tEPA ATIACHMENT NO.

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 21, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADmSTED

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

215.301

)

)

)

)

)

FU5CEUVED

OLERK'S OFFice

Oent 2009

~ATE OF IlliNOIS

,,-ylutlon Control Boatel

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

Attached to this order are the Board's follow-up questions based On the parties' responses

to the pre-hearing questions. The parties may file written responses before hearing, or be

prepared to address the questions at hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, TIlinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.iJ.us
)

AS 09-4 ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS

BOARD QUESTIO S FOR PETITIONER AND IEPA

These questions are directed to both Royal Fiberglass Pools and the lJIinois Environmental

Protection Agency to be addressed before or at hearing.

1. Ouestion 19(b) ofthe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Would you also please comment on

proposing a condition that would require are-evaluation ofthe adjusted standard ifthe ozone

NAAQS is revised."

Royal responded that "a reevaluation would be oflittle value." Royal Resp. to HOO 6-4-09

at 7.

The Agency responded, "TEPA believes that a condition requiring re-evaluation is necessary

in this rulernaking...If changes are deemed necessary. the Dlinois EPA will initiate a

rulernaking before the Board at that time." Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 2.

Would the Agency please clarify if this comment. is intended to suggest that a condition

should be included in the adjusted standard language requiring the re-evaluation of the

adjusted standard if there is a change in the ozone? Or was this comment simply to clarify

that a rulemaking is the usual course of action when changes are dcemed necessary?

2. Ouestion 21(d) ofthe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Please comment on the results of the

Air Quality Impact Analysis ifthe ozone increment were added to the 8-hour background air

quality reading ofthe 4th highest measured ozone concentration from the past 4 consecutive

years."

Royal responded that Royal does not have ready access to the 4-year data and that the

Scheffe method "is not mathematically compatible with assessments of eight-hour average

impacts." Royal Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8.

Royal characterized the air quality impact from the adjusted to be "negligible." Royal Resp.

to HOO 6-4-09 at7. Royal estimated the I-lir average ozone increment to be 4 ppb. The

Agency stated that it believes the air quality impact to be "negligible" and (later in its

response to 21(d)) that, "USEPA has not provided more recent guidance to address ozone

impacts on an 8-hour basis."

The Board directs the parties to the following documents and asks for further clarifications

regarding the air quality impacts.

USEPA GUIDANCE

USEPA guidance regarding the estimation ofthe 8-hour ozone increment from the 1-

hour increment using a scaling factor of 0.7 (+/- 0.2).

2
[See USEPA, Support Center for Regulatory Air Models. Screening Proceduresfor

Estimating the Air Quality Impact ofStationary Sources - Revised. Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina. USEPA-454/R-92-019. October 1992 page 15.

hnp://w\\'\v.epa.gov/oppt/exposurelpresematious/efast/usepa 1992b sp for estim aql

of ss.pdf (Attachment 1.)]

[Also see discussion ofSchefTe Method and the two footnotes on Page 5 o£1 ofthe

US Depamnent of Agriculture Letter dated 12-22-2003.

http://gc.energy.govINEPNnepa documents/EIS/eis03421letter2.pdf (Attachment 2.)]

OWNE MO ITORlNG DATA

The ozone concentrations monitored during 2004-2007 for the I-hour and 8-hour

averaging periods appear in the Illinois Annual Air Quality Reports available on

IEPA's website.

2007: http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/air-qualitv-report/2007/air-qualitv-report2007.pdf, p. 48

2006: http://W\\.\v.epa.state.il.us/air/air-qualitv-report/2006/air-qualitv-report2006.pdf, pA8

2005: http://www.epa.slate.il.us!air/air-q uaIitv-report/2005/air-qualilv-report2005.pdf, p. 51

2004: http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/air-qualitv-report/2004/air-qualitv-repOlt2004.pdf, p.50

(See Attachment 3.)

(a) In light ofthe information above, please comment on the results ofthe Air Quality

Impact Analysis if the scaled ozone increment were added to the 8-hour background

air quality reading ofthe 41h highest measured ozone concentration from the most

recent 3 years.

(b) Please comment on how this value relates to the 75 ppb 8-hour NAAQS.

(c) Please indicate ifthe air quality impact from the adjusted standard would still be

considered negligible.

3. Question 22 ofthe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Since Hamilton County ozone monitoring

stations already show exceedences ofthe 8-hour 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?"

Royal responded in opposition to such a condition "since it would be unworkable from a

logistical standpoint. It would require Royal to monitor every day whether the ambient

conditions are 'likely to exceed' the ozone standard. This raises the question of what 'likely

to exceed' means. Morc importantly, it would require Royal to then contact its employees on

a daily basis to inform them whether to come into work that day." Royal Resp. HOO 6-4-09

3
at 8-9.

The Agency responded that the lEPA has no objection to such a condition. Ag. Resp. to

HOO 6-4-09 at 2-3.

Again, the Board directs the parties to the following infonnation and asks for fiuther

comments on a potential condition in the adjusted standard limiting Royal Pools YOM

emitting operations on ozone action days.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Royal's Air Quality Impact Analysis is based on the Scheffe Method: "VOCINOx

Point Source Screening Tables" by Richard D. Scheffe, September 1988.

htlp://ndep.nv.govlbapc/download/modeVscheffe.pdf

The Scheffe document states,

"To detennine an ozone impact the user is required to apply best estimates

ofmaximum daily NMOC emissions rate, and estimated annual mass

emissions rates ofNMOC and NOx which are used to detennine

NMOCINOx ratio for ascribing the applicable column in Table I or 2. The

reasons for basing application on daily maximum NMOC emissions rates

are (I) to avoid underestimates resulting from discontinuous operations

and (2) the underlying modeling simulations are based on single day

episodes. The NMOC emissions rates in Tables I and 2 are given on an

annual basis; consequently the user must project daily maximum to annual

emissions rates illustrated in the example application given below. One

purpose ofthe technique is to provide a simple, non-resource intensive

tool; therefore, annual NMOCINOx emissions ratios are used because

consideration of daily fluctuations would require a screening application

applied to each day." P. 5-6.

(a) Since the Scheffe method bases the ozone increment on the daily maximum NMOC

emissions rate, would you please comment on the calculation below estimating the

daily impact ofthe ozone increment of4 ppb as represented in the petition?

29.76 tons / year x 2000 Ib I ton / (52 weeks / year x 5 days / week) =

2291b / day maximum

OZONE ACTION DAYS

Ozone Action Days (aka: Air Pollution Action Days) are set forth by the Illinois

Partners for Clean Air. Qlttp://www.cleantheair.org/overview.shonl) An ozone

action day is declared when the Air Quality Index is "unhealthy" at levels of 100 or

greater.

The Air Quality Index can be calculated by going to the Air Quality Index Calculator

4
at http://www.aimow.govlindex.cfm?action=aqi calc.conc aql calc. When ozone

concentration is 75 ppb, the Air Quality Index is J00.

!EPA and USEPA partner with others on providing Local Air Quality Conditions and

Forecasts on the website AirNow.gov. Besides current conditions, the Air ow.gov

website provides forecasts for the next day. Although air quality infonnation for

Jefferson and Hamilton County are not available on this website, such infonnation is

available for the nearby St. Louis (Metro-east) area. (http://www.aimow.gov/ Select

State: Illinois, Select Region: St. Louis (Metro-east)). The Ain ow.gov website also

provides "EnviroFlash" for prompt notification of forecasted ozone action days

through email or cell phone.

(http://www.aimow.gov/index.cfm?action=aimow.local state)

(b) Although Royal's emissions are not considered in the St. Louis (Metro-east) area, thc

local air monitoring station for Royal in Hamilton County does indicate that days do

occur where the ozone concentrations are above 75 ppb. This results in an Air

Quality Index greater than J00. While Ozone Action Days are not declared for

Hamilton or Jefferson County, would the Agency please clarify ifthese days typically

coincide with ozone action days for the St. Louis (Metro-east) area?

(c) Since the Agency has indicated the IEPA would have no objection to including a

condition regarding YOM limitations on ozone action days, would the Agency please

elaborate on how this might be done?

I) Does the Agcncy recommend a numeric emission limitation? Ifso, should

YOM emissions be limited to 229 lb/dayon ozone action days in order to

ensure the daily environmental impact ofthe adjusted standard is no

greater than what was represented in the petition as "negligible"? Does

the Agency suggest a different numerical limit or a different way to limit

YOM emissions on ozone action days?

2) To show compliance \vith this possible condition, does the Agency believe

the YOM limitation could be documented simply through recordkeeping

ofRoyal's operations on ozone action days without additional air

monitoring?

3) Is air quality infonnation available to Royal in a real time fonnat for the

Hamilton air monitoring station? Ifso, would it be possible for Royal to

rely on such infonnation to limit its YOM emissions?

4) If not, does the Agency recommend that Royal rely on forecasts made for

the St. Louis (Metro-east) area for ozone action days since this is the

closest monitoring area that provides forecasts and alerts? Would the

Agency recommend that Royal observe ozone actions days as those days

where the St. Louis (Metro-east) air monitoring system measures an Air

Quality Index of 100 or greater?

5
(d) Would Royal please comment on how it might comply with this possible

condition?

I) In order to ensure the daily environmental impact of the adjusted standard

is no greater than what was represented in the petition as "negligible",

would Royal please consider ways to track operations showing how YOM

emissions are limited as might be suggested by the Agency (such as no

more than 229 Ib/day) on ozone action days?

2) Would Royal please address the steps it would take to determine when

there will be an ozone action day?

3) Would Royal please address how it would keep records ofits operations

(without additional air monitoring) on ozone action days to ensure

compliance with this condition?

6
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

October 21,2009, to each of the 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 October 21, 2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500

Chicago, TIlinois 60601

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
8

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

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
ATIACHMENT 1

Excerptsfrom:

USEPA. Support Center for Regulatory Air Models. Screening Proceduresfor

Estimating the Air Quality Impact ofStationary Sources - Revised.

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

USEPA-454/R-92-019. October 1992..

httn://Www.eoa.gov/oDPtlexoosureioresentationslefastlusepa 1992b So for estim agi of ss.pdf
EPA-454/R-92-0 19

Screening Procedures for Estimating the

Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources,

Revised

u.s. ENVlRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

Office ofAir and Radiation

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

October 1992
If v, < 1.5u" account for stack tip downwash using Equation 4.7. If elevated terrain is

to be accounted for, then reduce the computed plume height for each wind speed by the

maximum terrain elevation above stack base.

2. For each wind speed and stability considered in (I), find the maximum I-hour

;l::,",Q.from Figure 4-2 (rural)9 or 4-3 (urban).20 Compute the maximum I-hour

concentration for each case, using

xu1Q X =Q--

, u.

and select the highest concentration computed.

B. For low-level sources with no plume rise <he = h,), find the maximum I-hour

xulQ from Figure 4-2 (rural case - assume F stability) or 4-3 (urban case - assume E

stability). Compute the maximum I-hour concentration, assuming a 10m wind speed of I

mfs. Adjust the wind speed from 10m to stack height using Equation 3.1 and the

appropriate exponent.

XU/Q X,=Q-u-•

Step 5. Obtain concentration estimates for the averaging times of concern. The

maximum I-hour concentration (xl) is the highest ofthe concentrations estimated in

Step 4, Procedures (a) - (c). For averaging times greater than I-hour, the maximum

concentration will generally be less than the I-hour value. The following discussion

describes how the maximum I-hour value may be used to make an estimate ofmaximum

concentrations for longer averaging times.

The ratio between a longer-term maximum concentration and a I-hour

maximum will depend upon the duration of the longer averaging time, source

characteristics, local climatology and topography, and the meteorological conditions

associated with the I-hour maximum. Because of the many ways in which such factors

interact, it is not practical to categorize all situations that will typically result in any

14
specified ratio between the longer-term and I-hour maxima. Therefore, ratios are

presented here for a "general case" and the user is given'some flexibility to adjust those

ratios to represent more closely any particular point source application where actual

meteorological data are used. To obtain the estimated maximum concentration for a 3-,

8-, 24-hour or annual averaging time, multiply the I-hour maximum (Xl) by the indicated

factor:

Averaging Time

3 hours

8 hours

24 hours

Annual

Multiplying Factor

0.7 0.9 ~±o.ll ±0.2

0.4 ±0.2

0.08 ±O.O)

. "

. The numbers in parentheses are recommended limits to which one may diverge

from the multiplying factors representing the general case. For example,

if aerodynamic downwash or terrain is a problem at the facility, or ifthe

emisSion height is very low, it may be necessary to increase the factors (within thc limits'

spccified in parenthcses). On the other hand, if the stack is relatively tall and there are

no terrain or downwash problems, it may be appropriate to decrease the factors.

Agrecment should be reached with the Regional Office prior to modifying the factors.

Thc multiplying factors listed above are based upon general experience

with elevated point sources. The factors are only intended as a rough guide for

estimating maximum conccntrations for averaging times greater than one hour. A degrec

,of conservatism is incorporated in the factors to provide reasonable assurance that

maximum' concentrations for 3-,8-, 24-hour and annual values will not be

underestimated.

~. Add the expected contribution from other sources to the concentration

estimated in Step 5. Concentrations due to other sources can be estimated from

measured data, or by computing the effect of existing sources on air quality in the area

being studied. Procedures for estimating such concentrations are given in Section 4.5.5.

At this point in the analysis, a first apprOXimation of maximum short-term ambient

15
ATIACHMENT2

US Department of Agriculture Letter dated 12-22-2003

(See discussion ofScheffe Method and the two footnotes on Page 5 of7.)

hllp://gc.energy.govINEPAlnepa documentslEIS/eis0342/1etter2.pdf
UaUfd.Sh,t.t

Dtp"'lJIIIl.IOr

As:.rlc"llllrl

Letter 2

r..", ""'u .•0,&.&3613

lort1u4. OR. 9nl1~1J

333 ilIll A"f,.llU

,.,l1uol,ORmu

File Coc!.t:2580

Responses to Letter 2

2·1

Philip Saucba

Supc:rint.e:Ment Um~lI. Agency

Bumw ofWillQ Affa.irs

P.O. Bo, S20

016807 B Str«l

Pendleton., OR 971101

De6T Mr. Sanchcz:

llIe Air ResOWttS portion ortbc WANMA Dral't: ElS hu bem reviewed - the foUowil'l,

comments &le subrniued rOT your review and C(lnsideralion. As. result ofpot.entially advme Z-l

effects OD Clou t lUcas and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Afta (CRONSA) of

£leadily inctusins po1hl1anlloadiogs in the Columbia Basin thu office has • well established

inltres1 and concern ova nt;W baRn ernwioD SOWUS such 1$WANAPA. We did notrece[vc 8

copy ofthe draft document and we're oolawatc oriu existence wtillale in the comment period.

Holiday sehcdutCl arc wo .. (,clOt' leading 10 these comments'being somewbt.t gcnenJ and

cunory and pahap.s do nOldo jl.LStieeUl wUC$described below.

Within Q SOkm 11ldius oClhe pf'OPO$ed WANAl'A facility (here ho.s bcc:n wbS1antiJl industrl~

poinl SOW'CCcmi.s$ioo growth. The: mostsig;n.ific.l.llt is the 80ardnun Coal Ftred. PowecPI~t

bw11 in 1979 -linecthill. time a lugcnumbcrorsthl1lecsourc:es b4...eb60tJ3 buill and a number of

g.u fired powu p11nlJ h1ve tect.nl permits but ueaot yd construettd. While: lhe WANAPA

facility would be a signifiCQ1U additioa 10 tbiJ mix ofcourt:eS tu hnpaa aJon. is relatively small

in comparison to tho tobl. air pollution loa.ding in this uea. UndcrNEPA. cumuJativedrcet

anal)'N, p:uticull1llyofthe power plcnt sources is required. The WAN~A dtUt dOCtliDrotdoes

not adeqwldy recognize this pro-airting problem- to put lhese ismc:s in pcnpoctive a full

cumwalive anAl~isis needed. We do nol dis:oow:l.l the risk to hwun health from this cumulative

efrecl, howcvu u • land '/\lJ.l'UgtlUenl ag~. our toflUtnS arc focused on.lbe: effca from

WANAPA and the SUllOWldingunyofc:Wtina: DDd pc.nnit1cd souteeSon cultural restlUlU:l',

visibility, and liCid (sulfur & nitrogen) depol5itioo in tho Colwnbia River Gorge National Scenic

Aru and oallie swrounding Class I wilderncu and pub. This cumuletive effCC1 should be

analyud atld disclosed.

The arW)'$L.s provided in the dra.f\ dOC\lJl'lCllt borTOWod heavily from the WANAPA PSD permit

appliCJ.tioD. anltysis. The analysis required under NEPA cocnpw"cd 10 that normally provided for

PSD is quite diffct'CAl. In PSD the analysis focuses primuily Otl the individwl $Ou:ce effects

with:l minimallJUounL oflnSlysia on the contribution to effects in C1us larw from the

bae\.:i:f'OW'Id sowces Or baclq;round IXInditions. By bcinJi sinslc.aurcc rOCUSCll PSD anal)'¥e:!

lend 10 disoounl lUld mlnimit.e effocu .ll)(:e the Intent i. 10 5CC:\lr'C a pemil for II client. The

Infcnl under NEPA Is fuIt disclomre ofalYil'Onmcnw effects. 'ThiJ NEPA anal)'siueads like I!l

PSD application and as: $uch ill inodequ.ate- puticularty on lbe eumuJaJ.ive dfect penpective

di5eu;$C(J i~ the previous p:lnlgraph.

Q!nwl_pve Impacts in enu I AreD'. Oll.SS I In:1l5 Me Ircas such f1S Ntltiol1;ll Parh and

Wildemeu Artas tha.I arc desi&r~ued for Specilll protoction und~r Ihe Clean Air Ac!. Imp:lcts 01

1'oo'OJ. PM. Co visibility, nitrate, and sulfate dcpo$ition in CI•.u I areas rcsulling from Wanap::a have

been evalualed using the CALPUfF dispersion madding s)'Slem and lIS U$ocl;tled pre- 300 postprocessing alCOrithnu. The inform:llion inch.ldcd belo'N a!.so is avaibble W'llhc PSD application,

OD 6tc with the: US£PA. hrpict$ werc.usessed .1 !be following Cb.s.s l Dre:lS:

• E:agle Cap Wilderness Area

• Ooal Rod:) WildCfmS3 Area

• MOllnl Adams Wildeme.u Ana

• Stray,berry Mountain Wildcrnc$S Area

Moont Hood Witderrv:u Area

• Columbla River Gale (nol techl'litally 8Clus 1area. bul cyalullled In tru; 00$$ I inlp;1et

aMlysis)

Air quality impllClS of NO: and PMI~ in lhe Cb.ss I Dre;u: art Jro";ded in lhe Final EIS in

$eelioo 3.5.2.2.

Dry lUId wet dcpo$ition rawis from Wllnap:l are summarized in TabLH ;',...;'''''; and ax .~... and ;are

COn'lPll~ to Ippropria;e deposition siiJlifiea.nce Ilresholds est:)blish:d in Fedc:T1II lAnd Mi311lger

gui<bor;c. Acid depo$ilion in the Columbia R.i1lCT Oor;e is ofp:lJ'1icubr inlercsl in the VI.lysis, as

acid d~posiliofl JJTc<:ls OOt only rutur.tl resources, but also cultul'lll resources such lI.S rod: ;1rt in

and !lear lhe Columbi:l Ri'o'tr Goril=. The results of IbI:: modeling D~,lysis demonSti.l.le tb.,1

polcnli:ll impacls from Waf\.1pil 'WOuld bc file bclow the deposition slinilicncc tlvesholds,

including an impael of less tOOn .s perCCnl or the significance IIveshold In the Colwnbill River

Gorg<:l.

---
Responses to Letter 2 Responses to Letter 2

Locat.lOD ot bb..dQl\&QI

1 ,,' D1ile of

X Y t.U.xlmwn 'II(D-"$

'" '" I ,,' >5%

4S0.·Ul 119.Z51 .(/1...,1998 0

120.832 286.134 lO/UI998 0

10.958 201.'94 10'2&'1998 0

110.874 255.953 1/411999 0 103~ZZ 17957( 1/311999 0

328.8J7 68.519 1IZ4I1999 0

.77%

.16%

~7%

.31%

.94%

.76%

til -.a...I""..nodp_d..... "II,.. ........_m.....

lucie the (and rnanagtroenl a,&tnde.s I¥1der Ibe U.S. Department of

BU.t. and NaLlonal Pm SEJ'VIcI!).

xdnctlon r;(t trOm Wana~ are Jus lhan the 5 percent threshold at

tbe )'!at.

lSe 1Ruulls - Regional Air Quilty Modellns Study.· Aueu$t J. ZOOi.

rom W;mapa's Impacts Is below t.h.e appropriate thredtold. Ion:

US6.s the cumulltlve effect on vblblUty in the Clus J .eas from

rts:eDf, 11Id rU.$on:lbly rOl'es.teable projects In the North~t The

Utnlcd bdow.

dello& Analyses tave been conduc;led by (he Booneville Power

J.SWS$ the cumubUve. imp"'u of power &eneraUon pn;:Jjecb in ~e

C1.5 on CI~u I Mus. The BPA'$ Phue 1 $llJ.dy ex~mlncd dle 3lr qwllly

combustion lurbint;t In BPA's service OlIU In. the Northwu.t. Ty,()

this .study. a wom-nsl ~tl1Ulo !h;at IDcluded !.he ltnpact.s froOl olU

oMW oC gellerillon), ;and a ~coDd .scenario tNllncluded lmpolds from

00 MW oC generation). 80tb ana.lyus accounl for much mole fu1.urI

~I thml.s evrtnllyupeCWIln the North~. The resuluoCChe BPA

as of any NaClottal Ambient Alt Quail!)' Stl..Dd:arcl for c:rllerla poUUbnts

PM1• Tht study did, howe~r. indicate d13t vtslbillty degrilldat.lon was a

l-1 Coot'd TABLE It'Ii!;D .. TA1n.E VlSIBIUTY ANALYSIS RisUL1'$ 6('r..:s

NmD:;£N O£POSI1tOO A.'lALYSlS RESULTS

,

M..a..dAlUIQ Nltrog~1I Location o(Mu:lmum. Impact

Dt.ositioa Fha: I. a~ss I Ana

Cb..uIAsn lkWLa!,') X",..I Y",,,,I ~g1eC~ 0.

Elgle C;ap 0.00022.8 408.965 201.lZ7 CO~IRocQ 1

Coat Roc:ks 0.000102 113.990 28'.053 Rlvu • 1

Mount d"'" 2 River Gorge 0.000241 144..100 197.499 Mount Hood 0.

Mount Adams 0.000113 10'.230 255.923 Stu\'obeny Mounl;aln 1

Mount Hood 0.000167 106.373 167.993

Sln,\,,i)erry MOWlt:l1n 0.000124 321.326 '8.133 ''Jg.. 1Io\t4w4" .lI&LU_ l~_

TABLE:...::...!.:. Tht moddo:t changes In Ille e

SULflJR DEJI'OSITlON ANALYSIS REsULTS each Clus raru 011 aU cby$ of

Though. the ullnc:Clou DIe: f

MadlllaJD Sulfur Loea.tlc.l oCMaxiDJum lamac( conducted add.illonal review to

Ousl Ana n.'P;:b':':~"" X/\,-, Y(km) IJlIs proJfd ahtt P~l. p

Ea/tle Cap 0.000048 408.965 201.lZ1 Icswb of Ihl:J an;al)'Sb are pr

Coal Rocks 0.000021 1I3~90 286.0

Rtver Co • 0.000048 IU.loo 191.499 I The Federal Land M:l.lI..lgtrs Inc

Mount Albn'S 0.000036 106.239 255.923 the Inll!rior (U.s. rOlett .$Qvlcc. Mount Hood 0.000038 10'.373 167.993

Scr:a..werrv MOWllaln 0.000026 3ZI.32S 68.133

Several air qlQ,Uty me

"VlslbUlty lmlRCIS from Wanapa are sUlllmarlzed In Tabl. G3f~, "nd compared 10 .the 5 perunt Adrnlnl~""UoD. (BPA) 10

NOI1I'r.¥e.st ud their imp:l

extinction criterion utabllshed Il:I FedcnJ und M;augerl guidance. n\l.s Ihre:.sbold rcpre.sttdS • Impacts of 4.5 proposed pefce~lble mange 10 ... hlblllty. scenarios w~re modeled In

ol5 fadlltJu (toIaUlig Z4.OO

28 fadl.lts (llxaJlng 11,0

power gMwllon dtvclop

RUdy lhowed 00 \iol;t1o

Sl,.lda as SOl. NO~. &lid.

pol.eotJ.d arc oIcoofVa1

tBonneviDe Power Authority. "'Ph
Responses to Letter 2

l·l Cont'd

$c\'erallv quality modtling: an:al)'$ts h.ave been eonduCCtd by lhe BonJle\-il~ Power AdmlnisUalio."l

(BPA) J.SieSS tho cumulaUve Impacts of power genuallon projccts In lbe Northwe::1 .r.d (lIdr

lU\ilaets on QilSS lucu. The BPA's Phase I SCudy enmll'll:d lhe air qu.dlly impacls 45 p~po;.ed

combustion uublneJ hI BPA's $Culce area in the N(rthw~. Two scenarios were r.:odc:led In dllJ

study: a VofOt1I·c::ue scenario lholt Includtd the Impacts Crom all4S (acliUlu (IotlllJ.ng Z4.000 MW of

generation), and & ucold $Ccnaslo Ib:l.Ilncluded lmp;ltU from 28 h.dU4es h~illog 11,000 MW or

gentntlon). Bolh anal)'1of:s actoWlI (ar much nwre future power gl!neraUon development lh~ Is

cU'TCntly e~cled In Che NonhwtSt The tWIlls or the BPA study $hawed 00 YlOb1l0RS of anj

NaUonal Amblent Air Qwllly Standard Cor criltrla poUuwalS SUth IS SOl, NO•. and PMII> The

stoo)' dl.1, however, Indicate tbll v\.slblllty d!g'alhtlon wu a potential ~a OrCanet'fn..I

Since die Plwe I study, addltlon~ .studlu or n.gloni\l ~islblJlIy h.:av~ b~~n performed lhal femoved

pO'oW;r devclopment ProJecls that h~ slocc be~ c.ucel«1 from lIlC Us1 fJfsourees COnsIdered 1n the

mod~lInB s[udiu. A rt<:enl sludy fl)r lhe Plymouth CeDerat1Jlg Fadlity evaJu;aled Impacts from Ihe

following bu.ellne source grollp on ntuby CI~s) ueas:.~

• • • F~olll:l FacUlly • Big HWOfd Projecl

• Ralhdrum Powef • Mbll Fum C'.tneraUoo

Fredc:dcbon Power • Wallula Power PTo):ct

• Coyole Springs z: • Sttsop CT Projecl - P!¥Ut' I

• Coldendale Energy Project • Salsop cr Project - Phs.e IJ

• Hermlsk)n PO'NU PTO]e:C1 • WOl1\llpa Energy Centu

Chehalis Ceneratlog Flc:i1lty PlymouLb CtnmUon

Coldclldille (The CUffi)

IBonncvllte Power Authorlly. "Pb.s.se I Rcsulu - Reg,lonalAir Quality Modding Study."

August I.lOOI.

lpl)'IlwuCh eer.entlnt Fatllily. ~Col\lr1buclon 10 Rer.Jorul Hue..

1llIt PI,ymouth Ceneratlng FacnlJy study wu Naluued ~fng the same MMS meteorological c.bla

set as the Qus 1 area Jm~CI anaJysJs for WIoUpa. Addltlonally. dte T&n£C of d::res for lhe

I1ltl«1l'Ological dati from lite IWO analyses (March 19. 1998 to M:u-ch Hi. 1999j Is IL1tnUcat. For

these TU~ns, lhe rt.s\lUS from these m'O Inal)'su uuy be eompucd on I daY'bt-day bl$l.s. For

every date that di'll PlymolAh CelWludng FaciUty ar.tl)'$1s l"tSU1ted In a ~is.lbUlly Impact grtater

than 5 ptrte11l at any Cbss I aJU. the Imp"tiS from Wampa's analysts for Cbat same d,,~ are

provld~ fOT CfJmlWlson In T~bltI ~, and Dates wll.b lmp:ac4.s from Wan:lpa greateT

etun 0.-4 percent are balded In 1M tables.

Responses to Letter 2

T,ble__

Wln.po Eo:Ll'I)' C..ol~r I.d C11lZ1ulltJvc Vblbllllyl .. plC(J ClUIIp.rlJO'

ClllCIul.tl., WII"p' Cia" I A". ...... 0.1, .. %, .. %

eotwnbi.a N.l'oml ~nlc Aru F~II lQ/6fI991 '." 0.00 .- Nr,ional San' AR.I. 'd 1M 11991 $.05 .- NIrlcnII Sc.cnie Aru F.ll lOOM9" 1.10 '.30 Columbil. .N.lion.IISunIoAru fill 111]/1991 I.Sl 0.00

CQlumbbOO ,NatlonIl Scenic Nu. '"' lIn1t991 '.M 0.00

CoNmbY N<artonal SCenic Aru W"'~ 1211)/199' '2..1, 0.00

CoIumbUi cNalicnlllSunkAru WiIl:er 11)11999 .... 1.11

.. Wildcmeu AJu 'd 9n9/19U 5.13 0>6

Mt. Aetar.u WlidnnUi AruJ WilNer l:lIllll99' 6,94 .71

Mt. Adlm$ Wlldcrncu Aft. Willi.... 1M/1m HI ", Mt. Hood wJ\6c:<-Mu "'ret ,.n 1011911991 $.29 '.51 ML Hood Wi1~ A.ru ,.n 11n11 I US 0.00

Mt. Hood Wi&dtt'l'lUJ An~ Winltt IvnJl991 U, 0.00

Mt. Hood W~demc.u A~. WlntCT 12nJI1991 1.03 0.00

Mt. Hood Wit6cmw AmI WinLU 1111 t99' S.OO 0.9)

Mt. Hood WiWcmcu NeJ. WImer (1)11999 16.70 ...

T.blc __

Waupa £a~OOln .qd CvlJllllad.., YblbUlcy t ..,.ttl COIDp'rUo.

011 Wlnler D.Tl"t'hll On.Ftrlns:.1 £'ndo.La ud ClIeblb F.dll.1u

ClflllULat",

CIo.., ""' .-. Oal, .b ..I·i., :';,~~') eoa.mbl. a .l'Ctl;lcNt Sf-uk: No 0iJ. -.dWir.ur 12/11/199& >J' 0.00

Co/IIInbi. a • Ha!il:Iml S«:nk: Af'tI OU-Find WInla 11/2)(1991 11.51 0.00

Cohanbl.O cNadon_I Scmk Aln Oil. ira! W IfJJlm .... l.tI

Co O<w c IUbOMl Scmk. Arq, '.F1rtd Willltr 1/260'1999 5.1} ..., OCllt Rocks WiIldcrnt2S Aru OU.fiml WllIla" rnll999 '.IS 0.01

OoIr1l.oc:la Wilduncss Aru Oil·Ftm Winller 1113/1999 ,.w 0.00

Mt AdUl'lJ WI .. OtJ.F WI_ 1212)1199. "'3 t.1t

Mt. Nanu Wildtmtts Aru Oil·Filed W_ 1IIIIm .... 0.00

ML Adam~ C:'tICSS Aru Oil· Ired Willl.C( 1/41'999 ,." '-', ML Hood Wildcmcu Area Oil-Fired WillIu 121221199. 6.12 '00 ML Hood W "'.'" Oil·A ""inleT 1212)1199_ .." 0.00

ML Hood. WlldtrMu Aru OU-Fiud Wintu" , '999 ~.16 .. ML Hood Wi~ Atea 01l.Fi~W''''''1 IJJlI999 16.n ... n.e loulllllmbcr or d.a71lf1ooith wi.aion rar., dlanet! Prom w""pa veliei' cNrl 0.<1 pau..l ....d

,,,It.IlclIrrUllllll'''' 1tnp.a.W pultf~ S or I,) puc"lll&rl'W!:tft&t1l*J in T.bIe __.
Responses to Letter" 2

Z·t Co.llo('d

The r.oc.all'DJrnbu or <b~ with ullncUOll fOlie clwl~s from Wanapa cre:Utr than 0.4 pmt&:;1 ;!J\ll

wilh ctDnubtive 1.m4lKts g~ltr W 5 or 10 petccat tiC JUmmulud IDTable t:....

T~bCe rzg,,;~

Total Day, wilb W:l~pa EatrQ Ccllttr Imp~ >0.4. pcreeal toad

CClillubll~ lmpacts >S puceat or 10 pe.n;tAt

D;I,1' wlCh WaDa~ Enugy Cuter CltCtrlbutloo

Days MCh Cwnubdvc Day, with CumubUve

CJuDie 10 ExtloctJo.ll CIu02«l la E.xt1D.ctIQIIl

01SJIAru >5% >10%

u2le CaD Wilderness Al"l!a 0 0

COil RocksWlldunes.s Area 0 0

Columbia Gorl!'e Nal1011al Scenic Arta 2 0

MI. Ad.uns Wilderness Arta Z 0

Mt. Hood Wlldano.ss Ana 3 1

Str:av.berrv Mountain Wilderness Area 0 0
. From I JUlIe oftoll.g te.tTl'l InOnitDring in the Columbia River GOflC there U lIoltlplc evida:co of Z·2

o.Lsting advc:rsc cffC'Ct3 on vlhOility (from lMPROVE monilDrin&), on ecosystem distulb1nCc

from lich.en mOl\ilori:la. and 011 cultural. resoLUtCS. AddilioruJly tbc:u; i$ ample ev.denco .,r du.

from high ozone CODc:o'iltaUons. Existirtl deposition I'&I.CS in !he Oor&c&n ;l.pproximal.cly 1~:2

Itgbafyr ror both sulf.1t ODd nitroeeo. Comparing these niles to. critical load csti."Mle of 1-2

Icg/hllyr jl is evident !hat deposition C")(CS lie well io cxuss of~ n«ded 10 maintain ht:1llhy

undist\lriled o;os)'S'e:m conditioN. Vcry real CODCml. exists about barm to other culnnl

raourcu (such as rock art) from \he acidic tompontnl orlhis deposition - as the fcdtnl 'Baley

with respo:ui'\lilit, br the Columbu. River Gorse NaliOlUl Scenic area the Tn:ar:y RiVlS Tribe;,.

have Rquesled our assbt:W:e proteetlr.a1hele cultunJ from the daml&iAg effeets 0r

&it pollution. L"I WiMa' lhe Goc,c b Ihe prinury ouOct orpoDutcd staznant airdrooin, out of

«he Columbia Bull\. Wilh the c10K proJ.i:niO' oftbc rivet c::t:amd. which acts as. I\L"l!r1I

drainaCe ch&t.neJ 10 wiol.a-, • substuUial contn"bu!ian 10 \his pt'Obltm comes from the

lodustri2.liw:) reg:ioo UO\:nd UmatillL 1b.er'c ls" sipific.ml body ofmbrlnAtion as well u

previous documenltUOI\ in prior NEPA. 6ocwnc:ntsdetaiJlng these concerns. Thee Usuc::s uc nOl

recognized or addressed l.n the AirRcsoUTCd pomoll ohho W~APA Draft E.1S dOC\lment.

,-,

Letter 2 Continued

Conversely, in summer thetc is evidence orhigh otone leveb in the Eastern Gorge - utidei'

We$1Clly summertime now thil MODe batkgrou.nd LS transponod into the N,sin and is poteotlaUy

mlde wone by buln emission SOIolr'Cd. N. timet the prevaillog Bows rcvcnc In SIlmaler ll.lld

higbCf'Oloca conotnb"ltioas alC re-arcullted back mto !be Pie and up IU ClIJt .Iopes orthc

adjacent CasC2des CI~, II:'tU. While WAN'APA Is. wdl ir:.c:ranlQtaJ contributor 10 thLs

potential problem it does oonll'lWle and as J\Kh an analym I.lld disclosure ortbe issue sbould

"",W!«l.

We td:e lheprolcCtion orC\lhunJ lUOW'Cc:I in the CRONSA vayunolUly. This is ID Wuo lh.

Umatilla Tn"bo. BIA, and the USDA FS sh.3rcc:ommon r;rowwi We hope)'1)U win qne il iJ an

iuue lbat deserve$ a fair review. WC:lpprcciate this opportUllityor~out concerns with you.

PI~ include thi:5 offi<e in furtlLC:(" distribuUocs oflnronnwotl pat&ininl to !.his NEPA review.

Sincerely,

Vk[~~ Air Rc:sounx: Spcci&1ist

Responses to Letter 2

AD analysis oflllCtuses 1:1 OU)M concenlrati3n.s ruuItln& rrom WaJ'l.llpa emissions wu cond"clt:d

aud Is avaUable &om the VSEPA In the Wuapa PSD application. "Though OtoM Is nol dJn:cHy

_m1utd from Wanapll, Intn.ll.SU III ozone eoncentratlons may f'Uldl rrom photochemical rucUons

Involving VOC and NO. rrom t~ proposed £acUity.

WlndtoSC3 of the approprtatc meleu'ologlcal data (UDLlltll'a Arm)' Depol and W.lb WaUl

Regkllw A!rpor~ (or 1995 tb"Otl£h 1999 'oWre an.1lyud ror the 6 monlhs thaI are typically

desl~ttd as -moDe senon'" (April&pCe~. The wtndroses show lhat winds R1C&SU"cd at

these slatlons durb& the o'tOne SUSOD monlhs from 1995 "rough 1999 blew from lhe SOllhwW

approxhl'l,;ltdy 30 perCail oftn thle (~IO 36 ptfCt/'lI ror SOIDe yea."S), wtddl Is mort: than.ny

otber direction. Whtm Mew 6'om the northtast ltu lhu approJOll'IllteJy 9 pe.nnt or llw time.

GNU lhe raathcl.y flit ~raln or nortbuslen Oregon ud southeastern WuhingtoA. It II not

expected th&t the di$.lribudon or wind d1recUOnJ would chan;e 4ppreci:lbly ftON \he

meleOfolaglcal s,lation.s &.lid the propoSltd sile (apptoxlma~ly Z runes &om the Um:llllla Army

Depot .Dd approxltD.1lely 57 mUu soulb'ft'Ul of t~ W.zla Walta fI.'WS shoe). Sioce t~ propo$otd

rQCIUty ls located to dle rortbeue of the Colull'lbb R1\'er Corge and Mowtt Hood Clus lite"".

cmls:sJolU from (be proputd Waupa Energy Cent« can be Upet:led to blow t.owards that :.-us

_pproJOm:udy 9 puttnt or the dme dt.ldag the Gloae se.uon.

Ozone (OJ lrrlPaets from tblll proposed Wanapa Entrzy CCS'Ittt are. eglma~ \110108 du: Scheffe

Method..l Bmed upon the mlmated NO, and vac emisstotlS (rOll1lhe proposed W.lIJUpa EneJ"&y

Cellla', UJe I-bour QZO~ klcmuVll INy be e.sdmaltd. The 8-bour OUlne in(remeot for the

p"oposed radUty Is Ullruled CrQQ\ lhe l-bo~ InCftmcat u,ln& a :scattng raCiot ofO.7.Z The re$\llts

ortht amlysis showed lNt WI~pl1Mlu1d ha~ mulmtlJn Otoae ImpaclJ of0.0119 ppm (I.hour

aver.llg~) aDd 0.0171 ppm (I.bour a~.&t). National Ambtenl AJr QU.lIlity Standards rlX the 8·

hollf average ls 0.080 ppm and O.IZO ppm ror tbe l-bour avenge.

IThe ScheJfe Method b a Klttnllw procedure. bas.td upon a serte.s or applla.t1ol'lS ortbe ~3Ctl.yt Plume

Model-II (RPM-D), wb.lthe:.llJclllate.s lba l-hovr O)wremeDt due CD VOC .nd NOx polnl sOllfca.

Schd1"c, Rithud D.. YOCl/K)~ Pol",. USEPA. Otrlot of AJr Quality PbnnlDg and Standards. Rese:uth

Trb.Dgte Parlf:. North Caroll=. EPA-tS0I2·71-oZ7R. September 1998.

1USEPA. Support ~nter ror Rqulalory Ar Models. Scra'1lluJ, ProceJwuJOr &I"noling 1M Air Quality

ImptKt fJ/Sotlunl7J SoWCd' • &vlu.J. R~ Trbn&le Pilfk. North ClUOllta. USEP"''''5~jlt·9Z'()19.

Ortober 1992.

Cc: BPA (Bob Ektaud, Tom McKinney) email OI1Iy
Responses to Letter 2

TABleii~

TOTAl, OZONE IWAC! lNCBfMENIS

Background

Facility Ozone Ozone Total Ozone NMOS

Averoglng Ineroment Increment

Period Innml Innml In%:~~nt S~~~~~d

8-hour 0.0119 0.0646 0.0765 0.0800

1-hOUf 0.0170 0.0790 0.0960 0.1200
3-1

Letter 3 Continued

-2-

d A 25- by 300·1001 oravol ~t1tlng area WOI.JKt be eslabfished b)' BPA along lhe

wost side 01 Feny Road. BPA WOUld provide and instal! JlGd<ing al/bs c.s dreeled t:y

the Dis.lrict. A conIroUod aCCllSS point would bo do....eloped IOf overilow pubDo pllJiting

on tho remainw,g open area. The paOOng aI811 wouki sarve the publ"1C users 01 tha

adjaC6fl1 Corp, 01 Englnoers operaled parle area.

The lour ilefN outlined above wou~ be ~ncorporaledInto a real Ol\a(o pwormit 10

BPA tu site-speciiie conditions. OU'ler lh4n the sll&-SpQCillc conditions, the ntrnai'\if'12

terms 01 tha permit will follow the standard 08p4rtrner1l ollhe AJmy lonnaL

II Bonnevile Power Ac:irrlItis1tetion wi~s to PUl'$UllI:l!S expansion Qivan thlt

ool"l(f.1iOr\$ outlinOd above, please provide this Olfict wilh eleCter 01 appblicn. We also

neod 10 r&COiyo a current aerial photograph of the McNary 3ub$tallon 3rfa with the

expansion area superimposed on !he photo.

If you need further information, pleu& can mo e.t 509-527·7324 or contact me by

email •• Paul.5.Shampinet.tu.ac&.army.ml.

Slnooroly,

Paul Shampine

Real E3tate SpedaJlsl

EndosLJres

HE:RAESIRE

GAAlANDJAE

BAOWNJOD·TN

SHAMPtNEIlp

1M-EM

RE

Responses to Letter 3
AITACHMENT 3

Excerptsfrom:

The Illinois Annual Air Quality Reports

2004,2005,2006,2007
Table B2

2004

OZONE

NUMBER OF DAYS HIGHEST SAMPlES

GREATER THAN (parts per mi1ion)

l·HCXJR 8-HOLfl

STATION ADDRESS 0.12 PPM 0.08 PPM 'ST 2ND 3RO 4lH 1ST 2ND 3RO 4lH

69 METROPOLITAN QUAD CITIES INTERSTATE (IA - fi,)

ROCK ISLAND COUNTY

Rock Island 32 Rodman Ave. 0 0 0.082 0.070 0.066 0.064 0.076 0.060 0.059 0.059

70 METROPOLITAN ST. LomsINTERSTATE (ll. - MO)

MADISON COUNTY

Alloo 409""10 Sl 0 0 0.096 0.092 0.091 0.090 0.080 0.074 0.074 0.074

EdwardS\lille PoagRoad 0 0 0.101 0.092 0.085 0.082 0.076 0.075 0.068 0.068

Ma~1kt 200\Y. Di<lsloo 0 0 0.105 0.103 0.102 0.100 0.082 0.081 0.080 0.Q78

Wood River 54 N. WaJco' 0 0 0.097 0.097 0.096 0.095 0.081 0.080 0.073 0.073

RANDOlPH COlJtlTY

H:luston Twp Rd•. 150 & 45 0 0 0.0062 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.069 0.066 0.065 0.064

ST. CLAIR COUNTY

East $1. Louis 13111 &Tudor 0 0 0.102 0.094 0.092 0.084 0.Q78 0.076 0.075 0.073

73 ROCKFORD - JANESVll.LE - BELOIT INTERSTATE (ll. - WI)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

Loves Par1\. 1405 Mopla 0 0 0.081 0.076 0.072 0.069 0.072 0.070 0.067 0.061

Rockforo 1500 POSl 0 0 0.081 0.079 0.075 0.071 0.074 0.073 0.071 0.064

74 SOUTHEAST fi,LINOIS INTRASTATE

EFFINGHAM COUNTY

Effingham Route 45 South 0 0 0.097 0.088 0.078 0.076 0.074 0.073 0.067 0.067

HAMilTON COUNTY

Dale Route 142 0 0 0.085 0.081 0.080 0.076 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.071

75 WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

ADAMS COUNTY

Quney 732 Hampshire 0 0 0.078 0.072 0.071 0.070 0.067 0.066 0.064 0.063

JERSEY COUNTY

Jerseyvl1te liberty 51. 0 0 0.095 0.093 0.089 0.088 0.077 0.076 0.075 0.073

MACON COUNTY

Decatur 2200 N. 22nd Sl 0 0 0.Q78 0.071 0.069 0.069 0.066 0.066 0.064 0.064

MACOUPIN COUNTY

Nilwood Heaton & DuBois 0 0 0.087 0.084 0.081 0.079 0.080 0.069 0.069 0.068

SANGAMON COUNTY

Spfingficld 2675 N. Dirksen 0 0 0.082 0.079 0,Q78 0.077 0.071 0.066 0.065 0.064

Primary 1-Hour Standard 0.12 ppm; 8·Hou( Standard o.oa ppm

50
TableB2

2005

OZONE

NUMBER OF DAYS HIGHEST SAM'I.ES

GREAlER 1HAN (parts per mmon)

l-HCLR 8-HCLR

STATION ADORESS 0.12 PPM 008 PPM 1ST 2ND 3RD 4lH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4lH

69 METROPOLITAN QUAD CITIES INTERSTATE (lA - ILl -

ROCK ISlAND COUl<TY

Rock Island 32 Rodman Ave. 0 0 0.095 0.085 0.078 o.on 0.081 O.or8 0.071 0.G65

70 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS INTERSTATE (ll.. - MOl

MADISON COUNTY

Alton 409 Mail Sl 0 7 0.116 0.110 0.110 0106 0.102 0.096 0.092 0.091

'Aa<yW1e 200 W. Divblon 1 7 0.130 0.114 0.111 0.111 0.104 0.095 0,092 0.088

Wood RIve< 54 N. WaIcxlII 0 6 0.116 0.109 0.108 0.108 0.099 0.093 0.091 0.087

RANDOlPH COUNTY

Houslon Twp Rd•. 150 8 45 0 0 0.090 0.086 0.082 0.080 0.079 0.D78 0.076 0.074

ST. CLAIR COUNTY

Easl$1. LOllS 13lh &Tudor 2 6 0.132 0.127 0.120 0.104 0.110 0.103 0.101 0.094

73 ROCKFORD - JANESvu,LE· BELOIT INTERSTATE (ll. - WI)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

lo~es Pa~ 1405 Maple 0 0 0.086 0.083 0.082 0081 0.079 0,079 O.or6 O.or5

RocI<ford 1500 Post 0 0 0.089 0.082 0.061 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.076 0.075

74 SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

EFFINGHAM COUNTY

Effingham Reule 45 Soulh 0 0 0.080 0.080 0.078 0.077 0.076 0.075 0.073 0,073

HAM1LTON COUNTY

Knight Prairie Twp. Reule 14 0 0 0.087 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.077

75 WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

ADAMS COUNTY

Ouln<y 732 Hampslllre 0 0 0.090 0.089 0.085 0.084 o.on 0.076 O.or6 0.076

JERSEY COUNTY

JersayvlJc lJberly Sl 0 4 0108 0.108 0.102 0.102 0.089 0.087 0.067 0.086

MACON COUNTY

Decatur 2200 N. 22nd st. 0 0 0.093 0.093 0.092 0.089 0.081 0.080 o.on 0.076

MACOUPIN COUNTY

NI~NOOd Healon 8 DuBois 0 1 0.097 0.095 0.087 0.087 0,086 0.080 0.D76 o,on

SANGAMON COUNTY

Springfield 2875 N. Dif1csen 0 0 0.089 0.088 0.087 0.084 0.078 o.on 0.076 0,075

Primary 1·Hour Sl3nd3rd 0.12 ppm; 8-Hour Standard 0.08 ppm

51
Table B2

2006

OZONE

NUMBER OF OAYS HIGHEST SAMPLES

GREATER THAN (parts per mllon)

1-HOUR 8-HOUR

STAnON ADORESS 0.12 PPM 0.08 PPM 1ST 200 3RO 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH

69 METROPOUTAN QUAD CITIES INTERSTATE (lA - IL) .

ROCK ISLAND COUNTY

Rocklsfand 32 Rodman Avo. 0 0 0.080 0.Q78 0.078 o.on 0.075 0.074 0,071 0,070

70 METROPOUTAN ST. LOlliS INTERSTATE (lL - MO)

MADISON COUNTY

AIIoo 409 Main St 0 1 0,109 0.103 0.101 0.095 0,085 0.080 0,080 0.079

Maryville 200 W. Division 0 1 0.118 0.104 0.097 0.095 0.089 0.084 o.on o.on

Wood RIver 54 N. Walcott 0 0 0.105 0.099 0.098 0.090 0.061 0.080 0,076 0.077

RANDOLPH COUNTY

Houston TwpRds.150&45 0 0 0.086 0.087 0.083 0.081 o.on 0.Q76 0.073 0.072

ST. CLAIR COUNTY

East St. Louis 13lh & Tudor 0 2 0.121 0.111 0.095 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.082 0.077

73 ROCKFORD - JANESVILLE - BELOIT INTERSTATE (lL - WI)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

loves Parit; 1405 Maple 0 0 0.013 0,070 0.069 0.068 0.066 0,066 0.084 0.063

Rocldoro 1500 Post 0 0 0.072 0.071 0.070 0.066 0.068 0.065 0.064 0,063

74 SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

EFFINGHAM COUNTY

Effingham Route 45 SOuth 0 0 0.085 0.061 0.074 0.074 0,074 0.071 0.070 0.007

HAMILTON COUNTY

Knlghl Prairie Twp. Route 14 0 0 0.079 0.Q79 0.074 0.073 0.070 0.066 0.066 0.066

7S WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

ADAMS COUNTY

Quincy 7-.r2 Hampsrura 0 0 0.084 0.080 0.060 0.060 0.076 0.073 0.072 0.071

JERSEY COUNTY

Jerseyville Uberty SL 0 0 0.096 0.094 0.090 0.065 0,083 0.079 0.077 0.075

MACON COUNTY

Docalur 2200 N. 22,., SI. 0 0 0.068 0.077 0.076 0.076 0.Q79 0.073 0.072 0.071

MACOUPIN COUNTY

NU'NOod Healon & DuBois 0 0 0.086 0.065 0.082 a.on 0.073 0.071 0.070 0.070

SANGAMON COUNTY

Sprin9field 2875 N. Olricsen 0 0 0.084 0.080 0,060 0.077 0.074 0.066 0.066 0.066

Primary 8·Hour Standard 0.08 ppm

48
Table B2

2007

OZONE

NUMBER OF OAYS HIGHEST SAMPLES

GREATER THAN (parts per rriflOO)

1-HOUR B-HOUR

STATlON ADORESS 0.121'1'1.10.08 PPM 0.075 PPM 1ST 2NO 3RO 4TH 1ST 2NO 3R0 4TH

69 METROPOLITAN QUAD CITIES INTERSTATE (IA· IL)

ROCK ISLAND COUNTY

Rock Island 32 Rodman Ave. 0 0 1 0.090 0.083 0.080 o.on 0.080 0.074 0.012 0.071

70 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS INTERSTATE (IL· MO)

MADISON COUNTY

Alton 409 Main St 0 2 13 0.120 0.096 0.095 0.092 0.086 0.085 0.083 0.061

Maryville 200 W. Division 0 4 14 0.123 0.108 0.104 0.101 0.107 0.094 0.091 0.087

Wood River 54 N. Walrod 0 7 16 0.121 0.114 0.103 0.103 0.090 0.089 0.067 0.086

RANDOLPH COUNTY

Houslon Twp Rds. 1SO & 45 0 0 7 0.099 0.093 0.093 0.086 0.0&2 0.082 0.061 0.079

ST. ClAIR COUNTY

East St. Louls 131h & Tudor 0 1 4 0.114 0.106 0.093 0.092 0.093 0.081 0.078 o.on

73 ROCKFORD - JANESVILLE - BELOIT INTERSTATE (IL. WI)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

Loves Park 1405 Mapkl 0 0 1 0.083 0.080 0,078 0.078 O.On 0.075 0,075 0.073

Rockford 1SOD Po.. 0 0 0 0.080 0.078 0.078 0.076 0.074 0.072 0.071 0.071

74 SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

EFFINGHAM COUNTY

Effinoham Route 45 South 0 0 4 0.086 0.086 0.0&2 0.061 0.079 0.076 0.076 0.076

HAMILTON COUNTY - KnJght Prairie TWp. Route 14 0 0 4 0.089 O.oas 0.084 0.083 0.084 0.080 0.079 0.076

75 WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

ADAMS COUNTY

Qu;ncy 732 Hampshire 0 0 3 0.087 0.080 0.079 0.076 0.082 0.075 0.078 0.075

JERSEY COUNTY

Jkltl8yV!l1e UbertySl 0 1 2 0.100 0.090 0.086 0.087 0.085 o.on 0.075 0.075

MACON COUNTY

Decatur 2200 N. 22nd Sl 0 0 5 0.092 0.084 0.084 0.081 0.079 0.076 01177 0.077

MACOUPlN COUNTY

N;Jwood Heaton & DuBois 0 1 1 0.099 0.095 0.089 0.065 0.091 0.075 0.075 0.075

SANGAMON COUNTY

Springroeld 2875 N. Dirksen 0 0 2 0.093 0.090 0.079 0.079 0.081 0.079 0.075 0.012

Primary 8..Hour Standard 0.08 ppm

48
ATTACHMENT 4

Excerptsfrom:

"VOC I NOx Point Source Screening Tables"

By Richard D. Scheffe, USEPA

September, 1988
DISCLAIMER

This document has been recreated from a oopy of an original. Although every attempt has been

made to ensure exact duplication of the original document, it is an electronic re-creation of the

original and there may be errors. It is recommend that the reader obtain the complete printed

document from U.S. EPA. Greg Remer, Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. July 27, 1998.

VOC/NOx POINT SOURCE SCREENING TABLES

by Richard D. Scheffe

September, 1988

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Technical Support Division

Source Receptor Analysis Branch
3.0 SCREENING TABLES

The interpretation or definition of a "rural" or 'urban"

area within the framework of this technique is intended to be

rather broad and flexible. The rationale for having rural and

urban tables stems from the need to account for the coupled

effect of point source emissions and background chemistry on

ozone formation. Background chemistry in the context of this

procedure refers to a characterization of the ambient atmospheric

chemistry into which a point source emits. The underlying model

runs used to develop the rural table (Table 1) were performed

with spatially invariant background chemistry representative of

"clean" continental U.S. areas. Model runs used to develop the

urban table (Table 2) are based on background chemistry

incorporating daily temporal fluctuations of NOx and hydrocarbons

asociated with a typical urban atmosphere (refer to Appendix A

for details regarding background chemistry). Background

chemistry is an important factor in estimating ozone formation;

however. characterization of background chemistry is perhaps the

most difficult aspect of reactive plume modeling because of data

scarcity and the level of resources required to measure or model

(temporally and spatially) the components necessary to

charcterize the ambient atmospheric along the trajectory of a

point source plume.

Recognizing the conflicting needs of using simple

characterizations of background chemistries and applying this

screning technique in situations where sources are located in or

impact on areas which can not be simply categorized. the

following steps should be used to choose an appopriate table:

(I) If the source location and downwind impact area can be

decribed as rural and where ozone exceedances have never been

reported, choose the rural area table.

(2) If the source location and downwind impact area are of urban

characte, choose the urban area table.

(3) If an urban based source potentially can impact a downwind

rural area, or a rural based source can potentially impact a

downwind urban area. use the highest value obtained from applying

both tables.

The VOC point source screninq tables (Tables 1 and 2)

provided ozone increments as a function of NMOC (nonmethane

organic carbon) mass emissions rates and NMOC/NOx emissions

ratios. To determine an ozone impact the user is required to

apply best estimates of maximum daily NMOC emissions rate, and

estimated annual mass emissions rates of NMOC and NOx which are

used to determine NMOC/NOx ratio for ascribing the applicable

column in Table 1 or 2. The reasons for basing application on

daily maximum NMOC emissions rates are (1) to avoid

underestimates resulting from discontinuous operations and (2)

the underlying modeling simulations are based on single day

episodes. The NMOC emissions rates in Tables 1 and 2 are given

on an annual basis; consequently the user must project daily

maximum to annual emissions rates illustrated in the example

5
application given below. One purpose of the technique is to

provide a simple, non-resource intensive tool; therefore, annual

NMOC/NOx emissions ratios are used because consideration of daily

fluctuations would require a screening application applied to

each day.

Parameters describing background chemistry, episodic

meteorology, and source emissions speciation affect actual ozone

impact produced by a point source. However, as a screening

methodology the application should be simple, robust and yield

conservative (high ozone) values. Thus, only NMOC and Nox

emissions rates are required as input to Tables 1 and 2.

Rural Example Application

A manufacturing company intends to construct a facility in

an isolated rural location where ozone exceedances have never

been observed. The pollution control agency requires that' the

company submit 'an analysis showing that operation of the proposed

facility will not result in an ozone increment greater than X ppm

in order to permit operation. The estimated daily maximum NMOC

emissions rate is 9000 lbs/day. The annual estimated emissions

rates for NMOC and NOx are 1000 tons/yr and 80 tons/yr,

respectively. The company's strategy is to provide a screening

analysis using the rural area table to prove future compliance.

If the screening result exceeds X ppm, the company will initiate

a detailed modeling analysis requiring characterization of source

emissions speciation, ambient chemistry, and episodic

meteorology.

6
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27,2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLL nON CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FffiERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

NOTICE

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois 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

SI. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

lllinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board

the ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO FURTHER OUESTIO S POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTlO CO TROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS'

PETITION FOR AN ADJUSTED STA DARD ofthe lIlinois Environmental Protection Agcncy

a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONME TAL

PROTECTIO AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: October 27, 2009

1021 Nonh Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TDD)

TJ-IlS FlUNG IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27,2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETlTION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS

POOLS' PETITION FOR A ADJUSTED STANDARD

NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRO ME TAL PROTECTION AGE CY

("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and files this response to the

questions ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") attached to the Hearing Officer's

Order of October 21,2009.

1. Questiou 19(bl ofthe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Would you also please comment on

proposiug a condition that would require are-evaluation ofthe adjusted standard ifthe

ozone NAA QS is revised"

Royal responded that "a reevaluation would be oflillie value." Royal Resp. to HOO 6-4-09

at 7.

The Agency responded, "IEPA believes that a condition requiring re-evaluation is necessary

in this nllemaking...Ifchanges are deemed necessary, the TIIinois EPA will initiate a

rulemaking before the Board at that time. " Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 2.

Would the Agency please clarify ifthis comment is intended to suggest that a condition

should be included in the adjusted standard language requiring the re-evaluation ofthe

adjusted standard ifthere is a change in the ozone? Or was this comment simply to clarify

that a rulemaking is the usual course ofaction when changes are deemed necessary?

Response to Question 19(bl of the Hearing Officer Order: The Agency does not believe that a

revision to the ozone NAAQS should automatically trigger a re-evoluotion ofthe adjusted standard. If

monitoring data show a violation of the ozone NMQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) that considers all contributing sources to nonattainment would properly address this matter.

1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

1. Ollestioll 11(d) oflhe Hearillg Officer Order asked, "Please commenl ollihe resulls ofthe

Air Qualitv Impact Analvsis iflhe OZOne incremelll were added 10 the 8-hour backgrollnd air

qualily reading oflhe 4'· highestmeasllred ozone cOllcelltraliollFom Ihe pasl4 COllseClilive

years.

Royal respollded that Royal does IIOt have ready access 10 Ihe 4-year data alld that the

SchefJe method "is not mathematically compatible wilh assessments ofeigl1i-hollr average

impacls." Royal Resp. 10 HOO 6-4-09 at 8.

Royal characterized the air qllality impaci from the adjllsted to be "lIegligihle." Royal

Resp. 10 1100 6-4-09 at 7. Royal estimated the I-hr average o::one increll/entto be 4 ppb.

The Agency stated that it believes the air qllality impaclto be "negligible" and (Ialer in ils

response 10 21 (d)) Ihal, "USEPA has 1101 provided more recenl gllidance to address ozone

ill/pacts on an 8-hollr basis. ,.

The Board directs the parties 10 the following docllments and asksforfllrther clarificalions

regardillg the air qllality impacts.

•••

(a) Inliglll ofthe injormalioll above, please comlllellt onlhe resllits oflhe Air Qllalily

Impact Analysis ifthe scaled ozone incremelll were added to Ihe 8-hour backgrolllld

air quality reading ojthe 4'h higheslmeasured ozolle cOllcelltrationFom Ihe most

recellt 3 years.

(h) Please comment on how this vallie relales to the 75 ppb 8-hollr NAAQS.

(c) Please indicate iflhe air qllalily impactfrom the adjllsted slandard wOllld still be

considered negligible.

Response to Question 21ld) of the Hearing Officer Order: The Agency wishes to clarify that it

considers an ozone increment increase of as little as 2 ppb (for bath 1-hour and 8-haur

averaging periods) to be potentially significant; thus, 04 ppb increase would be of potential

significance. The characterization of 04 ppb ozone air quality impact as "negligible" is not

consistent with the Agency's position.

The Board's fallaw-up questions note that the Agency's response to Question 21 (d) included

the statement that "USEPA has not provided more recent guidance to address ozone impacts on

an 8-haur basis." For single facility assessments, the IEPA is not aware of any mare current

USEPA guidance, and therefore will continue to conduct air quality reviews based upon the

established methodology (Scheffe Method). Importantly, this methodology does notspecify the

estimation of an 8-haur ozone increment from the 1-haur ozone increment. The Agency does not

endorse the use ofscaling factors that are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type

assumptions. Ozone is a secondarily formed pollutant, nat a directly emitted pollutant, and is

therefore not steady state.

2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

The Scheffe Method is a screening technique, which by design is conservative in order to be

protective of the ozone air quality standards. It is unrealistic to expect that the maximum

predicted ozone increment would occur coincidentally with the 4th highest 8-hour ozone

concentration for a given year. If the azone increment from the Air Quality Impact Analysis

"were added to the 8-hour background air quality reading of the 4th highest measured ozone

concentration from the most recent 3 years" (2005-2007, Hamilton County), it would be 8. ppb,

somewhat below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 85 ppb (the level determined by monitoring

data rounding conventions). But more importantly, if the 4 ppb ozone increment were added to

the 2005-2007 8-haur ozone design value (73 ppb)---the design value being the appropriate

metric for comparison with the ozone NAAQS---the combined contribution would be even lower.

Recently (March 12, 2008), USEPA tightened the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards

to 0.075 ppm (75 ppb). A comparisan of this new level of the standard with 2007-2009 Hamilton

County manitaring data, shows a combined ozone increment and ozone design value of 72

ppm. The potential air quality impact from the adjusted standard is significont, but it is not

expected to cause or contribute ta vialations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

3. Qllestioll 22 ofrhe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Since Hamillon Counry o=one moniroring

starions already show exceedences ofthe 8-hour ozone srandard of75 ppb, would yOIl please

comlllenl on inclnding a condirion in Ihe adjusted standard limiting Royal Pools VOM

emitting operations all o=one action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceed the

75 ppb 8-holll' azone standard?"

Royal responded in opposition to such a condition "since it would be IlIl\vorkablefrom a

logistical standpoint. It would require Royal to monitor evelY day whether the ambiellt

conditions are 'likely to exceed' the azone standard. This raises the quesrion ofwhat 'likely

to exceed' means. l\1ore importantly, it would require Royal to then contact its employees on

a daily basis to inform them whether to come into work rhat day." Rayal Resp. HOO 6-4-09

lit 8-9,

The Agency responded that the lEPA has no abjecrionto such a condition. Ag. Resp. to

HOO 6-4-09 at 2-3.

Again, the Board directs the parties to the following infonnation and QSksforjimher

comments on a potelltial cOlldirion ill Ihe adjllsted stQndard limiling Royal Pools VOM

emittillg operatiolls all o=olle actioll days.

•••

Response to Question 22 of the Hearing Officer Order: The 2008 8-hour ozone standard is

currently being reconsidered by USEPA, but based upon the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 Hamilton

County ozone data, the area is clearly in attainment with the 75 ppb standard. The SIPdevelopment process exists to remedy nonottainment conditions. It would be inappropriate to

require a single facility amongst a group of potentially contributing facilities to accept a

condition limiting "VOM emitting operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions

3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-haur ozone standard". The Agency would support voluntary

actions by the company an ozone action days, not mandatory requirements.

•••

(a) Sillce the SchejJe method bases the OZOlle illcrement on the daily maxim11m NMOC

emissions rate, wOlild yOIl please commem on the calclilatioll below estimating the

daily impact ojthe ozolle illcrement oj4 ppb as represellted ill the petition?

Response to Question 22(a) of the Hearing Officer Order: The maximum emissions rate of

29.76 tans per year is derived from a maximum daily rate projected to occurfor every day the

facility is in operation. The maximum daily rate (229 Iblday) is unlikely to occur continuously

furthermore, the magnitude and distribution of ozone from precursor emissions, with changing

meteoralogical conditions, would also be highly variable. Consequently, the 4 ppb maximum

ozone increment would not be attained on days when emission rates were less than the

maximum daily rate or when metearalogical conditions were nat conducive to ozone formation.

(b) Althollgh Royal's emissions are not considered in the St. LOllis (Metro-east) area. the

local ail' mOllitorillg statioll Jar Royal ill Hamilton COllll1y does illdicate that days do

occ"r where the o:olle cOlleelltratiolls are above 75 ppb. This resliits ill all Ail'

Qllality Illdex greater than 100. While Ocone Actioll Days are Ilot declaredJar

Hamilton or JejJersoll COllnly, wOlild the Agellcy please clarifY ifthese days typically

coillcide with ozolle action days Jar the St. Louis (Metro-east) area?

Response to Question 22(b) of the Hearing Officer Order: An exceedonce of the 8-hour ozone

standard in Hamilton or Jefferson County would likely coincide with an ozone action day

declaration in the Metro-east area. Based on the past several years of ozone data in both

Hamilton County and the Metro-east region, 8-hour concentrations have been consistently

lower in Hamilton County. Therefore, an exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard in the more

rural regions of Hamilton County would likely coincide with exceedances in the more urban

areas of Metra-east.

(c) Since the Agency has illdicated the IEPA would have 110 objectioll to including a

condition regardillg VOM limitations an O:Olle action days, wOlild the Agellcy please

elaborate all how this might be dOlle?

1) Does Ihe AgellCY recommend a Ilumeric emissianlimitatioll? ifso, should

VOM emissiolls be limited 10 219lblday on ocone action days ill order ta

enSlire the daily envirollmelltal impacI oJthe adjllsted standard is 110

greater thall whal was represenled inlhe pelilioll as "negligible "? Does

the Agellcy suggest a differellt nWllericallimit or a different way to limit

VOM emissiolls all OZOlle actioll days?

4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

2) To show compliance with this possible conditiol/, does the Agel/cy believe

the VOM limitatiol/ could be documel/ted simply through recordkeeping of

Royal's operations on ozol/e action days without additiol/al oil'

monilorillg?

3) Is oil' ql/ality informatiol/ available to Royal il/ a real time format for the

Hamiltol/ oil' monitoril/g statiol/? Ifso, would it be possible for Royal to

rely 01/ such informatioll 10 limit ils VOM emissiolls?

4) If 1/01, does the Agellcy recommelld Ihat Royal rely on forecasts made for

the St, Louis (Metro-east) area for ozone actioll days sillce this is the

closest mOllitorillg area Ihat providesforecasls alld alerls? Would the

Agellcy recommelld that Royal observe o~olle actiolls days as those days

where the SI, Louis (Metro-east) air mOllitoring system measures all Air

Qualily (ndex of 100 01' greater?

Response to Question 22(c) of the Hearing Officer Order: As noted previously, the Agency

would support voluntary actions by the company to limit VOM emitting operations an ozone

action days, but not mandatary limits for those operations on ozone action days.

(d) WOllld Royal please comment all how it might comply with this possible

cOllditioll ?

I) III order to ellsure the daily envirollmental impact ofthe adjusted stalldard

is no greater than whal was represented in the petition as "negligible ",

would Royal please cOllsider ways 10 track operatiolls showillg how VOM

emissiolls are limited as might be suggested by the Agency (such as 110

more than 2291b/day) all ozolle actioll days?

2) Would Royal please address the steps it would take 10 determille whell

there will be an OZOlle action day?

3) Would Royal please address how il would keep records ofits operatiolls

(witholll additiollal oil' monitoring) all ozone action days to ensure

compliallce with this cOllditioll?

Response to Question 221dl of the Hearing Officer Order: This question is not addressed to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27,2009

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVlRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: IslCharles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: October 27, 2009

1020 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, lIIinois 62794-9276

21717782-5544

(217)782-9807 Facsimile

6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

STATE OF ILL! OlS

CO J TY OF S 'GAMOI

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the anached

ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPO SE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CO TROL BOARD IN THE MAnER OF ROYAL FTBERGLASS POOLS'

PETITIO FQR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD, upon the following persons:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. euschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

Onc Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Dated: October 27, 2009

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TOO)

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. /8

3

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 29, 2009

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR ADJUSTED )

STA DARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARrNG REPORT

On October 28, 2009, a hearing in this maller was held C.E. Brehm Memorial Public

Library in Mt. Vernon, TIlinois. Attorney Dale Guariglia appeared on behalf ofthe petitioner.

Attorney Charles Matoesian appeared on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Witness Credibility

3 witnesses testified during the hearing:

Mr. Clifford Hebert

Mr. Robert Haberlein

Mr. Andrew Russo

Based upon my legal judgment, experience, and observations at hearing, I find that the credibility

of witness is not an issue in this mailer.

Agencv Responses and Briefing Schedule

The transcript is due by November 9, 2009, and the public comment deadline is

ovember 12,2009. Because the Agency was unable to answer certain questions at hearing, it

was decided that written answers would be filed by ovember 16,2009. Petitioner will file any

responses to the Agency's answers in its post-hearing brief which shall be filed by December 7,

2009. Respondent's post-hearing brief, if any, is also due by December 7, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

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
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

October 29, 2009, to each of the 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 October 29,2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500

Chicago, fllinois 6060 I

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Jllinois 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 orth 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