ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 4, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF SCA TISSUE NORTH
AMERICA, L.L.C.FOR AN ADJUSTED
STANDARD FROM: 35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.301 and 218.302(c)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 05-04
(Adjusted Standard – Air)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
On February 4, 2005, SCA Tissue of North America L.L.C. (SCA Tissue) filed a petition
for an adjusted standard pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415
ILCS 5/28.1 (2004)). SCA Tissue requests an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.301
and 218.302(c) of the Board rules concerning the emission of volatile organic materials (VOM).
SCA Tissue is seeking the adjusted standard for the facility located at 13101 South Pulaski Road,
Alsip, Cook County.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the Act (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2004)). The Board is charged to “determine, define and implement the environmental control
standards applicable in the State of Illinois” (415 ILCS 5/5(b) (2004)), and to “grant . . . an
adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment” (415 ILCS 5/28/1(a) (2004)).
More generally, the Board’s responsibility in this matter is based on the checks and balances
integral to Illinois environmental governance: the Board is charged with the rulemaking and
principal adjudicatory functions, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) is
responsible for carrying out the principal administrative duties.
Based on the record in this proceeding the Board finds that SCA Tissue has justified the
issuance of an adjusted standard for the Alsip facility. The Board therefore grants the adjusted
standard as requested and with the conditions suggested by the Agency.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2005, SCA Tissue filed a petition for an adjusted standard (Pet.) and a
motion to incorporate documents (Mot.) from
In re
Petition of SCA Tissue North America,
L.L.C. for an Adjusted Standard from: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.301 And 218.302(c), AS 05-1 (AS
05-1). Mot. at 1. SCA Tissue filed AS 05-1 on October 12, 2004.
Id
. On December 2, 2004,
the Board dismissed the petition in AS 05-1 because SCA Tissue had failed to publish notice of
the adjusted standard petition pursuant to Section 28.1(d)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(1)
(2004)).
In re
Petition of SCA Tissue North America, L.L.C. for an Adjusted Standard from: 35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.301 And 218.302(c), AS 05-1 (Dec. 2, 2004). On March 3, 2005, the Board
accepted the instant petition for adjusted standard and granted the motion to incorporate the
petition from AS 05-1.
2
On March 24, 2005, the Agency filed a recommendation (Ag. Rec.) supporting the
granting of the adjusted standard and suggesting the inclusion of certain conditions. On May 17,
2005, hearing (Tr.) was held before Board Hearing Officer Bradley Halloran. SCA Tissue
indicated acceptance of the conditions recommended by the Agency at hearing. Tr. at 15.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
In both a general rulemaking and a site-specific rulemaking, the Board is required to take
the following factors into consideration: the existing physical conditions; the character of the
area involved, including the character of the surrounding land uses; zoning classifications; the
nature of the receiving body of water; and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness
of measuring or reducing a particular type of pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2004). The general
procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act (415
ILCS 5/28.1 (2004)) and the Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104. Section 28.1 of
the Act (414 ILCS 5/28.1 (2004)) also requires that the adjusted standard procedure be consistent
with Section 27(a) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2004)).
SCA Tissue seeks an adjusted standard from rules of general applicability at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 218.301 and 218.302(c). SCA Tissue is seeking an adjusted standard from a rule of
general applicability that does not include a level of justification for the adjusted standard.
Therefore, in determining whether an adjusted standard should be granted from a rule of general
applicability, the Board must consider, and SCA Tissue has the burden to prove, the factors at
Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2004)):
1) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation applicable to the petitioner;
2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by
the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415
ILCS 5/28.1 (2004).
FACILITY AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
SCA Tissue’s facility was constructed in 1988-1989 by the Chicago Tissue Company,
L.P. f/k/a FSC Paper Company and now known as XCTC, L.P.. Pet. at 2. The facility was
designed to recycle magazine stock into consumer-grade tissue products.
Id
. Ownership of the
facility was transferred in 1995 and again in 1999. In 1999, Georgia-Pacific Corporation became
the owner. Pet. 2-3. Georgia-Pacific Corporation sold the facility to SCA Tissue in 2001. Pet.
at 3.
3
The facility employs approximately 68 individuals. Exh. 1 at 2. The facility currently
manufactures tissue and toweling products from recycled wastepaper at a rate of approximately
200 tons per day of product. Pet. at 3. The wastepaper received by the facility requires pulping,
cleaning, de-inking, and bleaching to produce clean fiber for papermaking.
Id
. The fiber stock is
fed between two rapidly moving wires on the paper machine and as the paper moves through the
machine, water is drained, pressed and evaporated from the sheet.
Id
. At the end of the
machine, the product is continuously wound on large rolls, and this is the facility’s final product.
Id
.
The pulping process converts the wastepaper into a fiber slurry or pulp for use on the
paper machine. Pet. at 3. The major steps in the pulping process are pulping, contaminant
removal, de-inking, bleaching, and storage.
Id
. The pulp undergoes a series of cleaning and
screening steps to remove increasingly finer contaminants, and the reject streams are further
processed to recover usable fiber before being conveyed to the reject system. Pet. at 4. After
this process is complete, the pulp is ready to be introduced into the paper machines.
Id
.
The paper machine forming section is where the formation of the sheet occurs. Dilute
pulp is distributed across the convergence gap of two fast moving wires of the twin wire press
which creates a wire web. Sheet formation is nearly instantaneous and is followed by a
dewatering process. Pet. at 5. The sheet is then transferred to a fast moving felt. Pet. at 5-6.
Pulp made by the processing of recycled paper from magazines and other similar
wastepaper contains glue from labels and other glued-on materials. Residual glue results in
“stickies” that adhere to the two tissue forming wire webs. Pet. at 6. The “stickies” remain
attached to the wire web and felt rolls and can leave holes in the sheet with each rotation of the
wires.
Id
. This can result in a degraded product and represents a significant operational
constraint.
Id
. The paper machine wires are therefore cleaned periodically.
Id
.
The cleaning process to remove the “stickies” involves the spraying of solvent on the
wire web to wash away the glue and paper material. Pet. at 6. The solvent used is the source of
VOM emissions addressed in this adjusted standard request. Since 1990, the cleaning process
has been refined to the extent that the Agency has formally determined that the process
constitutes “lowest achievable emission rate” (LAER) and complies with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.Supbart TT. Pet. at 6.
SCA Tissue and the prior operators of the facility have taken extensive steps to reach
LAER at the facility. Pet. at 12. In 1991, the process of continuous, unmetered spraying of
cleaning solvent for 10 to 25 minutes was replaced with a three-step process.
Id
. The three-step
process involves application of the solvent, a soaking phase, and then power wash.
Id
. This
process limits the release of solvents to a two to five minute spray period.
Id
. This three-step
process must be repeated only infrequently.
Id
.
In 1991,the facility also changed the pulp detacifier and wire polymer application
equipment to reduce “stickie” build up on the wires and thus reduce the number of cleanings
required. Pet. at 12. These changes reduced the emissions of VOM by 30 to 80 percent for each
cleaning cycle due to less solvent usage. Pet. at 13.
4
Additional process and equipment modifications were made in the late 1990s to further
reduce the amount of solvent used during cleanings. Pet. at 13. Engineered changes included
redesigning centrisorter screens to reduce slot size to physically remove more “stickies” from the
pulp.
Id
. This change increased the removal of “stickies” by 80 percent, resulting in the need for
even fewer cleanings.
Id
. The second change in the late
1990s was to replace the solvent spray
nozzles with a reconfigured design to reduce solvent overspray.
Id
. The solvent was also
changed to a low-VOM solvent. Pet. at 14; Attach. G. SCA also evaluated other measures as a
part of the program to control “stickies” including alternative solvents, low impact pulping, and
chemical products to keep small “stickies” from agglomerating into larger more troublesome
“stickies”. Pet at Attach. H; Exh. 1 at 4.
These changes in the 1990s effectively reduced VOM emissions from 9.9 pounds per
machine dried tons (MDT) in 1990 to 0.6 pounds per MDT in 2000. Pet. at 14; Attach. G. An
overall 93 percent VOM reduction has occurred in the facility’s wire cleaning process since the
early 1990s. Pet. at 14; Attach. G. VOM emissions during a cleaning cycle in 2004 were
typically around 80 pounds VOM per hour. In 2001, total emissions from the solvent cleaning
process were estimated at 25 tons per year. Exh. 1 at 7.
SCA Tissue and its predecessors have looked at five different potential add-on emission
control technologies during the LAER process: Catalytic Regenerative and Recuperative
Incineration, Thermal Regenerative and Recuperative Incineration, and Carbon Adsorption. .
Pet. at 14-15; Attach B at 23-28.Cost estimates were developed based on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard,
Control Cost Manual
(EPA 453/B-96-001, 5th Ed. (Feb. 1996).
Id
. The costs for add-on control
range from $45,706 per ton of VOC controlled to as high as $703,191 per ton of VOC controlled.
Pet. at 15.
REQUESTED RELIEF
SCA Tissue proposes that rather than using add-on control methods for VOMs, that SCA
Tissue continue to implement the process and operational changes that have resulted in a 93
percent reduction in VOM emissions. Pet. at 19. SCA Tissue proposes the following language
for the Board’s order:
Process and operational changes resulting in a reduction by 93 percent from
uncontrolled emissions of VOM from the wire cleaning process shall constitute
compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.302(c) at SCA Tissue, N.A., LLC.,
located at 13101 South Pulaski Road in the Village of Alsip, Cook County,
Illinois 60803.
Id
.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SCA Tissue seeks an adjusted standard from the Board’s air rules for the emission of
VOMs from the Alsip facility. Specifically, SCA Tissue seeks relief from Sections 218.301 and
218.302 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.301 and 218.302). Section 218.301 provides:
5
No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/hr (8 lbs/hr) of
organic material into the atmosphere from any emission unit, except as provided
in Sections 218.302, 218.303, 218.304 of this Part and the following exception: If
no odor nuisance exists the limitation of this Subpart shall apply only to
photochemically reactive material. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.301.
Section 218.302 provides:
Emissions of organic material in excess of those permitted by Section 218.301 of
this Part are allowable if such emissions are controlled by one of the following
methods:
a) Flame, thermal or catalytic incineration so as either to reduce such
emissions to 10 ppm equivalent methane (molecular weight 16) or less, or
to convert 85 percent of the hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water; or,
b) A vapor recovery system which adsorbs and/or condenses at least 85
percent of the total uncontrolled organic material that would otherwise be
emitted to the atmosphere; or,
c) Any other air pollution control equipment approved by the Agency and
approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision capable of reducing by 85
percent or more the uncontrolled organic material that would be otherwise
emitted to the atmosphere. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.302.
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
The Agency recommends that the Board grant the adjusted standard with conditions
enunciated in the recommendation. Ag. Rec. at 1. The Agency indicates that the issue of the
facility exceeding the limits set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart G arose in the context of
a formal enforcement action. Ag. Rec. at 3. The Agency has “traditionally” interpreted the
provisions of Subpart G as “foreclosing the use of process-related emission units or modification
for achieving the requisite” emission reductions. Ag. Rec. at 9.
Specifically, the Agency points out that Section 218.301 establishes a general emission
limitation of 8 lbs/hr of VOM emissions for sources using organic material in the Chicago non-
attainment area. Ag. Rec. at 8. Section 218.302 provides three compliance options that a source
may use as an alternative to the 8 lbs/hr limit.
Id
. The provisions of Section 218.302 limit the
compliance alternatives to the use of certain types of air pollution control equipment.
Id
. The
Agency indicates that Section 218.302(c) allows the use of “any other air pollution control
equipment approved by the Agency” capable of reducing the uncontrolled emissions by 85
percent. Ag. Rec. at 8-9.
SCA Tissue suggested that the emission reductions achieved through process changes
could be construed to meet the requirements of Section 218.302(c); however, the Agency
6
disagreed. Ag. Rec. at 4. The Agency “encouraged” SCA Tissue to seek this adjusted standard.
Id
. The Agency has no knowledge of other paper recycling manufactures in Illinois being
affected by the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart G in the same or similar manner
as SCA Tissue.
Id
.
The Agency suggests that the adjusted standard include conditions that would require
SCA Tissue to continue to explore alternative process, equipment, raw material, and solvent
changes to achieve lower VOM reductions. Ag. Rec. at 17-18. The Agency also recommends
that the adjusted standard be limited to the air emissions activities existing at the time the
adjusted standard is granted.
Id
.
DISCUSSION
SCA Tissue and the Agency have addressed each of the factors in Section 28.1 of the Act
(415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2004)) to support the request for the adjusted standard. The following
paragraphs will summarize the information provided by SCA Tissue and the Agency. The
Board’s analysis and finding will follow.
Substantially Different Factors
In adjusted standard proceeding, where the rule of general applicability does not contain a
level of justification, the petitioner must prove that substantially and significantly different
factors exist which justify the adjusted standard. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2004). SCA Tissue and
the Agency have addressed this factor and the following discussion will summarize the
information provided. Then the Board will discuss the factor.
SCA Tissue
SCA Tissue explains that determining what factors the Board considered when adopting
35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart G is difficult given that the Board adopted the rules over 30 years
ago. Pet. at 21. However, based on case law and “common sense” the factors primarily relied
upon by the Board involved concerns about ozone formation, according to SCA Tissue.
Id
.
SCA Tissue asserts that a review of the operations at the facility establish that the main
purpose of Subpart G will not be furthered by a strict application of the rule to SCA Tissue. Pet.
at 21. SCA Tissue advances two reasons for this assertion. First, SCA Tissue meets the 85
percent reduction standard set forth in Section 218.302(c) and thus approval of the adjusted
standard will not cause a violation of the ozone air quality standards.
Id
. Second, SCA Tissue
has technology and controls in place to avoid odor nuisance. Pet. at 21-22.
SCA Tissue notes that the Board, when adopting Subpart G in 1971, may have
anticipated that facilities would have no problem complying by utilizing equipment already
available and in place at the facilities. Pet. at 22. However, SCA Tissue argues that the Board
could not have contemplated all the circumstances where organic material would be emitted as
technology advanced; and there is no indication that Board considered facts peculiar to paper
manufacturing in adopting Subpart G.
Id
. SCA Tissue states that “stickies” are a barrier to
7
producing recycled tissue rolls and the solvent cleaning operations are the only demonstrated
technology for reducing the problem.
Id
.
Lastly, SCA Tissue argues that there is no indication that the Board considered pollution
prevention in adopting Section 218.302. Pet. at 22. SCA Tissue states that with advancing
technology, relatively new products have allowed SCA Tissue to reduce VOM emissions.
Id
.
These reduced emissions allow for compliance with the 85 percent reduction provisions in a
manner not anticipated even ten years ago.
Id
.
Agency
The Agency states that several factors make SCA Tissue’s present situation substantially
and significantly different from those considered by the Board in adopting Subpart G. Ag. Rec.
at 13. First, the Agency notes that SCA Tissue’s use of recycled paper creates a serious
impediment to the production process.
Id
. The Agency believes that the use of recycled paper
should be encouraged, but the use creates the “stickies” which must be cleaned from the
manufacturing equipment using solvents with a VOM level that exceeds the 8 lbs/hr limit.
Id
.
Second, SCA Tissue’s significant progress in emission reductions by way of process
modifications and material substitutions is particularly unusual. Ag. Rec. at 14.
The Agency also does not dispute SCA Tissue’s position regarding the advances made in
pollution prevention technologies that could not have been foreseen. Ag. Rec. at 15. The
Agency also agrees that the proposed adjusted standard will not impair compliance with ozone
standards or the prohibition of odor nuisance.
Id
.
Board Discussion
SCA Tissue is in the unique position of having reduced overall emission rates
substantially, but cannot comply with a 8 lbs/hr limit because of the unique aspects of the
process. In reality, SCA Tissue and the predecessor owners have reduced emissions by well over
the 85 percent reduction required in Section 218.302. But have done so without using add-on
pollution control equipment. The Board’s rule did anticipate that facilities might not be able to
meet the 8 lbs/hr emission rate and provide for exceptions to that emission rate. However, the
Board’s rules speak to the use of add-on pollution controls and not the pollution prevention
techniques used by SCA Tissue. Further, the prospect of add-on controls would cost at a
minimum $45,706 per ton of VOC controlled (
see
Pet. at 15).
In addition to these factors, SCA Tissue is using recycled paper, which directly leads to
the problems SCA Tissue has in meeting the air emission standards. Clearly the use of recycled
paper is to be encouraged. Based on the information provided by SCA Tissue, the Board finds
that the factors relating to SCA Tissue are substantially and significantly different than the
factors considered by the Board in adopting Subpart G. Therefore the Board finds that this factor
supports the granting of an adjusted standard.
Justification
8
In adjusted standard proceeding, where the rule of general applicability does not contain a
level of justification, the petitioner must prove that the factors relating to the request for an
adjusted standard that are substantially and significantly different than the factors examined by
the Board in adoption the rule of general applicability justify the granting of the adjusted
standard. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2004). SCA Tissue and the Agency have addressed this factor
and the following discussion will summarize the information provided. Then the Board will
discuss the factor.
SCA Tissue
SCA Tissue has investigated numerous compliance alternatives that have proven neither
economically feasible nor technically reasonable (
see infra
4). Pet. at 22. The absence of a
technically reasonable or economically feasible alternative and the Board not considering the
factors specifically relating to paper manufacturing, justify granting the adjusted standard,
according to SCA Tissue.
Id
.
Agency
The Agency believes that the requested adjusted standard is fully justified. Pet. at 13.
The Agency agrees that the factors relating to SCA Tissue are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting Subpart G.
Board Discussion
The Board finds that the existence of substantially and significantly different factors
relating to SCA Tissue’s process and facility, plus the fact that add-on controls are not
economically reasonable or technically feasible, justifies issuance of the requested adjusted
standard. Therefore, the Board finds that this factor supports the granting of an adjusted
standard.
Environmental Effect
In adjusted standard proceeding, where the rule of general applicability does not contain a
level of justification, the petitioner must prove that the environmental effects of the requested
adjusted standard are not substantially more adverse than the environmental effects examined by
the Board in adoption the rule of general applicability. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (2004). SCA
Tissue and the Agency have addressed this factor and the following discussion will summarize
the information provided. Then the Board will discuss the factor.
SCA Tissue
SCA Tissue maintains that the proposed adjusted standard will have little if any adverse
effect on the environment. Pet. at 23. SCA Tissue points out that the emissions from the facility
were reduced by changing the process for cleaning and lowering the VOMs in the cleaning
solutions (
see infra
3-4). Pet. at 23. SCA Tissue argues that the emissions from the facility
technically meet the standard for 85 percent reduction and therefore do not cause or contribute to
9
any adverse environmental or health effects.
Id
. SCA Tissue asserts that the reduction of
emissions achieved will result in a qualitative benefit to the environment.
Id
.
Agency
The Agency “does not dispute” SCA Tissue’s assertion regarding the environmental
impact of the adjusted standard. Ag. Rec. at 16. Further, the Agency does not foresee any
adverse impacts associated with the adjusted standard.
Board Discussion
The Board finds that there will be no additional adverse environmental effect if the
adjusted standard is granted. As stated above, SCA Tissue recycles waste paper, which is
beneficial for the environment. SCA Tissue has also substantially reduced VOM emissions from
the facility. The Board finds that this factor supports the granting of the adjusted standard.
Consistency with Federal Law
In an adjusted standard proceeding, where the rule of general applicability does not
contain a level of justification, the petitioner must prove that the requested adjusted standard is
consistent with federal law. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (2004). SCA Tissue and the Agency agree
that the requested adjusted standard is consistent with federal law for the reasons discussed
below. The Board’s discussion will follow.
SCA Tissue
SCA Tissue states that the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law as
there is no equivalent federal law prohibiting the use of process related controls to reduce VOM
emissions by paper manufacturers below the 85 percent alternative standard. Pet. at 24. SCA
Tissue is proposing to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart G, just using a different
method, thus the adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.
Id
.
Agency
The Agency states that the Board may grant the proposed adjusted standard consistent
with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7410), which grants states the authority to
promulgate a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air quality
standards. Ag. Rec. at 16. The Agency maintains that by following the adjusted standard
procedures, the Board is exercising the authority granted to the states by the Clean Air Act.
Id
.
The Agency will submit the adjusted standard, if adopted by the Board, to the USEPA as a
revision to the state implementation plan.
Id
.
Board Discussion
The Board is persuaded by the information provided by the parties that the requested
adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Clearly, the Board has the authority under the
10
Clean Air Act to implement a plan to protect air quality in the state. Further, the granting of this
adjusted standard does not excuse SCA Tissue from emission control, but rather allows SCA
Tissue an alternative way of measuring the reduction of VOM emissions. Therefore, the Board
finds that SCA Tissue has proven that the requested adjusted standard is consistent with federal
law. The Board further finds that this factor supports the granting of an adjusted standard.
CONCLUSION
SCA Tissue has requested an adjusted standard from the Board’s rules concerning
emission of VOMs from SCA Tissue’s facility in Alsip, Cook County. SCA Tissue has reduced
the emissions of VOM from the facility by more than 90 percent since the early nineties by
making process and product changes at the facility. However, SCA Tissue is an able to meet the
hourly standard in Section 218.301 of the Board’s rules because of the use of cleaning solvents.
SCA Tissue seeks an adjusted standard from Section 218.302 to allow SCA Tissue to
demonstrate compliance by using the process and product changes made since the early 1990s.
The Agency recommends that the Board grant the adjusted standard.
The Board finds that SCA Tissue has demonstrated the factors relating to SCA Tissue are
substantially and significantly different than those factors considered by the Board in adopting
35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart G. Also, the Board finds that the adjusted standard is consistent
with federal law and will result in no more adverse environmental effects than 35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.Subpart G. The Board finds that these factors justify the issuance of the adjusted standard
and the Board grants SCA Tissue the relief requested with conditions as recommended by the
Agency.
ORDER
The Board grants SCA Tissue North America L.L.C. an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.302 as follows:
1. Process and operational changes resulting in a reduction by 93 percent from
uncontrolled emissions of VOM from the paper machine wire cleaning process
shall constitute compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.302(c) at SCA Tissue,
N.A., LLC., located at 13101 South Pulaski Road in the Village of Alsip, Cook
County, Illinois 60803.
2. The adjusted standard relief applies only to the air emissions activities, as the
activities exist as of August 4, 2005.
3. SCA Tissue North America L.L.C. must continue to evaluate the “stickies”
control program and investigate process, equipment, raw material, and solvent
changes that would achieve lower VOM or photochemically-reactive emissions.
Where practicable, SCA Tissue North America L.L.C. must substitute currently-
used cleaning solvents with available substitutes as long as such substitution does
not result in a net increase in VOM emissions. SCA Tissue North America L.L.C.
must agree to conduct any emissions testing as may be requested by the Illinois
11
Environmental Protection Agency in this regard. A written report must be
prepared on an annual basis that summarizes any testing of process, equipment,
raw material, or solvent changes, as well as any actual changes, that were
implemented by SCA Tissue North America L.L.C. to lower VOM or
photochemically-reactive emissions. The report must be prepared by SCA Tissue
North America L.L.C. and submitted to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency’s Bureau of Air, Compliance and Enforcement Section to the attention of
Ms. Julie Armitage.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order. 415 ILCS 5/31(a) (2004));
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.520;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order on August 4, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
