[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20187-20188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10865]



[[Page 20187]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6003-3]


Request for Comment on Proposed Statement of Policy Regarding 
Spent Antifreeze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for Comment on Proposed Statement of Policy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is currently considering issuing a statement announcing 
that data available to the Agency indicates that spent antifreeze 
rarely fails the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 
test. The TCLP is used for determining whether or not a secondary 
material that is a solid waste is subject to regulation as a hazardous 
waste by virtue of exhibiting a ``toxicity characteristic'' (TC). The 
purpose of such a statement and any supporting information would be to 
assist generators in determining whether their spent antifreeze 
exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. In today's notice, EPA is 
providing the data and qualitative information that we would use to 
support such a finding. The public has 60 days from publication of this 
notice to comment on whether it is appropriate to issue this statement 
given the available data.

DATES: Comments are due by June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-98-SAFA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, 
VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted electronically 
by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcra-
[email protected]. Comments in electronic format should also be 
identified by the docket number F-98-SAFA-FFFFF. All electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be 
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, 
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is 
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal 
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public 
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a 
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. 
Additional copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing 
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD 703 412-3323.
    For information on specific aspects of the supporting materials in 
the docket, contact Stephen A. Bergman, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460, (703) 308-7262, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is also available in electronic 
format on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the notice.

WWW: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazwaste.htm#id
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer

    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically 
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record 
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the 
beginning of this document.
    EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or 
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a 
response to comments document placed in the official record for this 
notice. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically 
other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be 
garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form.

Potential Policy

    In 1995, the Antifreeze Coalition 1 requested that EPA, 
by rule, categorically exclude used antifreeze from either the 
definition of solid waste or the definition of hazardous waste. The 
Coalition argued that such a determination is justified by the 
diminimis potential for spent antifreeze to pose a hazard to the 
environment and that it would significantly encourage greater recycling 
of spent antifreeze. As part of its effort to demonstrate to the Agency 
that it is inappropriate to regulate spent antifreeze as a hazardous 
waste under RCRA, the Coalition has provided the Office of Solid Waste 
(OSW) with both quantitative and qualitative information indicating 
that spent antifreeze rarely fails the TC for lead. The Coalition also 
has provided information on various changes in radiator technology that 
greatly reduce the chance that spent antifreeze would fail the TC for 
lead. The Coalition believes that the available data supports this 
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Antifreeze Coalition is a group of trade associations 
representing antifreeze manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, 
recyclers, and businesses that service motor vehicle cooling 
systems. Most of these trade associations predominantly represent 
small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spent antifreeze that does not fail the TC for lead would not be 
regulated by EPA as a hazardous waste. This would be true unless some 
other constituent of concern is present that is not normally found in 
spent antifreeze or some other factor causes the spent antifreeze to 
meet the definition of hazardous waste. OSW has reviewed all of the 
existing data submitted to EPA in order to make a determination as to 
whether spent antifreeze fails the TCLP for lead and therefore meets 
the RCRA definition of hazardous waste. Of course, states authorized to 
implement the RCRA program may be more stringent than the federal 
program and therefore may regulate spent antifreeze as a hazardous 
waste even if it does not fail the TCLP for lead.
    Although the Antifreeze Coalition has requested that EPA exclude 
spent antifreeze from the definition of solid waste or the definition 
of hazardous waste by rule, the Agency is not convinced that the 
expenditure of resources and time on a rulemaking is appropriate or 
necessary in this case. EPA believes that a statement of policy should 
be sufficient to address questions regarding the status of spent 
antifreeze. Based upon our review of the data in the docket, OSW has 
determined that it is appropriate to issue a statement announcing that 
data available to EPA indicate that spent antifreeze rarely fails the 
TC for lead. The information provided by the Antifreeze Coalition also 
indicates a trend away from the use of lead in the manufacture of 
radiators, thus decreasing the chance in the future that lead will be 
present in spent antifreeze at levels that would render the antifreeze 
hazardous.
    The effect of an EPA statement on this issue (unless EPA receives 
comment on

[[Page 20188]]

this notice that convinces us that our present evaluation is incorrect) 
would be to assist the industry in making a determination (as is 
required under 40 CFR 262.11(c)), on whether the spent antifreeze it 
generates exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic. Under 
Sec. 262.11(c) the generator may either test the waste or rely upon its 
knowledge of the waste in light of the materials or processes used to 
make a determination as to whether it meets the definition of a 
hazardous waste. EPA's statement on this issue would assist the 
generators by directing them to a compilation of data which they could 
rely on or give weight to when making their hazardous waste 
determination. Although EPA believes that generators will find that 
spent antifreeze rarely fails the TC for lead and is therefore not a 
hazardous waste, there may be factors (e.g., spent antifreeze from an 
old vehicle that has not had the antifreeze changed for many years) 
known to the generator that increase the likelihood that a particular 
sample may be more likely to fail the TC than the spent antifreeze that 
is typically generated. The generator is responsible for taking such 
factors into account. Of course, a statement by EPA that antifreeze 
rarely fails the TC would not absolve generators of spent antifreeze 
from their obligation to make a correct Sec. 262.11(c) determination.
    The Agency is seeking comment on whether the information we are 
providing today supports a claim that spent antifreeze rarely fails the 
TC for lead. We are also seeking any additional data on the composition 
of spent antifreeze, particularly as they pertain to lead content. EPA 
is also seeking comment on whether we have properly limited the scope 
of our evaluation to the presence of lead in spent antifreeze, or 
whether there are other constituents of concern commonly present in 
spent antifreeze that would render it a hazardous waste under RCRA. 
Finally, the Agency solicits information on changes in automotive 
radiator manufacture that reduce or eliminate concerns about lead.
    The information in the docket for today's notice falls into three 
main categories. The first of these is the TCLP data. We have included 
raw data submitted to the Agency by both Safety-Kleen and the Dames & 
Moore antifreeze study (conducted for the New Jersey Automobile Dealers 
Association). The raw data were organized and analyzed by Science 
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), an EPA contractor. The 
July 22, 1997 SAIC report in the docket is an analysis of the data 
contained in today's notice. The two spreadsheets of data that were 
prepared by SAIC and used to draft their report are also included. One 
contains raw data with no calculations. The other is sorted by 
constituent and concentration value. The Antifreeze Coalition also 
provided a summary and discussion of the data evaluated in the SAIC 
report and included in the docket for this notice. In addition to the 
data from Safety-Kleen, we have included a number of letters from 
Safety-Kleen and others that endeavor to put the data in its proper 
context. The Dames & Moore report, which concluded based on its data 
that ``antifreeze analyses indicate that antifreeze collected directly 
from automobiles lacks the characteristics of a hazardous waste,'' 
(p.7) is also included in the data portion of the documents placed in 
the docket for today's notice. The report represents a cross-section of 
the antifreeze used in automobiles. Spent antifreeze was collected from 
a variety of dealerships, including large, multi-brand dealerships. 
Based on consultations with the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection and Energy, nine dealerships were chosen to participate in 
the study.
    In addition to the TCLP data and analyses, the docket includes 
qualitative information provided to EPA by the Antifreeze Coalition. 
These documents include information on radiator technology and on the 
manner in which spent antifreeze is managed. Included in this category 
are the ``Voluntary Management Standards for Used Antifreeze Generator 
Facilities'' prepared by the Antifreeze Coalition. Although not legally 
binding, these are practices that the Coalition supports to promote the 
environmentally sound recycling of spent antifreeze. Although this 
document does address whether spent antifreeze fails the TC for lead, 
it is useful as background material to anyone desiring a broader 
understanding of how this material is managed and the industry's 
efforts to promote environmentally sound recycling. EPA strongly 
supports environmental sound recycling as the preferred method for 
managing spent antifreeze.
    The Antifreeze Coalition documents also contain considerable 
information concerning changes in the manufacture of radiators. As 
stated above, EPA believes the trends in radiator manufacturing 
substantially diminish the likelihood that spent antifreeze will 
contain lead in levels that would fail the TC.
    Documents pertaining to ethylene glycol comprise the third category 
into which the documents in the docket for today's notice fall. These 
are assorted letters and memoranda pertaining to whether or not there 
is a risk posed by ethylene glycol. There is also general discussion of 
the regulation of ethylene glycol-based antifreeze which, although not 
relevant to whether spent antifreeze fails the TC, may be useful as 
background information on the properties of spent antifreeze.
    OSW will evaluate and thoroughly consider all of the comments we 
receive on this notice during the 60 day comment period prior to making 
a final decision on this issue.

    Dated: April 9, 1998.
Matt Hale,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 98-10865 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P