Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:20:05 –0400
Sender: ComplianceNet Mail Forum
From: Lee Wilmot
Subject: Non Reportable Copper, Ammonia and HCl Transfers

ComplianceNetters,

You're probably hip deep in form R calculations and preparations now, but this message may provide some relief to your work effort. I was advised by Bret that spent etch transfers may not be reportable since they're not shipped on a haz waste manifest. Bret confirmed this by calling the EPCRA hotline.

I have confirmed this position from several angles as follows:

1. Both TRI reporting regs (40 CFR 372.85(b)(16) and form instructions for section 6.2 outline reporting requirements for "wastes". Since spent etchant shipped on a bill of lading does not contain the word "waste" in the proper shipping name, it's not a waste. (Otherwise you'd have a DOT misclassification problem.)
2. The EPA booklet on section 313 Q&A contains a Q (#435) on reportability of chromium reusing off-site by being remelted and reused. EPA's A = "Because chromium ... is not actually being recovered, but merely remelted and reused, the amount of toxic chemical in the metal scraps would not be reportable anwhere on the form R including section 8." (Section 8 =source reduction & recycling)
3. EPA New England's TRI coordinator, Dr. Dwight Peavey, confirmed that recycled etchant which is not shipped on a haz waste manifest would not be reportable IF it is being reused and not being reclaimed, and also, if the shipper gains economically from the shipment. (I know that our fresh ammoniacal etchant price is based on the supplier getting all the spent etchant we generate from our process. I also know that some divisions sell their spent cupric chloride etchant.)

A) You do not ship them on a haz waste manifest.
B) The spent etchant is being used/reused by the end site without reclaiming copper as elemental copper.
C) You derive economic benefit from such shipments.

This last issue of deriving economic benefit also applies to other PWB byproduct streams, like scrap boards. Some of our division receive revenue from selling scrap boards. Reporting such transfers would be like reporting our product sales. Accordingly, these off-site transfers of both lead and copper would not be reportable either.

The above would apply to copper, ammonia and muriatic acid for spent etchants, and to copper and lead for scrap boards.

If we were consistent in reporting such recycling transfers, then EWG and ERDF would not have much from our industry to prime their propaganda pumps. If you've already filed your form Rs for 1997, you can always file an amendment.

Lee Wilmot
lwilmot@hadco.com

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:55:39 -0400
Reply-To: "mak@circuitcenter.com"
Sender: ComplianceNet Mail Forum
From: Michael Kerr
Organization: Circuit Center, Inc.
Subject: Re: Non Reportable Copper, Ammonia and HCl Transfers
X-To: "lwilmot@HADCO.COM" lwilmot@HADCO.COM

Lee:

This is a very good point. However, in some states they do not recognize use/reuse etc. This calls for etchant to be shipped on a UHWM, albeit a straight bill of lading should suffice. It's a state interpretation issue and a typical example of the challenges the industry face when states use these materials as revenue generators. They hate the fact that we manage these 'commodities' responsibly.
I am currently working with Ohio EPA to change the way they regulate my etchant. Once I get some feedback I will share with ComplianceNet. In the interim, I have 'released' to the environment 13,613 pounds of copper - lock me up. When in reality I have actually only released (to POTW) 35 pounds of copper, while being allowed to 'dump' >600#.
Everyone needs to make sure that they report (in TRI) correctly, and use the correct SIC (3672) for our industry. This is so we can get out of the #1 spot. Thank you TCE!!!!

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:04:58 -0700
Reply-To: "ComplianceNet E-Mail Forum." , "Sharp, John"
Sender: ComplianceNet Mail Forum
From: "Sharp, John"
Subject: Re: Non Reportable Copper, Ammonia and HCl Transfers
X-To: "lwilmot@HADCO.COM" lwilmot@HADCO.COM

Hi All (yet again):

This is a busy day for TRI! In reviewing Lee's email again, it struck me that he mentioned that this logic applied to muratic acid also. Remember that you don't report HCl transfers offsite (unless you have figured out a way to transfer aerosol forms of HCl!). Only aerosol forms of HCl and H2SO4 are reportable now. This means that to figure out if you exceed the 10,000 pound "otherwise use" threshold, you add up all of the HCl or H2SO4 that was issued during the year to any equipment that sprayed the acid around and add that number to the original inventory of acid in the spraying equipment.

So if you had an etcher with 1000 pounds of free HCl in it on January 1, 1997, and over the course of the year you add 10,000 pound of HCl to it, you would exceed the 10,000 pound threshold and would have to report. However, your Form R would be extremely simple. The only release would be any HCl that escaped as an air emission. The HCl that goes to your pretreatment plant, or the POTW, or to the etchant recycler is not reportable since it is an aqueous form.

The same logic applies to H2SO4 usage.

John Sharp
Merix Corp., Forest Grove, OR
503-992-4351 Telephone
503-359-1040 FAX
john.sharp@merix.com

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:43:52 –0400
Reply-To: "ComplianceNet E-Mail Forum." , lwilmot@HADCO.COM
Sender: ComplianceNet Mail Forum
From: Lee Wilmot
Subject: Re[2]: [CN] Non Reportable Copper, Ammonia and HCl Transfers

CNetters,
John is absolutely correct. I noted muriatic acid since that was on the EWG toxic fertilizer report. However, since that report covered six years (90-95 inclusive), many of those years were pre-aerosol only reporting for TRI.

Lee