[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