IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.1..£

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 27, 2009

IN THE MATrER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR A ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

On July 27, 2009, the parties participated in a telephone status conference with the

hearing officer. On July 17, petitioner filed an amended petition containing non-substantive

changes. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) has no objection to the

amended petition. On July 7, 2009, the Agency filed a motion to extend the deadline for its

recommendation to July 28, 2009, and made an oral motion at the status confcrence to further

extend the deadline to August 11,2009. Petitioner does not object, and the motion is granted. A

hearing may be set at the next status conference.

The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing

officer at 11 :00 a.m. on August 27,2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

July 27, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a tnte copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on July 27, 2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

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

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

TEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO TROL BOARD

August 5, 2009

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

On August 5, 2009, the attorney for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

contacted the hearing officer to request an extension of time to file its recommendation. The

Agency personnel involved in preparing the recommendation are being moved to another portion

of the office building, thus disrupting their ability work on this project. According to the

Agency, the petitioner does not object to the exten ion. The request is granted, and the Agency's

recommendation is now due on August 18,2009.

The parties are reminded to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing

officer at 11 :00 a.m. on August 27,2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

fIIinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

August 5, 2009, to each of the persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on August 5,2009:

John T. Therriault

llIinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

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

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

!EPA

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. B

ll.LlNOIS POLLUTIO CO TROL BOARD

August 6, 2009

THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

ST DARD FROM 35 ll.L. ADM. CODE )

215.301

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

On April 3, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc., (Royal) filed this petition for an adjusted

standard pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ll.CS 5/28.1 (2006)).

Royal requests that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30 I as that

rule applies to the emissions of volatile organic material ("YOM") at Royal's swimming pool

manufacturing facility. The facility is located at 312 Duncan Road, Dix, Jefferson County. On

June 4, 2009, the Board accepted the petition for hearing.

On July 17,2009, Royal filed an amended petition (Am. Pe!.). Royal indicates that the

amended petition "does not seek a substantive change to the reliefsought by Royal in its original

Petition, therefore, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.418, Royal does not plan to re-notice" the

amended petition. Am. Pet at I. The Board accepts the amended petition for hearing. The

Board notes that a hearing officer has been assigned and the hearing officer is proceeding with

scheduling a hearings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, eertify that

the Board adopted the above order on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 5-0.

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.-i

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 18, 2009

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

On August 18, 2009, the attorney for U1inois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

contacted the hearing officer to request an extension of time to file its recommendation. The

Agency personnel involved in preparing the recommendation are being moved to another portion

of the office building, thus disrupting their ability work on this project. According to the

Agency, the petitioner does not object to the extension. The request is granted, and the Agency's

recommendation is now due on August 24, 2009.

The parties are reminded to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing

officer at II :00 a.m. on August 27,2009. The statu conference shall be initiated by the

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

August 18,2009, to each of the persons on the altached service list.

It is hereby certified that a tTIle copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on August 18, 2009:

John 1. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

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

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, fllinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

!EPA

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 forth Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20,2009 IEPAATTACHMENTNO. /D

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

NOTICE

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, llIinois 60601-3218

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. euschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

SI. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

f1linois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, llIinois 60601-3218

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

the APPEARENCE and RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS ENVlROMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: August 20, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.7825544

217.782.9143 (TOO)

TillS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

INTHEMATIEROF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE215.30J )

)

APPEARA CE

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

The undersigned hereby enters his appearance as an attorney on behalf ofthe

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENViRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: August 20, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.7829143 (TOO)
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

BEFORE THE ll..LfNOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOARD

fN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

fNC. FOR ADJUSTED ST DARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted tandard-Air)

RECOMME 'DATION OFTHE ILLINOIS EPA

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ('"Illinois EPA") hereby submits its

recommendation in the above captioned maner pursuant to the regulations ofthe Pollution Control

Board ("Board") at 35 III. Adm. Code Section 104.416. The llIinois EPA recommends that the

Board GRANT the Amended Petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc., subject to the terms and

conditions contained in thjs recommendation. In support ofthis recommendation, the Illinois EPA

states as follows:

BACKGROUND

I. Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ('"Royal") filed its Petition for Adjusted Standard on April 3,

2009, pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ('"Act"), 415 ILCS

5/28.1, and the regulations ofthe Board at 35ll1. Adm. Code Section 104.402. An amended petition

("'Amended Petition") was filed on July 17,2009. The Amended Petition requests that the Board

grant Royal an adjusted standard from 35 llI. Adm. Code Section 215.301, the Use of Organic

Material Rule, bener known as the "8 Iblhr Rule" as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic

material ("VOM") from Royal's Dix, nJinois, fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility. The

8 Iblhr Rule states:

No person shall cause or allow thc discharge of more than 3.6 kglhr (8 Ibslhr) of

organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided in
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: lfno odor nuisance

exists the limitation of this ubpart shall apply only to photochemically reactive

material.

2. The Amended Petition for Adjusted Standard stems from Royal's request to use averaging to

comply with the 81bfhr Rule for VOM as set forth in its modification (submitted July 14,2009) to its

application for a Clean Air Act Permit Program ("CAAPP") permit (no. 96030137) originally

received by the nIinois EPA in November, 2004. (Pet. at 1). On January 10,2006 the Illinois EPA

issued Violation Notice A-2005-00281 to Royal. (Pet. at 2). Receipt ofthe notice was followed by

several meetings between the parties during which Royal presented evidence that it could not

reasonably comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis. Id. After reviewing the evidence,

the Illinois EPA agreed that Royal would file a pctition for an Adjusted Standard. This Amended

Petition covers the Royal gelcoat and resin application areas, plus other pool manufacturing activities

at the source.

3. On April 24, 2009, Royal filed a ProofofPublication of otice with the Board for the initial

Petition. The notice appeared in the Mt. Vcrnon Register-News on April 13, 2009.

4. Pursuant to 35 TIl. Adm. Code Section 104.416, the Dlinois EPA is required to file a response

to a Petition for Adjusted tandard within 45 days of filing.

5. However, due to the need for additional information, Royal was required to file an Amended

Petition. In return, the llIinois EPA filed several motions to extend the time for filing a response.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY

6. The Royal facility is located at 312 Duncan Road in Dix, Jefferson County, Illinois. (Pet. at

I). Royal manufactures 20 different models offiberglass pools with a facility-wide production cap

2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

of400 pools per year (per CAAPP application). (Pet. at4). The CAAPP application requests a limit

of 400 pools which correlates to full production oftwo pools per day in Spring, Summer, and Fall.

Id. During the peak season, Royal employs approximately 20 people in its facility and another five

to ten contract haulers. Id. Concerning emissions, Royal hired an environmental consultant,

Engineering Environmental Consulting ervices ("EECS"), to aid the company in computing the

YOM emissions associated with the manufacture of the various pools Royal constructs. Id. at 2.

Royal estimates that annual YOM emissions at the Dix plant for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 and 11.6

tpy, respectively. Id. at 5. The CAAPP application, however, estimates maximum YOM emissions

at about 29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons of which are potential styrene emissions. Id. The

Illinois EPA accepts Royal's description of its facility and process and incorporates by reference

Section 11. D ofthe Amended Petition.

7. A new Maximum Achievable Control Technology ("MACT") standard for composites

("Composites MACT") became effective on April 21, 2006. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW.

Royal is already in compliance with this new MACT standard. (Pet. at5). To comply with the work

practice standards in the Composites MACT, Royal "adopted standards requiring that all resin

containers are closed when not in use, and implementing the use of acetone, which has no HAP or

YOM emissions." Id.

COMPLIANCE ALTERl ATIVES

8. Royal asserts in its Amended Petition that its operations were not contemplated by the 81blhr

.Rule, which was established in 1971. Id. at II. Royal states that the manufacture of fiberglass

pools is significantly different than other operations which emit organic material, Id. at 12.

3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

Fiberglass pool manufacturing "involves a batch-type process, rather than a continuous application

process." Id. at 11. Because materials are not applied continuously, but rather in steps, YOM

emissions are not constant and even. Id. at 12. Royal states that emission controls are more

economically feasible where processes are continuous. Id.

9. Finally, Royal asserts the requirements ofOccupational Safety and Health Administration's

("0 HA"") worker protection regulation at 29 CFR 1910 prevent compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule.

Id. at 11. OSHA rules require workplaces that emit styrene to "maintain an in-plant work area

atmosphere...of less than 100 ppm." Id. at 12. To protect workers from styrene emissions, Royal

has thus installed a ventilation system "that exhausts approximately 35,000 cubic feet of plant air

every minute." Id. Because ofthe enormous rate ofair transfer, Royal asserts that add-on emission

controls are fiscally impractical. Id. Royal further asserts that the Board in 1971 could not have

possibly anticipated the promulgation ofthe OSHA rules, Id.

10. Royal considered the following compliance alternatives, "( I) reducing YOM content in

production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing

add-on emission control technologies." Id. at 6. Royal asserts that, "other than add-on emission

controls, many ofthe alternatives investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 Iblhr

Rule on a strict hourly basis. In addition, Royal could not identify any feasible compliance

alternatives to further reduce YOM emissions from Royal's operations." Id.

II. Royal states that it has already reduced the YOM concentration in its production materials

and that further reductions of styrene in the resins is not "currently technically feasible" while

maintaining product integriry. Id.

4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

12. Concerning add-on air pollution controls, Royal relies heavily on a report, Feasibility alld

Cost ofthe Captllre al/d COl/trol ofHazardolls Air Pol/litallt Emissiol/sfrom the Opel/ Moldil/g of

Reil/forced Plastic Composites. prepared by their environmental consultant, EECS, and submitted to

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (""U EPA") in April 2000 as part of the

omposites MACT rule. Id. at 7 and 8. The study lists the various air pollution control systems that

are available and Royal lists their feasibility for use at the Dix plant. Id. at 7-8. Royal contends that

the report finds most forms ofadd-on technology either technologically or economically infeasible

for the Dix plant. Jd. Royal also states that the Composites MACT does not require a facility like

the Dix plant to install add-on air pollution controls. Id. at 7. Royal contends that the only

technically feasible add-on control is economically infeasible, stating that a "skid-mounted RTO

control option would have an installed capital cost. .." of, "approximately $709,500 and would have

annual operating costs ofover $470,000 per year." Id. at 9. This would equate to a cost of$18,400

per ton ofstyrene and methyl methacrylate ("MMA removed"). Id. Based upon the information

submitted, the llIinois EPA agrees with this analysis.

13. Royal has already reduced Hazardous Air Pollutant ("HAP") concentration in its production

materials in order to comply with the MACT standard. Jd. at 5. Some ofthe HAPs are also YOM.

Compliance with the MACT does not yield compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule. Id. at 6. Royal states

that reduction ofstyrene in the resins, beyond that required by the MACT, is not currently technically

feasible while maintaining product integrity. Id. Royal has also investigated alternative procedures

which could result in reduced YOM emissions. ld. These resulting problems are listed on pages six

and seven of the Amended Petition but all alternatives seem to be ruled out by the large size ofthe

5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

pool molds and the need for a high-quality gelcoat finish. See generally, pages 6 and 7.

PROPOSED AD! STED STANDARD

14. Royal has requested an Adjusted Standard from the Board's air pollution control

requirements found at 35 ill. Adm. Code Section 215.30 I, insofar as that regulation applies to the

YOM emissions from Royal's manufacturing facility in Dix, Illinois. The nJinois EPA recommends

that the Board GRA 'T Royal's Amended Petition, and requests that the Board allow Royal to

operate its pool manufacturing facility subject to the following conditions:

a. Royal shall operate in full compliance with the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40

CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future.

b. Operation in full compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth al40 CFR Section 63

Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, shall be in lieu of compliance with the 8 Iblhr

Rule found at 35 m. Adm. Code Section 215.301.

c. Royal shall continue to investigate swimming pool production methods which

generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a reduced YOM 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. Royal shall be required to

do any test of new technologically or economically reasonable production methods or materials

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

emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois EPA specifically requests in writing they do.

6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

After perfonnance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report summarizing the

activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts. The report must be submitted to the lllinois

EPA, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.

d. The relief granted in this procecding shall be limited to the emission activities at

Royal's Dix facility as ofthe date ofthis filing.

e. Royal shall operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its CAAPP, the

ational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite

Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in

the future, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not otherwise

discussed herein.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

15. Royal's environmental consultant, EECS, aided tbe company in computing the YOM

emissions associated with the manufacture of the various pools Royal constructs. Id. at I. Royal

estimates that annual YOM emissions at the Dix plant for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 and 11.6 tpy,

respectively. Id. at 5. The CAAPP application, however, estimates maximum VOM emissions at

about 29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons of which are potential styrene emissions. Id.

16. Royal asserts that the granting ofthe petition will not increase per unit emissions. Id. at 10.

17. Royal asserts that no cross-media impact is expected from the granting of the adjusted

standard. Id.

18. Considered together, the batch process nature of the business which produces YOM

emissions in spikes, the fact that the Section 215.30 I rule did not anticipate an operation like

7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

Royal's, compliance with the recent MACT standard, and the high cost ofadd-on control technology

duc in part to OSHA requirements, the lliinois EPA believes that an adjusted standard for Royal is

warranted.

STANDARD OF REVTEW

19. Section 28. I ofthe Act states that the Board may grant individual adjusted standards from

rules of general applicability whenever the Board determines that an applicant can justify an

adjustment. In adopting a rule of general applicability, the Board may specifY the level of

justification required of a petitioner for an adjusted standard. Ifa rule of general applicability does

not contain a level ofjustification that the petitioner must meet to obtain an adjusted standard, the

requirements of Section 28.I(c) of the Act apply. Section 28.I(c) states that the Board may grant

individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines that:

(I) Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and sufficiently different

fTom the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulations

applicable to that petitioner;

(2) The existence ofthose factors justifies an adjusted standard;

(3) . The requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects

substantially and sufficiently 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.

20. The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Royal seeks an adjusted standard, 35 III.

Adm. Code Section 215.30 I, does not specifY a level ofjustification that Royal must satisfY to obtain

an adjusted standard. Therefore, Royal must satisfY the level ofjustification set forth in Section

28.1 (c) of the Act. As summarized below, the requested adjusted standard for Royal's fiberglass

8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

pool manufacturing operations is justified.

21. The Illinois EPA agrees, for purposes of this Adjusted Standard application, with Royal's

analysis of the justification for its proposed Adjusted Standard as set forth in Section II.H ofthe

Amended Petition, and generally accepts Royal's reasoning in this context. However, the Illinois

EPA does not endorse Royal's interpretation ofthe history ofthe 81b/h rule. or does the Illinois

EPA agree with Royars assertion on page 13 of the petition that the revocation of the one-hour

average ozone standard results in the, "elimination ofone ofthe fundamental purposes orthe 8Ib./h

rule."' (Pet. at 13.)

22. Nevertheless, the 8 Iblhr Rule at Section 215.30 I simply did not anticipate the type of

operation Royal maintains. Unlike many other manufacturers, Royal emits YOM in concentrated

bursts as it applies a "skin" to the pool. What is more, reasonable alternative emission control

technologies either do not result in compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule or are prohibitively expensive

due in no small part to the OSHA requirement for continual ventilation.

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

23. TIle Board may grant the proposed adjusted standard consistent with federal law under

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.s.c. Section 7410, which grants the individual states the

authority to promulgate a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality

standards, subject to approval by USEPA. Pursuant to federal law, states also have the authority to

revise such a plan, subject to USEPA approval. By following its adjusted standard procedure with

respect to the Board's federally authorized and approved air emission regulations, the Board is

exercising the authority granted to the states through Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. If the

9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

requested adjusted standard is adopted by the Board, Illinois EPA has the authority and will submit

the adjusted standard to USEPA as a SIP revision, thus complying with federal law.

HEARING

24. Royal has requested a hearing before the Pollution Control Board.

WHEREFORE, the Illinois EPA recommends that Royal's Amended Petition for Adjusted

Standard be GRANTED, and an order be entered adopting the adjusted standard with the specific

language presented in this Recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:/s/ Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated: August 20, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, minois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TDD)

10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 20, 2009

STATE OF1LLlNOIS

COU 'TY OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

SS

CERTlF1CATE OF SERVlCE

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

APPEARANCE and RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLlNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, upon the following persons:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. euschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

SI. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Dated: August 20, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TOO)

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

lLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.J1

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 14, 2009

IN THE MAITER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARJNG OFFICER ORDER

Hearing on this matter is set for October 28,2009. As previously discussed with the

parties, the answers to the Board's questions are due by 4:30 p.m. on October 5, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

September 14,2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on September 14,2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

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

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, lIIinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
JEPA ATTACHMENT No.l2--

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 14, 2009

IN THE MATIER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL HBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215,301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

NOTICE OF HEARING

A hearing in the above-captioned mailer is scheduled and will be held in accordance with

the following schedule:

DATE:

TIME:

PLACE:

Wednesday October 28,2009

10:30 a.m.

C.E, Brehm Memorial Public Library Meeting Room

101 S, 7'h Street

Mt. Vernon, nIinois

The hearing is open to the public.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P,O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

September 14,2009, to each of the persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on September 14, 2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

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

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

fIlinois Pollution Control Board

1021 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, llIinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.iJ.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

tEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, TL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Illl<lmrlh.lilC \\lli !h~ .\mt :~.U" <\'Ill Ill,. 11:.l \~, ,\n-l ,)lh~ c ... 1..':11 ln,1 ')lll~ _ ....~.Ih(' bcarlllg <\ill h ... :'.l'\.(~!\lhk hI

IWI\ .IlIa!> \1,,'i\ dl al ill ,(;t PI.: 01 r jll' r .IU~ rolf' ,u,l III l,; 11..'''::' .h(llll,~ C("l :'," J"h:l llil,.:mauh. AS.SI"I.:.lnl ('icrl. (,fth..: Bi.'arJ. 31

j'l') \\\-.1 R. Idn1rh \1 ..., lit- I 500 (lit ':0. r "'<11' MJ6fJ l. t \.'It..p Ir l'-ll l[-ef ") "14-691.1. (a... llumbt.- 312 l' i 4- ~Mh, JI H)!)

numtwf • S]-l·(, : .\(;.1,1> p 1<- lnth,h, 'rln\.:
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009 J"?

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.---2

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MAITER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR A ADJUSTED )

STA DARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

RESPO SES OF PETITIO ER ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS TO 0

FROM THE ILLINOIS POLLUTlO CONTROL BOARD

Comes now Petitioner Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal") and submits the following

responses to the questions from the lllinois Pollution Control Board (the "Board") attached to the

Hearing Officer's Order ofJune 4, 2009.

SECTION 28. I.e.

1. The petition on page 13 states, "By complying with the Composites MACT, Royal has limited

its YOM emissions and also decreased the amount ofsolid and hazardous waste Royal

generates. " Would you please elaborate on Royal's reduction ofsolid and hazardous waste

resultingfrom compliance with MACT?

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 ofsolid and hazardous waste generated. Although

not required by the MACT standard, Royal has eliminated all colored backcoat gel coats

and now uses just white backcoat. This requires less flushing ofthe gelcoat lines, and as

a result, less waste gelcoat material is generated.

2. Ifgranted, will the adjusted standard be submitted to USEPAfor inclusion in the Illinois SIP?

Royal cannot independently submit revisions to USEPA for inclusion in the lllinois SIP.

This decision and action is with the lllinois EPA.

l04.406(d)

3. Would you please provide a map indicating the location ofthe Dix Plant?

Maps showing the location ofthe Dix Plant were included in Exhibit I of the First

Amended Petition. Also attached hereto are an additional map and aerial photograph

labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.

4. The pelilion indicates that Royal's other manufacturingfacility is located in Louisiana.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

(a) Are there other stotes where Royal Fiberglass Pools. Inc. has similar manufacturing

facilities?

No. The only other Royal composite pool manufacturing facility is located in Breaux

Bridge, Louisiana.

(b) Do any ofthose stales have state-specific limitations on VOM emissions beyond the MACT?

Ifso, how does Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. address compliance in other stales?

Royal is not aware of any pounds/hour YOM emission limitation in Louisiana.

S. Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone a/lainment status ofthe county in which

the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone a/lainment status poised to be changed in the nearfuture?

The Dix Plant is located in Jefferson County. As ofJune 9, 2009, Jefferson County is in

attainment for all Criteria Pollutants. To our knowledge, the attainment status for

Jefferson County is not poised to change.

6. In Section 2 ofthe Technical Document, the chart entitled "January 2005: Monthly

HAPIVOCIMACT Emissions Logfor the Royal Pools Dix Facility" was printed larger than the

page, so the table on the far right appears to have been cut off. Ifso, wouldyou please resubmit

the table with the missing information?

While we have not includeo the referenced chart as an exhibit to the First Amended

Petition, attached for your convenience is this same chart for July 2009, labeled as

Exhibit C.

7. in general, the most recent data provided appears to be from 2005.

(a) Would you please comment on any change in quantities or materials used since then?

This question is addressed in more detail in the First Amended Petition. In short, there

have been some changes in quantities and materials. In particular, the facility is seeking

a production level of 400-pools-per-year instead ofthe original 250 pools-per-year.

Further, the historical data for 2006, 2007, and 2008 shows higher per pool material

usages than originally assumed from the 2005 data. Some of the increased usage is due

to a new two-part ge1coat finish that requires twice as much gelcoat. This new finish has

become quite popular and is now the standard finish demanded by most pool owners.

Also, Royal has more accurate information now than it did in 2005 about the amounts of

materials needed to make pools at the Dix facility.

(b) ljpossible, wouldyou please submit information reflecting the most recent available data?

This is included in the Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Petition.

(c) Although the Technical Document Section 3 at page 5 states that 250 pools per year is a

more reasonable estimate than the 400 pools per year used in the CAAPP permit application,

wouldyou please comment on any anticipated growth or change in operations.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

As stated above, Royals now seeks 400-pools-per-year in anticipation of increased

demand after the recession ends. II is hoped that many of Royal Pools competitors will

go out of business due to the recession, so Royal should enjoy increased market share.

(d) Section 2 ofthe Technical Document on page 9 makes a calculation based on "Reducing the

maximum annual production rate from 250 to 200 pools per year... " and comments, "A facilitywide production cap of220 pools per year would reclassify the Dix Plant as a synthetic minor

source - the maximum emission rate would be just under the major HAP source emission

threshold of10 tpy." Is Royal Pools considering revising their CAAPP Permit application to

reflect a production cap of220 pools per year and a HAP emission threshold of10 tpy?

No. In 2006, Royals Pools was informed by IEPA that lowering the production to 220

pools was not a solution to the compliance issue. Further, Royal is now a major HAP

source. According to EPA's "once-in-always-in" policy, Royal has no reason to lower

the emission cap to below the major-source threshold of 10 tpy single HAP.

8. Royal Pools states that, "EPA explained that the annual emission rate and the facility CAAPP

status have no bearing on compliance with 35 lAC 215 Subpart K." TSD Section 4 at 2. Would

you please comment on the maximum potential to emil on an hourly basis ifproduction were

capped at 400 pools per year, or at 220 pools per year?

There would be no change in the maximum hourly rate at 400-pools-per-year versus 220.

While the total annual emissions depends on the number pools buill per year, the hourly

rate is nol affected by the total number of pools produced. Even at an annual rate of 220

pools per year, the Dix facility could have a maximum hourly emission as high as when it

manufactures 400 pools per year.

9. In Section 3 ofthe Technical Document on page 5, the Pool Production Schedule indicates a

typical work schedule oftwo pools per day during 100%fUll production, with the "greatest

hourly gelcoat process emission rate" of64.86Iblhr. In Section 2, the chart of"Hourly

Potential-to-Emil HAPIVOCfor the Royal Pools Dix Facility/Maximum Hourly Baseline"

indicates maximum hourly usage ofJ7.421b VOMihourfor resin application, 36.781b

VOM/hourfor gelcoat application, 0.08 lb VOMihourfor catalyst, plus I lb VOMihourfor mold

wax.

(a) Would you please explain the difference in the "maximum hourly baseline" and the "hourly

potential-to-emit" and indicate which the chart in Section 2 is depicting?

As stated above, the maximum hourly rate has changed since 2005. The referenced

charts are now obsolete. Please see Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Petition.

(b) Would you please indicate the overall maximum potential hourly VOM emissions?

The new maximum hourly rate is l56.71bs YOM per hour, which is referenced in the

First Amended Petition. The maximum hourly rate assumes that the two largest pool

models would be gelcoated at the same time. Although this would rarely happen, it may

occur a few times per year at peak production. Since there is no practical way to monitor

and record hourly production activity, the maximum hourly rate is assumed for the worst-
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

case scenario. However, if the two smallest pool models were being gelcoated at the

same time, the YOM emissions would only be 40 lbs per hour.

(c) Since Royal can produce 2 pools per day at 100"/ofull production, wouldyou please

comment on the scenario that both pools would undergo gelcoat application during the same

hour?

This is the worst case operating scenario (from an emissions standpoint), especially at

two-shift 400 pools-per-year operations, and represents the greatest hourly emission rate.

Also, "two-pools-per-day" is an average production rate assuming two-shift operation.

Royal has a variety of pool sizes from small to large. The small pools take one to two

days to complete, the larger pools take more than two days to make from start to finish.

The maximum hourly rate of 156.7 Ibs of YOM per hour referenced above is based on

two pools being gelcoated at the same time.

(d) Does Royal Pools have an operating procedure in place that would limit gelcoat application

and curing to one paol at a time?

No. There is no such operating procedure is in place.

(e) Would Royal Pools please comment on including such a limitation in the adjusted standard

conditions?

Royal strongly opposes such a limitation. This would cause an unacceptable bottleneck

in production and is not likely to reduce hourly emissions to any great extent. For

example, ifthe Dix facility waited to gelcoat a second pool until after a first pool had

been gel coated and cured, the first pool would be ready [or application ofresin (while the

second pool was being gelcoated) which also generates YOM emissions (as discussed in

Exhibit 2 ofthe First Amcndcd Petition). In addition, such a limitation would make it

very difficult to produce 400 pools per year and would significantly increase production

costs. It would also be impractical for Royal to monitor and demonstrate compliance

with such a limitation on a continuous basis.

(I) Would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard limiting the

adjusted standard to Royal's current operations and limiting the maximum hourly VOM

emissions to 64.86Iblhr?

The 64.86 lblhr value is now obsolete. The new absolute worst-case maximum hourly

rate is 156.7 Ibslbr. Since Royal anticipates that there will be a cap of400 pools per year

in its permit, there is no need to also have a worst-case Iblhour limitation. As stated

above, emissions at this worst-case rale or anything approaching it would be rare, only

happening at the times that two pools were being gelcoated at the same time. In addition,

such a limit would also impose additional, impractical monitoring and recordkeeping in

order to demonstrate compliance with such a provision.

10. Would you please define MMA. AMS. DMP, MEK (MEKP) referenced in Section 2 ofthe

Technical Document.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

These are common abbreviations for some ofthe process chemicals used throughout the

composites industry:

MMA - methyl methacrylate

AMS - alpha methyl styrene

DMP - dimethyl phthalate

MEK - methyl ethyl ketone

MEKP - methyl ethyl ketone peroxide

11. In Seclion 2 ofthe Technical Document. the chart entitled. "Maximum Hourly Baseline:

Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAP/VOCfor the Royal Pools Dix Facility" lists "Banda" having a

12.57% Styrene Emission Factor and a 100% Other VOC Emission Factor. The information

under VOC Content (Styrene, MMA, AMS, Other), however, is blankfor Banda. Is information

available on the HAPIVOC content ofBanda? Since Banda is not listed in the 2005 Monthly

HAP/VOCIMACT Emissions Logs, wouldyou please comment on how seldom it is used?

The Dix Plant does not currently use Bondo, so this question is not applicable.

12. In AS 04-1, Crownline used booths equipped with dry filter medium to reduce particulate

emissions; lower styrene-content gelcoat (33. 4%); panelfilters built in each side ofthe

laminating area to control particulate emissions; tanks equipped with submerged inlets to reduce

splashing and release ofVOMs whenfilling; andjlow-coat spray gunsfor lamination to reduce

VOM emissions experienced with previous air atomized guns. (AS 04-1 Pet. at 5-6) Would you

please comment on the potenlial to employ such efforts at Royal's Dix Plant?

Royal Pools already employs all ofthese techniques. The gelcoats at Dix range from

24% to 38% styrene and 3% to 10% MMA. These are all MACT compliant.

l04.406(c)

13. The petilion on pages 5-6 states, "Specifically, Royal investigated the follOWing

alternatives: (I) reducing VOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating

procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. "The

Technical Document Section 3 provides details ofthe evaluation ofadd-on emission controls.

however, details do not seem to be providedfor the other two alternatives mentioned Would you

please elaborate numbers (I) and (2) above?

Royal has ceased using clear gelcoat which has a higher YOM content than the white

gelcoat that Royal currently uses as its base component. In discussions with its supplier,

Royal understands that lower YOM materials are not available for pool production,

because such materials do not provide the corrosion protection that is necessary for high

quality swimming pool parts. Royal is willing to use lower YOM content gelcoat ifthey

can provide the same corrosion protection as the products Royal currently uses.

There are no alternative methods (e.g., closed mold process) for production ofsuch a

large composite part as an outdoor swimming pool.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

14. In Sec. 2 ofthe Technical Document, the chart entitled "Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAPIVOC

for the Royal Pools Dix Facility" lists the HAP/VOC content ofthe materials used The petition

on page 7 states that the white gelcoat used contains the lowest feasible monomer contents of

28% styrene and 3% MMA. Sections 2 and 3 also indicate 161,800 Ib ofresin (47.5% styrene)

and 3I36 Ib ofMEKP Catalyst (2% MEK, 37% DMP) were used in 2005. Did Royal Pools

investigate the availability ofOr experiment with other lower HAPIVOC content materials? Ifso,

wouldyou please document your efforts?

See response to question 13 above.

15. Section 3 ofthe Technical Document on page 10 states, "Non-atomizing gelcoat equipment

is available that might reduce the gelcoat emission rate. However, the available non-atomizing

equipment will not provide an acceptable surface finish and hasfailed to reduce gelcoat

emissions as promised by the manufacturer." Would you please document your efforts to

evaluate the non-atomizing gelcoat equipment?

The non-atomized gelcoat equipment has bcen discredited by the South Coast Air Quality

Management District and the American Composites Manufacturing Association in

independent testing since they have been shown to have the same emissions as the

atomized gelcoat equipment.

16. In the Federal Register, USEPA estimates there are approximately 435 existing major

source facilities that will be subject to the Federal rule 40 CFR 63 Subpart WWWW Annual

compliance costs/or all existing major source facilities were estimated at $21.5 million. This

included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting custs. (68 FR 19381)

(a) What costs has Royal incurred to meet the Federal rule?

Royal spent approximately $40,000 to upgrade it resin sprayers to non-atomized

applicators.

(b) Has Royal estimated the additional compliance costs associated with monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting?

Royal incurred consulting fees of approximately $10,000 in establishing a system to

track, record and report its emissions under the MACT standard. Royal also incurs

ongoing consulting costs of$1500 per year to track and report its emissions. In addition,

the legal fees and consulting costs Royal has incurred to seek an adjusted standard have

been significant.

104.406<0

17. The petition on page two refers to "Royal's Initial MACT Notification Leller" being

contained in Section 2 ofthe Technical Document; however, the leller appears to be missing

from that Section. Would you please provide a copy or indicate where if can befound in the

record?

Yes. Pleasc see Exhibit D attached hereto.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

18. Royal indicates that it meets the Composites MACT by ensuring that all resin containers are

closed when not in use and that acetone (non-HAP/non-VOC) is used in resin and gelcoat

cleanup. (Pet. at 5.) Royal also indicates lhat it uses a 28% styrene monomer gelcoat that is

"state-ofthe-art in low-HAPformulationsfor swimming pool produclion. " Did Royal switch to

this gelcoallo comply with MACT?

The gelcoat materials that Royal was using were already MACT compliant, but Royal's

policy is to use the lowest HAP content materials that produce a high quality swimming

pool. It was this policy that caused Royal to use a lower YOM content white gelcoal.

19. This queslion is addressed to both tlte petitioner Qnd tlte Agency: The Air Quality Impacl

Analysisfor ozone was performed based on Ihe assumplion tltal 25 tons per year would be tlte

maximum VOM emil/ed and thaI the I-hour ozone standard is 120 ppb. However, there are no

limitalions proposed in Ihe adjusted slandard language.

(a) Would you please commenl on proposing a condilion in Ihe adjusted standard language Ihal

would limit VOMs to 25 tpy or less.

Royal Pools' current CAAPP application provides for a PTE of29.76 tons per year of

total YOM emissions. Royal does not object to a limitation in its Title V permit of30

tons YOM per year.

(b) Would you also please comment on proposing a condition thaI would require a reevaluation

oflhe adjusled standard ifthe ozone NAAQS is revised.

In the event that Jefferson County is reclassified as non-attainment for ozone at some

future date, the impact on the Title V permit at the Dix Plant should be minimal. Add-on

VOC emission controls satisfying reasonably available control technology ("RACT")

would still be cost prohibitive and the maximum VOC emission rate from the plant would

still have negligible impact on the ozone level in the regional air shed area. Under these

circumstances, a reevaluation would be oflittle value.

20. Could you please indicate ifRoyal has made a demonstralion ofcompliance with the

NESHAP regulations under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWWIO USEPAyel? [40 CFR 63.5840}

Did USEPA respond to the compliance demonstration, and ifso, how?

Royal has submitted all required initial and periodic ESHAP MACT demonstrations to

USEPA. USEPA has not responded to date.

104.406(g)

21. This question is addressed to botlt petitioner Qnd tlte Agency: The petition on page 10

Slales, "Royal understands Ihat in 2005, EPA replaced Ihe one-hour average ozone standard

with an eight-hour average slandard, but believes the hourly calClllalion presenled in Ihe

attached Air Quality Impacl Analysis is useful given the obvious concerns about hourly

emissions Ihal are reflected in the 8 Iblhr Rule." As ofMarch 2008, the primary ozone standard

was slrenglhenedfrom 0.08 paris per million (ppm), sel in 1997 to a level of0.075 ppm averaged

over 8 hours (73 FR 16436; March 27,2008).
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

(a) Since the Air Quality Impact Analysis presented in the Technical Document Section 6 is

based on the previous ozone swndard, wouldyou please provide an analysis ofozone impact in

terms ofthe current ozone NAAQS?

Royal Pools believes that the impact is the same - negligible.

(b) Is the SchejJe (Sept. 1988) procedure and table used in Royal Pool's Air Quality Impact

Analysis (fSD Sec. 6) the same for determining the ozone incrementfor ei/her I-hour as well as

8-hour periods oftime?

Royal Pools believes that the Scheffe Table approach is the only practical and feasible

procedure for demonstrating compliance with the one-hour ozone increment. There is no

similar procedure at present for demonstrating compliance with an eight-hour average

limit.

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

USEPA has not published any guidance for showing ozone compliance for individual

sources, especially very small sources like the Dix Plant. The Scheffe Table approach is

the only available feasible procedure. Further, USEPA has not provided any guidance for

showing compliance with an eight-hour average ozone limit.

(d) Please comment on the resulls ofthe Air Quality Impact Analysis ifthe ozone increment

were added to the 8-hour background air quality reading ofthe 4/h highest measured ozone

concentration from the past 4 consecutive years.

Royal does not have ready access to the 4-year data referenced above. Further, the

Scheffe Table approach, which is based on USEPA's assessment of worst-case one-hour

ozone impacts, is not mathematically compatible with assessments of eight-hour average

impacts. Finally, the current 8 lb per hour YOM limitation is a one-hour limitation,

which is also not applicable to assessments of eight-hour average impacts.

(e) Has the IEPA provided any guidance in conducting the Air Quality Impact Analysis or

indicated appropriate measures ifthe ozone increment appears to cause or be contributing to a

violation ojthe ozone NAAQS?

We are not aware of any guidance on assessment of ozone impacts provided by lEPA.

22. This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency: The Petition at page 12

states, " ... the daily amounts ofVOM emil/ed by Royal's operations have a negligible impact on

ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation ojthe ozone NAAQS... .. Since Hamilton

County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences ofthe 8-hour ozone standard oj75

ppb, would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard limiting Royal

Pools VOM emil/ing operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions are likely to

exceed the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone standard?

Royal would be opposed to such a condition since it would be unworkable from a

logistical standpoint. It would require Royal to monitor every day whether the ambient
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

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

"likely to exceed" means. More importantly, it would require Royal to then contact its

employees on a daily basis to inform them whether to come into work that day. This is

not a workable procedure in order for Royal to continue to operate at the Dix Plant.

23. IfRoyal were to experience a growth in production, couldyou please comment on how such

growth would affect the VOM emissions on an hourly and 12·month average basis? Would you

please commenl on including a condition in the adjusted standard that would limit the amount of

VOM emissions to a level consistent with the time Royal's adjusted standard petition was

submil/ed?

In its CAAPP application, Royal has requested a cap of 400 pools per year. This level is

designed to accommodate growth in production which Royal hopes to achieve after the

recession is over. Royal's VOM emissions on an hourly basis and annual basis at a 400

pool per year production level are discussed above and in the First Amended Petition.

Royal would strongly oppose a limit in the amount of VOM at a level consistent with the

time Royal's adjusted standard petitions was submitted. With the current recession, the

current level of pool production is at its lowest in years.

Respectfully Submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By: «)~ A.CJ_ tial{A. Guariglia, MO Ba~ Brandon W. Neusehafer, MO Bar #53232

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Tel. (314) 259·2000

Fax. (314) 259·2020

Attorneys for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that!l copy of the foregoing First Amended Petition was served

upon the following parties on the 2."'aay of October, 2009:

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph Street

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Division of Legal Counsel

l11inois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Attn: Charles Matoesian
• ••

Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

Delorme Street Atlas US~ 2009

2150 N

\

'0

®

o•

CR 2150 N 0<3'

•

w

~i

N

5

N

5

".'0

I

,

"

Data Zoom 11-7

Data use subject 10 license

C Delorme OeL()(mc Street Alias USAal> 2009

www delorme.com

'-

'\

""0('~

.. ~« " scale 1 56.250

," = 4,6875 ft

:
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009
Royal Pools Oix Plant

Monthly VQG/HAP Emissions and

Composites MACT Compliance

July 2009

I..., ••\lind S.plltbu 28, 2009

NON.MACT MiSe VOCIHAP MATERIALS

Clalr,1

Molclrtl..u

Mold ,lea".,

Mold •••101.

liIal."'"

....

2,862 146 oo 200 3,208 Iblmo

alues ~rc Ihown in bold blue tell,l MonlhtyVOCIHAP Emluiol\$ Monthly IilACT Calculations

po••upplel.~l."Ilew.ness V,CMA VSE tesl resuh) Totlll TeUI Tc>tat "'ACT ...."".\1.1 UU9'l «,065 Iblmo

MA UOIf..d EmltlOn F.ctofl MMA .. melhtyl melMc/y"le Sty,,,ne MY> HAP VOC ItAw MACT Emlnlons 1",I lblton

n-elolTllZed resin AMS .. elpl'la melhyl styrene AM$IVT lador" 55,," of styrene tlldor 2,161

'" ',001 ',201 Iwt Ave MACT Llml' 173,6Iblton

OlTllZed 9e1e011 VT • vinyl lovlelle Perctnu..,. 01 MACT Umll 77% OK

Monthly AWrllt" VOCIHAP Con"'n's VQCJHAP emiSSIOn FKtors VOC/HAP Emklione fOlllt NACT MACT P.,c.nt

".I./illl Reeln 0", AM' Other .., UEF -, AH' OIIM, Otll.f AH, 0111., HAP HAP HAP 01 HAP

VUlt.. VSE 'OynM HHA HAP AVT VO' Sty,.ne MY> HAP ,VT VO, Sty..,.. HMA HAP AVT VOC Conlenl Emlillons Llm. U"" """. (% by_11I1I11 (% VOClHAP by_lgMI {lbfmol (lb."?) (IbIlonJ (b'lon) l'"

0 0% 47.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 12.23% 75.0% '00% 0.00% '00% 0 0 0 0 0 47.6% 1165 11J 10 , 11300 '"' 47.5% 0.0"10 0.'" 0.0% 0.5% 12.23% 75.0% '00% 0.00% 100% 650 0 0 0 57 47.5% 116.2 11J 102"

27.340 0% 47.5% 0.0'4 0.'" 0.0y. 0.5% 12.23% 75.0% '00% 0.00% '00% 1.58a 0 0 0 137 47.5% 116.2

'" 102. '",

2,200 27.0% 3.0% 0.0% o.o·'\' 0.0'4 44.51% 75.0% '00' 000% '00% ,6< 50 0 0 0 300% 267.1 60S 44.1%

2.700 24.0% 4.0% 0.0"4 O.U·1o 0.0'-. 44.51% 75.0% '00' 0.00% '00% '" S1 0 0 0 280% 249.3 '" 412%

'" 28.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0'10 44.51% 75.0% '00' 000% '00% 65 16 0 0 0 320% 284 g ,as 47.1%0 21.0% 4.0% 0.0'4 0.0% 0.0% 44.51% 75.0% '00' 0.00% '00% 0 0 0 0 0 32.0% 214.9 60' 471%

0 31.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0'-. 52.26% 75.0"- '00' 0.00% '00' 0 0 0 0 0 48,0% .... 60' ggg%

0 39.0'" 0.0% 0.0% 0.,", 0.0'" 5MO% 75.0% '00% 0.00% '00' 0 0 0 0 0 3g0% 4181 ..0 gSO%

.~ ~5.~'1< 3&~

no 0.0% ,% '00% '00% 0 , 0 0.0% 100% 100% '00% 0 0

0 0.0% 100% '00% '00% 0 0 , ,.'" 100% '00% '00% , , ,- 0.0''' 0.0% '00% '00% , ,

Input v

AGA

AGA

AGA

AGA

AGA

AGA

5,425

NARA

NARA

NARA

31,840

VSE" va

UEF· AC

NARA" No

"CiA" Al

.ppltulio

Proc...

uUolyst

..Ie,"

"I....e. ualar

cOrfoslo 'I";1I1

corroslo" lstllnt

co.ro..Io"of.,llslanl

Tolal Rul..s

M.t..ial

CLusitiUllon

"orros,o"..-.,sl_,,!

."'.ro.I""....lst..onl

"''''Dslan_tlslan1

cOITolloIHUisu.nt

corro.lon.....l,...'"

l"olin!l9"lccoal

Total Gele",tl

GElCOATS

lHM2111. _white

!oAFA!! colored V-Ico.".

lHNI2U -\l'''Y

LHMn17 • lb. blu.

MGt.H·d••,

...tloDling" p.","IOIl

..50S

"'.A

• RESINS

Tn Polyutolr Ruin

1U VI",. E~t.r Ruin

151 Unnlurtted RUin
ffice, Octobr~9M()...0

·1

I

'1

,

,

)

,

!

i

:i

FIBERGLASS

December 9, 2004

Director

Air and Radiation Division

EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

RE: Royal Fiberglass Pools

Dix, IL

Subpart WWWW Initial Notification

Dear Sir or Madam:

POOLS. INC.

,

100o-22{,;O-C'{'Q

I'o.,f"Q·.../ ID7312~~ DL~.lI.6$3ol ______(.618} 266-7'Oll!

Please accept the enclosed information as our initial notification to 40 CFR P~;_63__

Subpart WWWW: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu!iht&:·

Reinforced Plastic Composites Production.

We are confident that we will meet the standards for open molding using COITQSiQq

resistant products with the HAP emission averaging option. " .

!fyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 337-332-4386.

Thank you,

Tony Hebert

General Manager
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Octobr 2, 2009

" .

•

-,

?

Yes

. YesNo'

Yes

Yes

No

All emissions were calculated using the current Unified E~iE,-:!~c

the CFA. Please see Attachment C for a spreadsheetof:-tQe,,'~~. , ';;-~ ....""~:«:."< ~-~r~~ -,- emission factors . ,,>< "<"" .lI!' ' • .... ,"'4' ,

Control EquipnrenJ

voc: 32,650100

Styrene: 29,750 100

MMA: 2,650 100

Dinlethyl Phthalate: 80 100

MEK: J60lOO

Acetone: 23,20<J'l1:is

~.f ~,_y: •'i?' . ;:s <' ;..' ;'/

U AG'''' . •..,,'''' . t; ,< .'.

lY.n;a. A;~ '-) :.... ":1;.'\(1'. '1 ' \'1"- " ,~t~~" ' _' '•• .., r ,~' ..:, _ "', ~"H::... .~~'t).... -....

•'" '..="'A. .., "'H<!"~. ~j " • '. • "'1': ''!r'~ 0:, ~_':to: • *, i " , :r

This.facilityfuis.gr~ ste1idilY?:ertOO.~few: R ." ih: neverreaching major

source status for styrene, ilie ~i,b1X d<!CS .for~ coni:irii'iCd growth. As such, Royal

Pools request to be pennitteii as''ll major sot¥:ce. Hence; NESHAP Subpart WWWW

applies to this site. An initial notificatIon fonn will be sent later this year or when the

major source threshold has been exceeded. The facility currently meets the MACf •

standard using the averaging option.

EPCRA Section 31113U

EPCRA Section 313

NSPS - 40 Subpart K

NESHAP .'4{) eFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW

Annual Toxic Criteria Pollutant Report

Chemical Accident Prevention

OtherApplicable Rules
m~~l#j tiaDi~lr 2, 2009

Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

Dix, Illinois

Air Permit Application Data

General Data

Royal Pools is located at 312 Duncan Road Dix, lllinois, Jefferson County. Please see

.Attachment A for the contact and billing infonnation.

Process Description

Royal Pools fabricates fiberglass swimming pools and spas using the latest technology in

resin and gelcoat application, high quality, corrosion resistance resins and gelcoals, and

hand lay-up.

MaJJ!rial Usage

Royal Pools requests to be pennitted to construct 400 pools per year using the following

materials:

Resin: 396,240 100

Gelcoat: 88,310 100

MEKP: 7,6801bs

Acetone: 29,000 Ibs

Material Safety Data S.heets for the materials listed above are in Attachment B

Emission SoIUCl!S

.-''o:l. •

. '.'

..;. ..

~".

EmisSions are generated from the fabrication ofswimming pools and spas which occurs . '.

in a vented warehouse.

Insignlfl£iUf/ Activities

I. 250 Gallon Diesel Tank - the vapor presswe ofdiesel is 0.009 psia making the

tank an insignificant source ofemissions.

2. 2 Propane Tanks- the propane tanks are UIJdec pressure and are not vented

3. Resin Storage Tanks- the resin is stored in a tank designed and patented by

Royal Pools. The tanks utilize and int.ema1 floating roofto reduce venting and air

to resin contact. As such, these tanks are insignificant sources ofemissions.
I'-

0

,...,

..a

'"0

:r

0

ru

0

0

0

0

..a

ru

ru

rn

0

0

I'-

Total Pcstoga & Fees $ 4 0 12/11104 ..

SSP 0 0 L S. INC.

1oo:r-2 2.feO-OCl02 -

",r."oJ 11\1312 Duncan lld. L.J'-tUC> 4;lV Dix. IL 62830

(618) 266-7089

------

. , ... ,j

SENDER: COMPlETE THIS SECTIO~ • f;OtJPLETE THIS SECTION ON OEUVERY .

CPR Part 63

: Pollutants:

. T~ .ng corrosion

Ce<tified Mail• 0 Expno$S ,".

o Regist"""' 0 IlObn _,,,,,~.

o Insured Mai 0 C.OD '. •

".

7003 ·2260 0002 04Q~'b~07

~2"~AttideNlmber

'.fT~ht>msemcel~

"CII;complete items 1, 2. and 3_AIso complete A Sg>atLn>

item 4 it Restricted Delivery is desilbd. •

_w erint your name and .address on the teveroe

So that we can return the Card to you•

. • AJ;tacll this card to the bac~of th mail~ • \

-or on the front if space pe;rm~ 'I.. . 12~~:--,-.,......~1.4"""''-'-''''''~~''-~

Tony Hebert

General Manager

,
2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO TROL BOARD

October 5, 2009

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. }Lf

INTHEMATfEROF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS )

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED )

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE )

215.301

AS 09-4

(Adjusted Standard - Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

On October 5, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency requested an

extension of time to answer the Board's technical questions. The request was granted, and the

Agency's answers are due no later than 4:30 p.m. on October 14,2009. No further extensions

will be granted. Hearing on this matter remains set for October 28, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
2

CERTIFICATE Of SERVICE

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

October 5, 2009, to each of the persons on the attached service list.

It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the

following on October 5, 2009:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. I 1-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

217/524-8509

webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004

Charles Matosian

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P,O, Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2009-004

Brandon W, Neuschafer

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

AS 2009-004

Dale A, Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 14, 2009 5

'EPA ATTACHMENT NO I

'-

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

NOTICE

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

llIinois Pollution Control Board

James R Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, llIinois 60601-3218

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

SI. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218

PLEASE l'AK.E NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board

the ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO OUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS' PETITION FOR

AN ADJUSTED STANDARD ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich

is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: October 14,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TDD)

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 14, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MADER OF: )

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

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

POLL TION CONTROL BOARD IN HIE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS

POOLS' PETITION FOR AN ADJUSTED STA DARD

NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"

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

Pollution Control Board's ("Board") attached to the Hearing Officer's Order ofJune 4, 2009.

28.l.e

2. Ifgranted, will the adjusted standard be submit/ed to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois SIP?

Yes.

104.406(d)

5. Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone al/ainment status ofthe county in which

the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone al/ainment status poised to be changed in the nearfuture?

The Dix Plant is in Jefferson County. This county is currently in attainment with the Ozone

NAAQS, and no change in the county's attainment slalUs is imminent.

104.406{j)

19. Tilis question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency: The Air Quality Impact

Analysisfor ozone was performed based on the assumption that 25 tons per year would be the

maximum VOM emil/ed and that the I-hour ozone standard is 120 ppb. However, there are no

limitations proposed in the adjusted standard language.

(a) Would you please comment on proposing a condition in the adjusted standard language that

would limit VOMs to 25 tpy or less.

IEPA has no objection to an annual YOM emission limit being included in the adjusted standard

language.

(b) Would you also please comment on proposing a condition that would require are-evaluation

ofthe adjusted standard ifthe ozone NAAQS is revised.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 14, 2009

IEPA believes that a condition requiring re-evaluation is necessary in this rulemaking. If, in the

future, changes in the ozone NAAQS status to non-attaifUl1ent for the Dix Plant location, the

Illinois EPA will conduct a re-evaluation of emission limits on all major sources in the

nonattainment area as part ofthe SJP process. lf changes are deemed necessary, the JIIinois EPA

will initiate a rulemaking before the Board at that time.

104.406(g)

21. This qllestion is addressed to both petitioner alld the Agency: The petition all page 10

states, "Royal understands that in 2005, EPA replaced the one-hour average ozolle standard

with an eight-hour average standard, but helieves the hourly calculation presented in the

attached Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful given the obvious concerns about hourly

emissions that are reflected in the 8 lblhr Rule. "

As ofMarch 2008, the primary ozone standard was strengthenedfrom 0.08 parts per million

(ppm), set in 1997 to a level of0.075 ppm averaged over 8 hours (73 FR16436; March 27,

2008).

(a) Since the Air Quality Impact Analysis presented ill the Technical Document Section 6

is based on the previolls ozone standard, would you please provide all analysis ofozone impact

ill terms ofthe cllrrent Ozone NAAQS?

]EPA believes the air quality impact ofthe adjusted standard to be negligible. This is also

JEPA's response to the next three questions: (b), (c), and (d).

(b) Is the SchejJe (Sept. 1988) procedllre alld table used in Royal Pool's Air Quality

Impact Allalysis (TSD Sec. 6) the same for determining the ozone increment for either 1-hollr as

well as 8-hour periods oftime?

(c) is the SchejJe (Sept. 1988) procedure still the USEPA recommellded procedure?

(d) Please comment on the results ofthe Air Quality Impact Allalysis ifthe ozone

increment were added to the 8-hour hackground air quality reading ofthe 4th highest measured

ozone concelltration from the past 4 consecutive years.

(e) Has the IEPA provided any guidance in conducting the Air Quality Impact Analysis

or indicated appropriate measures ifthe ozone increment appears to cause or be contributing to

a violation ofthe ozone NAA QS?

JEPA provided no guidance to the petitioner in conducting the Air Quality Impact Analysis, but

the Illinois EPA stiIl uses the Scheffe procedure to evaluate ozone impacts from single sources.

USEPA has not provided more recent guidance to address ozone impacts on an 8-hour basis.

21. This questiOlI is addressed io both the petitioner and the Agency: The Petition at page 12

states, "... the daily amounts of YOM emitted by Royal's operatiolls have a negligible impact on

ambiellt ozone levels and would not calise a violation ofthe ozolle NAAQS... " Since Hamiltoll

County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences ofthe 8-hour ozone standard of75

ppb , would you please comment on including a condition in tlte adjusted stalldard limitillg Royal

Pools YOM emil/ing operations on OZOlle action days where ambient cOllditions are likely to

exceed the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone standard?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 14, 2009

IEPA has no objection to a condition that would limit Royal Pools YOM emitting operations on

ozone action days.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: October 14, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/7782-5544

(217)782-9807 Facsimile
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 14, 2009

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO OUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO

CONTROL BOARD IN THE MAITER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS' PETITION FOR

AN ADJUSTED STANDARD, upon the following persons:

John Theniault, Assistant Clerk

JIIinois Pollution Control Board

James 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: October 14, 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,

lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel