Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo


State of NH to Lee Wilmot RE: Draft Revisions

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the second version of the HADCO Final Project Agreement (FPA) received at the New Hampshire stakeholder meeting on April 17, 1996. Upon reading the second draft, many of the suggestions recommended in the Department of Environmental Services' (DES) letter of April 5, 1996 were incorporated into the new draft. We appreciate the careful consideration of HADCO staff in viewing our comments as helpful.

The comments offered in this second draft build upon the first version and are separated in two categories: conceptual and clarification/test improvement issues to the FPA.

I. Conceptual Issues:

A. As discussed in the April 17, 1996 meeting, HADCO represented that the corporation would reconsider its quest for an expedited unconditional delisting and seek an expedited conditional delisting approach instead. We fully endorse the expedited conditional delisting approach for the HADCO facilities.

B. One common area of concern for this XL project is the transferability of HADCO's expedited conditional delisting of the F006 wastewater treatment sludge to other members of the printed writing board (PWB) manufacturing industry. Even with a proposed expedited delisting process in place for the remaining 750-800 PWB manufacturers, the resources needed to process future delisting requests will remain very significant. Possibly, another approach should be considered for the remaining PWB manufacturers which utilize similar chemical processes at HADCO.

During the second stakeholder meeting, we suggested exploring the concept of seeking an exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4, provided the PWB F006 sludge was reclaimed to recover metals by an appropriate technology (e.g., smelting). In other words, HADCO would be the lead PWB manufacturer seeking to prove the F006 sludge from the PWB industry contains de-minimis concentrations of the constituents that originally listed the sludge in the 1970s. Upon proving the merits of the expedited conditional delisting through the implementation of the FPA, HADCO would receive its conditional delisting for their F006 sludge. With HADCO's results as the successful pilot, further consideration would then be given by EPA to a conditional exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4 for other similar PWB F006 sludges. States with HADCO facilities would review and change their rules under appropriate exclusion provisions for similar PWB F006 sludges. The conditional exclusion from EPA and the appropriate state rules would be premised on the fact that the PWB F006 sludges are to be reclaimed for metals recovery. The major benefit to all parties involved would be the savings in time and costs by having the PWB F006 sludges conditionally excluded without jeopardizing the environment; and not have each facility seek an individual delisting. Another option to consider after HADCO proves its case, is to amend the language in the F006 listing at 40 CFR 261.31 to also "except" PWB sludges (with conditions). This alternative approach would be similar to a conditional exclusion because the sludges would only be regulated under RCRA C if they exhibit a "characteristic", but upon reclamation they would not be solid wastes per Table 1 at 40 CFR 261.2.

II. Clarification/Test Improvement Issues:

A. Page 1: To the extent that the waste water treatment sludge generated by HADCO's PWB processes has significant value in the marketplace, we would recommend placing that information in Section B, Overview of Project. The greater the market value of the sludge, the stronger the rationale for not regulating it as a waste.

B. Page 2: Change in paragraph 2 the first word "These" to "HADCO's" facilities.

C. Page 2: Nickel does not have a specific TCLP characteristic leaching level as mentioned in paragraph 5.

D. Page 2: Consider adding after the second sentence in paragraph 5: "Etchants are typically recycled separately for copper content and do not go directly to the WWT facility. Etchant rinse waters usually go to the WWT facility for processing."

E. Page 2: The 99% figure discussed in paragraph 6 for sludge generated ought to be supported with a "source" for that number.

F. Page 5: The statement in paragraph 1 ... "[t]he State Agencies involved will review" ... needs to be more clearly explained. Our expectation is HADCO will do the compiling of data for EPA and DES to analyze delisting comparisons. We do not have the resources to review each individual delisting package for the companies named on page 5 to make the comparisons. If the compilation work has already been completed by HADCO, please include a matrix of those values researched an appendix to the FPA.

G. Page 5: Other DES reviewers have requested on item #5 that the paragraph be rewritten to clarify HADCO's intent of not land filling the sludge even if the delisting is unsuccessful.

H. Page 6: Delete item #6 as discussed in the April 17, 1996 stakeholder meeting. Add the table in item #6 to item #7 and explain or footnote the table values not listed in the TCLP table of 40 CFR 261.24.

I. Page 7: A rationale needs to be included in item #12 for ... [a]nalyze each constituent that has been found in the previous round of sampling at a concentration greater than 25% of the regulatory characteristic level set forth in 40 CFR 261.24." Also, will this analysis include copper, zinc and nickel?

J. Page 8: Under the "Notice" provision, please use the following address and contact:

Kenneth W. Marschner
Waste Management Division
NH Department of Environmental Services
P. O. Box 95
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-0095

K. Page 9: Under Section B.2. Paperwork, an additional report not needed would be the annual hazardous waste export report.

L. Pages 12 & 13: In numerous paragraphs there is reference to "Paragraph I.E." which we believe was meant to be "Paragraph I.F." Please change this reference if our assumption is correct.

M. Page 13: Under paragraph two and three, blanks are left for certain days to respond to various document submittals. At this juncture, we request these be left open until the final stages of the draft FPA.

Mr. Lee R. Wilmot, Manager
Corporate Safety
HADCO Corporation
May 16, 1996
page 4

N. Page 14: The signature block for New Hampshire out to be Robert W. Varney, Commissioner.

We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this second draft. DES remains firmly committed in working with you to find the most environmentally sound and cost effective manner in which to manage your PWB F006 sludge. We look forward to a continued discourse on HADCO's Project XL initiative, and willingness to attend any subsequent meetings needed to resolve outstanding issues. Please call me if I may be of further assistance.


/s/ Kenneth W. Marschner
Kenneth W. Marschner
Waste Management Compliance Bureau
Waste Management Division


cc: Joan Jouzaitis, EPA - New England
Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director WMD
Anne Renner, Esq., NHDOJ
William P. Gotschall, Esq., World Resources Co.
Mark Moroukian, P.E., NYDEC
Gary Murchison, CA DTSC
David Marshall, Esq., Orr & Reno


Local Navigation

Jump to main content.