IEPA ATTACHMENT NO..-L

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PETITION FOR AN 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'S OFFIce

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") at Royal'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.

The production bays utilize a 50,000-cfm cross-flow ventilation system that exhausts air from the

work areas to the outside atmosphere through a 36-foot tall vertical discharge stack in order to

limit worker exposure to styrene. Levels of styrene, the YOM of concern at the Dix Plant, are

within the OSHA permissible exposure 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 of 2004,

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 emission rate and, therefore, compliance with the rule would need to

be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis, not on an average from any longer time period.

On January 10,2006, the lllinois EPA issued Violation Notice A-2005-0028l to Royal.

After receipt of this Notice, representatives of Royal met with Illinois EPA in person and also

corresponded with Illinois EPA regarding the notice. As part of these 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 of the 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 of
the 8 lblhr Rule.

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 of these options will neither allow it to remain

competitive nor profitable, and may force closure of the 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/hour Rule 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 adjustment from the 8 lb/hr Rule. J

Accordingly, Royal offers the following summary of reasons as to why it should receive

an adjusted standard with respect to the 8 lb/hr Rule:

• 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 cost for a facility to

comply with the MACT is $2,800/10n of hazardous air pollutants removed and will

reduce styrene emissions by an average of 43%. 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 amount to approximately $636,000 to

install and over $360,000 per year to operate. This equates to approximately $33,000 per

IOn ofpollutant removed.

• Although some alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic ("FRP")

products exist, none of them 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 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

• The high cost of using 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 of the 8 Iblhr Rule to Royal's operations, and this

Petition shall not act as a waiver ofsuch rights or defenses, nor as an admission of positions laken by Illinois EPA.

2
methods and procedures), will put Royal at a significant competitive disadvantage. This

will result in one of the following scenarios:

To remain competitive, Royal will be forced to move to another state which does

not have an 81blhr Rule (or any similar limitation); 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 of its 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 of those 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 § 104.406 REQUIREMENTS

A. Standard From Which Relief is Sought -- § 104.406(a)

Royal requests an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code § 215.301 (Use of Organic

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 of more 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

photochemically reactive 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 of a type capable of emitting 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 of the Regulation of General Applicability - Section 104.406(b)

This regulation was promulgated to implement the federal requirements under the Clean

3
Air Act, 42 USC § 7401 et seq.

C. Level ofJustification - ection J04.406(c)

The regulation of general applicability from which Royal seeks an adjusted standard does

not specify a level ofjustification 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 of fiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3'

10" deep to IT wide x 40' 6" long x 8' deep. The Dix Plant began operations 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.

Composite Pool Manufacturing Procedure. The composite pool manufac,turing at the

Dix Plant consists ofthree basic process steps, all of which emit VOMs and would be subject to

the requested adjusted standard:

I. Gelcoat application. A thin layer of white 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 of three 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 VE resin contains up to 48% styrene content by 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 November 2004 requested a maximum facilitywide annual production cap of 400 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 to potential styrene emissions.

4
cured VE layer with the same MVP applicator that is used to apply the gelcoat and

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 of the ISO

resin.

The other manufacturing steps include: (I) parts finishing, including trimming, grinding

and sanding of finished 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 of mold

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 significant amounts ofVOM emissions.

VOM Emissiolls Estimates. The YOM emissions from the Dix Plant vary depending on

the type and size of each swimming pool part. The fucility emissions consist predominately of

styrene, but also include small amounts of other 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 of YOM emitted per pool during the one-hour gelcoating process. The

resin process on the largest pool results in about 58.58 lbs ofVOM emitted during the eight-hour .

resin application process. The total YOM emitted during fabrication of the largest pool is about

90.63 lbs of YOM. 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 of the Technical Document 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 of acetone, 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 of 43%.

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 the emission limits set forth in the Composites MACT.

E. Investigation of Compliance Alternatives: Methods for Reducing YOM

Emissions From Royal's Swimming Pool Manufacturing OpcrationsSection l04.406(e)

Royal investigated compliance alternatives that would help 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 of the alternatives investigated would

not allow Royal to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule 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. Lower YOM Content Materials

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 satisfactory to meet the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict

hourly basis, further reduction ofstyrene in the resins (below that needed to comply with MACT)

is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining product integrity. This is discussed in

further detail in Sections 3, 4 and 5 ofthe Technical Document.

2. Alternate Operatiug Procedure 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 large to use any closed molding process. Even if closed molding

was feasible for the smallest pool model, the gelcoat layer must still be applied to the

"open" closed mold with a gelcoat applicator.

• 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

smaller spa 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

structurally unsound 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 gelcoat emissions as promised by the manufacturer.

• The gelcoat process takes about one hour for the largest pool model and the largest pool

model requires at least 220 pounds of gelcoat.

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 air pollution 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 of the lowest-cost

control equipment is detailed in the next section.

3. Add-On Air Pollution Controls

The cost and feasibility of add-on air pollution controls at reinforced plastic composite

manufacturing facilities has been thoroughly studied and documented as part of the 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 50f the attached Technical Document for more information

on Royal's compliance with 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 air pollution 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 cost effective for new composite

facilities that emit more than 100 tpy of HAP or new facility that produces large parts such as

swimming pools and emits more than 250 tpy of HAP. The Dix Plant emits less than 12 tpy of

HAP, so add-on controls would not be cost effective by a very wide margin.

A comprehensive study entitled "Feasibility and Cost of the Capture and Control of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Open Molding ofReinforced Plastic 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 of add-on controls at composites facilities. Very

little has changed since the 2000 publication date, except that the cost of electricity and natural

gas needed to operate add-on controls has risen dramatically.31

)/ Due to the size of this study, Royal is not including a copy with this Petition. It is part of EPA's docket

regarding the Composites MACT rule promulgation and adoption. Should the Board desire a copy of the study,

Roya] would be pleased to provide it to the Board.

7
An abbreviated summary of the air pollution control systems, which are detailed in the

aforementioned study and are available for use, is contained in the following table:

Commercially Available Air Pollution Controls

". Status at the

.)']jiiPlant ..

Absorption

Adsorption

Biodigestion

Condensation

Flare

IO

Oxidation RIO

CO

Preconcentration

w/RIO

Styrene is nearly insoluble in water

Styrene polymerizes on sorbent media

Desorbed styrene is not reusable

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 air too low to be economic

Condensate is mostly water with trace styrene

Condensate must be disposed as hazardous waste

Styrene concentration in air is too low to be economic

Conventional recuperative oxidation is always more

costly than RIO

Regenerative thermal oxidation is currently employed

at one truck cap plant and several large bathware plants

that produce small parts on automated production 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 Plant would cost over $600,000 to

install and over $300,000 ocr vear to oocrate.

Catalytic media has a relatively short lifetime and is

unreliable

Preconcentration is currently employed at four large

bathware plants. The long-term performance ofthe

adsorber in questionable due to an unexpected failure

ofthe activated charcoal sorbent media at one of the

sites. A preconcentrator system large enough to handle

the proposed 50,000 cfin exhaust airflow at the Dix

Plant would cost almost one 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 of the RIO control

8
options is several times greater than the annual profit for the Dix Plant Hence, add-on controls

are prohibitively expensive and not economically feasible for the Dix Plant.

F. Royal's Proposed Adjusted Standard - Section l04.406{Q

As set forth above, the rule of general 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 of emissions to meet this standard, Royal can not comply with the 8 lblhr Rule as

interpreted by IEPA. Accordingly, Royal proposes that, in lieu of being 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 of this 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 of 43%.

Royal proposes the following language for a Board order to impose the adjusted standard:

I. Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS

5/28/1), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted standard from

-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 not apply. 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 of new 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 of such tests, Royal

must prepare and submit a report summarizing the activities and results of these

investigatory efforts. The report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau of Air,

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

9
Hazardous 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 of Roval's Impact on the

Environment Before and After the Proposed Adjusted Standard - Section

l04.406(g)

Air Quality Impact Analysis of Royal'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 of the Technical

Document is an Air Quality Impact Analysis of the 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% of the one-hour

ozone standard. Royal understands that in 2005, EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone

standard with an eight-hour average standard, but believes 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.

Should Royal's petition be granted, there will not be any increase on a per 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 unit emissions.

Cross-Media Environmental Impacts Resulting from an Adjusted Standard. None.

The Dix Plant's waste and wastewater generation is independent of YOM emissions, thus no

change in the nature or volume of waste and wastewater generation is anticipated.

H. Justification - Section l04.406(h)

Under Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (the "Act"), the Board may grant

an adjusted standard for persons who can justifY such an adjustment consistent with subsection

(a) of Section 27 of the Act: -415 I.L.C.S. 5/28.1. Moreover, if a regulation of general

applicability does not specifY a level of justification required of a petitioner to qualify for an

adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted standards upon adequate proof that:

(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 of those factors justifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard will not result

in environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects

considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and (4) the adjusted

standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

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

10
Standard. Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in West Frankfort, Il1inois,

using a gelcoat and resin application process very similar to 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 of the

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 of the 8 lb/hr Rule was to prevent ozone formation and odor nuisance.

However, tbe Board did not contemplate the methods Royal Fiberglass Pools would use to

manufacture swimming pools at the Dix Plant when it promulgated the 81b/hr Rule 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 of add-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 of using add-on emissions controls unaffordable. Attached at

Section 8 of the Technical Document is a February 25, 2008 letter from Rob Haberlein to Dale

Guariglia which discusses the costs of add-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 different than

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, if not impossible, to know exactly what

factors the Board relied upon in adopting this rule. However, based upon Illinois Pollution

Control Board case law and a common sense reading of the rule, Royal believes that the factors

primarily relied upon by the Board involved concerns about preventing ozone formation. In fact,

it appears that the main intent of the rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic material

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 explained that:

"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 prevent local nuisances.... the major purpose ofthese regulations is for control of

photochemical oxidants. In addition, odor causing organic emissions were included if a

local odor nuisance exits . . . these provisions are designed to require the use of

11
equipment 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) protecting ambient air quality by preventing any violation of

the I-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odor nuisances from manufacturing

operations. A review of Royal's operations shows that the main purposes of this rule are not

furthered through its application to Royal: first, as discussed in Section ll.G of this Petition, the

daily amounts ofVOM emitted by Royal's operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone

levels and would not cause a violation of the ozone AAQS; and second, Royal has a tall stack

in place to minimize odor nuisance 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 of a fiberglass swimming pool involves a batchtype process (of applying 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 of materials that emit VOMs)

are of a continuous nature or, are at least are distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period. For

continuous or near-continuous operations, the use of emission 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 of the gelcoat and resin application processes at the Dix Plant,

they are neither continuous nor evenly distributed over a longer period 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 (worker breathing air) ofless than 100 ppm. 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 of the 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 in the 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.

12
Although Royal is not requesting that the Board revoke the 8 Iblhr Rule, Royal asserts that the

elimination of one of the fundamental purposes of the 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 Iblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

2. The Existence of Those Factors 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 of an adjusted standard.

3. The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Adverse Environmental or

Health Effects.

As discussed previously in Section I1.G of this 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

that lllinois does not have a health standard for styrene emissions, and this manufacturing process

is the same process used by swimming pool manufacturers in many other states.

4. The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law

The granting of this proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law and will not

violate any provision of the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, there is no Clean Air Act

equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers' emissions of organic

material in excess of 8 lbslhr, on a strict hourly basis. Because Royal is proposing' to comply

with the Composites MACT, the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.

Y. Consistency with Federal Law - Section I04.406(i)

There is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule or regulation 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 Document is 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 of complying

with the requirements of the 8 lb/hr Rule 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 CAVE LLP

By: YJt /2 ~-= Dale A. Guariglia, MO B #32988

Brandon W. Neuschafer, MO Bar #53232

One Metropolitan 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 a copy ofthe foregoing Petition was served upon the

following parties on the 31 st day ofMarch, 2009:

JIIinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph 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

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc

For an 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 of more than

3.6 kglhr (8 lbslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source." This

section is commonly known as the "8 lb/hr Rule."

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 of its 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 Subpart WWWW (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 of the 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 of CrownIine Boats, Inc. See Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, In re: Crownline Boats, Inc., Docket No. 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 cooperate to expeditiously provide such information to the Board and its hearing officer.

8. This motion for expedited review is being filed at the request of Royal to allow

Royal to continue operations in the state ofIllinois without concern for IEPA intervention.

WHEREFORE, Royal respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion and expedite

review of its 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 OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing motion was served upon the

following parties on the 31st day ofMarch, 2009:

llIinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph Street

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Division ofLegal Counsel

llIinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Attn: Charles Matoesian
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MAITER OF:

Petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

for an Adjusted Standard from

35 lAC § 215.301

)

)

)

)

)

(Adjusted

AS- oCi-±

Stan ard)

RECEBV~tol

CLERK'S OFFICE

APR 03 2009

STATE OF ILUNCIS

Pollution Control Board

MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

ON BEHALF OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC.

COMES NOW, Dale A. Guariglia, of the law firm of Bryan 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 behalf of Royal 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 of Missouri.

Respectfully submitted,

BRYA~VELLP

By: \y~ /0- c.--

Dale A: Guariglia, Missouri Bar #32998

One Metropolitan Square

211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Telephone: (314) 259-2000

Telefax: (314) 259-2020

Attorney for Royal 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 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

2416020.1
APR 032009

STATE OF ILUNOIS

Pollution control Board

AS- Dti J

(Adjusted St:~lrd)

)

)

)

)

)

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO T CONTROL BOARD

RECEIVED IN THE MATTER OF: CLERK'S OFFICE

Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

for an Adjusted Standard from

35 lAC § 215.301

MOTION FOR ADM! ION PRO HAC VICE

ON BEHALF OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC.

COMES OW, Brandon W. Neuschafer, of thc law finn of Bryan Cavc LLP, and

pursuant to Section 101.400 of the Rules ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, files this Motion

for Admission Pro Hac Vice in this matter on behalf of Royal 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,

BRYANl'VE LLP

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 OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing motion was served upon the

following parties on the 31st day of March, 2009:

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph Street

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Division of Legal 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

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTTO CO

TN THE MAITER OF: )

-l.~,C' !,

Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc '- I ::J I!\ -~09-004

For an Adjusted Standard from ) (Adjusteo Standard)STATE OF ILLINOIS

35 lAC § 215.301 ) Pollution Control Board

OTTCE OF PUBLTCATIO OF PETTTlON 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 of Service 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 of the text of the published

notice.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

IlANCAVELLP .

Brandon

Dale~~32998 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 OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy 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 of Legal Counsel

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Attn: Charles Matoesian

RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

APR 242009

" i I STATE OF ILLINOIS , ;, lEollution Control Board
04/21/2009 08:13 5182428285 REGISTER NEWS PAGE 02/03

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICAT.tRlbElvED

MT. VERNON REGISTER-NEWS CLERK'S OFFICE

APR 242009

STATE OF ILLINOIS

JEFFERSON COUNTY ., ss

.J STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

I, Robert Dennis, do hereby certify lhat I am Publishcr of the Mt. Vernon Register-news, and that

Mid Mt. Vernon Register-News is an incorporated company, having its principal office in the City of Mt.

Vernon, an County of Jefferson aforesaid

. !.further certify that Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. is the owner ~nd p!,.b\is.lJ.er of the 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 that as such Daily it has been regularly issued during such time on each secular day of each week.

I further certify that as Publisher as aforesaid I have been and am authori7.ed and directed by the

Board of Directors of the said Mt. Vernon Register-New, to sign and execute certificates of publication

for nnd in its behalf, and to make an execute this certificate as afor~aid.

1further certify that a notice of Which a tnIe copy is herein attached, has been published One (1)

time in said Daily edition of said newspaper, following day publication thereof having been made

APril 13 2009

Givcn under my hand this April 13,2009 A.D.

Printer's Fee $l2.2.~.

Document:

PETITION BY ROYAL

FIBERGLASS POOLS

Notice Size: 1 X 21.87

Page 2of 3received on 412112009 9:18:10 AM IEastern Daylight Time) for 5528317,

.;:.~~:~~:C?:::=..::'::::=:::'::"~ Robert Dennis, Publi,her

Mt. Vernon Register-News

EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 63/63

h""AppIan<o t....ir I1lT<tDd\1ns

c!leci it out lod:1yl

Wh't doe1 your honw Med'!

The 5eMa: P1rt'<'t01')'

*i.. fNtumf cbil, ... fttc:

tb;g~<:rot~ CIll~r~:I S«tlon.

Red River tributary poised to flood

~"~£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

Page 3of 3received on 412112009 9:18:10 AM IEastern Da~lght Trma] for 552a317.=-":'--.J
,..,.61

Red River tributary poised to flood

EXHIBIT 2

.. QJl

"II' • l"

.. 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 10 tlel )'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'llU tll'.... I.....po.. tlo<>t

pllY 10U1 ....Dod _paC.. Eall

witlfIc"l'~"'1li,11lIalollll

jlct._r.Ut\ll<I..b1l1.

Sbt)oc_lfltlUlllltlllc lIloc:tell".'JII"'- .

""MuI ...'I'(..IOIIlII .... tbc:SlItr~

IIJIUI:.Ioc .... ...". lo'C'01:.~flC.. ~."

l.Mq nicl. ~,,,,,'11Jkc ~&lMlr W"'. i!C_,IDC...wd floDdi 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)Otl ill tllc IOl1Ilwut10 lit"'" I" tklWlloull- 1loo N...I'M:1t"" So.l'Irt

III'I<cl 1 11*_,SUfIdI, rllt cor-lin io

_len Iflll C'CalIll Hll<fto D.IIota aod ui<I

~11Dotl, .._ap«lcd;.pI""'''' \lit Soosrit Rirtt, 'IIIlldI100PI LiIfDoIl. MiDlll

tllIfIl.«UIl0UDt0. OoS~,lOldcn""~lltlDC-..,.._

~"""'PlqlIIOMlJoI.tUIouI m~

lioDlll UlwIltu\llcn ..." 01. 0atT -.d-.

1ft e-I <I1l:!I II eaw,'11 acaltL

The wc.hcf......sc:., IlMIAltllllj' !tk,un:

h u;pcclClliO me ID n (",II '41lcr 01,.

.botII601Ilikl rtval faqo.lly TlIcIcl.or,oc 2

(enlli:"'rihlllkllWll<ll21rtellCtltlUl.

All. _DiY.!,l1c7Cll)o·, II b<i4p:s"U"

dDttd if 11I11!llwc81. offlc;iIIl ny.

1Uy 1OOfI)" Illat rilil, _lI." wiJI.pma.l

",,",,_Illc tlII W\lcJ, l1oodlll,....1Ill

.-.

Mi>ltrtlltIcotIolHO<K'I.PotIIO ..lcI

0Iui6c Parao,_l~'W",Flfit IN

prlllMN r.- 1M S\lry':IIC "" • .rotnl"" eIlIIllI., iO<l.bc:dt)'''"n.,

.-

-CO'liktItbrolli Ii"'"'-..... Wal~

miclcll.Jdl'S~.s. "P'.I_r1ll4lyl

ktjlall ~1¥CrIb< 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<riOiIIoIybcnux wtlll'l'C IOcllolct.M

from Appliance Repair to Trenching

<hod it out lDdJy!

II!l>t dotS you- """'" 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 ::.;:::::..:.=

The twist and tuck of playing bridge IJy PIUUJPALDU

~'1lK--- we. dioe i_ •

*tl"JI.I1100'*ktr'lIlritt

_," ..... k111'noplO~

ful. BIIIl V..~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-

-"'"lital y.-loInd ..... _

~IOfl,l""'IIfOI"~

••...,.rlUC",*",llIll,...

W1IlaIr- pan.-'"IOd: poiawilyatliltllolrloedllDldl... tt NOfIlIDJ_Idt".__

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

...., ID jIIqIll ,•• bcMi. U•

lII...,.. ........W""*4ia- __ "'_~idftJlIOIIlrtc

.....NI*I••/'IonIoslpcdolT

dclPilc "'Yi Ii fI(IllI..,IIIlUl oar lrrdocil!-

...lIiqk' .

You hI<! 0'011I pDtUl1.lI1Dl<:n;

lIo'lI~.. twD4I liflti- 1IIlO;II!l.n....I,JVllwiIl

HORt\CE. H.D.I"P)-lnuk.1oIll1c 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'oe bee_ walli.,. _naill, 1'"1ll1oJIflLUlftl i1f 1011, IIOtlCIIlll1 lholl i~w (' .

IlIld1l111llald oftk.lllllJ Sl~••R.l r, wi"'. no..l _ W.ut!lllll) hoGN _Ill or tw&l:lIllir w Woc\J1Dcllllcl hlI q~bon:

111I:: Sllc)UIt _I'( 1 KriII licac.

lq tIIlt It'll'" 10 tel 10 lhc••- NldCa$l

e.-.c, I!JtIac:a lCtiIIIk1llll.

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 ,,,let ufHonIIl>ltcllJ

:lIlll'lC.ll'lO:lSWlII/I....lId_lWat~n·

Dlllo<or IlJItlUlll llle Il.<d. wlIlCtI rollow,l

-.Il«ly~.lA llool.lbe Mi._a-flri

DIlloII~lIt.

'1_IIft'I1I1ooo."Ulcl~Hn"'"

~PalndlrjH.... "'lfJJOb,.~

IftlIJtwd r1lfIrIPl-·" e-.,aIr"'i1h ""aInIlllllcCoaol

o-tIlOlodp,",,"" ....1ry

........."...,.sIll, _lIOIl.ocldl-

:QPlt1I.OlI a...,.Sll<oiD"f'MlL..,-uld. _ol4 "'nIl prea, Mdo ""ll'llll'" klioe.-

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:

-" ,

Dozens of cottages bum

at NH Christian center AL'TOH IAY.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" llaBpJbW UIlioD l-stt. >1Jllt 11ft

ptlIIPIt_"'-fcdh)'''1k11IIl1oIlrkb

luIlkclac.liI1IflIlIp;urdlOkn..-

0dtcfI~1Il:~.....,.~

..... "'lbItIlIIld -reell io ywoc'al.lIa JIlI_

..-..,.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

cbe qcUa iIo~ oall'lllt01_tom.

A'IIlIlDItil:.ludlDlill:~lc_oI'the

"1'<"",,~dlJlrmx-.gr"';amlbtlt..titt'll<

1ft..)U 10 be: lCIItk4l1oDrou.PIr II rJ'* !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*

to"''''IlJr~'' .. 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

Ik MI, ."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_""IIli1lO1I1'<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- V,.1 ",.rWl... bll. ..._ 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." A otrt,

• 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 .. tho
April 23, 2009

Ulinois Pollution Control Board

Attn: Clerk

100 W. 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 for Adjusted Standard

WW'N.bryancavlcom

ChIcago

Hamburg

Dear Clerk:

Enclnsed please find an original and ten copies of a Notice of Publication of Petition

for an Adjusted Standard to be filed on behalf of Royal 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/ Brandon W. 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/dllNr IIfIAl'/(WS A-''O

fOUnc.U AlfAIU SUISIDJAII'I

WlYW brylncII/estrateg ies. com

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

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLAS POOLS, )

INC. FORAN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.30 I )

)

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 TAKE NOTICE 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 a copy of which is herewitb served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVlRONME TAL

PROTECTIO AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal 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·
IEPA AITACHMENT NO. Z7

ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOARD

June 4, 2009

IN THE MATIER 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 set when 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

officer at I 1:00 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.us
7

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 of solid and hazardous waste

Royal generates." Would you please elaborate on Royal's reduction of solid and

hazardous waste resulting from compliance with MACT?

2. If granted, will the adjusted standard be submitted to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois

SIP?

J04.406(d)

3. Would you please provide 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 other states 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 of the 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 cut off. 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 at page 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

"Reducing the maximum annual production rate from 250 to 200 pools per

year.. " and comments, "A facility-wide production cap of220 pools per year
7

would reclassify the Dix Plant as a synthetic minor source - the maximum

emission rate would be just 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

if production 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 of two pools per day during 100% full production, with

the "greatest hourly gelcoat process emission rate" of 64.86 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 of 17.42 Ib VOMlhour for resin

application, 36.78lb VOMlhour for gel coat 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 "hourly potential-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 2 pools 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 chart entitled, "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% Other VOC Emission Factor. The

information under VOC 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 of VOMs 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 of the materials

used. The petition on page 7 states that the white gelcoat used contains the lowest

feasible monomer contents of 28% 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 of or experiment

with other lower HAPNOC content materials? Ifso, would you please document your

efforts?

15. Section 3 of the 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 gelcoat emissions as promised by the manufaclurer." Would you please

document your efforts 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. The petition on page l\vo refers to "Royal's Initial MACT Notification Letter" being

contained in Section 2 of the 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 MACT by 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 it uses a 28% 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-hour ozone 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 if Royal has made a demonstration of compliance with the

NESHAP regulations under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW 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-hour average standard, but believes 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 of March 2008, the primary ozone standard was strengthened from 0.08 parts per

million (ppm), set in 1997 to a level of 0.075 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 of ozone 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-hour periods oftime?

(c) Is the Scheffe (Sept. 1988) procedure still the USEPA recommended procedure?
(d)

(e)

7

Please comment on the results of the Air Quality Impact Analysis if the ozone

increment were added to the 8-hout background air quality reading of the 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 if the ozone increment appears to

cause or be contributing to a violation of the ozone NAAQS?

22. This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency: The Petition at page

12 states, " ...the daily amounts of YOM emitted by Royal's operations have a negligible

impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation of the ozone NAAQS .....

Since Hamilton County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences of the 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 ambient conditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone standard?

23. If Royal 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 of YOM 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 of the foregoing order were mailed, first class, on

June 4, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a true copy of the 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.us
AS 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 63102-2750
IEPA 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 of the 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 of volatile 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 of this

petition. No response has been filed to the motion to for expedited review. See 35 111. Adm.

Code IOL500(d)

Section 28.1 of the Act requires publication of a notice of an adjusted standard

proceeding in a newspaper of general 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 of Publication of Petition for an Adjusted Standard" indicating that notice of the

petition was published in the Mt. Vernon Register News on April 13,2009.

The Board finds that the notice meets the requirements of Section 28.1 ofthe Act and 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

of the Board's rules, and must contain, inter alia, 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 whether or not material prejudice

will result from the motion being granted or denied. 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 if the

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 if the Board wcre to accept that Galva's claims amount to
2

"material prejudice", the Board's limited resources in light ofits current and

future decision deadlines render the granting of a motion for expedited review

unlikely in all but the most dire circumstances. See Proposed Site Specific Rule

For City Of Galva Site Specific Water Quality Standard For Boron 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

or at hearing. See Petition ofBFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for Waste Delisting, AS

08-5, slip op. at I (Jan. 10,2008) (accepting petition for hearing while noting that orders may

issue requiring more infornJation from petitioner before or at hearing). The assigned hearing

officer shall inform the Clerk of the Board ofthe time and location of hearing at least 40 days in

advance of hearing so that a 30-day public notice of hearing may be published.

The Board notes that on 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 of time 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 behalf of Royal. 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 of 5-0.

Jolm T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board
IEPA ATTACHMENT 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 )

215.30 I

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 next two or three weeks, petitioner plans to file an amended petitinn.

The amendments will not constitute 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. Petitioner does 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.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that tme copies of the 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 of the 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.us
AS 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, petitioner plans 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. Petitioner does 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.us
2

CERTIF[CATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing order were mailed, first class, on

June 22, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.

11 is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was 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 6060 I

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.us
AS 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