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 Kell y, 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 Co ke and Chemicals institute Bill White, Slag AssociationListening Meeting

– June 17, 2015 Corrosivity EPA Potomac Yards North

2 I NTRODUCTION

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 welcome s that input in writing. Further introductions were made aroun d the table.

S ome 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 rel ies on in making waste ma nagement 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 cha nge; information on waste management scenarios; and other information that may be relevant.

I NDIVIDUAL C ONCERNS

 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 t est would be used if EPA were to change the corrosivity regulation to include non

- aqueous materials. The three approaches mentioned we re:

 Method 9045C

 Dra i ze test

 Corros i tex ®

 It was pointed out that two of these three tests do no t 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 imp acts and the difference between the international standard and the US standard.

 EPA responded that we a re 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 a ssociated with its pH.

 EPA asked what test was used to come up with “11.8” as the pH. They responded that th e SPLP and a water leach test w e r e both used.

 Various commenters commented that RCRA does not seem to concern itself with air pollution, and that b uilding 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 da ta 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 decisio ns have been finalized, the Agency is not currently looking at t he 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 a bout 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 sol d.

 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 use s 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 compani es currently blend their materia l s 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 te sting associated with a rule change, as well as the effects on recycling of spent catalysts from refineries.

 A representative of b rass mills reiterated the concern that, without a d e fined 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 i s 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 i mportant environmental applications could be jeop a rdized if the
waste were cons idered 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 marketabil ity impact might happen even based on concerns about run

- off and leachate problems alone.

 A representative of the paper industry said that i t’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 landfill s 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/mark et impacts; in other situations, ther e 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 practi ces 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 w aste m an agement 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 stabilizat ion processes at MSW landfills (they think b/c of customer req uests, 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 s tudies 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 m ining 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 mate rials than they are about a pH change, but they are still evaluating both.

 EPA mentioned that the Agency is stil l 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 d ischarge monitoring reports on stor mwater/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

a ny 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 A merican 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 i nflux 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 t here was a test in the 1990s for solids that EPA considered.

 EPA responded that the questioner ma y 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 submitt ed as written materials into Barnes Johnson so that it all comes through the official correspondence system and may be clearly tracked.