# Date: August 2, 2011

Subject: Papermaking Technology Review In formation Received from State Contacts

EPA Contract No. EP-D-07-019; Work Assignment No. 4-09

From: Veronica Hanzel

To: John Bradfield

Bill Schrock

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing the nation al emission standards

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Pu lp and Paper Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart

S) as required by section 112( d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The purpose of this

memorandum is to present technology review in formation received thr ough contacts to State

agencies.

Review of EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghous e (RBLC) indicated that several facilities

have received Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) determinations for papermaking

operations (e.g., paper machines) under the new source review (NSR) permitting program.

Many of these determinations involved some type of process change (e.g., use of additives with

low volatile organic compound (VOC ) content). Because the RBLC only lists the results of

permitting determinations, States were contacted in order to obtain more-detailed documentation

of the BACT determinations including data on emission re duction techniques considered,

estimated emissions reductions, costs, and othe r environmental impacts. Of nine States

contacted, information was received from seven States:

 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality provided excerpts from the PSD preliminary

determinations for paper machines at the Georgia Pacific Corpor ation, Crossett Paper

Operations facility under permit No. 597-AOP -R10. No information was available for

Permit No. 597-AOP-R3.

 Georgia Department of Natural Resources provided excerpts from the Prevention of

Significant Air Quality Deterior ation Review of Inland Paper board and Packaging, Inc. –

Rome Linerboard Mill Located in Floyd County, Georgia, Preliminary Determination, SIP

Permit Application No. 14756.

# 2 

#  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality provided excerpts from the PSD Preliminary

Determination for paper machines at the M ead Corporation, Escanaba Paper Company, under

Permit No 40022.

 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Qu ality provided the fo llowing documents:

o Memorandum, June 12, 2006 regarding Evaluation of Construction Permit Application No.

99-113-C (M-4)(PSD), Fort James Operating Company, Muskogee Mill.

o Memorandum, October 12, 2004 regarding Evaluation of Permit Application No. 97-057-C

(M-4) PSD, Weyerhaeuser Company Valliant Paper Mill.

 Tennessee Divisions of Air Pollution Control pr ovided an excerpt from the PSD Preliminary

Determination for the Packaging Corporati on of America, Counce Mill, Permit No. 953059P.

 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality provi ded an excerpt from the PSD review for

Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Orange Mill, Permit No PSD-TX-684M1/9654A/833M1.

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provided the following documents:

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of De-Inking, Bleach ing, and Tissue/Towel Manufacturing for

SCA Tissue North America, Permit #03-DCF-346.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of Paper Machines Nos. 26 and 24, Thermo-mechanical

Pulping and a Dry Material Unloading Pro cess for Stora Enso North America – Biron

Mill Permit #02-DCF-124.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of Wood Yard, Wood Room, Pulping Processes Bleaching

Processes, Stock Preparation, Papermaking Pr ocesses and Water Treatment Processes for

Stora Enso North America – Whiting Mill Permit #02-DCF-039.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of the Paper Machine Complexes #16, #13, and #14 for

Wisconsin Rapids Paper Mill, Permit #02-DCF-144.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of the Paper M achine #12 and Stock Preparation (Corenso

Division) for Stora Enso – Wisconsin Rapids Paper Mill, Permit #05-DCF-312.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Construction of Paper M achine No. 16 Complex (Furnish/Coating

Emissions), a Steam Condenser and Modificat ion of Four Paper Machines (Nos. 12, 13,

14 and 16) for Consolidated Papers, Inc. Wisconsin Rapids Division, Permit #00-DCF058.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Construction of Paper Ma nufacturing for Appleton Coated LLC –

Combined Locks Mill, Permit #06-DCF-204.

# 3 

# o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of Paper Machine #6 for Paper and Allied Products

Manufacture for Appleton Coated LLC – Combined Locks Mill, Permit #04-DCF-069.

o Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Construction and Operation Permits for

the Proposed Modification of Paper Machine #7 (including trim handling), Off Machine

Coating and Broke Handling for Appleton Co ated LLC – Combined Locks Mill, Permit

#02-DCF-170.

The information obtained from the states is incl uded in Attachment A. Table 1 summarizes the

technologies considered and conclusions of the fi ve-step BACT analysis. A number of control

technologies were considered and rejected in these BACT analyses for paper machines, and in

nearly all cases, BACT was dete rmined to be some form of work practice involving low-emitting

additives/materials. The following control system s were usually considered to be technically

infeasible for paper machine vents in Step 2 of the BACT analyses: biofiltration, combustion in

an onsite boiler, condensation, and carbon c oncentration. Carbon adsorption and water

absorption (or wet scrubbing) were considered technically infeasible is some cases and

technically feasible in other cases under Step 2. Where considered technically feasible, these

technologies were deemed economically infeasib le in Step 4. Thermal oxidation (e.g., in and

RTO), catalytic oxidation, and flaring were considered tec hnically (but not economically)

feasible. Work practices i nvolving new substance review programs, use of low-emitting

additives/materials, and/or good combustion were determined to be technically and economically

feasible and were selected as BACT.RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundPAPERMACHINE#3 0.31 LBFINEPAPERMACHINE#1AND#20.89 LBVOC/MDT,NO.10.54 LBVOC/MDT,NO.2MACHINEDRIEDTONS,30‐DAYAVERAGEPAPERMACHINE#4 2.47PAPERMACHINE#5 3.37PAPERMACHINE#6 2.48PAPERMACHINE#7 1.78PAPERMACHINE#8 1.2930.241,30.290GEORGIAPACIFIC‐CROSSETTPAPER AR 597‐AOP‐R3 April,2001 TISSUEMACHINE 6.8 LB/T lb/machinedriedtoBACT‐PSD 66.2 LB/H Existingplant,sourcesarenew.Newmachinewillincreaseproductionby250tonsofpaperperday.ModificationexceedsPSDsignificantratethresholdsforPM10,VOC,COandNOx.TissuemachineemploysThroughAirDrying(TAD)technologywhichisnewSourcenotinstalledyet.BACTforPMandVOC.VOCbasedonmassbalanceofadditives.ThroughputisMDT=Machinedriedtons.Sourcenotinstalledyet.BACTforPMandVOC.VOCbasedonmassbalanceofadditives.ThroughputisDT=Machinedriedtons.Nocontroldescriptionincluded.LimitincludesVOCemissionsfromconvertingfugitives.Requestedbutnotreceived.30.211,30.290INLANDPAPERBOARDANDPACKAGING,INC.‐ROMELINERBOARDMILLGA 2631‐115‐0021‐V‐01‐4Oct.,2003 KRAFTPULPMILLS‐LINERBOARDMACHINES0 SEENOTE BACT‐PSD 2600MACHINEDRIEDTONSPERDAYLINERBOARD GOODWORKPRACTICES30.241 MEADCORPORATION/ESCANABAPAPERCOMPANYMI 40422 Nov.,2000 PAPERMACHINE,NO.4,VALMET30.241 EMISSIONBASEDON0.2LB/TVOC 0.2 LB/T VOCLIMITINCLUDESADDITIVESANDCLEANING,ASWELLASPULP.PRODUCTLIMITOF251,000TONPAPERPERYEAROtherCase‐by‐Case VOCsemittedfromadditivesandcleaningagents.PermittoinstalldeterminedthissourcenotsubjecttoPSD.However,MIregulationsrequireBACTanalysis(T‐BACT)onallPTIs.LBVOC/MDTTHEFACILITYALSOPROPOSESTHATITSNEWSUBSTANCEREVIEWPROGRAMBECONSIDEREDBACT.THEMILLWILLUTILIZEALOWERVOC‐CONTAININGCHEMICALWHENEVERONEISAVAILABLEASASUBSTITUTEFORTHECHEMICALSBEINGUSED.SourceofVOC:additivesandcleaningagents;Appliestomachines1through8,used#6forBACTanalysisbecauseithasthehighestpotentialVOCemissionrate;EmissionsestimatedforpapermachinesbymassbalanceareconsiderablyhighsincesomeVOCendsupinwastewaterandproduct.Table1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContacts30.210,30.211,30.219,30.240,30.241GEORGIA‐PACIFICCORPORATION‐CROSSETTPAPEROPERATIONSAR 597‐AOP‐R10 Oct,2006 MACHINEDRIEDTONS,30‐DAYAverageBACT‐PSD REVISEDVOCESTIMATESUSINGAMASSBALANCEAPPROACH.LIMITISBASEDUPONLBVOCPERTHROUGHPUTUNIT.Tableistwopageswide.Table11of12PROCESS_NAMEPAPERMACHINE#3FINEPAPERMACHINE#1AND#2PAPERMACHINE#4PAPERMACHINE#5PAPERMACHINE#6PAPERMACHINE#7PAPERMACHINE#8TISSUEMACHINEKRAFTPULPMILLS‐LINERBOARDMACHINESPAPERMACHINE,NO.4,VALMETeContactsBACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTConsideredGoodworkpractices,RTO Alloptionstechnicallyfeasible. RankControlTechnologyCE1GoodWorkPracticesNotavailable2RTO95‐98%Goodworkpracticesincludesproperlywashingpulppriortobeingsenttolinerboardmachine.NooxidationcontrollistedinRBLCforlinerboard,Emissionlimitsset,variedgreatly;costsforRTOdependingonexhaustflowratewhichislarge(2.3Macfmfro64vents);Costswerecapitalinvestment$60M,operating$14M/yearwithCE$16.4K/ton.CostsestimateddidnotincludecostsforcaptureequipmentnecessaryforRTO.Alsoveryhighfuelcostsexpectedduetohighwatervaporcontent.RTOnotconsideredeconomicallyfeasible,dollars/energyconsidered,increaseinNOxemissionsduetocombustionofnaturalgas.Proposedemissionlimitinlb/airdriedtonpulp,tobeaccomplishedthroughgoodworkpracticeofproperlywashingpulp,sumofspeciatedVOCcompoundsfromNCASItestingBACTdeterminedtobegoodworkpracticewithemissionlimit,demonstratedbycompliancetesting.RegenerativethermaloxidationRecuperativethermaloxidation/afterburnerCatalyticincinerationZeoliteadsorption/ConcentrationCarbonAdsorptionWetScrubber‐absorptionCondensationCombustionwithinmillboilersWorkPracticeStandardsThermaloxidationwasdeterminedtobetechnicallyfeasible,however,auxiliaryfuelcostswouldbehigh.Carbonadsorptionwasdeterminedtechnicallyinfeasible.Absorption(wetscrubber)determinedtechnicallyinfeasible.Combustionwithinmillboilerswasdeterminednottobefeasibleduetoairflowvolume.Condensationdeterminedtobetechnicallyinfeasible.Workpracticessuchasreuseofwhitewater,lowVOCadditives,andrecycleofoff‐specificationpaperweredeterminedtobetechnicallyfeasible.RankControlTechnologyCE1GoodWorkPracticesNotavailable2RTO95‐98%Economicanalysisonlyonrecuperativeandregenerativethermaloxidation.Catalyticoxidationwasnotcostedduetoperceivedeconomicfeasibilityandbecausethetechnologyapplicationisundemonstratedonpapermachines.Costanalysisbasedon335,000cfmtotalexhaustflowand25.4tpyVOCemissionsanddoesnotincludeancillarycosts,onlycontroltechnologyitself.Totalcapitalcosts‐$850Kto$4.8M,annualizedcosts$4.5Mto$8.1M,andCE$179Kto$320K/ton.FacilityproposedworkpracticesasBACT.Didnotstatethepracticesinthefinalstep,onlyinStep2.ListingsinRBLCareconsideredsimilartoNo6papermachine.BACTforotherfacilitiesincludedlimitsonamountofVOCsemittedfrompapermakingand/orchemicaladditivesandsolventcleanersused.Highlyvariablelimitsforsolventusage,basedonmaterialbalanceapproach,nocontrolduetohighflowandlowVOCconcentration,someusedemissionfactorsothersmaterialsbalance,mostsetemissionlimits,and/orlimitsonsolventusage/month.ProposedemissionlimitsbasedonlbsVOC/MDTanddesignproductioncapacityforeachmachine.EmissionsfactorsdeterminedfromaverageusageofmaterialsinCY2004and2005.Didnotimposeaspecificlb/ADTorlb/MDTofpapertoallowfacilityflexibilitytoworkwithsupplierstodevelopmaterialsthatwillultimatelyresultinlowertotalVOCemissions(i.e.higherVOCcontentwithsubstantiallylowerapplicationrates).ProposedGPNewSubstanceReviewprogrambeconsideredBACTCarbonadsorptionBiofiltrationRecuperativeorregenerativethermaloxidizerLow‐VOCorwater‐bornematerialsCarbonadsorptionwouldbeimpededbyPM/PM10contentofgasstream(wouldclogfilter)andreduceVOCremovalefficiency.However,technicallyfeasibleifPM/PM10wereremovedfirst.Biofiltrationnotatestedtechnologyforpapermakingindustry;noapplicationofthistechnologyforVOCcontrolinpapermakingmachines.Typicallyusedformuchlowervolumeexhaustairflowsthanthe#6papermachine(630,000acfm).Biofiltrationequipmentrequiresalargefootprintofspace.Estimatedtoneed400'X50'forairflowforthismachine.Therefore,duetosize/spacerequirement.Differentconfigurationsconsidered.Stilltoolargeforpracticalapplications.Alsodryerexhaustwouldbetoohotformicroorganisms.Determinednottechnicallyfeasibleforuseonpapermachines.Recuperativeorregenerativethermaloxidizeristechnicallyfeasible.CostsestimatedforregenerativeTOasitwouldbeabetterselection(morecosteffective)Useofwater‐bornechemicalsorlow‐VOCchemicals,reductiondependentonratioofcurrentVOCmaterialsandnewVOCmaterials;notallthesecanperformaseffectivelyasthehigherVOCchemicals;processsensitivetochangingchemicalsduetocustomerspecsforproduct.Otherthancleaners,highestVOCcontributoriswetstrengthresinorreleaseagents.ImportantthatthemachinescanusedifferentVOCcontentmaterialstomakedifferentproducts.RTO‐98+%CERCO‐95+%CECarbonadsorptionwithPMremoval‐90+%CELowVOCorWater‐bornechemicals‐VariedAnnualizedcostforRGTO1.24M;controlling117.6tpy,or26.8lb/h.At99%reduction,CEwouldbe$10.532K/tonAnnualizedcostforRCO2.7M;CEis$23K+pertonVOC.Bothconsideredtoohightojustifycontrol.Actualcostswereassumedtobemuchhigherbecausetheairflowthatneededtobecontrolledisactuallyhigherthanthecostestimateincluded.DeterminedeconomicallyinfeasibletouseeitherRGTOorRCOCarbonadsorptioncostestimatedassumingPM/PM10mustbemostlyremovedandassumingremainingPM/PM10fromroofventswouldnotinterferewithCAsystem.VOCemissionsassumedtobe115.7tpyandCAsystemassumedtoachieve90%CE.AnnualizedsotsforinstallationandoperationsofCAsystemis880KwithCEofremovalat8.3K/ton.Thisestimateconsideredoverlyoptimisticsinceassumptionisbasedontwoemissionpoints,whichisnotthecase.ConsideringmuchhigherairflowtoaccommodatetrulycapturingallVOCemissions,costwouldbesignificantlyhigher.AlsocostsdidnotincluderemovalofPM/PM10whichwouldbenecessary.Notfeasibleforonemachine,muchlessformultiplemachines.DeterminedtobeeconomicallyinfeasibletouseCA.ManyofchemicalsusedcurrentlycontainlittleornoVOCs.MostVOCemissionscomefromuseofafewadditivesandsolventcleaners.MillhasaNewSubstanceReviewprogramthatreviewsVOCcontent,helpstoassureusinglowestVOC‐containingmaterialsavailablewithoutcompromisingproductquality.Tableistwopageswide.Table12of12RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundTable1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContacts30.200 WEYERHAEUSER‐‐VALLIANT OK 97‐057‐C(M‐4)PSDMay,2004 PAPERMACHINE 0 SEENOTE BACT‐PSD PERMITFORNEWCONSTRUCTIONANDMODIFICATIONOFEXISTINGEQUIPMENT.GOODOPERATINGPRACTICES VOCemissionsattributedtoadditivesandrecycledprocesswater;VOCemissionscannotbeeasilycontrollednorcansubstituteadditivesalwaysbeemployed;thereforetheBACTforVOCdoesnotaddresscontroltechnologiesrelativetouseofdifferentadditives.PAPERMACHINECOMBUSTION#11‐141.7 T/YR EACH BACT‐PSDEXISTINGCONTROL‐GOODCOMBUSTIONPRACTICES VOCattributedtofuelcombustionPAPERMACHINE 202 T/YR COMBINED BACT‐PSDNEWSUBSTANCEREVIEW VOCattributedtoadditivesatwetendofmachineandperiodiccleaningwithsolvents,facilityusedmassbalanceasconservativemethodtodetermineemissionrates.3971 PaperPackagingofAmerica,COUNCEMILLTN 953059P May,2002 PAPERMACHINES 1258.8 T/YR 12‐monthrollavg BACT‐PSD PSDPERMITRESULTINGFROMMODIFICATIONSNEEDEDTOCOMPLYWITHMACTREQUIREMENTSUNDER40CFR63,SUBPARTS,WHICHINCREASEDCAPACITY.THEINCREASEINCAPACITYRESULTEDINPSDSIGNIFICANTINCREASESINPM/PM10,SO2,CO,VOC,NOX,H2SO4,ANDTRS.VOC‐USEOFWHITEWATERONTHEMACHINESANDGOODOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCEPRACTICESResearch(RBLC)showednopapermachinesrequiredtocontrolVOCbyadd‐oncontrols.BACTforpapermachineswasuseofmillwater,non‐directcontactcondensates,cleancondensates,wellwater,orwhitewaterasaworkpracticestandard.NO.2PAPERMACHINE 32.3 LB/H LAER 141.6 T/YRNO.1PAPERMACHINE 26.7 LB/H BACT‐PSD 117 T/YRUnknownTX30.211,212,231,239,240,241,249,290INLANDPAPERBOARDANDPACKAGINGORANGEMILLPSD‐TX‐684M1/9654A/833M1THEPURPOSEOFTHEMILLIMPROVEMENTPROJECTISTOINCREASETHEMILLSLINERBOARDPRODUCTIONCAPACITYTO2,340MACHINEDRYTONSOFPULPPERDAY(MDTPD)BYINCREASINGRECYCLEFIBERSUPPLYRATHERTHANANINCREASEINTHEVIRGINPULPMILLPRODUCTION.30.290,490MUSKOGEEMILL OK 99‐113‐C(M‐3)PSDOct.,2005Tableistwopageswide.Table13of12PROCESS_NAMEeContactsPAPERMACHINEPAPERMACHINECOMBUSTION#11‐14PAPERMACHINEPAPERMACHINESNO.2PAPERMACHINENO.1PAPERMACHINEBACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTThermaloxidationat95+%CECatalyticoxidationat95+%CeCarbonAdsorptionat95%CEBiofiltrationat60‐90%CEWetScrubberatvariedCEGoodoperatingpracticeswithcase‐by‐caseCE‐Nouseofthermaloxidationforcontrolofpapermachinesrequired.Istechnicallyfeasiblebutflowratesaresignificantlylarge.USEPAestimatedannualizedcostsforregenerativethermaloxidizeratbetween$8and$33perscfm;resultinginannualizedcostgreaterthan$20.5Mforcontrolof830tpyat95%CE,annualizedcosteffectivenessismorethan$26KpertonVOC.AlsoincreasedNOxfromfuelburned;alsocostsdonotincludelargecostsforcaptureequipment.ThereforeeconomicallyinfeasibletouseTO.‐Sameissueswithcatalyticoxidation(CO)exceptlowerrequiredenergylevels.NoCOcurrentlyusedorrequired.Istechnicallyfeasible.Costsestimatedtobehighercapitalcosts;conservativeestimatebasedonthermaloxidizercosts;costeffectivenessforCOisatleast$25Kperton;alsosensitivitytoPMmaybeanissueforreliableoperation;thereforeeconomicallyinfeasibleforCO.‐Carbonadsorption(CA)isdependentonVOCbeingadsorbed,theconcentrationofVOCandconditionsofgasstream.GasstreamfrompapermachinesiswatervaporsaturatedwithlowVOCconcentration,lowerthanoptimumforCArange,thereforeperformancewouldbepoor.CAalsopoorchoiceformajorVOCemitted,methanol.Withoutchilling(whichisveryexpensiveandenergyintensive),CAlikelytohaveverypoorremovalefficiency.Alsonotsuccessfullydemonstratedcontrolforpapermachines.ConclusionisCAnottechnicallyfeasible.Notechnicallyoreconomicallyfeasiblecontroloptionsavailable. Notechnicallyoreconomicallyfeasiblecontroloptionsavailable. GoodoperatingpracticesdeterminedtobeBACT.(Nomentionofwhatthosepracticesare).Withincompany,controlmethodisgoodcombustionpracticesGoodcombustionpracticesWithincompany‐useoflow‐VOCcontainingchemicalsorwater‐bornechemicaladditives.FromRBLC‐limitingtotalVOC,orlimitingtheVOCcontentofmaterials.Useofwater‐bornechemicalsorlow‐VOCchemicals,reductiondependentonratioofcurrentVOCmaterialsandnewVOCmaterials;determinedtobetechnicallyfeasibleUseoflowornoVOC‐containingmaterials‐onlytechnologyconsideredfeasibleCompanyhasinplaceaNewSubstanceReviewprogram,whichisconsideredtobeapollutionpreventiontechnique.Nocostanalysisperformed.UseoflowornoVOC‐containingmaterialsasadditivescontrolledbyNewSubstanceReviewProgramNo5‐stepanalysisconducted UseofcarbonadsorptionorthermaloxidationwasnotconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasiblebecausetheexhaustoftheVOCisatmultiplelocations,eachhavingarelativelylowVOCconcentrationloading.Add‐oncontrolsdeterminednoteconomicallyortechnicallyfeasible.BACTdeterminedtobeuseofwhitewateralongwithgoodoperationandmaintenancepractices.BACT/LAERislow‐HAPadditives.ReviewofRBLCdatabaseyieldednocontrolsforpapermachines.The5‐stepprocesswasnotconducted.Tableistwopageswide.Table14of12RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundTable1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContacts#16PAPERMACHINECOMPLEX0 BACT‐PSD PAPERMAKINGMACHINE#16DRIERSNOTMODIFIEDUNDERTHISPERMIT.LIMITSCARRIEDFORWARDFROMPRIORPERMIT.BACTISUSEOFNATURALGAS.STARTUPANDCOMPLIANCEDATESNOTAVAILABLE.THEPAPERMAKINGINGREDIENTS/ADDITIVES,ETC.USEDINTHEPROCESSMAYNOTCONTAIN,ASPURCHASED,VO*BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY(BACT)ANDLATESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNIQUES(LACT)FORTHEPAPERMACHINE:RESTRICTIONONVOCCONTENTOFMATERIALS.VOCCONTENTSARELISTEDINTHEFACILITYNOTES.#12PAPERMACHINE 0 BACT‐PSD NOSUPPLEMENTALNAT.GASCOMBUSTIONDRYERS.STARTUPANDCOMPLIANCEDATESNOTAVAILABLE.THEPAPERMAKINGINGREDIENTS/ADDITIVES,ETC.USEDINTHEPROCESSMAYNOTCONTAIN,ASPURCHASED,VO*BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY(BACT)ANDLATESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNIQUES(LACT)FORTHEPAPERMACHINE:VOCCONTENTLIMITS‐LIMITSARELISTEDINTHEFACILITYNOTES#13PAPERMACHINE 0 BACT‐PSD DRYERNOTMODIFIEDUNDERTHISDETERMINATION.LIMITFORONLYPM10&VOC.PM10LIMITNOTBACT.STARTUPANDCOMPLIANCEDATESNOTAVAILABLE.THEPAPERMAKINGINGREDIENTS/ADDITIVES,ETC.USEDINTHEPROCESSMAYNOTCONTAIN,ASPURCHASED,VO*BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY(BACT)ANDLATESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNIQUES(LACT)FORTHEPAPERMACHINE:VOCLIMITSLISTEDINFACILITYNOTES.#14PAPERMACHINE 0 BACT‐PSD STARTUPANDCOMPLIANCEDATESNOTAVAILABLE.THEPAPERMAKINGINGREDIENTS/ADDITIVES,ETC.USEDINTHEPROCESSMAYNOTCONTAIN,ASPURCHASED,VO*BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY(BACT)ANDLATESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNIQUES(LACT)FORTHEPAPERMACHINE:VOCCONTENTLIMITS,LISTEDINFACILITYNOTES.30.490 WHITINGMILL WI 02‐DCF‐039 Mach2003 PAPERMACHINE#64W/INLINECOATER0.0015 LB/LB LBVOC/LBACS BACT‐PSD 0.9 LB/T LBVOC/TONPAPERP64,S64.ELECTRICDRYER.GROUNDWOODPULPANDPAPERMILL(TMP&STONEGROUNDWOODPULPING)INDIVIDUALLIMITSONRETENTIONAIDS(30WT.%),CLEANERS(5WT.%),INTERNALSIZE(1WT.%),DEFOAMERS(25WT.%),BIOCIDES(55WT.%),DYES(45WT.%).TotalVOCfromwetendofmachine0.18lb/VOCperADTofpaper.Totalpapercoatinglessthan30%ofpapermass(monthlyaverage).Forpapermachine,formaldehydeemissionstriggerPSDdetermination.BACTdeterminationdoneforpapermachine64,plustheTMP(P31)andGWDgrinder.PapermachineVOCsfrompulp,waterandadditives.WI30.490 STORAENSONORTHAMERICA 00‐DCF‐058 May,2000Nodocumentsavailable.Tableistwopageswide.Table15of12PROCESS_NAMEeContacts#16PAPERMACHINECOMPLEX#12PAPERMACHINE#13PAPERMACHINE#14PAPERMACHINEPAPERMACHINE#64W/INLINECOATERBACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTConsideredRTO,CA,refrigeratedcondensers,biofiltration,carboncollection(concentratorsystem),waterabsorption/wetscrubber,TO,catalyticandthermalincinerators,andflares.CAtechnicallyfeasibleaccordingtoUSEPAAirComplianceAdvisor(ACA).RefrigeratedcondensersnotanapplicablecontroltechnologyaccordingtoACA,donotcomeinsizenecessary.Biofiltrationisnottechnicallyfeasibleduetolargesurpluslandneededthatisnotavailable.Carboncollectionsystems‐nottechnicallyfeasibleduetospecificpollutantsinthegasstream;methanolandacetaldehydedonotcapturewellandwouldreduceoverallefficiency.Catalyticandthermalincineratorsaretechnicallyfeasible;neededtodoacostestimatewithlowreliabilityduetohighflowratesforairstream.Waterabsorptionistechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology.Flares:self‐supportandguysupportflaresdeterminedtobetechnicallyinfeasibleduetocalculatedheightexceedsmaximumforthecontroltechnology;derricksupportflarespotentiallyapplicable.Catalyticincineratorsat95%CECarbonadsorbersat95%CEThermalincineratorsat95%CEWaterabsorptionat95%CERTOat95%CEFlaresat95%CECostestimates:Catalyticincinerators;capital$4.3M,annual$3.2M,CE$5.5M/tonCarbonadsorbers;capital$1.6M,annual$510K,CE$873K/tonThermalincinerators;capital$3.1M,annual$4.25M,CE$7.3M/tonWaterabsorption;capital$10.6T,annual$4.5T,CE$7.7T/tonRTO;capital$5.2M,annual$2M,CE$3.4M/tonFlares;capital$3M,annual$131M,CE$225M/tonProposedBACT;noneoftheevaluatedtechnologiesareeconomicallyfeasibleandothersarenottechnicallyfeasible.ThereforeproposedBACTisnocontrolbutproperuseofpotentialformaldehydecontainingmaterials(e.g.pulpfinish)anduseofnon‐formaldehydecontainingadditives.Briefdiscussionofpotentialuseofammoniascavengers,butdeterminedpotentialadverseeffectsandlackofdataonproductqualityimpactsasnotbeingconsideredfeasible.GoodoperatingpracticeforspotuseofVOCcleanersstatedinpermittobe"immediatelyafteruse,placeallrags,oranyotherporousmaterialsusedtoapplysolvent,inacoveredcontainerthatislabeledasawastesolvent,andhandledinaccordancewithlocal,stateandfederalregulations."Tableistwopageswide.Table16of12RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundTable1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContactsP40‐PAPERMACHINE#24W/COATER0.22 LB/ADT OVERALL BACT‐PSD 0.0015 LB/LB LB/LBSOLIDS,WATERBASEDCOATINGPapermachine,coater,and6MMBTU/HRdryer. PAPERMAKINGADDITIVELIMITSP60‐PAPERMACHINE#26W/COATER0.2 LB/ADT OVERALL BACT‐PSD 0.0015 LB/LB LBVOC/LBSOLIDS,WATERBASEDCOATINGCoater:40mmbtu/h.Emissionlimitsforpapermachineandcoaterarecombined.PAPERMAKINGADDITIVELIMITS30.490 SENABIRONMILL 02‐DCF‐124 Aug,2002VOCsourceisorganicsfrompapermakingandcoating(inpulp,additivesandcoatings)WITableistwopageswide.Table17of12PROCESS_NAMEeContactsP40‐PAPERMACHINE#24W/COATERP60‐PAPERMACHINE#26W/COATERBACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTConsideredRTO,CA,refrigeratedcondensers,Biofiltration,carboncollection/concentratorsystem,waterabsorption/wetscrubber,catalyticandthermalincinerators,andflares.RTOtechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology,however,notappliedforpapermachineprocesses.Carboncanisters(gasadsorption)technicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology,however,notappliedforpapermachineprocesses.RefrigeratedcondensersnotanapplicablecontroltechnologyaccordingtoACA,donotcomeinsizenecessaryBiofiltrationisnottechnicallyfeasibleduetolargesurpluslandneededthatisnotavailableCarboncollectionsystems‐nottechnicallyfeasibleduetospecificpollutantsinthegasstream;(methanolandacetaldehydedonotcapturewell)andwouldreduceoverallefficiency.CatalyticandthermalincineratorswerediscussedascontroltechnologyfordestructionofVOCsbutnotastotheapplicabilitytothisprocesswaterabsorption/wetscrubberisnottechnicallyfeasibleduetolowVOCconcentrationingasstreambeingbelowthe250ppmvforreasonableapplicationandcostestimates.Flares;werediscussedcontroltechnologyfordestructionofVOCsbutnotastotheapplicabilitytothisprocessCatalyticincineratorsat95%CEcarbonadsorbersat95%CEThermalincineratorsat95%CEWaterabsorptionat95%CERTOat95%CEflaresat95%CECostestimates:Catalyticincinerators;capital$6.5to13M,annual$4.9to10M,CE$47Kto105KM/tonCarbonadsorbers;capital$4to8.9M,annual$1.7to4.5M,CE$20.9to38K/tonThermalincinerators;capital$4.7to9M,annual$6.4to13.3M,CE$62to137K/tonWaterabsorption;capital$429to921M,annual$1.5to3.2T,CE$15to32.6M/tonRTO;capital$7.5to16M,annual$2.8to6M,CE$28to61K/tonFlares;capital$4to5.5M,annual$198to428M,CE$2to4.3M/tonProposedBACT;noneoftheevaluatedtechnologiesareeconomicallyfeasibleandothersarenottechnicallyfeasible.ThereforeproposedBACTisnocontrolbutproperuseofVOCcontainingmaterials.ProposedVOCcontentlimitforanadjustedcoating(lb/lb)andtotalVOCemissionsfrommachine(lbVOC/tonofpaperproduced).DifferentlimitsforPM#24and#26.SamelimitsapplytoVOCcleanersusedduringshutdowntime.BACTwillbelimitingVOCcontentinadditives,compliancedemonstratedthroughuseofMSDS.Tableistwopageswide.Table18of12RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundTable1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContactsWI P13/S13‐PAPERBOARDMACHINE0 BACT‐PSD 8.4MMBTU/HNAT.GAS;NOIN‐LINECOATERORSIZEPRESS.APPLICATIONCOMPLETEONAPRIL30,2003BIOCIDE<=96%VOC(NOTSIG.VOLATILE);ON‐LINECLEANERS;<=10%VOC;DYES<=45%VOC;RETENTIONAIDS<=35%VOC;DEFOAMERS<=25%VOC;INTERNALSIZE<=0.15%VOC;P14/S14‐#14PAPERMACHINEW/COATERS0 BACT‐PSD NONAT.GASFIREDDRYERS(STEAMBASEDHEATONLY).APPLICATIONCOMPLETEONAPRIL30,2003BIOCIDE<=96%VOC(NOTSIG.VOLATILE);ON‐LINECLEANERS;<=10%VOC;DYES<=45%VOC;RETENTIONAIDS<=35%VOC;DEFOAMERS<=25%VOC;SIZE/PRECOATCOATING<=0.12WT%VOCOFDRYCOATING;INTERNALSIZE<=0.15%VOC;P82/S82‐PAPERMACHINE#16W/COATERS0 BACT‐PSD 25.9MMBTU/HNAT.GASDRYERS;APPLICATIONCOMPLETEONAPRIL30,2003BIOCIDE<=96%VOC(NOTSIG.VOLATILE);ON‐LINECLEANERS;<=10%VOC;DYES<=45%VOC;RETENTIONAIDS<=35%VOC;DEFOAMERS<=25%VOC;SIZE/PRECOATCOATING<=0.12WT%VOCOFDRYCOATING;INTERNALSIZE<=0.15%VOC;30.490 COMBINEDLOCKSMILL WI 02‐DCF‐170 Dec.,2002 PAPERMACHINE#7,COATINGS(P63/S63)0.61 LB/ADT lbVOC/ADTpaper BACT‐PSD 0.0027 LB/GAL lbVOC/galasappliedTHROUGHPUTIST/DPAPER.APPLICATIONCOMPLETE7/23/03.MODIFICATIONOFCOATINGOPERATIONSCOATINGVOCLIMIT,NOVOCFROMPULP MaximumVOCconcentrationsforboththepapermachineno.7plustheoff‐machinecoatingprocessanddryersarelessthan10ppmvPAPERMACHINE#1(S14/P40)1.92 LB/ADT LBVOC/ADT12MO.AVG.BACT‐PSD 3792 LB/MO. LBSOLVENT/MO.12MO.AVG.TISSUE/TOWELPAPERMACHINE(USINGRECYCLEDPULP);SOLVENTCLEANING(S30/P34)AIRCAPDRYER:6MMBTU/HRLIMITINGTHEAMOUNTOFVOC'S(FROMPAPERMAKINGADDITIVES)ANDLIMITINGCLEANINGSOLVENTUSAGE.PAPERMACHINE#2(S15/P42)3.37 LB/ADT LBVOC/ADT,12MO.AVG.BACT‐PSD 8125 LB/MO 12MO.AVG. THROUGHPUTIST/DPAPER.PAPERMACHINE#2(S15/P42);CLEANINGSOLVENTAPPLICATION(S32/P35)ANDNEWAIRCAPDRYER(NAT.GAS/PROPANE,36MMBTU/HR)TISSUE/TOWELPAPERMACHINE(USINGRECYCLEDPULP)LIMITINGTHEAMOUNTOFVOC'S(FROMPAPERMAKINGADDITIVES)ANDLIMITINGCLEANINGSOLVENTUSAGE.PAPERMACHINE#3(S16/P44)1.88 LB/ADT LBVOC/ADT,12MO.AVG.BACT‐PSD 56550 LB/MO LBSOLVENT/MO.,12MO.AVG.THROUGHPUTIST/DPAPER.PAPERMACHINE#3(S16/P44);CLEAINGSOLVENTAPPLICATION(S34/P54)ANDAIRCAPDRYER(NAT.GAS/PROPANE,48MMBTU/HR)TISSUE/TOWELPAPERMACHINE(USINGRECYCLEDPULP)LIMITINGTHEAMOUNTOFVOC'S(FROMPAPERMAKINGADDITIVES)ANDLIMITINGCLEANINGSOLVENTUSAGE.VOCSOLVENTUSAGEISSHAREDBETWEENMACHINES#3AND#4.USEOFCARBONADSORPTIONTOCOLLECT/REUSEAPORTIONOFTHESOLVENTS.PAPERMACHINE#4(S18/P46)2.64 LB/ADT LBVOC/ADT BACT‐PSD 56550 LB/MO LB/MOSOLVENT,12MO.AVGTISSUE/TOWELPAPERMACHINE(USINGRECYCLEDPULP);SOLVENTCLEANING(S36/P56)NEWAIRCAPDRYER:54MMBTU/HRLIMITINGTHEAMOUNTOFVOC'S(FROMPAPERMAKINGADDITIVES)ANDLIMITINGCLEANINGSOLVENTUSAGE.VOCSOLVENTUSAGEISSHAREDBETWEENMACHINES#3AND#4.USEOFCARBONADSORPTIONTOCOLLECT/REUSEAPORTIONOFTHESOLVENTS.30.241 APPLETONCOATED‐COMBINEDLOCKSMILLWI 04‐DCF‐069 April,2004 PAPERMACHINE#6(S62A,P62A)1.4 LB/ADT LBVOC/ADT,12MO.AVG.BACT‐PSD 36 WT.% LIMITONRETENTIONAIDSPAPERMACHINE#6,WITHNAT.GASFIREDIRDRYER.PROJECTTOINCREASE(STEAM)DRYINGCAPACITY(PARTICULARLYFORHEAVIERGRADESOFPAPER).LIMITSONTHERAWMATERIALSVOCADDITIVESANDUSEOFMARKETPULP.VOCemissionsfrompulp/waterslurryandadditivespotentialof172tpyVOCemissionsat6ppmvconcentrationFacilityalreadyusinglow‐voccontainingadditivesandcoatings30.490 SCATISSUE(MENASHA) 03‐DCF‐346 April,2004VOCsfrompapermachines1,2,3and4arefrompulp/waterslurry,additives,andcleaningsolventsWI30.400,490WISCONSINRAPIDSPAPERMILL 02‐DCF‐144 April,2002Appliestopapermachines13,14and16,andtheirassociatedequipment;BACTdeterminationdoneforVOC.PM13‐VOCfromorganicsinpulpandadditivesTableistwopageswide.Table19of12PROCESS_NAMEeContactsP13/S13‐PAPERBOARDMACHINEP14/S14‐#14PAPERMACHINEW/COATERSP82/S82‐PAPERMACHINE#16W/COATERSPAPERMACHINE#7,COATINGS(P63/S63)PAPERMACHINE#1(S14/P40)PAPERMACHINE#2(S15/P42)PAPERMACHINE#3(S16/P44)PAPERMACHINE#4(S18/P46)PAPERMACHINE#6(S62A,P62A)BACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTConsideredoxidation(i.e.thermalorcatalytic,regenerativeorrecuperative),adsorption,absorption,biofiltrationandcondensationsystemsDuetolowVOCconcentrationandvariableVOCtypes,carbonadsorptionwouldnotlikelybeaneffectivecontrolandnotconsideredtobetechnicallypractical.Carbonabsorptionsystems(wetscrubber)wasdeterminedtobetechnicallyimpracticalduetolargesurfaceareanecessarytoeffectabsorptionofthelesssolubleVOCsandthelargevolumeofairflow.Biofiltrationisnotademonstratedtechnologyandthetechnicalfeasibilityforthisapplicationisunknown,thereforethecostestimate,wasincluded,howeveradditionaltestingandevaluationwouldbenecessarytoconfirmfeasibility.CondensationsystemsweredeterminedtechnicallyinfeasibleduetolargeairflowandlowVOCconcentrationofgasstream.Onlyoxidation(catalyticregenerativeoxidation(CReO),catalyticrecuperativeoxidation(CRuO),thermalregenerativeoxidation(TReO)andthermalrecuperativeoxidation(TRuO))andbiolfiltrationsystemswereconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasible.ConsideredallVOCemissionpointsandgroupingsofVOCemissionpoints(whichmightbemorefeasiblebecauseitwouldincreaseVOCconcentrations)forcostevaluation.Norankingconductedoncontrolefficiencyincluded.Estimatedcosts:Allsources;CReOcapital$20.5M,annual$8.8M,CE$110K/tonCReOcapital$4.5M,annual$9.7M,CE$123K/tonTReOcapital$14M,annual$10M,CE$127K/tonTReOcapital$1.3M,annual$14.6M,CE$184K/tonBioFilcapital$37.7M,annual$6.9M,CE$86.7K/tonCostswereestimatedforwetend,roofvents,precoaterdryerandaftercoaterdryersources.Lowercostsformostthan"allsources"above,howeverlowestCEwas$30K/tonforaftercoaterdryer,whichwasstillconsideredeconomicallyinfeasible.TheproposedBACTforVOCemissionsfromPM7andtheoff‐machinecoaterwasdeterminedtobenocontrol.Emissionlimitswereproposedforpapermakinginlb/VOC/ADT.Consideredoxidation(i.e.thermal;regenerativeorrecuperativeorcatalytic,fixedorfluid‐bed),adsorption,absorption,biofiltrationandcondensationsystemsOxidationtechnologiesaredemonstratedandtechnicallyfeasibletechnologies.DuetolowVOCconcentrationandvariableVOCtypes,carbonadsorptionwouldnotlikelybeaneffectivecontrolandnotconsideredtobetechnicallypractical.carbonabsorptionsystems(wetscrubber)wasdeterminedtobetechnicallyimpracticalduetolargesurfaceareanecessarytoeffectabsorptionofthelesssolubleVOCsandthelargevolumeofairflow.Bio‐scrubbingorbiofiltrationisnotademonstratedtechnologyandthetechnicalfeasibilityforthisapplicationisunknown.Inadditionbiofiltrationunitstypicallyrequirealargefootprinttoaddressairflow.Therefore,bio‐scrubbingnotconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasibletechnology.CondensationsystemsweredeterminedtechnicallyinfeasibleduetolargeairflowandlowVOCconcentrationofgasstream.Thermaloxidation,regenerative(TReO);at99%REThermaloxidation,recuperative(TRuo);at98%REcatalyticoxidation,fixed‐bed;at95%REcatalyticoxidation,fluid‐bed;at94%REBiofiltration;at65%REVenturiScrubber~35%REWiththeexceptionofgoodoperatingpracticeutilizinglow‐VOCchemicals,theeffectivetechnicalapplicabilityoftheremainingcontroloptionsarequestionableduetolowVOCconcentrationlevels.Estimatedcosts:TReOannualizedcapitalandO&M$2.9,CE$17.6K/tonTRuOannualizedcapitalandO&M$6.6,CE$40K/tonCReOannualizedcapitalandO&M$2.4,CE$15K/tonCRuOannualizedcapitalandO&M$4.7,CE$29K/tonBioFilannualizedcapitalandO&M$2,CE$18.6K/tonVenturiScrubberannualizedcapitalandO&M$1.3,CE$21.8K/tonAlltechnologiesevaluatedwereconsideredeconomicallyinfeasibleduetoexcessivecostsanddeleteriousenergyimpacts.ProposedBACTisuseofexistinggoodpracticetomeetaVOCemissionrate,limitationofVOCcontentinretentionaids.AlsoproposedLACTtobefacilityconductinginvestigations,testsand/ortrialsexaminingmaterialswhichreduceVOCemissionfromtheoperationconsistentwithendproductqualityrequirements,andwhicharecosteffectiveforthepapermachine.Considered:RTO,carboncanisters(adsorption),refrigeratedcondensers,biofiltration,carboncollection(concentratorsystem),wetscrubber(waterabsorption),thermalandcatalyticincinerator,andflares.RTOtechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology.Carbonadsorption(gasadsorption)isatechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology,wouldrequirea2or3bedsystemforcontinuousdutycycleproduction.RefrigeratedcondensersnotanapplicablecontroltechnologyaccordingtoACA,donotcomeinsizenecessary.BiofiltrationisnottechnicallyfeasibleduetolargesurpluslandneededthatisnotavailableCarboncollectionsystems‐nottechnicallyfeasibleduetospecificpollutantsinthegasstream;(methanolandacetaldehydedonotcapturewell)andwouldreduceoverallefficiency.Catalyticandthermalincineratorsaretechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology,howeverflowratesforpollutantstreamaretoohighforcostequationsandascaledestimateoflowreliabilitywasmade.Waterabsorption/wetscrubberistechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedth lWaterabsorptionat95%CEFixedbedcatalyticincineratorsat95%CEFluidizedbedCatalyticincineratorsat95%CERecuperativethermalincineratorsat95%CERTOat95%CEFlaresat95%CE2‐bedcarbonadsorbersat95%CE3‐bedcarbonadsorbersat95%CECostestimates(presentedasrangeofcostsfortheindividualmachines)Waterabsorption;capital$128to742M,annual$59to372M,CE$1.3to1.7M/tonFixedbedcatalyticincinerators;capital$1.8to10.6M,annual$1.3to8.3M,CE$29Kto37K/tonFluidizedbedcatalyticincinerators;capital$3to20.8M,annual$1.5to10.4M,CE$37Kto46K/tonRecuperativethermalincinerators;capital$1.5to7.3M,annual$1.8to10.8M,CE$38to48K/tonRTO;capital$1.6to6M,annual$723Kto354M,CE$18Kto1.6M/tonFlares;capital$2.9to3.7M,annual$50to354M,CE$1.2to4.6M/ton2‐bedcarbonabsorbers;capital$2.2to10M,annual$911Kto4.6M,CE$19to23K/ton3b dbb bit l$1 9t7 9Ml$817Kt4MTheproposedBACTforVOCemissionsfromPM1‐4wasdeterminedtobenocontrolwithproperuseofVOCcontainingmaterials(setlimitsforeachmachinefortotalVOCemissionslbVOC/ADTandsolventusagelimitspermachineinlbVOC/mo,rolling12‐moavg.)BACTforcleaningoperationsusingsolventonmachines#3and4isoperationofacarbonbedadsorberinstalledonthetwinwire,wiresiloandvacuumstacksunlessduringtrialsofalternativecleaningsolvents(preapprovedbyState)anda28.3ton/moVOCemissionlimitationformachine3and4combined.BACTforallmachineswasproposedtobenocontrolwithproperuseofVOCcontainingmaterials.Consideredoxidation(i.e.thermalorcatalytic,regenerativeorrecuperative),adsorption,absorption,biofiltrationandcondensationsystemsDuetolowVOCconcentrationandvariableVOCtypes,carbonadsorptionwouldnotlikelybeaneffectivecontrolandnotconsideredtobetechnicallypractical.Carbonabsorptionsystems(wetscrubber)wasdeterminedtobetechnicallyimpracticalduetolargesurfaceareanecessarytoeffectabsorptionofthelesssolubleVOCsandthelargevolumeofairflow.Controlefficiencieswereestimatedtobe50%orless,however,costestimateswereincluded.Biofiltrationisnotademonstratedtechnologyandthetechnicalfeasibilityforthisapplicationisunknown,thereforethecostestimate,wasincluded,howeveradditionaltestingandevaluationwouldbenecessarytoconfirmfeasibility.CondensationsystemsweredeterminedtechnicallyinfeasibleduetolargeairflowandlowVOCconcentrationofgasstream.Onlyoxidation(catalyticregenerativeoxidation(CReO),catalyticrecuperativeoxidation(CRuO),thermalregenerativeoxidation(TReO)andthermalrecuperativeoxidation(TRuO))andbiolfiltrationsystemswereconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasible.ConsideredallVOCemissionpointsandgroupingsofVOCemissionpoints(whichmightbemorefeasiblebecauseitwouldincreaseVOCconcentrations)forcostevaluation.Norankingconductedoncontrolefficiencyincluded.Estimatedcosts:Allsources;CReOcapital$4.2to13.1M,annual$2.3to7M,CE$28to64K/tonCRuOcapital$1.9to3.5M,annual$3to9.1M,CE$38to89K/tonTReOcapital$3.2to9.1M,annual$3to8.3M,CE$35to79K/tonTRuOcapital$0.8to1.1M,annual$4.5to13M,CE$55to127K/tonBioFilcapital$6to19M,annual$1.2to3.6M,CE$16to34K/tonAbsorptionCE$35K/tonCostswereestimatedforwetend,roofvents,precoaterdryerandaftercoaterdryersources.Lowercostsformostthan"allsources"above,howeverlowestCEwas$30K/tonforaftercoaterdryer,whichwasstillconsideredeconomicallyinfeasible.Tableistwopageswide.Table110of12RBLCCode FACILITY_NAME State PERMIT_NUMDateofDetermination PROCESS_NAMEEMISSION_LIMIT_1EMISSION_LIMIT_1_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_1_AVG_TIME_CONDITIONCASE‐BY‐CASE_BASISEMISSION_LIMIT_2EMISSION_LIMIT_2_UNITEMISSION_LIMIT_2_AVGERAGE_TIME_CONDITION PROCESS_NOTES* CONTROL_METHOD_DESCRIPTIONBackgroundTable1.SummaryofPaperMachineBACTAnalysesReceivedfromStateContacts30.490 STORAENSOWISCONSINRAPIDSPAPERMILLWI 05‐DCF‐312 Mar.,2007 P12(PAPER/BOARDMACHINE#12)240 LB/MO 12MO.AVG.ADDITIVES/INGREDIENTSBACT‐PSD 3360 LB/MO 12MO.AVG.ADHESIVE/INLINECLEANERSPAPERMACHINECONVERTEDTOBOARDMACHINE.MAX.PRODUCTIONOF500TONS/DAY(ADT).STEAMBASEDDRYINGONLY(NOON‐MACHINE,COMBUSTIONBASEDDRYERS).PRIMARILYSECONDARYFIBERS(OLDCORRUGATEDCONTAINERS).THEKRAFTPULPMILLISCONSIDEREDAPARTOFTHEOVERALLOPERATION,BUTISIDENTIFIEDANDPERMITTEDASTHEWISCONSINRAPIDSPULPMILL.THISPROJECTWASFORAPAPER(BOARD)MACHINEATTHEWISCONSINRAPIDSPAPERMILL.NOADD‐ONCONTROLSFEASIBLE,LIMITTHEADDITIONOFVOCCONTAININGADDITIVES,CLEANINGAGENTS.AcetaldehydeBACTanalysiscompletedduetostaterule.Acetaldehydereleasedfromthepulpusedintheprocess.Analysiswasappliedtoallacetaldehydeemissions,notjustP12.Totalemissions2.1tpy30.240 APPLETONCOATED‐COMBINEDLOCKSMILLWI 06‐DCF‐204 Aug,2007 PROCESSP62,STACKS62‐PAPERMACHINE#11.4 LBVOC/ADTPBACT‐PSD 36 %VOC RETENTIONAID EXISTINGPAPERMACHINE#1BEINGMODIFIED.350TPDPAPERPRODUCTION.LIMITSONTHEVOCCONTENT(RETENTIONAIDANDCOATING)ANDUSAGEOFVOCONTHEPAPERMACHINE(LBS/ADT).REQUIREDUNDERPSDBACTANDSTATELACT.VOCfromadditives,Coatings,pulp/waterslurry,andcleaners.Vocemittedfromwetend89.4tpy*ProcessnotesandpermitnotesfromRBLCmaybecombinedinthiscolumn.SomenotesintheRBLCweretruncated.Tableistwopageswide.Table111of12PROCESS_NAMEeContactsP12(PAPER/BOARDMACHINE#12)PROCESSP62,STACKS62‐PAPERMACHINE#1heRBLCweretruncated.BACTAnalysisStep1‐IdentifyAllAvailableControlTechnologies Step2‐EliminateTechnicallyInfeasibleOptions Step3‐RankingTechnicallyFeasibleControlAlternatives Step4‐EvaluationofRemainingControls Step5‐SelectBACTConsideredRTO,carbonadsorption,refrigeratedcondensers,biolfiltration,catalyticandthermalincinerators,flares,waterabsorption,andproperoperatingprocedures.Oxidationtechnologiesaredemonstratedandtechnicallyfeasibletechnologies.Carbonadsorptionisavailable,technicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology.A2or3‐bedsystemwouldberequiredtohandlecontinuousduty‐cycle.Refrigeratedcondenserswerenotconsideredanapplicabletechnologyduetothesystemsizeneededforlargeairflow.Biofiltrationisnottechnicallyfeasibleduetolargesurpluslandneededthatisnotavailable.Carbonadsorptionwasdeterminedtobenottechnicallyfeasibleduetothecontaminantsintheairstream(methanol)thatwouldnotbewelladsorbedmakingthesysteminefficient.Catalyticandthermalincineratorsaretechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology,however,duetohighflowrates,ascaledestimatewithlowreliabilitywasdone.Waterabsorptionwasconsideredtechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology.Flares;derricksupportflaresarepotentiallyfeasibleandapplicable;guyandselfsupportflaresaretechnicallyinfeasibleduetoheightrequired.RTO;at98%RERecuperativeThermaloxidation;at98%RECatalyticoxidation,fixed‐bed;at95%REFlare@95%RECarbonadsorption@95%RECatalyticoxidation,fluid‐bed;at94%REWaterabsorption@90%REWiththeexceptionofgoodoperatingpracticeutilizinglow‐VOCchemicals,theeffectivetechnicalapplicabilityoftheremainingcontroloptionsarequestionableduetolowVOCconcentrationlevels.Estimatedcosts:TReOannualizedcapitalandO&M$258K,CE$126K/tonTRuOannualizedcapitalandO&M$507KM,CE$246K/tonCTOannualizedcapitalandO&M$450K,CE$227K/tonFlaresannualizedcapitalandO&M$136M,CE$6.8M/toncarbonadsorbersannualizedcapitalandO&M$128K,CE$64K/tonwaterabsorptionannualizedcapitalandO&M$186K,CE$98K/tonAlltechnologiesevaluatedwereconsideredeconomicallyinfeasibleduetoexcessivecostsanddeleteriousenergyimpacts.BACTisnoadd‐oncontrols.Consideredoxidationsystems(thermalorcatalytic,regenerativeorrecuperative),adsorption,absorption,biofiltration,andcondensationsystemsOxidationsystemswereconsideredtechnicallyfeasibleanddemonstratedtechnology.AdsorptionsystemswasconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasiblehoweverlowerVOCloadingsmayrenderthetechnologynottechnicallyfeasible.Absorptionwasconsideredtechnicallyfeasible,however,thevoccontentofthestreamcouldrenderthetechnologyinefficient.Biofiltrationistentativelyfeasibleandwascosted.Condensationsystemsweredeterminedtonotbetechnicallyfeasible.ThermalandCatalyticincineratorsat99%REBiofiltration@99%REcarbonadsorbersat95%REWaterabsorptionat50%RECostsestimatedforwetendonly,roofventsonly,precoaterdryeronly,aftercoaterdryeronlyandallsources.Showhereinranges:Catalyticregenerativeoxidation;totalannualizedcost$0.9to6.8M,and$35Kto1.7M/tonCECatalyticrecuperativeoxidation;totalannualizedcost$1.2to9.4M,and$49Kto2.2M/tonCEThermalregenerativeoxidation;totalannualizedcost$2.0to8.6M,and$44Kto2M/tonCEThermalrecuperativeoxidation;totalannualizedcost$3.2to14M,and$72Kto3.3M/tonCEBiofiltration;totalannualizedcost$585Kto3.6M,and$18to974K/tonCECarbonadsorption;totalannualizedcost$400Kto3M,and$21.6to447K/tonCEWaterabsorption;totalannualizedcost$240Kto1.3M,and$14to733K/tonCEAddoncontrolsdeterminednoteconomicallyfeasible.BACTdeterminedtobealimitationofVOCcontent/gallonofcoatingusedandVOCusagelimitoncleaningmaterials.Tableistwopageswide.Table112of12