents in the landfill using the 

available biodegradation data. We also 

modeled some degradation in 

groundwater (i.e., hydrolysis). Some 

types of transformation processes in 

groundwater, such as biodegradation, 

are more site specific and can be highly 

variable. This would be much more 

difficult to simulate in groundwater 

using a generic model such as the EPA 

CMTP, especially without extensive 

biodegradation data on subsurface 

aquifer conditions nationwide, which 

the commenter did not provide. Thus, 

for this national-level analysis, we 

conservatively assumed that these 

processes do not occur, and 

biodegradation was not included in the 

subsurface environment beyond the 

landfill. 

Regarding our comparison of the 90th 

percentile values of the ELLRs and RM– 

MLLs, our analysis was designed to be 

protective of 90 percent of 

hypothetically exposed individuals 

across all of the landfill sites in the 

United States. This is consistent with 

EPA guidance, which states that ‘‘For 

the Agency’s purposes, high end risk 

descriptors are plausible estimates of 

the individual risk for those persons at 

the upper end of the risk distribution,’’ 

or conceptually, individuals with 

‘‘exposure above about the 90th 

percentile of the population 

distribution.’’ 42 While the applied 

approach is conservative, comparing the 

90th percentiles is appropriate for 

achieving this goal. The ELLRs at 

selected percentiles are analogous to the 

RB–MLLs in that they represent a best 

estimate of the actual value at each 

percentile. We disagree with the 

comparison suggested by the commenter 

(i.e., comparing the central tendency 

ELLR to the 90th percentile RB–MLL) 

because it would not be protective of 90 

percent of hypothetically exposed 

individuals. Comparing the respective 

90th percentiles is appropriately and 

reasonably conservative, given the 

considerable uncertainty associated 

with the loading limits. 

Responses to all comments on the 

calculation of the RB–MLLs used in the 

November 2003 proposal and the 2009 

revised risk analysis presented in the 

October 2009 NODA are provided in the 

docket.43

X. How will these regulatory changes be 

administered and enforced? 

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized 

States 

Under RCRA section 3006, EPA may 

authorize qualified states to administer 

the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 

program within the state. Following 

authorization, the authorized state 

program operates in lieu of the federal 

regulations. EPA retains enforcement 

authority to enforce the authorized state 

Subtitle C program, although authorized 

states have primary enforcement 

authority. EPA also retains its authority 

under sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 3017, 

and 7003. The standards and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

44EPA notes that decisions regarding whether a 

state rule is more stringent or broader in scope than 

the federal program are made when the Agency 

authorizes state programs. 

requirements for state authorization are 

found at 40 CFR part 271. 

Prior to enactment of the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA), a state with final RCRA 

authorization administered its 

hazardous waste program entirely in 

lieu of EPA administering the federal 

program in that state. EPA did not issue 

permits for any facilities in that state, 

since the state was now authorized to 

issue RCRA permits. When new, more 

stringent federal requirements were 

promulgated, the state was obligated to 

enact equivalent authorities within 

specified time frames. However, the 

new requirements did not take effect in 

an authorized state until the state 

adopted the equivalent state 

requirements. 

In contrast, under RCRA section 

3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was 

added by HSWA, new requirements and 

prohibitions imposed under HSWA 

authority take effect in authorized states 

at the same time that they take effect in 

unauthorized states. While states must 

still adopt HSWA related provisions as 

state law to retain final authorization, 

EPA implements the HSWA provisions 

in authorized states, including the 

issuance of any permits pertaining to 

HSWA requirements, until the state is 

granted authorization to do so. 

Authorized states are required to 

modify their programs only when EPA 

promulgates federal requirements that 

are more stringent or broader in scope 

than existing federal requirements.44

RCRA section 3009 allows states to 

impose standards more stringent than 

those in the federal program (see 40 CFR 

271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, 

but are not required to, adopt federal 

regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less 

stringent than previous federal 

regulations. 

B. Effect on State Authorization 

Today’s rule amends the definition of 

solid waste to conditionally exclude 

solvent-contaminated reusable wipes 

and the definition of hazardous waste to 

conditionally exclude solventcontaminated disposable wipes. These 

definitions were promulgated under the 

authority of sections 2002, 3001–3010 

and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act of 1965 (later amended by RCRA 

and by HSWA). Today’s rule amends 

the application of the RCRA Subtitle C 

‘‘base’’ program to certain wastes and is 

thus a non-HSWA rule. 

Because, today’s conditional 

exclusions are not HSWA regulations, 

today’s regulatory provisions are not 

immediately effective in authorized 

states. They are only immediately 

applicable in those states and territories 

that do not have final authorization for 

the base (non-HSWA) portion of the 

RCRA program, including Indian 

country. 

Today’s rule includes requirements 

and conditions that are less stringent 

than those required under the base 

RCRA hazardous waste program. Thus, 

states, except as described below, are 

not required to adopt the conditional 

exclusions. However, the Agency 

encourages states to adopt this rule as 

soon as possible to reduce regulatory 

burden on businesses and maximize 

national consistency, while maintaining 

protection of human health and the 

environment. In addition, if a state 

were, through implementation of state 

waiver authorities or other state laws, to 

allow compliance with the provisions of 

today’s rule in advance of adoption or 

authorization, EPA would not generally 

consider such implementation a 

concern for purposes of enforcement or 

state authorization. 

Of course, states cannot implement 

requirements that are less stringent than 

the federal requirements in today’s rule. 

As we stated in the November 2003 

proposal, the 1994 Shapiro memo 

established federal policy with regard to 

solvent-contaminated wipes that 

deferred the determination of their 

regulatory status to the states and EPA 

regions (68 FR 65617). This deferral has 

resulted in the development of various 

state programs for reusable wipes. 

Today’s conditional exclusion for 

reusable wipes is generally consistent 

with many of these state policies; 

however, some conditions required by 

today’s final rule may be more stringent 

than some existing state programs. As a 

result, authorized states whose 

programs include less stringent 

requirements than today’s final rule are 

required to modify their programs to 

maintain consistency with the federal 

program per the provisions of 40 CFR 

271.21(e). In addition, any states that 

delineate their program for reusable 

wipes in guidance documents or 

interpretive letters will need to 

promulgate enforceable regulations, as 

required by 40 CFR 271.7. Because 

today’s rule is a non-HSWA rule, the 

current state requirements remain in 

place until the state adopts the 

equivalent to these federal 

requirements. 

C. Enforcement 

Under today’s final rule, reusable 

wipes are excluded from the definition 

of solid waste and disposable wipes are 

excluded from the definition of 

hazardous waste provided certain 

conditions are met. To retain the 

conditional exclusion, each party 

operating under the conditional 

exclusion is responsible for ensuring 

that all the conditions in the final rule 

are met. Failure to maintain all of the 

required conditions at all times will 

result in loss of the exclusion. Facilities 

taking advantage of the conditional 

exclusion that fail to meet one or more 

of the conditions may be subject to 

enforcement action, and the solventcontaminated wipes will be considered 

to be hazardous waste from the point of 

their generation (i.e., from the point 

when the generator finished using 

them). EPA could choose to bring an 

enforcement action under RCRA section 

3008(a) for violations of the hazardous 

waste requirements. States could choose 

to enforce for violations of state 

hazardous waste requirements under 

state authorities. 

As with any violation, EPA and 

authorized states have enforcement 

mechanisms available that range in 

severity. In addition, EPA and 

authorized states have flexibility in 

applying these mechanisms to the 

various responsible parties as 

appropriate to the specific 

circumstances. Some of the enforcement 

mechanisms include sending a notice of 

violation, ordering that the situation be 

remedied, or assessing fines or other 

penalties as appropriate. 

Generators, transporters, laundries, 

dry cleaners, disposal, combustion, or 

other handling facilities claiming the 

conditional exclusions must be able to 

demonstrate to the appropriate 

regulatory agency that the applicable 

conditions are being met. In an 

enforcement action, the facility claiming 

the conditional exclusion bears the 

burden of proof pursuant to 40 CFR 

261.2(f), to demonstrate conformance 

with the conditions specified in the 

regulation. 

Additionally, the conditional 

exclusions in today’s rule do not affect 

the obligation to promptly respond to 

and remediate any releases of solvents 

and wipes managed within the 

conditional exclusion. If a hazardous 

solvent is spilled or released, then the 

solvent would be discarded. Any 

management of the released material not 

in compliance with applicable federal 

and state hazardous waste requirements 

could result in an enforcement action. 

For example, a person who spilled or 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46481 

45NAICS is the standard used by Federal 

statistical agencies in classifying business 

establishments for the purpose of collecting, 

analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to 

the U.S. business economy. 

46EPA only estimates this benefit for disposable 

wipes, because reusable wipes are already required 

to contain no free liquids under most existing state 

programs. 

47Solvent-contaminated disposable wipes are 

currently subject to the hazardous waste 

requirements, including the hazardous waste 

container standards in 40 CFR 265 Subpart I. 

Therefore, EPA expects there would be no 

incremental fire safety benefits associated with 

solvent-contaminated disposable wipes from this 

rule. 

otherwise released a hazardous solvent, 

and failed to immediately clean it up, 

could potentially be subject to 

enforcement for illegal disposal of the 

hazardous waste. The hazardous waste 

could also potentially be addressed 

through enforcement orders, such as 

orders under RCRA sections 3013 and 

7003. 

XI. Administrative Requirements for 

This Rulemaking 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563—Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal or policy issues 

under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in ‘‘Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for Conditional 

Exclusions from Solid and Hazardous 

Waste for Solvent-Contaminated 

Wipes.’’ A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action 

and the analysis is briefly summarized 

here. 

Entities that may be affected by the 

final rule include facilities that use 

reusable and/or disposable wipes in 

conjunction with solvents that are 

hazardous wastes when discarded. EPA 

identified approximately 90,549 

facilities in 13 economic sub-sectors 

(based on five- or six-digit North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes) 45 that generate 

solvent-contaminated wipes and, 

therefore, will be affected by the final 

rule. This estimate includes 576 large 

quantity generators (LQGs) and 89,973 

small quantity generators (SQGs). 

Collectively, these LQGs and SQGs 

generate approximately 2.2 billion 

solvent-contaminated wipes each year. 

Note that conditionally exempt small 

quantity generators (CESQGs) are 

conditionally exempt from 40 CFR parts 

262 through 270 provided they comply 

with the requirements at 40 CFR 261.5. 

Therefore, we have assumed that they 

are not affected by the final rule. 

Handlers of solvent-contaminated 

wipes are also affected by today’s rule. 

These include solid waste management 

facilities that manage solventcontaminated disposable wipes once 

they have been discarded (i.e., 

hazardous and non-hazardous landfills/ 

combustors), and industrial laundries 

and dry cleaners that clean solventcontaminated reusable wipes. EPA 

identified eight industries (based on 

five- or six-digit NAICS codes) with 

facilities that handle solventcontaminated wipes and, therefore, will 

be affected by the final rule. In 

particular, EPA estimates that 

approximately 3,730 solid waste 

management facilities and 359 

industrial laundries and dry cleaners 

will be affected by the final rule. 

Excluding non-monetary benefits, 

EPA estimates that the final rule will 

result in a net savings of approximately 

$18.0 million per year (2011 dollars). 

The net savings of $18.0 million per 

year factored in the annualized total 

one-time cost of the final rule across all 

facilities of approximately $123,000 to 

$164,000 in the first-year after 

promulgation of the final rule, total 

annual costs of approximately $6.4 

million and total annual savings of 

approximately $24.4 million across all 

affected entities. EPA evaluated these 

costs and savings over a 10-year period. 

The primary benefit of the final rule 

is the annual savings associated with 

RCRA regulatory compliance. However, 

EPA also anticipates that the final rule 

will result in other expected benefits, 

including (1) pollution prevention and 

waste minimization benefits, (2) fire 

safety benefits, and (3) potential benefits 

to industrial laundries and dry cleaners 

by excluding solvent-contaminated 

reusable wipes from the definition of 

solid waste—that is, removing the 

‘‘waste’’ label. The other expected 

benefits of the final rule are estimated 

at between $3.7 million and $9.9 

million per year (2011 dollars). 

Pollution prevention and waste 

minimization benefits of the final rule 

take the form of avoided future 

purchases of virgin solvents if captured 

spent solvent ‘‘free liquids’’ are 

recycled.46 The final rule excludes 

disposable wipes from hazardous waste 

requirements, provided the solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids. Therefore, the final rule 

provides a strong economic incentive 

for generators to remove free liquid 

spent solvent, which is then made 

available to be recycled. Furthermore, 

under the hazardous waste regulations, 

LQGs may have had only 90 days to 

accumulate solvent-contaminated 

wipes. However, under the final rule, 

generators may accumulate solventcontaminated wipes, along with free 

liquids, for up to 180 days. Longer 

accumulation periods increase the 

potential for a generator to accumulate 

sufficient amounts of spent solvent to 

make recycling more economically 

feasible. The total annual pollution 

prevention and waste minimization 

benefits are estimated to be between 

$0.21 million and $0.96 million. 

Fire safety benefits of the final rule 

are attributed to several specific rule 

conditions, including (1) wipes must be 

stored in non-leaking, closed containers, 

which ensures that the wipes are 

contained and are not exposed to the 

environment and potential ignition 

sources; (2) wipes must be labeled 

‘‘Excluded Solvent-Contaminated 

Wipes,’’ which ensures that the 

generators, handlers, as well as other 

personnel, such as state and EPA 

enforcement, are aware of the contents 

of the containers and can handle them 

appropriately (e.g., not store the wipes 

next to an open flame); and (3) wipes 

must not contain free liquids, which 

reduces the likelihood of fire ignition. 

The total annual fire safety benefits from 

reusable wipes are estimated to be 

between $0.23 million and $2.31 

million.47

Excluding reusable wipes from the 

definition of solid waste—that is, 

removing the label of ‘‘waste,’’ may 

increase the economic value of a 

product. The total annual benefits from 

these impacts are estimated to be 

between $3.3 million and $6.6 million 

per year. 

Adding the net savings to the other 

expected benefits, the net benefits of the 

final rule are estimated at between $21.7 

million and $27.8 million per year (2011 

dollars). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

(Information Collection Request) 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule will be 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The information 

collection request has been updated 

since the November 2003 proposed rule 

to reflect the final rule requirements and 

to respond to public comments. 

The information requirements 

established for this action are voluntary 

to the extent that the conditional 

exclusions being finalized today are 

voluntary and represent an overall 

reduction in burden, as compared with 

the alternative information requirements 

associated with managing the solventcontaminated wipes as hazardous waste. 

The information requirements help 

ensure that (1) entities operating under 

today’s rule are held accountable to the 

applicable requirements; and (2) 

inspectors can verify compliance with 

the conditions of today’s rule when 

needed. 

For the information collection 

requirements applicable to 

conditionally excluded solventcontaminated wipes, the aggregate 

annual burden to respondents over the 

three-year period covered by this ICR is 

estimated to be 65,064 hours, with a 

cost to affected entities of $3,384,436. 

This cost includes an estimated labor 

cost of $1,604,680 and an operation and 

maintenance cost of $1,779,756, which 

includes the purchase of container 

labels. EPA estimates that the burden 

savings under today’s rule as compared 

to the existing hazardous waste 

requirements will be 14,497 hours and 

$557,706 per year. Thus, the net impacts 

under the final rule are estimated to be 

50,567 hours and $2,826,730 per year. 

There are no capital/startup costs and 

no costs for purchases of services. There 

are no reporting requirements associated 

with today’s rule. EPA estimates that 

67,851 respondents will be required to 

keep records. The average annual 

recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 

almost one hour per respondent. This 

estimate includes time for reading the 

regulations, affixing labels to containers, 

and maintaining at the site specified 

documentation that the excluded 

solvent-contaminated wipes are being 

managed in accordance with today’s 

final rule. There are no administrative 

costs to the Agency. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as (1) a small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and, (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that are affected by 

this final rule include entities that use 

or handle solvent-contaminated 

reusable and disposable wipes. EPA’s 

analysis estimates that 57,786 small 

entities are located in states that are 

expected to adopt the final rule, which 

includes 55,327 generators and 2,459 

handlers. We have determined in our 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

Conditional Exclusions from Solid and 

Hazardous Waste for SolventContaminated Wipes’’ that the economic 

impacts of the final rule on the smallest 

of the small entities, firms with only one 

employee, range from only 0.01 percent 

to 0.54 percent of total annual revenue. 

These results are well below the one 

percent screening criterion used to 

identify firms that might experience 

significant economic impacts. 

Furthermore, all affected entities 

generating or handling solventcontaminated disposable wipes are 

expected to incur savings as a result of 

the final rule. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

Today’s rule establishes consistent 

regulations for reusable wipes with the 

intention that these requirements 

complement existing industry practices 

and thus minimize any additional 

burden on small entities. Additionally, 

EPA plans to develop and/or support 

user-friendly compliance assistance 

tools, such as the summary chart 

available in the docket for today’s rule, 

which provides an overview of the 

exclusion for reusable wipes and 

disposable wipes. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Under the final rule, EPA is modifying 

its hazardous waste management 

regulations under RCRA to (1) 

conditionally exclude from the 

definition of hazardous waste solventcontaminated disposable wipes and (2) 

conditionally exclude from the 

definition of solid waste solventcontaminated reusable wipes. The 

conditional exclusions are considered 

less stringent than the current Federal 

regulations because they exclude certain 

materials now regulated by RCRA 

Subtitle C. Thus, authorized states are 

not required to adopt the final rule, 

provided their program is at least as 

stringent as the federal program. In 

addition, even if the final rule is 

adopted by their state, generators of 

solvent-contaminated wipes may opt to 

continue to manage such wipes under 

the current federal hazardous waste 

regulations rather than under the 

conditional exclusions. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. RCRA, (42 

U.S.C. 6901 to 6992k) establishes the 

relationship between states and the 

federal government with respect to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46483 

48http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/ 

testmethods/sw846/index.htm. 

hazardous waste management, 

including provisions for authorized 

state hazardous waste programs (42 

U.S.C. 6926, section 3006) and retention 

of state authority (42 U.S.C. 6929, 

section 3009). Under section 3009 of 

RCRA, states and their political 

subdivisions may not impose 

requirements less stringent for 

hazardous waste management than the 

federal government. Therefore, although 

the final rule prevents state and local 

laws that are less stringent with respect 

to management of solvent-contaminated 

wipes, the final rule does not have 

federalism implications beyond those 

already established by RCRA. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

may have tribal implications. However, 

it will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. This action may 

have tribal implications to the extent 

that generating facilities on tribal lands 

use solvents on wipes or handling 

facilities located on tribal lands may 

receive solvent-contaminated wipes. 

EPA did not consult directly with 

representatives of tribal governments 

early in the process of developing this 

regulation; however, EPA did conduct 

extensive outreach with the public, 

which included two public comment 

periods and a public meeting. 

Additionally, we specifically solicited 

comment on the November 2003 

proposed rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in section III.D. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects 

because the rule addresses management 

of solvent-contaminated wipes under 

RCRA and will not have significant 

impacts on energy supply, distribution, 

or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking includes 

environmental monitoring or 

measurement consistent with the 

Agency’s Performance Based 

Measurement System (‘‘PBMS’’). For 

certain conditions, such as today’s 

container standard, EPA has decided 

not to require the use of specific, 

prescribed technical standards. Rather, 

the rule will allow the use of any 

method that meets the prescribed 

performance criteria. The PBMS 

approach is intended to be more flexible 

and cost-effective for the regulated 

community; it is also intended to 

encourage innovation and improved 

data quality. EPA is not precluding the 

use of any method, whether it 

constitutes a voluntary consensus 

standard or not, as long as it meets the 

performance criteria specified. 

The rulemaking does involve a 

technical standard for one condition of 

today’s exclusions. For the definition of 

‘‘no free liquids,’’ EPA has determined 

that the Paint Filter Liquids Test, (SW– 

846, Method 9095B) is most appropriate 

to determine whether solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids (although the no free liquids 

standard may also be determined using 

another standard or test method as 

defined by an authorized state). This 

test is included in EPA’s official 

compendium of analytical and sampling 

methods entitled ‘‘Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ 

Chemical Methods’’ (EPA Publication 

SW–846), which have been evaluated 

and approved for use in complying with 

the RCRA regulations.48 The Paint Filter 

Liquids Test was specifically chosen 

because it is currently being used by the 

majority of states to determine whether 

solvent-contaminated wipes contain free 

liquids and is also the test used to 

implement the restrictions on disposal 

of free liquids in the MSWLF 

regulations (40 CFR 258.28). The Paint 

Filter Liquids Test is also simple and 

inexpensive to perform and typically 

produces clear results. 

J. Executive Order 12898: 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided for human health or the 

environment. Specifically, EPA has 

concluded that today’s action will not 

result in disproportionate adverse 

impacts to the communities of concern 

because (1) the results of the 2012 final 

risk analysis demonstrate that solventcontaminated wipes and sludge from 

laundries and dry cleaners disposed in 

MSWLFs do not pose significant risk to 

human health and the environment; (2) 

the conditions of the rule (such as 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
46484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

ensuring that solvent-contaminated 

wipes are stored in non-leaking, closed 

containers and that such wipes contain 

no free liquids at the point of being sent 

for disposal or cleaning) address 

potential hazards during accumulation, 

storage, transportation, and handling; 

and (3) we do not anticipate any 

increased affects from transportation as, 

to the extent this rule changes the 

destination of solvent-contaminated 

wipes, they would likely be disposed 

with other solid wastes and thus, 

transported along well established solid 

waste hauler routes. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective January 31, 2014. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 260 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste. 

40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Solid waste. 

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, parts 260 and 261 of title 40, 

Chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, are amended as follows: 

PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 260 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921– 

6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, 

and 6974. 

Subpart B—Definitions 

■ 2. Section 260.10 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘No free liquids,’’ 

‘‘Solvent-contaminated wipe,’’ and 

‘‘Wipe’’ to read as follows: 

§ 260.10 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

No free liquids, as used in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(26) and 40 CFR 261.4(b)(18), 

means that solvent-contaminated wipes 

may not contain free liquids as 

determined by Method 9095B (Paint 

Filter Liquids Test), included in ‘‘Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods’’ (EPA 

Publication SW–846), which is 

incorporated by reference, and that 

there is no free liquid in the container 

holding the wipes. No free liquids may 

also be determined using another 

standard or test method as defined by an 

authorized state. 

* * * * * 

Solvent-contaminated wipe means— 

(1) A wipe that, after use or after 

cleaning up a spill, either: 

(i) Contains one or more of the F001 

through F005 solvents listed in 40 CFR 

261.31 or the corresponding P- or Ulisted solvents found in 40 CFR 261.33; 

(ii) Exhibits a hazardous characteristic 

found in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C 

when that characteristic results from a 

solvent listed in 40 CFR part 261; and/ 

or 

(iii) Exhibits only the hazardous waste 

characteristic of ignitability found in 40 

CFR 261.21 due to the presence of one 

or more solvents that are not listed in 

40 CFR part 261. 

(2) Solvent-contaminated wipes that 

contain listed hazardous waste other 

than solvents, or exhibit the 

characteristic of toxicity, corrosivity, or 

reactivity due to contaminants other 

than solvents, are not eligible for the 

exclusions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(26) and 

40 CFR 261.4(b)(18). 

* * * * * 

Wipe means a woven or non-woven 

shop towel, rag, pad, or swab made of 

wood pulp, fabric, cotton, polyester 

blends, or other material. 

* * * * * 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, 6924(y), and 6838. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 4. Section 261.4 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (a)(26) and (b)(18) to read as 

follows: 

§ 261.4 Exclusions. 

(a) * * * 

(26) Solvent-contaminated wipes that 

are sent for cleaning and reuse are not 

solid wastes from the point of 

generation, provided that 

(i) The solvent-contaminated wipes, 

when accumulated, stored, and 

transported, are contained in nonleaking, closed containers that are 

labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes.’’ The containers 

must be able to contain free liquids, 

should free liquids occur. During 

accumulation, a container is considered 

closed when there is complete contact 

between the fitted lid and the rim, 

except when it is necessary to add or 

remove solvent-contaminated wipes. 

When the container is full, or when the 

solvent-contaminated wipes are no 

longer being accumulated, or when the 

container is being transported, the 

container must be sealed with all lids 

properly and securely affixed to the 

container and all openings tightly 

bound or closed sufficiently to prevent 

leaks and emissions; 

(ii) The solvent-contaminated wipes 

may be accumulated by the generator for 

up to 180 days from the start date of 

accumulation for each container prior to 

being sent for cleaning; 

(iii) At the point of being sent for 

cleaning on-site or at the point of being 

transported off-site for cleaning, the 

solvent-contaminated wipes must 

contain no free liquids as defined in 

§ 260.10 of this chapter. 

(iv) Free liquids removed from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes or from the 

container holding the wipes must be 

managed according to the applicable 

regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273; 

(v) Generators must maintain at their 

site the following documentation: 

(A) Name and address of the laundry 

or dry cleaner that is receiving the 

solvent-contaminated wipes; 

(B) Documentation that the 180-day 

accumulation time limit in 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(26)(ii) is being met; 

(C) Description of the process the 

generator is using to ensure the solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids at the point of being laundered 

or dry cleaned on-site or at the point of 

being transported off-site for laundering 

or dry cleaning; 

(vi) The solvent-contaminated wipes 

are sent to a laundry or dry cleaner 

whose discharge, if any, is regulated 

under sections 301 and 402 or section 

307 of the Clean Water Act. 

(b) * * * 

(18) Solvent-contaminated wipes, 

except for wipes that are hazardous 

waste due to the presence of 

trichloroethylene, that are sent for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46485 

disposal are not hazardous wastes from 

the point of generation provided that 

(i) The solvent-contaminated wipes, 

when accumulated, stored, and 

transported, are contained in nonleaking, closed containers that are 

labeled ‘‘Excluded SolventContaminated Wipes.’’ The containers 

must be able to contain free liquids, 

should free liquids occur. During 

accumulation, a container is considered 

closed when there is complete contact 

between the fitted lid and the rim, 

except when it is necessary to add or 

remove solvent-contaminated wipes. 

When the container is full, or when the 

solvent-contaminated wipes are no 

longer being accumulated, or when the 

container is being transported, the 

container must be sealed with all lids 

properly and securely affixed to the 

container and all openings tightly 

bound or closed sufficiently to prevent 

leaks and emissions; 

(ii) The solvent-contaminated wipes 

may be accumulated by the generator for 

up to 180 days from the start date of 

accumulation for each container prior to 

being sent for disposal; 

(iii) At the point of being transported 

for disposal, the solvent-contaminated 

wipes must contain no free liquids as 

defined in § 260.10 of this chapter. 

(iv) Free liquids removed from the 

solvent-contaminated wipes or from the 

container holding the wipes must be 

managed according to the applicable 

regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 

through 273; 

(v) Generators must maintain at their 

site the following documentation: 

(A) Name and address of the landfill 

or combustor that is receiving the 

solvent-contaminated wipes; 

(B) Documentation that the 180 day 

accumulation time limit in 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(18)(ii) is being met; 

(C) Description of the process the 

generator is using to ensure solventcontaminated wipes contain no free 

liquids at the point of being transported 

for disposal; 

(vi) The solvent-contaminated wipes 

are sent for disposal 

(A) To a municipal solid waste 

landfill regulated under 40 CFR part 

258, including 40 CFR 258.40, or to a 

hazardous waste landfill regulated 

under 40 CFR parts 264 or 265; or 

(B) To a municipal waste combustor 

or other combustion facility regulated 

under section 129 of the Clean Air Act 

or to a hazardous waste combustor, 

boiler, or industrial furnace regulated 

under 40 CFR parts 264, 265, or 266 

subpart H. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–18285 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3