EPA Won’t Change RCRA Corrosive Hazardous Waste Definition
The changes requested would have brought more substances under regulation as corrosive hazardous wastes (i.e., D002). Ammonia, for example, has a pH of about 11.6 and would have been subject to the full scope of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations when discarded if EPA had approved this petition.
EPA “tentatively” denied this petition in April 2016 and has now “officially” denied it. The decision is effective June 15, 2021.
In 2015, Lion News reported on a lawsuit lodged by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that sought to persuade EPA to change the definition of a corrosive hazardous waste.
Under RCRA, a hazardous waste is corrosive if it is:
- Aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5; or
- A liquid and corrodes steel at rate greater than 6.35 mm (approx 1/4 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (40 CFR 261.22).
Why Are Corrosive Liquids Hazardous Wastes?In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) amended existing law to create a cradle-to-grave management system for hazardous waste. The law ordered US EPA to identify wastes that should be regulated as hazardous.
In 1980, EPA proposed regulations to make corrosiveness a hazardous waste characteristic. Defined as “the property that makes a substance capable of dissolving material with which it comes in contact,” corrosiveness (or corrosivity) can endanger human health and the environment in various ways.
A corrosive waste can damage human skin and cause injury or destroy the container it’s in and cause a release to the environment. A corrosive waste also can react with other wastes during disposal and create new hazardous substances, dangerous amounts of heat, toxic fumes, fire, or explosion.
What About Corrosive Solids?The denied petition also sought to expand the definition of corrosive to include non-aqueous waste (i.e., solids). EPA claims that liquid wastes constitute a far greater percentage of hazardous wastes and have a more immediate potential to damage the environment.
In addition, corrosive solids are less likely than liquid wastes to cause problems because the ability of a solid to form an aqueous solution of high or low pH varies with its physical and chemical characteristics and the management conditions.
As a result, the EPA concluded that there is no demonstrated need to address solids which may become corrosive in the definition of corrosivity.
History of the Corrosive CharacteristicIn its original proposed regulations (1980), EPA defined aqueous wastes with pH levels below 3 or above 12 as hazardous wastes.
Stakeholders who commented on the proposal pointed out to EPA that an upper limit of pH 12.0 could include waste lime and many lime-treated wastes and sludges with beneficial uses, including in agriculture.
Stakeholders also told EPA that a lower limit of pH 3.0 would include common substances like cola drinks and many industrial wastewaters (prior to neutralization).
After considering those public comments, EPA changed the range of acceptable pH levels under the corrosivity characteristic, creating the corrosivity criteria we use today.
EPA’s denial of the petition to change the definition of a corrosive hazardous waste means that criteria will remain the same, at least for now.
In-person RCRA Workshops Return in 2021!Build a smart, streamlined approach to manage your site’s hazardous waste from cradle to grave under the latest RCRA regulations at the RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Workshop.
In August and September 2021, the two-day RCRA course comes to Houston, Dallas, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati.
Join us for in-person training to get RCRA training trusted since 1977. Take away resources that make the regulations easier to read and use, and receive a full year of Lion Membership for answers to on-the-job questions, access to regulations updated throughout the year, exclusive regulation updates, and more.
Find a Post
I was able to present my scenario to the instructor and worked thru the regulations together. In the past, I attended another training firm's classes. Now, I have no intention of leaving Lion!
Senior Environmental Engineer
I love that the instructor emphasized the thought process behind the regs.
Corporate Product Stewardship Specialist
The instructor was great, explaining complex topics in terms that were easily understandable and answering questions clearly and thoroughly.
Lion is at the top of the industry in compliance training. Course content and structure are updated frequently to make annual re-training enjoyable. I like that Lion has experts that I can contact for 1 year after the training.
Lion provided an excellent introduction to environmental regulations, making the transition to a new career as an EHS specialist less daunting of a task. Drinking from a fire hose when the flow of water is lessened, is much more enjoyable!
Very well structured, comprehensive, and comparable to live training seminars I've participated in previously. I will recommend the online course to other colleagues with training requirement needs.
These are the best classes I attend each year. I always take something away and implement improvements at my sites.
The instructor was probably the best I ever had! He made the class enjoyable, was humorous at times, and very knowledgeable.
Mary Sue Michon
I can take what I learned in this workshop and apply it to everyday work and relate it to my activities.
You blew the doors off the competition!
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
Look beyond the annual "Top 10 List" to see specifics about the most cited OSHA health & safety Standards and the individual regulations that tripped up employers the most last year.