Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

1

Participants

Gregory Helms, EPA/ORCR

Narendra Chaudhari, EPA/ORCR

Schatzi Fitz-James, EPA/ORCR

Ross Elliott, EPA/ORCR

Charlotte Youngblood, EPA/OGC

Ali Alavi, Horsehead Corporation

John Wittenborn, Kelley Drye

Tom Harman, Portland Cement Association

John Arnett, Copper & Brass Fabricators

Brendan Mascarenhas, American Chemistry Council

Bill Herz, National Lime Association

Amy Schaffer, American Forest and Paper Association

Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Karen Kiggins, National Slag Association

Joe Green, Kelly Drye for Specialty Steel Industry of North America

Tawny Bridgeford, National Mining Association

Daniel Moss, Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates

Jamie Conrad, Law and Policy Counsel for Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates

Colin Carroll, Am. Iron & Steel Institute

Jeff Gunnulfsen, AFPM

Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association

By phone: 

Dave Ailor, American Coke and Chemicals institute

Bill White, Slag Association
Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

2

INTRODUCTION

EPA welcomed the group and thanked everyone for their time, emphasizing that the Agency is

interested in individual input from each of the participants, and welcomes that input in writing. 

Further introductions were made around the table.

Some topics for discussion were suggested (attached here). The first question addressed was,

 What information would be helpful to the Agency in formulating its decision on the 

petition? When would EPA like to receive that information?

 EPA explained that information sent to the Agency by the end of August, 2015 will 

be most helpful, although we may also consider information received after that date. 

 The types of information that would be most useful are those that the Agency 

typically relies on in making waste management regulatory decisions, including

information on health hazards and risks; damage cases that may be attributable to a 

particular waste; information on the possible universe of waste that may be affected 

by any regulatory change; information on waste management scenarios; and other 

information that may be relevant. 

INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS

 A representative of the steel industry expressed concern that industry can’t possibly know 

whether some of its solid materials have a pH of 11.5 or 12.5 without an identified, approved 

method to test solids’ pH. He asked whether EPA was even aware of any test methods to test 

solids.

 EPA responded that we are aware of three approaches, but made clear that no decision has 

been made about what test would be used if EPA were to change the corrosivity regulation to 

include non-aqueous materials. The three approaches mentioned were:

 Method 9045C

 Draize test

 Corrositex®

 It was pointed out that two of these three tests do not measure pH.

 EPA responded that testing may be one of the issues on which we seek comment in any 

March proposal. EPA also mentioned that DOT uses one of the skin corrosion tests, and that 

some states do regulate non-aqueous materials (e.g. California and Washington).

 EPA pointed out that, regardless of what we publish as a proposal in March, any proposal 

would involve a comment period.

 A representative of the steel industry asked what type of information related to the petition 

EPA is looking for to evaluate health impacts and the difference between the international 

standard and the US standard.

 EPA responded that we are looking for damage cases, and encourage all individuals to 

provide individual input concerning any damages cases indicating harm; and/or any data 

supporting a lack of harm.
Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

3

 A representative of the steel industry pointed out that it is difficult to prove a negative, but 

that his industry has been managing steel slag for 30 years. The slag has a median pH of 

11.8, and they are not aware of any harm associated with its pH.

 EPA asked what test was used to come up with “11.8” as the pH. They responded that the 

SPLP and a water leach test were both used.

 Various commenters commented that RCRA does not seem to concern itself with air 

pollution, and that building demolition does not seem like a waste management scenario.

 One commenter asked whether we would be responding to the World Trade Center 

allegations.

 EPA responded that it is premature to identify everything that will be in EPA’s response. We 

will fulfill our legal obligations to respond to the petition, but further characterization of 

which elements of the petition would be addressed, and how, is premature.

 A representative of the steel industry said that his industry’s goal is to provide useful data to 

contribute to the administrative record for whatever decision the Agency makes.

 A representative of the steel industry asked whether EPA is considering a change to the 

lower end of the pH spectrum for corrosivity.

 EPA responded that, while no decisions have been finalized, the Agency is not currently 

looking at the lower end of the pH spectrum.

 A representative for the steel industry explained that slag is 10% of their production volume.

 The pH of most of that slag is above 11.5 (between 11.5 and 12).

 The tonnage of EAF last year was estimated at: 70 million x 10% = 7 million.

 The 2014 projection had been about 16 million (USGS tracks slag as a commodity).

 Most of the slag produced is sold as a product.

 Approximately 10% of the slag produced is not sold.

 The steel representative was concerned that regulating slag as a corrosive hazardous waste 

would affect marketability of the slag. People who buy the slag (for road use, agricultural 

purposes, etc...), may be reluctant to buy the slag since they may have to eventually manage 

it as a hazardous waste.

 The steel representative was also concerned about refractory brick – which typically has a pH 

over 11.5 when it is taken out of service.

 A representative of the leather industry explained that the industry uses sodium 

hydrosulfide to remove hair from the hides and prepare them from the tanning process.

 This process involves sludges with a pH of around 12, and the hair, which is solid, might also 

have that pH, although it hasn’t been tested.

 The concern was raised that many companies currently blend their materials with coal ash or 

fly ash to meet the LDR (stabilization or microencapsulation). If this treatment process were 

to generate a new corrosivity waste stream, that would create a whole host of problems. 

Nobody has a handle on the volume at issue for stabilization and microencapsulation.

 The concern was raised that many current waste streams would require cost-intensive testing 

to determine whether they would be newly captured under a different definition of 

corrosivity. 

 Another concern was raised that the infrastructure does not currently exist to manage the 

volume of wastes at issue here if the corrosivity standard were changed.
Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

4

 A representative from AFPM raised concerns about the cost of testing associated with a rule 

change, as well as the effects on recycling of spent catalysts from refineries.

 A representative of brass mills reiterated the concern that, without a defined test method 

for determining whether solids are corrosive, nobody is sure which waste streams might be 

subject to the new requirements. Baghouse dust is currently recycled, but a reg. change 

could impact that recyling. (Most of this is sold offsite for recovery of zinc.)

 The point was made that recycled materials would not be solid waste subject to RCRA. 

The counterpoint was made that, even with a current exemption, residues may need to be 

managed differently, and the costs of cleaning operations could be increased.

 A representative of the lime industry said that 12.5 is a “hard stop” for them. They 

produce CKD through bag houses – 8-10% of which would not meet 12. If tagged as a 

hazardous waste, those would end up in a landfill.

 Their kilns are also lined with refractory bricks, which are typically replaced every 1-3 

years.

 Many customers of the lime industry create a sludge or a slag, and it is very unlikely that 

any of that sludge/slag would meet the 11.5 pH test.

 It was pointed out that important environmental applications could be jeopardized if the 

waste were considered hazardous.

 The potential major impact on marketability was reiterated – the fear that people would 

deselect product if they were concerned that they would eventually have to manage it as a 

hazardous waste. 

 The point was raised that such marketability impact might happen even based on concerns 

about run-off and leachate problems alone.

 A representative of the paper industry said that it’s likely that wood ash would fall below 

12.5 – and those are currently landfilled – some are in land application – but for the most 

part they’re either in company landfills or sent to waste management. Both fly ash and 

bottom ash are at issue. She emphasized that, in some instances the potential impacts 

would be de-selection/market impacts; in other situations, there would be direct impacts 

that could change current, good management practices. She stated that it is unlikely that 

paper manufacturers would build TSDFs.

 It was mentioned that each individual would try to provide individual information on the 

safe practices currently in place that could be jeopardized by a rule change. 

 Someone mentioned that Tim Taylor at EPA may have a copy of a relevant risk assessment 

from the steel industry.

 A representative of waste management reiterated the concern that, in their six subtitle C 

landfills, a centerpiece of stabilization and solidification is alkaline stabilization. If this 

alkaline stabilization were to generate a new hazardous waste system with corrosive 

characteristics, that would be a problem. She was concerned that there would be added cost 

if additional reagents were necessary. She was also concerned that additional volume 

would mean less landfill space. She also mentioned that there may be solidification and 

stabilization processes at MSW landfills (they think b/c of customer requests, but they are 

looking further into that issue).
Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

5

 A question was asked concerning when EPA would do risk assessments or epidemiological 

studies about these issues. 

 EPA responded that any studies would be done, as necessary, before and/or after a tentative 

proposal in March 2016.

 A representative of the steel industry asked to obtain copies of the documents provided by 

PEER to EPA. 

 EPA indicated that it would provide all publicly available documents.

 A representative of the mining industry said that they have concerns, but are still in the 

evaluation phase to determine whether/how a rule change would impact the sector. At the 

moment, they are more concerned about testing of nonaqueous materials than they are 

about a pH change, but they are still evaluating both.

 EPA mentioned that the Agency is still trying to understand the universe of potentially 

impacted stakeholders if the reg. were changed.

 A representative of the cement industry stated that the question of how CKD may be 

treated is a significant one (CKD is currently managed as exempt under Bentsen and 

Bevill). 

 It was mentioned that discharge monitoring reports on stormwater/washwater may be 

helpful in determining whether there are any risks associated with mismanagement of 

cement materials.

 A representative of the zinc recycling industry mentioned that the industry is generally 

concerned but did not cite additional specific concerns.

 The question was asked whether any of the states expressed concern.

 EPA responded that we do not know whether states are concerned, but we are not aware of

any letters from any states expressing specific concern over these issues. The Agency will 

likely talk with ATSWMO at some point.

 It was mentioned that another industry may be impacted – the carogeenan industry. The 

product is apparently extracted with an alkaline process which waste product is over 11.5

pH.

 A representative of the steel industry noted that the difference between 11.5 and 12.5 is 

significant in terms of impact to industry. Many industries haven’t figured out that they are 

impacted yet.

 A representative of the lime industry noted that any pH test will be impacted by 

temperature.

 EPA responded that the current pH test accounts for temperature. 

 A representative of the American Chemistry Council commented that one of their 

members alone uses millions of pounds of fly ash, and that the impacts on one facility 

multiplied over our members could be quite substantial.

 A concern was raised that a change in regulation to lead to an influx of materials being sent 

to landfills.

 A question was raised about what the EPA’s decision was in the 1996 scoping study.

 EPA responded that the study was not a decision, but rather a study to identify priorities. 

After that study, additional work was done on leachate testing, for example.
Listening Meeting – June 17, 2015 

Corrosivity

EPA Potomac Yards North

6

 A question was asked about whether there was a test in the 1990s for solids that EPA 

considered.

 EPA responded that the questioner may be thinking of the Corrositex® test, which the 

Department of Transportation may have used for some time. However, EPA qualified this 

remark with the note that the Agency has not fully researched this issue at this time.

 EPA noted that all individual input should be submitted as written materials into Barnes 

Johnson so that it all comes through the official correspondence system and may be clearly 

tracked.