9433.1985(06)

OCT 29 1985

Mr. Verrill M. Norwood, Jr.
Vice President, Environmental Affair
Olin Chemicals 
P.O. Box 248 
Lower River Road 
Charleston, Tennessee  37310

Dear Mr. Norwood:

This is in response to your letter to me dated October 8,
1985, regarding the applicability of a variance from 
classification as a solid waste for a spent material which
is regenerated and then recycled at the facility which produced
the original commercial product.  Before I respond to your 
specific request, I would like to define the facts (as I 
understand them):

      A commercial alkaline etchant (produced by the Philip A. 
      Hunt Chemical Company) is distributed for use to manufacturers 
      of printed circuits.  After a period of use, the alkaline 
      etchant is reduced below acceptable levels and therefore 
      becomes spent (i.e., a material that has been used and 
      as a result of contamination can no longer serve the 
      purpose for which it was produced without processing). 
      This material (as you indicated) would be defined as 
      hazardous because of its corrosive nature.  This spent
      material is then returned to the manufacture of the 
      alkaline etchant where copper is first recovered 
      (defined as reclamation); the remainder of the etchant 
      (after reclamation) is then used as a raw material to 
      produce additional alkaline etchant.  (Although not 
      germane to the decision, you indicate that the recovered
      copper salts are sold providing additional economic benefits.)

Based on this description, I do not believe that you 
qualify for a variance under the modified closed-loop provision.
In particular, to qualify for a variance pursuant to 260.31(b),
the material that is reclaimed must be used as a feedstock
within the original primary production process in which the 
waste was generated.  You are correct that the regulations do 
not require that this all occur at a single production/regeneration
facility; however, the material (after reclamation) must be 
returned to the process from which it was generated.  In your 

-2-

situation, the process which generated the waste is the use 
of the etchant by the printed circuited board manufacture, the
reclaimed material is not returned and used as an etchant but 
rather used as an ingredient to make additional etchant.
(It should also be noted that if you were to return the 
etchant to the printed circuit board manufacturer after 
reclamation, you still would not qualify for a variance 
since the material is not being used as a feedstock/ingredient.)
Thus, since you do not return the reclaimed material to the 
process which generated the waste, your particular situation 
does not meet the basic conditions of the modified closed-loop 
provision. 1/

Therefore, the spent alkaline etchant is subject to 
regulation by the generator (which includes the manifest),
must be transported by a hazardous waste transporter, and the
reclamation facility must comply with the appropriate standards
regarding storage of the spent alkaline etchant.  I had 
discussed this with several of the Regions when you originally 
sent in your petition and, therefore, I believe we are all 
being consistent. 

Please feel free to give me a call if you have any 
questions; my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.


Sincerely yours,


Matthew A. Straus 
Chief 
Waste Identification Branch

                

1/  Although you do not qualify for a variance pursuant to 
260.31(b), the reclaimed material that is used as a 
raw material to produce the alkaline etchant is not a 
waste, and thus is not subject to regulation.