RECE~yED

CLERK’S

OFF!CE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOAR~EB

114

2005

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control

Board

INTHEMATTEROF:

)

)

PETITION OF SCA TISSUE NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C.)

AS 2005-

~

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

)

(Adjusted

Standard-Air)

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 218.301

AND 218.302(C)

)

MOTIONS FOR

INCORPORATION

OF DOCUMENTS

FROM A PRIORDOCKET

AND WAIVER

OF REQUIREMENTS.

The Petitioner, SCA TISSUE NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. (“SCA Tissue”), by its

attorney, moves

the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“Board”) to incorporate certain

documents from a prior docket that are germane to this proceeding and, further, to waive

its

copying requirements for the accompanying Petition for Adjusted Standard filed in the

above-captioned matter.

In support ofthese motions, SCA Tissue states the following:

1.

SCA Tissue previously filed a Petition forAdjusted Standard (hereinafter

referred to

as the “original” or “earlier” Petition) with the Board on October 12, 2004,

and the matter was assigned a docket number ofAS2005-0l.

2.

On December 2, the Board issued an order.requesting that SCA Tissue file

a proofofpublication in accordance with the requirements of415 ILCS

5/28.1(d)(1)

(2002).

Unfortunately, published notice of the earlierpetition was not effectuated until

mid-December of2005.

3.

In a recent order,

issued on January 6, 2005, the Board observed that the

fourteen-day period forpublication was jurisdictional.

Because public notice had not

been published in this instance within fourteen days ofthe date of filing ofthe original

Petition, the Board concluded that it did possess jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.

Accordingly, the Board dismissed the original Petition and closed its

docket.

---

4.

Section 101.306 ofthe Board’s procedural regulations authorizes any

person to seek incorporation ofmaterials from the record ofanother Board docket into a~

proceeding provided that it is demonstrated that the materials are “authentic,

credible and

relevant” to the proceeding.

See,

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 101.306(a).

5.

The Petition filed in this proceeding, including its

text and

supporting

documentation, is identical to the Petition filed in the Board’s AS2005-01

dpcket and

therefore makes the earlier document both credible and relevant.

The-signed original of

the Petition that accompanies this filing should also adequately demonstrate the

authenticity of the earlier submission.

For these reasons, the Board’s incorporation ofthe

earlier Petition will avoid the expense and burden borne by the petitioner in re-instituting

this regulatory proceeding and ease any inconvenience suffered by the Board from the

receipt ofduplicative copies.

6.

Section 101.302(h) ofthe Board’s procedural regulations provides that

documents filed with the Board must consist ofa signed original and 9 duplicate copies,

unless otherwise ordered by the Board.or as provided by regulation.

See,

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 101.302(h).

Section

101.306 separatelyprovides that any person seeking

incorporation ofmaterials from a prior docket must file four (4) copies ofthe material

with the Board.

See,

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

10 1.306(a).

7.

As previously mentioned, a signed original ofthe Petition has been

included in this

filing.

In view ofthe requested incorporation of the earlier Petition and

the short passage oftime since the closureof the Board’s previous docket from the

AS2005-01

proceeding, SCA Tissue requests that the Board waive the copying

---

requirements that would ordinarily accompany an original filing or a request for

incorporation.

8.

No prejudice orhardship will result to any party or interested person(s)

from the Board’s granting ofthese Motions.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, SCA Tissue moves that the

Board allow the incorporation ofthe earlier Petition from the AS2005-01

docket into this

proceeding and

waive the afore-mentioned copying requirements.

Respectfully submitted,

Williams, P.C.

Petitioner

~5

State Street

—

P.O.

Box 459

Albany, New York

1220 1-0459

Telephone (518) 447-3200

Dated: January31, 2005

---

ORIGINAL

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BQARD

CLERK’S OFFICE

FEB

042005

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

In the Matter ofthe Petition of

Pollution Control Board

SCA TISSUE NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C.

for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

§~

218.301

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 Tissue North America, L.L. C.

75

State Street

—

P.O.

Box 459

Albany, New York

1220 1-0459

(518)

447-3200

DATED:

January 31, 2005

Albany, New York

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

~.

BACKGROUND

2

Corporate Ownership/Operation ofFacility

2

Description ofOperational Processes

~

3

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)

~

1

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 Impact 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

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

III.

CONCLUSION.

~

25

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 ofState Regulatory Review

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Title I Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit

A

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Evaluation, dated November 2000,

Prepared by RMT, Inc

B

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

~

Solvent VOC lbs per MDT

Emission Calculations

_.....~

~

G

Alsip Mill Solvent Trial Results

- .-~--~

H

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

Iii.

Adnm.

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 ofthe 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,

P

which is regulated by Rule 2 18.301

-

the

“8

lb/hr Rule”

-

has established its

compliance with

the substantive requirement ofRule 218.302(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 of process-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.

Adnm.

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 Ownershz~/Operation

ofFacility

This

matter

arises

out

of the

construction

in

1988

-

1989,

by

the

Chicago

Tissue

Company,

L.P., f/kIaJ 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 ofnewspapers into newsprint.

The

Tissue Mill operations largely duplicate the Newsprint Mill operations.

On July 3,

1993,

the Newsprint Mill portion of the 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/a! 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 (pubi), a Swedish Corporation.

SCA is the current owner and operator ofthe Facility.

Description of Operational 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 of the 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 sluny

(pulp)

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

Vent

& Fugitive

Stack

Emissions

Emissions

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

Paper Machine Operations

The paper machine operations begin with refining pulp, and end with the paperreel at

the end of the paper machine.

Figure

2

shows the process flow diagram for the Tissue Mill

papermachine.

FIGURE

2

Alsip Paper Machine 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

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

moving

felt.

Most of the water generated during this

process

is

screened for useable

fiber

and recycled back 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 of the two, tissue machine forming wire webs described

above.

The

“stickies” remain attached to

the wire web and

felt rolls and often 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 of paper 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 papermaterial 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 ofpulp

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. Admn. 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

Ill.

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 of35

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 ofthe federal

Clean Air Act.

See Attachment B.

The salient conclusions

of the LAER report may be summarized as follows:

7

Reproducedon Recycled Paper

---

1.

Because ofthe lack of any 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

papermill

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 paper machine 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 reliefmandating 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

Reproducedon 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

percent

or

more.

Rule

211.410

defines

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 of the instant Petition for Adjusted Standard:

(5)

SCA

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

with the Board within 60

days following entry ofthis

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 of the 8 lbs/hr

limitation

of35 Ill. Adm.

Code 218.301.

(6)

The Illinois EPA shall timely submit a recommendation to

the

Board

pursuant

to

35

Iii.

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 ofthe 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/hr rule:

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

I1l.Reg.

16636,

effective

September

27,

1993.

Section

218.301

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,

218.304

of this Part

and

the following exception:

If

no

odor

nuisance

exists

the

limitation

of this

Subpart

shall

apply only to photochemicallyreactive material.

35

Iii.

Adnm.

Code

§

2 18.104

states

that

“the definitions of 35

Ill. Admn.

Code 211

apply to this Part.”

Pursuant to

35

Iii.

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 of General 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 ofthe

85 percent reduction mandated by Subpart G.

B.

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-power wash” 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 of solvent 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

B,

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 ofthe 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

Reproduced on 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 of VOM 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

of Attachment 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 of the

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.

Preliminary budget

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 of VOC 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

($/ton

VOC Controlled)

Thermal

Recuperative

Incineration

(S/ton VOC

Controlled)

Carbon

Adsorption

($/ton

VOC

Controlled)

All sources

$107,362

$152,757

$120,596

$204,887

Not Feasible

All Paper

Machine

Sources

$84,647

$120,180

$98,063

$158,521

Not Feasible

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

I

$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

of the HAP addressed in the MACT rule are also VOC.

15

Reproducedon Recycled Paper

---

For the MACT III 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 Attachment I.

16

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

FIGURE

4

Solvent Trial Results

Trial Date

Method

Product

Results

Comments

10/8/02

Machine

Felt Solv II

Stripped the wire, 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

industryto remove ink

8/5/03

Machine

Anchor 7427

No effect

The product separated

too fast.

8/5/03

Machine

Tabco 84

Stripped the wire coating,

but no effect on the stickies

8/14/03

Machine

Johnson-Diversey

X-Cell 242

No effect

Odor didnot irritate

operators, stickies were

white_latex_type

8/14/03

Machine

Tabco 79

No effect

Solvent produced a nail

polish remover odor

which strongly affected

the operators, stickies

were_white_latex_type

8/14/03

Bench

west Penetone

HTSR-3

Removed only small black

stickies

Had to heat solvent 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 heat solvent 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 heat solvent up

to 188

F.

Would need

to develop handling

systemto apply at high

temp.

8/18/03

Bench

West Penetone

HTSR-3

Removed only small black

stickies

Had to heat solvent 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 the wire, no effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

Penetone CFW4

Stripped the wire, no effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

Penetone CBO1A

Stripped the wire, no effect

on stickies

9/17/03

Bench

Buchman 2460

No

effect

17

Reproduced on Recycled Paper

---

218.301.

Rule

218.301

was

adapted

from

35

Ill.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 of the 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 of the 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

---

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

B

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 of this 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 a!.,

No.

03-CH-

09501;

B.

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 Evaluation Memoranda, RMT, Inc.,

September 16, 2003.

CONCLUSION

The

requested

Adjusted

Standard

should

be

granted

as

an

alternative

to

SCA’s

compliance with 35

Ill. Admn. Code

§

2 15.302(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.

Adnm.

Code

§

215.302(c),

authorizing the process-related improvements described herein in lieu of

add-on controls to reach the desired result ofenvironmental protection.

DATED:

January 31, 2005

Albany, New York

Respectfully submitted,

McNAMEE, LOCHNER, TITUS

& WILLIAMS, P.C.

By:

___

o

J. Priv~era

tt

rn

sf

rSCA

Tissue

North

merica LLC

75

State Street

—

P.O. Box 459

Albany, New York 12201-0459

25

Reproduced on Recycled Paper