KELLEY DRY E & W ARREN LLP

A LI MIT E D LIA BI LIT Y P ART NER SHI P

WASHINGTON HARBOUR, SUITE 400

3050 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20007

 

( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8400

N E W Y O R K , N Y

L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A

C H I C A G O , I L

S T A M F O R D , C T

P A R S I P P A N Y , N J

 

B R U S S E L S , B E L G I U M

 

A F F I L I A T E O F F I C E

M U M B A I , I N D I A

F A C S I M I L E

( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 4 5 1

w w w . k e l l e y d r y e . c o m

September 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Gregory Helms

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Waste Characterization Branch

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

helms.greg@epa.gov

Re: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Petition for 

Rulemaking to Revise RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic –

Submission of Information

Dear EPA:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations (“the Coalition”),1 we are submitting 

information to assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in evaluating the petition 

filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”) and Dr. Cate Jenkins 

(“petitioners”) for rulemaking to revise the corrosivity characteristic for identifying hazardous 

wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). A survey of the members 

of the 17 organizations in the Coalition, representing a broad swath of industry stakeholders, 

confirms this overriding fact: a rule that met the petitioners’ requests needlessly would subject an 

enormous quantity of materials, many of which currently are safely used for productive purposes, 

to RCRA hazardous waste requirements with no corresponding benefit in the form of improved 

 

1 The Coalition is comprised of the following organizations whose members generate waste materials, or produce 

products the use of which may generate waste materials, that would be affected if the petitioners’ request were 

granted: The Aluminum Association, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, 

American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, The 

Fertilizer Institute, Horsehead Corporation, Leather Industries of America, National Lime Association, National 

Mining Association, National Slag Association, Portland Cement Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers 

and Affiliates, Steel Manufacturers Association, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, and Waste 

Management.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Two

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

worker, public, or environmental safety. In fact, amending the corrosivity characteristic as 

requested would result in classifying as “hazardous” millions of tons more material than could be 

accommodated in currently available Subtitle C landfills. And while it would consume the nation’s 

entire hazardous waste landfill capacity in a matter of months, the action sought by the petitioners

would not redress the concern motivating their request: protecting emergency response personnel 

from potentially caustic dust particles. Instead, the petition request, if granted, would impose 

unnecessary, counterproductive, and wasteful regulations upon materials that already are managed 

safely and in a way that efficiently conserves resources. 

As will be detailed in a separate forthcoming submission from the Coalition, the 

PEER petition provides no grounds to support the contention that certain non-hazardous materials 

that currently are managed safely and efficiently should be regulated as “hazardous waste.” The 

petition relies on misleading anecdotes of alleged harms, erroneous analysis of adverse regulatory 

impacts, and a spurious account of EPA’s reasons for establishing the existing RCRA corrosivity 

standard to argue that a more stringent standard is needed. An accurate evaluation of the facts and 

regulatory history shows that the petitioners have presented neither evidence nor a coherent 

argument to support revision of the standard. In particular:

► The petition erroneously suggests that amending the RCRA corrosivity 

standard will improve protection of workers and emergency response 

personnel.

► The petition misreads the interplay between RCRA “hazardous waste” 

designations and the evaluation of risk management methods under other 

standards issued by EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (“OSHA”), and the Department of Transportation.

► EPA’s legal and policy bases for setting the existing corrosivity standard 

are rational and consistent with the purposes of RCRA. 

In establishing the characteristics of “hazardous waste,” Congress directed EPA to 

identify as “hazardous” wastes that “pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health 

or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise 

managed.”2 In so doing, EPA is to be guided by the objectives of RCRA, which include the need 

to “conserve valuable material” and to minimize “the land disposal of hazardous waste by 

encouraging ... materials recovery, properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment.”3 In 

adopting the corrosivity characteristic in 1980, EPA established a standard that was protective of 

human health and the environment, while avoiding classifying as “hazardous” waste materials 

 

2 42 U.S.C. §6903(5)(B); §6921(a).

3 42 U.S.C. §6902(a); §6902(a)(6). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Three

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

(particularly lime-based wastes and lime-stabilized wastes) that were otherwise non-hazardous and 

have a variety of beneficial uses.4

These legal and factual shortcomings of the petition will be addressed more fully 

in a separate submission next month. This submission focuses on some of the unreasonable 

burdens that would stem from granting the petitioners’ request, particularly with respect to the 

amount of “high volume/low hazard” material, currently managed safely and, in many cases, 

reused beneficially, that would be directed towards disposal in the nation’s hazardous waste 

landfills. 

The following comments provide detailed support and explanation for these 

conclusions: 

(1) Reducing the alkaline corrosivity pH level from 12.5 to 11.5, and 

applying that standard to solid and non-aqueous liquid wastes, 

would subject millions of tons of safely managed solid wastes and 

byproducts to RCRA Subtitle C regulation with no corresponding 

health, safety, or environmental5benefits.

(2) Amending the RCRA corrosivity standard would not address the 

risks alleged in the petition or provide additional worker protection. 

Existing worker protection programs already effectively manage 

risks associated with wastes with elevated pH.

(3) Designating substantial quantities of wastes as hazardous would 

result in significantly increased management costs.

(4) Granting the petition’s request would restrict or eliminate the 

beneficial reuse of large quantities of currently non-hazardous waste 

materials.

(5) Amending the corrosivity characteristic would compromise existing 

hazardous waste treatment methods and other landfill practices.

 

4 45 Fed. Reg. 33,083, 33,109 (May 19, 1980) (stating that establishing a lower pH threshold for the corrosivity 

characteristic would have “the unintended effect of inhibiting the use of such beneficial processes as the lime

stabilization of wastes.”); see also, EPA, Background Document: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 

Subtitle C – Hazardous Waste Management, Section 3001 – Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, §261.22 

– Characteristic of Corrosivity, at 14 (May 1980) (“Corrosivity Background Document”). 

5 As the petitioners do not raise any environmental concerns regarding the existing standard, we have opted not to 

address this issue in further detail. Coalition members are unaware of any information regarding environmental 

harms associated with setting the pH value of the RCRA corrosivity standard at 12.5, or any corresponding benefits 

from lowering the pH value to 11.5. If EPA is aware of such information, the Coalition would be happy to review 

and respond to it.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Four

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

(6) Classifying numerous wastewater streams from multiple industries

as hazardous would upset existing, mutually beneficial discharge 

arrangements with local publicly owned treatment works 

(“POTWs”).

For these reasons, the Coalition urges EPA to deny the petition and maintain the existing RCRA 

standard for corrosivity, which has not been shown to present a risk to human or environmental 

health. 

I. THE PETITIONERS SEEK TO IMPOSE UNNECESSARY 

HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATION ON A VOLUME OF 

MATERIALS THAT WOULD VASTLY EXCEED EXISTING 

SUBTITLE C LANDFILL CAPACITY 

Millions of tons of solid alkaline waste materials each year are used, recycled, or 

otherwise managed safely and efficiently by a wide cross-section of American industry. The 

petition to reduce the alkaline pH level and apply the standard to solids, if granted, would impose 

on these materials unwarranted RCRA hazardous waste requirements. As detailed in a separate 

submission by Waste Management (“WM”), the “increased volume of newly characterized 

hazardous waste would be so great that it would quickly overwhelm the existing Subtitle C 

infrastructure needed to manage it.” The National Waste & Recycling Association (“NWRA”) 

reports that last year the total maximum operational commercial hazardous waste landfill capacity 

in the United States was 89 million tons, an amount “sufficient to provide approximately 25 years 

of capacity for disposal of hazardous wastes.”6 In comparison, in 2013, portland cement concrete 

debris generated from construction and demolition (“C&D”) activities was 353 million tons7(with 

roughly 140 million tons recycled annually8). Hence, NWRA calculates that the existing 25-year 

Subtitle C landfill capacity would be exhausted within three months due solely to the disposal of 

portland cement concrete debris that is safely managed under existing protocols.

These extraordinary figures do not account for the additional millions of tons of 

currently non-hazardous solid wastes with expected pH levels above 11.5 that currently are 

managed safely and effectively in Subtitle D (non-hazardous) landfills. WM estimates that at least 

1.5 million tons (1.5%), and likely significantly more, of the approximately 100 million tons of 

non-hazardous waste received by their Subtitle D facilities annually is likely to have a pH of greater 

than 11.5. These materials include remediation soils, filter cake and caustic scrubber solids, 

cooling tower solids, caustic catalysts, concrete and cement, tank cleanout residues, sandblast 

 

6 Citing EPA, National Capacity Assessment Report: Capacity Planning Pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(c)(9) 

(March 25, 2015).

7 EPA, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 (EPA530-R-15-002) (June 2015).

8 See www.sustainableconcrete.org. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Five

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

media, soda ash, drilling muds, and furnace or incinerator ash. These and similar materials that 

would fall within the RCRA “hazardous waste” universe are discussed below.

II. A WIDE RANGE OF WASTES THAT NOW ARE MANAGED 

SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY WOULD BE NEWLY CLASSIFIED 

AS “HAZARDOUS”

An informal survey of industry stakeholders confirms the volume estimates 

provided by WM and noted above. The survey also reveals a wide range of materials – materials 

that are safely and efficiently managed now – that potentially would be newly classified as RCRA 

“hazardous” if the petition were granted and the alkaline pH level reduced and applied to solids as 

well as liquids. These materials are discussed below.

(1) Wastes from the Beneficial Use of Lime-Based Products

The most widespread and momentous impact from granting the petition’s request 

would be experienced by the broad range of industries that use and consume lime-based products.9 

For example, quicklime, or calcium oxide, has a pH of 12.45 when tested in an aqueous solution

per EPA guidelines. Lowering the upper pH level of the RCRA corrosivity characteristic to 11.5 

would hobble the use of lime-based products across a wide spectrum of industries in multiple 

ways: (1) production processes involving the use of lime may generate wastes that could exceed 

a pH of 11.5; (2) the use of lime-based products, while not subject to RCRA, can result in spills or 

other residuals that may need to be managed as wastes; and (3) other industrial processes utilizing 

lime can generate wastes with elevated pH.

The following production processes are examples of the wide variety of industries 

that utilize lime and generate wastes or byproducts that may have pH above 11.5 (in some cases, 

the pH level may be caused by other materials in addition to lime): 

 Alumina refining (“red mud”) 

 Pulp and paper mills (pulping liquor recovery processes and sludge) 

 Lime slurry manufacture 

 Barn lime manufacture

 Mortar and stucco manufacture

 Hydrogen fluoride regeneration

 Coke making (wastes and waters)

 Phosphate chemical manufacturing

 Metal slag recovery operations (process liquor and wastes)

 Steel mills (floor sweepings, wastewater sludges)

 Construction materials

 

9 Wastes generated by the lime industry itself generally are excluded from RCRA regulation under the Bevill 

exemption for mining wastes, and thus would not be directly affected by the petition request.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Six

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

 Electricity generation (fly ash)

 Fertilizer production

 Calcium carbonate precipitation

 Calcium chloride manufacture (liquor and wastes)

 Titanium dioxide manufacture (liquor and wastes)

 Lead recycling (wastes and process water)

 Breweries

 Chromium refining 

While we have not been able, in the time available, to obtain specific information on the volume 

of wastes produced by the lime industry’s customers, the amount is in the millions of tons annually. 

Information on the production volumes of lime is available from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(“USGS”) at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lime/mcs-2015-lime.pdf. 

The use of lime-based products also can generate, through spills or residuals, 

material that may have to be managed as waste. The primary example, of course, is the use of 

lime itself as a feedstock in numerous industrial processes. Similarly, the use of slag products, 

such as those manufactured intentionally by the steel industry and then marketed and sold for 

productive uses, can result in the generation of dusts that, if spilled and rendered unusable, may 

require disposal. In 2014, the USGS reports that U.S. iron and steel slag production totaled 

between 16 and 22 million tons, with the vast majority (approximately 16 million tons) sold for a 

variety of uses at a value of $270 million.10 Steelmaking slags typically exhibit pH values in the 

11-12 range, with a median pH for basic oxygen and electric arc furnace steel slags of 11.8. While 

steelmaking slags are safe and useful products and therefore not subject to RCRA, if slag is 

perceived to exceed the threshold for the characteristic of corrosivity, consumers, including federal 

and state Departments of Transportation, may be less likely to continue using valuable steelmaking 

slags for a variety of construction and other applications. The widespread deselection of 

steelmaking slags would impose substantial burdens on landfill capacity, unnecessary disposal 

costs on steel mills and slag processors, and needless additional replacement costs on their former 

customers. 

In addition, the use of lime in many other industrial activities results in the 

generation of wastes with a pH above 11.5. The most common example, cited by almost all 

Coalition members responding to our survey, is the use of lime in wastewater treatment (“WWT”) 

processes. When used as a WWT filter press agent, lime produces a sludge with a pH that can 

exceed 11.5, depending on the amount of lime used. With sludge quantities ranging at each facility 

from several hundred to several thousand tons per year, the need to manage the sludge as hazardous 

waste would substantially burden these facilities. Other industrial activities involving the use of 

 

10 See USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries: Iron and Steel Slags (2015) (available at: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_slag/). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Seven

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

lime that would be afflicted similarly include drinking water treatment, landfill biological 

treatment, and the treatment of acidic flue gas.

(2) Wastewater and Process Water pH Adjustment Materials

In addition to lime, many types of facilities utilize a number of other alkaline 

materials, including soda ash, caustic soda, sodium aluminate, and sodium hypochlorite/ammonia, 

to adjust the pH of waste and process waters. These treatment processes generate substantial 

volumes of sludges, filter cake and other solids with elevated pH that currently are managed as 

non-hazardous waste (often by disposal at a Subtitle D landfill). The ultimate pH of the sludge 

depends on the quantity of treatment chemical used to adjust the pH of incoming acidic waste or 

process waters. In addition to the sludge, these treatment chemicals are stored on-site and any 

spilled or expired material may be considered waste if it is unable to be recycled. 

(3) Solid and Liquid Wastes with Elevated pH from Numerous 

Industrial Processes

Many other industrial processes generate waste materials with a pH of 11.5 or 

higher and currently manage them in a safe and efficient manner. Examples of these processes are 

discussed below.

The Pulp and Paper industry annually produces two types of wastes with potential 

pH of 11.5 or greater: (i) bark or wood waste boiler ash (1.08 million dry shorts tons); and (ii) 

Pulping Liquor Process residuals (1.83 million dry short tons). The industry seeks beneficial use 

alternatives for these materials, but estimates that about 60 percent currently is managed as solid 

waste. Beneficial uses of these materials include: 

• Lime/lime mud for soil amendments (bulk application in areas with acidic 

soil11)

• Wood ash as ingredient in bagged/bulk soil

• Wood ash (bottom) plus lime for soil/road cement

• Wood ash for road base

• Lime/ash for landfill capping

• Slaker grits/dregs for cement kiln feedstock 

 

11 Soil acidity is the leading cause of diminished crop production around the world. The use of alkaline soil 

amendments helps improve nutrient uptake and crop productivity. See International Plant Nutrition Institute, “Soil

pH and the Availability of Plant Nutrients” (Fall 2010) (stating that “Increased nutrient availability and improved 

crop growth can be achieved when adding liming material to an excessively acidic soil.”) (available at: 

http://www.ipni.net/ipniweb/pnt.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d9001a18da/97c1b6659f3405a28525777b0046bcb

9!OpenDocument). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Eight

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

Those wastes not able to be used beneficially are disposed of in state-regulated Subtitle D landfills. 

If they are deemed “hazardous,” we expect that these beneficial uses, particularly as soil

amendment or bulk soil, would not continue. 

The Aluminum manufacturing value chain is alkali-intensive and, accordingly, 

generates several waste materials with elevated pH. While the primary industry wastes, saltcake 

and baghouse dust, are alkaline, they generally do not exhibit a pH greater than 11.5. However, 

several significant waste streams would be affected by the requested change in the alkaline pH 

level for the RCRA corrosivity characteristic. For example, one facility reports that currently nonhazardous reacted lime media (4,000 tons) and chromium hydroxide sludge (4,461 tons) would 

have to be managed as hazardous at additional disposal costs of $1.08 million and $1.20 million a 

year, respectively.

Further, the reuse or recycling of a number of high pH solids would be foreclosed 

or dramatically limited if the petition request is granted, due to a reluctance by the users of these 

materials to handle “hazardous” wastes.12 For example, one facility reported that it currently 

recycles approximately 15,000 tons per year of spent potliner refractory brick (pH ~11.85), which 

would no longer be feasible if it were classified as “hazardous.” Another facility currently 

manages 3,800 tons per year of wastewater treatment filter cake (pH 11-12) by sending it to a 

cement kiln for use as an alternate raw material feedstock. This use would no longer be possible 

if the material needed to be managed as hazardous waste, with disposal at a Subtitle C landfill 

costing an estimated additional $1.8 million annually.

The Portland Cement manufacturing industry similarly would face a number of 

challenges if the pH threshold were reduced to 11.5. Cement manufacturing safely involves 

several materials with higher water extract alkalinity that may have to be treated as hazardous 

waste, under a revised standard. For example, cement kiln dust, sweepings and filter dust, and 

cement itself (if off-specification or spilled) potentially may contribute to a water extract pH value 

higher than 11.5. Many of these materials are recycled or fed back into the production process, 

but may need to be stored for some time. Similarly, some of these materials, including cement 

kiln dust, have beneficial uses, such as soil amendments, that require transportation and storage. 

Declaring these materials hazardous waste when spilled would stifle these recycling and beneficial 

use activities, discourage end users, overwhelm landfills, and impose unnecessary burdens on 

cement manufacturers and their customers, from small entities, like home improvement stores and 

building contractors, to the largest municipal project and construction applications. Indeed, 

altering the corrosivity threshold has the potential to subject every hardware store that carries bags 

of cement, every small contractor moving materials to his or her job site in a pickup truck, and 

nearly every construction site in the country to RCRA hazardous waste obligations for spills that 

they have been safely managing under current protocols.

 

12 While such recycling may qualify for an exclusion from the definitions of solid or hazardous waste, users often 

specify that they will not accept materials that otherwise would be classified as “hazardous” waste. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Nine

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

Specialty steel mills would face a number of challenges if the alkaline pH level for 

the RCRA corrosivity characteristic was reduced to 11.5. These facilities have a number of 

processes that require acid neutralization. For example, sodium hydroxide solutions are used for 

pH adjustment of acid fume scrubber liquid and acid neutralization in wastewater treatment 

systems. Ammonia recovery feed tank solids and Kolene salt bath sludges also are generated at 

some facilities. 

Two issues raise particular concerns for the industry. First, floor sweepings and 

miscellaneous cleanup sweepings may exhibit pH levels in the 11-12 range. If classified as 

“hazardous,” management and containment would be challenging, as well as the additional cost 

associated with disposal.

Second, and perhaps most significantly, some mills have beneficial reuse approvals 

from their state for stainless slag aggregate materials produced during the steelmaking process. 

For example, one facility produces over 350,000 tons per year of stainless slag aggregate that is 

approved for beneficial reuse on the basis that it is a high volume/low hazard material. A change 

to the RCRA corrosivity hazard characteristic could compromise this determination. If the 

material were deemed hazardous and unable to be reused, disposal costs would be an extraordinary 

$59 million per year. 

Fertilizer manufacturers produce anhydrous and aqua ammonia which, if spilled 

or discarded, would qualify as “hazardous” waste if the corrosivity alkaline pH level is amended 

to 11.5 or greater. Such a classification would necessitate significant changes in manufacturing 

operations, as well as storage and loading practices. Routine operation and maintenance activities 

currently include managing ammonia discharges through the application of best management 

practices, routing the discharge for pH adjustment (to 6-9 pH), and monitoring prior to discharge 

through permitted outfalls (in some cases the discharge of “hazardous waste” is prohibited). This 

approach is the safest way to evacuate equipment in ammonia service in order to perform routine 

maintenance, as well as to manage spills. To capture these waters and manage them as “hazardous” 

waste would introduce significant risk to personnel, an ironically unintended consequence of a 

regulatory change ostensibly motivated by worker protection concerns. It also would impose

substantial costs from the reconfiguration of facilities and disposal fees. 

Chemical Manufacturing uses numerous caustic materials, particularly sodium 

hydroxide, in production processes. The waste streams from these processes often fall within the 

11.5-12.5 pH range. One manufacturer (operating a plant with 100 employees) reported that these 

waste streams currently either are discharged to a POTW after elementary neutralization or shipped 

offsite for treatment. For the POTW discharges, more aggressive neutralization would be required 

to comply with POTW restrictions on the discharge of “hazardous” waste. With respect to offsite 

treatment, it is estimated that current disposal costs of $400,000-$500,000 per year would increase 

at least 10 percent and probably more. In addition, a new, larger waste storage area would be 

needed, at an estimated cost of approximately $30,000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Ten

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

Another facility reports that it ships off-site for solidification approximately 18 

million pounds annually of currently non-hazardous caustic wastes, including sodium sulfate and 

various brines. The additional cost of managing these materials as “hazardous” waste is estimated 

to be over $2.2 million per year.

A third facility generates 40,000 pounds per day of a liquid anhydrous potassium 

hydroxide (4-5%) waste stream. Because it is anhydrous, the waste has no pH under the existing 

corrosivity test methods and is managed as non-hazardous. However, if the waste was diluted 1:1 

with water, the pH would be approximately 13. Currently, the material is sent for use as fuel to a 

cement kiln that only takes non-hazardous waste. The kiln does not charge the facility to accept 

this material because of the benefits of using it (the pH level improves the quality of the cement). 

Hence, the facility’s only expense is for shipping the material (which is not a DOT-regulated 

“hazardous material”). If the material were determined to be hazardous under a new test method 

developed in response to the petition’s request, the manufacturer would have to pay approximately 

20-25 cents a gallon to ship it to a hazardous waste-burning kiln. 

A fourth facility, in addition to concerns about management requirements for waste 

lime and dust, as well lime handling equipment, would be faced with substantial burdens 

associated with the management of primary presscake and press filtrate from the wastewater 

treatment process. The facility would need to install control and monitoring instrumentation to 

ensure the pH of presscake was below 11.5, at an estimated cost of at least $500,000. This work 

would take at least two and a half years, including nine months to select the correct technologies 

and equipment, six months to design the retrofit, six months or more for installation, and an 

additional year to optimize the system. 

A fifth facility annually disposes of 620,102 pounds of equipment washwater and 

7,009,400 pounds of neutralizer effluent, each of which can have pH up to 12. These materials 

would have to be reclassified and disposed of in a Subtitle C landfill. In addition, the facility ships 

approximately 250,000 pounds of spent silica gel, contaminated gravel, gaskets, and lined pipe, 

which likely would be newly classified as hazardous if the standard were applied to solids. The 

facility also notes a variety of administrative burdens that would result from a change in the 

standard, including the need to update material safety data sheets, waste characterization screens 

and forms, and NPDES characterizations to add RCRA codes for streams entering the wastewater 

treatment facility, as well as updating state notices of registration for each waste. 

(4) The Petition Request Also Would Expand the Corrosivity 

Characteristic to Low pH Solid Wastes

Petitioners do not address the impact of applying the corrosivity standard to acidic 

solid materials (pH<2). However, even a brief survey identified several wastes not currently 

regulated for corrosivity that would be designated as hazardous if that standard were applied to 

solids. These materials include: waste lead acid batteries, ammonium sulfate (spills), and certain 

waste coating solids. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Eleven

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

III. DESIGNATING SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES OF WASTES AS 

HAZARDOUS WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY

INCREASED MANAGEMENT COSTS 

Expanding the universe of “corrosive” hazardous wastes as requested by the 

petition would impose massive and unnecessary costs on many sectors of the economy. This

impact includes costs associated with disposal, on-site management and storage (capital and 

personnel), RCRA training and record-keeping, and treatment. Detailed below are examples of 

increased costs and other impacts reported in a survey of Coalition members. These facilityspecific responses are representative of concerns that would be common across many, if not all, 

facilities within the relevant industry sector.

► Waste Management estimates incremental additional management costs of newly 

designated hazardous wastes as ranging from $181 to $395 per ton (compared to 

current management in a Subtitle D landfill).

► An aluminum producer reports that currently non-hazardous reacted lime media 

(4,000 tons per year) and chromium hydroxide sludge (4,461 tons per year) would 

have to be managed as hazardous waste at an additional disposal cost of $1.08 

million and $1.20 million a year, respectively.

► A chemical manufacturer estimates the increased cost of managing as hazardous

waste 18 million pounds annually of currently non-hazardous caustic wastes, 

including sodium sulfate and various brines, to be over $2.2 million per year. A 

smaller chemical manufacturer (with approximately 100 employees) indicates that 

disposal of currently nonhazardous caustic waste would increase at least 10 percent 

from current costs of $400,000-$500,000 per year.

► Many facilities employ elementary neutralization in WWT systems in order to 

manage high pH wastewaters. Lowering the corrosivity threshold to 11.5 is likely 

to put significant stress on existing pH control systems either as a result of the need 

for additional treatment materials or because the amount of neutralization needed 

may not be able to be achieved through current systems. Additional costs would 

be incurred to upgrade these neutralization systems.

► The cost of disposal for waste lime and other water treatment chemicals would 

increase from $35 per drum to over $300 per drum, according to one respondent. 

► Two steel mills estimate that cleanup and disposal costs around lime silos and the 

WWT area would be around $85 per ton.

► Increased disposal costs for wastewater treatment filter cake and sludges would be 

widespread. One facility estimates that disposing of 3,800 tons of wastewater 

treatment filter cake at a Subtitle C landfill would cost an additional $1.8 million 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Twelve

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

annually. Another facility estimates an additional cost of $100 per ton for disposal 

of newly “hazardous” WWT sludge, or $100,000 per year (plus additional 

transportation costs) for the approximately 1,000 tons generated annually.

► Several facilities report the need to construct expanded hazardous waste storage 

areas, with costs ranging from $30,000 (at a small manufacturing facility) to over 

$100,000. 

► A specialty steel mill reports that the cost to dispose of 350,000 tons of stainless 

slag aggregate produced per year, if the “corrosive” hazard classification eliminates 

the beneficial reuse determination for that material, is $59 million.

► A change in the corrosivity characteristic potentially would have a profound impact 

at alumina refining facilities that currently use surface impoundments to store high 

pH wastewaters. While some of these wastes would remain exempt from 

“hazardous waste” classification under the existing Bevill Amendment exemption, 

if the petition is granted and the alkaline pH level reduced, existing impoundments 

for other “non-Bevill” wastes would be required to undergo hazardous waste 

permitting and potential modification.

► In the pulp and paper industry, because some wood and recovery area wastes are 

managed on-site, existing Subtitle D units would have to be upgraded to Subtitle C 

units, requiring Part B permits, or the materials would be sent offsite and the 

existing Subtitle D units would have to be closed. In either case, the costs would 

be significant.

► A smaller (70 employee) chemical manufacturer would face substantially increased 

costs for disposal of wastes that already are classified as hazardous (due to 

ignitability). The commercial hazardous waste incinerator to which these wastes 

are sent charges more for each additional applicable waste code. The additional 

charges reflect the costs to the incinerator for analysis and disposal of the resulting 

ash (e.g., to determine if the ash is corrosive and whether additional Land Disposal 

Restrictions (“LDRs”) apply). The facility’s waste broker estimates that the costs 

associated with adding the additional corrosivity hazardous waste code as between 

$0.25 and $0.65 per pound, depending on the material. This will add an additional 

waste disposal cost of between $338,000 and $880,000 annually (approximately 

one-third of the facility’s 4.1 million pounds of hazardous waste generated annually 

likely would be classified as D002 if the alkaline threshold were lowered to 11.5). 

That would mean increases of about $5,000-$10,000 per employee, per year. 

From a broader and historical perspective, the potential costs of handling limebased wastes as hazardous was a primary reason that EPA chose the current (12.5) pH level for 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Thirteen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

the corrosivity characteristic.13 When EPA first proposed the corrosivity characteristic, the agency 

identified an alkaline threshold of 12.0 pH.14 However, several commenters raised concerns about 

that threshold limit leading to the management as hazardous waste of waste lime and materials 

generated from the use of lime and destined for discard.15 After considering these comments, the 

Agency “agree[d] with the commenters that otherwise non-hazardous lime stabilized sludges and 

wastes should not be designated as hazardous.”16 As a result, EPA promulgated the alkaline 

threshold at 12.5 and made it only applicable to aqueous solutions.17 

The concerns expressed in 1980 are only more compelling in the case of the 

petition’s request given the enormous volumes and widespread industry use of lime products. 

Millions of pounds of lime-based wastes currently are properly and safely handled in nonhazardous impoundments and treatment facilities. The nationwide cost to manage these materials 

as hazardous wastes would be astronomical and is not needed to protect human health and the 

environment. 

Aside from the specific costs identified above, a change in the corrosivity 

characteristic would have wide-ranging impacts on industrial facilities across the country, some of 

which will face the need to comply with new or more onerous RCRA regulation for the first time. 

Many facilities have made great strides in their manufacturing operations to avoid classification 

as a “large quantity generator” (“LQG”) and worked hard to achieve “small quantity generator” 

(“SQG”) status. Changing the corrosivity standard would negate all of the expensive, timeconsuming, and environmentally beneficial work that went into establishing SQG status. 

Likewise, some facilities currently do not generate “hazardous” wastes, and would 

be forced to incur the substantial expenses associated with developing and implementing a RCRA 

hazardous waste program, including training, record-keeping, and the costs associated with 

necessary capital improvements. For example, numerous entities that safely handle cement and 

lime-based products, from the smallest of contractors and home improvement suppliers to 

municipalities, and transportation departments, may now be responsible for “hazardous” wastes. 

They would experience not only additional costs for managing currently non-hazardous wastes as 

hazardous, but ancillary costs associated with changing the way that the materials are managed 

on-site before they are sent to final management (either beneficial use or disposal). These costs 

are difficult to quantify but certainly would be significant.

 

13 45 Fed. Reg. 33,083, 33,109 (May 19, 1980); Corrosivity Background Document at 14.

14 Corrosivity Background Document at 14; 43 Fed. Reg. 58,945 (Dec. 18, 1978).

15 Corrosivity Background Document at 14.

16 Id.

17 45 Fed. Reg. at 33,109.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Fourteen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

IV. AMENDING THE CORROSIVITY STANDARD AS REQUESTED 

IN THE PETITION WOULD RESTRICT THE BENEFICIAL 

REUSE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF CURRENTLY NONHAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS 

Amending the corrosivity characteristic by reducing the alkaline pH level and 

applying the standard to solids would expand greatly the universe of RCRA hazardous waste and 

impose substantial economic, regulatory, and labor burdens on a variety of manufacturers, 

contractors, municipalities, and retailers. It also would foreclose the beneficial reuse of numerous 

large waste streams. Many of these examples are noted above, but it is worth emphasizing 

separately the lost productive value to the economy of being required to manage these beneficially 

used waste streams as “hazardous” – that is, directing enormous quantities of material to landfills 

rather than putting them to productive use. To summarize several of the most salient examples:

► A substantial percentage of the 140 million tons of C&D debris recycled annually 

likely would no longer be reused in applications such as for road bed or 

construction. 

► State beneficial reuse authorizations, which generally are granted for high 

volume/low hazard wastes, would be threatened. For instance, the authorization 

for 350,000 tons of stainless slag aggregate produced by a stainless steel mill could 

be revoked, requiring landfill disposal of this useful material.

► A leather tanning facility currently generates 10,000 to 20,000 gallons per day of 

wastewater (underflow from the facility’s clarifier), with an average pH of 11.6 due 

primarily to the presence of lime. Since 2008, these wastewaters have been licensed 

under a state program for application to farm fields to support the growth of corn, 

soybeans, and alfalfa. Classification of wastewaters with pH above 11.5 as 

hazardous would put at risk the state approval and potentially stigmatize use of the 

waters by customers. 

► The reuse and recycling of spent potliner refractory brick and WWT filter cake 

would be compromised, as many of the users of these materials will not accept 

“hazardous” wastes.

► Cement kilns that accept only non-hazardous secondary materials would lose 

access to valuable high alkaline wastewaters, sludges, and filter cakes currently 

used as a feedstock.

► The use of bark or wood waste boiler ash and pulp and paper recovery area residuals 

for soil amendment, road base, and other applications would be severely curtailed 

or eliminated.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Fifteen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

V. AMENDING THE CORROSIVITY CHARACTERISTIC WOULD 

COMPROMISE EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT 

METHODS AND OTHER LANDFILL PRACTICES

Reducing the upper pH standard of the corrosivity characteristic to 11.5 would pose 

a significant dilemma for facilities engaged in the treatment and disposal of metal-bearing 

hazardous wastes. As detailed in the comments submitted by WM and NWRA, in order to comply 

with the LDRs, metal-bearing wastes, as well as some liquid wastes, undergo alkaline stabilization 

using reagents such as lime, cement kiln dust, portland cement, and fly ash. To date, there are no 

accepted alternative treatment methods for metal-bearing wastes other than alkaline stabilization. 

WM estimates that approximately 95 percent of these stabilized wastes will have a pH greater than 

11.5. Hence, if the petition were granted, stabilization of these wastes in accordance with LDRs 

will create a new characteristic alkaline waste. Treatment of these D002 “hazardous” wastes to 

reduce the pH through further treatment with acidic materials is not feasible – indeed, it would be 

nonsensical, as acidic treatment would release the metal constituents that triggered the “hazardous”

classification of the original material in the first place. Moreover, such neutralization (using an 

acid to neutralize alkaline material) would raise the potential for violent, heat-generating reactions, 

and is obviously incompatible with the largely alkaline Subtitle C landfill environment. 

Eliminating the disposal of alkaline (pH>11.5) waste streams from Subtitle D 

facilities also would have a detrimental effect on these landfills in further reducing their overall 

capacity, as the alkalinity of lime-based and other wastes helps accelerate decomposition of landfill 

material. 

VI. CLASSIFYING NUMEROUS WASTEWATERS AS HAZARDOUS 

WOULD UPSET EXISTING BENEFICIAL LOCAL POTW 

DISCHARGE ARRANGEMENTS 

Numerous survey responses from a wide spectrum of industries cited a common 

concern: the impact a change in the standard would have on POTWs that receive alkaline 

wastewaters from industrial facilities. Often, the local POTW welcomes the alkaline discharges,

which help buffer the relatively acidic nature of the POTW treatment train and the acidity of other 

wastewaters received by the utility. Survey respondents indicated that while local POTWs seek to 

maximize the alkaline contribution from indirect dischargers, they often either prescribe an upper 

pH limit of 12 or 12.5, or prohibit the discharge of “hazardous” waste. 

To comply with such limits currently, some facilities engage in elementary 

neutralization of wastewaters to maintain the pH below 12. These facilities could comply with a 

more stringent “corrosivity” pH limit by redesigning the WWT process to provide more aggressive 

neutralization, or to include a second neutralization step.18 In that event, however, the POTW 

 

18 One facility reported that currently it adjusts pH prior to conducting metal filtration, which is optimized at a pH of 

approximately 11. To maintain consistent compliance with a pH standard of 11.5 (or a POTW pH limit of 11 to 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Sixteen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

would lose the benefit of the higher alkalinity discharges. Other facilities have discharges of pH 

around 11.5 and do not currently employ neutralization treatment. For these dischargers, the WWT 

process will have to be redesigned to incorporate pH adjustment at added expense to the facility 

and reduced benefit to the POTW, which would have to incur additional expense to buy sodium 

hydroxide or other alkaline materials to provide the alkalinity they need.

Another concern is that in reducing the pH of wastewaters to comply with local 

prohibitions on the discharge of “hazardous waste,” for some waste streams the alkalinity is 

necessary to avoid the release or production of hazardous substances. For example, a leather 

tanning facility currently discharges wastewater with pH averaging approximately 11.6 to their 

local POTW without the need for pH adjustment. That alkalinity level has the benefit of keeping 

in solution any hydrogen sulfide that may be present, a necessary factor in protecting the treatment 

works and its employees from risks associated with the generation of hydrogen sulfide in the 

collection and treatment system. If the pH standard for corrosivity is lowered to 11.5, the facility 

will need to add pH correction equipment to achieve a target pH <11 to ensure compliance with 

the pH standard on a regular basis. Such treatment would risk the potential generation of hydrogen 

sulfide – yet another counterproductive result from a proposal motivated by a concern to protect 

employees. 

VII. AMENDING THE CORROSIVITY STANDARD WOULD NOT 

RESULT IN A MEANINGFUL INCREASE IN WORKER 

PROTECTION

The adverse impacts described above from a potential change to the corrosivity 

characteristic would be all the more regrettable because the petitioners’ request would not reduce 

the anecdotal risks PEER cited from inhalation of caustic dust by emergency response personnel. 

Put simply, amending the RCRA standard would not alter the protections put in place for 

emergency response personnel and other workers by OSHA and related programs. 

OSHA standards require employers to identify hazards and take steps to minimize, 

and to the extent possible eliminate, risks to workers.

19

 A “hazard” from the perspective of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act is a fact, not a legal conclusion. An employer’s evaluation of 

hazards that could pose a risk to workers managing materials at pH 11.5 or above – or such an 

evaluation by emergency response personnel – is to be based on “the intrinsic hazardous properties 

 

provide a compliance buffer), a second pH adjustment step would need to be added to lower the pH further after 

metal filtration.

19 See, e.g., OSHA standards for personal protective equipment (29 C.F.R. Part 1910, Subpart I), ventilation (29 C.F.R 

§1910.94), air contaminant limitations (29 C.F.R §1910.1000), and hazard communication (29 C.F.R §1910.1200, 

including the “hazard classification” requirements of 29 C.F.R §1910.1200(d)(1)).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Seventeen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

of [the] chemicals” and does not change based on whether or not a given waste is classified as 

RCRA “hazardous.”

20

 

The Hazard Communication (“HazCom”) standard does not mandate a specific pH 

level for the required evaluation of corrosive hazards. Rather, OSHA defines a substance corrosive 

to skin as “a chemical that produces destruction of skin tissue, namely, visible necrosis through 

the epidermis and into the dermis, in at least 1 of 3 tested animals after exposure up to a 4-hour 

duration.” No testing is required, but an employer must consider all available scientific evidence 

concerning the hazard of a chemical, including information in safety data sheets and from sources 

such as 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, Subpart Z and ACGIH Threshold Limit Values for Chemical 

Substances and Physical Agents in the Work Environment.21 

While the HazCom standard does note that, “in the absence of any other 

information, a substance is considered corrosive (Skin Category 1) if it has a pH ≤ 2 or a pH ≥ 

11.5,” OSHA recognizes that other factors besides pH play a role in properly characterizing 

corrosivity (e.g., alkali/acid reserve capacity).

22

 Regardless, this default value – and the evaluation 

of potentially corrosive hazards generally – does not rely on the RCRA standard for defining 

“corrosive” hazardous wastes, and would not be affected by a change in that standard. 

It is true that the scope of the RCRA definition of “hazardous waste” does affect, 

in turn, the scope of OSHA regulations governing hazardous waste operations and emergency 

response (“HAZWOPER”). This is because HAZWOPER, which applies to emergency response 

personnel, among others, extends to activities involving “hazardous substances” which are defined 

to include, in part, RCRA “hazardous waste.”23 However, this connection also is largely irrelevant. 

Under HAZWOPER, all of the requirements of Part 1910 are incorporated, including the 

provisions of HazCom requiring hazard classification and communication for substances that are 

not classified as “hazardous waste.”24 Hence, the procedures for protecting workers from the risks 

posed by high pH materials will not be affected if EPA revises the RCRA corrosivity standard. 

 

20 See 29 C.F.R. §1910.1200, Appendix A, §A.0.1.1.

21 See id. §A.2. 

22 Id. As will be discussed in the Coalition’s forthcoming submission, the standard for characterizing wastes as 

“hazardous” similarly requires consideration of additional factors.

23 29 C.F.R. §1910.120(a)(3). 

24 The HAZWOPER regulations explicitly state:

All requirements of Part 1910 and Part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations apply 

pursuant to their terms to hazardous waste and emergency response operations whether covered by 

this section or not. If there is a conflict or overlap, the provision more protective of employee safety 

and health shall apply.... 

29 C.F.R. §1910.120(a)(2)(i). This would include the HazCom definition for “corrosive” materials.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2015

Page Eighteen

K E L L E Y D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

The bottom line is that risks from materials, solid and liquid, with pH of 11.5 or 

12.5 or higher, already are effectively managed and addressed through existing worker protection 

programs. Coalition members are unaware of any injuries or other adverse effects on their own 

workers resulting from exposure to wastes with elevated pH, with the exception of rare and isolated 

instances where required safety procedures were not followed. The overriding fact is that, today, 

millions of pounds of high pH wastes are properly and safely handled where they are generated 

and in non-hazardous waste landfills, surface, impoundments, and other treatment facilities. 

Accordingly, the petition request would serve only to impose substantial management burdens and 

economic costs without offering any practical improvements in worker safety. 

* * * *

The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide the foregoing information to 

EPA and urges the agency to deny the petitioners’ request. In a follow up submission, the Coalition 

will provide additional analysis regarding the legal merits of the petition, or lack thereof. We 

would be happy to discuss this information or provide further clarification to the agency. If you 

have any questions or would like additional information, please contact John Wittenborn at 

202.342.8514 or JWittenborn@KelleyDrye.com or Joe Green at 202.342.8849 or 

JGreen@KelleyDrye.com. 

Respectfully submitted,

John L. Wittenborn

Joseph J. Green

Counsel to the Coalition