Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0004-0078
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-04T04:00Z

Jere
W.
Glover
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
409
Third
Street,
S.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
20416
Dear
Jere,

EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
is
preparing
a
regulatory
proposal
entitled,
Modifications
to
RCRA
Regulations
Affecting
Industrial
Shop
Towels
and
Wipes
Contaminated
with
Listed
Solvents,
40
CFR
Part
261.
3.
Although
we
do
not
expect
this
action
to
impose
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA's
RCRA
managers
are
aware
of
its
relevance
to
the
recently
proposed
Effluent
Guideline
for
Industrial
Laundries.
In
order
to
solicit
detailed
small
business
advice
on
a
set
of
difficult
issues,
we
intend
to
ask
a
number
of
small
entities
to
review
and
comment
on
our
regulatory
options
as
we
develop
them.
Although
this
outreach
is
informal,
I
would
appreciate
your
staff's
reviewing
the
enclosed
list
of
small
entity
representatives
with
whom
EPA
is
currently
working,
and
advising
us
of
additional
parties,
if
any,
with
whom
you
believe
we
should
confer.
Please
ask
Kevin
or
Damon
to
pass
along
your
suggestions
directly
to
Jim
O'Leary,
703­
308­
8827,
the
project
manager
for
this
rulemaking.

I
have
attached
a
description
of
the
rule
and
the
issues
it
seeks
to
address
to
assist
you
in
considering
who
should
be
involved.
We
shall
send
additional
information
to
the
small
entity
representatives
to
help
them
in
there
discussions
with
us.
You
should
also
know
that
we
have
been
in
touch
with
the
attached
list
of
small
entity
representatives
and
intend
to
hold
an
informal
meeting
with
them
on
August
10,
1998
from
1
PM
to
5
PM
at
our
Crystal
Station
offices.

Sincerely,

Thomas
E.
Kelly
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chair
Attachment
Attachment
Background
In
the
simplest
of
terms,
a
solid
waste
is
a
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
if
it
is
(
1)
listed
under
40
CFR
Part
261,
subpart
D,
(
2)
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
identified
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
subpart
C,
or
(
3)
it
is
a
mixture
of
a
solid
waste
that
is
listed
in
subpart
D
solely
because
it
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste
identified
in
subpart
C,
unless
the
resultant
mixture
no
longer
exhibits
any
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste
identified
in
subpart
C.
(
See
40
CFR
261.3(
a)(
2)).
Therefore,
when
a
listed
solvent
is
used
in
conjunction
with
a
disposable
wiper
or
reusable
shop
towel,
that
shop
towel
or
wiper
is
a
hazardous
waste
when
it
no
longer
can
be
used.
As
such,
the
"
spent"
shop
towel
or
wiper
must
be
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
because
it
contains
a
hazardous
waste.

However,
because
of
the
site­
specific
nature
of
this
issue,
the
current
Federal
policy
with
respect
to
RCRA
regulatory
status
of
solvent
contaminated
shop
towels
has
been
to
defer
resolution
of
specific
questions
to
the
EPA
Regions
and
States.
This
policy
was
first
articulated
in
a
January
23,
1991
letter
from
Sylvia
K.
Lowrance,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
to
Lance
R.
Miller,
Director
of
New
Jersey's
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Division,
where
she
stated:

We
believe
that
the
best
course
of
action
is
to
make
a
more
comprehensive
interpretation
in
this
rulemaking
context
[
solvent­
contaminated
rags
and
wipers].
However,
given
our
current
resource
levels
and
competing
high­
priority
projects,
we
cannot
select
a
particular
target
date
for
the
final
evaluation
of
this
petition
[
Kimberley­
Clark
and
Scott
Paper].
In
the
meantime,
Regions
and
States
continue
to
use
the
current
case­
by­
case
approach
on
this
subject.

This
policy
was
reaffirmed
in
a
February
14,
1994
memorandum
to
the
EPA
Regional
waste
management
directors
from
Michael
Shapiro,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
stating:

Because
there
are
many
applications
of
wipers,
we
cannot
at
this
time
make
any
generic
statements
that
all
wipers
are
hazardous
waste,
or
that
all
are
not.
A
material
that
is
a
solid
waste
is
by
definition
hazardous
waste
if
it
either
1)
meets
one
of
the
listings
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
D,
or
2)
exhibits
one
or
more
of
the
characteristics
described
in
40
CFR
Part
261,
Subpart
C.
Because
there
are
no
explicit
listings
for
"
used
wipers"
in
Part
261,
Subpart
D,
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
hazardous
waste,
only
exhibits
a
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste,
or
is
not
a
waste
at
all,
is
dependent
on
site­
specific
factors;
this
is
not
a
new
policy.
As
a
result,
any
determinations
or
interpretations
regarding
this
diverse
and
variable
waste
stream
should
be
made
by
the
regulatory
agency
(
i.
e.,
EPA
Region
or
State)
implementing
the
RCRA
program
for
a
particular
State.
This
has
been
our
longstanding
policy.
Most
States
have
concluded
that
disposable
wipers
contaminated
with
a
listed
or
characteristically
hazardous
solvent
should
be
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste,
while
reusable
shop
towels
that
are
industrially
laundered
need
not
be
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
so
long
as
specified
conditions
are
met.
These
conditions
primarily
require
that
the
generator
ensure
that
the
shipment
of
shop
towels
to
the
industrial
laundry
contains
no
free
liquids
(
as
defined
by
SW­
846
Method
9095,
Paint
Filter
Test
).
A
few
States,
such
as
Minnesota
and
Washington,
go
one
step
further
and
require
facilities
to
extract
solvent
from
reusable
shop
towels
in
order
to
ensure
that
"
no
free
liquids"
are
transported
off­
site,
and
also
to
ensure
that
industrial
laundries
meet
the
permit
requirements
of
their
local
POTW.
Industrial
laundries
also
urge
their
customers
to
remove
solvents
from
the
shop
towels
prior
to
being
transported
off­
site
in
order
to
meet
DOT
safety
requirements
and,
in
some
cases,
the
permit
requirements
from
the
local
POTW.

For
several
years,
industry,
particularly
the
disposable
wipe
industry,
has
requested
and
even
petitioned
EPA
to
address
the
issue
of
whether
current
federal
rules
are
over­
regulating
the
management
of
solvent
contaminated
wipes.
More
specifically,
concern
has
been
expressed
that
many
times
only
small
amounts
of
solvent
are
applied
to
a
wipe,
and
by
the
time
the
wipe
is
disposed
of,
little
or
no
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
present
because
very
small
or
no
amounts
of
solvent
remain
on
the
wipe.
However,
as
described
above,
these
wipes
are
regulated
as
a
hazardous
waste
because
they
contain
a
listed
hazardous
solvent
constituent.

The
feedback
that
EPA
has
received
on
this
issue
as
part
of
regulatory
reform
outreach
efforts,
and
from
industry
representatives
in
the
Printing
Common
Sense
Initiative,
further
encouraged
EPA
to
address
this
issue,
and
determine
whether
changes
are
appropriate.

Issues
EPA
Is
Trying
To
Address
The
fundamental
issue
of
concern
is
whether
or
not
EPA
and
the
States
are
regulating
disposable
wipes
and
reusable
shop
towels
effectively.
This,
in
turn,
leads
to
the
following
issues:

­­
Do
situations
exist
where
we
might
be
over­
regulating
disposable
wipes?

­­
Do
situations
exist
where
we
could
improve
upon
current
EPA/
State
regulations
and
policies
affecting
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels
and
wipes?

­­
What
environmental
policies
does
EPA
want
to
pursue
that
derive
better
waste
management
and
environmental
results
for
solvent­
contaminated
industrial
shop
towels/
wipes?

The
purpose
of
this
rulemaking
is
to
modify
current
federal
hazardous
waste
regulations
affecting
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels
and
wipes
to:
(
1)
ensure
these
materials
are
managed
safely;
(
2)
clarify
existing
regulations
to
make
them
user­
friendly;
and
(
3)
where
appropriate,
reduce
regulatory
compliance
costs.
1Realizing
that
there
is
much
uncertainty
surrounding
how
much
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags
could
be
sent
to
a
MSWLF,
Y
will
be
relatively
small,
probably
between
300
and
500
grams
per
day.

2We
also
believe
this
high
standard
would
not
result
in
any
"
free
liquids"
being
sent
offsite
Regulatory
Options
Under
Evaluation
The
purpose
of
this
rulemaking
is
to
modify
current
federal
hazardous
waste
regulations
affecting
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags
contaminated
with
listed
solvents
to:
(
1)
ensure
these
materials
are
managed
safely;
(
2)
clarify
existing
regulations
and
make
them
user­
friendly;
and
(
3)
where
appropriate,
reduce
regulatory
compliance
costs.

In
the
proposal,
the
EPA
plans
to
discuss
two
options
for
modifying
current
rules
affecting
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels
and
wipes.
One
option
would
be
a
performance
based
option;
the
other
primarily
a
risk­
based
option.
These
options
are
not
mutually
exclusive
and
can
be
used
together.
Both
options
would
exempt
these
materials
from
being
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
if
specified
conditions
were
met.
The
primary
difference
between
these
options
is
by
removing
a
greater
amount
of
listed
solvent
contained
in
the
industrial
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags,
the
generator
reduces
the
amount
of
regulatory
controls
or
conditions
when
the
material
is
sent
off­
site
for
subsequent
handling
and
processing.

OPTION
1.
Any
industrial
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
contaminated
with
a
listed
solvent
is
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
if
,
when
transferred
off­
site
to
a
material
handling
or
management
facility
such
as
an
industrial
laundry
or
municipal
waste
combustor,
the
solvent
contained
on
each
type
of
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
is
no
greater
than
X
percent
by
total
weight.
However,
if
the
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
is
sent
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF),
then
the
amount
of
solvent
contained
in
these
materials
cannot
exceed
an
average
of
Y
grams
per
day.
12
These
materials
also
would
have
to
be
stored
on­
site
in
closed
containers
prior
to
removing
any
solvent.
Generators
also
would
have
to
certify
that
they
meet
these
performance
standards.

This
option
focuses
on
the
generator
removing
a
large
percentage
of
listed
solvent
contained
in
the
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
after
the
facility
operator
has
completed
using
the
solvent­
contaminated
material.
In
other
cases,
solvent­
removal
may
not
be
necessary
because
only
minimal
amounts
were
originally
applied
to
the
shop
towel
or
wipe.
Use
a
solvent­
removal
technology
such
as
a
centrifuge,
mechanical
wringer
or
screen­
bottom
drum
also
would
not
constitute
treatment.
Instead,
use
of
such
processes
would
constitute
a
form
of
waste
generation
since
another
hazardous
waste;
i.
e.,
the
free
liquid,
is
being
generated.
This
option
would
not
require
additional
RCRA
controls
when
the
materials
were
sent
off­
site
for
further
handling
and
processing.
Instead,
we
would
rely
on
these
handling
and
processing
facilities,
such
as
an
industrial
laundry
or
municipal
waste
combustor
being
subject
to
Clean
Water
Act
and
Clean
Air
Act
regulations
to
address
any
risks
from
the
residues
still
contained
in
the
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag.
Under
this
option,
compliance
would
probably
require
centrifuging
(
but
not
necessarily)
to
achieve
the
prescribed
threshold,
or
conversely
very
little
use
of
solvent
on
the
wipe.
For
example,
assume
X
=
15
percent,
and
the
weight
of
the
wipe
=
10
grams.
This
would
mean
that
at
the
point
of
shipment
off­
site,
the
average
weight
of
the
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
could
not
exceed
11.5
grams
[
10
+
10(.
15)
=
11.5].
If
the
weight
of
solvent
applied
to
the
wipe
=
5
grams,
then
at
least
4
grams
of
solvent
would
have
to
be
removed
to
obtain
the
no
greater
than
15
percent
threshold.

However,
having
such
small
amounts
of
solvent
remaining
on
each
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
would
not
necessarily
mean
the
absence
of
a
potential
adverse
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
in
a
disposal
situation
such
as
a
MSWLF,
as
large
numbers
of
these
materials
could
be
used
and
disposed
daily.
Therefore,
to
prevent
such
a
problem
from
occurring,
no
more
than
an
average
of
Y
grams
of
solvent
per
day
contained
on
the
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
could
be
disposed
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.

OPTION
2a.
Any
industrial
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
contaminated
with
a
listed­
solvent
is
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
if
these
materials
are
sent
to
an
industrial
laundry
subject
to
Clean
Water
Act
requirements,
or
a
municipal
waste
combustor
(
MWC)
subject
to
New
Source
Performance
Standards
and
Emission
Guidelines
(
See
40
CFR
part
60
subparts
WWW
and
Cc),
and:

1.
These
materials
are
stored
in
a
closed
container
while
at
the
point
of
generation,
and
also
during
transportation
and
at
the
receiving
facility
prior
to
entering
the
handling
(
industrial
laundry
or
combustion)
process,
and
2.
These
materials
contain
"
no
free
liquids"
when
shipped
off­
site.

Option
2b.
Any
industrial
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
contaminated
with
a
listed­
solvent
is
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulations
if
these
materials
are
sent
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
and:

1.
These
materials
are
stored
in
a
closed
container
while
at
the
point
of
generation
2.
These
materials
contain
"
no
free
liquids"
when
shipped
off­
site.

3.
The
amount
of
listed
solvent
contained
in
the
material
does
not
exceed
an
average
of
"
Y"
grams
per
day
when
disposed.

Generators
would
have
to
certify
they
met
these
provisions.

Note:
Failure
to
meet
above
conditions
could
result
in
these
materials
becoming
a
hazardous
waste,
and
the
industrial
laundry,
MWC
and
MSWLF
either
requiring
a
RCRA
permit,
and/
or
subject
to
substantial
RCRA
penalties.

Under
Options
2a
and
2b,
"
no
free
liquids"
would
be
achieved,
when
just
prior
to
the
3This
provision
also
could
be
applicable
to
defining
when
the
characteristic
is
removed
in
ignitable­
only
characteristic
solvents
used
in
conjunction
with
industrial
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags.
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags
being
transported
off­
site
to
an
industrial
laundry,
municipal
waste
combustor
or
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
a
random
sample
of
these
materials
selected
from
any
part
of
the
container
(
particularly
the
bottom)
can
be
squeezed,
hand
wrung
or
pass
the
Paint
Filter
Test,
such
that
no
liquid
solvent
is
released.
3
Note:
Certain
listed
solvents
may
be
banned
under
both
options
from
being
sent
to
a
industrial
laundry,
municipal
waste
combustor,
or
disposal
in
a
MSWLF
because,
even
under
conservative
assumptions,
there
may
exist
the
potential
for
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects.

This
option
would
require
additional
levels
of
control
over
Option
1
because
the
amount
of
listed
solvent
contained
in
each
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
could
be
substantial.
Similarly,
the
containers
used
under
either
option
would
not
necessarily
have
to
be
RCRA
steel
drums.
Alternative
containers
could
be
used
so
long
as
there
were
no
air
emissions
and
the
container
material
did
not
facilitate
a
fire
hazard.
In
some
respects,
this
option
is
similar
to
what
many
States
have
adopted
as
their
policy
regarding
reusable
shop
towels
sent
to
an
industrial
laundry.
However,
we
have
expanded
management
options
to
include
the
management
of
these
materials
at
municipal
waste
combustors
and
also
established
a
"
conservative"
risk­
based
threshold
for
small
amounts
of
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
wipes
and
rags
sent
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
However,
there
are
differences
from
some
of
the
current
State
policies.

First,
the
materials
would
have
to
be
stored
from
"
cradle
to
grave"
in
closed
containers,
not
just
on­
site
when
sent
off­
site
to
a
municipal
waste
combustor
or
industrial
laundry.
Second,
the
definition
of
"
no
free
liquids"
would
be
more
clearly
defined
and
also
more
stringent
to
account
for
free
liquids
occurring
in
the
bottom
of
drums
through
gravity
and
pressure.
Similarly,
EPA
would
provide
additional
guidance
to
the
user
community
and
the
States
if
the
generator
chooses
to
rely
on
the
use
of
the
Paint
Filter
Test
to
verify
compliance
with
the
"
no
free
liquids"
provision
because
the
above
test
is
not
always
effective
and
appropriate.

Other
requirements
under
evaluation
include
appropriate
record
keeping
to
certify
compliance
with
the
"
no
greater
than"
threshold,
"
Y"
grams
per
day
was
not
exceeded
on
an
average
daily
basis,
and
constituents
were
not
sent
to
a
subsequent
handling
or
processing
facility
if
banned.
Similarly
under
Option
2,
the
Agency
is
evaluating
different
types
of
storage
containers,
other
than
a
steel
drum,
to
determine
what
types
of
containers
represent
viable
alternatives.

Important
issues
under
both
options
are
the
value
of
"
X"
and
"
Y."
Under
the
first
option,
"
X"
would
be
low,
probably
in
the
10
to
15
percent.
As
a
result,
the
amount
of
solvent
remaining
on
the
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
would
have
to
be
low
such
that
there
was
no
risk
from
the
disposal
and
handling
of
these
materials
from
"
cradle
to
grave."
Similarly,
"
Y"
under
both
Option
1
and
2b
also
would
have
to
be
low
to
account
for
the
uncertainties
that
exist
in
our
data.
Variables
we
must
consider
include:

1.
Number
of
generators
sending
their
materials
to
MSWLF
2.
Number
of
wipes
used
daily
3.
Amount
of
solvent
applied
to
wipe
4.
Type
of
solvent;
i.
e.,
constituents
applied
to
wipe
5.
Risk
coefficient
of
solvent
constituent
6.
Extent
of
evaporation
prior
to
leaving
generating
facility
7.
Hazard
quotient;
i.
e.,
risk
level
that
derives
risk
coefficient
8.
Risk
modeling
assumptions:
exposure
to
child
only
or
adult;
location
and
size
of
landfill;
distance
from
landfill
boundaries,
etc.

How
would
generators
comply
and
certify?

Under
Option
1,
generators
would
have
to
maintain
records
on
(
1)
the
types
of
materials;
i.
e.,
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags,
used
and
their
associated
weight(
s),
(
2)
the
average
number
of
materials
used
on
a
daily
basis
for
each
type,
(
3)
the
average
amount
of
solvent
used
on
each
wipe,
(
4)
how
they
met
"
X"
and
"
Y"
and
(
5)
what
"
X"
and
"
Y"
were.
To
meet
(
2)
above,
generators
could
simply
examine
their
inventory
of
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
periodically
between
two
points
in
time,
calculate
a
beginning
number
of
materials
and
remaining
number
of
materials,
and
divide
by
the
number
of
working
days
between
the
beginning
and
end
estimates
to
derive
an
estimate
of
the
average
number
of
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
used
on
a
daily
basis.
Similarly,
a
generator
could
take
hourly
estimates
of
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
used
periodically
and
estimate
a
daily
average
usage.

For
(
3)
above,
most
generators
appear
to
use
about
the
same
amount
of
solvent
on
each
shop
towel,
wipe
or
rag
for
a
given
function
or
operation.
Therefore,
a
generator
would
only
need
to
take
about
10
to
15
sample
points
and
average
the
amount
of
solvent
placed
on
each
shop
or
wipe
used
for
different
operations
at
the
facility.
Simple
and
relatively
inexpensive
(
less
than
$
100)
portable
balances
could
be
used
to
perform
this
calculation.
Achieving
"
X"
under
(
4)
above
could
be
achieved
any
number
of
ways.
A
generator
need
only
show
or
provide
proof
on
the
type(
s)
of
solvent­
removal
technologies
employed
(
if
any),
and
calculate
the
difference
in
solvent
remaining
between
first
applied
and
prior
to
transferring
off­
site,
or
after
the
solvent
was
removed
from
the
sample
of
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags.
Achieving
"
Y"
could
be
achieved
in
a
similar
manner,
but
also
include
the
average
number
of
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
used
on
a
daily
basis.
Certification
would
be
achieved
by
documenting
above
information
and
calculations,
particularly
in
how
"
X"
and
"
Y"
were
achieved.

Because
most
firms
operate
along
production
lines,
the
above
efforts
could
be
conducted
rather
easily
and
only
once
to
satisfy
compliance.
However,
if
the
types
of
materials;
i.
e.
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
changed,
or
the
process
for
how
solvents
were
used
in
conjunction
with
the
wipes,
or
production
increased
significantly
(
in
the
case
of
estimating
"
Y",
then
the
above
generation
of
records
would
have
to
be
repeated.
Similarly,
with
respect
to
Option
2,
the
important
compliance
components
would
involve
the
generator
ensuring
(
1)
"
no
free
liquids"
were
sent
off­
site
to
either
a
industrial
laundry,
municipal
waste
combustor,
or
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
(
2)
the
materials
were
stored
in
closed
containers
from
"
cradle
(
point
of
generation)
to
grave
(
receiving
facility)",
and
(
3)
records
(
contractual
agreements)
were
maintained
on
the
name
of
the
facility
handling
the
solventcontaminated
materials.
For
materials
sent
off­
site
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
records
similar
to
Option
1
above
would
have
to
be
maintained
to
verify
certification
and
show
that
the
estimated
average
daily
amount
of
solvent
contained
in
the
materials
that
were
disposed
in
the
landfill
did
not
exceed
"
Y."

Complying
with
the
"
no
free
liquids"
provision
could
involve
use
of
a
screen­
bottom
drum,
use
of
a
mechanical
wringer,
or
centrifuge
or
any
other
non­
thermal
solvent­
removal
technology,
including
hand
wringing.
Again,
use
of
these
technologies
would
be
considered
a
form
of
waste
generation
and
not
treatment.
Similarly,
situations
could
also
exist
where
the
amount
of
solvent
used
in
conjunction
with
the
material
was
so
minimal,
that
no
free
liquids
would
be
left
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
being
sent
off­
site
for
subsequent
management.
However,
from
our
site
visits
and
laboratory
experiments,
even
relatively
small
amounts
of
solvent
applied
to
relatively
large
numbers
of
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags
on
a
daily
basis
can
create
free
liquids
in
the
bottom
of
containers
through
the
forces
of
gravity.

Changes
from
Current
Federal
Program
The
options
under
evaluation
would
provide
federal
regulatory
relief
for
generators
and
handlers
of
both
reusable
and
disposable
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels,
wipes
and
rags
­­
so
long
as
the
above
conditions
were
met.
Under
both
options,
because
the
materials
would
be
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulation
if
the
prescribed
conditions
were
met,
generators
would
not
have
to
"
count"
their
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
towards
their
facility's
regulatory
determination
status;
i.
e.,
small
quantity
generator,
large
quantity
generator
or
conditionally­
exempt
small
quantity
generator.
However,
any
"
free
liquids"
generated
to
meet
the
"
no
free
liquids"
provision"
of
either
Option
would
count
towards
their
regulatory
determination
status.
Generators
would
not
need
to
use
a
hazardous
waste
transporter
to
transport
the
materials
to
their
handling
destination.
Solvent­
contaminated
disposable
wipes
and
rags
would
not
be
required
to
be
managed
in
a
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facility
­­
again,
so
long
as
the
conditions
under
either
option
were
met.
However,
even
if
the
above
conditions
were
met
under
Option
1
or
2,
these
materials
also
could,
if
so
desired,
be
sent
to
a
RCRA
permitted
treatment
or
disposal
facility
for
incineration,
burning
for
energy
recovery
or
land
disposal.

Potential
Impacts
to
Industry
Both
options
could
potentially
affect
a
wide
variety
of
industries,
particularly
small
entities.
The
small
entity
category
most
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action
is
small
businesses,
many
of
which
also
are
small
quantity
generators.
Municipalities
operating
solid
waste
landfills
and
municipal
waste
combustors
also
would
be
affected
by
this
proposal
in
terms
of
being
able
to
accept
these
materials
since
they
are
not
classified
as
hazardous
wastes..
The
number
of
businesses
impacted
and
the
nature
of
the
impacts
is
somewhat
uncertain
at
this
time.
Based
upon
an
examination
of
EPA's
Biennial
Reporting
System,
and
information
collected
or
provided
by
industry,
we
believe
thousands
of
firms
could
be
affected;
i.
e.,
these
facilities
use
solventcontaminated
shop
towels
and
wipes,
and
they
would
have
to
adhere
to
new
guidance
on
what
constitutes
"
no
free
liquids"
sent
off­
site.
Based
on
the
above
information,
we
currently
estimate
that
6,000
generating
firms
could
be
directly
impacted;
i.
e.,
compliance
costs
could
decrease
because
they
use
disposable
wipes
or
rags
in
conjunction
with
listed
solvent­
contaminated
wipes
or
rags.

Other
generating
facilities
could
see
their
compliance
costs
increase
because
they
are
out
of
compliance
with
State
policies;
i.
e.,
sending
their
solvent­
contaminated
shop
towels
to
an
industrial
laundry
with
"
free
liquids",
or
out
of
compliance
with
both
federal
and
State
policies;
i.
e.,
solvent­
contaminated
disposable
wipes
and
rags
sent
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
Stated
differently,
these
facilities
would
see
a
decrease
in
costs
from
federal
rules,
but
an
increase
in
compliance
costs
because
they
failed
to
properly
implement
current
State
(
or
federal)
rules
or
policies.

As
stated
above,
we
are
proposing
under
Option
2a
that
industrial
shop
towels,
wipes
or
rags
contaminated
with
listed
solvents
be
stored
in
closed
containers
from
"
cradle
to
grave."
Currently,
many
States
do
not
require
the
transportation
and
management
of
these
materials
in
closed
containers.
Therefore,
generators
not
already
transporting
these
materials
in
closed
containers
will
see
an
increase
in
their
operating
costs
through
the
purchase
or
rental
of
containers.
Similarly,
industrial
laundries
also
could
see
an
increase
in
operating
costs
if
they
must
handle
their
shop
towels
in
closed
containers,
or
require
different
types
of
vehicles
to
transport
these
materials.
However,
we
are
providing
flexibility
to
both
generators
and
subsequent
handling
and
processing
facilities
by
not
requiring
these
materials
be
stored
in
traditional
RCRA
containers.
Similarly,
this
increase
in
operating
costs
could
be
offset
somewhat
by
decreases
in
insurance
costs
as
well
as
increases
in
worker
health
and
safety.

As
presently
constructed,
we
believe
both
"
baseline"
options,
when
compared
to
the
current
federal
standards,
will
have
either
positive
or
no
impacts
upon
the
vast
majority
of
facilities.
However,
both
options
will
probably
result
in
adverse
impacts
in
certain
limited
circumstances.
More
specifically,
if
a
facility
is
not
removing
"
free
liquids",
or
ensuring
that
"
no
free
liquids"
are
being
transported
off­
site
to
an
industrial
laundry,
then
additional
burden
will
be
required
to
address
this
problem.
At
this
moment,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
experience
such
impacts.

Issues/
Questions
for
Discussion:

1.
Do
the
options
under
evaluation
make
sense?
Are
they
clear,
understandable?
Will
they
achieved
desired
outcomes;
i.
e.,
improve
compliance,
increase
environmental
protection,
reduce
regulatory
costs,
foster
pollution
prevention?

2.
Can
we
improve
upon
these
options,
or
are
there
other
options
that
could
achieve
desired
results
more
effectively?

3.
What
additional
information
and
guidance
would
be
necessary
to
ensure
clarity
and
userfriendliness

­­
Is
the
definition
of
"
no
free
liquids"
clear?

4.
What
record
keeping
or
testing
do
we
need
to
ensure
compliance,
particularly
with
respect
to
disposal
of
wipes
and
rags
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
or
meeting
"
X"
under
Option
1?

5.
What
special
handling
requirements,
if
any,
do
we
want
for
disposables
and
reusables
managed
off­
site?

­­
Should
we
require
materials
managed
off­
site
under
Option
2a
to
be
transported
in
closed
containers?
­­
Must
these
containers
be
steel
drums,
or
can
they
be
of
other
materials
so
long
as
these
prevent
releases?
­­
Should
these
materials
be
managed
at
the
receiving
facility
in
closed
containers
prior
to
entering
the
laundry
or
combustion
process?
­­
Should
we
also
require
the
same
for
disposable
wipes
and
rags
sent
to
a
MSWLF?
­­
Should
we
require
special
labeling
on
the
containers
sent
off­
site?

6.
Based
on
your
understanding
of
the
risk
modeling
work
conducted
to
date;
particularly
the
assumptions,
should"
Y"
remain
low;
i.
e.
300
to
500
grams
per
day
(
or
9
to
15
kilograms
per
month
per
facility)
to
account
for
the
uncertainty
in
our
data,
or
can
it
be
increased
above
these
levels?
Should
"
Y"
be
lower?
If
so,
why?
(
Note:
A
summary
of
the
risk
modeling
results
shall
be
mailed
to
the
participants
under
separate
cover.)

Below
is
a
list
of
draft
list
of
small
entity
representatives
willing
to
participate
in
our
meeting.
Several
other
individuals
also
have
expressed
an
interest,
and
I
will
be
forwarding
their
names
shortly.
Your
office
also
might
be
able
to
identify
additional
representatives.
Draft
List
of
Small
Entity
Representatives
Mr.
Brian
Guzzone
Ms.
Marci
Kinter
Solid
Waste
Association
of
North
America
Screenprinting
&
Graphic
Imaging
P.
O.
Box
7219
Association
International
Silver
Spring,
Maryland
20910­
7219
10015
Main
Street
Fairfax,
Virginia
22031­
3489
Tele:
(
301)
585­
2898
Tele:
(
703)
385­
1335
Fax:
(
301)
589­
7068
Fax:
(
703)
273­
0456
Mr.
Ron
Owens
Mr.
Andy
Counts
Globe
ScreenPrint
American
Furniture
Manufacturers
Assn.
875
Hollins
Street
223
S.
Wreen
Street
Baltimore,
Maryland
21201­
1096
High
Point,
North
Carolina
27261
Tele:
(
410)
685­
6750
Tele:
(
336)
884­
5000
Fax:
(
410)
752­
8828
Mr.
Douglas
Greenhaus
Ms.
Holly
Evans
National
Automobile
Dealers
Assn.
Institute
for
Interconnecting
and
Packaging
8400
Westpark
Drive
Electronic
Circuits
McLean,
Virginia
22102
1400
I
Street
NW
#
540
Washington,
D.
C.
20005­
2208
Tele:
(
703)
821­
7040
Tele:
(
202)
638­
6219
Fax:
(
703)
448­
5824
Fax:
(
202)
296­
1074
Mr.
David
Dunlap
Mr.
Michael
S.
Culliton
Uniform
&
Textile
Service
Assn.
Brent
Industries,
Inc.
1300
North
17th
Street
#
1700
Rt.
2,
Box
6
Rosslyn,
Virginia
22209
P.
O.
Box
P
Brent,
Alabama
35034
Tele:
(
703)
247­
2608
Tele:
(
205)
926­
4801
Fax:
(
703)
841­
4750
Fax:
(
205)
926­
4568
Mr.
Jeff
Adrian
Mr.
David
Trimble
The
John
Roberts
Company
Textile
Rental
Association
of
America
9687
East
River
Road
1054
31st
Street
N.
W.
Coon
Rapids,
Minnesota
55433
Suite
420
Washington,
D.
C.
20007
Tele:
(
612)
755­
4420
Tele:
(
202)
833­
6395
Fax:
(
202)
833­
0018