### IEPAATTACHMENTNO
.

# .-L

BEFORE THEILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD

PETITION FORAN ADJUSTED STANDARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 lAC § 215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS-

# Dq-i (Adjusted Standard) 

### AlECEBVfi!1O CLERK'SOFFIce 

# APR 032009 STATEOFIWN 

### Pollution Control

## ~d Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP, and pursuant to 35 III. Adm. Code § 104.400 et seq., submits this Petition to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("!PCB"), seeking an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code §215.301 (commonly known as the "8 lb/hr Rule") as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic material ("VOM") atRoyal's Dix, llIinois swimming pool manufacturing facility. 

### 1. BACKGROUND Royal operates a fibl<rglass pool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan Road, Dix, Illinois (the "Dix Plant'). The facility has one large production building in which composite pool manufacturing occurs in two production bay areas that each measure 30' wide x 60' long. Theproduction bays utilize a 50,000-cfm cross-flow ventilation system thatexhausts airfrom the work areas to the outside atmosphere through a 36-foot tall vertical discharge stack in order to limit worker exposure to styrene. Levels ofstyrene, the YOM ofconcern at the Dix Plant, are within the OSHA permissibleexposure limits. Royal has always strived to comply with environmental and other regulations that apply to operations at the Dix Plant and, until recently, has been able to demonstrate compliance with such rules. In keeping with its desire to comply with applicable rules, in November of2004, Royal submitted an application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program ("CAAPP") operating 'permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("D1inois EPA"). To date, a permit has not been issued. Royal is aware that Illinois EPA has rejected the use of averaging to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. The D1inois EPA has stated thil1 the 8 lb/hr Rule specifies a maximum hourly emissionrate and, therefore, compliance withthe rule would need to be demonstrated on a stricthourly basis, noton an average from any longertime period. On January 10,2006, the lllinois EPA issued Violation Notice A-2005-0028l to Royal. After receipt ofthis Notice, representatives ofRoyal met with Illinois EPA in person and also corresponded with Illinois EPA regarding the notice. As part ofthese communications, Royal provided a significant amount of information to Illinois EPA regarding the Dix Plant and the relevant industry. With assistance from its environmental consultant, Engineering Environmental ("EA"), Royal computed the YOM emitted during the manufacture ofthe various pools Royal constructs. Royal discovered that, based on Illinois EPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating compliance, the bourly YOM emissions from certain of its operations (gelcoat and resin application) did not appear to comply with !EPA's interpretation ofthe 8 lblhrRule. After carefully eXamillJDg its options for add-on controls and/or for changing manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Royal's levels of hourly YOM emissions, Royal realized that the cost for compliance via either ofthese options will neither allow it to remain competitive norprofitable, and may force closure ofthe Dix Plant. Royal met with Illinois EPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring Royal's compliance with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis is unreasonable. After considering the information presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 lb/hourRule to Royal's operations on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden. Royal and minois EPA agreed that Royal would apply for an adjustmentfrom the 8 lb/hrRule. J Accordingly, Royal offers the following summary ofreasons as to why it should receive an adjusted standard with respect to the 8 lb/hrRule:

• Royal is already subject to National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities, found at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart 

# wwww (the "Composites MACT'). EPA estimates that the annual costfor a facility to comply with the MACT is $2,800/10n of hazardous air pollutants removed and will reduce styrene emissions by an average of43%. Royal is currently in compliance with the MACT emission limits.

• Royal has a very low overall emission rate. Royal's emission rate is only elevated perhaps one hour per shift, but the emission rate average is relatively low during the entire workshift. Accordingly, technical and regulatory constraints (such as the high air flow needed to ventilate building air in order to comply with OSHA worker health & safety standards) make the cost for Royal to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis using emission controls unreasonably high.

• The capital costs associated with tail-stack (end-of-pipe) controls for Royal to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis would amountto approximately $636,000 to install and over $360,000 per year to operate. This equates to approximately $33,000per IOn ofpollutantremoved.

• Although some alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic ("FRP") products exist, none ofthem can be technically or economically applied to a swimming pool manufacturing operation such as Royal's 

### and none ofthem will actually allow Royal to fully comply with the 8 lblhrRule on a stricthourly basis.

• The high cost ofusing either end-of-stack emission controls or very expensive alternative production methods (those requiring complete re-tooling and re-design of production

'I To the extent the WeB does not grant Royal an adjusted standard pursuant to this Petition, Royal reserves all rights and defenses it may have concerning the application ofthe 8 Iblhr Rule to Royal's operations, and this Petition shall not act as a waiver ofsuch rights or defenses, nor as an admission ofpositions laken by Illinois EPA.
2methods and procedures), will put Royal at a significant competitive disadvantage. This will result in one ofthe following scenarios: To remain competitive, Royal will be forced to move to another state which does not have an 81blhrRule (orany similarlimitation); or Royal will eventually 

### be forced out of business because it will not 

### be able to compete for customers due to the high cost ofits swimming pools and/or due to the diminished quality/durability ofits swimming pools.

• The 8 Iblhr Rule puts Royal at a competitive disadvantage to other swimming pool manufacturers located in states without a similar 8 Iblhr Rule. Royal and its consultant are familiar with swimming pool manufacturing facilities in at least seven other states (Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, South Carolina, New York and Louisiana, where Royal's other manufacturing facility is located), and none ofthose states have an 8 Iblhr Rule. Royal and its consultant are not familiar with any other swimming pool manufacturing operations within lllinois. 

## n. 35 

### ILL. ADM. CODE § 104.406REQUIREMENTS A. Standard From Which Reliefis Sought

-- § 104.406(a) Royal requests an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code 

### § 215.301 (Use ofOrganic Material, otherwise known as the "8 lblhr Rule"). Illinois' organic material emission limitations were originally promulgated as Rule 205 in 1971. Section 215.301 now provides: ''No person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 

### kg/hr (8 Ibslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If no odor nuisance exists the limitation of this Subpart 

### shall apply only to photochemicallyreactive material:' 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### § 215.101 states that ''the defmitions of35 Ill. Admin. Code 201 and 211 apply to this part:' Pursuant to 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 

### § 201.102, "emission source" means "any equipment or facility ofa type capable ofemitting specified air contaminants to the atmosphere." Additionally, 

### § 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 carbide, metallic carbonates, and ammonium carbonate." 

### B. Nature ofthe Regulation ofGeneral Applicability

- Section 104.406(b) This regulation was promulgated to implement the federal requirements under the Clean

3Air Act, 42 USC 

### § 7401 et seq. C. Level ofJustification

- ection J04.406(c) The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Royal seeks an adjusted standard does not specify alevel of justification for an adjusted standard. D. Facility and Process Description

- Section J04.406(d) Royal operates a fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility in Dix, flJinois. Royal manufactures twenty different models offiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3' 10" deep to ITwide x 40' 6" long x 8' deep. The Dix Plant beganoperations in the early 1990s and during peak season employs approximately twenty individuals plus another five to ten contract haulers. The Dix Plant manufactures approximately 240 pools per year, averaging one pool per day in the spring and fall, two pools per day in the summer, and no pools per day in the winterU Additional information regarding Royal's history and operations (including photographs) are set forth Section 1ofthe attached Technical Document. CompositePoolManufacturingProcedure. The compositepool manufac,turing at the Dix Plant consists ofthree basic process steps, all ofwhich emit VOMs and would be subject to the requested adjusted standard: I. Gelcoat application. A thin layer ofwhite gelcoat is applied to each bare waxed pool mold with a Magnum Venus Products ("MVP") high-volume low-pressure ("HVLP") fluid impingement technology ("FIT") applicator gun. The gelcoat applicator has a 2520 gelcoat tip that is operated as an atomizing gelcoat spray applicator. The white gelcoat used at Dix is made by HI( Research and contains 28% styrene monomer by weight and 3% methyl methacrylate (MMA) by weight. This gelcoat is the state-of-the-art in low-HAP formulations for swimming pool production. 2. Barrier coat resin application. A 100 to 120 mil (0.100 to 0.120") laminate layer ofthree ounce glass mat and vinyl ester ("VE") corrosion-resistant resin is applied to the cured gelcoat layer with the same MVP applicator that is used to apply gelcoat. However, the gelcoat tip is replaced with a 5020 VE tip and the pump pressure is adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application of the VE resin. The VEresin contains up to 48% styrene contentby weight. 3. Isophthalic structural resin application. A series of consecutive laminate layers consisting of I\I., oz. chopped glass strand mat ("CSM"), woven glass roving ("WR"), and isophthalic ("ISO") corrosion-resistant resin is applied to the

2J The CAAPP permit application submitted to Illinois EPA in November2004 requested a maximum facilitywide annual production cap of400 pools per year, which corresponds to full production (two pools per day) in spring, summer and fall. The CAAPP application estimates the Dix Plant's maximum YOM emissions at about 25 tpy, approximately 18.3 tons ofwhich relate topotential styrene emissions.
4cured VE layerwith the sameMVP applicator that is used to apply the gelcoatand VE resin. However, the VE tip is replaced with a 7025 ISO resin tip and the pump pressure is adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application ofthe ISO resin. The other manufacturing steps include: (I) parts finishing, including trimming, grinding and sanding offinished pools parts; (2) gelcoat and resin cleanup, in which acetone, non-HAP and non-VOC cleaning solvent is used to clean gelcoat and resin residues from the application equipment and roller tools; and (3) mold repair and mold prep, in which very small amounts of tooling gelcoat and tooling resin are used to repair the molds and a small quantity ofmold cleaner, mold sealer, and mold release (called mold wax), is used to prepare the bare mold for gelcoat application. These other steps do not have significantamounts ofVOM emissions. 

### VOMEmissiollsEstimates. The YOM emissions from the Dix Plant vary depending on the type and size ofeach swimming pool part. The fucility emissions consist predominately of styrene, but also include small amounts ofother YOM and volatile organic HAP species such as methyl methacrylate ("MMA''). The gelcoating process on the largest pool made by Royal results in about 32.43 Ibs ofYOM emittedperpool during the one-hour gelcoating process. The resin process on the largestpool results in about 58.58 lbs ofVOM emitted during the eight-hour
. resin application process. The total YOM emitted during fabrication ofthe largestpool is about 90.63 lbs ofYOM. 

### Annual YOM emissions at the Dix Plant for 2006 and 2007 were 11.6 tpy and 14.8 tpy, respectively. For more detailed information regarding Royal's YOM emissions, see Section 2 ofthe TechnicalDocument filed contemporaneously with this Petition. 

### Compliance with the Composites MACT. The Composites MACT, 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart WWWW, requires that subject facilities similar to Royal's be in compliance with the work practice standards contained therein by April 21, 2006. Royal was in compliance with the Composites MACT by February 2006. To comply with the work practice standards in the Composites MACT, Royal adopted standards requiring that all resin containers are closed when not in use, and implementing the use ofacetone, which has no HAP or YOM emissions. By complying with the Composites MACT, United States EPA estimates that industry-wide, reinforced plastic composite manufacturers will reduce HAP emissions by an average of43%. Section 2 of the Technical Document contains spreadsheets identifying Royal'S monthly and annual YOM emissions for 2006 and 2007 and compares such emissions to the limits set forth in the Composites MACT. Section 2 of the Technical Document also contains Royal's Initial MACT Notification Letter. Royal meets the MACT emission standards by using the HAP emissions factor averaging option (see 40 CFR 63.5810(b)) and Royal has continually been in compliance with theemission limits set forth in the Composites MACT. E. Investigation ofComplianceAlternatives: Methods for Reducing YOM Emissions From Royal's Swimming Pool Manufacturing OpcrationsSection l04.406(e) Royal investigated compliance alternatives that wouldhelp enable it to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis. Specifically, Royal investigated the following alternatives:

5(I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. It is important to note, however, that other than add-on emission controls, many ofthe alternatives investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 lblhrRule on a strict hourly basis. In addition, Royal could not identify any feasible compliance alternatives to further reduce YOM emissions from Royal's operations. 

### 1. LowerYOM ContentMaterials Royal has already reduced the YOM concentration in its production materials (gelcoat and resin materials) in compliance with the MACT. However, while complying with the MACT alone will not reduce Royal's emissions to a level satisfactoryto meet the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis, further reduction ofstyrene inthe resins (belowthatneeded to comply with MACT) is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining product integrity. This is discussed in further detail in Sections 3, 4and 5 ofthe Technical Document. 2. Alternate OperatiugProcedure and Methods Royal carefully studied the gelcoating process at the Dix Plant, and considered every recognized alternative procedure or and method that might reduce the hourly YOM emissions rate. However, this study revealed inherent process limitations that precluded the use of any effective alternative:

• Composite swimming pools are produced with open molding processes on very large male molds.

• Composite pools are too largeto use any closed molding process. Even ifclosed molding was feasible for the smallest pool model, the gelcoat layer must still be applied to the "open" closed mold with a gelcoatapplicator. • A high-quality gelcoat fmish is an essential component of a commercially acceptable composite pool. The pool models are much too large to use a vacuum-formed thermoplastic shell finish, which is the only acceptable alternative fmish that is used for smallerspa pools.

• Gelcoat must be applied to the pool mold in a single uniform layer. Gelcoat cannot be applied in separate strips or sections, because the lapped gelc()at seams would be structurallyunsound and unsightly.

• Gelcoat must be applied to the mold with an atomizing mechanical applicator. Nonatomizing gelcoat equipment is available that might reduce the gelcoat emission rate. However, the available non-atomizing equipment will not provide an acceptable surface finish and has failed to reduce gelcoatemissionsas promised by the manufacturer.

• The gelcoat process takes about one hour for the largest pool model and the largest pool model requires at least 220pounds ofgelcoat.

6• The white gelcoat used by Royal is state-of-the-art and contains the lowest feasible monomer contents of 28% styrene and 3% MMA. This gelcoat provides a flexible, durable, glossy finish that must resist impact, weathering, temperature extremes, UV radiation, and blistering.

• The emissions from the current gelcoat process cannot be appreciably reduced with any additional workpractice improvements, pollution prevention techniques, or gelcoat material substitutions.

• The application of gelcoat takes place in large work bay areas that require significant amounts of ventilation airflow to protect the workers against styrene exposure. This ventilation is required by OSHA regulations. The relatively large airflow rate and low styrene exposure limits established by OSHA result in a large dilute exhaust stream that cannot be economically controlled with add-on airpollution control equipment. Further increasing the airflow, as might be recommended by an air flow study, would only serve to make add-on controls even more costly, not more feasible. The cost ofthe lowest-cost control equipment is detailed 

### in the next section. 3. Add-On AirPollution Controls The cost and feasibility ofadd-on air pollution controls at reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities has been thoroughly studied and documented as part ofthe Composites MACT (40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart WWWW). The Dix Plant is fully compliant with the HAP emission limits listed 

### in the Composites MACT standard, averaging 72% of the MACT emissions limit. See Sections 4 and 50fthe attached Technical Document for more information on Royal's compliancewith the Composites MAcr. According to the Composites MACT, a composites facility such as the Dix Plant is not required to install add-on air pollution controls. During the promulgation and development of the Composites MACT, the United States EPA discovered that add-on airpollution controls are not cost effective at most existing composite facilities. The United States EPA also determined that add-on controls with 95% control efficiency would only be costeffective for new composite facilities that emit more than 100 tpy ofHAP or new facility that produces large parts such as swimming pools and emits more than 250 tpy ofHAP. The Dix Plant emits less than 12 tpy of HAP, so add-on controls would notbecosteffectiveby avery wide margin. A comprehensive study entitled 

### "Feasibility and Cost ofthe Capture and Control of Hazardous AirPollutant Emissionsfrom the Open Molding of ReinforcedPlastic Composites" prepared by Engineering Environmental was submitted to United States EPA in April 2000 as part of the promulgation of the Composites MAcr rule. This report has 377 pages of information concerning the cost and feasibility ofadd-on controls at composites facilities. Very little has changed since the 2000 publication date, except that the cost ofelectricity and natural gas needed to operate add-on controls has risen dramatically.31 )/ Due to the size ofthis study, Royal is not including a copy with this Petition. It is part ofEPA's docket regarding the Composites MACT rule promulgation and adoption. Should the Board desire a copy ofthe study, Roya] would bepleased to provide it to the Board.
7An abbreviated summary ofthe 

### air pollution control systems, which are detailed in the aforementioned study and are available for use, is contained in the following table: Commercially Available AirPollution Controls
". 

### Statusatthe



### .)']jii

### Plant .. Absorption Adsorption Biodigestion Condensation Flare IO

Oxidation RIO

CO

Preconcentration w/RIO Styrene is nearly insoluble in water Styrenepolymerizes on sorbentmedia Desorbed styreneis notreusable Desorbed styrene must be disoosed as hazardous waste Microbes are unreliable and must stay warm and moist DiRestion 

### beds must be hURe to handle exhaust airflow Styrene concentration in airtoo low to be economic Condensate is mostly waterwith trace styrene Condensate must be disposed as hazardous waste Styrene concentration in

### airis too low to be economic Conventionalrecuperative oxidation is always more costly than RIO Regenerative thermal oxidation is currently employed at one truck cap plant and several large bathware plants thatproduce small parts on automatedproduction lines, operate continuously (24 hr/day, 360 days/yr) and have uncontrolled styrene emissions >250 tpy. A RIO system large enough to handle the 50,000 cfm exhaust airflow at the Dix Plantwould costover $600,000 to install and over $300,000 ocrvearto oocrate. Catalytic mediahas arelatively short lifetime and is unreliable Preconcentration is currentlyemployed atfour large bathware plants. The long-term performance ofthe adsorber in questionable due to an unexpected failure ofthe activated charcoal sorbent media at one ofthe sites. A preconcentratorsystem large enough to handle the proposed 50,000 cfin exhaust airflow at the Dix Plant would costalmostone million dollars to install and oocrate. infeasible infeasible infeasible infeasible infeasible RIO is beller

technically

feasible economically

infeasible

infeasible' technically questionable economically

infeasible

A detailed add-on control cost estimate for a skid-mounted RIO system for the Dix Plant was previously submitted to Illinois EPA on February 28, 2006 and is attached in the accompanying Iechnical Document at Section 3. As detailed in this analysis, the skid-mounted RIO control option would cost approximately $33,300 per ton ofstyrene and MMA removed per year. As such, the cost effectiveness ofthe RIO control option is more than three times greater than what is widely regarded as affordable. The annual operating cost ofthe RIO control

8options is several times greater than the annual profit for the Dix Plant Hence, add-on controls areprohibitively expensive andnoteconomically feasible for the Dix Plant. F. Royal's Proposed Adjusted Standard

- Section l04.406{Q As set forth above, the rule ofgeneral applicability from which Royal seeks this adjusted Standard prohibits Royal from emitting "more than 8 Ibslhr of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source." 35 lAC. §215.301. Because IEPA will not allow averaging ofemissions to meet this standard, Royal can not comply with the 8 lblhr Rule as interpreted by IEPA. Accordingly, Royal proposes that, in lieu ofbeing subject to 35 lAC. §215.301, Royal shall comply with the MACT Standard finalized at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart 

## wwww (the "Composites MACT'). As discussed in Section IT.D ofthis Petition, Royal has come into compliance with the work practice standards of the Composites MACT Standard. According to the Composites MACT, EPA estimates that compliance with the MACT will cost $2,800/ton annually and will reduce emissions by an average of43%. Royal proposes the following language for aBoard orderto impose the adjusted standard: 

### I. Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/28/1), the Board grantsRoyal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted standardfrom -35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.201 ("8Iblhr Rule"), effective ,200_. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic material ("YOM") into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility located in Dix, Illinois. 2. 35 

### lil. Adm. Code 215.301 does notapply. Royal remains subject to the following:
a. Royal must continue to investigate: (a) swimming pool production methods that generate fewer YOM emissions, and (b) materials that have a reduced YOM content and/or are compliant with the Composites MACT HAP content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current materials with lower YOM content

.materials as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase in YOM

emissions. b. Royal must perform any reasonable test ofnew technologically or economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the U1inois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing they do. After performance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts. The report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
c. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its Clean Air Act Permit Program permit (once issued), the National Emissions Standard for
9Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacruring Facilities, set forth in 40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart WWWW, as required by Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act, and any other applicable regulation. G. Quantitative and Qualitative Description ofRoval's Impact on the Environment Before and After the Proposed Adjusted Standard

- Section l04.406(g) 

### Air Quality Impact Analysis ofRoyal's Operations. As indicated, the Dix Plant is already in compliance with the Composites MACT, and the proposed adjusted standard will not impact future compliance with the MACT. Additionally, attached at Section 6 ofthe Technical Document is an Air Quality Impact Analysis ofthe Dix Plant. This analysis presents the worstcase scenario for ozone emissions using the proposed adjusted standard. Based on the results of the analysis, the worst-case one-hour average ozone impact is still only 74% ofthe one-hour ozone standard. Royal understands that in 2005, EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone standard with an eight-houraverage standard, but believes the hourly calculationpresented in the attached Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful given the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 8 IblhrRule. Should Royal's petition be granted, there will not be any increase on aper unit basis over the current emissions from the Dix Plant. This petition merely seeks to allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same manner, and granting the petition will not amount to an increase of per unitemissions. 

### Cross-Media Environmental Impacts Resultingfrom an Adjusted Standard. None. The Dix Plant's waste and wastewater generation is independent ofYOM emissions, thus no change in the nature orvolume ofwaste and wastewatergeneration is anticipated. H. Justification

- Section l04.406(h) Under Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental ProtectionAct (the "Act"), the Board may grant an adjusted standard for persons who canjustifY such an adjustment consistent with subsection (a) of Section 27 of the Act: -415 I.L.C.S. 5/28.1. Moreover, if a regulation of general applicability does not specifY a level ofjustification required ofa petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted standards upon adequate proofthat: (I) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to that petitioner; (2) the existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more adverse 

### than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. Significantly, the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with prior adjusted standards from the 8 Iblhr Rule issued by the !PCB for similar manufacturing processes. Specifically, on July 22, 2002, the !PCB granted Crownline Boats, Inc.'s ("Crownline'') Petition for Adjusted

10Standard. Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in West Frankfort, Il1inois, using a gelcoat and resin application process very similarto that employed by Royal. Crovvnline was granted an exemption from compliance with the 8 lblhr Rule because compliance with a MACT standard similar to the Composites MACT could be demonstrated. See Section 7 ofthe attached Technical Document for a copy of the !PCB's opinion and order regarding the Crownline petition. The adjusted standard proposed herein is based on the adjusted standard approved by the lPCB in response to Crownline's petition. 

### 1. Factors Relating to Royal are Substantially and Significantly Different The primary intent ofthe 8 lb/hrRule was to prevent ozone formation and odor nuisance. However, tbe Board did not contemplate the methods Royal Fiberglass Pools would use to manufacture swimmingpools atthe Dix Plant when it promulgated the 81b/hrRule in 1971. The manufacture of large composite parts such as swimming pool shells involves a batch-type process rather than a continuous application process typically used in manufacturing processes for other products. This fact, together with the ventilation system needed to comply with OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, makes the use ofadd-on emission controls economically infeasible. Under OSHA health and safety standards for styrene, the Dix

.. plant must maintain large airflow to ventilate the work areas properly. The small emission rate and large airflow makes the cost ofusing add-on emissions controls unaffordable. Attached at Section 8 ofthe Technical Document is a February 25, 2008 letter from Rob Haberlein to Dale Guariglia which discusses the costs ofadd-on controls and why a reduction in ventilation airflow at the Dix Plant would be prohibited by the OSHA requirements. In short, Royal Fiberglass Pools believes that the Board did not anticipate the requisite production methods for manufacturing large composite parts and the OSHA standard when adopting the 8 Ib/hr Rule in 1971. The factors relating to Royal's operations are substantially and significantly differentthan the general factors relied upon by the Board in promulgating the 8 lblhr Rule. The 8 Ib/hr Rule was first promulgated in 1971 as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Rule 205. 4 PCB 191, R71-23. Because it was adopted over 30 years ago, it is difficult, ifnot 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 ofthe rule, Royal believes that the factors primarily relied upon by the Board involved concerns aboutpreventing ozone formation. In fact, it appears that the main intent ofthe rule 

### was to ensure that operations emitting organic material utilized 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 nJinois v. Processing and Books, Inc., the IPCB explainedthat: "Rule 205: Organic Material Emission Standards serves 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. 22385 Nov. 25, 1971) and to preventlocal nuisances
.... the majorpurpose oftheseregulations is for control of photochemical oxidants. In addition, odor causing organic emissions were included ifa local odor nuisance exits
. . . these provisions are designed to require the use of

11equipment that is already in use at numerous facilities
..." 1977 WL 9986, 

### ·4 (nt. Pol. Control. Bd.). From this explanation it is evident that the Board was most concerned with: (I) protectingambient air quality by preventing any violation of the I-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odor nuisances from manufacturing operations. A review ofRoyal's operations shows that the main purposes ofthis rule are not furthered through its application to Royal: first, as discussed in Section ll.G ofthis Petition, the daily amounts ofVOM emitted by Royal's operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation ofthe ozone AAQS; and second, Royal 

### has a tall stack in place to minimize odornuisance from its operations. The above quote from the Ulinois 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 which emit organic materials. However, the Board could not possibly have eontemplated all the circumstances in which organic material is emitted, and, in fact, there is no indication that the Board considered the factors peculiar to pool fabrication when**~dopting** this rule. There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherent or otherwise necessary to Royal's operations that the Board did not consider (nor could it have) when it adopted the 8 Ib/hr Rule in 1971. The building ofa fiberglass swimming pool involves a batchtype process (ofapplying layers or skins), rather than a continuous application process. This is an important distinction because compliance with the rule can be reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that involve the use ofmaterials that emit VOMs) are ofa continuous nature or, are atleast are distributed more evenly overa 24 hour period. For continuous or near-continuous operations, the use ofemission controls, as provided by 35 l.A.C. 215.302, is economically feasible. Due to the large size of the swimming pool molds and necessary batch-type sequence ofthe gelcoat and resin application processes at the Dix Plant, they are neithercontinuous norevenly distributed overa longerperiod oftime. Additionally, the advent of OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR 1910, requires manufacturers who use materials that contain and emit styrene to maintain an in-plant work area atmosphere (workerbreathing air) ofless than 100ppm. To do so, Royal had to install a large ventilation system that exhausts approximately 50,000 cubic feet of plant air every minute. This makes the use of add-on emission controls for Royal's operations fiscally impractical. See Section 8 ofthe Technical Document. The Board could not have possibly anticipated this OSHA requirement and its affect when it made its decision to adopt the 8 Ib/hr Rule for all manufacturing facilities inthe State. Finally, on June 15,2005, EPA revoked the one-hour average ozone standard, which was replaced by an eight-hour average standard. See 69 Fed. Reg. 23951 (Apr. 30, 2005). As referenced by the Board in lllinois v. Processing and Books. Inc., the 8 lb/hr Rule 

### was designed in primary part to assist in achieving compliance with EPA's one-hour average standard.

12Although Royal is not requesting that the Board revoke the 8 Iblhr Rule, Royal asserts that the elimination ofone ofthe fundamental purposes ofthe 8 Iblh Rule supports this request for an adjusted standard. Because the lPCB could not (and did not) consider these factors relating to Royal's operations, Royal contends that it is unreasonable to expect it to demonstrate compliance with the 8 IblhrRule on a strict hourly basis. 2. The Existence ofThoseFactors Justifies an Adjusted Standard

. As discussed fully in Section D.E. of this Petition, Royal has investigated numerous compliance alternatives that have proven to 

### be neither economically nor technically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to Royal's operations. The existence of these factors, coupled with !EPA's endorsement of Royal's efforts to obtain an adjusted standard justifies the granting ofan adjusted standard. 3. The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Adverse Environmental or Health Effects. As discussed previously in Section I1.G ofthis Petition, the requested adjusted standard will have little, if any, adverse impact on the environment or health. By complying with the Composites MACT, Royal has limited its YOM emissions and also decreased the amount of solid and hazardous waste Royal generates. Even without these changes, Royal's operations do not cause or contribute to any ozone exceedances. With respect to health effects, Royal notes thatlllinois does nothave ahealth standardfor styreneemissions, and this manufacturing process is the sameprocess used by swimming pool manufacturers in many otherstates. 4. The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law The granting ofthis proposed adjusted standard is consistentwithfederal law and will not violate any provision ofthe federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, there is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers' emissions oforganic material in excess of8 lbslhr, on a strict hourly basis. Because Royal is proposing'to comply with the Composites MACT, theproposed adjusted standard isconsistent with federal law. 

### Y. Consistency with Federal Law

- Section I04.406(i) There is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule orregulation prohibiting YOM emissions from reinforced plastic composite manufacturing in excess of 8 Ibslhr on a strictly hourly basis. Regardless, the facility must comply with the new federal NESHAP for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing. For these reasons, the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.

13

### J. Hearing

- ection 104.406fD Royal requests a hearing in this matter. K. Supporting Document

- Section 104.406(k) The Technical Documentis filed contemporaneously with this Petition. 

### III. CONCLUSIO The requested adjusted standard should be granted 

### as an alternative to Royal's compliance with 35 lAC §215.301. Notwithstanding the technical impracticality ofcomplying with the requirements ofthe 

### 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourly basis, to require Royal to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule would result in substantial economic hardship to Royal, and perhaps even closure ofthe Dix Plant. WHEREFORE, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. respectfully requests an adjusted standard from 35 lAC § 215.301 

### as set forth herein. Respectfully Submitted, BRYAN CAVELLP By:

# YJt /2

# ~-= Dale A. Guariglia, MO B #32988 Brandon W. Neuschafer, MO Bar#53232 OneMetropolitan Square 211 orth Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Tel. (314) 259-2000 Fax. (314) 259-2020 Attorneys for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

14

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that acopy ofthe foregoing Petition was served upon the following parties on the 31 st day ofMarch, 2009: JIIinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100 WestRandolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL60601-3218 Division ofLegaJ Counsel JIIinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 orth Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Attn: Charles Matoesian

15

### RECEIVED ClERK'S OFF1CE AS- 

# oq JJ, (Adjusted s7a'Jdard) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION FOR EXPEDJTED REVIEW BEFORETHEILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc Foran Adjusted Standard from 35 lAC § 215.301 

## APR 032009 STATE OF ILLINOIS Pollution Control Board Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), by and through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP, respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board consider its petition for Adjusted Standard on an expedited basis. In support ofits motion, Royal provides: I. Royal owns a fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility in Dix, Il1inois. 2. On January 10, 2006, the lJIinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") issued Violation Notice A-2005-00281 to Royal, alleging a violation of 35 fll. Adm. Code §215.301, which states in part that "[nJo person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kglhr (8 lbslhr) oforganic material into the atmosphere from any emission source." This section is commonly known as the "8 lb/hrRule." 3. Royal determined that, based on !EPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule, the hourly volatile organic material ("VOM") emissions from certain ofits operations did not appear to comply with !EPA's interpretation of the rule. Royal also realized that the costs associated with add-on controls and/or changing manufacturing procedures and methods were neither economically nor technologically viable, 

### aod could require the closure ofthe Dix Plant. 4. However, Royal is subject to, and in compliance with, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 63 SubpartWWWW (the**~'Composites** MACT'). 5. Royal met with !EPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring Royal's compliance with the 8 IbIhr Rule on a strict hourly basis is unreasonable, especially considering Royal's overall VOM emissions and the limited amount of time that Royal's operations exceed the 8 Ib/hr Rule. After hearing and considering the information presented by Royal, IEPA agreed that applying the 8 Iblhour Rule to Royal's operations on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden. Consequently, Royal has concluded to petition the Il1inois Pollution Control Board for an adjusted standard.6. Royal believes that its proposed adjusted standard is reasonable given that: (a) Royal's VOM emissions meet the emissions limitations ofthe Composites MACT; (b) Royal's proposed adjusted standard will not result in adverse environmental or health effects; and (c) IPCB has granted petitions for adjusted variances in situations similar to this in the past, notably in the petition ofCrownIine Boats, Inc. See Opinion and Order ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, In re: Crownline Boats, Inc., DocketNo. AS 04-01 (July 22, 2002). 

### 7. Royal believes that the information necessary for the Board to proceed with its review ofthis matter is contained in Royal'S petition. 

### Ifmore information is needed, Royal will fully cooperateto expeditiouslyprovide such information to the Board and its hearing officer. 8. This motion for expedited review is being filed at the request ofRoyal to allow Royal to continue operations in the state ofIllinois without concern forIEPA intervention. WHEREFORE, Royal respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion and expedite review ofits petition for adjusted standard. Respectfully submitted,
By: BRYAN CAVE LLP 

# 'r 

# -k/JDale A. Guariglia, 

### Misso Bar# 32998 Brandon W. Neuschafer, Missouri Bar#53232 One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102
. Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Telefax: (314) 259-2020 Attorneys for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

### CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE The undersigned certifiesthat acopy ofthe foregoing motionwas served upon the following parties on the 31stday ofMarch, 2009: llIinois Pollution ControlBoard, Attn: Clerk 100 WestRandolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL60601-3218
Division ofLegal Counsel llIinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency 1021 orth Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Attn: CharlesMatoesianBEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THEMAITER OF: Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 lAC 

### §215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS- 

# oCi-± (Adjusted Stan ard)**RECEBV~tol** CLERK'S OFFICE



## APR 03 2009 STATE OF ILUNCIS Pollution Control Board MOTION FOR ADMISSION

### PROHAC VICE ON BEHALF OFROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC. COMES NOW, Dale A. Guariglia, ofthe law firm ofBryan Cave LLP, and pursuant to Section 101.400 of the Rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, files this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice in this matter on behalfofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.. In support of this Motion, Dale A. Guariglia states as follows: J. Dale A. Guariglia is in good standing and admitted to practice before all state courts in the State ofMissouri.

Respectfully submitted,**BRYA~VELLP** By:

## \y~ /0- 

# c.-- Dale A: Guariglia, Missouri Bar#32998 OneMetropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Telefax: (314) 259-2020 Attorney forRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

2416020.1

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing motion was served upon the following parties on the 31st day ofMarch, 2009:
Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100 WestRandolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago,IL 60601-3218
Division ofLegal Counsel illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand AvenueEast P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Attn: Charles Matoesian

2416020.1

## APR 032009 STATE OF ILUNOIS 

### Pollution control Board AS- 

# Dti

# J (Adjusted

# St:~lrd) ) ) ) ) ) BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO TCONTROL BOARD

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 

### 35 lAC 

### §215.301
MOTION FORADM! ION

### PROHAC VICE ON BEHALF OFROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC. COMES OW, Brandon W. Neuschafer, of thc law 

### finn of Bryan Cavc LLP, and pursuant to Section 

### 101.400ofthe Rules ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, files this Motion for Admission 

### Pro Hac Vice in this matter on behalfofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.. In support ofthis Motion, Brandon W. Neuschafer states as follows: 1. Brandon W. Neuschafer is in good standing and admitted to practice before all state courts in the State ofMissouri.

Respectfully submitted, BRYAN

# l'VELLP By·

# .~d.

. Brandon

# ~#53232 One Metropolitan Square 

### 211 N. Broadway, Suite 

### 3600 SI. Louis, MO 

### 63102-2750 Telephone: 

### (314) 259-2000 Telefax: 

### (314) 259-2020 Attorney for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

2524351.1

### CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE The undersigned certifies that acopy ofthe foregoing motion 

### was served upon the following parties on the 31stday ofMarch, 2009:
Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100 West Randolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Attn: Charles Matoesian

252435J.1

## APR 242009 TROLBOARD 

### RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE 

### BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTTO CO TN THE MAITER OF: )**-l.~,C'** !, 

### Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc '- I 

## ::J

# I!\**-~09-004** 

### Foran Adjusted Standard from ) (Adjusteo Standard)STATE OF ILLINOIS 35 lAC § 215.301 ) Pollution Control Board OTTCE OF PUBLTCATIO OFPETTTlON FOR A ADJUSTED STANDARD Pursuant to 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 104.410, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), by and through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP, respectfully notifies the Illinois Pollution Control Board and the parties listed on the attached Certificate ofService that on April 13, 

### 2009, Notice of Royal's Petition for an Adjusted Standard was published in the Mt Vernon Register-News. Attached at Exhibit 1 is a Certificate of Publication from the publisher of the Mt. Vernon Register-News, and attached at Exhibit 2 is a more legible copy ofthe text of the published notice. Respectfully submitted,
By: IlANCAVELLP
.

# Dale~~32998 Brandon W. Neuschafer, Missouri Bar#53232 OneMetropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Telefax: (314) 259-2020 Attorneys forRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies thatacopy ofthe foregoing motion was served upon the following parties on the 23rd day ofApril, 2009: Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100 West Randolph Street James R. 

### Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218 Division ofLegal Counsel lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 orth Grand AvenueEast P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Attn: Charles Matoesian 

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE



## APR 242009

" i 

### I STATE OF ILLINOIS



### , ;, lEollution Control Board04/21/2009 08:13 5182428285 REGISTER NEWS PAGE 02/03



## CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICAT.tRlbElvED MT. VERNON REGISTER-NEWS CLERK'S OFFICE 

## APR 

## 242009 STATEOFILLINOIS JEFFERSON COUNTY 

## ., ss 

## .J STATE OF 

### ILLINOIS 

### Pollution Control Board I, Robert Dennis, do hereby certify lhat I am Publishcr ofthe Mt. Vernon Register-news, and that Mid Mt. Vernon Register-News is an incorporated company, having its principal office in the City ofMt. Vernon, an County ofJefferson aforesaid

. !.further certify that Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. is the owner**~nd** p!,.b\is.lJ.er ofthe MI.
..... Vernon Register-News. I further certify that the said Mt. Vernon Register-News is a ,ecular ncwspaper of general circulation, which is now and for more than twelve months prior to the fir't publication here certified to has been printed and published regularly in the City, County and State foresaid. 

## rfurther certify that said newspaper has been printed and published as aforesaid as a Daily paper. and thatas such Daily it has been regularly issued during such time on each secularday ofeach week. I further certify that as Publisher as aforesaid I have been and am authori7.ed and directed by the Board ofDirectors ofthe said Mt. Vernon Register-New, to sign and execute certificates ofpublication for nnd in its behalf, and to make an execute this certificate as**afor~aid.** 1 further certify that a notice ofWhich a tnIe copy is herein attached, has been published One (1) time in said Daily edition ofsaid newspaper, following day publication thereofhaving been made APril 13 2009

Givcn undermy hand this April 13,2009 A.D.
Printer's Fee**$l2.2.~.**

Document: PETITION BY ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS Notice Size: 1 X 21.87


## Page2 of3 receivedon4121120099:18:10AMIEasternDaylightTime)for5528317,

# .;:.~~:~~:C?:::=..::'::::=:::'::"~ Robert Dennis, Publi,her Mt. Vernon Register-News



### EXHIBIT 1PAGE 63/63

h""AppIan<o t
....irI1lT<tDd\1ns c!leci itoutlod:1yl Wh'tdoe1yourhonwMed'! 

# *
The5eMa: P1rt'<'t01')' i.. fNtumfcbil, ... fttc:**tb;g~<:rot~ CIll~r~:I**  S«tlon. 

## RedRivertributarypoisedtoflood

# ~"~£1 STASQASHI

• ;. ;:;;;;. Look around you. Your homR**i~** nned

# I with tl1lng$ yOU no longet' need but som9Ol"lC**at~** does. Ttltn that slaSh lnto cuh ..sty wtth Mt. \h!rnon**Regt't«.N~** clllSs.:flcdS. I I Sowe AdA PJU:E" otheJ'!l tor

_ lI"l. N a clApo IVl' f.6 ; 64/21/2669 68:13 6182428286


# _ ..**M~-"-** 

# .

. Pc.-.**C:TP~_** 

## ews I 

## Page3 of3receivedon4121120099:18:10AMIEastern**Da~lght** 

## Trma]for552a317.=-":'--.J

### ,..,.61 

## RedRivertributarypoisedtoflood

2 

### EXHIBIT .. QJl • l" "II'

.. 011

# .- • I l' • I J J 

# ·" C 'O""! 

# ... .. ,",

• AO H I • A "J 

# .

# ..

C/pttItnIlCIlI:.' __**_~._** Call I.
.... ,. "-**~,** "". ,. At_**.~**

.. fill' 

# .,"
, 

### ".,

.. 'I'

UllOtlC

## _t,Du DIIW
......... p<r-tlal (/III lIolllU II ,. '-,I. tIowc'rw. ,.. iIe. lric:b:

_ lpadc,ti" baInI, /010



### ..........,..,cto.,..... 

# .......**,"~**

TIt tqo,u7 io 10tlel )'OW

..i In a alA .WO. TIlt. ,e- llC
..ylDlI)'tIll
..£J. 

# ._.

Tt)'1t IIlI St:e. 8oIlr)'VI.l1 ulck 1'1'0, IMr til dc/ell 1D11. SUPPOIC l'llUtll'
.... I
.....po.. tlo<>t pllY 10U1
....Dod _paC.. Eall**witlfIc"l'~"'1li,11lIalollll** jlct._r.Ut\ll<I
..b1l1. Sbt)oc_lfltlUlllltlllclIloc:tell".'JII"'-

. ""MuI
... 'I'(
.. IOIIlII
....**tbc:SlItr~** IIJIUI:.Ioc
.... ...".**lo'C'01:.~flC** ..**~."** l.Mq nicl.**~,,,,,'11Jkc ~&lMlr**  W"'. i!C_,IDC...wdfloDdi il C'UU DO. Itt o(lllillp.w

RoDllilll: II 1
..DITJ :lIQ1lJ: ",'In
.. ClUb 1'I"0fl1lDakoll, willi

### """.aui., (01S1/111'1101 oc I'JU"CIl' d.llllllo
..cdCld
'"'"'all'l!q)Otlilltllc IOl1Ilwut10lit"'" I" tklWlloull-1loo N
...I'M:1t"" So.l'Irt III'I<cl 1 11*_, SUfIdI, rlltcor-lin io _len Iflll C'CalIll Hll<fto D.IIota aod ui<I**~11Dotl,** .._ap«lcd;.pI""'''' \litSoosrit Rirtt, 'IIIlldI100PILiIfDoIl.MiDlll tllIfIl.«UIl0UDt0.**OoS~,lOldcn""~lltlDC-..,.._ ~"""'PlqlIIOMlJoI.tUIouI** **m~** lioDlllUlwIltu\llcn
..." 01.0atT -.d-. 1fte-I <I1l:!I II eaw,'11 acaltL

Thewc.hcf......sc:., IlMIAltllllj' !tk,un: h u;pcclClliOme IDn (",II '41lcr 01,. .botII601Ilikl rtval faqo.lly TlIcIcl.or,oc 2 (enlli:"'rihlllkllWll<ll21rtellCtltlUl. All. _DiY.!,l1c7Cll)o·, II b<i4p:s"U" dDttd if11I11!llwc81.offlc;iIIlny.

1Uy 1OOfI)"Illat rilil,_lI." wiJI.pma.l ",,",,_IllctlII W\lcJ, l1oodlll,....1Ill 

### .-.

Mi>ltrtlltIcotIolHO<K'I.PotIIO
..lcI 0Iui6c**Parao,_l~'W",** FlfitIN prlllMN r.- 1MS\lry':IIC "" • .rotnl"" eIlIIllI., iO<l.bc:dt)'''"n., 

### .-

-CO'liktItbrolli 

### Ii"'"'-
.....**Wal~ miclcll.Jdl'S~.s.**  "P'.I_r1ll4lyl ktjlall**~1¥Cr** Ib<SIit)ocIM. 1\t 'C'l or 1bI COtWK)' "II • clcaI wkII /lD:loIlq IrOlll" SlleJcue )1 nU:u \ltD**"'l.llll.il:tlllll~lIocn.** L..,...w.

"11llbtpet'lllc**rnl~** II',Ilm. ud lOt'
.. 1"'l101e!*llplO!'r,"l 'aaidoIOo<ar- ,....lI
... NC:IL"'Woulll ,1wat 'If:fJ I<riOiIIoIybcnuxwtlll'l'C IOcllolct.M

fromApplianceRepairtoTrenching <hod itoutlDdJy! II!l>tdotSyou-"""'"need? 

# •
The:**~rvlce:** Directory IS fUluft'G**d~ily** In the**Regtstc~Ut'I** Classified S«Lioft.,**~'BmI'lI!** 1::='1.00&IlINl

Zli**bl~** 'U.M

### ICa. 242-01131::.;:::::..:.= 

### Thetwist

### andtuckofplayingbridge IJyPIUUJPALDU 

# ---**~'1lK** we. dioe i_ • *tl"JI.I1100'*ktr'lIlritt _,"
.....**k111'noplO~** ful. BIIIlV
..**~llIIdtlnlll4dittl** Ialtr

.......... .po:sf<cl 

## "c"'''
.. 11\( -1Utiot

_ c.1I\rId

- illl .""11 I IpIIlb.'" ,.cXlol'lkl*L

IIlt1llq·deJl.l"'lI'CllIcoJo. ,laml.1M:oI:1ltatu.1\loar1eado**Lb<"'lIi:Jc.lOporDtl~ID** ... Ilaol
......lklrickwilllkdLiloJ**lIll~n'lDlbl:lIiIlJlDlllQlltu.** HIIW
..1GItl IOU llnl: frDllt 

# ...,**Y1w~nDl** ....

... 1,.Mi 11 •• :-41)". h 10- -"'" litaly.-loInd
....._**~IOfl,l""'IIfOI"~** ••...,.rlUC",*",llIll,... W1IlaIr- pan.- '" IOd:poiawilyatliltllolrloedllDldl
...tt NOfIlIDJ_Idt".

__**(eiIIItr""'(Wl~IIlINJd,""**

...., IDjIIqIll ,•• bcMi. U• lII...,..
........W""*4ia-

__**"'_~idftJlIOIIlrtc** .....NI*I••/'IonIoslpcdolT dclPilc "'Yi Ii fI(IllI..,IIIlUl oar lrrdocil!-

... lIiqk'
.

YouhI<! 0'011I pDtUl1.lI1Dl<:n;**lIo'lI~** ..twD4I liflti- 1IIlO;II!l.n
....I,JVllwiIl HORt\CE.H.D.I"P)-lnuk.1 oIll1c r..,..aMtudy"-M"'Md_*__ ..DDotlcmlUlio
.... lIIoIllaSbtt.-t .,.-.um;tlowllf._Llo<f I
......... tbttO,i-.it·lbca_Iik&SIOwI_lII LbI:y
...f.lIia lOpr.\ ._0I'.x Ilal·,bllk
......

WWc'oebee_walli.,. _naill, 1'"1ll1oJIflLUlftl i1f 1011, IIOtlCIIlll1 lholl**i~w** ('
. IlIld1l111llaldoftk.lllllJ**Sl~** ••R.l r, 

### wi"'. no..l

_ W.ut!lllll) hoGN _Illor tw&l:lIllir w

Woc\J1Dcllllcl hlI**q~bon:** 111I::Sllc)UIt _I'( 1 KriII licac. lq tIIlt It'll'" 10tel 10lhc•• - NldCa$l e.-.c,I!JtIac:alCtiIIIk1llll.**1"btllctlll"u~J1I'v;o"'''''''** lIOrk,MD<na4, IlitI )r-. 1Ioon000.'ftcl,JlItt aoc:lIII:l
..**cll"""lUtolocd~"'""",,,** mablJd)'
....pc ...cl.ft.lF.Tkriou',**1I:C'OId....,.1:I~l<IltIdI)lrm~3t rctl"_I~** 

lbcSlle,tICillll: IktlltMr)lCl:wlllblb'J. II

## ""1., LJ IIlc,,,letufHonIIl>ltcllJ :lIlll'lC.ll'lO:lSWlII/I
....**lId_lWat~n·** Dlllo<orIlJItlUlll llleIl.<d. wlIlCtIrollow,l -.Il«ly**~.lA** llool.lbe Mi._a-flri**DIlloII~lIt. '1_IIft'I1I1ooo."Ulcl~Hn"'"** **~Palndl** rjH
....**"'lfJJOb,.~** IftlIJtwd r1lfIrIPl-·"

e-.,aIr"'i1h ""aInIlllllcCoaol o-tIlOlodp,",,""
.... 1ry

........."...,.sIll, _lIOIl.ocldl- :QPlt1I.OlI a...,.Sll<oiD"f'MlL..,-uld.

"'nIl prea,Mdo ""ll'llll'" klioe.- 

# _ol4**OIS~tlI\mII"~:l<dt'QC\Qlio,1ilD** l'ICIr\Il DJtDIa**~lCr1IfI** "_ HI< IJle**S~** llMrio lI:c
.....l'rJUl
...

IwIJaiIohulIOfWalJolwal.\ld It_!PI bI: If'nl f",c)e II7-JI'at-Glcl\ltIa'
.... IJD.. h'l protD<1Dtl.,.l.l.IlII
........ lolik. ta.I'l bridl< LD**L.~** IIOlIIC ;'11 11c
.. lJl'l**Il~.** r.bc: 

# -" ,

Dozensofcottagesbum atNH Christiancenter

AL'TOHIAY.N..lf.rA1')-"'1loolIlitl1ft .,..Vldcra
... k_rJ.ll
.........**IlIII~Ot"'''''''dmit.uor_ :oalIJllI1I11~lCJI'-olllCMRJ..u.mIDL** **1tiP1riOotl~~SUd&J"'~I**••

.... 1I11w
...... 8:l)'OIfbll
.. Uoo1
....n**ee.:rOJua~.JboIII~1lIiIt1** ..w.oI'CJtIrot<d..l1ltRUDflIlltlll't/qld**1'lI.1IIf.-.a:l1lO1oprics1D~_** 

## ........

.""..,..,.rly.ll_lliNl:lhcDfr-,-
.....**~bbINl'MllWa(q.-_**-o-u.... -.:0;**lr"~** full."

WiI
.....lCl Ultllbq WlIdIclcl. _ildiql lvoetllOlblJOUdilollitadl:a.

·h _.llu)C:rt<llIlknlD."c...o,l'\i_**""'''I~II"",ca~t** ...... 1OId die Nt'll" llaBpJbWUIlioD l-stt. >1Jllt 11ft ptlIIPIt_"'-fcdh)'''1k11IIl1oIlrkb luIlkclac.liI1IflIlIp;urdlOkn..-**0dtcfI~1Il:~.....,.~** 

# .....

# -

"'lbItIlIIldreellioywoc'al.lIaJIlI_

.. -..,.dlly",
...... oty;llteoMlkoI:lIISW).4Ut..:rv

OJc
....**~~IIRnI'er.lIt**

.... ....,."lIhed il
....bk**COod~ioa.** Q.lIetI**_mIIoIrlltl<lDll:ioIlabtiOtlllf~**

1)rtl:M<'f'.3ppOUUltl)'l-Ml.-..w cbeqcUa**iIo~** oall'lllt01_tom.**A'IIlIlDItil:.ludlDlill:~lc_oI'the "1'<"",,~dlJlrmx-.gr"';amlbtlt..titt'll<**  1ft
.. )U 10be:lCIItk4l1oDrou.PIrIIrJ

### '* !lIlldfly_ TloIC'CIIU" \\'do Iilf:U7I 111
......... 11 10 dlM
.. 1iYu ilp.In"'Ot.co..IJ:l•••IIIlIlIllI_**_tDJtluo'-Il~llwiellll~lNI ll'zqIiI~**  ..........rJlIdiMrl**....~QrIstla.l.lIt.nceti'1:** lc***"''''IlJr~''** to.. or o\lo, CooopIO- 

# --- 

# -
,

# -- ..-.Wlroqll- -..wollJI
.. ac- AitA.<t.i1I('lchAb A<1 ,,"nM Pf\IIIMl prfllb ,lIftq 11-.0.

.. Ibooul Pmi.· n-**~1XIIbtd** fo,llltlllltlMNrPollltUIlb /c!c Ildnt_ 'hill< eo.....i>t**~Fol»** lkf. 1;1 rd La. o(l c.r.L 63. Sl>bpilfl WW*w,
......... ltJ" 5ce.iOII "(iIJ af IkMI, ." lIS'CIIkr**-~~** 

# .... "or IIWlI**-~poHi<** .... 10 lit Kid
.. ..., """'''Kribodlll: )oar'" ,....... r...... Ctctlla$ )y ('10
.**I"~.a** fqIl<ll
..,III LIlt 11IillOilPolIJaloI CtIaI"",llcWwitllltl '2L
....I1I"fl'Ioollw.14I or ltl< polo/int_ of ltiseac;c•. lllt'
. Itla ".
..."' 11I

....." 1odo:1I' Ill< 4odIlft1llllbttloldl< 

# ........-,.....

.......... flllllMl
.. lIIiI_«,Md_1 tlo_WI;IlItcOott oflhokotd.lll
.... f'ul1'4. <:-iJl Ion. 100 W
...... clolploSlml.s.,;,..". JIlt1,Oii(*" Dti
....b 60601.- _ Ii :, llU.ii
...... 1iW aptDloa..;a••- _PI:II-.co..d Jlo'Illr.
.... .-tlanl UI• lOO!lllluol\ll.lo<tlr' N
...... --J 1tt_".M**~lIIIftl "aowl.,.f_l.~11I.**  AdIa.Co<l< 111)JOI (\J'" 01 0rpIlt "lao-

..rbI. 01."1'\"**"-11l~"** ...... 

# ..,**~"I"",,"** ibc 

### r....,...... """"col**.lI>IItlaIcl~aHt** .. iu filoaJlM. rwl_ CI1lII' """'.....rx· 

## -,....- -,. l'Wt_
.. 21.1 fIl.1le r_u-eu ... Ie.:._ "'I ("Au") ,.U lU:S lo/2lIlJ, 1hc1lalnl
.....Re,'

l'Ibo,,'1I1 l"lloh 1'1loTr)·0llJl_ SUII1oldf\'lllll)$IU. Nl"t:<odt l".llI1 r'1 Itw'lw 1t.1I"). cl- (UIl"

__ lOlL. lll<M)olJl>J

.....lflIPlltclf>
.... .1Ill

__ 0I'''ObliI<

..... -.w l"VOM°Jluttbr._

......"r-I.o,..**~'I** ..._. pool .UIIDntIf
..fI<tIllI _101)1&,1111. 

# .... J. lS
......... r"q JU..JI1 doc• aIIta",lr. K<IJNtO.

..11I1, '01:>):0 til
.. 

# '-
•. Ilorll_

__ \1,1....,..1. J»oI:**r~1** .**ptd~** dl. ..IUI

_ .... c' \ObI

_ ..

....I»..-.ublltll lLaoc VON too._ ... ..." 

### .... <. iIn WIo(T**III\I'_~,.** ,nnlul!k. IItpl

... tulltlll*

- ,ul _xna. 11 10
..... vow ...**~lftWs** .. IlXI.**~I -~**  

# ...

_ ..'.lIi ·
,.,..... ioVOMctI'Il.· 

# .... • 1.01.1_ 

### pt"••'
..**~--**

.. _of ·.,.. -..1oU,
....**..........,.~~** ,........**~1'4.** .-W.oppbu'

......**rtI<~**

......... pool_. 'Of.".
.... ........"

....In
..,t'tII<c• YOW
...._. at IoJli'I**r.,.iQl.~** .. WIIOII!n

___ 

# --- "I'" rA,-tt 

### .",ntInll, rtqIItlU


### .. ......1., Iho'
..... Mig" p..loc-. of 1"'1
..I
.. Rofal_ plttp.ft a.Qd'-"1

.."., Il.....uilll Ibt:wih"bn.,,- ,,,,"' 1·**~.,.** nc..· "., MoII· 

# STASHtoCASH LOOk around you. Your home is filled with lhings you no longer need but someone else does. Turn that stash inlo cash easily with Ml. Vernon Register-News dasslficds. 

### .5' b'



## """" JIl:l;**~icE** d ltiiliol )y**.~** F'oll<lJIwl'llolt. klc. r...**_holjluk.-dSl~** ...**~dld_""IIli** 1lO1I1'<lI
.......CIlllIltlI 

# - b.**~fil'a.** J1" PtIdJ. I
..

.....b .....,:0<1>
... U,.,pau•..;.s.. potdt.ilI fXII",
.. )I: Docao Il<o>4. _ '" Ie 5J.U,U.56,$JHd $I I. ,Itt el" hrft A
..lu..&. o, .s Joh. h 11I1· 

## ...................... .1Io<J' 1,1
.. cc ,.. Wutl14.cfl_lI

... »...... ..lc.-

.., .. tho_.".1- It)· ".11 1•• S
..." .I"'.f1
..... 'J.nd<If Uo-l,.ttflllt.n.'1 S
....I!rlolloo'"",,, LMo.I ••• nb IIIWOIr
......"
.... 

# ... A1>o
.. tIollo""" clanl"'d --.

...........10- cIII
....., .....u...**-.t,~ Rt~** 
..... c....., .. .up'1'."'" 

### 'Iri, 1<0
.. II "olr;, tiltH, 6M

## ,«' \a wWllI.,oI_Lod
.. 1lM N-.tllcul Qulool•• II I •• Stool
..... Q<Mrw fNlt/<4 

### 'W''''''lI''''I
..,•. Tlwa.I, 2 !Mu
...

...... )I;
.....r'b. nit. !'.I""'1Il "I..-I
..t.
.. 611. ",
..

.....son-c..... 1'.11"010•• 101 "

.........'tI fbo "dt••r..."
. 

## ...,. ,c w. 1 _.- 1 LAlIno
.... ..u,I.lM'h_ "M\. Ytoa
.. A..n- 

## ....,c._,..,. QoI:.rs..D
.. •• zt... JO, '"2..ad ftftnl•• 611tlJ1 2. 1.,3 I. 

### _""11I,
...352 11110.1)0", K_•• tlotkle-". 5\'1,11''' J: A 1, .,Jq. u.o r I. 1Pldt
.... Mon Q....,
.. fIl Ill, -..._ Q
........r StcCl•• ". 1b"Mhl, '2 s-&.Il
.... ',.- .r...nwf'rftd- ,.1 ",.rWl
... bll. V
..._ Jcrr

__ c...!J'.I
........... I., IIIl.I ••ulp of

............,01-1.



## .. _"f'" bl J.-eo Eo ••..

# c_.

.... wllo •• u..**~.,,:o.U.Vw­** .....l....,.C_·

....,.**~o-d.l_** 0-1
........, .. ,.**lti2.,~""** MIl l
... un U6.
•• ""•• 11. I
... DoIII
......tlWd 

# "'"'" 5Lrlf Nc." Aotrt, •IlIood.lot.tIrM.1t ..wu.,.-.l
...... s..u...., QoI..,•• tI tho ,..... . QuN101 " So.;.1J
... JI, ,.... 

### 1' '2 s...o•. It , ....., •ru,.nlnJl'.I
..\. pal Muldl AIL Vo.-, IoU
.. C
...II. IUl
..... 

### 1.,.11.,.

### "rI, cr

............t1.I ' 

## ...,.,.,

# .. "') 

## .,.
, .... »1. hol ••tl

........tl
.. thoApril 23, 2009
Ulinois Pollution Control Board Attn: Clerk 100W. Randolph St. James R. Thompson Center, Ste 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218 Brmdon W. NCUKMJcr Oin.:et:: (314) 259-2317 b\\-ncusc:h.uer@brpnc::a\·c.com

Bryan Cave UP ani Mltropoh\an SqUillft 211 North Broadway S..

n1135oo St. lou s, MO 63102-2750 rll (3\4) 259·2000 fll 13141 259·2020 Re: Royal Fibetglass Pools, Dix, Illinois Petition forAdjusted Standard WW'N.bryancavlcom ChIcago Hamburg Dear Clerk: Enclnsed please find an original and ten copies ofaNotice ofPublication ofPetition for an Adjusted Standard to be filed on behalfofRoyal Fiberglass Pools. Please f.t.lestamp one copy and return to me in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely,

# t~~o/ BrandonW. Neuschafer Hong Kong IrVin' J,llerson CIty Kans.. City Kuwait london los Angoles Milan New York Shanghai St.lOIlIS Enclosures
cc: Charles Matoesian, Ulinois EPA, Division of

### Legal Counsel Br'fln e.... I,tan'tinal Trad, A TItAOf CONSlItl",. nlISIlJtAAT 01""""'fA""'''ftfOIfSSl!JNA1.S www.bryanclvllrada.com B.ngtok Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Shanghai

Tokvo Bryn CI" SIIfII.gies A GD'flll/dllNrIIfIAl'/(WS A-''O fOUnc.U AlfAIU SUISIDJAII'I WlYW brylncII/estrategies.com S, Louis

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 15, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITIO OF ROYALFIBERGLAS POOLS, ) INC. FORAN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ) 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.30I ) )
NOTICE AS 2009-04 (Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Hlinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, illinois 60601-3218 Dale A. Guariglia Brandon W. Neuschafer Bryan Cave LLP One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 211 N. Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Carol Webb, Hearing Officer illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218

PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed with tbe Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the MOTION FOR EXTE SION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE AGENCY'S RECOMMENDATIO OF THE PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD ofthe llIinois Environmental Protection Agency acopy ofwhich is herewitb served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVlRONME TAL PROTECTIO AGENCY By: 

### lsi Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel DATED: May 15,2009 1021 orth Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, llIinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TOO) TillS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER·IEPAAITACHMENT NO. 

# Z7 ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROLBOARD June 4, 2009 IN THE MA

### TIER OF: ) ) PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.301 AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)
HEARING OFFICER ORDER The parties are advised that this matter has been assigned to the hearing officer identified below. From this date forward, any pleading filed with the Clerk ofthe Board in this matter must also be served individually on the hearing officer. The hearing officer directs petitioner and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) to address the pre-hearing questions attached to this order. Please note that questions 19, 21, and 22 are directed to both parties. The remaining questions are directed to petitioner, although the Agency may comment as it sees fit. Written responses to the Board's questions, as well as any pre-hearing testimony, must be filed at least 14 days before the hearing. A hearing date will be setwhen the parties decide how much time will be needed to prepare these documents. The Agency's deadline for filing its recommendation is June 12,2009. The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing officerat I1:00 a.m. on June 22, 2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the petitioner. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb Hearing Officer Dlinois Pollution Control Board 1021 orth Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, lIlinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.us7 

### AS 09-4 ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS BOARD Q 

### ESTlO S FOR PETITIONER AND IEPA
SECTION 28.l.c. I. 

### The petition on page 13 

### states, "By complying with the Composites MACT, Royal has limited its YOM emissions and also decreased the amount ofsolid and hazardous waste Royal generates." Would you please elaborate on Royal's reduction of solid and hazardous waste resulting from compliance with MACT? 2. 

### Ifgranted, will the adjusted standard be submitted to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois SIP? J

### 04.406(d) 3. Would you pleaseprovide a map indicating the location ofthe Dix Plant? 4. The petition indicates that Royal's other manufacturing facility is located in Louisiana. (a) Are there otherstates where Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. has similar manufacturing facilities? (b) 

### Do any ofthose states have state-specific limitations on YOM emissions beyond the MACT? Ifso, how does Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. address compliance in other states? 5. Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone attainment status ofthe county in which the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone attainment status poised to be changed in the near future? 6. In Section 2 ofthe Technical Document, the chart entitled "January 2005: Monthly HAPNOC/MACT Emissions Log for the Royal Pools Dix Facility" was printed larger than the page, so the table on the far right appears to have been cutoff. Ifso, would you please resubmit the table with the missing information? 7. In general, the most recent data provided appears to be from 2005. (a) Would you please comment on any change in quantities or materials used since then? (b) Ifpossible, would you please submit information reflecting the most recent available data? (c) Although the Technical Document Section 3 atpage 5 states that 250 pools per year is a more reasonable estimate than the 400 pools per year used in the CAAPP permit application, would you please comment on any anticipated growth or change in operations. (d) Section 2 ofthe Technical Document on page 9 makes a calculation based on "Reducingthe maximum annual production rate from 250 to 200 pools per year.. " and comments, "A facility-wide production cap of220 pools per year7 would reclassify the Dix Plant as a synthetic minor source - the maximum emission rate would bejust under the major HAP source emission threshold of 10 tpy." Is Royal Pools considering revising their CAAPP Permit application to reflect a production cap of220 pools per year and a HAP emission threshold of 10 tpy? 8. Royal Pools states that, "EPA explained that the annual emission rate and the facility CAAPP status has no bearing on compliance with 35 lAC 215 Subpart K." TSD Section 4 at2. Would you please comment on the maximum potential to emit on an hourly basis ifproduction were capped at 400 pools per year, or at 220 pools per year? 9. In Section 3 ofthe Technical Document on page 5, the Pool Production Schedule indicates a typical work schedule oftwo pools per day during 100% full production, with the "greatesthourly gelcoat process emission rate" of64.86 Ib/hr. In Section 2, the chart of''Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAPNOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility/Maximum Hourly Baseline" indicates maximum hourly usage of17.42 Ib VOMlhour for resin application, 36.78lb VOMlhour for gelcoat application, 0.081b VOMlhour for catalyst, plus I Ib VOMlhour for mold wax. (a) Would you please explain the difference in the "maximum hourly baseline" and the "hourlypotential-to-emit" and indicate which the chart in Section 2 is depicting? (h) Would you please indicate the overall maximum potential hourly YOM emissions? (c) Since Royal can produce 2pools per day at 100% full production, would you please comment on the scenario that both pools would undergo gelcoat application during the same hour? (d) Does Royal Pools have an operating procedure in place that would limit gelcoat application and curing to one pool at a time? (e) Would Royal Pools please comment on including such a limitation in the adjusted standard conditions? (I) Would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard limiting the adjusted standard to Royal's current operations and limiting the maximum hourly YOM emissions to 64.86 Ib/hr? 10. Would you please define MMA, AMS, DMP, MEK (MEKP) referenced in Section 2 of the Technical Document. 11. In Section 2 ofthe Technical Document, the chartentitled, "Maximum Hourly Baseline: Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAPNOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility" lists "Bondo" having a 12.57% Styrene Emission Factor and a I00% OtherVOC Emission Factor. The information underVOC Content (Styrene, MMA, AMS, Other), however, is blank for Bondo. Is information available on the 

### HAPNOC content ofBondo? Since Bondo is

### 7
not listed in the 2005 Monthly HAPNOCIMACT Emissions Logs, would you please comment on how seldom it is used. 12. In AS 04-1, Crownline used booths equipped with dry filter medium to reduce particulate emissions; lower styrene-content gelcoat (33.4%); panel filters built in each side ofthe laminating area to control particulate emissions; tanks equipped with submerged inlets to reduce splashing and release ofVOMs when filling; and flow-coat spray guns for lamination to reduce YOM emissions experienced with previous air atomized guns. (AS 04-1 Pet. at 5-6.) Would you please comment on the potential to employ such efforts at Royal's Dix Plant? 104.406(c) 13. The petition on pages 5-6 states, "Specifically, Royal investigated the following alternatives: 

### (I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies." The Technical Document Section 3 provides details ofthe evaluation of add-on emission controls, however, details do not seem to be provided for the other two alternatives mentioned. Would you please elaborate numbers 

### (I) and (2) above? 14. In Sec. 2 ofthe Technical Document, the chart entitled "Hourly Potential-to-Emit 

### HAPNOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility" lists the HAPIVOC content ofthe materials used. The petition on page 7 states that the white gelcoat used contains the lowest feasible monomercontents of28% styrene and 3% MMA. Sections 2 and 3 also indicate 161,800 Ib ofresin (47.5% styrene) and 31361b ofMEKP Catalyst (2% MEK, 37% DMP) were used in 2005. Did Royal Pools investigate the availability ofor experiment with other lower

### HAPNOC content materials? Ifso, would you please document your efforts? 15. Section 3 ofthe Technical Document on page 10 states,' on-atomizing gelcoat equipment is available that might reduce the gelcoat emission rate. However, the available non-atomizing equipment will not provide an acceptable surface finish and has failed to reduce gelcoatemissions as promised by the manufaclurer." Would you please document yourefforts to evaluate the non-atomizing gelcoat equipment? 16. In the Federal Register, USEPA estimates there are approximately 435 existing major source facilities that will be subject to the Federal rule 40 CFR 63 Subpart WWWW. Annual compliance costs for all existing major source facilities were estimated at $21.5 million. This included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. (68 FR 19381) (a) What costs has Royal incurred to meet the Federal rule? (b) Has Royal estimated the additional compliance costs associated with monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting?7 104.406(0 17. Thepetition on page l\vo refers to "Royal's Initial MACT Notification Letter" being contained in Section 2 ofthe Technical Document, however, the letter appears to be missing from that ection. Would you please provide a copy or indicate where it can be found in the record? 18. Royal indicates that it meets the Composites MACTby ensuring that all resin containers are closed when not in use and that acetone (non-HAP/non-VOC) is used in resin and gelcoat cleanup. (pet. at 5.) Royal also indicates that ituses a28% styrene monomer gelcoat that is "state-of-the-art in low-HAP formulations for swimming pool production." Did Royal switch to this gelcoat to comply with MACT? 19. This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency: The Air Quality Impact Analysis for ozone was performed based on the assumption that 25 tons per year would be the maximum YOM emitted and that the I-hourozone standard is 120 ppb. However, there are no limitations proposed in the adjusted standard language. (a) Would you please comment on proposing a condition in the adjusted standard language that would limit VOMs to 25 tpy or less. (b) Would you also please comment on proposing a condition that would require a reevaluation ofthe adjusted standard ifthe ozone NAAQS is revised. 20. Could you please indicate ifRoyal has made a demonstration ofcompliance with the NESHAP regulations under40 CFR Part 63 SubpartWWWW to USEPA yet? [40 CFR 63.5840] Did USEPA respond to the compliance demonstration, and ifso, how? 104.406(g) 21. This question is addressed to botb petitioner and the Agency: The petition on page 10 states, "Royal understands that 

### in 2005, EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone standard with an eight-houraverage standard, butbelieves the hourly calculation presented 

### in the attached Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful given the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 8 Iblhr Rule." As ofMarch 2008, the primary ozone standard was strengthened from 0.08 parts per million (ppm), set in 1997 to a level of0.075 ppm averaged over 8 hours (73 FR16436; March 27,2008). (a) Since the Air Quality Impact Analysis presented in the Technical Document Section 6 is based on the previous ozone standard, would you please provide an analysis ofozone impact in terms ofthe current ozone AAQS? (b) Is the Scheffe (Sept. 1988) procedure and table used in Royal Pool's Air Quality Impact Analysis (TSD Sec. 6) the same for determining the ozone increment for either I-hour as well as 8-hourperiods oftime? (c) Is the Scheffe (Sept. 1988) procedure still the USEPA recommended procedure?(d)
(e) 7 Please comment on the results ofthe Air Quality Impact Analysis ifthe ozone increment were added to the 8-houtbackground air quality reading ofthe 4th highest measured ozone concentration from the past 4 consecutive years. Has the !EPA provided any guidance in conducting the Air Quality Impact Analysis or indicated appropriate measures ifthe ozone increment appears to cause or be contributing to a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS? 22. This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency: The Petition at page 12 states, "
...the daily amounts ofYOM emitted by Royal's operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS
..... Since Hamilton County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences ofthe 8- hout ozone standard of75 ppb, would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard limiting Royal Pools YOM emitting operations on ozone action days where ambientconditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-hourozone standard? 23. IfRoyal were to experience a growth in production, could you please comment on how such growth would affect the YOM emissions on an hourly and l2-month average basis? Would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard that would limit the amount ofYOM emissions to a level consistent with the time Royal's adjusted standard petition was submitted?7 CERTIFICATE OF SERV1CE It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing orderwere mailed, first class, on June 4, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on June 4, 2009: John T. Therriault Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, JIlinois 60601

Carol Webb Hearing Officer lllinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 2171524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.usAS 2009-004 

# • IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004 Brandon W. Neuschafer Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 AS 2009-004 Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.

# 3

ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOARD June 4, 2009 IN THE MATIER OF: ) ) PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FOR ADJUSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.301 ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard): AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)

On April 3, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc., (Royal) filed this petition for an adjusted standard pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2006)). Royal requests that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 lll. Adm. Code 215.301 as that rulc applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material ("VOM") at Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility. The facility is located at 312 Duncan Road, Dix, Jefferson County. In the petition, Royal requests that a hearing be held and asks that the Board expedite review ofthis petition. No response has been filed to the motion to for expedited review. See 35 111. Adm. Code IOL500(d) Section 28.1 ofthe Act requires publication ofa notice ofan adjusted standard proceeding in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the area affected by Royal's activity. The notice must be published within 14 days oftile filing ofthe petition. On April 24, 2009, Royal filed a "Notice ofPublication ofPetition for an Adjusted Standard" indicating that notice ofthe petition was published in theMt. Vernon RegisterNews on April 13,2009. The Board finds that the notice meets the requirements ofSection 28.1 ofthe Actand that the petition meets the content requirements ofSection 104.406 ofthe Board's niles (35 UI Adm. Code 104.406). The Board accepts this matter for hearing. However, the Board denies the request to expedite the decision. Requests for expedited review are governed by Section 101.512 ofthe Board's rules, and must contain, interalia, a complete statement ofthe facts and reasons for the request. See 35 ill. Adm. Code 101.512. In acting on a motion for expedited review, the Board considers, at a minimum, all statutory requirements and whetherornot material prejudice will result from the motion being granted ordenied. 35ll1. Adm. Code IOL512(b). In addition, the Board will only grant a motion for expedited review consistent with available resources. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code IOL512(c). The Board finds that material prejudice will not result ifthe Board denies the motion. Also, as the Board noted in several recent decisions denying requests for expedited review: expedited review is granted consistent with decision deadlines and available resources. The Board currently has numerous open rulemaking dockets that demand immediate attention, as well as pressing cases that will keep the Board busy for several months. Due to attrition, Board staffing is at its lowest levels in some years. Even ifthe Board wcre to accept that Galva's claims amount to2 "material prejudice", the Board's limited resources in light ofits current and future decision deadlines render the granting ofa motion for expedited review unlikely in all but the most dire circumstances. 

### See Proposed Site Specific Rule For City OfGalva Site Specific Water Quality Standard ForBoron Discharges To Edwards River And Mud Creek: 35 []1. Adm. Code 303.347 (Feb. 5,2009). Hearings shall be scheduled and completed in a timely manner. The Board through its hearing officer, may direct Royal to provide additional information concerning its request prior to orat hearing. 

### See Petition ofBFI Waste Systems ofNorth America, Inc. for Waste Delisting, AS 08-5, slip op. at I (Jan. 10,2008) (acceptingpetition for hearing while noting that orders may issue requiring more infornJation from petitionerbefore orat hearing). The assigned hearing officer shall inform the Clerk ofthe Board ofthe time and location ofhearing at least40 days in advance ofhearing so that a 30-day public notice ofhearing may be published. The Board notes thaton May 15,2009, the llIinois Environmental Protection Agency sought an extension oftime to file the recommendation in this proceeding. No response has been filed to the motion for extension oftime and thus any objection to the motion is waived. 

### See 35 

### llI. Adm. Code 101.500(d). The Board grants the motion. On April 3, 2009, Royal filed motions to allow Dale A. Guariglia and Brandon W. Neuschafer to appear

### pro hac vice on behalfofRoyal. According to the motions, Mr. Guariglia and Mr. Neuschafer are licensed and registered attorneys in Missouri. No response has been filed to the motion to appear

### pro hac vice. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d). The Board grants the motion. 

### See 35 

## m. Adm. Code 101 AOO(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe lllinois Pollution Control Board, certifY that the Board adopted the above order on June 4, 2009, by a vote of5-0.

Jolm T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control BoardIEPAATTACHMENT NO.:::J. 

### 2 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO TROL BOARD June 22, 2009 IN THE MATIER OF: ) ) PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.30I AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)


### HEARl! G OFFICER ORDER On June 22, 2009, the parties participated in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer. Within the nexttwo or three weeks, petitionerplans to file an amended petitinn. The amendments will notconstitute significant changes, but will update certain supporting information. On June 11,2009, the TIlinois Environmental Prntectinn Agency filed a motion to extend the deadline for its recommendation to July 7, 2009. Petitionerdoes not object, thus the motion is granted. The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer at 10:30 a.m. on July 27,2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the petitioner. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, lllinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.us2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that tme copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on June 22, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a rme copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on June 22, 2009: John T. Therriault Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Webb Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.usAS 2009-004 Charles Matosian 

### IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004 Brandon W. euschafer Bryan Cave, 

### LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 AS 2009-004 Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, 

### LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

### 2 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD June 22, 2009 IN THE 

### MATIER OF: ) ) PETITION OF ROYAL FffiERGLASS ) POOLS, 

### INC. FOR ADJUSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.301 AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)
HEARJNG OFFICER

### ORDER On June 22, 2009, the parties participated in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer. Within the next two or three weeks, petitionerplans to file an amended petition. The amendments will not constitute significant changes, but will update certain supporting information. On June II, 2009, the lllinoi Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion to extend the deadline for its recommendation to July 7, 2009. Petitionerdoes not object, thus the motion is granted. The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the petitioner. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, fIlinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.us2 CERTIF[CATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on June 22, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. 11 is hereby certified that atrue copy ofthe foregoing orderwas hand delivered to the following on June 22, 2009: John T. Therriault llIinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I

Carol Webb Hearing Officer llIinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box [9274 Springfield, lIlinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 webbc@ipcb.state.il.usAS 2009-004 Charles Matosian IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004 Brandon W. Neuschafer Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 2]1 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63]02-2750 AS 2009-004 Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750