4301 Connecticut Ave NW

Suite 300

Washington DC 20008

T 202.244.4700

F 202.966.4818

August 28, 2015

Via Electronic Transmission: Helms.greg@epa.gov

Mr. Gregory Helms

Project Manager, Corrosivity Standard

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5304 P)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Helms:

The National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) is pleased to offer comments on the PEER 

petition requesting EPA to revise the characteristic of corrosivity. PEER has requested that EPA 

redefine the corrosivity characteristic of solid waste to include solid wastes and to lower the 

alkaline limit from a pH of 12.5 to 11.5.

NWRA is a not-for-profit trade association representing private solid waste and recycling 

collection, processing and management companies. Our member companies own and operate 

disposal, recycling and transfer facilities that take in materials that would be affected by this 

proposal.

Based on feedback from our members, the operational and cost implications of lowering the pH 

and adding solids to the definition of corrosivity would be significant for every aspect of solid 

waste management: construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills and recycling facilities,

municipal solid waste landfills and transfer stations, and hazardous waste facilities. Further, it 

would impose significant new costs on generators of these materials.

In addition, the central justification for the action requested by the petition is based on the 

inhalation of caustic dust during a building collapse as experienced during 9/11. The RCRA 

corrosivity characteristic applies to the definition of solid waste, not particulates. So the 

proposed changes would not reduce the impacts cited. Therefore, we recommend that the EPA 

maintain the existing definition for the corrosivity standard. 
Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Landfills and Recycling 

Facilities

Traditionally, concrete wastes have been safely managed as construction and demolition (C&D) 

debris at C&D landfills or at C&D recycling facilities. These materials, however, are likely to have

a pH above 11.5. According to EPA’s June 2015, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 

2013, EPA530-R-15-002, Portland cement concrete C&D debris generated was 353 million tons

in 2013. Sustainableconcrete.org estimates that about 140 million tons are recycled annually. 

If these materials were classified as hazardous waste due to a lowered pH standard applied to 

solid materials, beneficial reuse in roadbed or new construction could halt, and the materials 

would need to be buried in Subtitle C landfills.

Subtitle D MSW Landfills

Subtitle D landfills receive about 130 million tons of MSW wastes each year. In addition, Subtitle 

D facilities handle other industrial wastes that are not considered hazardous. A portion of this 

volume is non-hazardous solid wastes that will likely have a pH greater than 11.5. These 

materials may include remediation soils, scrubber solids, concrete and cement, tank cleanout 

residues, sandblast media, soda ash, drilling muds containing bentonite and furnace or coal 

combustion residues. Because these materials are solids, there is no record of the quantity of 

alkaline waste volumes received at MSW landfills. Our members report, however, that it would 

be millions of tons. 

In addition, many MSW landfills perform solidification using high pH materials such as lime, fly 

ash and cement kiln dust. The solidified materials could also be defined as hazardous if the pH 

limit was lowered and applied to solids. Lastly, between 15-20% of biosolids are landfilled, much 

of it lime-stabilized. As with other materials, we believe that the quantity of these materials to 

be significant, but there are no records of actual quantities managed by Subtitle D landfills.

Subtitle C Landfills

According to EPA’s March 25, 2015, National Capacity Assessment Report: Capacity Planning 

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(c)(9),in 2014, the total maximum operational commercial 

hazardous waste landfill capacity for the nation was 89 million tons. This is considered sufficient 

to provide approximately 25 years of capacity for disposal of hazardous wastes. 

These facilities are very difficult to site, permit and expand. Even when possible, facilities could 

take up to ten years from conception to accepting material. 

Given the tremendous volume of material that would fall under any rule, it is impractical to 

manage these materials as hazardous. The total 25-year capacity would be exhausted by three 

months of Portland cement concrete alone, leaving no place for disposal of genuinely hazardous 

materials.
Conclusion

As described, a change in the corrosivity standard would have a tremendous detrimental impact 

on the solid waste industry by reducing recycling, increasing costs and overwhelming the 

hazardous waste infrastructure. Yet, with all that, the justification for the proposed action,

inhalation of caustic dust by first responders due to a building collapse, is not governed by RCRA. 

Materials meeting the current corrosivity standards have been managed safely in C&D and

Subtitle D landfills for decades. Further, the Subtitle C landfill infrastructure cannot support the 

volume of material that would result from the PEER proposal. The PEER proposal would not 

achieve the intent of protecting first responders. Therefore, we recommend that EPA maintain 

the current corrosivity standard.

NWRA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the PEER petition for rulemaking. 

Should you have any questions about the information provided, please feel free to contact me 

at (202) 364-3724 or agermain@wasterecycling.org. We look forward to continuing to work with 

you as you develop your response to the petition.

Best regards,

Anne Germain

Director of Waste & Recycling Technology