Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo


Pertinent FPA Points



DATE: April 5, 1996

SUBJ: EPA Region I Comments on 3/13/96 DRAFT
Final Project Agreement - HADCO XL Project

FROM: Joan Jouzaitis, Joshua Secunda, Ken Rota

TO: Lee. R. Wilmot, Corporate Health & Environmental Manager HADCO Corporation


Here are our comments on your first draft of the FPA. We have consulted with Regions 2 and 9 in development of these comments, but the contacts in the other Regions may have additional comments on the draft. We hope to discuss these with you in the near future.

Outline of the FPA

HADCO's draft Agreement addresses many elements specified in the document "Draft Principles for Development of XL Project Agreements". However, the language regarding termination of the Agreement needs to be further developed. Condition 7 on page 6 states that the project will be terminated if HADCO wastes are determined to hazardous according to applicable criteria. EPA recommends replacing this condition with the following:

"7. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

The procedures for analysis of the WWT Waste (SW-846 test methods) will be monitored as set out in this Agreement by a schedule to be agreed upon by the Parties. The Parties will confirm the initial analysis of the WWT waste. Hadco will analyze all WWT wastes shipped directly to receiving facilities to confirm the initial analysis. Hadco will provide results of this analysis to all Parties."

In addition to this clause, we should add language which states that any party/signatory to the Agreement may withdraw, after providing notice to the other signatories. Some sample language which could be included:

"Any party may terminate its participation in the project at any time, provided that it complies with the notification provisions found at Section xxxx of this FPA."

One of the requirements of XL projects is that they have an expiration date. We may want to choose an upper boundary, with annual evaluation of the success of this effort.

Environmental Results and Benefits

This section of the FPA needs development. We believe that the project's greatest significance is its potential applicability to the circuit board industry. This issue should be addressed more comprehensively. For example, how many pounds of F006 are generated by this industry? How is it typically handled? What is the range of its chemical compositions? (Is virtually no one using chrome sulfuric acid etchants, so that the F006 listing for circuit board manufacturers is out of date for most of the industry?)

EPA notes that HADCO's original Project XL submission placed more emphasis on recycling of non-hazardous copper dust waste (generated from operations such as drilling and edging). The environmental benefit potentially flowing from this project will be more compelling if there is more emphasis on the recycling of copper dust waste. What is the typical composition of these dusts? Specifically, what is the percentage of copper contained in these dusts? What volume or weight of this material is generated per facility? How does the cost of landfilling this material compare to the costs of sending this material off-site to reclaim the cooper content? HADCO does not commit to recycling these copper dusts in the FPA proposal, but rather states that "the revenue stream caused by the direct recycling of WWT sludge may allow PWB manufacturers to justify recycling non-RCRA waste streams that are also copper rich." The environmental benefits associated with HADCO's XL project will be strengthened if HADCO commits to recycle of these copper dusts.

Because the creation of a market for the F006, and the possibility of HADCO handling the F006 generated by smaller facilities is dependant upon other factors, we believe it is appropriate to note specifically commit to implementation of this step of the project at this time.

HADCO includes the reduction in mobil source emissions as the primary environmental benefit for this project; however, as stated above, we do not believe this is the primary environmental benefit.

Environmental benefits attributable to XL must be readily verifiable. At present, HADCO has not submitted any supporting analysis of the environmental benefits resulting from a decrease in mobile emissions. If the project is implemented, sludges will continue to be trucked from HADCO facilities in New York, New Hampshire, and California to the receiving facility (Canadian smelter). Therefore, the ozone non-attainment areas of the North East corridor may derive only minimal benefits.

Legal Mechanism for Flexibility

Project XL gives responsible companies and other regulated parties the flexibility to replace the requirements of the current system with their own alternative strategies to achieve better bottom-line environmental results. When an applicant presents the Agency with suitable project proposal, EPA will explore legal mechanisms to afford the applicant any necessary flexibility.

In order to implement this innovative concept, EPA is exploring streamlining the current delisting process. (These requirements can be found at 40 CFR 260.20(b) and 40 CFR 260.22(I). This would be accomplished through the discretionary omission of regulatory requirements that are both: a) irrelevant to Hadco's proposal, and: b) irrelevant to the protection of human health and the environment. This approach is consistent with the EPA's "Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements," which recommends the use of existing legal mechanisms. This approach would lead to the development of an innovative and flexible conditional delisting process, the present requirements for which are outlined at 40 CFR 260.22

Under the existing delisting process, delisted hazardous waste exits RCRA Subtitle C regulation and could be handled in accordance with local solid waste regulations. However, HADCO's sludge would still contain some level of metals contamination (i.e., lead removed by use of a flux during smelting). Our proposal would allow EPA to develop specifically tailored handling and disposal conditions into the proposal conditional delisting, in order to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Possible examples of these conditions include, but may not be limited to: handling of sludge as hazardous waste while it is on-site; notification to the transporter that low levels of hazardous constituents are in the waste; and, assurance that the waste is sent to an "approved" facility (i.e., the Noranda smelter in Canada).

One EPA makes its determination, site-specific rulemaking for this XL project might then be pursued. In such a case, EPA Regional offices would proceed according to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by placing the proposed rule into the Federal Register, and soliciting and responding to any public comments that are received before a final regulation is promulgated.


Creating a market for the copper laden F006 generated by the printed wire board industry affects the entire PWB industry. This idea should be further developed in the FPA.

EPA recommends the following rephrasing of Condition # 11: "Through Project XL, we want to create an evaluation process for F006 sludge which is less cumbersome that the current delisting procedures, and yet is both technically defensible and equally protective of human health and the environment. We hope that this procedure will then be applicable to other facilities."

To aid in our evaluation of this project's transferability, we would like to review data from a number of circuit board manufacturers to determine how closely HADCO's F006 resembles that generated by other facilities.

Receiving Facility/The Smelter

The goal of this XL project is to design a procedure that can determine whether HADCO's F006 can be removed from RCRA regulation, based upon analytical results supplied by HADCO and based upon the fact that this F006 will be sent for copper reclamation.

If EPA receives sufficient technical data to support an affirmative conclusion, then the FPA should require specific storage and handling requirements for the newly deregulated F006. The type of facility to which HADCO may send their sludge (ex. smelting facilities which have consented to receive the material) should be specified in the Agreement. We believe it is appropriate to specify that "HADCO will ship this material to jointly agreed upon reclamation sites."

HADCO should be required to notify the receiving facility prior to each shipment of the deregulated F006. The notification should include, at a minimum, the shipment's expected volume; Appendix 8 constituents present and their concentrations). Prior to shipment, HADCO should receive approval for each shipment from the receiving facility. Copies of each approval should be sent to the Regional EPA offices, state environmental offices, and Canadian government (province and federal).

EPA believes it would be beneficial to know how the receiving facility will handle the material to be received. Questions such as how long this material will be stored on-site and how it will typically be stored (containers, roll-off) should be addressed. We want to be confident that the receiving facility will consistently handle the deregulated F006 in an environmentally sound manner.

If HADCO chooses to send its (potentially) deregulated F006 to a smelter it would be helpful to provide to us the typical composition of smelter feed. Given that information, EPA can make a comparison of the chemical composition of "typical" smelter feed vs. "typical" F006. If there are Appendix 8 constituents present in the F006 which are not typically present in smelter feed, it will be necessary to show that the receipt/processing of the deregulated F006 doesn't pose additional environmental or health and safety risks.

Condition #8 on page 3 needs to be reworded. In order to claim that HADCO's F006 is a "feedstock substitute" we would need to show that it doesn't contain "toxics along for the ride" in levels that pose human health or environmental risks. We haven't seen sufficient data to warrant reaching this conclusion.

On page 7, there is a discussion regarding the shifting of risk burden. The first sentence of this paragraph should be omitted, since the conclusion that because a material is not regulated as a hazardous waste, it does not present a risk, has not been supported. This paragraph should address the impact upon those near and/or at the receiving facility for the sludge. Does the receipt of the deregulated F006 sludge by the receiving facility pose any new risks? (Or is the material already being sent to a facility such as this, and therefore risks are not increased?)

Historical & Future Data on the F006

EPA needs to receive and review more historical data on HADCO's sludge composition, so that we are able to determine the variability of the wastestream. This will affect the sampling frequencies to be specified in the agreement. Also, we should be aware of all Appendix 8 constituents present in the waste. In this way, any human health or environmental risks can be identified.

On page 2 of the Agreement, item #3, HADCO states a set of parameters for which it proposes to analyze its sludge. HADCO also states that established EPA protocols will be used in performing these analyses. For each of these parameters, the specific EPA SW 846 test method should be specified. Also, we will need a complete Appendix 8 scan of the sludge in order to ensure that all metals and/or organics present in the material have been identified. EPA believes it is feasible to decrease the frequency of sampling a subset of these parameters, once these are shown not to be present at detectable levels, or at levels that pose significant risk.

The first page of the Agreement states that sampling frequency will be "one core per quadrant of each rolloff generated, or one core sample of each drum or input container to the collection rolloff each week." EPA cannot determine whether this is a sufficient sampling frequency without more historical information about the variation present in the sludge. Only upon receipt and review of historical information, can EPA determine appropriate sampling frequencies and numbers of samples.

Condition #9 on page 2 states that HADCO will resample/reanalyze/resubmit analyses for approval should any process change cause increases in the four listed constituents. This statement should be expanded to include all Appendix 8 constituents. EPA must ensure that materials removed from regulation hazardous waste don't contain levels of concern of any constituents that may be hazardous to human health and the environment.

We need to develop standard reporting formats for the data collected by HADCO. QA/QC information will need to be reviewed by EPA personnel in our field laboratories.

On page 2 of the Agreement, it is stated that EPA Regional offices and participating states will review analytical data from other F006 delistings vs. HADCO's data (condition #4). EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate means of determining whether HADCO's F006 should be delisted.

Condition #6, which proposes comparing HADCO's sludge with sludges already delisted, oversimplifies the delisting process. It is more important to analyze the composition of HADCO's sludge. Without such an analysis, we cannot technically justify removing it from regulation as hazardous waste.


The FPA should include a formal notification section, which lists the names and addresses of the primary contacts for EPA, participating states and HADCO.


Local Navigation

Jump to main content.