socmi.txt
socmi.txt — 6.2 KB
File contents
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Beverly Hartsock, Deputy Director Office of Policy and Regulatory Development Date: 4/10/96 Thru: Joe Vogel, Deputy Director Office of Compliance and Enforcement Ann McGinley, Director Enforcement Division Jeffrey P. Greif, Manager Engineering Services Section Enforcement Division Troy W. Dalton, P.E., Supervisor Case Team, Engineering Services Section Enforcement Division From: Michael C. Wilhoit Case Team, Engineering Services Section Enforcement Division Subject: AIR REGULATION INTERPRETATION of Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 115 (30 TAC 115) Definition of "Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process" ================================================================= Summary of Request: The Engineering Services Section (ESS) received a request to determine if a chemical manufacturing process in a nonattainment area is a "synthetic organic chemical manufacturing (SOCMI) process," as the term is used in Chapter 115. The request originated from a facility which generates a waste containing a listed chemical and which uses listed chemicals as raw materials and solvents. The waste material is taken off-site and incinerated as a waste and the solvents and unreacted raw materials are recycled and re-used in the same process. This facility is seeking confirmation of their interpretation that the process is not a SOCMI process. Please review the following interpretation developed by ESS and determine if it is acceptable.. ESS's Proposed Interpretation: This process should not be considered a SOCMI process, as defined by 115.10, for Chapter 115 rules. Background Information and Rationale: The facility in question is a chemical manufacturing operation which generates a waste stream containing a chemical listed in the 115.10 Table I Synthetic Organic Chemicals list. This chemical is generated as a by-product in the chemical reaction which produces the facility's primary product, which is not a listed substance. In addition, the facility also uses a listed chemical as a solvent and listed substances as raw materials. The solvent and unreacted raw materials are recycled and do not leave the site. Because the use of the undefined term "produce" in the definition of "SOCMI process" in Chapter 115 is unclear, the question arose as to whether a waste stream or a recycled solvent/raw material stream could be considered a "product" or "intermediate." The waste stream containing the listed substance is taken off-site and incinerated as a waste. It is not burned for heat recovery, or sold, or used in any way (such as a raw material feed for another SOCMI process) except for waste disposal. Prior ESS and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determinations related to the definition of "SOCMI process" for Chapter 115 and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR 60) Subparts VV and NNN have concluded that, in some cases, a "waste" or "byproduct" material which is not sold, and which is not a facility's primary economic product, may still be considered a "SOCMI product" triggering the applicability of Chapter 115 or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) rules, if the byproduct or waste material is treated as a useful material and is used in another process. An example would be a waste or byproduct used as fuel for a cogeneration boiler or used as a raw material for use in another SOCMI process. However, in this case, the facility in question represents this process stream as a true waste which does not serve any useful purpose. So, it appears to the ESS that this waste stream should not be considered a "SOCMI product" and should not cause the facility to be designated a "SOCMI process." This is supported by EPA determinations for NSPS Subpart NNN which state that a listed chemical which is produced as a contaminant (e.g. not produced for its specific chemical characteristics) does not cause a process to be designated a SOCMI process. In addition, because the listed recycled solvent and raw materials this facility uses do not leave the site, and are directly re-used by the same process, it is the ESS's interpretation that they should not be considered a "SOCMI product" for the purpose of the Chapter 115 regulatory requirements. This is supported by EPA NSPS Subpart NNN determinations which state that recovered/purified listed feedstock chemicals, which are directly re-used by the same process to produce a non-listed chemical, are exempt from the SOCMI designation. For the reasons outlined above, it is the ESS's interpretation that this facility should not be considered a "SOCMI process" for the Chapter 115 rules. This interpretation is only intended to relate to the 30 TAC 115 rules and is not intended to determine the status of the process under federal NSPS rules. Portions of the facility may still be subject to NSPS Subpart VV or NNN, as applicable. If the facility was to change its operations so that the waste stream or unused raw material streams are used in a manner different than that described above, then this Chapter 115 determination may no longer be valid. The impact of this proposed interpretation is to clarify that some sources which generate substances listed on the Chapter 115, 115.10 Synthetic Organic Chemicals list are not considered "synthetic organic chemical manufacturing processes," if the listed material is generated as a contaminant and is not used in any economically valuable way. In addition, this interpretation clarifies that sources which use substances included on the Synthetic Organic Chemicals list as raw materials or solvents are not "synthetic organic chemical manufacturing processes" if the raw materials/solvents are directly recycled and re-used within the same process. The ESS believes that the proposed interpretation is consistent with the original intent of the rule. Alternatively, the rule could be interpreted more stringently to mean that any process which even incidentally uses or generates a listed substance is a "synthetic organic chemical manufacturing process," but ESS believes this interpretation would be an unwarranted expansion of the rule's applicability.