[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65586-65619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28652]



[[Page 65585]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 260 and 261



Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste: Conditional Exclusions From Hazardous Waste and Solid 
Waste for Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 65586]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261

[RCRA-2003-0004; FRL-7587-7]
RIN 2050-AE51


Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste: Conditional Exclusions From Hazardous Waste and Solid 
Waste for Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposes to 
modify its hazardous waste management regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for certain solvent-contaminated 
materials, such as reusable shop towels, rags, disposable wipes and 
paper towels. Specifically, EPA is proposing: to conditionally exclude 
from the definition of hazardous waste disposable industrial wipes that 
are contaminated with hazardous solvents and are going to disposal; 
and, to conditionally exclude from the definition of solid waste 
reusable industrial shop towels and rags that are contaminated with 
hazardous solvents and are sent for laundering or dry cleaning 
(hereinafter referred to as disposable industrial wipes and reusable 
industrial wipes, respectively). This proposal affects contaminated 
industrial wipes being sent to both landfill and non-landfill (e.g., 
laundries and combustion) facilities and is applicable to: industrial 
wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic (i.e., ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) due to use with solvents; or 
industrial wipes contaminated with F001-F005 spent F-listed solvents or 
comparable P- and U-listed commercial chemical products that are 
spilled and cleaned up with industrial wipes.
    Today's proposal would resolve, at the Federal level, long-standing 
issues associated with the management of solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes by: facilitating pollution prevention and waste 
minimization opportunities, including the recycling of the spent 
solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes; fostering 
improved solvents management by generators and handling facilities; 
reducing compliance costs; increasing consistency in the regulations 
governing solvent-contaminated industrial wipes across the United 
States; clarifying existing federal rules; and creating flexibility for 
generators to work with industrial laundries, as appropriate, to ensure 
compliance with local pretreatment standards established by Publicly 
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
    Today's proposal also contains the Agency's proposed response to 
rulemaking petitions filed by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and the 
Scott Paper Company.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 18, 2004. Comments 
postmarked after this date will be marked ``late'' and may not be 
considered. Any person may request a public hearing on this proposal by 
filing a request by January 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: RCRA Information 
Center, Mailcode: 5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID 
Number RCRA-2003-0004. Comments may also be submitted electronically, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in section 1.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information, contact the RCRA/
Superfund/EPCRA/UST Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or TDD (800) 
553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 
call (703) 412-3323 or TDD (703) 412-9810. You can also contact Kathy 
Blanton at (703) 605-0761 or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0004. The official public docket consists of 
the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public 
comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center at 1301 Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
Copies cost $0.15/page.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/, and you can make comments on this 
proposed rule at the Federal e-rulemaking portal, <http://www.regulations.gov.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at <http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or 
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 
official public docket or to access those documents in the public 
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Docket. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in Unit I.A.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the

[[Page 65587]]

copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance 
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, 
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.
a. EPA Dockets
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at <http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's 
electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select 
``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID Number RCRA-2003-
0004. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA 
will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
b. E-mail
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ``[email protected],'' Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-2003-0004. In 
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, 
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
c. Disk or CD ROM
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in this section. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send your comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode: 
5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-2003-0004.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC, Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-2003-0004. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified 
above.
4. By Facsimile
    Fax your comments to: (202) 566-0270, Attention Docket ID Number 
RCRA-2003-0004.

C. How Should I Submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) to the 
Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following 
address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste 
(5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0004. You may claim information that 
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information 
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the 
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk 
or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

[[Page 65588]]



                                Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Acronym                            Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APA.............................  Administrative Procedures Act.
ASTSWMO.........................  Association of State and Territorial
                                   Solid Waste Management Officials.
CAA.............................  Clean Air Act.
CAS No..........................  Chemical Abstracts Service Registry
                                   Number.
CBI.............................  Confidential Business Information.
CESQG...........................  Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
                                   Generator.
CFR.............................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CSI.............................  Common Sense Initiative.
CWA.............................  Clean Water Act.
DOT.............................  Department of Transportation.
ELG.............................  Effluent Limitations Guideline.
EPA.............................  Environmental Protection Agency.
FR..............................  Federal Register.
HSWA............................  Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments.
ICR.............................  Information Collection Request.
IRIS............................  Integrated Risk Information System.
LDR.............................  Land Disposal Restrictions.
MIBK............................  Methyl Isobutyl Ketone.
MWC.............................  Municipal Waste Combustor.
NESHAP..........................  National Emission Standards for
                                   Hazardous Air Pollutants.
NSPS............................  New Source Performance Standards.
NTTAA...........................  National Technology Transfer and
                                   Advancement Act.
OMB.............................  Office of Management and Budget.
OPPE............................  Office of Policy, Planning and
                                   Evaluation.
OSHA............................  Occupational Safety and Health
                                   Administration.
PBMS............................  Performance Based Measurement System.
POTW............................  Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
SBREFA..........................  Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
                                   Fairness Act.
RCRA............................  Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                   Act.
RFA.............................  Regulatory Flexibility Act.
RfC.............................  Reference Air Concentrations.
RfD.............................  Reference Doses for Exposure through
                                   Ingestion.
RIC.............................  RCRA Information Center.
TC..............................  Toxicity Characteristic.
TCLP............................  Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
                                   Procedure.
TBD.............................  Technical Background Document.
TDD.............................  Telecommunications Device for the
                                   Deaf.
UMRA............................  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
VOCs............................  Volatile Organic Compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of today's proposal are listed in the following 
outline:

I. General Information
    A. How Can I get Copies of the Document and Other Related 
Information?
    B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
    C. How Should I Submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
to the Agency?
    D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Legal Authority
III. Summary of Proposed Changes
    A. Generator Conditions
    1. Generator Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of 
Hazardous Waste
    2. Generator Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of Solid 
Waste
    B. Handling Facility Conditions
    1. Handling Facility Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition 
of Hazardous Waste
    2. Handling Facility Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition 
of Solid Waste
    C. Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Exclusions?
IV. Background
    A. What Is the Intent of Today's Regulatory Proposal?
    B. Jurisdiction Over Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
    1. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste
    2. Exclusion From the Definition of Solid Waste
    C. Solvent Removed From Industrial Wipes
V. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Scope of Solvents Covered by the Proposed Rule
    B. Conditions for Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous 
Waste for Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Destined for 
Disposal
    1. Why Is EPA Proposing to Conditionally Exclude Disposable 
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes From the Definition of 
Hazardous Waste?
    2. Proposed Conditions for Initial Storage and Accumulation
    3. Proposed Conditions for Containers Used for Transportation
    4. Proposed Labeling Condition for Containers Used to Transport 
Disposable Wipes
    5. Proposed Conditions for Transportation to a Municipal or 
Other Non-Hazardous Landfill
    6. Proposed Condition for Transportation to Non-Land Disposal 
Facilities
    7. ``Exotic'' Solvents
    8. Generators that Remove Solvent From Industrial Wipes
    9. Proposed Conditions for Intra-Company Transfers
    10. Proposed Conditions for Management at Handling Facilities
    11. Management of Industrial Wipes Containing Co-Contaminants
    12. Proposed Conditions for Burning Solvent-Contaminated 
Industrial Wipes in Combustors
    13. Disposal of Treatment Residuals From Municipal Waste and 
Other Combustion Facilities
    C. Conditions for the Exclusion From the Definition of Solid 
Waste for Reusable Industrial Wipes
    1. Why is EPA Proposing to Exclude Reusable Solvent-Contaminated 
Industrial Wipes From the Definition of Solid Waste?
    2. Applicable Solvents
    3. Proposed Conditions for Initial Storage and Accumulation
    4. Proposed Conditions for Containers Used for Transportation
    5. Proposed Conditions for Transportation to Laundry, Dry 
Cleaner, or Handler
    6. ``Exotic'' Solvents
    7. Generators That Remove Solvent From Industrial Wipes
    8. Proposed Conditions for Intra Company Transfers
    9. Proposed Conditions for Management at Handling Facilities
    D. Recordkeeping
    E. Enforcement
    F. Alternative Options to the Approach in Today's Proposed Rule
    1. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for 
Disposable and Reusable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
    2. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for All 
Disposable Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Under a Single Set of 
Conditions
VI. Additional Benefit of the Proposed Rule: Fostering Pollution 
Prevention
VII. Risk Screening Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. What Analyses Did EPA Do?
    C. What Were the Results of the Analyses and What Do They Mean?
    1. Disposable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Managed in 
Landfills
    2. Ash From Incineration of Disposable Solvent-Contaminated 
Wipes Managed in Landfills
    3. Sludge From Wastewater Treatment at Industrial Laundries and 
Managed in Landfills
    4. Ecological Assessment
    D. What External Review Was Done of the Risk Screening Analysis?
VIII. History and Relationship to Other Rulemakings
    A. Proposed Effluent Guidelines for Industrial Laundries
    B. Hazardous Waste Listing Determination for Spent Solvents
IX. State Authorization
    A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorizations
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. Economic Analysis
    2. Affected Economic Sub-sectors
    3. Economic Impact of Today's Other Proposed Exclusion Options
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Appendix A to Preamble--Demographics of the Industrial Wipes 
Industry
Appendix B to Preamble--Memorandum from Michael Shapiro

[[Page 65589]]

II. Legal Authority

    EPA proposes these regulations under the authority of Sections 
2002, 3001-3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended 
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912 , 
6921-6930, and 6974.

III. Summary of Proposed Changes

    EPA today proposes a conditional exclusion from the regulatory 
definition of hazardous waste for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 
going to disposal and combustion, including use as a fuel, and a 
conditional exclusion from the regulatory definition of solid waste for 
solvent-contaminated reusable wipes, shop towels, and rags that are 
sent for laundering or dry cleaning (hereinafter referred to as 
disposable industrial wipes and reusable industrial wipes, 
respectively). As long as the specified conditions are met, the Agency 
proposes that the exclusions from both the definition of hazardous 
waste and the definition of solid waste be applicable to (1) industrial 
wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic (i.e., ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity)\1\ due to use with solvents or 
(2) industrial wipes contaminated with F001-F005 spent F-listed 
solvents or comparable P- and U-listed commercial chemical products 
that are spilled and cleaned up with industrial wipes. This proposal 
would not affect the regulatory status, under federal regulation, of 
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs)--those that 
generate no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste or no more than 
one kilogram of acutely hazardous waste in a month and who accumulate 
no more than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste or no more than one 
kilogram of acutely hazardous waste at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that are co-
contaminated with another material that makes them 
characteristically hazardous for corrosivity, reactivity, or 
toxicity would not be eligible for the exclusion from the definition 
of hazardous waste or the exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste. If the industrial wipes are co-contaminated with a material 
that makes them characteristically hazardous for ignitability, they 
would remain eligible. For more discussion of this provision, see 
Section V.B.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has long been EPA's policy to encourage the appropriate state or 
EPA regional office to characterize the regulatory status of laundered 
and reused wipes based on site-specific factors. (See Appendix B, which 
contains a policy memo from Mike Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid 
Waste, to EPA Waste Management Division Directors, February 14, 1994.) 
Most authorized states already exclude reusable wipes from the 
definition of solid or hazardous waste as long as certain basic 
conditions are met, such as the removal of free liquids by the user. It 
is not EPA's intent to modify or in any way limit the existing state or 
EPA regional exclusions or policies through this proposed Federal 
rulemaking. Because this action is a proposed rulemaking, provisions of 
the proposal, as well as EPA's assumptions and rationale leading to 
them, are subject to public notice and comment. Therefore, until a 
final rule governing these materials is issued, the regulatory status 
and classification of these materials, including all regulatory 
exclusions under the current RCRA programs implemented by a state or 
EPA region implementing the RCRA program, remain unchanged. See section 
IX.B. of this preamble for the effect this rule would have on the RCRA 
program in authorized states when finalized.
    EPA's recent examination of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 
is a result of issues and questions raised by stakeholders concerning 
the Agency's current policy on these materials. In developing our 
response to those concerns, EPA also conducted a risk screening 
analysis and an investigation of potential damages from mismanagement 
of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to make sure risks from wipes 
management would be addressed and taken into consideration.
    We emphasize that EPA's concern surrounding the use of both types 
of industrial wipes--disposables and reusables--is based on the 
hazardous solvent contained in the used wipes, not the industrial wipes 
themselves. This proposed rule would not apply to industrial wipes 
contaminated with aqueous-based solvents or solvents that, when spent, 
are not hazardous wastes. We strongly recommend that generators examine 
the feasibility of substituting non-hazardous solvents for hazardous 
solvents. By using non-hazardous solvents, individual facilities may 
eliminate or reduce compliance costs associated with RCRA and the Clean 
Air Act (CAA), as well as U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
regulations. For generators using reusable industrial wipes that are 
managed by an industrial laundry or dry cleaner, indirect costs 
associated with Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations may also be reduced. 
We also encourage generators to examine the possibilities of resource 
conservation through removal and reclamation of their solvents, if 
possible, and believe that the changes proposed today will encourage 
additional reclamation of hazardous solvents.
    The conditions that would be required for the exclusion from the 
definition of hazardous waste and the exclusion from the definition of 
solid waste are outlined below. For a more detailed discussion of 
generator, handler and processing facility conditions, see Section V.

A. Generator Conditions

1. Generator Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous 
Waste
    For disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that will be 
managed at a non-landfill disposal facility to meet the exclusion from 
the definition of hazardous waste, generators would be required to (1) 
accumulate and store solvent-contaminated wipes on site in non-leaking 
covered containers; (2) ensure that the solvent-contaminated wipes 
contain no free liquids, except as noted below, when transported off 
site to a handling facility; and (3) transport the solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes off site in containers designed, constructed, and 
managed to minimize solvent loss to the environment and labeled 
``Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.''
    Today's proposal would also require that disposable solvent-
contaminated wipes managed at municipal landfills or other non-
hazardous waste landfills that meet the standards under 40 CFR part 257 
subpart B (the disposal standards applicable to the receipt of CESQG 
wastes at non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units) \2\ (i) 
must be ``dry'' (i.e., contain less than five grams of solvent), and 
(ii) must not contain any of the 11 listed spent solvents which the 
Agency has tentatively determined may pose adverse risks to human 
health and the environment when disposed of in a landfill, even if the 
wipe is ``dry.'' See Table 1 below for the listed solvents that, when 
contaminating industrial wipes, would make landfilled wipes ineligible 
for an exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. In other 
words, wipes contaminated with Table 1 solvents would not be allowed in 
municipal landfills or other non-hazardous waste landfills under the 
provisions of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of today's preamble, we will use the term 
other non-hazardous landfill to denote part 257 subpart B compliant 
non-hazardous waste landfills. If a non-hazardous landfill that is 
not a municipal landfill accepts this waste, it must meet the 
minimum strandards of 40 CFR part 257 subpart B.

[[Page 65590]]



    Table 1.--Listed Solvents Ineligible for Municipal or Other Non-
                       Hazardous Landfill Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Nitropropane                              Nitrobenzene.
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)                   Methylene Chloride.
Pyridine                                    Benzene.
Cresols (o,m,p)                             Carbon Tetrachloride.
Chlorobenzene                               Tetrachloroethylene.
Trichloroethylene
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA is proposing that transporters be allowed to carry 
wipes with free liquids to other facilities within the same company 
under the hazardous waste exclusion when they are transporting them to 
a solvent recovery facility that will remove enough solvent to meet 
either the ``no free liquid'' or the ``dry'' condition, provided the 
other conditions are met.
III.A.2. Generator Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of Solid 
Waste
    For reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes going to be 
reclaimed and reused to meet the exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste, generators would be required to (1) accumulate and store 
solvent-contaminated wipes on site in non-leaking covered containers; 
(2) ensure that the solvent-contaminated wipes contain no free liquids 
when laundered on site or transported off site to a handling facility, 
except as noted below; and (3) transport the solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes off site in containers designed, constructed, and 
managed to minimize losses to the environment (e.g., plastic bags, 55-
gallon drums, or other containers). The exclusion from the definition 
of solid waste would be applicable only to wipes that are being 
reclaimed for reuse through a cleaning process.
    EPA is also proposing that wipes can be transported with free 
liquids to facilities within the same company under the exclusion when 
they are transporting them to a solvent recovery facility that will 
remove enough solvent to meet either the ``no free liquid'' or the 
``dry'' condition, provided the other conditions are met.

B. Handling Facility Conditions

1. Handling Facility Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of 
Hazardous Waste
    For disposable industrial wipes to continue to meet the exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste, combustors and facilities that 
handle solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to remove solvent from 
them prior to disposal would be required to manage them (a) in 
containers designed, constructed and managed to minimize losses to the 
environment that meet the transportation requirements in today's 
proposal or (b) in non-leaking covered containers that would meet the 
generator accumulation conditions in today's proposal. Unless the 
handling facility and the generator are in the same company, if a 
handler discovers any free liquid accompanying the used solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes, it would be required either to remove 
the free liquid and manage it properly as a hazardous waste, if 
applicable, or to return the container with the wipes and free liquid 
to the generator.
2. Handling Facility Conditions: Exclusion From the Definition of Solid 
Waste
    For reusable wipes to continue to meet the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste, industrial laundries and dry cleaners, as 
well as facilities that handle solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to 
remove solvent from them prior to cleaning, would be required to manage 
them in containers designed, constructed and managed to minimize losses 
to the environment (i.e., today's proposed transportation condition), 
or in non-leaking covered containers that would meet the generator 
accumulation conditions in this proposal. Unless the handling facility 
and the generator are in the same company, if a handler discovers any 
free liquid accompanying the used solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes, it would be required either to remove the free liquid and manage 
it properly or to return the container with the wipes and free liquid 
to the generator.

C. Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Exclusions?

    The following table summarizes the types and numbers of entities 
nationwide which we estimate could be eligible for the proposed 
exclusions. The exclusions would only affect those establishments which 
use industrial wipes in conjunction with operations involving solvents 
that are included in the scope of this proposal (i.e., F001-F005 spent 
F-listed solvents at 40 CFR 261.31; comparable P- and U-listed 
commercial chemical products at 40 CFR 261.33 that are spilled and 
cleaned up with industrial wipes; and solvents exhibiting a hazardous 
characteristic (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or 
toxicity at 40 CFR 261.21-261.24)).

                          Table 2.--Entities Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Economic sub-
         Item           sector (entity    NAICS Code            SIC Code                Number of affected
                            type)                                                       establishments \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................  Printing                    323  275 to 279..............  18,700 to 42,000.
                        manufacturing
                        (mfg).
2....................  Chemical &                  325  28......................  1,100 to 2,900.
                        allied
                        products mfg.
3....................  Plastics &                  326  30......................  1,400 to 3,700.
                        rubber
                        products mfg.
4....................  Fabricated                  332  34......................  4,900 to 13,000.
                        metal products
                        mfg.
5....................  Industrial                  333  352 to 356..............  2,400 to 6,300.
                        machinery &
                        eqpt mft.
6....................  Electronics &              3344  367.....................  550 to 1,500.
                        computers mfg.
7....................  Transportation              336  37......................  1,100 to 3,000.
                        eqpt mfg.
8....................  Furniture &                 337  25......................  1,600 to 4,300.
                        fixture mfg.
9....................  Auto dealers               4411  5511 & 5521.............  4,000 to 10,700.
                        (retail trade).
10...................  Publishing                 5111  271 to 274..............  10,600 to 23,600.
                        (printed
                        matter).
11...................  Business                 561439  7334....................  2,900 to 6,400.
                        services.
12...................  Auto repair &              8111  753.....................  13,500 to 35,900.
                        maintenance.
13...................  Military bases.           92812  9721....................  50 to 130.
14...................  Solid waste                 562  4953....................  4,800 to 9,650.
                        services.
15...................  Industrial               812332  7218....................  590 to 1,175.
                        launderers.
    Total............  ...............  ..............  ........................  68,000 to 164,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Establishment counts above do not necessarily represent all establishments in each industry; counts
  represent EPA's estimate of establishments which use solvent industrial wipes and to which the conditional
  exclusions may apply.


[[Page 65591]]

IV. Background

    EPA is addressing the issue of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes in response to stakeholder concerns that these materials warrant 
special consideration to correct over-regulation, as well as to ensure 
more consistency in the regulation of these materials. In addition, EPA 
sees this proposed rule as encouraging resource conservation and 
responsible solvent management, as well as removing potential 
regulatory restrictions to solvent recovery.
    Industrial wipes are used by thousands of commercial and industrial 
facilities throughout the United States to ensure that products and 
services meet design, performance, or operating standards. Generators 
often use these wipes in conjunction with ignitable solvents (any 
material with a flash point less than 140[deg]F) or listed solvents 
that, when spent, are hazardous wastes (approximately 30 specific 
halogenated and non-halogenated solvents are defined by EPA as meeting 
the criteria for designation as hazardous).
    For the purposes of this proposal, we are considering two broad 
categories of industrial wipes: reusables and disposables. Specific 
definitions for the different kinds of industrial wipes can be found in 
Appendix A to this proposal but we have chosen, for simplicity's sake, 
to call all disposable wipes and reusable shop towels and rags for 
which this proposed rule would be applicable ``industrial wipes,'' and 
to distinguish only between those which are going to be laundered, or 
otherwise cleaned for reuse (``reusables''), and those which will be 
discarded either by combustion, including use as a fuel, or landfilling 
(``disposables'').
    A generator's decision to use disposable or reusable industrial 
wipes depends primarily on their processes, but sometimes it may be 
based on their waste management strategy. The process employed is 
important, for example, because the amount of lint a wipe generates can 
play a very significant role. 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 tasks, as is durability of a wipe in both physical strength and in 
its ability to withstand strong solvents.
    As with other commodities, a wipe's life cycle depends on its 
ultimate disposition. The following description illustrates generally 
how industrial wipes are used, but is not exhaustive of all 
possibilities. Some disposable wipes arrive at the generator dry, 
whereas others are packaged already saturated with solvent and are, 
therefore, ready for use immediately. Either way, the generator uses 
the wipe in its process and then often discards it. These wipes are 
typically disposed of either in a landfill or by combustion. 
Alternately, some wipes generally thought of as ``disposable'' (perhaps 
if they are made with paper fiber) are used more than once by being put 
through a solvent removal system. Because this proposal makes a 
distinction between wipes destined for disposal and destined for reuse, 
in this case the industrial wipe would be considered ``reusable'' if it 
were to be reused, even if it was manufactured for typical one-time 
use.
    Reusable wipes are part of a more systematic handling system. In 
general, a laundry owns reusable industrial wipes, rents them to 
generators, and collects them for laundering on a regular basis. 
Generators receive deliveries of wipes from the laundries, use them, 
and accumulate used wipes. Drivers, most often employed by the 
laundries, pick up the contaminated industrial wipes, replacing them 
with clean wipes at the same time, and then return the soiled wipes to 
the laundry. Once at the laundry, the wipes are then counted to assure 
the laundry is getting back from the generator the same number sent out 
and, finally, are cleaned before entering the cycle again.
    Solvent removal and recovery can happen at various points in the 
life cycle of both disposables and reusables. Generators may choose to 
recover solvent either to reduce solvent use and save money, or to 
reduce environmental impact; generators may generally recover solvents 
without additional RCRA requirements under the provisions of 40 CFR 
261.6(c). In addition, laundries may recover solvents from the wipes 
that arrive at their facilities to minimize the amount of solvent in 
their effluent to comply with pretreatment requirements imposed by a 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or to recover solvent, which can 
be sold, refined, and reused when it is recovered. One of EPA's goals 
in this rulemaking is to encourage solvent recovery and recycling in 
order to minimize the amount of potentially hazardous solvents that are 
released to the environment and to conserve resources.

A. What Is the Intent of Today's Regulatory Proposal?

    A brief history of the current regulatory scheme applicable to 
solvent-contaminated wipes lends perspective on how EPA has developed 
this proposal and explains how EPA has focused its efforts on 
responding to stakeholder concerns.
    Since EPA began to look at solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, 
we have heard from many interested groups that they are frustrated with 
the regulatory scheme now applicable to them. After the initial 
promulgation of the federal hazardous waste regulations, EPA began 
receiving inquiries from makers and users of disposable wipes, who 
stated that the regulations were too stringent for industrial wipes 
based on the risks they pose. Specifically, in 1985, EPA received a 
petition, pursuant to 40 CFR.260.20, from the Kimberly-Clark 
Corporation, a manufacturer of disposable industrial wipes, that asked 
EPA to exclude disposable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste. 
The petition stated 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 Kimberly-Clark's points and added that 
the hazardous waste regulations are not necessary because contaminated 
disposable wipes are handled responsibly, make up just 1% 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 pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 
from the industrial laundries requesting that the solvent-contaminated 
wipes they wash before returning them to their customers for reuse be 
excluded from the definition of solid waste. In 2000, the laundries 
withdrew their petition. Nevertheless, the various rulemaking petitions 
helped set in motion the development of this proposed rule that 
addresses the regulatory requirements for both disposable and reusable 
industrial wipes.
    A rule addressing both types of wipes is also 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 regulation of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes to states authorized to implement the federal hazardous waste 
program or to the EPA region in the cases where a state is not 
authorized (see 2/14/94 Memo from Michael Shapiro to Waste Management

[[Page 65592]]

Division Directors Regions I-X in Appendix B). We did this because we 
felt, at that time, that these questions were best addressed by the 
regulatory officials responsible for implementing the regulations.
    This policy led to the application of different regulatory schemes 
for both types of industrial wipes in EPA regions and states. Although 
the states differ in the details of their policies, in general, they 
regulate disposable industrial wipes as a hazardous waste when they are 
contaminated with a solvent that is listed or exhibits a hazardous 
waste characteristic. On the other hand, many, but not all, states 
provide regulatory relief for reusable contaminated wipes sent to an 
industrial laundry or other facility for cleaning and reuse. In about 
half the cases, this regulatory relief is in the form of an exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste, whereas other states provide an 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste. The substantive 
difference between these two approaches is that materials excluded from 
the definition of solid waste are not considered a waste at all, and 
are not subject to Federal RCRA regulation, whereas materials excluded 
from the definition of hazardous waste are considered to be wastes 
that, when certain conditions are met, do not need to be managed as 
hazardous wastes.
    For reusable industrial wipes, the conditions for the various 
exclusions vary from state to state, but most require that the 
containers of wipes not contain free liquids, and require that the 
laundry discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or be 
permitted under the Clean Water Act. Some states have established other 
requirements such as requiring generators to manage contaminated wipes 
according to the hazardous waste accumulation standards prior to 
laundering, and requiring generators to file a one-time notice under 
the land disposal restriction (LDR) program (see 40 CFR part 268) when 
wipes are sent to be laundered. More detail on the specifics of the 
states' policies can be found in Chapter 3 of the Technical Background 
Document to this proposal.
    The EPA policy laid out in the Shapiro memo, deferring 
interpretation to the states or EPA regions, has led to some confusion. 
The state regulations and policies established on the basis of the 
Shapiro memo, as described above, differ from state to state. This 
rule, when finalized, would clarify that EPA believes that full RCRA 
hazardous waste regulation of these materials is not necessary to 
protect human health and the environment and, therefore, that 
management of solvent-contaminated wipes in the manner described in 
this proposal is appropriate.
    In late 1994, EPA's policy regarding solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes came under further review as a part of the Common 
Sense Initiative (CSI) for the printing industry. The CSI 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 RCRA regulations identified by the 
representatives from the printing industry was the ambiguity of the 
rules and regulations applicable to disposable and reusable solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes. Specifically, they requested that EPA do 
three things: (1) Clarify the definition of ``treatment'' as it 
pertains to printers wringing solvent from their wipes; (2) examine the 
potential for over-regulation of disposable industrial wipes; and (3) 
increase regulatory consistency among the states.
    This proposal, therefore, results from discussions during the 
printing industry CSI, as well as the concerns we have heard from other 
stakeholders on the Agency's (and states'') current policies. We are 
addressing these concerns, while at the same time encouraging recycling 
and solvent recovery and ensuring protection of human health and the 
environment. In summary, the stakeholders' general positions are that 
generators of contaminated industrial wipes seek clarification of the 
rules and a more consistent regulatory scheme throughout the states; 
manufacturers of disposable industrial wipes feel their product is 
over-regulated by RCRA when levels of risk are taken into consideration 
leading to inequitable treatment vis-[agrave]-vis reusable wipes; and 
industrial laundries which clean solvent-contaminated wipes believe 
they are managing a commodity, not solid wastes, and should be 
considered accordingly.
    Additional stakeholder groups have also been involved in the 
development of this proposal. The first is made up of the state and 
local governments that have been developing and implementing policies 
for these materials for the past ten years. They have come to EPA to 
ask advice on what they should do when conditions established at the 
state level for an exclusion are not met. The second is worker unions 
which have also recently expressed interest in RCRA requirements for 
management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes because of worker 
safety concerns.

B. Jurisdiction Over Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes

1. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste
    The concept of regulating a waste if it fails to meet certain 
standards forms the basis of many RCRA regulations. To provide added 
flexibility for implementation, EPA has previously promulgated 
conditional relief from subtitle C regulation for low-level mixed 
waste,\3\ for certain refining wastes,\4\ and for non-chemical military 
munitions.\5\ Today's proposed rule would limit regulation under 
subtitle C for solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that are disposed 
or combusted (circumstances when the industrial wipes are used as a 
fuel are included) when they meet the conditions described in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001, Hazardous Waste 
Identification Rule (HWIR): Revisions to the Mixture and Derived-
From Rules: Final Rule.
    \4\ See 63 FR 42109, August 6, 1998, Hazardous Waste Management 
System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Petroleum 
Refining Process Wastes; Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly 
Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and 
Reportable Quantities.
    \5\ See 62 FR 6621, February 12, 1997, Military Munitions Rule; 
Hazardous Waste Identification and Management; Explosives 
Emergencies: Manifest Exemption for Transport of Hazardous Waste on 
Right-of-Ways and Contiguous Properties: Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly upheld EPA's 
authority under RCRA to establish a conditional exemption from subtitle 
C regulation (i.e., hazardous waste regulation) for wastes that, absent 
the exemption, would be hazardous (See Military Toxics Project v. EPA 
146 F.3d 948, D.C. Cir. 1998). For a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
authority to establish a conditional exemption from subtitle C 
regulation, see the discussion at 62 FR 6636-6637 for the Military 
Munitions Rule preamble.
2. Exclusion From the Definition of Solid Waste
    Makers and users of reusable industrial wipes that are sent to 
laundries or dry cleaners to be cleaned prior to reuse have asked EPA 
to maintain our current policy of deferring to the states. Under 
current EPA policy, as established in 1994, EPA defers interpretations 
and decisions about how to regulate solvent-contaminated wipes to 
either an EPA region or authorized state (see 2/14/94 memo from Michael 
Shapiro to Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X).
    EPA is today proposing to exercise its discretion to exclude from 
the subtitle C definition of solid waste reusable industrial wipes 
exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic due to use with

[[Page 65593]]

solvents or containing listed solvents when the industrial wipes are 
laundered or cleaned for reuse under the conditions set out below. 
Liquids removed from such wipes are subject to hazardous waste 
regulation if they contain listed solvents or if they exhibit hazardous 
waste characteristics.
    The proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste will not apply to wipes that are taken out of service to be 
disposed of. When the wipes are disposed of, they cease being 
``reusable'' industrial wipes and become ``disposable'' industrial 
wipes and must be handled accordingly. The proposed exclusion also does 
not apply to reusable wipes containing solvents or other materials that 
are not hazardous wastes. These wipes are not subject to subtitle C 
regulation.
    EPA also proposed a rule that would eliminate regulation of a range 
of materials which are reused in a continuous process within the same 
generating industry (68 FR 61558, October 28, 2003). The proposed rule 
would establish, if finalized, that such materials are not solid wastes 
under the rulings in American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F 2d 1177 
(1987) (``AMC I'') and Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 208 F. 
3d 1047 (2000), (``ABR''). While today's proposal is more narrowly 
targeted in terms of waste streams, and involves cross-industry 
transfers, EPA will take appropriate action to ensure that the 
provisions in this rule are consistent with those of that broader rule, 
when finalized.
a. Basis for Proposed Exclusion From the Definition of Solid Waste
    EPA's basis for the exclusion from the definition of solid waste 
proposed today is that industrial wipes being cleaned and returned into 
service are more commodity-like than waste-like and, therefore, that 
they can be conditionally excluded from the regulatory definition of 
solid waste. In 40 CFR 260.31(c), EPA states that a material's 
commodity-like properties can be a basis for a variance from being a 
solid waste, among other things, because of how they resemble a product 
rather than a waste and how they are managed. The finding that solvent-
contaminated reusable industrial wipes are commodity-like is based on 
three factors and, importantly, on the fact that in this case all three 
factors apply to industrial wipes. EPA may not reach a similar 
conclusion for a material that meets just one or two of these factors.
    The first of the ``commodity-like'' factors is that the industrial 
wipes are often partially reclaimed, that is, spun in a centrifuge, 
wrung out, or allowed to drain so that some of the unwanted solvent has 
been removed before shipment, helping to restore the wipes to a usable 
condition. We are proposing a ``no free liquid'' condition for 
transportation off site to ensure that wipes that are going to 
reclamation have low levels of solvent consistent with this factor.
    The second of the factors is that industrial wipes are handled 
throughout the laundering or reuse process as valuable commodities 
because the laundry benefits from their use and reuse. When wipes 
return to a laundry from a user to be laundered, they are counted 
before the washing process. This process keeps users financially 
accountable for the number of wipes they have in their possession and 
demonstrates that the wipes are not waste-like, as they have value to 
the laundries and to the users. Consequently, it is more likely that 
the used industrial wipes will be handled carefully, in appropriate 
containers, and will be treated as commodities, rather than as wastes, 
by both users and laundries.
    The final consideration is that the solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes are owned by the same entity throughout the process. Laundries 
own the wipes and lease them to the users and, therefore, have an 
incentive to ensure that the wipes are reused, not discarded. This 
factor encourages much of the same behavior as the second factor does, 
leading to responsible management of the materials.

C. Solvent Removed From Industrial Wipes

    When industrial wipes are returned to laundries, the solvents are 
removed through laundering so that the wipes can be reused. In some 
cases, the solvents are collected and recycled for further use, but, in 
other cases, the solvent is discarded as a hazardous waste or 
discharged to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Some 
stakeholders have argued that industrial wipes should not be considered 
eligible for an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for being 
commodity-like, because the solvent is the hazardous constituent, not 
the industrial wipe, and the solvent is often discarded rather than 
reused. However, spent material reclamation scenarios frequently 
involve the removal of unwanted contaminants from the material being 
reclaimed. In this case, as stated above, EPA perceives the reusable 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to be a commodity-like material. 
Even though it contains solvent, the material is predominantly a 
product that needs servicing (i.e., solvent removal) before it can be 
used. Therefore, no discard occurs until after the contamination is 
removed from the wipe.
    In addition, EPA has previously concluded that contaminated 
material can be excluded from the definition of solid waste even though 
contamination ends up in the wastestreams of the reclamation process. 
See, for example, the proposed exclusion for glass from cathode ray 
tubes (67 FR 40509) and the finalized conditional exclusion for waste-
derived zinc fertilizers (67 FR 48393). Nevertheless, the Agency 
solicits comment on this issue, and specifically on whether reusable 
industrial wipes should be conditionally excluded from the definition 
of hazardous waste, as opposed to being conditionally excluded from the 
definition of solid waste.

V. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule

    EPA is today proposing a conditional exclusion from the definition 
of hazardous waste for solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes 
and a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 
solvent-contaminated reusable industrial wipes.
    This section discusses in detail the major features of and 
rationale for the proposal. The Agency also presents options we are 
considering in developing the proposed rule. We welcome any comments on 
all aspects of this proposed rule and on other options we considered in 
developing this proposal. More discussion of the options is also 
available in the Proposed Rule's Technical Background Document, 
available in the Rulemaking Docket. Throughout this description of the 
proposed rulemaking, EPA specifically requests comments on certain 
options, but comments are welcome on all elements of the proposal.

A. Scope of Solvents Covered by the Proposed Rule

    EPA is proposing that both the exclusions in this proposal be 
applicable both to industrial wipes that exhibit a hazardous 
characteristic (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.14) due to use with solvents and 
to industrial wipes containing any listed hazardous waste solvents: 
F001-F005 listed spent solvents (see 40 CFR 261.31) and corresponding 
P- or U-listed commercial chemical products when spilled (see 40 CFR 
261.33).
    We also note that this proposed rule would not be applicable to 
generators using non-hazardous solvents, since these industrial wipes 
are not currently

[[Page 65594]]

subject to regulation under subtitle C. EPA strongly recommends that 
generators examine the feasibility of using non-hazardous solvents 
because of reduced risk from use of these solvents. However, EPA also 
realizes that in some cases, production incompatibilities may make such 
a substitution infeasible.
    Table 3 summarizes which industrial wipes would be excluded from 
the definition of hazardous waste and which would be excluded from the 
definition of solid waste and the conditions each type of wipe would be 
required to meet.

             Table 3.--Summary of Conditions for Generators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you use or generate solvent-
  contaminated industrial wipes      Then for your solvent-contaminated
  that will be managed at . . .            industrial wipes . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A combustion facility or other     To be excluded from the definition of
 non-landfill disposal facility     hazardous waste, you would be
 without first being sent to a      required to:
 handling facility for solvent     1. Accumulate the used wipes on site
 removal                            in a non-leaking, covered container;
                                   2. Ensure that the wipes do not
                                    contain free liquids when
                                    transported off site;
                                   3. Handle any removed solvents
                                    subject to hazardous waste
                                    regulations accordingly;
                                   4. Package wipes for shipment off
                                    site in containers that are
                                    designed, constructed, and managed
                                    to minimize loss to the environment;
                                    and
                                   5. Mark containers ``Excluded Solvent-
                                    Contaminated Wipes.''
A municipal or other non-          To be excluded from the definition of
 hazardous \6\ landfill without     hazardous waste, you would be
 first being sent to a handling     required to:
 facility for solvent removal      1. Accumulate the used wipes on site
                                    in a non-leaking, covered container;
                                   2. Ensure that the wipes meet the
                                    ``dry'' condition (contain less than
                                    5 grams of solvent per wipe or have
                                    been processed by advanced solvent
                                    extraction) when transported;
                                   3. Handle any removed solvents
                                    subject to hazardous waste
                                    regulations accordingly;
                                   4. Package wipes for shipment off
                                    site in containers that are
                                    designed, constructed, and managed
                                    to minimize loss to the environment;
                                      5. Mark the container ``Excluded
                                       Solvent-Contaminated Wipes''; and
                                      6. Ensure that the wipe does not
                                       contain the listed solvents in
                                       Table 1.
--An industrial laundry            To be excluded from the definition of
--An industrial dry cleaner         solid waste, you would be required
--A handling facility (not intra-   to:
 company) that cleans wipes for    1. Accumulate the used wipes on site
 reuse or removes solvent prior     in a non-leaking, covered container;
 to cleaning or being sent for     2. Ensure that the wipes do not
 disposal                           contain free liquids when laundered
                                    on site or transported off site;
                                   3. Handle any removed solvents
                                    subject to hazardous waste
                                    regulations accordingly; and
                                   4. Package wipes for shipment off
                                    site in containers that are
                                    designed, constructed, and managed
                                    to minimize loss to the environment.
Another facility within the        To be excluded from the definition of
 company (intra-company) for free   solid waste or from the definition
 liquids removal processing to      of hazardous waste, you would be
 meet either the ``no free          required to:
 liquid'' condition or the         1. Accumulate the used wipes on site
 ``dry'' condition                  in a non-leaking, covered container;
                                    and
                                   2. Package wipes for shipment off
                                    site in containers that are
                                    designed, constructed, and managed
                                    to minimize loss to the environment.
                                   Note: These wipes can be transported
                                    with free liquids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) If wipes do not meet the appropriate conditions for
  accumulation and transportation, they would not be excluded and, if
  they cannot be made to meet the conditions, must be managed as
  hazardous waste.
(2) For residues from combustion and industrial laundry wastewater
  treatment (sludges), the generator must determine if they are
  characteristically hazardous and, if so, must be managed as hazardous
  waste. If not, additional generator or transport requirements do not
  apply.
\6\ As stated above, for the purposes of this preamble, we will use the
  term other non-hazardous landfill to denote part 257 subpart B
  compliant non-hazardous waste landfills. That is, if a non-hazardous
  landfill that is not a municipal landfill accepts this waste, it must
  meet the minimum standards of 40 CFR part 257 subpart B.

B. Conditions for Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for 
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Destined for Disposal

1. Why Is EPA Proposing To Conditionally Exclude Disposable Solvent-
Contaminated Wipes From the Definition of Hazardous Waste?
    As discussed above, stakeholders have on several occasions 
indicated to us that regulating disposable solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes as a hazardous waste is burdensome and unnecessary to 
protect human health and the environment and that this results in 
inequitable treatment relative to reusable industrial wipes. They argue 
that solvents associated with wipes are in low concentrations and are 
not likely to pose health and environmental risks similar to those from 
the disposal of process wastes. EPA's risk screening analysis, 
conducted to evaluate whether this contention is valid, suggests that 
management of these wipes under certain minimal, good management 
standards does not pose a substantial hazard to human heath and the 
environment and, therefore, we are proposing the conditional exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste presented today. The conditions 
proposed as part of the exclusion are designed both to minimize loss of 
solvent into the environment and, therefore, to minimize the risk of 
damage to the environment from those solvents, and to encourage solvent 
recovery and recycling.
    Unions representing workers who come into contact with these 
materials have also raised concerns to EPA regarding the exposure of 
their members, both through direct contact and through air emissions, 
to hazardous solvents when handling industrial wipes. The conditions 
EPA would establish would also limit volatile releases and potential 
exposure of workers both at generator facilities and during 
transportation.
    Finally, EPA has, where possible, designed these conditions to be 
performance-based and easy to understand and implement to address the 
concern that the Agency's current policy coupled with differing state 
policies, is complicated and hard to understand. Note that, as 
discussed in section IV of today's preamble, wipes are defined as 
disposable only if they will be disposed after use. If a wipe 
manufactured to be disposable is used and cleaned several times before 
disposal, it should be treated as a reusable wipe until its final use.

[[Page 65595]]

2. Proposed Conditions for Initial Storage and Accumulation
a. Proposed Condition
    The proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous 
waste would apply to solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes 
at the point when the wipes are discarded by the generator. If the 
wipes were managed according to the proposed conditions, they would not 
be considered hazardous waste subject to subtitle C regulation.
    The first condition the industrial wipes would have to meet is an 
accumulation standard. When an industrial wipe is contaminated with a 
hazardous solvent and is being disposed, generators would be required 
to place the hazardous solvent-contaminated wipe in a non-leaking, 
covered container. This performance standard leaves room for 
flexibility because a non-leaking covered container can range from a 
spring-operated safety container to a drum with its opening covered by 
a piece of plywood. Generators would not need to seal, secure, latch, 
or close the container every time a wipe is placed inside; rather, they 
would only need to ensure that the container was covered. EPA 
recognizes that many generators use a large number of wipes daily, so 
to require unsealing and sealing a container each time a wipe is placed 
inside would be impractical. This condition would reduce fugitive air 
emissions, maximizing the ability to capture free liquids for reuse or 
recycling. It would also be among good management practices for 
generators to have regardless of this proposal to minimize worker 
exposure to solvents.
    Under the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste, there 
would be no limit on accumulation time of wipes under federal 
regulations if the accumulation condition is being met-that is, the 
wipes are kept in a non-leaking covered container. Because the wipes 
would be solid waste but not hazardous waste, RCRA hazardous waste 
accumulation times would not apply.
    This condition is designed to prevent releases of solvent while 
wipes are being accumulated for shipment. EPA believes that 
accumulating solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in covered 
containers is a responsible way to manage them to prevent loss of wipes 
and solvent, and represents good management practices for this 
material, as well as good housekeeping. The condition may also help to 
prevent the risk of fires, the most common damage reported from 
mismanagement of solvent-contaminated wipes, and would help reduce 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being emitted to the work environment 
and the atmosphere. It would also prevent the intentional air drying of 
wipes as a way to reduce free liquids.
    One advantage of establishing a performance standard such as the 
one described above is that the generator may take innovative 
approaches to meet the performance standard being sought rather than 
having to use a specific design. A performance standard also provides a 
degree of flexibility in terms of allowing different approaches that 
minimize the length of time required for workers to place a used wipe 
in a storage container.
    This condition would reduce requirements for generators of solvent-
contaminated disposable industrial wipes. Currently, all states 
regulate disposable industrial wipes as a hazardous waste. 40 CFR part 
265, subpart I describes the current federal requirements for the 
proper storage of hazardous waste in containers at generator 
facilities. These standards require generators of hazardous wastes to 
accumulate such wastes in units meeting certain technical requirements. 
The unit-specific requirements for generator accumulation units are 
found in 40 CFR part 265. In addition to requiring that containers are 
in good condition and that they are made of a material that is 
compatible with the wastes being contained, subpart I requires that 
containers be closed (i.e., sealed) during accumulation. In addition, 
hazardous waste containers are subject to weekly visible inspections to 
locate potential deterioration, corrosion, or leaks. In addition, 
containers storing ignitable or reactive hazardous wastes are required 
to be located at least 50 feet from the facility's property line and 
special requirements exist for incompatible wastes.
b. Other Options
Accumulation Time Limit
    EPA is also considering including a condition that establishes a 
time limit for accumulation of solvent-contaminated disposable wipes at 
a generator facility, so they cannot be kept on site indefinitely 
without management. This condition would be that solvent-contaminated 
disposable wipes being accumulated at the generator under the 
conditions proposed today must also follow the accumulation time limits 
in 40 CFR 262.34 that are applicable for their generator category 
(i.e., 90 days for large quantity generators (LQGs) and 180 days for 
small quantity generators (SQGs)). In addition to following the time 
limits in 262.34, generators would have to mark any container in which 
solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes were being accumulated 
with a label stating that it holds excluded solvent-contaminated wipes 
and stating the date accumulation started.
    Although this option would require generators to follow the 
appropriate time limit for their generator size, because the industrial 
wipes are excluded from the definition of hazardous waste from the 
point of generation, they would not have to be added to the generators 
counting of hazardous waste. In other words, generating solvent-
contaminated wipes under the conditions of the proposal would not cause 
a facility to move from being an SQG to being an LQG.
No RCRA-Specific Condition
    The Agency also is considering not establishing a specific 
accumulation condition, but relying on other regulatory statutes, like 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The Occupational Health 
and Safety Standards of part 1910 provide both general and specific 
requirements for containers used to accumulate and store certain types 
of materials. Subpart H of part 1910 may be applicable for the storage 
of industrial wipes prior to solvent removal or recovery. Section 
1910.106 contains standards for the management of hazardous materials, 
including requirements for the management of flammable \7\ and 
combustible \8\ liquids; facilities which either generate or launder 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes may be subject to these 
standards. According to these standards, flammable liquids must be 
stored in approved containers which meet the requirements of Sec.  
1910.106(d). Metal containers and portable tanks meeting Department of 
Transportation standards (see 49 CFR parts 173 and 178) are acceptable. 
Section 1910.106 also specifies standards for the areas where 
containers holding flammable liquids are to be kept. The requirements 
for industrial plants may apply to generators or launderers of solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes because the regulations apply to the 
portions of an industrial plant where the ``use and

[[Page 65596]]

handling of flammable and combustible liquids is incidental to the 
principal business (e.g., solvents used for cleaning presses at 
printing facilities).'' At industrial plants, flammable liquids must be 
stored in tanks or closed containers, defined as a container that is 
sealed with a lid or other device to prevent the release of liquids or 
vapors at ordinary temperatures (Sec.  1910.106(a)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Flammable liquids are defined as any liquid having a flash 
point below 100[deg] F (37.8[deg] C) or higher, the total of which 
make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture. 
Several solvents that are either listed or characteristic hazardous 
wastes and are used in conjunction with wipes also meet the 
definition of a flammable liquid (such as acetone, ethyl acetate, 
ethyl benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, petroleum naphtha).
    \8\ Combustible liquids are any liquids having a flash point at 
or above 100[deg] F (37.8[deg] C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Storage of spent solvent wipes that contain a negligible amount of 
solvents may be addressed under OSHA's regulations at 29 CFR 1910.106 
(e)(9)(iii), which describe general housekeeping measures for 
``combustible waste material and residues'' and residues of flammable 
liquids, combustible waste material and residues in a building or unit 
operating area. These standards specify that these materials are to be 
(1) kept to a minimum; (2) stored in covered metal receptacles; and (3) 
disposed of daily. However, these standards may not apply to solvents 
if they do not meet OSHA's definition of flammable liquid, although 
they may still be hazardous waste under RCRA.
    We believe that OSHA requirements would be applicable in some 
situations involving solvent-contaminated industrial wipes and that 
those generators following OSHA's requirements would be managing their 
wipes in a protective manner. Another advantage of using the OSHA 
standards would be that many generators are already familiar with these 
standards. These standards would not, therefore, complicate 
implementation of the conditional exclusion.
    However, it appears there would be gaps in coverage if we relied 
strictly on deferring to OSHA regulations. For example, the OSHA 
container standards may not apply to contaminated wipes with no free-
flowing liquids or when wipes are contaminated with non-flammable 
solvents and, therefore, OSHA regulations may not cover every workplace 
that RCRA does. Note, however, that if generators meet the OSHA 
standard for flammable liquids (whether or not that standard is 
applicable to them under OSHA), they will meet the condition proposed 
here.
c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on our proposal for accumulating spent reusable 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in non-leaking, covered 
containers while at the generator's facility. We also seek comment on 
whether wipes are accumulating at generator sites in large numbers that 
may pose a risk to human health and the environment and on the option 
of adding an accumulation time limit to this accumulation condition. In 
addition, we seek comment on the desirability of deferring to OSHA 
regulations for the proper storage of solvent-contaminated wipes on 
site at a generator's facility.
3. Proposed Conditions for Containers Used for Transportation
a. Proposed Condition
    We are proposing a condition for containers generators use to 
transport solvent-contaminated industrial wipes off site under the 
conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste. This 
condition is to ensure that transporting industrial wipes without full 
RCRA hazardous waste requirements will still protect against any risks 
posed by these materials to human health and the environment. Under 
this proposal, generators must transport industrial wipes in containers 
that are designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the 
environment. In proposing this condition, EPA intends for transporters 
to use containers that do not leak liquids and that provide for control 
of air emissions. This condition is designed to minimize loss of 
solvent to the environment during transportation and, therefore, 
minimizes risk as well. Minimization of loss through evaporation or 
leakage also makes it more likely that larger quantities of solvent 
will be recycled or properly managed.
    EPA has chosen to propose a condition designed as a performance 
standard for this condition because it provides industry the ability to 
be creative in developing less expensive ways to reach a desired 
outcome. Because there are several common ways industrial wipes are 
presently transported that meet this description, such as in drums and 
in plastic bags, EPA determined that a performance standard would be a 
more flexible way to ensure protective management than establishing 
specific conditions that might unintentionally force the use of 
specific containers or types of containers. A performance standard 
allows for use of a wide variety of containers so generators could 
continue with current practices where appropriate. For example, we 
would consider containers that meet DOT packaging requirements for 
hazardous materials to meet the proposed performance standard, as would 
closed, sealed, impermeable containers. Plastic bags or cloth bags that 
were cinched shut might also meet this condition. Closed cinched bags 
would minimize exposed surface area and, thus, minimize evaporative 
loss and, provided no free liquids were present, as required, may not 
release liquid solvents. We would consider hazardous solvents that are 
spilled or leaked during transportation to be disposed and those 
managing the industrial wipes at the time the spill occurred would be 
responsible for managing the spilled hazardous waste according to 
generally applicable RCRA requirements. The excluded industrial wipes 
would remain excluded if the spill were managed properly and promptly.
    Generators would also have to comply with the existing DOT 
standards.\9\ EPA believes that the ``designed, constructed, and 
managed to minimize loss to the environment'' condition is necessary 
because the DOT regulations may not be applicable to all solvent-
contaminated wipes if they do not meet certain DOT definitions, such as 
``solids containing flammable liquid.'' Proposing this performance 
standard ensures that the container condition would apply to all 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to which today's proposal 
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) state that any 
person who offers a material for transportation in commerce must 
determine whether the material is classified as a hazardous 
material. Typically, reusable solvent-contaminated wipes are 
classified as ``solids containing flammable liquid, n.o.s.'' (see 49 
CFR 172.101). Under 49 CFR 172.102, Special Provision 47 allows 
mixtures of solids not subject to regulation as a hazardous material 
and flammable liquids to be transported under the generic entry 
``solids containing flammable liquid, n.o.s.'' without first 
applying the classification criteria of Division 4.1 Flammable 
Solids, provided there is no free liquid visible at the time the 
material is loaded or at the time the packaging or transport unit is 
closed. All packaging must correspond to a design type that has 
passed a leak proof test at the Packing Group II level. Containers 
which are authorized for transporting hazardous materials in Packing 
Group II are listed under 49 CFR 173.212 and include, among other 
things, steel, aluminum, or plastic drums and plastic or cloth bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's condition for transportation does not specify that the 
containers must be closed (i.e., containers with lids screwed on). 
Nevertheless, EPA believes that closed containers would minimize loss 
to the environment. We do not expect that open containers would meet 
the performance standard due to the potential for wipes and/or solvent 
to be released from the container if an open container tipped over 
during transportation. We also do not believe that containers that are 
open to the environment would minimize other losses, such as 
evaporative losses.
b. Other Option
Closed Containers
    EPA is also considering an alternative option of requiring all 
generators of

[[Page 65597]]

solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to transport them in impermeable 
closed containers. By closed containers, we specifically mean 
containers with a lid that screws on to the top and must be sealed to 
be considered closed. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that 
those transporting industrial wipes would not be able to determine if 
the industrial wipes met the ``no free liquids'' or the ``dry'' 
condition without having to further handle the container and wipes. 
Unsealing these containers each time a wipe is placed into the 
container and to make the no free liquids determination would be time 
consuming and would expose more of the solvents to the air than opening 
a covered container. In addition, stakeholders argue that, if the 
transporters of the wipes are unable to determine at the time of pick-
up whether there are free liquids in the container, this may result in 
an unnecessary burden falling on the handlers if noncompliant wipes 
arrive at their site. We believe the approach taken in today's proposed 
regulation addresses these concerns and will ensure protection of human 
health and the environment.
c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on our proposed performance standard and on the 
other option described above for containers used for transporting 
reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.
4. Proposed Labeling Condition for Containers Used To Transport 
Disposable Wipes
a. Proposed Condition
    EPA is proposing as a condition of the exclusion from the 
definition of hazardous waste that generators must appropriately label 
containers used to transport disposable industrial wipes containing 
hazardous solvents. This condition is meant to alert anyone handling 
the materials of what is enclosed in the container so that proper 
handling (or inspection) may occur. We are proposing to impose a 
labeling condition that would require the containers used to transport 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes for disposal to be marked 
``Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.'' This condition is comparable 
to the used oil designation labeling requirement in 40 CFR part 279.
    This is a simple, straight-forward approach for labeling and would 
indicate the status of the materials to generators, workers, and 
downstream handlers. In addition, a label on containers of disposable 
industrial wipes stating that they are excluded from the definition of 
hazardous waste may benefit the generators of these wastes by 
eliminating questions from facilities receiving the waste, such as 
landfills or combustors, who may recognize that there are solvents in 
the waste and may be reluctant to accept the excluded industrial wipes 
before getting an assurance that they are not hazardous waste.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As will be noted later in today's preamble, a similar 
labeling requirement is not being proposed for reusable industrial 
wipes that are sent for reclamation/laundering or dry cleaning. The 
Agency believes such a requirement is not necessary for reusable 
industrial wipes. For further discussion, see Section V.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A labeling condition would not add significant burden as existing 
regulatory programs administered by EPA, DOT, and OSHA already 
prescribe labeling requirements for containers, both in storage and 
transportation. Environmental Protection (40 CFR parts 260 through 
265), Transportation (49 CFR parts 171 through173), and Labor (29 CFR 
1910.1200) regulations all contain sections pertaining to the 
management of hazardous waste, including labeling requirements. Most of 
these labeling requirements refer to the DOT regulations found in 49 
CFR 172. A variety of hazardous solvents may be used with industrial 
wipes, so DOT has a number of specific hazardous waste regulations, 
including labeling requirements, that apply to them.
b. Other Option
No RCRA-Specific Labeling Condition
    Another option we are considering is not imposing a specific 
labeling condition. Under this approach, designation of the disposable 
industrial wipes as hazardous materials under DOT regulations might 
still require placarding or other marking for transportation of some 
fraction of these materials, as described previously. However, for the 
reasons explained above, we do not expect that the DOT provisions would 
apply to all solvent-contaminated industrial wipes covered by today's 
proposal and, therefore, would not be applicable to all industrial 
wipes covered by today's proposed rule.
c. Request for Comment
    The Agency requests comment on today's proposal and the non-RCRA 
labeling condition. In particular, is a labeling requirement necessary, 
and, if so, is there a label that is more appropriate, easier to 
understand, and/or easier to implement than that being proposed?
5. Proposed Condition for Transportation to a Municipal or Other Non-
Hazardous Landfill
a. Proposed Condition
    The conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste 
for disposable industrial wipes proposed today would allow generators 
to transport certain disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 
to municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills \11\ for disposal 
instead of to hazardous waste landfills when the conditions of the 
exclusion are met. EPA does not believe that other forms of land 
management, such as management in a waste pile or surface impoundment, 
are being applied to this waste stream. We, therefore, limited this 
proposed hazardous waste exclusion to land disposal of wipes in 
municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills. A condition for 
disposal is that the industrial wipes contain no more than five grams 
of solvent per wipe, as explained in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See footnote to Table 3 for explanation of the use of non-
hazardous waste landfill in today's Preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of risk concerns, EPA is also proposing that industrial 
wipes contaminated with the specified F- or U-listed solvents in Table 
4 or that are characteristically hazardous for other hazardous 
constituents, such as metals, cannot be disposed in municipal or other 
non-hazardous waste landfills. EPA has tentatively concluded that the 
solvents listed in Table 4 below may pose a substantial hazard to human 
health and the environment if wipes containing them were disposed in 
such landfills. If land disposed, industrial wipes contaminated with 
these solvents would have to continue to be managed in full compliance 
with the RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste management standards. Because 
of the risk concerns, this condition applies to any blends that contain 
a percentage of these solvents.

      Table 4.--Listed Solvents Not Allowed in Municipal Landfills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene*                             2-Nitropropane
Carbon tetrachloride*                Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene*                       Pyridine
Cresols (o,m,p)*                     Tetrachloroethylene*
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)            Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nine of the solvents in Table 4 are characteristically toxic (TC), 
as defined in 40 CFR 261.24. Of these nine, six (as noted by an 
asterix: ``*'') are ineligible for disposal in a municipal or other 
non-hazardous waste landfill because they

[[Page 65598]]

meet the toxicity characteristic, not because of the results of EPA's 
risk screening analysis. EPA's analysis finds that even when they have 
been through an advanced solvent-extraction 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.
    We are proposing that the remaining five solvents in Table 4 also 
be restricted from disposal in municipal or other non-hazardous waste 
landfills because EPA's risk screening analysis indicates that they may 
pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment when 
disposed of at levels lower than the 5-gram condition described in 
detail below.\12\ Included in these five are three solvents that both 
meet the toxicity characteristic and that were indicated in the risk 
screening assessment to pose an unacceptable risk (methyl ethyl ketone, 
nitrobenzene, and pyridine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) was also found to be 
ineligible by the risk screening analysis, but because MIBK is 
listed for its characteristic of ignitability and, therefore, when 
mixed with solid waste, is no longer hazardous waste unless it 
continues to display its characteristic, a wipe containing it can be 
disposed of in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill if 
it meets the other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 contains the 19 listed solvents that were evaluated in the 
risk screening analysis and that would be allowed, under this proposal, 
to be disposed of in a municipal or non-hazardous waste landfill if 
they meet the ``dry'' condition. Also see Section VII for additional 
details on the results of our risk screening analysis.

                            Table 5.--Listed Solvents That May Be Disposed of In a Municipal Landfill under Today's Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethyl Ether                            Carbon Disulfide                       Isobutyl Alcohol                      1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Acetone                                Xylenes                                Ethyl Acetate                         1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Methanol                               Cyclohexanone                          Trichlorofluoromethane                1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Butanol                                2-Ethoxyethanol                        Methyl Isobutyl Ketone                1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene                                Ethyl benzene                          Dichlorodifluoromethane               ....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generators transporting their disposable industrial wipes to a 
municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill must ensure that the 
wipes are ``dry.'' For purposes of this proposed rule, an industrial 
wipe is considered ``dry'' when it contains less than 5 grams of 
solvent. EPA chose 5 grams to be the standard for this condition 
because it falls within the range found in our risk screening analysis 
to not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment. 
This is also within the range of what is achievable through use of 
advanced solvent-extraction processes. Generators can meet this 
condition either by using less than five grams of solvent per wipe or 
by putting used industrial wipes through an advanced solvent-extraction 
process capable of removing sufficient solvent to meet the 5-gram 
condition. Generators can do the following to meet the ``dry'' 
condition:
    [sbull] Remove excess solvents by centrifuging or other high-
performance solvent-extraction or -removal technology, for example, 
microwave solvent recovery processes or the Petro-Miser or Fierro 
processes; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Descriptions of these technologies are found in the 
Technical Background Document. Mention of these processes is for 
descriptive purposes only and is not an endorsement of the products 
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Use normal business records, such as the amount of solvent 
used per month for wiping operations divided by the number of wipes 
used per month for solvent wiping operations, to show they are under 
the threshold;
    [sbull] Conduct sampling to measure the amount of solvent applied 
per wipe before use; or
    [sbull] Sample to measure the amount of solvent remaining on wipes 
when use is completed.
    EPA is proposing that generators using advanced solvent-extraction 
technologies will be considered to have met the ``dry'' condition 
because EPA believes that when properly operated these technologies 
will remove sufficient solvent to meet the 5-gram condition. For 
example, with respect to centrifuge effectiveness, our evaluation of 
existing centrifuges from site visits and data provided by industry 
shows that well-operated centrifuges result in wipes that contain less 
than 5 grams of solvent per wipe. We have found that the other high-
performance processes have the same or greater rate of success at 
removing solvents. Therefore, if a generator uses one of these advanced 
solvent-extraction technologies on industrial wipes, they would qualify 
for the hazardous waste exclusion. Using business records to calculate 
the average amount of solvent on each wipe would also be an acceptable 
way of assuring that each wipe would have less than 5 grams of solvent 
on it. Finally, EPA considers sampling, when done properly using 
representative samples, to be an appropriate way of demonstrating that 
a standard is being met.
b. Request for Comment
    EPA is requesting comment on its proposed ``dry'' condition. 
Comments are requested particularly on our preliminary decision that 
certain solvents contained in industrial wipes cannot be disposed of in 
municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills. For example, should 
solvents which exhibit the characteristic of toxicity, but which were 
not found to pose a significant risk in our risk screening analysis for 
today's proposal, be prohibited from being sent to municipal or other 
non-hazardous waste landfills?
    EPA is also requesting comment on what other high-extraction 
technologies not mentioned in this preamble could be used to meet the 
``dry'' condition. Although we do not intend to promulgate a list of 
the only acceptable technologies, information on those that are 
appropriate for meeting the standard may be useful for future guidance.
    In addition, as discussed in Section VII, our risk screening 
analysis identifies industrial wipes that pose an insignificant risk 
when disposed of in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills 
even though they contain solvents that meet the ``no free liquid'' 
condition, rather than the more stringent 5 gram condition (or ``dry'' 
condition). Nevertheless, to simplify the rule, we chose to propose 
that all industrial wipes containing solvents that can be landfilled 
under this proposal would be required to meet the ``dry'' condition 
prior to being allowed to be shipped to municipal or other non-
hazardous landfills. The Agency requests comment as to whether we 
should allow industrial wipes containing solvents that pose 
insignificant risk when meeting the ``no

[[Page 65599]]

free liquids'' condition to be placed in municipal or other non-
hazardous waste landfills without being required to meet the ``dry'' 
condition.
    Finally, we are requesting comment on whether solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes meeting the ``dry'' condition should be required to 
meet the transportation requirements for wipes described in section 
V.B.3. The rationale for not specifying transportation standards would 
be that the level of solvents escaping would be insignificant if the 
industrial wipes were to contain less than 5 grams of solvent each. 
This option would increase relief for generators whose wipes meet the 
``dry'' condition, but would complicate implementation of the rule both 
for regulators and generators.
6. Proposed Condition for Transportation to Non-Land Disposal 
Facilities
a. Proposed Condition
    EPA is proposing a ``no free liquids'' condition to apply to 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes going for disposal at a non-land 
disposal unit such as a municipal waste combustor (MWC) or other 
combustion unit (circumstances when the industrial wipes are used as a 
fuel are included) or to solvent-contaminated industrial wipes sent to 
an intermediate handler for further processing to meet the ``dry'' 
condition for disposal in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste 
landfill. This final case would apply to a generator who wants to send 
its solvent-contaminated industrial wipes to a landfill, but does not 
want to be responsible for making them meet the ``dry'' condition. The 
generator could send them to an intermediate handler under the ``no 
free liquids'' condition and contract with that handler to remove 
enough solvent that the wipes would meet the ``dry'' condition. This 
condition is meant to minimize the likelihood of loss of solvent into 
the environment, as well as to encourage solvent recovery and pollution 
prevention by generators.
    In developing the ``no free liquids'' condition, EPA hopes to make 
it simple enough that both generators and handlers of the materials, as 
well as regulatory officials, would easily be able to verify that free 
liquids have been removed from the industrial wipes. For wipes to meet 
the ``no free liquids'' condition, no liquid solvent could drip from 
them when sent off site. In addition, no free liquids may be present in 
the bottom of the container in which the wipes are transported.
    One concern certain stakeholders have expressed with this proposed 
condition is that once in a container, either at the generator site or 
in transit, industrial wipes can compress and solvent can percolate 
through them, collecting at the bottom of a container. This means that, 
while there may not have been free liquids in the container at the 
generator site, some may be generated during transportation. EPA 
believes that generators can take steps to minimize percolation by 
using less solvent or by recovering solvent from wipes before they are 
transported. However, EPA acknowledges that in some cases percolation 
can result in free liquids at the bottom of a container.
    Because of percolation effects, the proposed rule contains the 
provision that, if free liquids are discovered at the handling/
combustion facility, the solvent-contaminated wipes would remain 
excluded from the definition of hazardous waste as long as the handler 
either removes the solvent and manages it appropriately, or returns the 
shipment to the generator as soon as reasonably practicable, as 
described in Section V.B.10.a. However, if solvents escaped the 
container as a result of percolation, the container would not meet the 
``minimize loss'' condition described above. Similarly, the 
mismanagement of the free solvents by the handler, either by illegal 
disposal or other means, would be a violation of the conditions of the 
exclusion. Because the generator is originally responsible for the 
existence of free liquids in the wipes, it would also be potentially 
responsible for the wipes having lost the exclusion at the handler 
despite the wipes being out of the generator's control at that moment.
    Note that handlers/combustors would be required to determine 
whether the solvent which has been removed from the industrial wipes is 
listed as a hazardous waste or exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous 
waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261. Any hazardous waste solvent 
removed from the wipes would have to be managed in accordance with 
hazardous waste requirements found at 40 CFR parts 260 through 268 and 
40 CFR part 270. In addition, for purposes of this proposed regulation, 
techniques or technologies used by generators to remove solvent from 
the wipes would not be defined as treatment under RCRA and, therefore, 
would not be subject to RCRA permitting (see Section V.B.8. for further 
discussion).
b. Other Option
    EPA is considering a ``no free liquids when wrung'' condition 
instead of the ``no free liquids'' condition. Some states favor this 
approach, as it may minimize the chance for later solvent releases. 
They argue that this condition may result in better solvent management 
and less frequent receipt of free liquids at handling or combustion 
facilities. This approach differs from what we are proposing in that it 
would require that each wipe could not drip solvent when hand wrung. 
Some stakeholders argued that such a requirement would be a substantial 
change from current state policies on free liquids and would be 
burdensome for generators to implement. They also argue that this would 
expose wipes to the air more than necessary and, in essence, would 
require that the wipes be wrung immediately prior to placement on the 
shipping vehicle, further burdening generators. Based on these 
concerns, we are not including ``when wrung'' as part of the ``no free 
liquids'' condition in this proposal, but are seeking information on 
whether the benefits of an extra step of solvent removal at the 
generator outweigh the limitations of these concerns.
c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on our proposed ``no free liquids'' condition 
and our decision not to propose a ``no free liquids when wrung'' 
condition.
d. How Can Generators Meet the ``No Free Liquids'' Condition?
    Presently, state agencies have established several methods for 
verifying compliance with state-imposed ``no free liquids'' standards 
for a container or individual wipe. The majority of states require the 
use of the Paint Filter Test (SW-846 Method 9095) though other 
specified methods include the Liquids Release Test (SW-846 Method 
9096), and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (SW-
846 Method 1311). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has established a 
``one drop'' standard, where generators must ensure that the wringing 
of a wipe will not result in a drop of liquid flowing from the 
material. We understand that, although these are by no means the only 
ways of meeting the ``no free liquids'' condition, if generators meet 
any of these state standards or if they hand wring wipes, it is 
unlikely that the ``no free liquids'' condition proposed today would be 
violated.
    In this proposal, EPA intends for compliance with the ``no free 
liquids'' condition to be determined by a practical test. That is, does 
a wipe drip liquid from it when held for a short period of time, for 
example, when being

[[Page 65600]]

transferred from one container to another? One way a facility or an 
inspector could test for compliance with this condition would be to 
place two containers adjacent to one another and to transfer wipes from 
one container to the other. If they drip liquid during transfer, or if 
there are free liquids in the bottom of the container, they would not 
meet the ``no free liquids'' condition. Generators and inspectors would 
have to make sure they are checking the industrial wipes at the bottom 
of containers, as well as at the top for release of free liquids 
because percolation could cause solvents to sink and saturate the wipes 
at the bottom of any given container. Facilities could also check for 
compliance with the condition by using screen-bottomed drums and 
checking the bottom portion of the drum for liquid solvent.
    As stated above, rather than checking all wipes for free liquids, 
generators could hand wring wipes before placement in containers or 
send wipes through a mechanical wringer, centrifuge, or use any other 
effective method as a way to ensure that free liquids are not present. 
Stakeholders from the printing industry have recommended to EPA that we 
specify a list of acceptable technologies that would meet the ``no free 
liquids'' condition for the proposed exclusion from the definition of 
hazardous waste, and that we also specify the above performance 
standard as a catch all to account for new technologies that are 
developed in the future. Printing industry stakeholders believe this 
option would clarify for them and other industrial sectors those 
technologies that would pass the ``no free liquids'' performance 
standard so that no uncertainty exists on the part of either generators 
or EPA and state inspectors. While understanding generator concerns, 
EPA is not proposing in today's Federal Register specific regulatory 
language which identifies those technologies that would presumptively 
meet the ``no free liquids'' condition. Nevertheless, the Agency 
provides some discussion of the specific technologies EPA has examined 
that can reduce the amount of solvents in industrial wipes to meet the 
``no free liquid'' condition both in this Preamble and in the Technical 
Background Document for this proposal.
    Generators also have the option to use their knowledge of their 
processes to determine that their wipes contain no free liquids. For 
example, a generator may know that a certain process requires only 
small amounts of solvent on each wipe and, therefore, free liquids are 
unlikely to be present.
e. Request for Comment
    EPA is taking comment on our proposed approach to determining if 
the ``no free liquids'' condition is met. Are there other approaches 
EPA should have considered in this proposal? The Agency also solicits 
comment on the printing industry's suggestion that the final rule 
should specify a list of technologies that would be considered to meet 
the condition to assist in the implementation of and compliance with 
this rule.
7. ``Exotic'' Solvents
    In the process of developing this proposed rulemaking, the Agency 
has learned that there are new, ``exotic'' solvents on the market, such 
as terpenes and citric acids, that, while labeled as non-hazardous, 
could actually be flammable. Although the solvents do not exhibit the 
ignitability characteristic in 40 CFR 261.21, stakeholders have told us 
that, under certain conditions that have yet to be determined, oxygen 
can mix with the industrial wipes that contain these exotic solvents 
and spontaneously combust. According to some representatives of 
industrial laundries and fire marshals, resulting fires have caused 
major damage to facilities. Some stakeholders have suggested that EPA 
propose that generating facilities be allowed to transport their 
industrial wipes off site with free liquids if the facility is using 
one of these ``exotic'' solvents that could react or spontaneously 
combust, so that generators can wet down the wipes with water prior to 
sending them off site. They explain that this is consistent with what 
laundries do now with their customers.
    We request information and comments on these ``exotic'' solvents 
and how they are presently managed. We would like to know which 
solvents that would currently be considered hazardous wastes are viewed 
as ``exotic'' and for which solvents commenters believe a ``no free 
liquids'' condition would be problematic. We request information on 
documented cases of combustion caused by a lack of free liquids. We 
also request comments on whether the final rule should give containers 
with wipes contaminated with exotic solvents special consideration, 
particularly, allowing the solvents to be wetted down with water during 
accumulation and transportation and, further, what other conditions 
should be placed on management of these materials if special 
consideration were to be given.
8. Generators That Remove Solvent From Industrial Wipes
a. Regulatory Status of Removed Solvent
    Any solvent removed from an industrial wipe by a generator may be 
subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. Therefore, the generating 
facility would be required to determine whether the solvent removed 
from the industrial wipe, if it is not reused, is listed as a hazardous 
waste or exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 
40 CFR part 261, and, if so, manage the solvent according to prescribed 
RCRA regulations under 40 CFR parts 260-268 and 270.
b. Regulatory Status of Solvent Removal Technologies
    Under today's proposed exclusion from the definition of hazardous 
waste, the solvent-contaminated wipes would not be hazardous waste at 
the time they undergo solvent-removal. Therefore, solvent removal 
technologies would not be considered treatment of hazardous waste under 
RCRA and such operations, whether they be conducted by generators or 
handling facilities, would not be considered to be treating hazardous 
waste and would not require a RCRA permit. Because under today's 
proposed rule solvent extraction would not trigger RCRA treatment 
standards, generators may be more likely to recover solvent for reuse 
and reduce the amount of solvent that they purchase.
9. Proposed Conditions for Intra-Company Transfers
a. Proposed Condition
    Several stakeholders, particularly those who use large numbers of 
wipes daily with large amounts of solvent on each wipe, would like the 
flexibility of not having to meet the ``no free liquids'' condition 
when transferring their wipes off site to an intra-company facility 
that would extract the solvents from the wipes. Several states already 
allow these kinds of transfers to be made when both the generating 
facility and the extracting facility are part of the same company. 
Under the proposed condition, the extracted solvent at this point could 
either be returned to the originating customer or sold to another 
manufacturer for reuse as a feedstock in a manufacturing or service 
operation. Alternatively, when the economics of solvent recycling are 
not favorable, the extracted solvents could be disposed of as a 
hazardous waste.
    To encourage reclamation and recycling of the solvents in the 
wipes, today we are proposing to allow industrial wipes to qualify for 
the exclusion from the definition of

[[Page 65601]]

hazardous waste if the generator transfers solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes containing free liquids between their own facilities 
and if the receiving facility has a solvent-extraction and/or -recovery 
process that will remove sufficient solvent to ensure the wipes meet 
either the ``dry'' condition or the ``no free liquids'' condition. 
Generators taking advantage of this part of the rule could then use one 
piece of solvent-extraction equipment to serve industrial wipes from 
several of the company's generators. EPA hopes that allowing intra-
company transfers of free liquid under these conditions would encourage 
companies to obtain advanced solvent recovery equipment that they would 
not purchase for use at just one of their facilities.
    Of course, to be eligible for the exclusion from the definition of 
hazardous waste, the industrial wipes must meet the other conditions 
described in this notice. Specifically, the generators would be 
required to manage the wipes and free liquids in the same way as they 
would when they are under the hazardous waste exclusion. They would be 
required to accumulate the wipes and solvents in non-leaking covered 
containers and to transport the industrial wipes in containers that are 
designed, constructed and managed to minimize loss to the environment 
and labeled ``Excluded Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.'' EPA is proposing 
the same performance standards as for wipes meeting the ``dry'' and the 
``no free liquids'' conditions, but note that because of the free 
liquids transported with these wipes, not all types of containers are 
likely to be appropriate (e.g., cloth bags are not likely to minimize 
loss for wipes containing free liquids). The solvent, once extracted, 
would have to be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste if going to 
disposal. In the end, we believe this option would result in 
substantial savings for generators of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes, as well as in increased solvent recovery by generators.
    As stated above, generators can only take advantage of this 
condition when the handling facility is in the same company as the 
generator. EPA is seeking comment on whether intra-company transfers 
should include affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies as 
eligible for this provision.
    EPA is making this condition applicable to just intra-company 
transfers because the Agency believes the management of the free 
liquids in transportation to prevent loss or spills is likely to be 
more comprehensive when the whole transaction occurs within one 
company. Communication is likely to be better between the entities 
transporting and receiving the waste if they are in one company, as 
would oversight over the entire generation, transportation, and 
recovery system to ensure that solvents are being recovered.
    Several potential benefits to allowing such shipments under the 
conditional exclusion from hazardous waste include the additional 
opportunities for increased recycling because some generating 
facilities would find recycling solvent more convenient when not having 
to meet the ``no free liquids'' condition. As stated elsewhere in this 
proposal, several technologies already exist to extract and/or recover 
the spent solvent contained on industrial wipes both economically and 
safely. In addition, there are likely to be environmental benefits 
because solvent that would have been sent to combustion or disposal in 
a landfill would be recovered and reused.
b. Other Options

Additional Conditions for Intra-Company Transfers

    On the basis of discussions with state implementors and 
stakeholders, EPA is considering adding conditions to this provision in 
the proposed rule. Specifically, we are considering:
    (i) Requiring a one-time notification to the state to alert the 
state that the generator is taking advantage of the intra-company 
transport allowed under this exclusion;
    (ii) Maintenance of appropriate business records that identify 
where the industrial wipes are being managed and where the recovered 
solvent is being sent;
    (iii) Compliance with RCRA's employee training and emergency 
response requirements in 40 CFR part 262, and
    (iv) Transfer of the industrial wipes with free liquids in closed 
(i.e., sealed) containers.

Inter-Company Transfers

    Some stakeholders have also suggested that EPA propose to allow 
transfers of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes with free liquids 
between companies for solvent extraction. This option would allow 
generators to ship solvent-contaminated industrial wipes with free 
liquids to any facility if the receiving facility uses solvent 
extraction to remove enough solvent from the industrial wipes for them 
to meet the ``no free liquids'' condition required for shipment to a 
laundry. This option would allow more facilities to take advantage of 
this provision than the intra-company provision would allow and may 
encourage more use of advanced solvent-extraction technologies on these 
materials resulting in more potential recovery and reuse of solvents. 
EPA did not propose this option because it believes currently that 
intra-company transfers would maintain better control of the industrial 
wipes during transportation and would better prevent releases than 
transfers between different companies. However, we request comment on 
this premise and this option for transfer of industrial wipes.
c. Request for Comment
    EPA seeks comment on whether intra-company shipments of industrial 
wipes containing free liquids should be allowed under the conditions of 
the exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste and whether this 
provision would be likely to facilitate the recovery of hazardous 
solvents.
    As stated above, we seek comment on whether EPA should consider 
parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates as eligible for the 
intra-company transfer provision. EPA also seeks comment on whether the 
intra-company transfer provision should include a distance limit, such 
that only facilities shipping their wipes and solvents the prescribed 
distance or less would be eligible for the intra-company transfer 
option.
    EPA also seeks comment both on whether the additional conditions 
discussed in Section V.B.9.b. should be included and also on whether we 
should expand the provision to allow industrial wipes, under the 
conditional exclusion from hazardous waste, to be sent with free 
liquids to third-party solvent-extraction facilities.
10. Proposed Conditions for Management at Handling Facilities
a. Proposed Conditions
    Of all the handlers, generators have the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the industrial wipes they transport off site meet the 
conditions for the hazardous waste exclusion, but non-landfill 
facilities which receive disposable industrial wipes, such as 
combustors or handling facilities that perform further solvent removal, 
would also need to meet certain minimum conditions for the wipes to 
remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. First, during 
the time between when the wipes arrive on site and when the facility 
first introduces them into their process (e.g., when the wipes are 
removed from their container and placed in a solvent-extractor), these 
facilities must store solvent-

[[Page 65602]]

contaminated industrial wipes either (a) in containers that are 
designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment 
that would meet the transportation conditions in today's proposal, or 
(b) in non-leaking covered containers that would meet the generator 
conditions in today's proposal.
    The second condition is that if facilities (other than those intra-
company facilities where solvent is removed) receive solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes with free liquids, in order to retain the 
exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for the wipes, the 
facility would be required to either (a) return the container (with the 
wipes and liquid) to the generator as soon as reasonably practicable 
(e.g., with the next scheduled delivery), or (b) recover any liquid 
solvent that arrives at the facility and properly manage it under 
federal or state hazardous waste regulations, as applicable. When 
returning the wipes and liquid to the generator, the facility would 
have to transport them in containers that meet the original shipment 
condition, but would not be required to use a hazardous waste manifest.
    The objective of this condition is to address situations where free 
liquids arrive with industrial wipes at a handling facility through no 
fault of the handling facility. A shipment of industrial wipes would be 
considered to contain free liquids either if solvent drips from the 
wipes or if there are free liquids in the bottom of the container of 
industrial wipes. Rather than subject the industrial wipes to RCRA 
hazardous waste requirements in this situation, EPA is proposing that 
they be allowed to be further processed to ensure that the conditions 
of the hazardous waste exclusion are met and that removed solvents are 
appropriately managed either by the receiving facility or the original 
generator. We believe this can be done safely and we also believe that 
this will provide additional incentive for solvent recovery. At any 
time that hazardous solvents are spilled or leaked from a barrel of 
excluded wipes at a laundry or handling facility, or are otherwise 
mismanaged, we would consider this to be disposal and the handling 
facility managing the solvents would be responsible for cleaning up the 
spill.
b. Request for Comment
    EPA seeks comment on the above conditions for handling facilities 
that manage industrial wipes. EPA also requests comment on whether 
handling facilities receiving shipments of wipes that do not meet the 
``no free liquids'' condition should be required, as in the case of 
some other conditional exclusions, to submit a notification to the 
state or EPA region implementing RCRA to inform them that the ``no free 
liquids'' condition had not been met.
11. Management of Industrial Wipes Containing Co-Contaminants
    Today's proposed 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. In addition to these solvents, 
spent industrial wipes from industrial applications may be contaminated 
with material removed during the industrial process--anything from dirt 
and grease to listed hazardous wastes. The presence of these co-
contaminants may make the industrial wipes subject to the hazardous 
waste mixture rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)), which states that a 
mixture made up of any amount of a nonhazardous solid waste and any 
amount of a listed hazardous waste is a listed hazardous waste. 
Therefore, if the wipe contains a listed waste other than the 
identified solvents, it would still be considered a listed hazardous 
waste and would no longer be eligible for the conditional exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste being proposed today.
    Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes that exhibit a characteristic 
of hazardous waste due to co-contaminants also are not eligible for the 
hazardous waste exclusion, unless the characteristic is ignitability. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing that industrial wipes that would exhibit 
the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, or reactivity because of 
wastes with which they are co-contaminated would not be eligible for 
the conditional exclusion. On the other hand, because the industrial 
wipes are already likely to be ignitable because of the nature of the 
solvents on them, and because this risk is managed by the conditions of 
the exclusion from hazardous waste, wipes co-contaminated with 
ignitable waste would remain eligible for the exclusion if they meet 
its other conditions.
12. Proposed Conditions for Burning Solvent-Contaminated Industrial 
Wipes in Combustors
a. Proposed Condition
    Based on the results of our risk screening analysis discussed in 
Section VII of this preamble, we are proposing that municipal and other 
non-hazardous waste combustors be allowed to burn solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes that meet the proposed conditions for the exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste. Facilities managing these wipes 
would have to ensure that the wipes remain in containers that meet 
today's proposed transportation condition until they enter the 
combustion process. Also, if a combustion facility finds wipes with 
free liquids when it initiates processing of the wipes, like other 
handlers, it would have the choice of removing the free liquids and 
managing them as a hazardous waste or closing the container and sending 
the wipes back to the originating generator. When returning the wipes 
and liquid to the generator, the combustor would have to transport them 
in containers that meet the original shipment condition, but would not 
need to use a hazardous waste manifest.
b. Basis for Condition
    Allowing combustion of industrial wipes in municipal waste 
combustors (MWCs) and other non-hazardous waste combustion units, such 
as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (circumstances 
when the industrial wipes are used as a fuel are included) is a viable 
alternative for managing conditionally-excluded industrial wipes. 
First, combustion facility owners/operators should be screening 
industrial 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 in contaminated industrial wipes. As described in more detail 
in Section IV.F.11 of the Technical Background Document, EPA has 
promulgated revised air emission requirements under the New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) for large new and existing MWCs 
(facilities managing more than 250 tons of waste per day) and revised 
NSPS air emission requirements for smaller MWCs (facilities managing 
less than 250 tons of waste per day). EPA has also promulgated NSPS for 
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (65 FR 75338, 
December 1, 2000). These NSPS standards for non-hazardous waste 
combustors provide a level of protection comparable to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous 
waste incinerators and should ensure that at least 99.99 percent of the 
solvent in contaminated industrial wipes is removed or destroyed. Also, 
as stated in Section VII.C.2., the risk analysis for this proposal 
indicated that none of the solvents would exceed health benchmarks if 
the ash were disposed in a landfill.

[[Page 65603]]

c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on our approach of allowing solvent-contaminated 
wipes to be managed in Municipal Waste Combustors and other non-
hazardous waste combustors provided they meet the other conditions 
described in today's Preamble.
13. Disposal of Treatment Residuals From Municipal Waste and Other 
Combustion Facilities
    Under today's proposed rule, when solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes meet the conditions of the exclusion from the definition of 
hazardous waste before being combusted, they would not be considered a 
hazardous waste. Therefore, the mixture- and derived-from rule does not 
apply to the ash derived from the burning of these materials. In other 
words, the ash generated by a MWC or other combustion facility is a 
newly-generated waste and is subject to the waste identification 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 261 and 262. Owners and operators of MWCs 
and other combustion facilities must determine whether or not the ash 
generated at their facilities exhibits one or more of the 
characteristics of hazardous waste. They may do so by knowledge of the 
wastes they receive and/or generate, coupled with knowledge of the 
capability of their combustor facility or by testing. If they determine 
that MWC ash exhibits the hazardous characteristic, the ash must be 
managed as a hazardous waste in compliance with all applicable subtitle 
C management requirements, including the land disposal restrictions.

C. Conditions for the Exclusion From the Definition of Solid Waste for 
Reusable Industrial Wipes

1. Why Is EPA Proposing To Exclude Reusable Solvent-Contaminated 
Industrial Wipes From the Definition of Solid Waste?
    EPA is proposing today to conditionally exclude reusable solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes from the regulatory definition of solid 
waste. One of the reasons EPA is proposing an exclusion from solid 
waste for these materials, as opposed to the definition of hazardous 
waste exclusion proposed for disposable industrial wipes, is that the 
Agency believes that reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes are 
commodity-like. (See Section IV.B.2 for a detailed explanation of the 
Agency's basis for this.) Those wipes that have had free liquids 
removed are similar to partially-reclaimed materials because solvent 
removal, reclamation, laundering or dry cleaning of wipes removes 
solvent from the wipe. EPA believes that the conditions for the 
exclusion from solid waste are appropriate because they ensure that the 
manner in which generators and laundries manage these materials is 
consistent with how companies would manage a valuable commodity. For 
these reasons, today's proposed exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste is applicable only to industrial wipes that are being reclaimed 
for reuse through a cleaning or laundering process. EPA does not 
consider other types of recycling or reclamation, such as blending 
wipes into a fuel, as being eligible for this proposed exclusion from 
solid waste. Note, however, that as discussed in Section IV of today's 
preamble, any solvent-contaminated industrial wipe which will be reused 
as a wipe can be managed under the conditions for reusable wipes even 
if it was manufactured for one-time use. Likewise, any solvent-
contaminated industrial wipe not being sent for reuse must be managed 
as a disposable industrial wipe.
    EPA believes that the conditions proposed for management of 
disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, described in detail 
above, in addition to ensuring that wipes don't pose a substantial 
hazard, are what generators and handlers would do in handling valuable 
commodities. Because of this, EPA is proposing many of the same 
conditions for the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 
reusable wipes as we are proposing for the exclusion from the 
definition of hazardous waste for disposable industrial wipes. 
Nevertheless, in several places where it is appropriate, as described 
below, we are proposing different conditions for reusable wipes.
    This section details a number of proposed conditions that 
specifically would ensure that reusable solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes are handled as valuable commodities, such as the condition that 
industrial wipes must not contain free liquids and the container 
conditions for accumulation, transportation, and handling of solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes. Solvent spillage from free liquids or 
leaking containers would increase the costs of managing industrial 
wipes incurred by laundries both during transportation and at the 
cleaning plant, thus devaluing the overall worth of reusable industrial 
wipes. In addition, free liquids arriving with the wipes would require 
laundries to incur the increased costs of disposing or otherwise 
managing the contaminated solvents, again reducing the overall value of 
the reusable industrial wipes. Additionally, because of the flammable 
nature of many of the solvents to which this proposal applies, proper 
containers and the reduction of free liquids reduces the fire hazard 
posed by industrial wipes. We believe that companies which value their 
industrial wipes would be likely to manage them in a manner that 
protects their facility from fire damage and that protects them from 
loss of value, which would occur if the wipes were to catch on fire.
    Some laundries recover solvents from the industrial wipes, but 
their economic interest lies principally in the wipes themselves. 
Management of free liquids to ensure compliance with pretreatment 
standards established by local sewer authorities and to guard against 
fire hazards could increase overall operating costs. However, 
conditions that ensure the use of appropriate containers and that 
restrict the amount of solvents coming into the laundries, as described 
above, always enhance the value of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes to the laundries.
2. Applicable Solvents
    Unlike the proposed exclusion from the definition of hazardous 
waste for industrial wipes sent for disposal in municipal or other non-
hazardous waste landfills, which is not applicable to 11 of the listed 
solvents, the proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste is 
applicable to wipes contaminated with all hazardous solvents. The 
central question in solid waste determinations is whether the material 
has been discarded and, therefore, because EPA believes reusable 
industrial wipes containing solvents would be commodity-like when 
generators meet the proposed conditions, the conditional exclusion from 
the definition of solid waste would apply to wipes contaminated with 
all hazardous solvents. Therefore, wipes containing the solvents in 
Table 4, which are not eligible for the exclusion from the definition 
of hazardous waste, would be eligible for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste.
3. Proposed Conditions for Initial Storage and Accumulation
a. Proposed Condition
    The proposed conditional exclusion from the regulatory definition 
of solid waste would apply to solvent-contaminated industrial wipes at 
the point where the generator ceases using them. If the wipes are 
managed according to the proposed conditions, they are not considered 
solid waste.
    The first condition the industrial wipes must meet is an 
accumulation

[[Page 65604]]

condition. For the exclusion from the definition of solid waste, EPA is 
proposing the same performance-based on site management condition as 
for the exclusion of disposable industrial wipes from the definition of 
hazardous waste: For reusable industrial wipes, the user must place 
them in a non-leaking, covered container. This condition is more fully 
described above in Section V.B.2.
    One point that would differ for reusable solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes is that under an exclusion from the definition of 
solid waste, speculative accumulation would apply for these materials. 
This means that in any calendar year, 75 percent of the material 
accumulated for recycling must actually be recycled. If this percentage 
of recycling is not fulfilled, the material becomes classified as a 
solid waste. The speculative accumulation provision ensures that 
materials that have been excluded from the definition of solid waste, 
such as solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, are not collected 
indefinitely under that exclusion instead of being recycled. However, 
because of the business practices between industrial launderers and 
users of reusable industrial wipes described above, we believe that 
excluded reusable industrial wipes will be traveling between users and 
the laundries often enough that the speculative accumulation provision 
will not be a concern.
    Currently, management standards for accumulation of reusable 
industrial wipes differ from state to state due to varying state 
policies. Some states require that the reusable wipes be handled as 
hazardous waste prior to laundering, some require the use of best 
management standards or the use of closed containers, and other states 
simply exclude reusable industrial wipes from meeting any requirements. 
However, some trade associations and industrial laundries already 
encourage their members and customers to use closed or sealed 
containers during storage and transportation of solvent-contaminated 
wipes.
    EPA believes that the proposed condition, designed to minimize loss 
of solvents into the environment, ensures responsible management of the 
wipes in a manner that is commodity-like by preventing the loss of 
wipes, preventing the loss of solvent which could be recovered and 
reused, and protecting against risks from fires. At the same time, by 
being performance-based, this approach allows for a wide variety of 
containers to be acceptable for accumulation of reusable wipes.
b. Other Option
    As with disposable industrial wipes, EPA is considering not 
requiring a RCRA-specific condition to be met for accumulation of 
reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes and instead relying on 
OSHA regulations and any other applicable statutes. This option is 
fully described above in section V.B.2.b.
c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on our proposed condition for accumulating 
reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in covered containers 
while at the generator's facility, as well as the option of not 
proposing a RCRA standard, but relying on the OSHA regulations.
4. Proposed Conditions for Containers Used for Transportation
a. Proposed Condition
    For transportation of reusable industrial wipes, we are proposing 
that facilities that transport reusable solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes off site to an industrial laundry, a dry cleaner, or a facility 
that removes solvents from industrial wipes prior to cleaning must do 
so in containers that are designed, constructed and managed to minimize 
loss to the environment; this is the same condition we are proposing 
for disposable industrial wipes that are conditionally excluded from 
the definition of hazardous waste. We believe this condition reflects 
the manner in which a commodity would be transported because it 
minimizes the possibility that valuable material would be spilled, lost 
or damaged during transportation.
    This condition is more fully described above in Section V.B.3. Its 
main advantage is that it allows for flexibility while assuring that 
losses are minimized.
b. Plastic and Cloth Bags
    Used reusable wipes are often transported from the generator to the 
laundry in either plastic or cloth bags and throughout the development 
of this proposal, there has been much discussion with stakeholders 
about the use of such bags for transportation of industrial wipes and 
for management of them once they arrive at the laundry. Stakeholders 
have asked whether these bags could continue to be used under the 
proposed exclusion from the definition of solid waste.
    EPA has chosen to propose a performance standard for this condition 
because it provides industry the ability to be creative in developing 
less expensive ways to reach a desired outcome. A performance standard 
allows for use of a wide variety of containers so many generators could 
continue with current practices. For example, while we would consider 
closed, sealed, impermeable containers to meet this condition, plastic 
or cloth bags that were cinched shut could also potentially meet this 
condition. Cinched bags would reduce exposed surface area and 
evaporative loss and, provided no free liquids were present, might not 
allow liquid solvents to leak. However, at any time that hazardous 
solvents are spilled or leaked during transportation, we would consider 
this to be disposal of a hazardous waste and those managing the 
industrial wipes at the time the spill occurred would be responsible 
for cleaning up the spill and returning the wipes to compliance with 
the conditions of the exclusion (i.e., the performance standard).
c. Other Options
    For reusable industrial wipes, EPA is considering two alternatives 
during transportation: (1) requiring transportation of the industrial 
wipes in impermeable closed containers, or (2) the addition of a 
provision that allows wipes containing less than five grams of solvent 
to be transported without any management standards.
    EPA initially considered proposing that all generators of reusable 
industrial wipes would be required to transport them in impermeable, 
``closed'' containers (e.g., containers with the lids screwed on). 
Representatives of the industrial laundries (the Uniform Textiles Trade 
Association) questioned the need to require closed containers because 
they believe it would require them to purchase new and larger trucks 
for storage during transit. In addition, they expressed concern that 
those transporting industrial wipes would not be able to determine if 
free liquids were present within a closed container with a lid screwed 
on without further handling of the container and wipes. Unlike checking 
the bottom of a bag for liquids, unsealing these containers would be 
time consuming and would expose more of the solvents to the air. In 
addition, they argue that if the transporters of the wipes are unable 
to determine at the time of pick-up whether there are free liquids in 
the container, this may result in an unnecessary burden falling on the 
handlers were free liquids to arrive at their site. Based on these 
concerns, we are not proposing this alternative, but believe the 
approach taken in today's proposed regulation addresses these concerns 
and will ensure protection of human health and the environment.

[[Page 65605]]

    The second alternative, regarding allowing wipes that contain less 
than five grams of solvent to be transported without management 
controls, is more fully described above in section V.B.3.b.
d. Request for Comment
    We request comment on the proposed transportation condition, the 
alternatives considered, and on the ability of cloth bags to meet the 
proposed performance standard.
5. Proposed Condition for Transportation to Laundry, Dry Cleaner, or 
Handler
a. Proposed Condition
    Today, we are proposing that generators meet the ``no free 
liquids'' condition prior to solvent-contaminated reusable industrial 
wipes being transported off site to be cleaned for reuse or being 
laundered on site. This is the same as the condition for disposable 
industrial wipes being transported for disposal at a non-land disposal 
facility, such as a municipal solid waste combustor, and is consistent 
with what state programs have required for their exclusions for 
reusable industrial wipes. For wipes to meet the federal ``no free 
liquid'' condition, no liquid solvent could drip from the wipes when 
sent off site. In addition, no free liquids could be present in the 
bottom of the container in which the wipes are transported.
    EPA has tentatively concluded that the ``dry'' condition, proposed 
as a condition for disposable industrial wipes going to municipal or 
other non-hazardous waste landfills, is overly-stringent for the 
management of reusable industrial wipes. We believe this to be the case 
because, throughout the solvent removal and cleaning process, the 
conditions established for eligibility for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste are already consistent with the existing 
hazardous waste regulations. For example, solvents removed prior to 
cleaning at a laundry must be managed as hazardous waste. In addition, 
solvent discharges to POTWs are allowed under the wastewater exclusion 
found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(2). 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; 
solvent discharges are often subject to these limits.
    We believe the ``no free liquids'' condition helps ensure that 
reusable industrial wipes that are saturated with solvent are partially 
reclaimed before they are shipped for cleaning or laundry and helps 
ensure that they are handled as valuable commodities by reducing the 
risk of losing valuable wipes as the result of fires caused by 
ignitable solvents. Therefore, it may lead to resource conservation by 
encouraging recovery of solvent by the generator.
    The ``no free liquids'' condition is more fully described above in 
Section V.B.6. As mentioned in that section, solvents removed from 
wipes are solid wastes and may be characteristic or listed hazardous 
wastes and must be managed accordingly.
    For reusables going to laundries, dry cleaners and industrial wipes 
handlers, we are not proposing a labeling condition that parallels the 
one described in Section V.B.4. for disposable industrial wipes. EPA 
decided not to propose a labeling condition in this case because the 
commodity-like nature of reusable wipes means that, in general, 
laundries have agreements with their customers and already know what is 
in the containers of wipes that arrive. Therefore, containers of 
reusable industrial wipes do not require a label to provide this 
information or to notify the transporters or laundries how the wipes 
should be handled. EPA believes that because these materials are 
managed as commodities by the generators and the handlers, previously 
existing business documents should provide sufficient information to 
ensure proper handling.
b. Other Option
    EPA is also considering a ``no free liquids when wrung'' condition 
instead of the ``no free liquids'' condition. This condition would 
differ from what we are proposing in that it would require that each 
wipe, when hand wrung at any time after its use until it is laundered, 
could not drip solvent. See section V.B.6.b. for further description of 
this option.
c. Request for Comment
    We request comment on the ``no free liquids'' condition and the 
``no free liquids when wrung'' option, as well as on whether EPA should 
include a labeling requirement as a condition for sending reusable 
wipes to laundries or industrial wipes handlers. In addition, we also 
specifically request comment on the information submitted by the 
Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the Secondary Materials 
and Recycled Textiles Association (which is available in the docket to 
this proposal) regarding whether to place a specific limit on either 
the maximum amount of solvent or the concentration of solvent on 
reusable wipes sent to a laundering or dry cleaning facility or a 
numerical limit on the number of shop towels launderers or dry cleaners 
can accept on an annual basis for cleaning.
d. How Can Generators Meet the ``No Free Liquids'' Condition?
    The measures that a generator can take to meet a ``no free 
liquids'' condition are the same for reusable wipes as for disposable 
wipes. For more information on these measures, see Section V.B.6.d. 
above.
e. Request for Comment
    EPA is taking comment on our proposed approach to determining if 
the ``no free liquids'' condition is being met. Additionally, we 
request comment on whether there are other approaches EPA should have 
considered in this proposal.
6. ``Exotic'' Solvents
    In the process of developing this proposed rulemaking, the Agency 
has learned that there are new, ``exotic'' solvents on the market, such 
as terpenes and citric acids, that, while labeled as non-hazardous, 
could actually be flammable. Some stakeholders have suggested that we 
propose to allow generating facilities to add water to the containers 
used to transport their industrial wipes off site when these facilities 
are using one of these ``exotic'' solvents. For more information on 
this issue see Section V.B.7. above. In that section, we also request 
information and comments on these solvents, and on whether special 
conditions should be established for ``exotic'' solvents.
7. Generators That Remove Solvent From Industrial Wipes
a. Regulatory Status of Removed Solvent
    Any solvent removed from an industrial wipe by a generator when 
using solvents in conjunction with industrial wipes may be subject to 
regulation as a hazardous waste. Therefore, the generating facility 
must determine whether the solvent removed from the industrial wipe is 
listed as a hazardous waste or exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous 
waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261, and, if so, manage it according to 
prescribed RCRA regulations under 40 CFR parts 260-268 and 270.
b. Regulatory Status of Solvent Removal Technologies
    Under today's proposed exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste, the solvent-contaminated wipes would not be a solid or a 
hazardous waste at the time they undergo solvent-removal. Therefore, as 
discussed in Section V.B.8.b., solvent removal technologies would not 
be considered treatment

[[Page 65606]]

under RCRA and such operations, whether they were conducted at 
generating or handling facilities, would not be considered to be 
treating hazardous waste and would not require a RCRA permit.
8. Proposed Conditions for Intra-Company Transfers
a. Proposed Condition
    EPA is proposing that wipes can qualify for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste when transferring solvent-contaminated 
reusable industrial wipes containing ``free liquids,'' provided the 
transfer is between facilities within the same company, and the 
receiving facility has a solvent-extraction and/or -recovery process 
that removes enough solvent from industrial wipes for them to meet the 
``no free liquid'' condition. Generators must transport the industrial 
wipes in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed to 
minimize loss to the environment. This provision encourages use of 
technologies that remove more solvent than processes such as hand 
wringing would; it is an effort to increase solvent recovery and 
resource conservation, as well as a way to minimize solvent going into 
laundries' wastewater or into landfills. As we are proposing a similar 
condition for conditionally-excluded industrial wipes going to 
disposal, more detailed discussion of this provision, as well as other 
options EPA is considering can be found above in Section V.B.9. Note, 
however, that reusable solvent-contaminated wipes would not be required 
to meet the labeling requirement described in that section, as labels 
are not required for reusable wipes elsewhere.
b. Request for Comment
    EPA seeks comment on whether intra-company shipments of industrial 
wipes containing free liquids should be allowed under the conditions of 
the exclusion from the definition of solid waste and whether this 
provision would be likely to facilitate the recovery of hazardous 
solvents. EPA also seeks comment both on whether the additional 
conditions should be included and on whether we should expand the 
provision to allow industrial wipes, under the conditional exclusion 
from the definition of solid waste, to be sent with free liquids to 
third-party solvent-extraction facilities. Both options are discussed 
in Section V.B.9.
9. Proposed Conditions for Management at Handling Facilities
a. Proposed Condition
    As described for disposable industrial wipes, generators would have 
the primary responsibility for assuring that their industrial wipes 
meet the conditions for the proposed exclusion from the definition of 
solid waste. Additionally, handling facilities which receive and 
process reusable industrial wipes, such as industrial laundries, would 
also need to meet certain minimum conditions for the wipes to remain 
excluded from the definition of solid waste. The first condition is a 
container standard for the time between when the industrial wipes 
arrive on site and when the facility first introduces them into their 
process. The laundry's process begins when the laundry begins to handle 
the wipes. For example, at many laundries, the wipes are sent through a 
counting machine first, before they are cleaned, to record how many 
wipes the generator has sent to be cleaned. In this example, wipes 
would enter the handling process when they are counted.
    We are proposing today that, to qualify for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste for industrial wipes, the wipes would have to 
be stored either (a) in containers that are designed, constructed and 
managed to minimize loss to the environment that would meet the 
transportation condition in today's proposal, or (b) in non-leaking 
covered containers that would meet the generator accumulation 
conditions in today's proposal. From site visits, we expect that at the 
laundries, the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes will generally 
remain in the containers in which they were transported. However, in 
the case where a facility chooses to transfer the industrial wipes into 
another container before the wipes enter the handling process, we are 
proposing that industrial wipes meeting the generator condition, 
placement in a non-leaking covered container, would also maintain the 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste.
    Handling facilities would also not be allowed to mismanage free 
liquids. For example, an industrial laundry may not introduce free 
liquids into their laundering process. A shipment of industrial wipes 
would be considered to contain free liquids either if solvent drips 
from the wipes or if there are free liquids in the bottom of the 
container of wipes. Facilities that happen to receive solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes in containers with free liquids (unless 
they are being transported intra-company) would be required to either 
(a) return the container (with the wipes and liquid) to the user as 
soon as practicable (e.g., with the next scheduled delivery), or (b) 
recover and properly manage any liquid solvent that arrives at the 
facility under federal or state hazardous waste regulations if 
applicable. When returning the wipes and liquids to the user, the 
laundry would have to transport them in the containers that meet the 
original shipment conditions, but would not be required to use a 
hazardous waste manifest.
    The conditions of this proposal would require a laundry or handling 
facility to take necessary steps to return the wipes to compliance with 
the conditions of the exclusion, as described above. The mismanagement 
of free liquid solvents by the laundry, either by illegal disposal, by 
adding them to the wash, or other means, would be a violation of the 
conditions of the exclusion. If the exclusion is not maintained by 
either of the ways described above, we would consider the wipes and 
solvent to be a solid waste and possibly a hazardous waste and would 
consider the laundry to be mismanaging the wipes and/or free liquids. 
In addition, because the generator is originally responsible for the 
existence of the free liquids in wipes, it would also be potentially 
responsible for wipes having lost the exclusion at the handler despite 
the wipes being out of the generator's control at that moment.
    The objective of this condition is to address situations where free 
liquids arrive at a handling facility such as an industrial launderer, 
either (a) because of percolation and gravity effects during 
transportation, causing the solvents to sink and saturate the wipes at 
the bottom of any given container; or (b) because of mismanagement of 
the wipes by the generator. We believe that over time this approach 
will ensure that wipes are handled in the most efficient manner 
possible to minimize the need to return wipes and free liquids to 
users' facilities.
b. Request for Comment
    EPA seeks comment on the above conditions for reusable industrial 
wipes managed at handling facilities to be excluded from the definition 
of solid waste. EPA also requests comment on whether laundries 
receiving shipments of wipes that contain free liquids should be 
required to submit a notification to the state or EPA region 
implementing RCRA to inform them that the ``no free liquids'' 
condition, and therefore a condition of the exclusion, had not been 
met.

[[Page 65607]]

D. Recordkeeping

    EPA is not proposing any specific recordkeeping requirements for 
either the proposed exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste 
for disposable industrial wipes or for the proposed exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste for reusable industrial wipes, since 40 CFR 
261.2(f) already requires persons to provide appropriate documentation 
that would demonstrate that the industrial wipes are not a solid waste, 
or are excluded from the hazardous waste regulations.
    Nevertheless, we are considering whether specific recordkeeping 
requirements should be included in the conditions to qualify for the 
exclusions proposed today for the purpose of improving implementation 
by the relevant regulatory authority. We are asking for comment on a 
number of related issues. For example, should EPA require generators to 
keep basic information, such as the number or volume of industrial 
wipes generated, where the industrial wipes were sent, and how many 
shipments were sent off site? In addition, should EPA require 
generators to certify that their shipments of industrial wipes meet 
either the ``no free liquids'' or the ``dry'' condition, as 
appropriate, and maintain those records for three years? \14\ Finally, 
should EPA require that the generators certify that their employees are 
adequately trained to manage wipes stored and handled on site through 
compliance with generator employee training and emergency response 
requirements in 40 CFR part 262. Should those records be maintained for 
three years if such requirements were ultimately promulgated? We 
request information on whether the certification could easily be added 
onto regular business records such as a transporter's pick-up sheets or 
shipping papers. In addition, would such a provision increase the 
likelihood that generators would ensure that the processes, techniques 
or technologies they use would meet the applicable ``no free liquids'' 
or ``dry'' condition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Three years is the standard period of time that EPA usually 
requires for the maintenance of records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also seeks comment on whether industrial laundries, dry 
cleaners, and industrial wipes handling and disposal facilities should 
be required to certify the condition of wipes that arrive at their 
facility, such as whether or not they contain free liquids. If the 
wipes contain free liquids, should handlers be required to record what 
steps they took to address this problem (such as documenting whether 
they removed the free liquids and properly managed the solvents or 
returned the saturated wipes and free liquids to the generator) and 
maintain these records for three years? In addition, EPA seeks comment 
on whether, when returning industrial wipes to their customers, 
handlers should be required to use a ``streamlined'' manifest to 
reflect the type of solvents enclosed, the weight or volume of the free 
liquids, the date and destination of the shipment, and acknowledgment 
of receipt by the generator.
    Finally, EPA requests comment on whether the inclusion of these 
recordkeeping requirements in the rule would improve compliance with 
the conditions of the rule and, therefore, improve implementation of 
the provisions of the rule.

E. Enforcement

    Under today's proposed rule, reusable industrial wipes are excluded 
from the definition of solid waste and disposable industrial wipes are 
excluded from the definition of hazardous waste if certain 
accumulation, transportation, and handling conditions are met. The 
party operating under either conditional exclusion will be responsible 
for maintaining the exclusion by ensuring that all the conditions are 
met. In the event that a condition is not met, the party managing the 
wipes at that time will need to remedy the situation as soon as 
possible in order not to jeopardize the exclusion. Facilities taking 
advantage of the exclusion that fail to meet one or more of its 
conditions may be subject to enforcement action, and the wipes may be 
considered to be hazardous waste from the point of their generation 
(i.e., from the point when the generator had finished using them). EPA 
could choose to bring an enforcement action under RCRA Sec.  3008(a) 
for all violations of the hazardous waste requirements occurring from 
the time the industrial wipes are generated through the time they are 
finally disposed of, reclaimed, or reused. States could choose to 
enforce for violations of state hazardous waste requirements under 
state authorities.
    EPA believes that this approach, which treats solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes that do not conform to the conditions of the 
exclusions as either solid waste or hazardous waste from their point of 
generation, provides generators, disposers, and other handlers with an 
incentive to handle the industrial wipes in a manner that prevents the 
loss of the exclusion. It also encourages each person to take 
appropriate steps to see that others in the management chain handle the 
industrial wipes so that they are legitimately disposed of, reclaimed, 
or reused.
    For example, if a laundry operating under the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste receives a barrel of reusable industrial 
wipes containing free liquids and mixes them with other industrial 
wipes without removing the free liquids, then those industrial wipes 
would not be excluded. Likewise, if a municipal solid waste landfill 
disposes of industrial wipes containing a prohibited solvent such as 
trichloroethylene, the disposables would not be excluded. In both 
cases, EPA and an authorized state could choose to bring an enforcement 
action against those in the management chain, including the generator, 
transporter, and/or receiving facility, for violations of applicable 
RCRA hazardous waste requirements. In these cases, the material would 
be a hazardous waste from the time the generator first generated it.
    As with any violation, EPA and authorized states would have 
enforcement mechanisms available that range in severity. In addition, 
EPA and authorized states would have flexibility in applying these 
mechanisms to the various responsible parties. Enforcing agencies would 
use their discretion to select the enforcement mechanisms and the 
parties that are appropriate to a specific case and its factual 
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 and recycling, disposal, or handling facilities claiming 
the exclusion must be able to demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory 
agency that the conditions of the exclusion are being met. In an 
enforcement action, the facility claiming the exclusion bears the 
burden of proof pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2(f), to demonstrate conformance 
with the conditions specified in the regulation. For disposable 
industrial wipes, the burden of proof falls on the generator, 
commercial transporter, municipal solid waste landfill, municipal waste 
combustor, combustion facility, or handling facility claiming the 
exclusion, and for reusable industrial wipes, it falls on the 
generator, laundry, dry cleaner, or handling facility claiming the 
exclusion.
    Additionally, the exclusions in today's rule would not affect the 
obligation to promptly respond to and remediate any releases that may 
occur of solvents and wipes managed within the exclusion. If, for 
example, a hazardous solvent is spilled or released, then the solvent 
would be discarded. Any

[[Page 65608]]

management of the released material not in compliance with the 
applicable federal and state hazardous waste requirements could result 
in an enforcement action. For example, a person who spilled or released 
a hazardous solvent, and failed to immediately clean it up, could 
potentially be subject to enforcement for illegal disposal of the 
waste. The waste could also potentially be addressed through 
enforcement orders, such as orders under RCRA sections 3013 and 7003.

F. Alternative Options to the Approach in Today's Proposed Rule

    The approach taken in today's proposed rule, the exclusion from the 
regulatory definition of hazardous waste for disposable wipes and the 
exclusion from the regulatory definition of solid waste for reusable 
wipes, is one of a few that EPA is considering. The others are 
described below.
1. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for Disposable and 
Reusable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
    We are considering an option that would exclude reusable industrial 
wipes from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste rather than 
exclude them from the regulatory definition of solid waste, using the 
same conditions as those specified in today's proposed rule. This 
approach would not differentiate the regulatory status of solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes whether they are being sent for recycling 
or for disposal.
    Under this approach, the provisions of the rule concerning 
disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes would remain the same 
as in today's proposed option. For reusable solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes, the conditions for complying with the rule would be 
the same as in today's proposed option, but the reusable solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes would remain solid wastes (though not 
hazardous wastes) when the conditions were met.
    Some stakeholders, particularly laundries and other handlers of 
reusable wipes, are strongly opposed to this option. They believe that 
they manage a commodity rather than a waste and argue that an exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste would inappropriately classify 
them under the regulatory definition of solid waste. These stakeholders 
are also concerned that if contaminated wipes being laundered and 
reused were to be considered a solid waste by EPA, they may become 
subject to state solid waste fees if states were to decide to collect 
such fees.
    EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of this option relative 
to today's proposal.
2. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for All Disposable 
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Under a Single Set of Conditions
    An additional option we are considering would provide an exclusion 
from the definition of hazardous waste for all disposable wipes under 
the same conditions. The option affects only the exclusion from the 
definition of hazardous waste proposed today; all provisions for 
reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes described in Section 
V.C. would remain the same. Under this option, the Agency would not 
differentiate between wipes managed in municipal and other non-
hazardous waste landfills or non-landfill facilities--the conditions 
necessary for industrial wipes to obtain an exclusion from hazardous 
waste regulations would be the same for both types of management. For 
example, solvent-contaminated wipes would not need to be ``dry'' prior 
to landfill disposal; rather, they would be required to contain no free 
liquids.
    We are carefully considering this option, since it would be simpler 
and easier to implement and would simplify the regulations for 
generators of solvent-contaminated disposable industrial wipes. 
However, we are concerned with this option because it would allow 
solvents that may pose an environmental and human health risk to be 
placed in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills without 
meeting the 5-gram condition (i.e., the ``dry'' condition) that would 
reduce risks. The Agency requests comment on this approach and on the 
assumptions we used in our landfill risk screening analyses. 
Specifically, are there assumptions or parameters that should be 
modified to reflect a more accurate estimate of the level of risk posed 
by contaminated wipes in landfills?

VI. Additional Benefit of the Proposed Rule: Fostering Pollution 
Prevention

    In addition to regulatory reform in response to stakeholder 
concerns, we believe this proposed rule will foster pollution 
prevention and recycling opportunities by encouraging users of 
disposable industrial wipes who desire less stringent management 
requirements to use alternative solvents, use less solvent, or remove 
solvents to achieve the ``no free liquids'' or ``dry'' conditions. For 
instance, generators desiring to dispose of wipes in municipal or other 
non-hazardous waste landfills must use solvents other than the 11 
specified listed spent solvents and must reduce the amount of solvent 
which is contained in them to a ``dry'' state. In many instances, 
reduction and/or substitution can result in overall cost savings to a 
company. In a recent study, the Chemical Strategies Partnership found 
that the cost of managing chemicals ranges from $1 to $10 for every 
dollar of chemical purchased. These management costs include liability, 
safety training, compliance efforts, and collection and disposal costs 
that would not accrue to the company if they were purchasing a non-
hazardous solvent.\15\ A company could also achieve savings if they 
were to reduce the amount of solvent they use to meet the conditions of 
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Chemical Strategies Partnership Manual, Tools for 
Optimizing Chemical Management. Copies can be obtained by e-mail at: 
[email protected] or www.chemicalstrategies.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA strongly encourages companies to examine the feasibility of 
using less solvent and/or substituting non-hazardous solvents for 
hazardous solvents. Various industry and government sources might be 
able to assist in identifying alternative sources. (See, for instance, 
EPA's Design for the Environment Web site at www.epa.gov/dfe or contact 
your EPA region or state for technical assistance.)
    This proposed rule would also have the potential to increase 
pollution prevention because it may increase the incentive to control 
the amount of solvent applied to industrial wipes. For example, the use 
of less solvent might make it easier to meet the conditions of either 
exclusion. In addition, generators using significant amounts of solvent 
on their disposable wipes would need to extract the solvent using 
solvent-extraction processes in order to meet the proposed ``dry'' or 
``no free liquids'' conditions, increasing the likelihood of additional 
solvent reuse and recovery. Opportunities already exist in the 
marketplace to recover and reuse the extracted solvent by either 
establishing an on-site solvent-extraction process or by sending the 
industrial wipes to an off-site solvent-extraction facility. 
Technologies have emerged that primarily dry clean contaminated 
materials and, once dry cleaned, recover excess spent solvents through 
reclamation. Such technologies may offer alternatives to generators for 
recycling or reusing both the spent solvents and the used industrial 
wipes. In many instances, use of these technologies can result not only 
in

[[Page 65609]]

opportunities to reduce pollution, but also to reduce disposal costs.

VII. Risk Screening Analysis

A. Introduction

    The discussion below summarizes the Agency's risk screening 
analysis for disposable and reusable industrial wipes. For specifics 
regarding the risk analysis or details on how it was conducted, please 
see the background documents in the docket for today's proposed 
rulemaking, particularly the risk screening assessment document, 
``Estimating Risk from Disposal of Solvent Contaminated Shop Towels and 
Wipes in Municipal Landfills,'' March 1999.
    As previously stated, several stakeholders have argued that 
disposing of industrial wipes containing small amounts of solvent in 
municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills would not pose a 
substantial hazard to human health and the environment and have 
submitted rulemaking petitions to the Agency on this matter. Similarly, 
they argued that disposal of treatment residues, such as ash from 
incineration of disposable wipes and sludges from wastewater treatment 
at laundries washing industrial wipes, would not pose a substantial 
hazard. In response to these arguments, EPA conducted risk screening 
analyses for the following scenarios to evaluate the potential risks to 
human health and the environment:
    [sbull] Direct landfilling of disposable industrial wipes,
    [sbull] Landfilling of combustor ash generated from burning 
disposable industrial wipes in a municipal waste combustion facility, 
and
    [sbull] Landfilling of industrial laundry wastewater treatment 
sludges generated from washing reusable industrial wipes.

B. What Analyses Did EPA Do?

    EPA first estimated risks from exposure to the 30 F-listed solvents 
commonly used on industrial wipes assuming they were directly disposed 
of in an unlined municipal landfill. We looked at potential risks from 
inhalation of the solvents volatilizing from the landfill, from 
ingestion of groundwater contaminated by solvents leaching from the 
landfill, and from inhalation of solvent vapors released from 
contaminated groundwater during showering and other uses. We evaluated 
exposure to solvents volatilizing from landfills using a partitioning 
model to determine solvent releases and an air dispersion model to 
determine the air concentration at a point of exposure 75 meters from 
the landfill. The partitioning model estimates what fraction of the 
total mass of solvent degrades, volatilizes, leaches, and adheres to 
the material in the landfill.
    The evaluation of risks from groundwater incorporated previous 
probabilistic analyses of groundwater fate and transport to determine 
the relative concentrations of contaminants in the landfill leachate 
and at a nearby well. The 5th percentile value from the distribution of 
results, which is a conservatively low ratio of leachate concentration 
to well concentration (i.e., indicates a high well concentration 
relative to a given leachate concentration), was used for the analysis. 
The results of the probabilistic groundwater analyses were combined 
with partitioning model results, which determined the initial leachate 
concentrations, and with standard default exposure assumptions, which 
determined the exposure to individuals from the calculated well 
concentrations.
    The exposure evaluation examined the sensitivity of the results to 
different parameters such as the size of the landfill and climatic 
conditions. EPA determined that the most sensitive set of conditions 
was exposure to children due to releases to groundwater from a small 
landfill in a wet climate. This worst-case scenario was used to 
estimate maximum allowable daily loadings for each solvent, based on 
not exceeding specified risk levels.
    In particular, to evaluate risks, EPA used health benchmarks from 
its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), supplemented with other 
sources as necessary. Benchmarks for noncarcinogenic solvents are 
presented as reference doses (RfD) for exposures through ingestion and 
as reference air concentrations (RfC) for exposures through inhalation. 
These are concentrations which are considered to be protective of human 
health; therefore, the calculated exposures were compared directly to 
these values to determine whether there was a potential human health 
risk for the noncarcinogenic solvents. For carcinogens, IRIS presents 
cancer slope factors, which are used to calculate risk as a function of 
exposure dose. For this analysis, EPA used the exposure dose 
corresponding to a cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 (10-5) as the health 
benchmark for an acceptable cancer risk level.
    We initially evaluated disposal of industrial wipes from one 
generating facility sent to one landfill. EPA then evaluated various 
factors, such as the number of facilities likely to use one landfill 
for disposal, percentage of facilities using F-listed solvents, and the 
percentage of facilities sending their disposable industrial wipes to 
landfills rather than combustors in order to extrapolate the results 
from the initial analysis into results which would be representative of 
potential actual exposures.
    EPA's second analysis estimated risks from disposal of ash from 
incinerators burning disposable industrial wipes. EPA assumed that 
99.99% of the solvent was destroyed in the incinerator (with the 
remainder going into the ash) to derive a solvent loading in ash for 
each of the 30 F-listed solvents. We then used the same landfill 
analysis described above to determine how much solvent would be 
partitioned to leachate, transported to the receiving well, and exposed 
to the receptor. As in the above landfill analysis, EPA then calculated 
what the allowable solvent loadings to an incinerator could be to 
determine which listed solvent ash residues could safely be disposed of 
in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill.
    EPA's third analysis was of potential risks from disposal of sludge 
from wastewater treatment at laundries which clean solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes. For this analysis, we used the maximum of a very 
limited number of wastewater concentrations collected from industrial 
laundries by the Office of Water as part of their effluent guidelines 
development process. We estimated the sludge concentrations of 
different solvents using a partitioning model to estimate the mass of 
solvent in the wastewater that partitions to air, water, and sludge. 
Since we had wastewater data for only a limited number of solvents, we 
extrapolated that data to the other solvents. Once we had a solvent 
loading in the sludge going to a landfill, we used the same analysis 
described above to estimate risks.
    Finally, EPA examined potential ecological risks by estimating 
solvent concentrations in surface water streams which are affected by 
groundwater contamination from landfills with solvent wastes. These 
estimated concentrations were then compared to available water quality 
criteria. The analysis was very conservative in that 100% of the 
solvent in groundwater was assumed to be discharged into a small 
stream; however, water quality criteria were available for only ten of 
the solvents, so the other 20 were not evaluated for ecological risks. 
More information on the analysis can be found in Section V of the 
Technical Background Document for this proposal, available in the 
Docket.

[[Page 65610]]

C. What Were the Results of the Analyses, and What Do They Mean?

1. Disposable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Managed in 
Landfills
    The results of the risk screening analysis for each solvent are 
presented as a comparison of the allowable loading to a landfill (based 
on meeting the previously described risk thresholds) with the projected 
loadings under two possible conditions: (1) Untreated industrial wipes 
and, (2) industrial wipes treated by a technique such as centrifuging 
which was assumed to remove 90% of the solvent. The detailed results 
are presented below in Table 6 and show that:
    [sbull] 16 listed solvent constituents would not exceed risk 
thresholds, even without treatment,
    [sbull] 8 additional listed solvent constituents would not exceed 
the risk thresholds if wipes were processed by solvent extraction, and
    [sbull] 6 remaining listed solvent constituents would exceed the 
risk thresholds even if wipes were processed by solvent extraction.
    As indicated earlier, there are a number of conservative factors 
included in the analysis. Factors which would tend to increase our 
estimate of risk include the use of the 5th percentile value from the 
distribution of ratios of leachate concentrations to well 
concentrations, the assumption of a small landfill in a wet climate, 
and the assumption that the receptor for inhalation risks is only 75 
meters from the landfill. On the other hand, the use of standard 
default exposure assumptions, as well as some of the loading 
assumptions were based on best estimates, not conservative assumptions. 
While EPA has not done a comprehensive sensitivity analysis of all risk 
factors, the analysis is generally consistent with the Agency policy of 
using high end risk estimates (above the 90th percentile, but on the 
real risk distribution) as one factor in its decision making.
    Another factor to note is that there is considerable uncertainty in 
a large number of the parameters used in the analysis. For example, 
there was wide variability in the estimates of how much solvent would 
be on each industrial wipe; the estimates of how many facilities would 
use a particular landfill were based on general demographic data; and 
the fate and transport models, as well as some of the health 
benchmarks, have some degree of uncertainty. While the Agency has not 
conducted a detailed quantitative uncertainty analysis, it is likely 
that the range of the uncertainty in this risk analysis covers an order 
of magnitude or more. The Agency specifically solicits comments on the 
results and the assumptions and decisions made in conducting the risk 
screening analysis. More information on the analysis can be found in 
the Technical Background Document for this proposal, available in the 
Docket.

                                      Table 6.--Evaluation of Solvent-Contaminated Disposable Wipes for Landfilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Loading to
                                                             meet the                    Loading
                                Constituent (RCRA waste       health     Loading (kg/   assuming
           CAS No.                       codes)              benchmark     day, per   centrifuging                     Conclusion \1\
                                                           (kg/day, per   landfill)   (kg/day, per
                                                             landfill)                  landfill)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Noncarcinogens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67-64-1.....................  Acetone (F003).............         1.73          4.32         0.432  Centrifuge required.
71-36-3.....................  Butanol (F003).............         1.61          1.88         0.188  Centrifuge required.
75-15-0.....................  Carbon disulfide (F005)....         0.62          1.03         0.103  Centrifuge required.
108-90-7....................  Chlorobenzene \2\ (F002)            0.36          1.03         0.103  Centrifuge required.
                               and (D021).
108-94-1....................  Cyclohexanone (F003).......        64.55          1.88         0.188  Acceptable.
1319-77-3...................  Cresols (F004) and (D026)           0.41          1.03         0.103  Centrifuge required.
                               \2\.
75-71-8.....................  Dichlorodifluoromethane             2.16          1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
                               (F001).
95-50-1.....................  1,2-Dichlorobenzene (F002)         12.84          1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
                               and (D070).
141-78-6....................  Ethyl acetate (F003).......        16.17          2.26         0.226  Acceptable.
100-41-4....................  Ethyl benzene (F003).......        11.95          1.88         0.188  Acceptable.
60-29-7.....................  Ethyl ether (F003).........         4.30          1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
110-80-5....................  2-Ethoxyethanol (F005).....         3.82          1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
78-83-1.....................  Isobutyl alcohol (F005)....         4.31          1.88         0.188  Acceptable.
67-56-1.....................  Methanol (F003)............         5.90          3.20         0.320  Acceptable.
78-93-3.....................  Methyl ethyl ketone (F005)          0.32          3.67         0.367  Unacceptable.
                               (D035).
108-10-1....................  Methyl isobutyl ketone              0.03          1.03         0.103  Unacceptable.\3\
                               (F003).
98-95-3.....................  Nitrobenzene (F004) and             0.043         1.03         0.103  Unacceptable.
                               (U169).
110-86-1....................  Pyridine (F005) (D038).....         0.006         1.03         0.103  Unacceptable.
127-18-4....................  Tetrachloroethylene (F002)          5.83          4.42         0.442  Acceptable.
                               \2\ (D039).
108-88-3....................  Toluene (F005).............         2.14          5.08         0.508  Centrifuge required.
71-55-6.....................  1,1,1-Trichloroethane              15.81          9.02         0.902  Acceptable.
                               (F002).
76-13-1.....................  1,1,2-                            403.37          5.17         0.517  Acceptable.
                               Trichlorotrifluoroethane
                               (F002).
75-69-4.....................  Trichlorofluoromethane             16.05          3.48         0.348  Acceptable.
                               (F002) and (U121).
1330-20-7...................  Xylenes (total) (F003).....         6.18          1.88         0.188  Acceptable.
-----------------------------
                                                                       Carcinogens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71-43-2.....................  Benzene (F005) (D018) \2\..         0.24          1.03         0.103  Centrifuge required.
56-23-5.....................  Carbon tetrachloride (F001)         3.0           1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
                               (D019) \2\.
75-09-2.....................  Methylene chloride (F002)..         0.39          9.54         0.954  Unacceptable.
79-46-9.....................  2-Nitropropane (F005)......         0.003         1.03         0.103  Unacceptable.
79-01-6.....................  Trichloroethylene (F002)           27.66          1.03         0.103  Acceptable.
                               (D040) \2\.
79-00-5.....................  1,1,2-Trichloroethane               0.83          1.03         0.103  Centrifuge required.
                               (F002).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this analysis, the human health benchmarks were a hazard quotient of 1 for a non-carcinogen or a carcinogenic risk of 10-5. Values above these
  numbers were deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

[[Page 65611]]

 
\2\ One of those constituents which cannot be disposed of in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill under today's proposal because they
  exhibit the toxicity characteristic instead of because of the outcome of the risk screening analysis. For further discussion, see Section V.B.5.
\3\ Methyl isobutyl ketone is listed for its characteristic of ignitability and, therefore, when it is mixed with solid waste, is no longer considered
  hazardous waste unless it continues to display its characteristic. Therefore, although this risk screening analysis lists MIBK as Unacceptable, a wipe
  containing it can be disposed of in a municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill if it meets the other conditions.

2. Ash From Incineration of Disposable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial 
Wipes Managed in Landfills
    Even though the analysis of risks from disposing of incinerator ash 
in landfills was conservative by assuming that all of the solvent that 
was not destroyed went into the ash (as opposed to some of it being 
emitted from the stack) and that the ash was from a small combustion 
unit (meaning that a higher percentage of the total amount of material 
being burned consisted of wipes), the analysis still indicated that 
none of the solvents would exceed the health benchmarks if the ash were 
disposed of in a landfill.
3. Sludge From Wastewater Treatment at Industrial Laundries and Managed 
in Landfills
    This analysis indicated that only one constituent, 2-nitropropane, 
would be present in sludge at a level which would reach the allowable 
health benchmark. Even for this highly toxic solvent, the loading in 
sludge (0.004 kg/day) just barely exceeded the allowable loading 
(0.0033 kg/day). In this case, the exposure route of concern is 
inhalation of the solvent which has volatilized from the landfill. For 
the reasons previously cited (receptor only 75 meters from the 
landfill, selection of the highest wastewater concentration value, 
etc.), we believe that a more rigorous risk assessment would determine 
that 2-nitropropane would not have exceeded the allowable loading for 
sludge from wastewater treatment.
    An August 15, 2002 letter from representatives of the Association 
of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (INDA) and the Secondary Materials and 
Recycled Textiles Association (SMART) provides information that 
suggests that the amount of solvent in reusable industrial wipes is 
substantially greater than the amount EPA used in conducting our risk 
screening analysis for this proposed rulemaking.\16\ Based on this 
information, the letter questions whether a specific concentration 
limit should be placed on the amount of solvent remaining in reusable 
industrial wipes rather than relying on the ``no free liquids'' 
condition. It also suggests that most of this solvent will end up in 
the sludge that is generated from the treatment of wastewater from 
industrial launderers and will present more of a risk than EPA's risk 
screening assessment would indicate. Accordingly, the Agency is 
evaluating the issues raised in the letter to determine if there is a 
need to impose additional conditions to address risks posed by the 
disposal in municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfills of sludges 
generated by industrial laundries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``8/15/02 letter from Bourdeau to Dellinger;'' 
``Assessing Management of Sludge Generated by Industrial 
Laundries,'' EPA OSW, May 9, 2000; and our final risk screening 
analysis document, ``Estimating the Risk from the Disposal of 
Solvent Contaminated Shop Towels and Wipes in Municipal Landfills,'' 
USEPA, March 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Ecological Assessment
    The analysis projected that none of the solvents would exceed their 
respective water quality criteria despite the conservative assumptions 
that all of the solvent released in landfill leachate would reach a 
small stream.

D. What External Review Was Done of the Risk Screening Analysis?

    In addition to conducting and reviewing the risk screening analysis 
internal to EPA, three independent experts provided an external peer 
review of the analysis of risks from constituents once they had been 
disposed of in a landfill. These reviewers did not evaluate the 
assumptions behind the loadings of solvents assumed to be sent to the 
landfill.
    These reviewers indicated that the analysis could over predict risk 
because (1) the partitioning model accounts for too little degradation 
in a landfill, (2) degradation once a constituent leaves the landfill 
is not considered, and (3) the toxicity of trichloroethylene \17\ may 
be overestimated. On the other hand, the reviewers indicated that the 
analysis could under predict risks because (1) parameters other than 
the ones for which a sensitivity analysis was conducted could be more 
sensitive in predicting risk, (2) effects from solubilization by 
organic compounds were not considered, (3) additional exposure pathways 
could contribute additional risk, and (4) the carcinogenicity of 
tetrachloroethylene was not considered. The peer reviewers full 
comments are presented in the docket. EPA has not yet addressed these 
comments, but will address them in concert with addressing public 
comments on the risk screening analysis, including the public's 
comments on the peer reviewers' comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA's Office of Research and Development is currently in 
the process of developing a new toxicity assessment for 
trichloroethylene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Integrated Waste Services Association commented on 
the analysis of risks from ash disposal. They found the analysis overly 
conservative; however, since the analysis did not indicate any risks 
from this waste, EPA does not believe it is necessary at this time to 
further refine this part of the risk analysis since further refinement 
would not change our general conclusions.
    We request comment on the risk screening analysis discussed in this 
section of the preamble and discussed in more detail in Section V of 
the Technical Background Document. In particular, we seek comment 
concerning:

--The assumptions used in each of these analyses; i.e., landfill, ash 
and sludges
--The data used in modeling risks
--The methodology used in each of these analyses
--Conclusions and recommendations
--The comments provided by the three external peer reviews
--Or any specific aspect of the risk screening analyses.

VIII. History and Relationship to Other Rulemakings

A. Proposed Effluent Guidelines for Industrial Laundries

    On December 17, 1997, EPA proposed to establish pretreatment 
standards and effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for industrial 
laundries (62 FR 66181).\18\ In conducting investigations of effluents 
discharged from industrial laundries to support the development of the 
proposed rulemaking, EPA found that the effluent from many industrial 
laundries contain concentrations of solvents known from site visits to 
be

[[Page 65612]]

used in conjunction with industrial wipes identified as generators of 
solvent-contaminated wipes. Under the proposed effluent guideline rule, 
EPA proposed to limit the discharge of certain pollutants from existing 
and new industrial laundries into U.S. waters and POTWs. The proposed 
rule applied to ``any facility that launders industrial textile items 
from off site as a business activity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The proposed effluent guidelines would have established 
numerical limitations that are based on technology treatment of 
industrial laundry wastewater for 11 priority and non-conventional 
pollutants. These standards were based on a determination of the 
degree to which pollutants pass through or interfere with POTWs; the 
best available technology economically achievable for Pretreatment 
Standards for Existing Sources; and the best demonstrated available 
control technology for Pretreatment Standards for New Sources. The 
proposal also provided regulatory relief for facilities which 
launder less than 1 million pounds of incoming laundry per calendar 
year and less than 255,000 pounds of industrial wipes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 1999, EPA published a Federal Register notice 
withdrawing its proposed rule for the industrial laundry sector (64 FR 
45072). EPA's primary basis for the withdrawal was that indirect 
discharges from industrial laundries contain very small amounts of 
toxic pollutants that are not removed by POTWs. Comments on the 
proposed rule and subsequent data collection resulted in the following 
conclusions: (1) Laundry discharges are not as toxic as estimated at 
proposal, (2) POTWs provide better treatment of the toxic pollutants 
remaining in laundry discharges than estimated at proposal, and (3) 
many former problems have been resolved by local pretreatment 
authorities.
    EPA concluded that to the extent isolated problem discharges occur, 
existing pretreatment authority allows local POTWs to respond to 
problems effectively. Local POTWs have the authority to set local 
limits for individual indirect dischargers to prevent (1) pass through 
of pollutants through the POTW into waters of the U.S. and (2) 
interference both with POTW operations and sludge disposal options. 
EPA's pass-through analysis for the rulemaking determined that there is 
not significant pass-through of pollutants from industrial laundries to 
waters of the U.S. EPA also concluded that removing certain organic 
pollutants from industrial wipes before they are washed would be a 
better way to control their presence in effluent discharges.

B. Hazardous Waste Listing Determination for Spent Solvents

    Five hazardous waste listings for specific spent solvents have been 
promulgated by EPA to date: F001, F002, F003, F004, and F005. These 
listings are found in 40 CFR 261.31. The criteria used by the Agency to 
determine whether or not a waste is hazardous are explained in the 
December 31, 1985 Federal Register notice (50 FR 53316). This rule also 
applies to P- and U-listed commercial chemical products that correspond 
with the F001-F005 listings when those products are spilled and, 
therefore, become waste.
    The December 1985 Federal Register notice amended the original 
solvent listings to include spent solvent mixtures when the solvent, 
before it is used, contains 10 percent or more of total listed 
solvents. In addition, the notice clarified that the listings apply to 
``spent'' solvents--those that are no longer fit for use without being 
regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise processed, and clarified that the 
listings cover only solvents used for their solvent properties (i.e., 
``to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents'').
    On November 19, 1998, EPA published a determination not to list as 
hazardous wastes 14 chemicals that are used as solvents. These 14 
chemicals are cumene, phenol, isophorone, acetonitrile, furfural, 
epichlorohydrin, methyl chloride, ethylene dibromide, benzyl chloride, 
p-dichlorobenzene, 2-methoxyethanol, 2-methoxyethanol acetate, 2-
ethoxyethanol acetate, and cyclohexanol. EPA determined that waste 
solvents containing these chemicals are often hazardous wastes because 
they exhibit a characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, or 
because they contain other solvent wastes that are listed as hazardous 
and, therefore, did not believe it was necessary to list them 
separately. However, in some cases, EPA determined that the solvent 
waste did not meet the criteria for listing as a hazardous waste. For 
additional detail regarding the technical basis for the decision, see 
63 FR 64371, November 19, 1998.

IX. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to 
administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal 
program within the state and to issue and enforce hazardous waste 
permits. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority 
under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states 
have primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and 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. The federal requirements no longer 
applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for 
any facilities in that state, since only the state was 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 Federal requirements did 
not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the 
federal requirements as state law.
    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. EPA is directed by the statute to 
implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, 
including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted 
authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWA related 
provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements 
the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so.

B. Effect on State Authorizations

    The proposed conditional exclusions would not be HSWA regulations. 
Therefore, the conditional exclusions would not be immediately 
effective in authorized states. They would be applicable only in those 
states that do not have final authorization for the base (non-HSWA) 
portion of the RCRA program.
    Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in 
scope than existing federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the 
states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal 
program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, but 
are not required to, adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, 
that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations. 
Today's proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous 
waste for disposable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes is 
considered less stringent than the existing federal regulations because 
it would exclude certain materials now regulated by RCRA subtitle C. 
Thus, states, except as described below, would not be required to adopt 
the conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste if the 
proposal is finalized. However, because EPA believes that today's 
proposal is a better approach to controlling industrial wipes, the 
Agency would encourage states to adopt this rule, if promulgated, as 
soon as possible.
    The current federal policy with regard to reusable solvent-
contaminated

[[Page 65613]]

industrial wipes has been to defer the determination of their 
regulatory status to the states and EPA regions. This deferral has 
resulted in the development of various state programs. Today's proposal 
is generally consistent with these state policies. However, it is 
possible that conditions that would be imposed by the proposed rule 
could be more stringent than some existing state programs. As a result, 
these authorized states would be required to modify their programs when 
we promulgate a final rule. We seek comment on whether states consider 
the conditions posed by today's proposed rule to be more stringent than 
their current approaches to regulating reusable solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. Economic Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to formal review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which 
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the 
proposed regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has 
determined that today's proposed rulemaking is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues and 
because of its significance to a large number of interested 
stakeholders.
2. Affected Economic Sub-Sectors
    We estimated the potential national economic impacts of today's 
proposal. Our ``Economics Background Document'' is available for public 
review and comment from the RCRA Docket (see public access instructions 
at the introduction to this notice). The document presents the 
methodology, detailed computation spreadsheets, and sources of the data 
applied in our economic analysis. We welcome the general public and 
affected industries to provide us with comments and questions about our 
economic analysis, in the interest of improving the key data elements 
and assumptions.
    The scope of the expected economic impacts modeled in our study 
includes (i) potential cost savings, as well as (ii) potential 
implementation costs, for both the ``disposable'' and ``reusable'' 
industrial wipes markets. Our economic study models these impacts as 
potentially affecting seven economic sectors (manufacturing, retail 
trade, information, administrative services, other services, public 
administration, and transportation & utilities). These economic sectors 
consist of 15 economic sub-sectors, representing 121 industries which 
we suspect may in part or in whole generate or manage spent solvent 
industrial wipes in the U.S. economy. As enumerated in an introductory 
section of this notice, most of the industries which use industrial 
wipes are in the manufacturing sector, and use industrial wipes 
primarily for degreasing and cleaning operations.
    Today's proposal could potentially affect 13 of these 15 sub-
sectors as generators of spent solvent industrial wipes. These 13 sub-
sectors consist of a total of 471,000 facilities, 13.2 million 
employees, and $2.7 trillion in annual revenues. Ninety-six percent of 
the companies affected are small businesses and they own 83% of the 
facilities in these sub-sectors. We estimate that a subset of 215,000 
of these facilities use RCRA-regulated solvents in conjunction with 
industrial wiping operations. Introducing an uncertainty range of 50% 
to 100% as to how many states may ultimately adopt these program 
changes and counting only facilities which may be regulated as ``small 
quantity'' or ``large quantity'' generators (according to the calendar 
month waste generation quantity categories defined in the RCRA 
hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR 262) produces an estimated range 
of 63,000 to 153,000 potentially affected spent solvent industrial 
wipes generators.
    In addition to generators of industrial wipes, up to 1,175 
industrial laundries supply and launder reusable industrial wipes, 
employing 60,000 workers and earning $2.9 billion in annual revenue (of 
which $408 million is from the industrial wipes business). Industrial 
launderers are primarily small businesses (94%) which operate 47% of 
this industry's facilities. Furthermore, up to 10,600 solid waste 
management establishments (which have 210,000 employees, earn $31 
billion in annual revenue, and are 95% small business owned) could also 
be affected by these proposed changes. Introducing an uncertainty range 
of 50% to 100% for state adoption of these changes produces an 
estimated range of 590 to 1,175 industrial laundries, and 5,300 to 
10,600 solid waste management establishments potentially affected by 
the proposed regulations. Adding these ranges together produces a total 
estimated count of 68,000 to 164,000 potentially affected solvent 
industrial wipes generator and management facilities.
a. Industrial Wipes Market
    We estimate the size of the U.S. industrial wipes market at 9.6 
billion wipes used in 2001. Our economic study characterizes this 
market as consisting of two sub-markets of industrial wipes products 
with respective annual market share of 88% reusable wipes (8.5 billion 
uses) and 12% disposable wipes (1.1 billion sold). In some industrial 
wiping operations, these two product lines may be price-competitive 
substitutes, but other factors such as lint content, absorbency, and 
durability often outweigh price as a factor in determining wipes 
selection for any particular industrial wiping operation.
b. Economic Analysis Framework
    The proposed rule will affect these two sub-markets differentially 
relative to the current regime because of the significant difference in 
the current state-level and EPA regional-level regulatory status of 
each respective sub-market category. Spent disposable industrial wipes 
are currently managed as RCRA hazardous waste, whereas reusable 
industrial wipes are not usually managed as RCRA hazardous wastes or 
even solid wastes, depending on state regulations. Consequently, an 
exclusion from RCRA hazardous waste regulation is expected to provide 
the disposable wipes market with an annual net cost savings benefit 
relative to current RCRA regulatory compliance costs, whereas the solid 
waste exclusion will not provide the reusable wipes market with similar 
economic benefit, depending on the extent of free liquid solvents 
captured and recycled from solvent-contaminated reusable industrial 
wipes.
    For the purpose of estimating this differential economic impact 
outcome

[[Page 65614]]

and potential net national economic effect on the industrial wipes 
market, our economic study included modeling the anticipated induced 
shift in respective wipes market share, resulting from direct cost 
savings and direct implementation cost pass-through on the respective 
wipes prices (i.e., on wipes' life cycle usage costs, including costs 
of spent wipes disposal). In support of modeling induced market 
impacts, our economics study presents the findings of a meta-analysis 
of published own- and cross-price elasticity of demand coefficients, as 
applied in our study for purpose of simulating potential changes in 
wipes' market share. Our economic analysis also examined the potential 
composite outcome of direct and induced impacts of the solid waste 
exclusion on the industrial laundry industry, as suppliers of reusable 
industrial wipes.
    Because we do not have exact information for every key data element 
applied, the economic study presents a sensitivity analysis over a 
``lower-bound,'' ``most-likely,'' and ``upper-bound'' range in 
numerical values assigned to key baseline and exclusion compliance 
parameters, such as number of facilities using solvent wipes, 
percentage of solvent wipes not currently stored and transported in 
closed containers, percentage of solvent wipes generated which are not 
``dry'' (i.e., contain less than five grams solvent per wipe), price-
elasticity of demand for industrial wipes, percentage of states which 
may adopt the proposed exclusions, and percentage of solvent wipes 
containers containing free liquids.
c. Impact Estimation Findings
    The anticipated national net effect of the proposal is to provide 
the U.S. economy with $28 million to $72 million in average annual net 
benefits, consisting of four impact components: (1) $13 million to $20 
million in annualized incremental cost for compliance with the 
conditions of the exclusions (e.g., costs for purchasing accumulation 
and transportation containers for used industrial wipes); (2) $40 
million reduction in annual direct costs for RCRA regulatory 
compliance; (3) $8 million to $36 million per year in avoided air 
pollution from increase in capture of free liquid solvents from used 
industrial wipes; and (4) $0.3 million to $9 million per year in 
avoided fire damages to facilities from spontaneous combustion of 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes. Compared to annualized 
implementation costs as a numerical ratio, the $8 million to $85 
million in annualized total benefits represent a benefit-cost ratio of 
2.4 to 6.5. The annualized net benefits consist of $33 million to $37 
million to generators for managing spent disposable industrial wipes 
and an uncertainty range of $35 million in annual benefits to $4 
million in annual cost to generators managing reusable industrial wipes 
(depending upon the extent these costs may be shared with industrial 
laundries and the extent of reuse of captured solvents).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA's cost estimates assumed that generators would 
transport solvent-contaminated wipes to laundries in closed 
containers despite the proposed performance standard. If industry 
can find cheaper methods of meeting the performance standard, the 
costs of reusable wipes management will be less than this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The induced market impact simulated in the economic analysis 
estimates a potential 53% to 59% decrease in the life-cycle unit cost 
for using disposable industrial wipes (taking into account the cost of 
new wipes purchase plus spent wipes disposal), and a 0% to 17% increase 
in the effective unit cost of reusable wipes, associated with a 
potential induced reduction in reusable wipes' national market share of 
3% to 15% for the fraction of the industrial wipes market potentially 
affected by the exclusions.
3. Economic Impact of Today's Other Proposed Exclusion Options
    For the reasons explained below and in the ``Economics Background 
Document,'' we did not prepare a separate quantitative estimate of each 
of the following alternative options, because they are expected to fall 
incrementally within or near the impact estimation range for the main 
option. Below we describe the potential impacts of each of these 
options in qualitative terms.
a. Exclusion From the Definition of Hazardous Waste for Disposable and 
Reusable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
    This option would exclude both disposable and reusable solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes from the definition of hazardous waste 
instead of making a distinction between the types of wipes and 
excluding disposable industrial wipes from the definition of hazardous 
waste while excluding reusable solvent-contaminated industrial wipes 
from the definition of solid waste. No aspect of the proposed rule 
would change for generators and handlers of disposable wipes. 
Generators and handlers of reusable solvent-contaminated wipes would be 
managing a solid waste under this option, but would be subject to the 
same conditions as those proposed today for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste and, therefore, anticipated net cost savings 
for this option would remain the same relative to the main option 
proposed today.
b. Exclusion for All Disposable Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes 
Under a Single Set of Conditions
    This option would not differentiate between disposable wipes 
managed at a landfill compared to a non-landfill facility. Disposable 
solvent-contaminated wipes would be excluded from hazardous waste 
regulations provided the wipes were stored in covered containers while 
on site, and as long as the wipes do not contain free liquids prior to 
sending them off site in closed containers that are marked ``Excluded 
Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.''
    Under this option, greater regulatory relief would occur for 
generators of disposable industrial wipes relative to the main option 
because (1) they would not have to meet the ``dry'' condition that is 
proposed under our main option and (2) they would not have to worry 
about the types of solvent they used. Therefore, some number of 
generators would not have to spend additional resources to meet this 
``dry'' condition (relative to the ``no free liquids'' condition), or 
switch to other solvents if they so desired to manage their wipes in a 
municipal or other non-hazardous waste landfill.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2127.01.
    The information requirements established for this action, and 
identified in the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting 
today's proposed rule, are largely a self-implementing process. This 
process would ensure that: (i) Handlers of solvent-contaminated 
industrial wipes are held accountable to the proposed requirements of 
the conditional exclusions; and (ii) inspectors can verify compliance 
when needed. For example, the proposal would require that solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes contain no free liquids prior to being 
transported off site by generators for subsequent management. The 
conditions would also require

[[Page 65615]]

generators to properly label all containers of wipes sent for disposal.
    In estimating ICR burden, EPA used the current state policies as 
the baseline since most states have specific policies addressing these 
materials. ICR burden is reduced because generators of solvent-
contaminated wipes obtain regulatory relief from existing subtitle C 
hazardous waste regulatory requirements, such as use of a manifest in 
transporting these materials off site to a handling facility.
    EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated 
community by the proposed regulation. We estimate a burden savings of 
48,000 hours and approximately $1.9 million annually. Burden means the 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for 
a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 
Docket ID Number RCRA-2003-0004. The public docket is available for 
viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center 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 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA 
Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at <http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to 
access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
docket ID number RCRA-2003-0004. Also, you can send comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 
Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after November 20, 2003, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 
22, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 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 the purposes of assessing the impacts on small entities of 
today's rule, small entity is defined as (1) a small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration 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 proposed rule on 
small entities, I hereby certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have determined that about 83% of the 63,000 to 153,000 
establishments in the 13 industries which use industrial wipes and 
which are potentially subject to today's proposed rulemaking are owned 
and operated by small companies. In addition, approximately 47% of the 
1,175 industrial laundry establishments which supply reusable 
industrial wipes are owned by small companies. Based on the economic 
analysis summarized elsewhere in this preamble, we have estimated that 
a relatively small proportion of potentially affected small businesses 
(i.e., up to 3% or 16 small industrial laundries) may be adversely 
impacted by this proposed solid waste exclusion at or above a 3% 
threshold of annual business receipts (revenues).
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In addition to the 
economic analysis, we conducted outreach activities to ensure that 
small business interests were informed of our potential actions, and to 
solicit input and comment from small business interests during our 
development of the proposal. We had a number of meetings with small 
business stakeholders, including representatives of the industrial 
laundries trade associations, to discuss the formulation of this 
proposed rule, and to obtain small business feedback. In these 
meetings, stakeholders expressed concerns about the implementation of 
this rule, and asked questions about the conditions being considered 
for the proposed regulation.
    As part of these outreach efforts, the Agency held a meeting with 
members of the small business community on August 10, 1998. Following 
EPA's presentation, the stakeholders attending the meeting discussed 
potential issues and concerns they envisioned could arise with regard 
to the implementation of the Agency's preliminary options, particularly 
with regard to the ability of small businesses to comply with the 
options. Participants provided their initial reactions to the 
preliminary options, identified potential issues of concern and, in 
some cases, offered potential changes or improvements. A summary of the 
August 10, 1998 meeting can be found in the docket for today's proposed 
rulemaking.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may

[[Page 65616]]

result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year.
    Before a Federal regulatory agency such as EPA promulgates a rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable 
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when 
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows 
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA, a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or 
tribal governments. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Furthermore, today's proposed 
regulation will not impose incremental costs in excess of $100 million 
to the private sector, or to state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, in any one year, as based on the findings of the ``Economics 
Background Document,'' described elsewhere in this preamble.
    Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule 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. This proposed rule would provide 
a net reduction in RCRA regulatory burden to generators and handlers of 
solvent industrial wipes. For the proposed exclusions, both the annual 
direct implementation costs to affected private sector entities and the 
potential impact on annual state government revenues do not exceed the 
``substantial'' compliance cost threshold defined in this Executive 
Order. This proposal would preempt state and local law that is less 
stringent for solvent-contaminated wipes. Under the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 
6901 to 6992k, the relationship between the states and the national 
government with respect to hazardous waste management is established 
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 national government. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule.
    However, to incorporate the state perspective in the proposal, 
Agency personnel met with state representatives from the Association of 
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) in 
July of 1998 to review, discuss and obtain feedback from them on EPA 
thinking at the time. The state representatives recommended that 
solvent-contaminated reusable wipes contain no free liquids when 
transported off site to an industrial laundry or dry cleaner and that 
the wipes be transported in closed containers that meet DOT 
requirements. Similarly, most states recommended that disposable wipes 
continue to be regulated under RCRA subtitle C (hazardous waste) 
regulations. The states continued to participate on the workgroup 
developing today's proposal and their input was received and considered 
throughout the regulation development process.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule 
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal 
implications to the extent that generating facilities on tribal lands 
using solvent-contaminated industrial wipes or handlers of these 
materials located on tribal lands could be affected. However, this 
proposed rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs 
on tribal governments nor preempt tribal law.
    EPA did not consult directly with representatives of Tribal 
governments early in the process of developing this regulation.\20\ 
However, as described above, EPA did conduct an extensive outreach 
process with industry, including small business. Thus, we believe we 
have captured concerns that also would have been expressed by 
representatives of Tribal governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Representatives of Tribal governments'' include non-
elected officials of Tribal governments and representative 
authorized national organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonable alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not

[[Page 65617]]

economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. EPA believes that this proposal will 
not increase exposure of solvents to the public, adults or children.
    The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies 
and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assess results of 
early life exposure to solvent-contaminated industrial wipes.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 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. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement 
System (PBMS). EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to 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 in 
analytical technology 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.
    EPA welcomes comment on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this regulation.

Appendix A to Preamble--Demographics of the Industrial Wipes Industry

I. General Description of the Industrial Wipes Industry

A. Types of Industrial Wipes

    The term ``industrial wipes'' as used in this preamble 
represents a heterogeneous group of products which come in a wide 
variety of types and brands to meet a broad range of application 
needs. The major division is between reusable shop towels, which are 
laundered or dry cleaned and used again, and disposable wipes and 
rags that are used for a limited number of applications and then 
discarded. Disposable wipes include both non-woven wipes and woven 
rags. The universe of materials affected by this proposed rule 
encompasses both reusable and disposable industrial wipes which are 
used by numerous industries in conjunction with solvents to clean 
surfaces, parts, accessories, and equipment. Industrial wipes are 
distinguished by their respective composition, durability, uses, and 
disposal methods.
    The Agency has chosen to use the term ``industrial wipe'' 
throughout the preamble for the sake of simplicity. However, because 
of the many terms currently used throughout industry to identify 
industrial wipes, EPA believes it is helpful to provide an 
explanation of industry terms to set forth the Agency's 
understanding as we developed this proposal:
    An industrial shop towel is a woven textile consisting of cotton 
or polyester blends. These materials are reusable items and are 
generally laundered or dry-cleaned a number of times before they 
have outlived their useful life and must be discarded. Shop towels 
are rented by industrial launderers to manufacturing, automotive, 
chemical, and other similar facilities to use for heavy-duty 
cleaning and wiping. Soiled shop towels are either washed or dry-
cleaned at commercial laundry facilities.
    An industrial wipe is a non-woven towel consisting of wood pulp, 
polyester blends or 100 percent polypropylene. These materials come 
in all sizes and thicknesses. They generally are designed for one 
time use and are used to wipe small quantities of solvents off 
hands, tools, equipment, or floors.
    An industrial rag is a non-homogeneous material consisting of 
cotton or polyester blends. Rags are made from old clothing or from 
cloth remnants from textile mills, and vary in size and type of 
fabric.
    Paper towels also are sometimes used in conjunction with 
solvents in the workplace. These materials are made from wood pulp 
with binders.
    The wipe suitable for each application depends on a number of 
factors. The amount of lint allowed in a task plays a large role, 
because some electronic or printing applications cannot tolerate any 
lint, while other applications can tolerate large amounts of lint. 
Absorbent capacity is also another important factor in some tasks, 
while not in others. Durability is important in some tasks, such as 
those that require heavy scrubbing, while often not important in 
tasks where lint or absorbency is more important. Durability does 
not only refer to the physical strength of the wipe, towel, or rag, 
but also to its ability to withstand strong solvents.

B. Additional Data

    Additional data collected from site visits, literature searches, 
and industry include information regarding the numbers of wipes used 
daily, types of solvents used, type of operation (i.e., whether 
cleaning operations involve the use of small or considerable amounts 
of solvent per wipe); preference for disposable versus reusable 
wipes; and estimated total volumes of wipes used annually. A 
detailed discussion of these findings can be found in the Technical 
Background Document for this proposed rule, as well as other 
documents supporting this rule that are found in the Docket. Key 
findings include:
    [sbull] Number of wipes used daily by a facility can vary from 
50 to 6,000.
    [sbull] Many facilities appear to use ignitable-only solvents 
(D001) that could be classified as characteristically hazardous when 
the wipes no longer can be used; most facilities also appear to use 
solvent blends consisting of two or more constituents.
    [sbull] Most industrial sectors appear to only use a small 
amount of solvent per wipe: Auto body repair; electronics; furniture 
manufacturers; fabricated metals; and organic and inorganic chemical 
manufacturers. Conversely, the printing sectors, automobile 
manufacturers, parts of the military, and defense industries often 
use large amounts of solvent on each wipe.
    [sbull] Using wipes sales and usage volume figures provided by 
wipes suppliers and industry users, coupled with U.S. Bureau of 
Census counts of related facilities, EPA estimates that 
approximately 9.6 billion industrial wipes are used by industry 
annually (88 percent reusable wipes and 12 percent disposable wipes) 
in 13 different industries. EPA further estimates that approximately 
3.8 billion of these industrial wipes are used in conjunction with 
solvents in industrial cleaning and degreasing operations.

Appendix B to Preamble--Memorandum From Michael Shapiro

February 14, 1994
Memorandum
Subject: Industrial Wipers and Shop Towels under the Hazardous Waste 
Regulations
From: Michael Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid Waste
To: Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X
    We have received numerous questions about the regulatory status 
of used industrial wipers and shop towels (``wipers'') under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations from the 
users and launderers of these wipers, and the

[[Page 65618]]

regulatory agencies responsible for implementing the RCRA 
regulations. In addition, manufacturers, marketers and users of non-
reusable wipers (i.e., wipers that are not laundered, such as paper 
or other on-textile products) have been requesting clarification on 
the status of these materials as well. The purpose of this 
memorandum is to update you on this issue, and to reaffirm our 
policy regarding the regulatory status of these materials.

Ongoing Efforts

    There are currently several activities within EPA that may 
affect wipers. The Definition of Solid Waste Task Force, as part of 
their dialogue with industry, environmental groups, State agencies, 
and EPA Regions, has been evaluating the RCRA regulations affecting 
launderable and disposable wipers. In addition, OSW has been dealing 
with the issue of wipers as we continue our efforts with the 
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule. As you may recall, EPA 
requested and received comment on alternative approaches for 
addressing wipers contaminated with listed solvent (May 20, 1992 
Federal Register; 57 FR 21474); this proposal was later withdrawn. 
Finally, the Office of Water will be gathering data to support the 
development of effluent guidelines for industrial launderers, which 
handle certain types of reusable wipers.

Status of Used Wipers

    Whether or not the used wipers are hazardous waste under the 
RCRA regulations has been a recurring question. 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 
listed 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 wastestream 
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 long-standing policy.
    One of EPA's concerns in determining whether the hazardous waste 
regulations apply to wipers in specific cases should be to prevent 
situations where someone is improperly disposing of spent solvents 
(or other hazardous wastes) by mixing them in with wipers, and then 
sending the wipers to a laundering facility or municipal landfill. 
This activity is clearly not allowed under the federal regulations. 
However, wipers that merely pick up incidental amounts of solvents 
may be handled in a number of ways. I have enclosed policy documents 
from several States and one EPA Region regarding the identification 
and/or management of wipers, that provide examples of how some 
implementing agencies have developed workable approaches to this 
issue. If you have additional information, or have questions, please 
contact Charlotte Mooney or Ross Elliott at (202) 260-8551.

Enclosures (4)
cc: RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials, Recycling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping, Waste treatment or disposal.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: November 10, 2003.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, parts 260 and 261, are proposed to be 
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 Disposable industrial wipe, Industrial wipe, Industrial 
wipes handling facility, Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes, No 
free liquids, Reusable industrial wipe, and Solvent extraction to read 
as follows:


Sec.  260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Disposable industrial wipe means an industrial wipe that is 
disposed after use without being sent to a laundry or dry cleaner for 
cleaning and reuse.
* * * * *
    Industrial wipe means non-woven industrial wipes made of wood pulp 
or polyester blends; industrial shop towels, a woven textile made of 
cotton or polyester blends; and industrial rags, non-homogenous 
materials consisting of cotton or polyester blends. Industrial wipes of 
all kinds are used for a variety of purposes, including removing small 
quantities of solvents from machinery parts, hands, tools, and the 
floor.
* * * * *
    Industrial wipes handling facility means a facility that removes 
solvents from industrial wipes prior to them being sent either to a 
laundry or dry cleaner for cleaning or to a municipal or other non-
hazardous waste landfill that meets the standards under 40 CFR part 
257, subpart B, municipal waste combustor, or other combustion 
facility.
* * * * *
    Intra-company transfer of industrial wipes means the off site 
transportation of industrial wipes from a generator facility to another 
generator-owned facility that has a solvent extraction and/or recovery 
process for the purpose of removing sufficient solvent to ensure that 
the wipes contain no free liquids or less than 5 grams of solvent, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    No free liquids, as used in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and 40 CFR 
261.4(b)(19), means that no liquid solvent may drip from industrial 
wipes, and that there is no liquid solvent in the container holding the 
wipes. Wipes that have been subjected to solvent extraction are 
presumed to contain no free liquids.
* * * * *
    Reusable industrial wipe means an industrial wipe that after being 
used is sent to a laundry or dry cleaner for cleaning and reuse.
* * * * *
    Solvent extraction, as used in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and 40 CFR 
261.4(b)(19), means an advanced extraction process such as mechanical 
wringers, centrifuges, or any other similarly effective method to 
remove solvent from industrial wipes.
* * * * *

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    3. The authority 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 new paragraphs (a)(22) and 
(b)(19) to read as follows:


Sec.  261.4  Exclusions.

    (a) * * *
    (22) Industrial wipes that are sent to an industrial laundry, to a 
dry cleaner for cleaning, or to an industrial wipes

[[Page 65619]]

handling facility when they contain an F-listed spent solvent, a 
corresponding spilled P- or U-listed commercial chemical product, or 
when they exhibit the hazardous characteristic of ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity when that characteristic results 
from the F-listed spent solvent or corresponding P- or U-listed 
commercial chemical products, provided that the conditions specified 
below are satisfied by the facility claiming the exclusion:
    (i) Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be accumulated, 
stored and managed in non-leaking, covered containers;
    (ii) Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off 
site, must be transported in containers that are designed, constructed, 
and managed to minimize loss to the environment;
    (iii) When laundered or dry cleaned on site or transported off site 
to a laundry, dry cleaner, or industrial wipes handling facility, 
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must contain no free liquids or 
must have been treated by solvent extraction, except as stated in 
paragraph (a)(24)(iv) of this section. Any liquids removed from the 
industrial wipes must be managed according to the regulations found 
under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270 if discarded;
    (iv) Intra-company transfer of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes containing free liquids may occur provided that the following 
conditions are satisfied:
    (A) The transfer must occur in order to remove sufficient solvent 
from the industrial wipes so they meet the ``no free liquids'' 
condition; and
    (B) The receiving facility must manage the extracted solvent 
according to regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 
270.
    (v) Laundries, dry cleaners and industrial wipes handling 
facilities must manage the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in 
non-leaking covered containers or in containers that are designed, 
constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment before the 
industrial wipes enter the handling process; and
    (vi) If free liquids are in containers that arrive at a laundry, 
dry cleaner, or industrial wipes handling facility, the receiving 
facility must either:
    (A) Remove the free liquids and manage them according to the 
regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270; or
    (B) Return the closed container with the wipes and free liquids to 
the generator as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than the 
next scheduled delivery.
    (vii) Industrial laundries and dry cleaners may dispose of sludge 
from cleaning industrial wipes in solid waste landfills if the sludge 
does not exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.
    (b) * * *
    (19) Industrial wipes that are sent for disposal to a municipal 
waste landfill or other non-hazardous waste landfill that meets the 
standards under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, to a municipal waste 
combustor or other combustion facility, or to an industrial wipes 
handling facility when they contain an F-listed spent solvent, a 
corresponding spilled P- or U-listed commercial chemical product, or 
when they exhibit the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity when that characteristic results 
from the F-listed spent solvent or corresponding P-or U-listed 
commercial chemical products, providing that the conditions specified 
below are satisfied by the facilities claiming the exclusion:
    (i) Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes must be accumulated, 
stored, and managed in non-leaking, covered containers;
    (ii) Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported off 
site, must be transported in containers that are designed, constructed, 
and managed to minimize loss to the environment;
    (iii) Solvent-contaminated industrial wipes, if transported, must 
be transported in containers labeled ``Exempt Solvent-Contaminated 
Wipes'';
    (iv) When transported to a municipal waste landfill or other non-
hazardous waste landfill that meets the standards under 40 CFR part 
257, subpart B, solvent-contaminated industrial wipes:
    (A) Must contain less than 5 grams of solvent each, or must have 
been treated by solvent extraction; and
    (B) Must not contain the following solvents: 2-nitropropane, 
nitrobenzene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methylene chloride, pyridine, 
benzene, cresols (o,m,p), carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, 
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene;
    (v) When transported to a municipal waste combustor, other 
combustion facility, or industrial wipes handling facility, solvent-
contaminated industrial wipes must not contain free liquids or must 
have been treated by solvent extraction. Any liquids removed from the 
wipes must be managed as hazardous wastes according to regulations 
found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 270 if disposed;
    (vi) Intra-company transfer of solvent-contaminated industrial 
wipes containing free liquids may occur provided that the following 
conditions are satisfied:
    (A) The transfer must occur in order to remove sufficient solvent 
from the industrial wipes so they meet the 5-gram condition or the ``no 
free liquids'' condition, as appropriate; and
    (B) The receiving facility must manage the extracted solvent 
according to regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 
270;
    (vii) Combustion and industrial wipes handling facilities must 
manage solvent-contaminated industrial wipes in non-leaking covered 
containers or in containers that are designed, constructed, and managed 
to minimize loss to the environment before the industrial wipes enter 
the handling process; and
    (viii) If free liquids are in containers that arrive at combustion 
and industrial wipes handling facilities, the receiving facility must:
    (A) Remove the free liquids and manage them as hazardous wastes 
according to regulations found under 40 CFR parts 261 through 268 and 
270; or
    (B) Return the closed container with the industrial wipes and free 
liquid to the generator as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later 
than the next scheduled delivery;
    (xi) Combustion facilities may dispose of residuals from combustion 
of industrial wipes in solid waste landfills if residuals do not 
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-28652 Filed 11-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P