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 "areevaluation 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

...

### Ifchanges 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 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 arulemaking is the usual course ofaction when changes are dcemed necessary? 2. Ouestion 21(d) ofthe Hearing Officer Order asked, "Please comment on the results ofthe 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 ofeight-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-hourbasis." 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 of0.7 (+/- 0.2).

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

### Screening Proceduresfor Estimating theAir Quality Impact of Stationary 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 ofAgriculture 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-quaIitv-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 ifthe scaled ozone increment were added to the 8-hourbackground 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-hourNAAQS. (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 ofwhat '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 apotential 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 impactthe 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 forbasing 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 mustproject 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 ofdaily 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

4at 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, SelectRegion: St. Louis (Metro-east)). The Ain ow.gov website also provides "EnviroFlash" for prompt notification offorecasted 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 orJefferson 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) Ifnot, 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 ofthe adjusted standard is no greater than what was represented in thepetition as "negligible", would Royal please consider ways to track operations showing how YOM emissions are limited as mightbe 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?

67


### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It 

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

### 21,2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It 

### is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on 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 63102-2750ATIACHMENT 1


### Excerpts from: USEPA. Support Center for Regulatory

### Air Models. 

### Screening Proceduresfor Estimating theAir QualityImpact of Stationary Sources

-Revised. Research TrianglePark, 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 ofStationary Sources, Revised

u.s. ENVlRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY Office ofAir and Radiation Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 October 1992

### Ifv, 

### < 1.5u" account for stack tip downwash using Equation 4.7. Ifelevated 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.fromFigure 4-2 (rural)9 or4-3 (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) or4-3 (urban case - assume E stability). Compute the maximum I-hour concentration, assuming a 10m wind speed ofI 

### 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 ofconcern. The maximum I-hour concentration 

### (xl) is the highest ofthe concentrations estimated in Step 4, Procedures (a)

- (c). Foraveraging 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-hourvalue 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 ofthe longer averaging time, source characteristics, local climatology and topography, and the meteorological conditions associated with the I-hour maximum. Because ofthe 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 particularpoint 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 0.9

## ~±o.ll 0.7 ±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. Forexample, ifaerodynamic downwash orterrain 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 otherhand, ifthe 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 elevatedpoint sources. The factors are only intended as a rough guide for estimating maximum conccntrations for averaging times greater than one hour. A degrec ,ofconservatism 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 ofexisting sources on airquality 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 ofmaximum short-term ambient


### 15

### ATIACHMENT2

US Department ofAgriculture Letterdated 12-22-2003 (See discussion ofScheffe Method and the two footnotes on Page 5 of7.) hllp://gc.energy.govINEPAlnepa documentslEIS/eis0342/1etter2.pdfUaUfd.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 De6TMr. Sanchcz: llIe Air ResOWttS portion ortbc WANMA Dral't: ElS hu bemreviewed

- the foUowil'l, comments &le subrniued rOTyourreview and C(lnsideralion. As. resultofpot.entiallyadvme Z-l effects OD Clou t lUcas and the Columbia RiverGorge National Scenic Afta (CRONSA) of £leadily inctusins po1hl1anlloadiogs in the Columbia Basinthu officehas • well established inltres1 andconcernova nt;WbaRnernwioD SOWUS such 1$WANAPA. Wedidnotrece[vc 8 copy ofthe draft document and we're oolawatc oriu existencewtillale in the comment period. Holiday sehcdutCl arc wo .. (,clOt' leading 10 these comments 'beingsomewbt.tgcnenJ and cunory and pahap.s do nOldojl.LStieeUl wUC$describedbelow. Within Q SOkm11ldius oClhepf'OPO$edW ANAl'A facility (here ho.s bcc:n wbS1antiJl**industrl~** poinl SOW'CCcmi.s$ioo growth. The: mostsig;n.ific.l.llt is the80ardnun Coal Ftred.**PowecPI~t** bw11 in 1979 -linecthill. time alugcnumbcrorsthl1lecsourc:es b4

...eb60tJ3 buill and anumber 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 mixofcourt:eS tu hnpaa aJon. isrelatively small in comparison to tho tobl. airpollutionloa.dingin this uea. UndcrNEPA. cumuJativedrcet anal)'N, p:uticull1llyofthe power plcnt sources is required. The**WAN~A** dtUtdOCtliDrotdoes not adeqwldyrecognize this pro-airtingproblem

- to putlheseismc:s in pcnpoctive a full cumwalive**anAl~is** is needed. Wedo nol dis:oow:l.l the risk to hwun health from this cumulative efrecl, howcvu u • land '/\lJ.l'UgtlUenl**ag~.** ourtoflUtnS arcfocused on.lbe: effca from WANAPA and the SUllOWldingunyofc:Wtina: DDdpc.nnit1cd souteeSon cultural restlUlU:l', visibility, and liCid (sulfur & nitrogen) depol5itioo intho ColwnbiaRiver GorgeNational Scenic Aru and oallie swrounding Class Iwilderncu andpub. This cumuletive effCC1 should be analyud atld disclosed. The arW)'$L.s provided in thedra.f\ dOC\lJl'lCllt borTOWod heavily from the W ANAPA PSDpermit appliCJ.tioD. anltysis. The analysis required underNEPAcocnpw"cd 10 thatnormally provided for PSD is quite diffct'CAl. In PSD the analysis focuses primuily Otl the individwl $Ou:ce effects with:l minimallJUounL oflnSlysiaon the contributionto effects in C1us larw from the bae\.:i:f'OW'Id sowces Orbaclq;round IXInditions. BybcinJi sinslc.aurcc rOCUSCll PSD anal)'¥e:! lend 10 disoounl lUld mlnimit.eeffocu .ll)(:ethe Intent i. 10 5CC:\lr'Ca pemil for II client. The Infcnl under NEPA Is fuIt disclomreofalYil'Onmcnw effects. 'ThiJNEPA anal)'siueads like I!l PSD application and as: $uch ill inodequ.ate- puticulartyon lbeeumuJaJ.ive dfect penpective di5eu;$C(J**i~** theprevious 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$ition in CI•.u Iareas rcsulling from Wanap::a have been evalualed using the CALPUfF dispersion madding s)'Slem and lIS U$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 MountainWildcrnc$S Area MoontHood 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 otbb..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 NaLlonalPm 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 effecton 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** IMus. 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 oCgellerillon), ;and a**~coDd** .scenario tNllncluded lmpolds from 00 MW oC generation). 80tb ana.lyus accounl for much mole fu1.urI**~I** thml.s evrtnllyupeCWIlnthe**North~.** The resuluoCChe BPA as ofany 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

.. VlSIBIUTYANALYSIS RisUL1'$ TA1n. E6('r..:s NmD:;£N O£POSI1tOO A.'lALYSlS RESULTS 

# , M

..

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

# I.
Dt.ositioaFha:**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. MountAdams 0.000113 10'.230 255.923 Stu\'obeny Mounl;aln 1 Mount Hood 0.000167 106.373 167.993 Sln,\,,i)erryMOWlt: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 ofIhl:J an;al)'Sb arepr 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 powergMwllon 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 airqu.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: aVofOt1I·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 PowerPTo):ct 

### • Coyole Springsz: 

### • Sttsop CT Projecl

- P!¥Ut' I 

### • Coldendale Energy Project 

### • SalsopcrProject

- 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 ,NatlonIlScenic 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.uWlidnnUi 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;lcNtSf-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 ScmkAln Oil. ira! W IfJJlm 

# .... l.tI Co O<w c IUbOMl Scmk. Arq, '.F1rtd Willltr 1/260'1999 5.1} 

# ..., OClltRocks 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 HoodWildcmcu Area Oil-Fired WillIu 121221199. 6.12 '00 ML Hood W 

## "'.'" Oil·A ""inleT 1212)1199_ 

# .." 0.00 ML Hood. WlldtrMuAru OU-Fiud Wintu" 

# , '999**~.16** 

# .. ML Hood**Wi~** Atea**01l.Fi~W''''''1** IJJlI999 16.n 

# ...

n.e loulllllmbcr ord.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 10petccat 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 CuterCltCtrlbutloo Days MCh Cwnubdvc Day, with CumubUve CJuDie 10ExtloctJo.ll CIu02«l la E.xt1D.ctIQIIl 01SJIAru >5% >10% u2le CaD Wilderness Al"l!a 0 0 COil RocksWlldunes.s Area 0 0 ColumbiaGorl!'e Nal1011al ScenicArta 2 0 MI. Ad.unsWilderness Arta Z 0 Mt. Hood Wlldano.ss Ana 3 1 Str:av.berrvMountainWilderness Area 0 0. From I JUlIe oftoll.g te.tTl'l InOnitDring in the ColumbiaRiver 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

### .,rdu. 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.1tODd nitroeeo. Comparingthese niles to. critical load csti."Mleof1-2 Icg/hllyrjl is evident !hat deposition C")(CS lie well io cxuss**of~** n«ded 10maintain ht:1llhy undist\lriled o;os)'S'e:m conditioN. Vcry real CODCml. exists aboutbarm to otherculnnl raourcu (such as rock art) from\he acidic tompontnlorlhisdeposition

- as the fcdtnl 'Baley with respo:ui'\lilit, brthe Columbu. RiverGorseNaliOlUl ScenicareatheTn:ar:y RiVlS Tribe;,. have Rquesled our assbt:W:e proteetlr.a1helecultunJ from the daml&iAg effeets 0r &it pollution. L"IWiMa' lhe Goc,c b Ihe prinuryouOct orpoDutcd staznantairdrooin, out of «heColumbia Bull\. Wilhthe c10KproJ.i:niO' oftbcrivetc::t:amd. which acts as. I\L"l!r1I drainaCe ch&t.neJ 10wiol.a-, • substuUial contn"bu!ian 10\hispt'Obltmcomes from the lodustri2.liw:) reg:ioo UO\:nd UmatillL 1b.er'c ls" sipific.ml bodyofmbrlnAtion as well u previous documenltUOI\ in priorNEPA. 6ocwnc:ntsdetaiJlng these concerns. TheeUsuc::s uc nOl recognized or addressed l.n the AirRcsoUTCdpomoll ohho**W~APA** Draft E.1S dOC\lment. 

# ,-, Letter 2 Continued

Conversely, in summerthetc is evidence orhigh otoneleveb in the Eastern Gorge

- utidei' We$1Clly summertime now thil MODe batkgrou.nd LS transponod into the N,sin and is poteotlaUy mlde wone by buln emission SOIolr'Cd. N. timet theprevaillogBows rcvcnc In SIlmalerll.lld higbCf'Oloca conotnb"ltioas alC re-arculltedbackmto !bePie and up IU ClIJt .Iopes orthc adjacent CasC2des**CI~,** II:'tU. While WAN'APAIs. wdl ir:.c:ranlQtaJ contributor 10thLs potential problem itdoes oonll'lWle and as J\Kh ananalym I.llddisclosure ortbe issue sbould "",W!«l. We td:e lheprolcCtion orC\lhunJ lUOW'Cc:I in the CRONSA vayunolUly. This is ID Wuo lh. UmatillaTn"bo. BIA, and the USDA FS sh.3rcc:ommonr;rowwi Wehope)'1)U win qne il iJ an iuue lbat deserve$ a fair review. WC:lpprcciate this**opportUllityor~out** concerns with you.**PI~** includethi:5 offi<e in furtlLC:(" distribuUocs oflnronnwotl pat&ininl to !.his NEPA review. Sincerely,

# Vk[~~ AirRc: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 orthe 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 orthtamlysis 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 ppmand O.IZO ppmrortbe 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** rorRqulalory Ar Models. Scra'1lluJ, ProceJwuJOr &I"noling 1MAir 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**In%:~~nt S~~~~~d** 

Period Innml Innml 8-hour 0.0119 0.0646 0.0765 0.0800 1-hOUf 0.0170 0.0790 0.0960 0.12003-1 

# 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 pointwould 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**~ncorporaled** Into 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 permitwill follow the standard 08p4rtrner1l ollhe AJmy lonnaL II Bonnevile PowerAc: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 3rfawith the expansion area superimposed on !he photo. Ifyou 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 3A

### ITACHMENT 3 Excerpts from: The Illinois Annual 

### Air Quality Reports 

### 2004,2005,2006,2007Table B2 2004 OZONE NUMBEROF DAYS HIGHESTSAMPlES

GREATERTHAN (parts per mi1ion) l·HCXJR 8-HOLfl STATION ADDRESS 0.12PPM 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. Loms INTERSTATE (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
RANDOlPHCOlJtlTY 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

- BELOITINTERSTATE (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 50TableB2 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 200W. 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· BELOITINTERSTATE (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 SOUTHEASTILLINOIS 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 PrairieTwp. Reule 14 0 0 0.087 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.077 75 WESTCENTRALILLINOIS 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 51Table B2 2006 OZONE NUMBER OF OAYS HIGHEST SAMPLES GREATER THAN (parts permllon) 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 

### 48Table B2 2007 OZONE NUMBER OF OAYS HIGHEST SAMPLES GREATER THAN (parts perrriflOO) 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 70METROPOLITAN 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 200W. 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
HAMIL TON 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 2875N. 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 Excerpts from: "VOC I

### NOx Point Source ScreeningTables" ByRichard 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 ofAir 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.

6IEPA 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 ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONME TAL PROTECTIO AGENCY By: 

### lsi Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal 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 ofOctober 21,2009.

1. Questiou 19(bl of the Hearing Officer Orderasked, "Wouldyou alsoplease comment on proposiug a condition that would require are-evaluation of the adjustedstandard 

## if the ozone 

### NAA QS is revised" Royal respondedthat "a reevaluation wouldbe of lillie 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 deemednecessary, the TIIinois EPA will initiate a rulemaking before the Boardat that time. " Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 2. Would the Agencyplease clarify 

## if this comment is intendedto suggest that a condition shouldbe included in the adjustedstandard language requiring the re-evaluation of the adjustedstandard

## 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 deemed necessary? Response to Question 19(bl of the Hearing Officer Order: The Agency does not believe that a revision to the ozone NAAQS shouldautomatically triggera re-evoluotion ofthe adjustedstandard. If monitoring data show a violation ofthe ozone NMQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that considers all contributing sources to nonattainment wouldproperly address this matter.

1

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

1. Ollestioll 11(d) oflhe Hearillg Officer Orderasked, "Please commenl ollihe resulls of the Air Qualitv ImpactAnalvsis iflhe OZOne incremelll were added 10 

### the 8-hour backgrollndair qualily reading oflhe 

### 4'· highestmeasllredozone cOllcelltraliollFom Ihepasl4 COllseClilive years. Royal respollded that Royaldoes IIOt have ready access 10

### Ihe 4-yeardata alldthat the SchefJe method "is not mathematically compatible wilh assessments of eigl1i-hollraverage impacls." Royal Resp. 10 

### HOO 6-4-09 at 8. Royal characterizedthe airqllality impacifrom the adjllstedto be "lIegligihle." Royal Resp. 10 

### 11006-4-09 at 7. 

### Royal estimatedthe I-hr average o::one increll/entto be 4

### ppb. The Agencystatedthat it believes the airqllality impaclto be "negligible" and(Ialer in ils response 10 

### 21 (d)) Ihal, "USEPA has 1101

### providedmore recenl gllidance to address ozone ill/pacts on an 8-hollrbasis. ,. The Boarddirects theparties 10 

### thefollowing docllments andasksforfllrther clarificalions regardillg the airqllality impacts.



# ••• (a) Inliglll of the injormalioll above, please comlllellt onlhe resllits oflheAir Qllalily ImpactAnalysis if the scaledozone incremelll were addedto Ihe 8-hour backgrolllld airquality reading ojthe 4'h higheslmeasuredozolle cOllcelltrationFom Ihe most recellt 

### 3years. (h) 

### Please comment on how this vallie relales to the 75

### ppb 8-hollrNAAQS. (c) 

### Please indicate iflhe airqllalily impact from the adjllstedslandardwOllldstill be considerednegligible. Response to Question 21ld) of the Hearing Officer Order: 

### The Agency wishes to clarify that it considers an ozone increment increase ofas little as 2

### ppb (forbath 1-hourand8-haur averagingperiods) to bepotentiallysignificant; thus, 04 

### ppb increase wouldbe of potential significance. The characterization of04

### ppb ozone air quality impactas "negligible" is 

### not consistent with the Agency'sposition. The Board'sfallaw-up questions note that the Agency's response to Question 21 

### (d) included the statement that "USEPA has notprovidedmore recent guidance to address ozone impacts on 

### an 8-haurbasis."Forsinglefacility assessments, the IEPA is not aware ofany mare current USEPA guidance, andtherefore will continue to conductairquality reviews basedupon the establishedmethodology (Scheffe Method). Importantly, this methodology does notspecify the estimation of an 8-haurozone incrementfrom the 1-haurozone increment. The Agency does not endorse the use of scalingfactors thatare basedon 

### steady-state, Gaussianplume-type assumptions. Ozone is 

### a secondarilyformedpollutant, nata directly emittedpollutant, and is 

### therefore notsteadystate.

2

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

The Scheffe Method is 

### a screening technique, which by design is conservative in orderto be protective ofthe ozone airquality standards. It is unrealistic to expect that the maximum predictedozone increment wouldoccurcoincidentally with the 4th 

### highest8-hourozone concentrationfor a given year. Ifthe azone incrementfrom theAirQuality ImpactAnalysis "were added to the 8-hourbackgroundairquality reading ofthe 4th 

### highestmeasuredozone concentrationfrom the most recent 3 

### years" (2005-2007, Hamilton County), it wouldbe 8. 

### ppb, somewhatbelow the 1997 

### 8-hourozone standardof85 

### ppb (the level determined by monitoring data rounding conventions). Butmore importantly, 

## ifthe 4 

### ppb ozone increment were added to the 2005-20078-haurozone design value (73 

### ppb)---the design value being the appropriate metricfor comparison with the ozone NAAQS---the combinedcontribution wouldbe even lower. Recently (March 12, 

### 2008), USEPA tightened the 8-hourozoneprimary andsecondary standards to 0.075ppm (75 

### ppb). A comparisan ofthis new level ofthe standardwith 2007-2009 Hamilton County manitaring data, shows a combinedozone incrementandozone design value of 72 ppm. The potentialairquality impact from the adjustedstandardis significont, but it is not expected to cause orcontribute ta vialations ofthe 8-hourozone standard. 3. Qllestioll 22 

### ofrhe Hearing Officer Orderasked, "Since Hamillon Counry o=one moniroring starions already show exceedences of the 8-hourozone srandardof 75

### ppb, wouldyOIlplease comlllenl on inclnding a condirion in Ihe adjustedstandardlimiting Royal Pools VOM emitting operations all o=one action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceedthe 75

### ppb 8-holll'azone standard?" Royal responded in opposition to such a condition "since it wouldbe IlIl\vorkablefrom a logisticalstandpoint. It would requireRoyal to monitor evelYday whetherthe ambiellt conditions are 'likely to exceed'the azone standard. This raises the quesrion of what 'likely to exceed'means. l\1ore importantly, it would require Royal to then contact its employees on a daily basis to inform them whetherto 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 Boarddirects theparties to 

### thefollowing infonnation andQSksforjimher comments on apotelltial cOlldirion ill Ihe adjllstedstQndardlimiling Royal Pools VOM emittillg operatiolls all o=olle actioll days.



## ••• Response to Question 22 of the Hearing Officer Order: 

### The 20088-hourozone standardis currently being reconsideredby USEPA, butbased upon the 2006-2008 and2007-2009 Hamilton County ozone data, the area is clearly in attainment with the 75 

### ppb standard. The SIPdevelopmentprocess exists to remedy nonottainmentconditions. It

### wouldbe inappropriate to require asinglefacility amongsta group of potentially contributingfacilities 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-haurozone standard". The Agency wouldsupport voluntary actions by the company an ozone action days, notmandatory requirements

.


# ••• (a) Sillce the SchejJe methodbases the OZOlle illcrement on the daily maxim11m 

### NMOC emissions rate, wOlildyOIlplease commem on the calclilatioll below estimating the daily impact ojthe ozolle illcrement oj4

### ppb as represellted ill thepetition? Response to Question 22(a) of the Hearing Officer Order: 

### The maximum emissions rate of 29.76 tansperyearis derivedfrom a maximum daily rateprojected to occur for every day the facility is in operation. The maximum daily rate (229 

### Iblday) is unlikely to occurcontinuously furthermore, the magnitude anddistribution ofozonefrom precursoremissions, with changing meteoralogical conditions, wouldalso be highly variable. Consequently, the 4 

### ppb maximum ozone increment wouldnot be attainedon days when emission rates were less than the maximum daily rate orwhen metearalogical conditions were natconducive to ozoneformation.
(b) 

### Althollgh Royal's emissions are not consideredin the St. LOllis (Metro-east) area. the local ail'mOllitorillg statiollJarRoyal ill Hamilton COllll1y does illdicate that days do occ"r where the o:olle cOlleelltratiolls are above 

### 75ppb. This resliits ill allAil' QllalityIlldex greater than 100. While OconeActioll Days are Ilot declaredJar Hamilton orJejJersoll COllnly, wOlild theAgellcyplease clarifY

## if these days typically coillcide with ozolle action daysJar the St. Louis (Metro-east) area? Response to Question 22(b) of the Hearing Officer Order: 

### An exceedonce ofthe 8-hourozone standard in Hamilton orJefferson County wouldlikely coincide with an ozone action day declaration in the Metro-east area. Based on 

### thepastseveralyears ofozone data in both Hamilton County andthe Metro-east region, 8-hourconcentrations have been consistently lower in Hamilton County. Therefore, an exceedance ofthe 8-hourozone standardin the more rural regions ofHamilton County would likely coincide with exceedances in the more urban areas ofMetra-east.
(c) Since theAgency has illdicatedthe IEPA wouldhave 110 

### objectioll to including a condition regardillg VOMlimitations an O:Olle action days, wOlildtheAgellcyplease elaborate all how this might be dOlle? 1) Does Ihe AgellCYrecommenda Ilumeric emissianlimitatioll? ifso, should VOMemissiolls be limited 10 

### 219lblday on ocone action days ill order ta enSlire the daily envirollmelltal impacIoJthe adjllstedstandardis 110 

### greater thall whal was represenledinlhepelilioll as "negligible 

### "? Does the Agellcysuggest a differellt nWllericallimit ora 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 thispossible conditiol/, does the Agel/cy believe the VOM limitatiol/ could be documel/tedsimply 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 timeformatfor the Hamiltol/oil'monitoril/g statiol/? 

## If so, would it bepossiblefor Royal to rely 01/

### such informatioll 10 

### limit ils VOMemissiolls? 4) 

## If1/01, 

### does theAgellcy recommelld Ihat Royal rely onforecasts madefor the St, Louis (Metro-east) areafor ozone actioll days sillce this is 

### the closest mOllitorillg area Ihatprovidesforecasls alldalerls? Would the Agellcy recommelldthat Royal observe**o~olle** 

### actiolls days as those days where the SI, 

### Louis (Metro-east) airmOllitoring system measures allAir Qualily (ndex of100 01'

### greater?

Response to Question 22(c) of the Hearing Officer Order: 

### As notedpreviously, the Agency wouldsupport voluntary actions by the company to limit VOM emitting 

### operations an ozone action days, butnotmandatary limitsfor those operations on 

### ozone action days.

(d) WOllld Royalplease comment all how it might comply with thispossible cOllditioll

### ? I) III orderto ellsure the daily envirollmental impact of the adjustedstalldard is no greater than whal was representedin thepetition as "negligible ", wouldRoyalplease cOllsider ways 10 

### track operatiolls showillg how VOM emissiolls are limitedas might be suggestedby the Agency (such as 110 

### more than 2291b/day) all ozolle actioll days? 2) Would Royalplease address the steps it wouldtake 10 

### determille whell there will be an OZOlle action day? 3) WouldRoyalplease address how il wouldkeep records of its 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 ofLegal 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 Ihave 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 6060I 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 ofLegal CounselIEPA 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 behalfofthe 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 legaljudgment, experience, and observations at hearing, I find that the credibility ofwitness 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 briefwhich shall be filed by December 7, 2009. Respondent's post-hearing brief, ifany, 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 ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on October 29, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.
It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on October 29,2009: John T. Therriault Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, fllinois 6060I

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.usAS 2009-004 Charles Matosian IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004 Brandon W. euschafer Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 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