RECE

WED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAftcJ

12

2004

STATE OF ILLiNOIS

Pollution Control Board

In the Matter ofthe Petition of

SCA TISSUE NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C.

for an Adjusted Standard from

35

Iii. Adm.

Code

§~

2

18.301

and

218.302(c).

PETITION OF SCA NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. FOR AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD

McNAMEE, LOCHNER, TITUS

& WILLIAMS, P.C.

John

J. Privitera, Esq.

Attorneysfor SCA TissueNorth America, L.L. C.

75

State Street

—

P.O. Box

459

Albany, New York 12201-0459

(518)

447-3200

DATED:

October

8, 2004

Albany, New~York

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

—

—----

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

.....

BACKGROUND

2

Corporate Ownership/Operation ofFacility

2

Description ofOperational Processes

~

-~

II.

35

ILL. ADMN. CODE

§

104.406 REQUIREMENTS

11

A.

Standard From Which ReliefIs Sought

—

Section 104.406(a)

11

B.

Nature ofthe Regulation ofGeneral Applicability

—

-

Section

104.406(b)

.~.

C.

Level ofJustification

—

Section

104.406(c)

12

D.

Facility and Process Description

—

Section 104.406(d)

12

E.

Investigation ofCompliance Alternatives:

Methods

for

Reducing VOM Emissions from SCA’s Mill

—

Section

104.406(e)

12

F.

SCA’s Proposed Adjusted Standard

—

Section

104.406(f)

18

G.

Quantitative and Qualitative Description ofSCA’s limpact on

the Environment Before and After the Proposed Adjustment

Standard

—

Section 104.406(g)

20

H.

Justification

—

Section 104.406(h)

20

1.

Factors Relating to SCA are Substantially and

Significantly Different

20

2.

-

The Existence ofThose Factors Justifies an

Adjusted Standard

23

3.

The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Adverse

Environmental Health Effects

23

4.

The Requested Standard is Consistent with Federal Law

24

I.

Hearing

—

Section 104.46(j)

24

J.

Supporting Document

—

Section

104.406(k)

24

1

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

III.

CONCLUSION

.~ ..~

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1

Alsip Pulping Process Area Flow Diagram

4

FIGURE 2

Alsip Paper Machine Process Flow Diagram

5

FIGURE 3

Emission Control

Cost Summary

~i5

FIGURE 4

Solvent Trial Results

FIGURE

5

Results of State Regulatory Review

18

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Title I Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation, datedNovember 2000,

Prepared by RMT,

Inc

~

Letter from Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to John J. Privitera,

dated April 22, 2004

C

Consent Order, Entered August 13, 2004

D

Solvent Reduction Equipment Procedures Protocol

E

Solvent VOC lbs per MDT

F

Emission Calculations

..~.

Alsip Mill Solvent Trial Results

~

..

Regulatory Evaluation Memorandum

.

11

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

SCA

Tissue

North

America,

L.L.C.

(“SCA”),

through

its

attorneys,

McNamee,

Lochner,

Titus

&

Williams,

P.C.,

and

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adnm.

Code

§

104.400,

et seq.,

submits

this Petition to

the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

(“IPCB”),

seeking

an

Adjusted

Standard from

35

ill.

Admn.

Code

§~

218.301

and

218.302(c)

(commonly

known as

the

“Alternative

Standard

Rule”)

as

applied

to

the

emissions

of Volatile

Organic

Material

(“VOM”) at SCA’s Alsip, Illinois, recycled paper mill (the “Tissue Mill” or “Facility”).

Summaiy ofPetition

Beginning more than a decade ago,

the owners/operators of the Facility have worked

through various process-related changes to

reduce VOM emissions from the solvents used to

maintain the paper recycling and manufacturing infrastructure free from intrusions

—

referred

to

herein

as

“stickies.”

The implementation of these changes has resulted in

a

93

percent

reduction in VOM emissions

from the cleaning process described herein.

Thus, the Facility,

which is regulated by Rule 2 18.301

-

the “8

lb/hr Rule”

-

has established its

compliance with

the substantive requirement of Rule 2 18.302(c),

to achieve at least an 85

percent reduction in

VOM emissions.

As

set

forth

more

fully

below,

Rule

218.302(c)

was

not

drafted in

a

manner that

contemplates the contribution ofprocess-related changes and pollution prevention to

overall

emissions

reduction.

As a result, Illinois EPA has interpreted Rule 218.302(c)

as requiring,

in

all

instances,

“add-on”

pollution

controls

to

achieve the

85

percent

reduction

standard,

despite the benefits that might

accrue from

allowing non-control options to

be read into the

language

of the

rule.

SCA

and

its

predecessors

have

explored the

few

available

add-on

1

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

controls

for

this

process

—

none

of

which

has

proven

to

be

as

economically

or

environmentally feasible as current operations.

Further,

Illinois

EPA has rendered

a determination that

the process-related

controls

currently

in

effect

at

the

Facility

constitute

the

Lowest

Achievable

Emission

Reduction

(“LAER”),

and that it is

also

in compliance with Ill. Admn.

Code,

218,

Subpart TT.

Illinois

EPA has also

issued

a Final Title

I Permit,

Attachment A, which

effectively regulates

and

controls the Facility within the LAER limits.

For the reasons that follow, SCA respectfully requests that the IPCB grants the instant

Petition for an Adjusted Standard.

I.

BACKGROUND

Corporate Ownership/Operation ofFacility

This

matter

arises

out of the

construction

in

1988

-

1989,

by

the

Chicago

Tissue

Company,L.P., ~k/a/

FSC Paper Company (now known as XCTC, L.P.), of a new facility at

its

recycled

paper mill

located

in

the

Village

of Alsip,

Cook

County,

Illinois.

The new

facility

—

referred to herein as the

“Tissue

Mill”

-

was

designed to

recycle magazine stock

into consumer-grade

tissue products.

Before the

Tissue

Mill was constructed,

the Facility

was primarily a Newsprint Mill, engaged in the recycling of newspapers into newsprint.

The

Tissue Mill operations largely duplicate the Newsprint Mill operations.

On- July 3,

1993,

the Newsprint Mill portion ofthe Facility was sold to a third-party,

and FSC Paper Company, L.P., changed its name to

Chicago Tissue Company, L.P.

Chicago

Tissue

Company,

L.P.,

continued to

operate

the Tissue Mill until November

5,

1995, when

the Tissue Mill was

acquired by

WTM

1

Company,

f/k/al

Wisconsin Tissue -Mills,

Inc.,

a

subsidiary ofChesapeake Corporation.

2

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

Wisconsin Tissue operated the Tissue Mill from November

5,

1995,

until October

5,

1999.

On October

5,

1999, Wisconsin Tissue transferred the Tissue Mill to

a joint venture

controlled by the Georgia-Pacific Corporation.

On March

3,

2001, Georgia-Pacific sold the

Facility to SCA Tissue N.A.,

L.L.C.

SCA’s sole member is SCA Tissue North America,

Inc.,

a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary ofSvernska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget

SCA (publ), a Swedish Corporation.

SCA is the current owner and operator ofthe Facility.

Description ofOperational Processes

Initial

operation

of

the

Tissue

Mill

began

in

December

1989,

and

continuous

production began

in

February

of

1990.

The

Facility

currently

manufactures

tissue

and

toweling

products

from

recycled wastepaper at a rate of approximately 200

tons per

day of

product.

The wastepaper

received

by

the mill

requires pulping,

cleaning,

de-inking

and

bleaching to produce a clean fiber source for papermaking.

Once the fiber stock is prepared,

it

is

fed

between

two

rapidly moving

wires

on

the

paper machine.

As

the

paper

sheet

progresses through

the

paper machine, water

is

drained,

pressed

and

evaporated

from the

sheet.

At the end ofthe paper machine, the product is

continuously wound into large rolls.

These large rolls constitute the Tissue Mill’s final product.

-

Pulping Process

The Pulping

Process encompasses

those

processes

to

convert the wastepaper into a

fiber slurry

@ulp)

suitable

for

use on

a paper machine.

The

major steps

include pulping,

contaminant

removal,

de-inking, bleaching and

storage.

Figure

1

shows

the process

flow

diagram from the Tissue Mill Pulping Process.

3

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

The

pulp

thereafter undergoes

a

series

of cleaning

and

screening

steps

to

remove

increasingly finer contaminants.

Reject streams are further processed to recover usable fiber

prior to being conveyed to the reject system.

The cleaning and screening steps are conducted

in

enclosed

units

in

which

no

chemicals

are added,

and

from

which

no

emissions

occur.

After

the process of de-inking, bleaching

and

storage has occurred, the pulp

is

ready to be

introduced to the paper machines.

4

FIGURE

1

Alsip Pulping Process Area Flow Dia2ram

Wastepaper

SEack

&

Water

EmL~sions

Vent

& Fugilive

Stack

Emissions

-

Emissions

Water

Bleach Liquor

&

Steam

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

Paper Machine Operations

The paper machine operations begin with refining pulp, and

end with the paperreel at

the end ofthe paper machine.

Figure 2

shows the process flow diagram for the Tissue Mill

paper machine.

FIGURE

2

Alsip PaperMachine Process Flow Diagram

Roof Vents, Windows, Doors

-

The paper machine

forming

section

or “wet

end”

is

where

formation of the

sheet

occurs.

Dilute pulp

from

the headbox

is

distributed

across the

convergence

gap of the two

fast moving

wires of the

twin wire

press,

creating a

wire

web.

Sheet formation

is

nearly

instantaneous.

The

remainder

of the

wire

section

is

for

dewatering

of the

sheet.

The

dewatering

action

is

due

to

pressure

set

up

by

the tension in

the

two

wires and

by

water

drainage

elements outside ofthe wires.

The sheet is transferred from the twin wires to a fast

5

Stack Emissions

Reproducedon Recycled Paper

---

moving felt.

Most of the water generated during this

process

is

screened for useable fiber

and recycledback into the process.

Paper Machine Wire and Felt Cleaning

During initial

operation

of the

Tissue

Mill,

it was

discovered that

the

recycling of

magazines

and

similar

wastepaper

containing

glued-on

labels

or

other

glued-on

material

resulted in “stickies” adhering to one ofthe two, tissue machine forming wire webs described

above.

The “stickies” remain attached to

the wire web and felt rolls

and oflen

leave holes in

the

sheet

with

each

rotation of the

wires,

thus

degrading

the product.

This

represents

a

significant operational constraint.

-

The problem is most severe with the paper machine wires.

The paper machine wires

are therefore

cleaned periodically,

dependent

upon

the quality of the

furnish (wastepaper),

the effectiveness of screening and filtering operations in the stock preparation area, and

the

grade

ofpaper being produced.

As

detailed below,

this

cleaning operation is

the source of

the VOM emissions that are addressed in the instant Petition for Adjusted Standard.

Removal ofStickies

-

To

remove the

“stickies,” the

Facility operators spray

solvent

onto

the wire web

to

wash away the glue and paper material so that it will not interfere with production.

SCA and

its

predecessors

have

refined

this

process

to

the

extent

that

Illinois

EPA

has

formally

determined that the use of pulp

screening and cleaning systems

and process operations that

restrict

the use of cleaning solvents

and that

limit the

cleaning solvent VOC

content

to

50

percent by weight, complies with Part 218,

Subpart TT and constitutes LAER.

6

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

Enforcement/Compliance

with LAER and Subpart

TT

On March 27,

1998,

U.S.

EPA Region V, issued a Notice of Violation to Wisconsin

Tissue,

alleging

that

VOM emissions

from

the

paper machine

at the

Tissue

Mill

were

in

violation

of the federal

Clean Air Act

and pertinent portions of the Illinois

air regulations,

specifically

Subpart TT, 35

Ill. Adnm.

Code

§~

218.980 through 218.988 (the “1998 NOV”).

Subpart

TT

requires

overall

81

control of VOM

emissions

unless

the

solvent

can

be

considered a

“coating.”

U.S.

EPA and Illinois EPA took the position that the solvent clean-

up

operation

described

herein

does

not

constitute

a

“coating”

operation

under

Illinois

regulations.

On May 17,

1999, U.S.

EPA, Region V, issued a Notice of Violation to XCTC, L.P.,

alleging

that

construction

of

the

Tissue

Mill

in

1988

and

1989

violated

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Act

and

Illinois

New Source

Review regulations,

35

Iii.

Admn.

Code

§~

203.301 and

203.601.

On May 18,

1999, the Illinois EPA issued separate Notices of

Violation to both Wisconsin Tissue and XCTC alleging violations at the Tissue Mill of 35

Ill.

Adnm.

Code

§~

218.986,

203.201,

203.202,

203.301

and

203.302.

These

Notices

of

Violation were substantially identical.

In January 2000 (as amended

from time to time thereafter), Georgia-Pacific caused to

be

filed with Illinois EPA (with copies to U.S. EPA, Region V), a LAER Evaluation Report,

seeking a determination that the process modifications

and

other improvements unilaterally

implemented

at

the

Facility

constituted

LAER

under

the

Non-Attainment

New

Source

Review provisions of the federal

Clean Air Act.

See Attachment B.

The salient conclusions

ofthe LAER report maybe summarized as follows:

7

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

1.

Because ofthe lack ofany state or federal regulatory standards

for

paper

machine-specific

VOC

limits,

there

are

no

VOC

emission

limitations which

establish a baseline

from which to

evaluate VOC

emission control requirements for the

Facility’s

paper mill operations;

2.

No add-on VOC

emission controls have been applied to

paper

machine

operations

in

the United

States

that

are of the same

-

class or category as the papermachine at the Facility.

The sole

paper machine identified in the country which

utilizes

an

add-

on

VOC

control

device

for

paper

machine

emissions

is

controlled only during the cleaning operation and has potential

VOC

emissions

which

are

100

times

greater than the

solvent

cleaning emissions from the Facility;

3.

While the

application

of add-on

controls may

be

technically

feasible,

the resulting

increase

in

-

emissions of nitrogen oxide

and carbon monoxide generated by an

emission control device

could

be

greater

than

the

reduction

in

VOC

achieved.

Moreover,

the

substantial

cost-per-ton

of

VOC

emission

-

reductions with add-on controls would, as described more fully

below,

be

greatly

out

of proportion

with

the

minimal

VOC

reductions that would result.

In the spring of2002, the Illinois EPA referred the Alsip

Tissue Mill permit matter to

the Illinois

Attorney General for enforcement.

In June 2002,

the Illinois

Attorney General

filed an enforcement action in the Circuit Court for Cook County.

The named defendants in

that

suit

are SCA

Tissue

(the current owner of the Alsip

Tissue Mill)

and all

three former

owners of the

Facility:

Georgia-Pacific,

Wisconsin

Tissue/Chesapeake and

XCTC.

The

lawsuit

seeks

civil

penalties

for

past

violations

of

the

Illinois

air

permit

laws

and

for

injunctive relief mandating compliance with the State

air permit requirements.

Subpart G Compliance Issues

In September 2002,

the parties

commenced settlement

negotiations with

the Illinois

Attorney General

and

Illinois

EPA with

regard

to

the

enforcement

case.

In early 2003,

a

complication developed in the settlement negotiations regarding the Tissue Mill’s

compliance

8

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

with Subpart G

—

Rule 2 18.301.

The general rule under Subpart G requires the Tissue Mill to

meet

a VOM emission limit of 8

lbs/hr.

However, Rule 218.302(c) provides an “Alternative

Standard”

from

the

Rule 218.301

emission limitation

if approved

“Air

Pollution

Control”

equipment

is used to

reduce organic material

emissions,

including

VOM, by

85~percentor

more.

Rule

211.410

defmes

the

phrase

“Air

Pollution

Control

Equipment”

as

“any

equipment

or

apparatus

of a

type

intended

to

eliminate,

prevent,

reduce

or

control

the

emission ofair contaminants to the atmosphere.”

In

late

2003,

SCA

presented

Illinois

EPA

with

a

“Subpart

G

Compliance

Demonstration,” in which it maintained that a reasonable regulatory definition of “apparatus”

would include the various process related changes that had been implemented at the Facility

to reduce VOM

emissions

over the last decade

and that the Facility did in fact comply with

Subpart

G, since it had

achieved a 93

percent reduction

in historic

VOM emissions,

which

exceeds the Subpart G, 85 percent reduction standard.

In

or

about.

April

2004,

Illinois

EPA

rejected

SCA’s

Subpart

G

compliance

demonstration, finding “the definition does not

support

equating the process-related changes

referenced in

the

Subpart

G

Compliance

Demonstration

with

the

types

of conventional

control technologies

that

-

are mentioned

throughout

the Board’s Part

218

regulations”

and

“While Illinois

EPA encourages pollution prevention, including the types of process-related

equipment changes that

resulted in

emission reductions

from

the spray

solvent operations,

Illinois

EPA

is

not

prepared to

depart

from

its

traditional

notions

of what

constitutes

air

pollution control equipment.”

See Attachment C.

On

or

about

May

23,

2004,

the

Illinois

EPA

circulated

for

public

review

and

comment

a

Federally

Enforceable

State

Operating

Permit

(“FESOP”).

The

FESOP

was

9

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

issued

in its

final form on July 23,

2004.

The FESOP

states, “Illinois

EPA has determined

that

the

plant

will

meet

the Lowest

Achievable

Emission Rate,”

and

also

establishing

the

Facility’s compliance with Subpart TT.

See Attachment A.

-

The parties also

agreed on the terms

of a Consent

Order,

which was

entered in

the

Circuit

Court of Cook

County,

Illinois

County

Department, Chancery Division,

on August

13,

2004.

The

Consent

Order,

attached

hereto

as

Attachment D,

provides

as

follows,

in

contemplation ofthe instant Petition for Adjusted Standard:

(5)

SCA shall file a petition for adjusted standard (“Petition”)

with the Board within

60 days

following entry of this

Consent

Order,

pursuant

to

Section

28.1

of the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/28.1

(2002),

and

the regulations

of the

Board

under

35

Ill.

Adm.

code Part

106.

The petition shall

address the factors

set

forth

in

Section

28.1(c)

of

the

Act-

and

shall

seek

the

Board’s

approval

of

an

adjusted

standard

that

authorizes

SCA

to

comply with

the Illinois EPA LAER determination, as well as

the

requirements

of

an

approvable

equivalent

alternative

control plan under Subpart TT, in lieu ofthe

8

lbs/hr limitation

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.301.

(6)

The Illinois

EPA shall timely submit a recommendation to

the

Board

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

106.714

that

the

-

Board

grant the Petition of SCA.

In the

event that

the Board

grants

SCA’s

Petition,

the Illinois

EPA shall thereafter timely

submit

notice

to

USEPA/Region

5

of

the

Board’s

adjusted

standard ruling and request that the

State Implementation Plan

(“SIP”) be modified accordingly.

Attachment D, pp.

16-17.

With

execution of the Consent Order, the Illinois EPA and AG agree that the facility

complies

with Part 203 and Part 218, Subpart TT.

Attachment D, pp.

15.

After

carefully

examining

its

operations

to

determine

the

feasibility

of

using

traditional,

add-on controls to

comply with

Subpart G, and having concluded for the reasons

set

forth below

that it

is

infeasible to

do

so, SCA

is

compelled to petition the IPCB

for an

10

-

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

adjusted

standard.

Accordingly,

SCA

offers

the

following

reasons

as

to

why

it

should

receive an adjusted standard with respect to the 8 lb/hrrule:

II.

35 ILL.

ADMN.

CODE

§

104.406 REQUIREMENTS

A.

Standard From Which Relief Is Sought

—

Section

104.406(a)

-

SCA

requests

an

Adjusted

Standard

from

35

Ill.

Admn.

Code

§

218.301

(use of

organic material, otherwise known as the

“8

lb/hr. rule”) and 218.302(c)

(requirement to

use

add-on controls to

achieve capture rate).

Illinois’

organic material

emission limitations were

last

amended

at

17

Ill.Reg.

16636,

effective

September

27,

1993.

Section

2 18.301

now

provides:

No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than

3.6

kg/hr.

(8

lb/hr.) of organic material

into the

atmosphere

from

any

-emission

unit,

except

as

provided

in

Sections

218.302,

218.303,

2 18.304 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

Iii. Admn.

Code

§

218.104

states that “the definitions of 35 Ill. Admn.

Code 211

-apply to

this Part.”

Pursuant to

35

Ill. Admn. Code

§

211.1950,

“emission unit” means

“any

part or activity at a stationary source that emits or has the potential to

emit any air pollutant.”

-

Additionally, Section 211.4250(b) defines “organic material” as:

-

Any

chemical

compound

of

carbon

including

diluents

and

thinners which are liquids at standard conditions

and which are

used

as dissolvers,

viscosity

reducers, or cleaning

agents, but

excluding methane, acetone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,

carbonic

acid, metallic carbonic

acid, metallic

carbonates,

and

ammonium carbonate.

B.

Nature ofthe Regulation ofGeneral Applicability

—

Section

104.406(b)

This

regulation was promulgated to

implement

the

federal

requirements

under

the

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

§

7401,

et seq.

-

11

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

C.

Level ofJustification

—

Section 104.406(c)

The regulation of general

applicability

from which SCA seeks an Adjusted

Standard

does not specify a level ofjustification for an Adjusted Standard.

D.

Facility and Process Description

—

Section

104.406(d)

A

description

of the

Facility

and

the

process

that

is

the

subject

of the

instant

application

is provided in

the “Background”

section,

supra.

In summary, SCA utilizes low-

VOC photochemically reactive solvents

to remove stickies

from

the wire web that it uses to

dry pulp

into

fiber,

suitable for installation on rolls.

As

a result

of the proactive

activities

described below,

SCA has reduced VOM

emissions

from

this

aspect of its

operations

in

excess of the-85 percent reduction mandated by

Subpart G.

E.

Investigation

of

Compliance

Alternatives:

Methods

for

Reducing

VOM

Emissions from SCA’s Mill

—

Section 104.406(e)

SCA and its

predecessors have performed extensive evaluations and improvements at

the Tissue

Mill

to

reduce VOM emissions

to their Lowest

Achievable Emissions

Rate,

as

reflected

in

the

FESOP.

In

approximately

1991,

the

process

of continuous,

unmetered

spraying of cleaning

solvent for

10

to

25

minutes

was replaced

with

a

three-part process,

utilizing new equipment that applies a controlled solvent spray, followed by a soak cycle, and

power wash with water.

The equipment for this new process was designed and engineered to

reduce the release of solvents to

3

to

5

minute spray periods,

followed by a

“rest” period to

allow

the

solvent to

“soak

in”

and

loosen

the

stickies.

A high-pressure

water wash was

subsequently

designed

and

installed

to

physically

remove

the

stickies.

On

infrequent

occasions, this “spray-wait-powerwash” cycle is repeated.

The Facility also changed the pulp detacifier and wire polymer application equipment

to reduce stickie build up

and, hence, reduce the number ofwire solvent cleanings required.

12

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

This

redesign

and

reengineering

of the

process

equipment

for

solvent

cleaning

did

not

increase

the number ofsolvent cleaning cycles and, therefore,

a 30 to

80 percent reduction in

VOM emissions for each cleaning cycle was realized due to

less solvent usage per cleaning.

This

process

redesign

is

described

in

Attachment E,

which

is

SCA’s

Solvent Reduction

Equipment Procedures Protocol (“Solvent Reduction Protocol”).

Additional

process

and

equipment

modifications

were

made

in

the

late

1990s

to

further reduce the amount of solvent that is used on the machines.

To physically

remove a

greater

quantity of stickies

prior

to

applying

pulp

furnish to

the

paper machine

wires, the

centrisorter screens

were

redesigned to

reduce the

slot

size and

the

c-slot was redesigned.

These

engineered changes increased

the removal of stickies

by

approximately

80

percent,

thus

reducing the

overall number of required solvent cleanings.

Second,

the solvent spray

nozzles

were

replaced

with

a

reconfigured

design

to

reduce

solvent

overspray.

This

modification reduced the quantity ofsolvent utilized during each solvent cleaning event.

The

equipment

changes

described

above

resulted

in

substantial

organic

material

emission reductions, based

on VOM emission data previously submitted to

the Illinois

EPA.

For instance,

1990

solvent cleaning VOM

emissions

were

documented at

182.25

tons

per

year at a corresponding production rate of 36,900 machine dried tons

(MDT) of production

during

that

year.

For comparison purposes,

SCA

normalized VOM

emission rates

on

a

production specific

basis because current production rates are nearly twice those during the

early years of the machine operation.

The

1990 VOM

emission rate prior to

the equipment

changes

described

above

was

9.9

pounds

per

MDT.

After

the

implementation

of the

equipment

changes,

the

average

VOC

emission

rate

due

to

the

use

of cleaning

solvent

decreased to

5.0 pounds ofVOM per MDT.

This emission rate is based on the

1991

through

13

Reproducedon Recycled Paper

---

1994 solvent usage information presented in Attachment F to

this Petition.

These years were

used because a

solvent change occurred in

1995

that further reduced VOM emissions.

That

subsequent reduction

in VOM emissions is

not included in the calculation ofVOM emission

reductions achieved by the

above equipment changes; therefore,

actual emissions have been

reduced to an even greater extent than is reported.

The VOM emission reductions due

to

the air pollution control equipment changes in

the

late

1990’s

can

be

documented

in

a

similar

manner by

comparing

the

actual

solvent

cleaning emissions prior to

the changes with those subsequent to the changes.

Again, using

the data presented in

Figure

1

ofAttachment F, the solvent cleaning emission rates prior to

the

air pollution

control

equipment changes

are represented

by

VOM emissions

during

the

years

1995

and

1996

which

averaged

3.5

pounds VOM

per

MDT.

The

solvent

cleaning

emissions

subsequent to

the

equipment changes are represented by

VOM emissions

during

the

years

1997

through

2000,

which

averaged

0.6

pounds of VOM per MDT.

Emission

calculations

are

presented

in

Attachment

G

that

document

an

overall

VOM

emission

reduction due to

equipment changes of 93

percent,

substantially in excess ofthe

85

percent

requirement.

Section 6.63

of the attached LAER Report (Attachment B,

p.

26) documents that the

application ofadd-on controls is

economically infeasible, due to

the extremely high cost-per-

ton ofVOC emissions reduction.

Preliminarybudget level cost estimates were developed

for

five

(5)

different potential

add-on

VOC

emission control technologies.

The cost

estimates

for these control technologies were based on guidance adapted from the U.S. EPA Office of

Air

Quality

Planning

and

Standards,

Control Cost

Manual

(EPA 453/B-96-001,

Fifth

Ed.,

February

1996) and appropriate escalation indices.

14

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

The

LAER

Report

concludes

that,

of the

scenarios

analyzed,

the

application

of

catalytic regenerative

incineration to the cyclone

exhaust was the most cost

effective.

This

scenario would

result in a total

annualized cost of approximately

$265,734

per year for the

removal

of

5.8

tons

per

year

VOC.

See

Figure

3.

Thus,

the

cost

effectiveness

of this

proposal is

$45,706//ton ofVOC removed.

That cost is

clearly excessive when compared to

the potential

increase of emissions of other pollutants

and the minimal VOC reduction that

would be achieved through add-on controls.

FIGURE

3

Emission

Control Cost Summary

Scenario

-

-

Catalytic

Regenerative

Incineration

--

(S/ton VOC

Controlled)

-

-

Catalytic

Recuperative

-

Incineration

(S/ton VOC

-

-

Controlled)

-

-

-

Thermal-

-

-

-

:~Regenerative

-

-

-

-

Incineration

-

(S/ton VOC- Controlled)

-

:

-

-

-

:

---

-

-

Thermal

-

Recuperative

-

-

Incineration

-

-

(S/ton VOC

--

Controlled)

-

-

-

Carbon

-

Adsorption

-

(S/ton VOC

-

-.:

: Controlled)

All sources

$107,362

$152,757

$120,596

$204,887

Not Feasible

AilPaper

Machine

Sources

$84,647

-

$120,180

$98,063

$158,521

NotFeasible

-

All Pulping

Process

Sources

$170,057

-

$252,040

$194,930

-

$327,771

Not Feasible

Vacuum

System

$99,574

$136,605

$118,349

$171,946

Not Feasible

Cyclone

$45,706

$63,903

$58,346

$79,915

$48,312

Washers

$152,196

$228,141

$178,672

$293,727

Not Feasible

Yankee Dryer

$380,857

$541,565

$468,117

$703,191

Not Feasible

Furthermore, on

March

8,

1996

the US EPA proposed NESHAP at pulp

and

paper

mills.

The

goal

of the

NESHAP

is

to

require

implementation

of maximum

achievable

control technology

(“MACT”)

to

reduce

hazardous

air pollutant

(“HAP”) emissions.

The

proposed

rule

included

standards

for MACT

III

sources,

which

includes

secondary

fiber

deinking mills and paper machines such as the paper machine at the Facility.

Essentially all

ofthe HAP addressed in the MACT rule are also

VOC.

-

15

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

For the MACT ifi

source

category,

the US EPA contacted representatives ofmajor

industry,

state

and

environmental

groups

and held

discussions

with

a

team

of state

and

industry

representatives.

The

team

evaluated

the

existing

information

and

established

“Presumptive MACT”

for mills

such

as the

Facility.

The information gathered

during

the

Presumptive

MACT process indicates that there are no

air pollution control devices in place

on MACT III sources, except for those associated with chlorine bleaching processes

—

which

are not at issue here.

Based on

this finding, US EPA determined that the “MACT Floor” for

these

sources

is

no

control

at

all,

at

least

with

respect

to

pulping

and

the

associated

wastewater, paper machines and nonchlorine bleaching.

-

SCA

has

also

concluded

that

no

cleaning

solvent

alternatives

are

available

that

provide acceptable cleaning characteristics and can reduce VOM emissions

below

8 pounds

per

hour

or

be

nonphotochemically

reactive.

Figure

4

provides

a

summary

of

some

seventeen

solvent trials completed by SCA to

support this conclusion. The cleaning products

evaluated were

either low

or non-VOM products or those using nOnphotochemically reactive

constituents.

See also

Attachment H.

Additionally, Figure

5

provides

a regulatory summary

of other

States’ treatment of this

issue

and

supports

the conclusion that

there has

been

no

demonstration

of a

non-photochemically

reactive material

that

can

be used

as

a

cleaning

solvent for tissue mills.

See also AttachmentI.

16

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

FIGURE

4

Solvent Trial Results

Trial Date

Method

Product

Results

Comments

10/8/02

Machine

Felt Solv II

-

Stripped thewire, no effect

on stickies

Conducted

trial last

year with lower VOC

product

7/10/03

Bench

-

Acetone-Walgreens

100

No results

Evaporated too fast for

the produce to react to

stickeis

7/12/03

Bench

Aquamark, Inc Degreaser-l

-

No effect on stickies

Applied at

50

and

100

strength with

similar results

8/5/03

Machine

Anchor 7860

No effect

Used in the printing

industry to remove

ink

8/5/03

Machine

-

Anchor7427

No effect

The product separated

too fast.

8/5/03

Machine

Tabco 84

Stripped the wirecoating,

but no effect on the stickies

8/14/03

Machine

Johnson-Diversey

X-Cell 242

No effect

Odor did not irritate

operators, stickies were

white latex type

8/14/03

-

-

Machine

Tabco 79

No effect

Solvent produced anail

polish removerodor

which strongly affected

theoperators, stickies

were whitelatex type

8/14/03

Bench

-

West Penetone

HTSR-3

-

Removed only small black

stickies

Had to heatsolvent to

200 F. Would need to

develop, handling and

application system.

8/14/03

Bench

West Penetone

HTSR-2

Removed only small black

stickies

Had to heatsolvent to

176 F Would needed to

develop handling and

application system.

8/18/03

Bench

West Penetone

HTSR-2

Removed only small black

stickies

Had to heatsolvent up

to 188 F.

Would need

to develop handling

system to apply at high

temp.

8/18/03

Bench

-

West Penetone

HTSR-3

-

-

Removed

only small black

stickies

Had to heatsolvent up

to

195

F, Heavy

solvent odor, Would

need to develop

handling

and

application system.

9/15/03

Bench

Nalstrip 2634

Stripped the wire, no effect

on stickies

9/15/03

Bench

-

Nalstrip 1702

Stripped thewire, no effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

Penetone CFW4

Stripped thewire, no

effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

PenetoneCBO1A

Stripped thewire, no effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

Buchman 2460

No effect

17

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

-

I

-

-~

---~---

-------------~--

-

---

FIGURE

5

Results of State Regulatory Review

State

Photochemically Reactive

Material Limits

Applicability

Threshold

Applicable to Tissue Mills

Uabama

No

-

-

Florida

No

-

-

5eorgia

No

-

-

ndiana

Yes

-

100 tons /

year

Yes

~4aine

No

-

-

~v1ichigan

No

-

-

-

~‘vlinnesota

No

-

-

~ew Hampshire

No

-

-

-

Dhio

Yes

-

3 pounds / hour or

8 pounds / hour

(1)

No

Dregon

No

-

-

-

South Carolina

No

-

-

Virginia

No

-

-

Washington

No

-

-

Wisconsin

Yes

3 pounds/hour

or

15

pounds / day

Yes

(2)

votes:

-

(1)

Limit

depends on whether solvent

is exposed to direct flame or heated.

(2)

Allows compliance vianon-photochemically reactive compounds or demonstration that facility is utilizing the“latest available

control techniques and

operaing practices”.

For these reasons, it is not possible for SCA to comply with the 8 lb/hr rule ofSection

218.302(c).

Moreover,

having achieved the

lowest

achievable

emission rate

according

to

Illinois

EPA

and U.S.

EPA,

an Adjusted

Standard reflecting these facts is

warranted.

SCA

prays that the Board grant the requested Adjusted Standard.

F.

SCA’s Proposed Adjusted Standard

—

Section

104.406(f)

As

set

forth

above,

the

rule

of general

applicability

from

which

SCA

seeks

this

adjusted standard is Rule 218.302(c), which authorizes:

Emissions

in

excess of those permitted by

Section

2 18.301

of

this

Part

.

.

.

if

such emissions

are controlled

by

one

of the

following methods:

18

-

-

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

-

-

-~

---

(c)

any

other 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

into

the

atmosphere.

Because Illinois EPA will not allow the already implemented (and proven

successful)

process

and design

adjustments to

qualify as

“any other pollution control equipment”

under

Rule

218.302(c),

SCA

cannot

technically

qualify

for an

Alternative

Standard

under

Rule

218.302(c),

notwithstanding that it exceeds the substantive

criterion of 85

percent reduction

oforganic material.

Accordingly, SCA proposes

that, in lieu ofbeing subject to

the “add on

control”

provisions of35 Ill.

Admit. Code

§

218.302(c),

SCA shall continue to

implement the

process

and

operational

changes

that

have

resulted

in

a

93

percent

reduction

in

VOM

emissions

and

those

changes

shall

be

deemed

to

comply

with

Rule

218.302(c)

as

an

approvable

Alternative Standard, in

addition to

constituting LAER

under the

federal

Clean

Air Act.

Thus, the only adjustment sought herein is the IPCB’s

approval, in this

instance, of

process-related

improvements

in

lieu

of

add-on

controls

to

reach

the

desired

result

of

environmental protection.

-

SCA proposes

that

the

IPCB’s

order

granting the

Adjusted

Standard

establish

the

-

-

applicable requirement as follows:

Process

and

operational

changes

resulting

in

a

reduction

by

93

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.

-

19

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

G.

Quantitative

and

Qualitative

Description of

SCA’s

Impact

on

the

Environment

Before and After the Proposed Adjustment Standard

—

Section

104.406(g)

Because

SCA’s

operations

meet

LAER

requirements

and

meet

or

exceed

the

substantive

limitation

of 85

percent

reduction in VOM emissions, there will be

no

adverse

incremental impact on the environment as a result ofthe Adjusted Standard sought herein.

In

fact,

because

SCA’s

operations

exceed

the

percentage

reduction

requirements

of

§

218.302(c),

there will be

a qualitative improvement to

the environment resulting

from

this

Adjusted Standard.

H.

Justification

—

Section 104.406(h)

Under Section

28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), the Board may grant

an

Adjusted

Standard

for

persons

who

can justify

such

an

adjustment

consistent

with

-

Subsection

(a)

of Section

27

of the

Act.

415

ILCS

5/28.1.

Moreover, if

a

regulation of

general applicability does not specify a level ofjustification required of a petitioner to qualify

for

an

adjusted

standard,

the

Board

may

grant

individual

Adjusted

Standards

upon

an

adequate

showing

that:

(1) factors relating

to

Petitioner are

substantially and

significantly

different

from

the

factors

relied

upon

by

the

Board

in

adopting

the

general

regulation

applicable to that Petitioner;

(2) the existence ofthose factors justifies an Adjusted Standard;

(3) the Adjusted

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.

1.

Factors Relating to SCA are Substantially and Significantly Different.

The

factors relating to

SCA’s

operations are substantially and

significantly

different

than

the

general

factors

relied

upon by

the

Board

in

promulgating

35

Iii.

Admn.

Code

§

20

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

218.301.

Rule

218.301

was

adapted

from

35

Il1.Adm.Code

§

215.301,

which

was

first

promulgated in

1971

as Chapter

2: Air Pollution, Rule

205.

Because

§

215.301

was adopted

over 30

years

ago,

it is

difficult, if not impossible,

to

know exactly what

factors the Board

relied

upon

in

adopting

this

Rule.

However, based

upon Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

case

law

and

a

common

sense reading of the Rule,

SCA believes

that

the factors primarily

relied

upon

by the

Board

involved

concerns about preventing

ozone formation.

In fact, it

appears

that

the

main

intent

of the

Rule

was

to

ensure

that

operations

emitting

organic

material utilize

control equipment already in place to

ensure that their facilities do not cause

a

violation of the one-hour

ozone standard nor

create an odor nuisance.

For

example, in

Illinois

v. Processing and Books, Inc., the IPCB explained:

Rule

205:

Organic material

emission standards

serve both

to

achieve and maintain compliance with the Federal Air Quality

standard for photochemical

oxidants

(0.08 ppm

for one hour

-

not

to

exceed

more than once per year,

36

Fed.

Reg.

22

385,

November

25,

1971)

and

to

prevent

local

nuisances

...

The

major

purpose

of

these

regulations

is

for

control

of

photochemical

oxidants.

In

addition,

odor

causing

organic

emissions

were

included

if

a

local

odor

nuisance

exists

These provisions

are designed to require the use of equipment

that

is already in use in numerous facilities

1977

WL 9986, *4 (Illinois Pollution Control Board).

-

From

this

explanation

it is

evident

that

the

Board

was

most

concerned

with:

(1)

protecting

ambient air quality

by preventing

any

violation of the

one-hour ozone NAAQS;

and(2) controlling

any. odor nuisances from manufacturing operations.

A review of SCA’s

operations

shows

that

the

main

purposes

of this

rule

are not

furthered through

its

strict

application to

SCA:

first, as thoroughly discussed in Section II G ofthis petition, SCA meets

the

85

percent

reduction

Alternative

Standard;

therefore,

approval of the

instant

Petition

would not cause a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS.

Second, SCA has the technology in place

21

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

and

permit controls as explained in Attachment A to

ensure that its operations do not

cause

an odor nuisance.

The

above

quote

from

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

also

shows

that,

when

adopting the Rule

in

1971,

the Board most

likely

relied

upon the

fact that

facilities

would

have no problem complying with the rule by utilizing equipment already available and in use

by most facilities subject to the rule.

It is

clear that this rule was promulgated as a catch-all

provision,

intending

to

cast

a

wide

net

over

all

operations

that

emit

organic

materials.

However, the Board could not possibly have contemplated all ofthe circumstances in which

organic material would be emitted as technology advanced, and

in fact, there is no indication

that the Board considered the fact that

is peculiar to paper manufacturing when adopting this

rule.

Put

simply, stickies

are a substantial barrier to

producing the recycled tissue rolls

and

the solvent cleaning operations with

low VOM materials and

controls described herein are

the only demonstrated technology for reducing and/or eliminating that problem.

Finally,

there

is

no

indication

that

the

IPCB

considered

the

advantages

to

the

environment

obtained

through

pollution

prevention

in

adopting

§

218.302(c).

With

advancing

technology,

relatively

new

products

have

enabled

SCA

to

reduce

the

VOM

content

of the

clean-up

solvents

used

in

this

process.

This

allows

compliance

with

the

emissions reduction requirement of

§

218.301(c)

in a manner not anticipated just

a little over

a decade

ago.

While

SCA’s

efforts have demonstrated dramatic reductions in yearly solvent

use, those efforts

have

still

not allowed the Facility to contain

organic compound emissions

below 8

lb/hr due to the amount of solvent that must be used in each solvent cleaning event.

The large surface area of the wires

to

be

cleaned necessitates the use of substantially more

than

8 pounds ofsolvent during each cleaning event.

22

-

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

-

—~,-

-----------

fl---

--—

~-

---

As

pollution

prevention

is

currently

recognized as perhaps

the

preferred means

of

reducing pollutant

exposure

to

the environment, this

Adjusted

Standard reflects

approaches

not necessarily

available or considered preferable at the time that

§

218.302(c) was adopted.

Moreover,

although

it

cannot

achieve

an

emission

rate of

8

lb/hr

consistently,

SCA

is

achieving LAER at the Facility.

2.

The Existence ofThose Factors Justifies an Adjusted Standard.

As

discussed

fully

in

Section

II E

of this

Petition

and

its

Attachments,

SCA

has

investigated numerous

compliance

alternatives

that

have proven to

be neither

economically

nor

technically

feasible

due

to

the

substantially

different

factors

relating

to

paper

manufacturing

operations.

The

existence

of

these

factors,

coupled

with

Illinois

EPA’s

anticipated support of SCA’s efforts

to

obtain

an Adjusted Standard,

and

express finding of

SCA’s compliance with LAER, justifies the granting ofthe instant request.

-

3.

The

Requested

Standard

Will

Not

Result

in

Adverse

Environmental

Health Effects.

As

discussed previously

in

Section

II

G

of this

Petition,

the

requested Adjusted

Standard

will

have

little,

if

any

adverse

impact

on

the

environmental

health.

SCA

has

dramatically

reduced

its

VOM

emissions

through

the

implementation

of

the

measures

described herein.

SCA’s

emissions

technically meet

the

Subpart

G,

85

percent

reduction

Alternative Standard.

Therefore, SCA’s operations do not

cause or contribute to

any adverse

environmental health

effects.

In fact, with

reductions exceeding the

85

requirement of

§

218.302(c), this Adjusted

Standard will result in a qualitative benefit to the environment.

23

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

4.

The Requested Standard is Consistent with Federal Law.

The

granting of this

proposed Adjusted

Standard

is

consistent with

federal

law and

will not

violate

any provision of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Specifically,

there is

no Clean

Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting paper manufacturers’

from utilizing process-

related

controls

to

reduce

VOM

emissions

below

the

85

percent

Alternative

Standard.

Because SCA is proposing to comply with Subpart G, albeit through an Alternative Standard,

the proposed Adjusted Standard will be consistent with federal law.

Moreover, under federal

law the Board’s grant ofthis

adjusted standard will be

submitted to US

EPA for inclusion in

Illinois’

SIP.

It

will

also

comport

with

federal

procedural

requirements

of- notice

and

comment.

-

I.

Hearing

-

Section

104.406(j)

-

SCA requests a hearing in this matter.

J.

Supporting Document

-

Section 104.406(k)

Attachments A through

I, to this Petition constitute the relevant technical documents

that support the instant request.

-

-

A.

Title I Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit;

B.

LAER Report, RMT, Inc., November 2000;

-

C.

April 22, 2004, Letter from Illinois EPA;

D.

Final Consent Order, People ofState ofIllinois ex rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney

General of State of Illinois

v.

XCTC

Limited Partnership, et al., No. 03-CH-

09501;

E.

SCA Solvent Equipment Procedures Protocol, 12/2003;

F.

Table “Cleaning Solvent VOM Emissions”;

G.

Emissions Calculations;

-

24

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

H.

SCA Solvent Trial Results; and

I.

Regulatory EvaluationMemoranda, RMT,

Inc., September

16, 2003.

III.

CONCLUSION

The

requested

Adjusted

Standard

should

be

granted

as

an

alternative

to

SCA’s

compliance with 35

Ill.

Admn.

Code

§

215.302(c).

To require SCA to comply with the Rule

of general applicability

would result in

substantial

economic hardship to

SCA with minimal

environmental

benefit,

and

would

ignore

a

decade’s

worth of process-related

and

design

improvements that have resulted in VOM emissions

reduction far in excess ofthe regulatory

standard of 85

percent reduction,

which reductions already constitute the Lowest

Achievable

Emission Rate.

WHEREFORE,

SCA respectfully requests an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Admit.

Code

§

215.302(c), authorizing the process-related improvements described herein in lieu of

add-on controls to

reachthe desired result of environmental protection.

DATED:

October 8, 2004

Albany, New York

Respectfully submitted,

McNAMEE,

LOCHNER,

TITUS

& WILLIAMS, P.C.

25

LLC

State Street

—

P.O. Box

459

Albany, New York 12201-0459

Reproduced on Recycled Paper