[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: docket@epamail.epa.gov. 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, bergman.stephen@epamail.epa.gov.
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
