IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. 7.--1

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

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

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 OF PETITIO ER ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS

Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP,

submits this Post Hearing 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 of Organic Material,

otherwise known as the "8 Ib/hr Rule") as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic

material ("VOM") at Royal's Dix, Illinois swimming pool manufacturing facility.

Section 215.301 provides:

"No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more 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, at which Royal and the Illinois EPA presented testimony.

Royal submits this Post-Hearing Briefin furtherance of its First Amended 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 I7' 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 of the 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 order to control worker

exposure to styrenc.

The CAAPP pennit application submitted to Illinois EPA in ovember 2004

requested a maximum facility-wide annual production cap of 400 pools per year, which

corresponds to full production (two pools per day) in spring, summer and fall. This same

facility-wide annual production cap of 400 pools per year is also included in Royal's

modification to its pennit application filed on July 14, 2009.

Composite Pool Manufacturing Procedure. The composite pool manufacturing

at the Dix Plant consists of three basic process steps, all of which emit VOMs and would

be subject to the requested adjusted standard:

1. Gclcoat application. Either a thin layer of white gelcoat or two layers

(one of which is translucent gelcoat and the other is regular production 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 swimming pool production.

2. Barrier coat resin application. A 100 to 120 mil (0.100 to 0.120")

laminate layer ofthree ounce glass mat and vinyl ester ("VE") corrosion-resistant

resin is applied to the cured gelcoat layer with the same MVP applicator that is

used to apply gelcoat. However, the gelcoat tip is replaced with a 5020 VE tip

and the pump pressure is adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application ofthe

VE resin. The VE resin contains up to 48% styrene content by weight.

3. Isophthalic structural resin application. A series of consecutive

laminate layers consisting of 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 adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application ofthe 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 of tooling gelcoat and tooling resin are used to repair

the molds and a small quantity of mold cleaner, mold sealer, and mold release (called

mold wax), is used to prepare the bare mold for gclcoat application. These other steps do

not have significant amounts ofVOM emissions.

B. Procedural Background

Royal has always strived to comply with environmental and other regulations that

apply to operations at the Dix Plant. In keeping with its desire to comply with applicable

rules, in November of 2004, Royal submitted an application for a Clean Air Act Permits

Program ("CAAPP'') operating permit from the Illinois EPA. II To date, a permit has not

been issued. Royal is aware that Illinois EPA has rejected the use of averaging to

demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. The 11linois EPA has stated that the 8

lblhr Rule specifies a maximum hourly emission rate and, therefore, compliance with the

rule would need to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis, not on an average from any

longer time period.

On January 10, 2006, the Illinois EPA issued Violation Notice A-2005-0028I to

Royal. After receipt of this Notice, representatives of Royal met with Illinois EPA in

person and also corresponded with Illinois EPA regarding the notice. As part of these

communications, Royal provided a significant amount of information to Illinois EPA

regarding the Dix Plant and the relevant industry. With assistance from its environmental

consultant, Engineering Environmental Consulting Services ("EECS"), Royal computed

the YOM emitted during the manufacture of the various pools Royal constructs. Royal

discovered that, based on 11linois EPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating

compliance, the hourly YOM emissions from certain of its operations (gelcoat and resin

application) did not appear to comply with IEPA's interpretation ofthe 8lblhr Rule.

After carefully examining its options for add-on controls and/or for changing

manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Royal's levels of hourly YOM emissions,

Royal realized that the cost for compliance via either ofthese options will neither allow it

to remain competitive nor profitable, and will force closure of the 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

adjustment from the 8 lblhr Rule.

11 On July 14,2009, Royal submitted to Illinois EPA a modification 10 its CAAPP permit application.

3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

C. Facility Air Emissions

1. VOM Emissiolls Estimates. The YOM emissions from the Dix Plant

vary depending on the type and size of each swimming pool part. The facility emissions

consist predominately of styrene, but also include small amounts of other YOM and

volatile organic HAP species such as methyl methacrylate ("MMA"). The average YOM

emissions per pool for the gelcoating process is 53.8 Ibs of YOM. The resin process

averages 94.4 Ibs of YOM emitted per pool. The total average YOM emitted per pool is

148.8Ibs. The maximum facility-wide hourly YOM emission rate is 156.70 Ibs per hour.

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 about 29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons of which relate to potential

styrene emissions. Additional information regarding Royal's YOM emissions, is set

forth in Royal's First Amended Petition.

2. Compliallce with the Composites MACT. Royal is currently subject to

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 therein by April 21, 2006. Royal was in compliance 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 of acetone, 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 set forth in the MACT.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 28.I(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, if a

regulation of general applicability does not specify a level ofjustification required of a

petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted

standards whenever the Board determines, upon adequate proof by petitioner, that:

I) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different

from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation

applicable to that petitioner;

2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;

3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the

Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and

4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

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 ofjustification for an adjusted standard.

A. Factors Relating to Royal are Substantially and Significantly

Different from the Factors Relied upon by the Board in Adopting the 8 lblhr Rule

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. 4 PCB 191, R71-23. Because it was adopted over 30 years ago, it is difficult, ifnot

impossible, to know exactly what factors the Board relied upon in adopting this rule.

However, based upon Illinois Pollution Control Board case law and a common sense

reading of the rule, Royal believes that the factors primarily relied upon by the Board

involved concerns about preventing ozone formation. In fact, it appears that the main

intent of the rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic material utilized conlrol

equipment already in place to ensure that their facilities do not cause a violation of the

one-hour ozone standard nor create an odor nuisance. For example, in 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 per year, 36 Fed.

Reg. 22385 Nov. 25, 1971) and to prevent local nuisances.... the major purpose

of these regulations is for control of photochemical oxidants. In addition, odor

causing organic emissions were ineluded if a local odor nuisance exits ... these

provisions are designed to require the use of equipment that is already in use at

numerous facilities ..."

1977 WL 9986, *4 (Ill. Pol. Coolrol. Bd.). From this explanation it is evident that

the Board was most concerned with: (1) protecting ambient air quality by preventing any

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

manufacturing operations. A review of Royal's operations shows that the main purposes

ofthis rule are not furthered through its application to Royal: first, as discussed 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 of the ozone NAAQS; and second, Royal has a tall stack in place to minimize

odor nuisance 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 in which organic material is emitted, and, in fact, there is no indication that

5

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

the Board considered the factors peculiar to pool fabrication when adopting this rule.

There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherent or otherwise

necessary to Royal's operations that the Board did not consider (nor could it have) when

it adopted the 81b1hr Rule in 1971. The building ofa fiberglass swimming pool involves

a batch-type process (of applying layers or skins), rather than a continuous application

process. This is an important distinction because compliance with the rule can be

reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that involve

the use of materials that emit VOMs) are of a continuous nature or, are at least are

distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period. For continuous or near-continuous

operations, the use of emission controls, as provided by 35 LA.C. 215.302, is

economically feasible. Due to the large size of the swimming pool molds and necessary

batch-type sequence of the gelcoat and resin application processes at the Dix Plant, they

are neither continuous nor evenly distributed over a longer period of time.

Additionally, the advent of OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR

1910, requires manufacturers who use materials that contain and emit styrene to maintain

an in-plant work area atmosphere (worker breathing air) of less 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-hour average 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 in primary part to assist in achieving compliance with EPA's one-hour

average standard. Although Royal is not requesting that the Board revoke the 8 Iblhr

Rule, Royal asserts that the elimination of one of the fundamental purposes of the 8 Iblh

Rule supports this request for an adjusted standard.

Because the 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 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

B. The Existence of Those 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 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly 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 further reduce YOM emissions from Royal's operations.

1. Lower YOM Content Materials

Royal has already reduced the YOM concentration in its production materials

(gelcoat and resin materials) in compliance with the MACT. Complying with the MACT

alone will not reduce Royal's emissions to a level satisfactory to meet the 8 lblhr Rule on

a strict hourly basis. While Royal has inquired of its suppliers regarding lower YOM

content production materials, further reduction of styrene in the resins (below that needed

to comply with MACT) is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining

product integrity.

2. Alternate Operating Procedure 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 inherent process limitations that precluded

the use of any effective alternative:

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

large male molds.

• Composite pools are too large to use any closed molding process. Even if closed

molding was feasible for the smallest pool model, the ge1coat layer must still be

applied to the "open" closed mold with a gelcoat applicator.

• A high-quality gelcoat fmish is an essential component of a commercially

acceptable composite pool. The pool models are much too large to use a vacuumformed thermoplastic shell finish, which is the only acceptable alternative finish

that is used for smaller spa pools.

• 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 gelcoat seams

would be structurally unsound 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

by the 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

largest pool model requires at least 360 pounds of gelcoat.

• The white gelcoat used by Royal is state-of-the-art and contains the lowest

feasible monomer contents of 27% styrene and 3% MMA. This gel coat provides

a flexible, durable, glossy finish that must resist impact, weathering, temperature

extremes, UV radiation, and blistering.

• The emissions from the current gelcoat process cannot be appreciably reduced

with any additional workpractice improvements, pollution prevention techniques,

or gelcoat material SUbstitutions.

• The application of gelcoat takes place in large work bay areas that require

significant amounts of ventilation airflow to protect the workers against styrene

exposure. This ventilation is required by OSHA regulations. The relatively large

airflow rate and low styrene exposure limits established by OSHA result in a large

dilute exhaust stream that carulOt be economically controlled with add-on air

pollution control equipment. The cost of the lowest-cost control equipment is

detailed in the next section.

3. Feasibility of Add-On Air Pollution Controls

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

composite manufacturing facilities has been thoroughly studied and documented as part

of the Composites MACT (40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart WWWW). The Dix Plant is fully

compliant with the HAP emission limits listed in the MACT standard, averaging 72% of

the MACT emissions 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 of the MACT, the United States EPA discovered that add-on air pollution

controls are not cost effective at most existing composite facilities. The United States

EPA also determined that add-on controls with 95% control efficiency would only be

cost effective for new composite facilities that emit more than 100 tpy of HAP or new

facility that produces large parts such as swimming pools and emits more than 250 tpy of

HAP. The Dix Plant emitted less than 12 tons of HAPs in 2008, so add-on controls

would not be cost effective by a very wide margin.

A comprehensive study entitled "Feasibility and Cost 0/the Capture and Control

0/ Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Open Molding 0/ Rein/orced Plastic

Composites" prepared by EECS was submitted to United States EPA in April 2000 as

part of the promulgation of the Composites MACT rule. This report has 377 pages of

information concerning the cost and feasibility of add-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 of electricity

and natural gas needed to operate add-on controls has risen dramatically.v .

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

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

Commercially Available Air Pollution Controls

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 not reusable infeasible

Desorbed styrene must be disposed as hazardous waste

Biodigestion Microbes are unreliable and must stay warm and moist infeasible Digestion beds must be huge to handle exhaust airflow

Styrene concentration in air too low to be economic

Condensation Condensate is mostly water with trace styrene infeasible

Condensate must be disposed as hazardous waste

Flare Styrene concentration in air is too low to be economic infeasible

TO Conventional recuperative oxidation is always more RTO is better costly than RTO

Regenerative thermal oxidation is currently cmployed technically

at one truck cap plant and several large bathware plants feasible

that produce small parts on automated production lines,

Oxidation RTO operate continuously (24 hr/day, 360 days/yr) and have economically

uncontrolled styrene emissions >250 tpy. A RTO infeasible

system large enough to handle the 35,000 cfin exhaust

airflow at the Dix Plant would cost over $600,000 to

install and over $300,000 per year to operate.

CO Catalytic media has a relatively shon lifetime and is infeasible

unreliable

Preconcentration is currently employed at four large technically

bathware plants. The long-term performance ofthe questionable

Preconcentration adsorber in questionable due to an unexpected failure

wlRTO of the activated charcoal sorbent media at one ofthe economically

sites. A preconcentrator system large enough to handle infeasible

the 35,000 cfm exhaust airflow at the Dix Plant would

cost almost one 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 of its 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 of this study, Royal is not including a copy with this Brief. It is pan of EPA's

docket regarding the Composites MACT rule promulgation and adoption. Should the Board desire a copy

of the study, Royal would be pleased to provide it to 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

of the RTO control option is much greater than what is widely regarded as affordable.

The armual operating cost of the RTO control options is several times greater than the

armual profit for the Dix Plant. Hence, add-on controls are prohibitively expensive and

not economically feasible for the Oix Plant.

C. The Requcstcd Standard Will ot Result in Adverse Environmcntal

or Hcalth Effccts.

As discussed in Section II.G of Royal's First Amended Petition, the requested

adjusted standard will have little, if any, 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 health effects, Royal notes that Illinois does not have a health standard for

styrene emissions, and this manufacturing process is the same process used by swimming

pool manufacturers in many other states.

1. Air Quality Impact Analysis ofRoyal'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 Impact Analysis ofthe Dix Plant. This

analysis presents the worst-case scenario for ozone emissions using the proposed adjusted

standard. Based on the results of the analysis, the worst-case one-hour average ozone

impact is still only 74% of the one-hour ozone standard. Royal understands that in 2005,

EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone standard with an eight-hour average standard,

but believes the hourly calculation presented in the Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful

givcn the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 8 Iblhr Rule.

Should Royal's First Amended Petition be granted, there will not be any increase

on a per unit basis over the current emissions from the Oix Plant. Royal's First Amended

Petition merely seeks to allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same marmer, and

granting the First Amended Petition will not amount to an increase of per unit emissions.

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 worst case 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 of YOM per year, but that the actual

worst case impact from Royal operations is probably much less than 4 ppb.

10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

2. Cross-Media Environmental Impacts Resulting from an Adjusted

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 of YOM emissions, thus no significant change in the nature or volume of

waste and wastewater generation is anticipated. However, as part of MACT compliance,

Royal converted its resin spray applicators to low-emitting non-atomized applicators.

The non-atomized applicators reduce the amount of overspray, and therefore the amount

of solid 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 a result, less waste gelcoat material

is generated.

D. The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law

The granting ofthe proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law and

will not violate any provision ofthe federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, there is no Clean

Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers'

emissions of organic 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

consistent with federal law.

lll. ROYAL'S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD

As set forth in Royal's First Amended Petition, Royal proposes the following

language for a Board order to impose the adjusted standard:

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

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

standard from 35 III. Adm. Code. 215.20 I ("8 Ib/hr Rule"), 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 not result in a net increase in YOM emissions.

b. Royal must perform any reasonable test of new technologically or

economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to

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

the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce

VOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing they do.

After performance of such tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report

summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts. The

report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau of Air, Compliance and

Enforcement Section.

c. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its Clean

Air Act Permit Program permit (once issued), the 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 Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act, and any other applicable 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 in response to Crownline's petition.

In its Recommendation filed August 20, 2009, Illinois EPA suggested adding the

following condition to the language of the adjusted standard: "The relief granted in this

proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as ofthc date

of this filing." Royal opposes the addition of such 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 of this filing." First, it is unclear what date is being referred 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 relief granted. If Royal is not conducting

manufacturing activities on the date in question, does that mean that me relief granted 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 of me ambiguity of this proposed language and the precedent in the

Crownline matter, Royal requests that it not be added to me language of any adjusted

standard which may be issued in this proceeding.

Finally, both Royal and the Illinois EPA oppose any restrictions which would be

placed on Royals' manufacturing operations as part of an 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 of having 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 of hazardous air pollutants removed and

will reduce styrene emissions by an average of 43%. Royal has been in

continuous compliance with the MACT since it's implementation.

• Technical and regulatory constraints (such as the high air flow needed to ventilate

building air in order to comply with OSHA worker health & safety standards)

make the cost for Royal to comply with the 8 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 $18,400 per ton of pollutant removed.

• 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 of them will

actually allow Royal to fully comply with the 8 IbIhr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

• The high cost of using either end-of-stack emission controls or very expensive

alternative production methods (those requiring complete re-tooling and re-design

of production methods and procedures), will put Royal at a significant

competitive disadvantage. This will result in one ofthe following scenarios:

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

which does not have an 8 lblhr Rule (or any similar limitation); or

• Royal will eventually be forced out of business because it will not be able

to compete for customers due to the high cost of its swimming pools

and/or due to the dintinished quality/durability ofits swimming pools.

• 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 of those 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 of the 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 § 215.30 I as set forth herein.

Rcspectfully Submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:ndRq~ Dale A. Guariglia, MO B # 8

Brandon W. Neuschafer, MO Bar #53232

One Metropolitan Square

21 1North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Tel. (314) 259-2000

Fax. (314) 259-2020

Attorneys for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a c<!P¥fJf the foregoing Post-Hearing Briefwas

served upon the following parties on the l"'Uay of December, 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 Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Attn: Charles Matoesian

15
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO 22- '-

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

BEFORE THE ILU 'OIS POLLUTION CO TROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FffiERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

OTICE

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, lllinois 60601-3218

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

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 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago,lllinois 60601-3218

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

the MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER POST-HEARING COMMENTS and

RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a

copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS El VIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: /s/ Charles E. lvIatoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: December 16, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

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

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

1 C. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER POST-HEARl TG COMME TS

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY ("TIlinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, and pursuant to

35 111. Adm. Code 101.502 and 102.402, moves that the Hearing Officer allow for the

fil ing instanter of the attached post-hearing comments in the matter above.

On October 28, 2009, the TIlinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") held a hearing

in the Petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Til. Adm.

Code 215.301 ("Royal") At that hearing, a date of Dcccmber 7,2009, was sct as a deadline

for post-hearing briefs.

On that date, Royal filed comments late in the day. After the close of the comment

period the TIlinois EPA realized they needed to respond to one aspect of Royal's comments.

The Illinois EPA contacted Royal and set up a call to discuss the matter. At that time, both

parties came to an agreement concerning the language at issue. Although the Illinois EPA

regrets the timing of this late request and recogoizes the fact that the Board is proceeding

expeditiously, as the comment period has closed the Agency prays that the Hearing Officer

allow the attached comment to be included in the record.

Allowing the agreed upon change into the record will resolve a potentially

contentious issue between the parties.

1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the minois EPA moves that the

Hearing Officer allow this motion and pray that it be allowed to file the attached posthearing comments instanter.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsI Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal 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

BEFORE THE ILL! OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS 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

Brief with the lllinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") in this matter. In support of this

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, pursuant to Section 28.1 of the lllinois

Environmental Protcction Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and the regulations of the 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, better known as the "8 lblhr Rule" as it applies to the emissions of volatile

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 of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.406 and accepted the matter for hearing.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 16, 2009

3. On or about August20lh, 2009, the Illinois EPA filed its recommendation with the Board

recommending that the Board GRANT the Petition for Adjusted Standard.

4. A hearing was held in this matter on Octobcr 28th, 2009. Testimony was presented by

Mr. Cliff Hebert and Dr. Robe.t A. Haberlein for Petitioner. Testimony was presented by Mr.

Andy Russo for Rcspondent.

5. On December 7, 2009, the Petitioner filed its Post-Hearing brief with the Board.

6. This reply solely involves a concern the Petitioner expressed on page 12 of its PostI-Iearing brief with condition "d" in the Illinois EPA's Recommendation.

7. The Illinois EPA has spoken with the Respondent's attorney about this matter and have

agreed to language which may be substituted for the Illinois EPA's current condition "d" in its

recommendation filed August 20, 2009.

8. The Petitioner is therefore aware that the Illinois EPA is filing these comments and

attached motion with the Board and docs not object.

9. The Illinois EPA has agreed that the condition "d" in its recommendation at page 7 be

replaced with the following language. "d. The relief granted in this proceeding shall be lintited

to the swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as of August 20,

2009, at Royal's Dix facility."

10. Petitioner has 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 that Royal'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 of Legal 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 OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 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 West Randolph 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 Grand Avenue 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

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

/s/ Charles E, Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel