IEPAATTACHMENT NO. 

# 7.--1 Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THEMATTEROF: ) ) PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.301 AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)

POST HEARING BRIEF OFPETITIO ERROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP, submits this PostHearing Brief. On July 17, 2009, Royal submitted its First Amended Petition For An Adjusted Standard ("First Amended Petition") to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("IPCB"), seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code §215.301 (Use ofOrganicMaterial, otherwise known as the "8 Ib/hrRule") as it applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material ("VOM") at Royal's Dix, Illinois swimming pool manufacturing facility. Section 215.301 provides: "No person shall cause orallow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kglhr (8 Ibslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If no odor nuisance exists the limitation of tJlls Subpart shall apply only to photochemically reactive material." On August 20, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA") filed with the IPCB its Recommendation that Royal's First Amended Petition be granted. On October 28, 2009, a hearing on this matter was held before Hearing Officer Carol Webb, atwhich Royal andthe Illinois EPA presented testimony. Royal submitsthis Post-HearingBriefin furtherance ofits FirstAmended Petition for an Adjusted Standard. l. BACKGROUND A. Facility and Process Description Royal operates a fiberglass pool manufacturing facility located at 3I2 Duncan Road, Dix, Illinois (the "Dix Plant"). Royal manufactures twenty different models of fiberglass pools, ranging from I2' wide x 16' long x 3' 10" deep to I

### 7' wide x 40' 6"

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
long x 8' deep. The Dix Plant began operations in the early 1990s and during peak season employs approximately twenty individuals plus another five to tcn contract haulers.Thc facility has one largc production building in which composite pool manufacturing occurs inside threc self-contained rooms, which arc called "bays," that arc located inside thc plant building. Most ofthe pool production occurs in the two main bays (Bay I and Bay 2), but pool finishing, part repair, and some occasional small pool production occurs in the third bay. All thrce bays are connected to a common exhaust ventilation system. The production bays utilize an approximate 35,000-cfm cross-flow ventilation system that exhausts air from the work areas to the outside atmosphere through a 36 inch diameter, 36 foot tall vertical discharge stack in orderto control worker exposureto styrenc. The CAAPP pennit application submitted to Illinois EPA in ovember 2004 requested a maximum facility-wide annual production cap of400 pools per year, which corresponds to full production (two pools perday) in spring, summerand fall. This same facility-wide annual production cap of400 pools per year is also included in Royal's modification to its pennitapplicationfiled on July 14, 2009. CompositePoolManufacturingProcedure. The compositepool manufacturing atthe Dix Plantconsists ofthreebasic process steps, all ofwhich emit VOMs and would be subjectto therequested adjusted standard: 1. Gclcoat application. Either a thin layer ofwhite gelcoat or two layers (one ofwhich is translucent gelcoatand the otheris regularproduction gelcoat) is applied to each bare waxed pool mold with a Magnum Venus Products ("MVP") high-volume low-pressure fluid impingement technology applicator gun. The gelcoat applicator is operated as an atomizing gelcoat spray gun. The whitc gclcoat used at Dix contains 27% styrcnc monomcr by wcight and 3% mcthyl mcthacrylatc (MMA) by wcight. Thc two laycr gelcoats range from 27%

- 38% styrene and 3%

- 10% MMA. This gelcoat is the statc-of-the-art in low-flAP fonnulations for swimmingpool production. 2. Barrier coat resin application. A 100 to 120 mil (0.100 to 0.120") laminate layerofthree ounce glass mat and vinyl ester ("VE") corrosion-resistant resin is applied to the cured gelcoat layer with the same MVP applicator that is used to apply gelcoat. However, the gelcoat tip is replaced with a 5020 VE tip and the pump pressure is adjustedto allow forthe non-atomized application ofthe VEresin. The VE resin contains up to48% styrenecontentby weight. 3. Isophthalic structural resin application. A series of consecutive laminate layers consisting of 1Y, oz. chopped glass strand mat, woven glass roving, and isophthalic ("ISO'') corrosion-resistant resin is applied to the cured VE layer with the same MVP applicator that is used to apply the gelcoat and VE

2 

### .,

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

resin. However, the VE tip is replaced with a 7025 ISO resin tip and the pump pressure is adjustedto allow forthe non-atomized applicationofthe ISO resin. Other manufacturing steps include: (I) parts finishing, including trimming, grinding and sanding of finished pools parts; (2) gelcoat and resin cleanup, in which acetone, non-HAP and non-VOC cleaning solvent is used to clean gelcoat and resin residues from the application equipment and roller tools; and (3) mold repair and mold prep, in which very small amounts oftooling gelcoat and tooling resin are used to repair the molds and a small quantity ofmold cleaner, mold sealer, and mold release (called mold wax), is usedto prepare the baremold for gclcoatapplication. These othersteps do nothave significantamounts ofVOM emissions. B. Procedural Background Royal has always strived to comply with environmental and otherregulations that apply to operations atthe Dix Plant. In keeping with its desire to comply with applicable rules, in Novemberof2004, Royal submitted an application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program ("CAAPP'') operatingpermit from the Illinois EPA. II To date, apermit has not been issued. Royal is aware that Illinois EPA has rejected the use of averaging to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. The 11linois EPA has stated that the 8 lblhrRule specifies a maximum hourly emission rate and, therefore, compliance with the rule would need to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis, not on an average from any longertimeperiod. On January 10, 2006, the Illinois EPA issued Violation Notice A-2005-0028I to Royal. After receipt ofthis Notice, representatives ofRoyal met with Illinois EPA in person and also corresponded with Illinois EPA regarding the notice. As part ofthese communications, Royal provided a significant amount of information to Illinois EPA regarding the Dix Plantand therelevant industry. Withassistance from its environmental consultant, Engineering Environmental Consulting Services ("EECS"), Royal computed the YOM emitted during the manufacture ofthe various pools Royal constructs. Royal discovered that, based on 11linois EPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating compliance, the hourly YOM emissions from certain ofits operations (gelcoat and resin application) did not appearto comply with IEPA's interpretationofthe 8lblhrRule. After carefully examining its options for add-on controls and/or for changing manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Royal's levels ofhourly YOM emissions, Royal realizedthat the cost forcomplianceviaeitherofthese options will neitherallow it to remain competitive nor profitable, and will force closure ofthe Dix Plant. Royal met with lllinois EPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring Royal's compliance with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis is unreasonable. After considering the information presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 lblhour Rule to Royal's operations on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden. Royal and Illinois EPA agreed that Royal should apply for an adjustmentfrom the 8 lblhrRule.

11 OnJuly 14,2009, Royal submittedto Illinois EPA a modification 10 its CAAPP permit application. 3

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

C. Facility Air Emissions 1. 

### VOMEmissiolls Estimates. The YOM emissions from the Dix Plant vary depending on the type and size ofeach swimmingpool part. The facility emissions consist predominately of styrene, but also include small amounts of other YOM and volatile organic HAP species suchas methyl methacrylate ("MMA"). The average YOM emissions per pool for the gelcoating process is 53.8 Ibs ofYOM. The resin process averages 94.4 Ibs ofYOM emitted perpool. The total average YOM emitted per pool is 148.8Ibs. The maximum facility-wide hourly YOM emissionrate is 156.70 Ibs perhour. Annual YOM emissions at the Dix Plant for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tpy and 11.6 tpy, respectively. Royal's current CAAPP application estimates the Dix Plant's maximum YOM emissions at about29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons ofwhich relate to potential styrene emissions. Additional information regarding Royal's YOM emissions, is set forth in Royal's First AmendedPetition. 

### 2. Compliallce with the CompositesMACT. Royal is currently subjectto the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities, found at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW (the "MACT'). EPA estimates that industry-wide, compliance with the MACT will reduce styrene emissions from subject facilities by an average of 43%. Royal has been in continuous compliance with the MACT since it bccame effective. The MACT required that subject facilities similar to Royal's be in compliance with the work practice standards contained thereinbyApril 21, 2006. Royal was incompliance with the MACT by February 2006. To comply with the work practice standards in the MACT, Royal adopted standards requiring that all resin containers are closed when not in use, and implementing the use ofacetone, which has no HAP or YOM emissions. Royal meets the MACT emission standards by using the HAP emissions factor averaging option (see 40 CFR 63.5810(b)) and Royal has continually been in compliance with the emission limits setforth intheMACT. 

### II. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 28.I(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, if a regulation ofgeneral applicability does not specify a level ofjustification required ofa petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted standards wheneverthe Boarddetermines, upon adequateproofbypetitioner, that: I) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicableto thatpetitioner; 2) the existence ofthosefactorsjustifies an adjusted standard; 3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and 4) the adjusted standard is consistentwith any applicablefederal law.
4

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

The regulation of general applicability from which Royal seeks an adjusted standard does not specify a lcvel of justification foran adjusted standard. A. Factors Relating to Royal are Substantially and Significantly Differentfrom theFactors Relied upon by theBoard in Adopting the 8 lblhrRule The factors relating to Royal's operations are substantially and significantly different than the general factors relied upon by the Board in promulgating the 8 Ib/hr Rule. The 8 Ib/hr Rule was first promulgated in 1971 as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Rule 205. 4PCB 191, R71-23. Because itwas adopted over 30 years ago, it is difficult, ifnot impossible, to know exactly what factors the Board relied upon in adopting this rule. However, based upon Illinois Pollution Control Board case law and a common sense reading ofthe rule, Royal believes that the factors primarily relied upon by the Board involved concerns about preventing ozone formation. In fact, it appears that the main intent ofthe rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic material utilized conlrol equipment already in place to ensure that their facilities do not cause a violation ofthe one-hour ozone standard nor create an odor nuisance. For example, in Illinois v. Processing and Books, Inc., the IPCB explained that: "Rule 205: Organic Material Emission Standards serves both to achieve and maintain compliance with the federal air quality standard for photochemical oxidants (0.08 ppm for one hour not to exceed more than once peryear, 36 Fed. Reg. 22385 Nov. 25, 1971) and to prevent local nuisances
.... the majorpurpose ofthese regulations is for control ofphotochemical oxidants. In addition, odor causing organic emissions were ineluded ifa local odor nuisance exits
... these provisions are designed to require the use ofequipment that is already in use at numerous facilities
..." 1977 WL9986, *4 (Ill. Pol. Coolrol. Bd.). From this explanation itis evidentthat the Board was mostconcerned with: (1) protecting ambientairquality by preventing any violation of the I-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odor nuisances from manufacturing operations. A review ofRoyal's operations shows that the main purposes ofthis rule are not furthered through itsapplicationto Royal: first, asdiscussed in Section II.G of this First Amended Petition, the daily amounts of YOM emitted by Royal's operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS; and second, Royal has a tall stack in place to minimize odornuisance from its operations. The above quote from the Illinois Pollution Control Board also shows that, when adopting the rule in 1971, the Board most likely relied upon the fact that facilities would have no problem complying with the rule by utilizing equipment already available and in use by most facilities subject to the rule. It is clear that this rule was promulgated as a catch-all provision, intending to cast a wide net over all operations which emit organic materials. However, the Board could not possibly have contemplated all the circumstances inwhich organic material is emitted, and, in fact, there is no indicationthat

5
'.,

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

the Boardconsideredthe factors peculiarto pool fabrication when adopting this rule. There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherentor otherwise necessary to Royal's operations that the Board did notconsider (norcould ithave) when it adopted the 81b1hr Rule in 1971. The building ofafiberglass swimming pool involves a batch-type process (ofapplying layers or skins), rather than a continuous application process. This is an important distinction because compliance with the rule can be reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that involve the use of materials that emit VOMs) are of a continuous nature or, are at least are distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period. For continuous or near-continuous operations, the use of emission controls, as provided by 35 LA.C. 215.302, is economically feasible. Due to the large size ofthe swimming pool molds and necessary batch-type sequence ofthe gelcoat and resin application processes at the Dix Plant, they are neithercontinuous norevenly distributed overalongerperiod oftime. Additionally, the advent of OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR 1910, requires manufacturers who use materials thatcontain and emit styrene to maintain an in-plant work area atmosphere (worker breathing air) ofless than 100 ppm. To do so, Royal had to install a large ventilation system that exhausts approximately 35,000 cubic feet of plant air every minute. This makes the use of add-on emission controls for Royal's operations fiscally impractical. (See discussion below and in Section ILE. of Royal's First Amended Petition). The Board could not have possibly anticipated this OSHA requirement and its affect when it made its decision to adopt the 8 lblhr Rule for all manufacturing facilities in the State. Finally, on June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the one-hour average ozone standard, which was replaced by an eight-houraverage standard. See 69 Fed. Reg. 23951 (Apr. 30, 2005). As referenced by the Board in Illinois v. Processing and Books, Inc., the 8 IbIhr Rule was designed inprimary part to assist in achievingcompliance withEPA's one-hour average standard. Although Royal is not requesting that the Board revoke the 8 Iblhr Rule, Royal asserts that the elimination ofone ofthe fundamental purposes ofthe 8 Iblh Rule supports this request for an adjusted standard. Because the IPCB could not (and did not) consider these factors relating to Royal's operations, Royal contends that it is unreasonable to expect it to demonstrate compliance with the 8 lblhrRule on a stricthourly basis. 

### B. TheExistence ofThose Factors Justifies an Adjusted Standard As discussed in Section II.E. of Royal's First Amended Petition, Royal has investigated numerous compliance alternatives that have proven to be neither economically nor technically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to Royal's operations (discussed above). The existence of these factors, coupled with IEPA's endorsement of Royal's efforts to obtain an adjusted standard justifies the granting ofan adjusted standard.



### 6 ,.', o'

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
Royal investigated compliance alternatives that would help enable it to comply with the 8 lblhrRule on astricthourly basis. As discussed below, Royal investigated: (I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. It is important to note, however, that other than add-on emission controls, many of the alternatives investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis. [n addition, Royal could not identify any feasible compliance alternatives to furtherreduce YOM emissions from Royal's operations. 1. LowerYOM ContentMaterials Royal has already reduced the YOM concentration in its production materials (gelcoat and resin materials) in compliance with theMACT. Complying with the MACT alone will not reduce Royal's emissions to a level satisfactory to meet the 8 lblhrRule on a strict hourly basis. While Royal has inquired ofits suppliers regarding lower YOM contentproductionmaterials, further reduction ofstyrene intheresins (below thatneeded to comply with MACT) is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining productintegrity. 2. Alternate OperatingProcedure and Methods Royal carefully studied the gelcoating process at the Dix Plant, and considered every recognized alternative procedure and method that might reduce the hourly YOM emissions rate. However, this study revealed inherentprocess limitations that precluded theuseofany effective alternative:

• Composite swimming pools are produced with open molding processes on very largemalemolds.

• Composite pools are too large to use any closed molding process. Even ifclosed molding was feasible for the smallest pool model, the ge1coat layer must still be applied to the "open" closed mold with agelcoatapplicator. • A high-quality gelcoat fmish is an essential component of a commercially acceptablecompositepool. Thepool models are muchtoo large to use avacuumformed thermoplastic shell finish, which is the only acceptable alternative finish thatis used for smallerspapools.

• Gelcoat must be applied to the pool mold in a single uniform layer. Gelcoat carmot 

### be applied in separate strips or sections, because the lapped gelcoatseams would

### be structurallyunsound and unsightly.

• Gelcoat must 

### be applied to the mold with an atomizing mechanical applicator. Although non-atomizing gelcoat equipment is available that might reduce the gelcoat emission rate, the available non-atomizing equipment will not provide an acceptable surface finish and has failed to reduce gelcoat emissions as promised bythe manufacturer.



### 7 

# .....

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

• The gelcoat process takes about one hour for the largest pool model and the largestpool model requires at least 360 pounds ofgelcoat.

• The white gelcoat used by Royal is state-of-the-art and contains the lowest feasible monomer contents of27% styrene and 3% MMA. This gelcoatprovides a flexible, durable, glossy finish that must resist impact, weathering, temperature extremes, UV radiation, and blistering.

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

• The application of gelcoat takes place in large work bay areas that require significant amounts ofventilation airflow to protect the workers against styrene exposure. This ventilation is required by OSHA regulations. The relatively large airflow rate and low styreneexposure limits established by OSHA resultina large dilute exhaust stream that carulOt be economically controlled with add-on air pollution control equipment. The cost ofthe lowest-cost control equipment is detailed in the next section. 3. Feasibility ofAdd-On AirPollution Controls The cost and feasibility of add-on air pollution controls at reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities has been thoroughly studied and documented as part of the Composites MACT (40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart WWWW). The Dix Plant is fully compliant with the HAP emission limits listed in the MACT standard, averaging 72% of the MACTemissions limit. According to the MACT, a composites facility such as the Dix Plant is not required to install add-on air pollution controls. During the promulgation and development ofthe MACT, the United States EPA discovered that add-on air pollution controls are not cost effective at most existing composite facilities. The United States EPA also determined that add-on controls with 95% control efficiency would only be cost effective for new composite facilities that emit more than 100 tpy ofHAP or new facility thatproduces largeparts suchas swimmingpools and emits more than 250 tpy of HAP. The Dix Plant emitted less than 12 tons ofHAPs in 2008, so add-on controls would notbecosteffective by avery wide margin. A comprehensive study entitled 

### "FeasibilityandCost

## 0/ the Capture andControl 

## 0/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissionsfrom the Open Molding 

## 0/Rein/orced Plastic Composites" prepared by EECS was submitted to United States EPA in April 2000 as part ofthe promulgation ofthe Composites MACT rule. This report has 377 pages of information concerningthe cost and feasibility ofadd-on controls at composites facilities.

8



### ,.11 

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
Very little has changed since the 2000 publication date, except that the cost ofelectricity and natural gas needed to operate add-on controls has risen dramatically.v
. An abbreviated summary ofthe air pollution control systems, which are detailed in the aforementioned study and areavailable for use, is contained in the following table: Commercially Available AirPollution Controls Technology Applicability Concerns Status at the Dix Plant Absorption Styrene is nearly insoluble in water infeasible Styrene polymerizes on sorbent media Adsorption Desorbed styrene is notreusable infeasible Desorbed styrene mustbe disposed as hazardous waste Biodigestion Microbes are unreliableand must stay warm and moist infeasible Digestionbeds mustbehuge to handle exhaustairflow Styreneconcentration in airtoo low to be economic Condensation Condensate is mostly waterwith trace styrene infeasible Condensate mustbe disposed as hazardous waste Flare Styreneconcentration in airis too lowto be economic infeasible TO Conventional recuperativeoxidation is always more RTO is better costly than RTO Regenerative thermal oxidation is currently cmployed technically atone truckcapplantand several large bathwareplants feasible that produce small parts on automated production lines, Oxidation RTO operate continuously (24 hr/day, 360days/yr) and have economically uncontrolled styrene emissions >250 tpy. A RTO infeasible system large enough to handle the 35,000

### cfin exhaust airflow atthe Dix Plantwould cost over$600,000 to install and over$300,000 peryearto operate. CO Catalytic mediahas arelatively shon lifetime and is infeasible unreliable Preconcentration is currentlyemployed at four large technically bathwareplants. The long-term performance ofthe questionable Preconcentration adsorberin questionable due to an unexpected failure wlRTO ofthe activatedcharcoal sorbent media at one ofthe economically sites. Apreconcentratorsystem largeenough to handle infeasible the 35,000cfmexhaustairflow at the Dix Plantwould costalmostone million dollars to install and operate. Royal commissioned EECS to prepare a detailed control cost analysis for a skidmounted RTO system for the Dix Plant. EECS's repon ofits analysis 

### was submitted to Illinois EPA on June 19,2009 and 

### was attached to Royal's First Amended Petition. As detailed in this analysis, the skid-mounted RTO control option would have an installed
Due to the size ofthis study, Royal is not including a copy with this Brief. It is pan ofEPA's docket regarding the Composites MACT rule promulgation and adoption. Should the Board desire a copy ofthe study, Royal would be pleased to provide itto the Board. 

### 9 II'
... •

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

## December 7, 2009
capital cost approximately $709,500 and would have annual operating costs of ovcr $470,000 per year. Thc cost effectiveness for this add-on control would be about $18,400 per ton ofstyrene and MMA removed per year. As such, the cost effectiveness ofthe RTO control option is much greater than what is widely regarded as affordable. The armual operating cost ofthe RTO control options is several times greater than the armual profit for the Dix Plant. Hence, add-on controls are prohibitively expensive and noteconomically feasible for the Oix Plant. 

### C. The Requcstcd Standard Will ot Result in Adverse Environmcntal orHcalth Effccts. As discussed in Section II.G ofRoyal's First Amended Petition, the requested adjusted standard will have little, ifany, adverse impact on the environment or health. By complying with the MACT, Royal has limited its YOM emissions. Even without these changes, Royal's opcrations do not cause or contribute to any ozone exccedances. With respect to healtheffects, Royal notes that Illinois does nothaveahealth standard for styrene emissions, and this manufacturing process is the sameprocess used by swimming pool manufacturers in many otherstates. 1. 

### AirQualityImpactAnalysis of Royal's Opera/ions. As indicated, the Dix Plant is already in compliance with the MACT, and the proposed adjusted standard will not impact future compliance with the MACT. Additionally, attached to Royal's First Amended Petition is an Air Quality ImpactAnalysis ofthe Dix Plant. This analysis presents the worst-case scenario forozoneemissions using theproposed adjusted standard. Based on the results ofthe analysis, the worst-case one-hour average ozone impact is still only 74% ofthe one-hourozone standard. Royal understands that in 2005, EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone standard with an eight-hour average standard, butbelieves the hourly calculation presented in the Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful givcnthe obviousconcerns abouthourly emissions thatarereflected inthe 8 IblhrRule. Should Royal's First Amended Petition be granted, there will not be any increase on aperunit basis overthe currentemissions from the Oix Plant. Royal's FirstAmended Petition merely seeks to allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same marmer, and granting the FirstAmended Petitionwill notamount to an increaseofperunitemissions. In addition, at the hearing, Dr. Robert Haberlein testified on behalf of Royal regarding the impact to air quality if Royal's adjusted standard was granted. Dr. Haberlein testified that Royal's emissions will have a negligible effect on ozone and air quality. (Hearing Transcript, pgs. 25- 27,31-32). In addition, although the Air Quality Impact Analysis attached to the First Amended Petition indicates that the worstcase onehour average ozone impact is 4 ppb, Dr. Haberlein testified at the hearing that based on Scheffe Table I, which was used for the analysis, the lowest ozone impact possible from the Table is 4 ppb for any source less than 50 tons ofYOM per year, but that the actual worstcaseimpact from Royal operations isprobablymuch less than 4ppb.

10

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

2. Cross-Media EnvironmentalImpacts Resultingfrom anAdjusted Standard. There should be no negative cross environmental impacts resulting from the requested adjusted standard. In general, the Dix Plant's waste and wastewater generation is independent ofYOM emissions, thus no significant change in the nature or volume of waste and wastewatergeneration is anticipated. However, as part ofMACT compliance, Royal converted its resin spray applicators to low-emitting non-atomized applicators. The non-atomized applicators reduce the amount ofoverspray, and therefore the amount ofsolid and hazardous waste generated. Although not required by the MACT standard, Royal has eliminated all colored backcoat gelcoats and now uses just white backcoat. This requires less flushing ofthe gelcoat lines, and as aresult, less waste gelcoat material is generated. D. The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistentwith FederalLaw The granting ofthe proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law and will notviolate any provision ofthe federal Clean AirAct. Specifically, there is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers' emissions oforganic material in excess of 8 Ibslhr, on a strict hourly basis. Because Royal is proposing to comply with the MACT, the proposed adjusted standard is consistentwithfederal law. 

### lll. ROYAL'S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD As set forth in Royal's First Amended Petition, Royal proposes the following language for aBoard orderto impose the adjusted standard: I. Pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/28/1), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code. 215.20I ("8 Ib/hrRule"), effective

__:-, 20_. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic material ("VOM") into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility located in Dix, lIlinois. 2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply. Royal remains subject to the following:
a. Royal must continue to investigate: (a) swimming pool production methods that generate fewer YOM emissions, and (b) materials that have a reduced YOM content and/or are compliant with the Composites MACT HAP content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current materials with lower YOM content materials as long as such substitution does notresult in a netincrease in YOM emissions. b. Royal must perform any reasonable test of new technologically or economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to

II

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

the open-mold swimmingpool manufacturingindustry, which may reduce VOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing they do. After performance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts. The report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
c. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its Clean Air Act Permit Program permit (once issued), the ational Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth in 40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart WWWW.as required by Section9.1(a) oftheAct, and any otherapplicable regulation. Significantly, this proposed adjusted standard is consistent with prior adjusted standards from the 8 Iblhr Rule issued by the IPCB for similar manufacturing processes. Specifically, on July 22, 2002, the !PCB granted Crownline Boats, Inc.'s ("Crownline") Petition for Adjusted Standard. Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in West Frankfort, Illinois, using a gelcoat and resin application process very similar to that employed by Royal. Crownline was grantcd an exemption from compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule because compliance with a MACT standard similar to tlle Composites MACT could be demonstrated. The adjusted standard proposed herein is based on the adjusted standard approved by the !PCB inresponse to Crownline's petition. In its Recommendation filed August 20, 2009, Illinois EPA suggested adding the following condition to the language ofthe adjusted standard: "The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as ofthc date ofthis filing." Royal opposes the addition ofsuch a provision. The language is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by "emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as of the date ofthis filing." First, it is unclearwhat date is beingreferred to and whether it is the date that an order would be issued or some oilier date? Second, and more importantly, such a provision can be read to mean that only those activities taking place on the date in question are governed by the reliefgranted. IfRoyal is not conducting manufacturing activities on the date in question, does that mean that me reliefgranted in this proceeding does not apply to any of Royal's air emissions? In addition, such language 

### was not included in the Adjusted Standard issued to Crownleine, discussed above. Because ofme ambiguity ofthis proposed language and the precedent in the Crownline matter, Royal requests that it not be added to me language ofany adjusted standard which maybe issued inthis proceeding. Finally, both Royal and the Illinois EPA oppose any restrictions which would be placed on Royals' manufacturing operations as part ofan adjusted standard in situations were there may be ozone action days. (See, Illinois EPA Response to Further Questions posed by the IPCB, filed Oct. 27, 2009, pgs. 3-4). This issue was raised in the IPCB's questions to Royal and the Illinois EPA. In the pleadings it filed with the IPCB and in the testimony it presented at the hearing, Royal detailed that such restrictions would be

12

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
logistically unworkable and would be an unreasonable burden to impose on a facility which often has 10 or fewer employees working. In addition, Illinois EPA stated: "[i]t would be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group of potentially contributing facilities to accept a condition limiting VOM emining operations on ozone action days
..." IV. SUMMARY In summary, Royal offers the following reasons as to why it should receive the adjusted standard requested in lieu ofhaving to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis:

• Royal is already subject to National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities, found at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW. EPA estimates that the annual cost for a facility to comply with the MACT is 

### $2,800Iton ofhazardous 

### airpollutants removed and will reduce styrene emissions by an average of 43%. Royal has been in continuous compliancewiththe MACT since it's implementation.

• Technical and regulatory constraints (such as the high airflow needed to ventilate building air in order to comply with OSHA worker health & safety standards) make the cost for Royal to comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis using emission controls unreasonably high.

• The capital costs associated with tail-stack (end-of-pipe) controls for Royal to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis would cost approximately $709,500 to install and over $470,000 per year to operate. This equates to approximately $18,400perton ofpollutantremoved.

• Although some alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic products exist, none of them can 

### be technically or economically applied to a swimming pool manufacturing operation such as Royal's and none ofthem will actually allowRoyal to fully comply with the 8 IbIhrRuleon a stricthourly basis.

• The high cost ofusing either end-of-stack emission controls or very expensive alternativeproduction methods (those requiring complete re-tooling and re-design of production methods and procedures), will put Royal at a significant competitivedisadvantage. This will resultin one ofthe following scenarios:

• To remain competitive, Royal will 

### be forced to move to another state whichdoes not have an 8 lblhrRule (orany similarlimitation); or • Royal will eventually 

### be forced outofbusiness because it will not 

### be able to compete for customers due to the high cost of its swimming pools and/ordue to thedintinished quality/durability ofits swimmingpools.

• The 8 lblhr Rule puts Royal at a competitive disadvantage to other swimming pool manufacturers located in stales without a similar 8 Iblhr Rule. Royal and its 

### 13 0.'

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009
consultant, EECS, are familiar with swimming pool manufacturing facilities in at least seven other states (Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, South Carolina, ew York and Louisiana, where Royal's only other manufacturing facility is located), and none ofthose states have an 8 Ib/hr Rule. Royal and its consultant are not familiar with any other swimming pool manufacturing operations within Illinois. 

### V. CONCLUSIO The requested adjusted standard should be granted as an alternative to Royal's compliance with 35 lAC §215.301. Notwithstanding the technical impracticality of complying with the requirements ofthe 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis, to require Royal to comply with the 

### 8 Iblhr Rule would result in substantial economic hardship to Royal, and perhaps even closure ofthe Dix Plant. 

### WHEREFORE, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. respectfully requests an adjusted standard from 35 lAC § 215.30I as set forth herein. Rcspectfully Submitted, BRYAN CAVE LLP

# By:ndRq~ DaleA. Guariglia, MO B 

### # 8 BrandonW. Neuschafer, MO Bar#53232 OneMetropolitan Square 21 1 NorthBroadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Tel. (314) 259-2000 Fax. (314) 259-2020 Attorneys forRoyal FiberglassPools, Inc.

14

## Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Theundersigned certifies that ac<!P¥fJfthe foregoing Post-HearingBriefwas served upon the following parties on thel"'UayofDecember, 2009: Illinois Pollution Control Board, Ann: Clerk 100 West Randolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, 

### IL 60601-3218 Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, 

### IL 62794-9276 Attn: Charles Matoesian

15IEPAATTACHMENT NO 

# 22- 

# '- Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

BEFORETHE ILU 'OIS POLLUTION CO TROLBOARD IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OFROYAL FffiERGLASS POOLS, ) INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ) 35 ILL. ADM. CODE215.301 ) )
OTICE AS 2009-04 (Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, AssistantClerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 WestRandolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 Dale A. Guariglia Brandon W. Neuschafer Bryan CaveLLP One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 211 N. Broadway St. Louis,IvI0 63102-2750 Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 WestRandolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago,lllinois 60601-3218

PLEASETAKE NOTICEthat Ihave today filed with theOffice ofthe Pollution Control Board the MOTION FOR LEAVETO FILE INSTANTER POST-HEARING COMMENTS and RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEFofthe Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS El VIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY By: /s/Charles E. lvIatoesian Charles E. Matoesian AssistantCounsel Division ofLegal Counsel DATED: December 16, 2009 1021 North Grand AvenueEast P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TOO) TIDS FILING IS SUBMITTED 

# o RECYCLED PAPER

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD INTHEMATIER OF: ) ) PETITION OFROYALFIBERGLASS POOLS, ) 1 

### C. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ) 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ) ) AS 2009-04 (Adjusted Standard-Air)

MOTIONFOR LEAVETO FILEINSTANTER POST-HEARl 

### TG COMME TS
NOW COMES theProponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY ("TIlinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, and pursuantto 35 111. Adm. Code 101.502 and 102.402, moves thatthe Hearing Officer allow for the filing instanterofthe attached post-hearingcomments in the matterabove. On October28, 2009, the TIlinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") held ahearing in the Petition ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standardfrom 35 Til. Adm. Code 215.301 ("Royal") Atthat hearing, adate ofDcccmber7,2009, was sct as adeadline forpost-hearingbriefs. On thatdate, Royal filed comments late inthe day. Afterthe closeofthe comment period the TIlinoisEPA realized they neededto respond to one aspectofRoyal's comments. The Illinois EPA contactedRoyal and set up acall to discuss thematter. Atthattime, both parties came to an agreementconcerning the language at issue. Although the Illinois EPA regrets thetiming ofthis late request andrecogoizes the fact thatthe Board is proceeding expeditiously, as thecomment period has closed the Agency prays that the Hearing Officer allow the attached comment to be included intherecord. Allowing theagreed upon change into the record will resolve apotentially contentious issue between the parties.
1

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

WHEREFORE, for thereasons set forth above, the minois EPA moves that the Hearing Officer allow this motion and pray that itbe allowedto file the attached posthearing comments instanter. Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY By: lsICharles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian AssistantCounsel Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: December 16, 2009 1021 N. Grand Ave., East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, lllinois 62794-9276 217n82-5544

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

BEFORETHE ILL! OIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD IN THEMATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OFROYALFIBERGLASS POOLS, ) INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ) 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ) ) AS 2009-04 (Adjusted Standard-Air)

RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("lllinois EPA" or "Agency") by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and hereby submits its Post-Hearing Briefwiththe lllinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") inthis matter. In supportofthis Post-Hearing Brief, the lllinois EPA states as follows:

J. Royal Fiberglass Boats ("Royal") filed its First Amended Petition for Adjusted Standard (hereinafter "Petition") on July 17,2009, pursuantto Section28.1 ofthe lllinois Environmental Protcction Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and the regulations ofthe Board at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.402. The Petition requests that the Board grant Royal
an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.301, the Use of Organic Material Rule, betterknown as the "8 lblhrRule" as it applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material ("YOM") from Royal's Dix, lllinois, swimming pool manufacturing facility. 2. On June 4th, 2009, the Board had found that Royal's original petition met the requiremellls of35 Ill. Adm. CodeSection 104.406 and accepted the matterfor hearing.

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

3. On oraboutAugust20lh, 2009, the Illinois EPA filed its recommendation with theBoard recommending thatthe Board GRANT the Petition for Adjusted Standard. 4. Ahearing was held in this matteron Octobcr28th, 2009. Testimony was presented by 

### Mr. CliffHebert andDr. Robe.t A. Haberlein for Petitioner. Testimony was presented by Mr. Andy Russo for Rcspondent. 5. On December7, 2009, thePetitioner filed its Post-Hearing briefwith the Board. 6. This reply solely involves aconcern the Petitionerexpressed onpage 12 ofits PostI-Iearing briefwith condition "d" in the Illinois EPA's Recommendation. 7. The Illinois EPAhas spoken with the Respondent's attorney aboutthis matterand have agreed to language which may be substituted for the Illinois EPA's currentcondition "d" in its recommendation filed August20, 2009. 8. The Petitioner is therefore aware thatthe Illinois EPA is filing these comments and attached motion with the Board and docs notobject. 9. The Illinois EPAhas agreed thatthecondition "d" in its recommendation atpage7 be replaced with the following language. "d. The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be lintited
to the swimming pool manufacturingemissionunits (spraybooths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, atRoyal's Dix facility." 10. Petitionerhas agreed to withdraw its objection to the Agency's condition "d" assuming the new language is used in any Board order.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends thatRoyal's Petition for an Adjusted Standard be granted.

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

Respectfully Submitted, ILLINOIS EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY: /s/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: December 16,2009 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, lIlinois 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

3

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OFSANGAMON ) ) ) 

### SS
CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, statethat Ihave served electronically the attached MOTIONFOR LEAVETO FILE INSTANTER POST-HEARING COMMENTS and RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF, upon the following persons: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board Jarncs R, Thompson Center 100 WestRandolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 Dale A. Guariglia Brandon W, Neuschafer Bryan Cave LLP One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 211 N, Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Dated: December 16,2009 1021 North GrandAvenue East P,O, Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217,782,5544 217,782,9143 (TDD) Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100WestRandolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, /s/ Charles E, Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian AssistantCounsel Division ofLegal Counsel