IEPAATTACHMENT 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.us2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that tme copies ofthe 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 ofthe 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.usAS 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 63102-2750IEPAATTACHMENT 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 oftime to file its recommendation. The Agency personnel involved in preparing the recommendation are being moved to another portion ofthe 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 ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on August 5, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on August 5,2009: John T. Therriault llIinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I

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.usAS 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 63102-2750IEPAATTACHMENT 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 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (415 ll.CS 5/28.1 (2006)). Royal requests that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30I as that rule applies to the emissions ofvolatile 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 of5-0.

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control BoardIEPA 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 oftime to file its recommendation. The Agency personnel involved in preparing the recommendation are being moved to another portion ofthe 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 ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on August 18,2009, to each ofthe persons on the altached service list. It is hereby certified that a tTIle copy ofthe 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 6060I

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.usAS 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 ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: lsiCharles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal 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 behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By: 

### lsi Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal 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 ofRoyal 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 ofthe 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 ofOrganic Material Rule, bener known as the "8 Iblhr Rule" as it applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material ("VOM") from Royal's Dix, nJinois, fiberglass swimmingpool manufacturing facility. The 8 Iblhr Rule states: No person shall cause or allow thc discharge ofmore than 3.6 kglhr (8 Ibslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from anyemission source, exceptas provided in

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

Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: lfno odornuisance exists the limitation ofthis ubpart shall apply only to photochemically reactive material.
2. TheAmended Petition for Adjusted Standard stems from Royal's request to use averaging to complywith the 81bfhrRule for VOM as set forth in its modification (submittedJuly 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). OnJanuary 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 gelcoatand resin application areas, plusotherpool manufacturingactivities at the source. 3. On April 24, 2009, Royal filed a ProofofPublicationof 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 aresponse to a Petition for Adjusted tandard within 45 days offiling. 5. However, due to the need foradditional 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 peryear (perCAAPP application). (Pet. at4). The CAAPPapplicationrequests alimit of400 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 ofthe 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, estimatesmaximum YOM emissions at about 29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons ofwhich are potential styrene emissions. Id. The Illinois EPA accepts Royal's description ofits 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 incompliance 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 ofacetone, which has no HAP or YOM emissions." Id. COMPLIANCE ALTERl ATIVES 8. Royal asserts in its Amended Petition that its operations were not contemplatedby the 81blhr .Rule, which was established in 1971. Id. at II. Royal states that the manufacture offiberglass 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, ratherthan 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 Safetyand 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
...ofless 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 ofplant 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 of the Captllre al/d COl/trol of Hazardolls AirPol/litallt Emissiol/s from the Opel/Moldil/g of Reil/forcedPlastic Composites. prepared by theirenvironmental consultant, EECS, and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (""U EPA") in April 2000 as part of the

omposites MACTrule. Id. at 7 and 8. The study lists the various airpollution 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 eithertechnologically 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 acost 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 notyield compliance with the 8 IblhrRule. Id. at 6. Royal states that reduction ofstyrene in theresins, beyond that required bythe MACT, is notcurrentlytechnically feasible while maintaining product integrity. Id. Royal has also investigated alternativeprocedures which could result in reduced YOM emissions. ld. These resulting problems are listedon pages six and seven ofthe 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 215.30I, 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 AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future. b. Operation in full compliancewith theNational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for ReinforcedPlastic CompositeManufacturing Facilities, set forth al40 CFRSection 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, shall be in lieu ofcompliance 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 ofnew 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 reliefgranted 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 SubpartWWWW, as may be amended in the future, the Illinois Environmental Protection Actand otherapplicable 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 ofthe 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 ofwhich are potential styrene emissions. Id. 16. Royal asserts that the granting ofthe petition will not increase perunit 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 215.30I rule did not anticipate an operation like



### 7

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

Royal's, compliancewith 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 ofa petitioner for an adjusted standard. Ifa rule ofgeneral applicability does not contain a level of justification that the petitioner must meet to obtain an adjusted standard, the requirements ofSection 28.I(c) ofthe 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 factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; (3)
. The requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects substantially and sufficientlymore adverse than the effects consideredbythe Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral 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 215.30I, does not specifY alevel of justificationthatRoyal must satisfYto obtain
an adjusted standard. Therefore, Royal must satisfY the level of justification set forth in Section 28.1 (c) ofthe 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 isjustified. 21. The Illinois EPA agrees, for purposes ofthis Adjusted Standard application, with Royal's analysis ofthejustification 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 ofthe petition that the revocation ofthe 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 215.30I 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 IblhrRule 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 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.s.c. Section 7410, which grants the individual states the authority to promulgate aplan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcementofairquality 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 ofthe Clean Air Act. Ifthe



### 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 ofLegal 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 6060I 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 6060I

lLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

### lsi Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal CounselIEPAATTACHMENT 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 ofthe 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 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 6060I

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.usAS 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 63102-2750JEPA 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.us2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe 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 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.usAS 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. Thepetition onpage 13 states, "By complying with the Composites MACT, Royal has limited its YOMemissions andalso decreasedthe amount of solidandhazardous waste Royal generates. " Wouldyouplease elaborate on Royal's reduction of solidandhazardous waste resultingfrom compliance with MACT? As part ofMACT 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 gelcoats and now uses just white backcoat. This requires less flushing ofthe gelcoat lines, and as a result, less waste gelcoat material is generated. 2. 

### If granted, will the adjustedstandardbe submittedto USEPAfor inclusion in the Illinois SIP? Royal cannot independently submitrevisions to USEPA for inclusion in the lllinois SIP. This decision and action is with the lllinois EPA. l04.406(d) 

### 3. Wouldyoupleaseprovide a map indicating the location of the Dix Plant? Maps showing the location ofthe Dix Plant were included in Exhibit I ofthe First Amended Petition. Also attached hereto are an additional map and aerial photograph labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. 4. Thepelilion indicates that Royal's other manufacturingfacility is locatedin 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 of those stales have state-specific limitations on VOMemissions beyondthe MACT? 

## If

so, how does Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. address compliance in otherstales? 

### Royal is not aware ofany pounds/hour YOM emission limitation in Louisiana. S. Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone a/lainment status of the county in which the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone a/lainment statuspoisedto be changed in the near future? 

### 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 of the Technical Document, the chart entitled "January 2005: Monthly HAPIVOCIMACTEmissions Logfor the RoyalPools Dix Facility"wasprintedlarger than the page, so the table on thefar right appears to have been cut off. 

## If so, wouldyouplease 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 recentdataprovidedappears to befrom 2005. (a) Wouldyouplease comment on any change in quantities or materials usedsince 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 of400-pools-per-year instead ofthe original 250 pools-per-year. Further, the historical data for 2006, 2007, and 2008 shows higher perpool material usages than originally assumed from the 2005 data. Some ofthe 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, wouldyouplease 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 atpage 

### 5 states that 250poolsperyear is a more reasonable estimate than the 400poolsperyear usedin the CAAPPpermit application, wouldyouplease comment on any anticipatedgrowth orchange in operations.

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

As stated above, Royals now seeks 400-pools-per-year in anticipation ofincreased demand after the recession ends. II is hoped that many ofRoyal Pools competitors will go out ofbusiness due to the recession, so Royal should enjoy increased market share. 

### (d) Section 

### 2 of the Technical Document onpage 

### 9 makes a calculation basedon "Reducing the maximum annualproduction ratefrom 250 to 200poolsperyear ... " andcomments, "Afacilitywideproduction cap of220poolsperyear wouldreclassify the Dix Plant as a synthetic minor source - the maximum emission rate wouldbejust under the majorHAP source emission thresholdof 10 tpy." Is RoyalPools considering revising their CAAPP Permitapplication to reflect aproduction cap of220poolsperyear anda HAP emission thresholdof 10 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 explainedthat the annual emission rate andthefacility CAAPP status have no bearing on compliance with 35 lAC 215 Subpart

### K." TSD Section 4 at 2. Would youplease comment on the maximumpotential to emil on an hourly basis 

## if production were cappedat 400poolsperyear, or at 220poolsperyear? 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 ofpools produced. Even at an annual rate of220 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 of the Technical Document onpage 5, the Pool Production Schedule indicates a typical workschedule of twopoolsper day during 100%fUllproduction, with the "greatest hourlygelcoatprocess emission rate"of64.86Iblhr. In Section 2, the chart of"Hourly Potential-to-Emil HAPIVOCfor the RoyalPools DixFacility/Maximum Hourly Baseline" indicates maximum hourly usage of J7.421b VOMihour for resin application, 36.781b VOM/hour for gelcoat application, 0.08 lb VOMihour for catalyst, plus I lb VOMihour for mold wax. (a) Wouldyouplease explain the difference in the "maximum hourly baseline"andthe "hourly potential-to-emit"andindicate 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) Wouldyouplease indicate the overallmaximumpotentialhourly VOMemissions? 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, ifthe two smallest pool models were being gelcoated at the same time, the YOM emissions would only be 40 lbs per hour. (c) Since Royal canproduce 

### 2poolsper day at 100"/ofullproduction, wouldyouplease comment on the scenario that bothpools 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 ofpool 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 ofYOM per hour referenced above is based on two pools being gelcoated at the same time. (d) Does Royal Pools have an operatingprocedure inplace that wouldlimitgelcoat application andcuring to onepaol ata time? No. There is no such operating procedure is in place. (e) WouldRoyal Poolsplease comment on including such a limitation in the adjustedstandard 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 gelcoated 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) Wouldyouplease comment on including a condition in the adjustedstandardlimiting the adjustedstandardto Royal's current operations andlimiting 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. Wouldyouplease define MMA. AMS. DMP, MEK (MEKP) referencedin Section 2 of the TechnicalDocument.

### 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 

### of the Technical Document. the chart entitled. "Maximum Hourly Baseline: Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAP/VOCfor the RoyalPools Dix Facility"lists "Banda"having a 12.57% Styrene Emission Factor anda 100% Other VOCEmission Factor. The information under VOC Content (Styrene, MMA, AMS, Other), however, is 

### blank for Banda. Is information available on the HAPIVOC content of Banda? Since Banda is 

### not listedin the 2005 Monthly HAP/VOCIMACTEmissions Logs, wouldyouplease commenton how seldom it is 

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

### 12. InAS04-1, Crownline usedbooths equippedwith dryfilter medium to reduceparticulate emissions; lower styrene-contentgelcoat 

### (33.4%); panel filters built in each side of the laminating area to controlparticulate emissions; tanks equippedwith submerged inlets to reduce splashing andrelease ofVOMs whenfilling; andjlow-coatspraygunsfor lamination to reduce VOMemissions experiencedwithprevious airatomizedguns. (AS 04-1 Pet. at 

### 5-6) Wouldyou please comment on thepotenlial 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. Thepetilion onpages 

### 5-6states, "Specifically, Royal investigatedthefollOWing alternatives: (I) 

### reducing VOMcontent inproduction materials; (2) 

### using alternative operating procedures andmethods; and(3) 

### installingadd-on emission control technologies. "The Technical Document Section 

### 3provides details of the evaluation of add-on emission controls. however, details do not seem to beprovidedforthe othertwo alternatives mentioned Wouldyou 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. 

### 2of the Technical Document, the chart entitled "Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAPIVOC for the RoyalPools Dix Facility" lists the HAP/VOC content of the materials used Thepetition onpage 

### 7states that the white gelcoat usedcontains the lowest feasible monomer contents of 28% styrene and

### 3% MMA. Sections 

### 2 and

### 3 also indicate 161,800 Ib of resin 

### (47.5% styrene) and

### 3I36 Ib of MEKP Catalyst 

### (2% MEK, 

### 37% DMP) were usedin 2005. DidRoyalPools investigate the availability of Or experiment with other lower HAPIVOCcontent materials? 

## If so, wouldyouplease documentyourefforts? See response to question 13 above. 

### 15. Section 

### 3 of the Technical Document onpage 10states, "Non-atomizing gelcoat equipment 

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

### will notprovide an acceptable surfacefinish andhasfailed to reduce gelcoat emissions aspromisedby the manufacturer." Wouldyouplease documentyour 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 sourcefacilities that will be subject to the Federal rule 40 CFR 

### 63 Subpart WWWW Annual compliance costs/orall existing majorsourcefacilities were estimatedat 

### $21.5 million. This includedcapital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting custs. (68 

### FR 19381) 

### (a) What costs has Royal incurredto meetthe Federal rule? Royal spent approximately $40,000 to upgrade it resin sprayers to non-atomized applicators. 

### (b) Has Royal estimatedthe additional compliance costs associatedwith monitoring, recordkeeping andreporting? Royal incurred consulting fees ofapproximately $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. Thepetition onpage two refers to "Royal's InitialMACTNotification Leller"being containedin Section 2 

### of the TechnicalDocument; however, the lellerappears to be missing from that Section. Wouldyoupleaseprovide a copy or indicate where if

### can be found 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 MACTby ensuring that all resin containers are closedwhen not in use andthat acetone (non-HAP/non-VOC) is usedin resin andgelcoat cleanup. (Pet. at 5.) 

### Royal also indicates lhat it uses a 28% 

### styrene monomergelcoat that is "state-ofthe-art in low-HAP formulationsfor swimmingpoolproduclion. " DidRoyal 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 addressedto both tltepetitioner QndtlteAgency: TheAir QualityImpacl Analysisfor ozone wasperformedbasedon Ihe assumplion tltal 25 

### tonsperyear wouldbe tlte maximum VOMemil/edandthaI the I-hour ozone standardis 120ppb. However, there are no limitalionsproposed in Ihe adjustedslandardlanguage. 

### (a) Wouldyouplease commenl onproposing a condilion in Ihe adjustedstandardlanguage Ihal wouldlimit VOMs to 25 

### tpy orless. 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) Wouldyou alsoplease comment onproposing a condition thaI wouldrequire a reevaluation oflhe adjusledstandardif the 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. Couldyouplease indicate if Royal has made a demonstralion of compliance with the NESHAP regulations under40 CFR Part 

### 63 Subpart WWWWIO USEPAyel? [40 CFR 63.5840} Did USEPA respondto the compliance demonstration, andifso, 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 addressedto botltpetitioner QndtlteAgency: Thepetition onpage 10 Slales, "Royal understands Ihat in 2005, EPA replacedIhe one-houraverage ozone standard with an eight-houraverage slandard, but believes the hourly calClllalionpresenledin Ihe attachedAir QualityImpaclAnalysis is usefulgiven the obvious concerns about hourly emissions Ihal are reflectedin the 

### 8 Iblhr Rule." As of March 2008, theprimary ozone standard was slrenglhenedfrom 0.08parispermillion (ppm), sel in 1997 to a level of 0.075ppm 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 Analysispresented in the Technical DocumentSection 

### 6 is basedon theprevious ozone swndard, wouldyoupleaseprovide an analysis of ozone impact in terms of the current ozone NAAQS? Royal Pools believes that the impact is the same - negligible. 

### (b) Is the SchejJe (Sept. 1988)procedure andtable used in RoyalPool'sAir QualityImpact Analysis (fSD Sec. 6) 

### the samefor determining the ozone increment for ei/her I-hour as well as 8-hourperiods of time? 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 USEP A recommendedprocedure? 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 of the Air QualityImpactAnalysis 

### if the ozone increment were addedto the 8-hour backgroundairquality reading of the 4/ h 

### highest measuredozone concentrationfrom thepast 4 

### consecutiveyears. 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 ofworst-case one-hour ozone impacts, is not mathematically compatible with assessments ofeight-hour average impacts. Finally, the current 8 lb per hour YOM limitation is a one-hour limitation, which is also not applicable to assessments ofeight-hour average impacts. 

### (e) Has the IEPAprovidedanyguidance in conducting theAir QualityImpactAnalysis or indicatedappropriate measures 

### if the ozone incrementappears to cause or be contributing to a violation ojthe ozone NAAQS? We are not aware ofany guidance on assessment ofozone impacts provided by lEPA. 

### 22. This question is addressedto both thepetitioner andtheAgency: The Petition atpage 12 states, "
... the daily amounts ofVOMemil/edbyRoyal's operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone levels andwouldnotcause a violation ojthe ozone NAAQS
... .. Since Hamilton County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences of the 8-hourozone standardoj75 

### ppb, wouldyouplease comment on including a condition in the adjustedstandardlimiting Royal Pools VOMemil/ing operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceedthe 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 ofwhat "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. 

## If Royal were to experience a growth inproduction, couldyouplease commenton how such growth wouldaffect the VOMemissions on an hourlyand 12·month average basis? Wouldyou please commenl on including a condition in the adjustedstandardthat wouldlimit the amount of VOMemissions to a level consistent with the time Royal's adjustedstandardpetition was submil/ed? In its CAAPP application, Royal has requested a cap of400 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 ofVOM at a level consistent with the time Royal's adjusted standard petitions was submitted. With the current recession, the current level ofpool 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 ofthe foregoing First Amended Petition was served upon the following parties on the 2."'aay ofOctober, 2009: Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100 West Randolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218 Division ofLegal 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•



# • 0<3' CR 2150 N

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, 2009Royal 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."'" 

# ....

3,208 Iblmo 200 oo 146 2,862 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
December9, 2004 

### Director Air 

### and Radiation Division EPA RegionV 77 West Jackson Blvd. 

### Chicago, IL 60604-3507 RE: Royal Fiberglass Pools Dix, IL SubpartWWWW Initial Notification Dear Sir

### orMadam: 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&:· ReinforcedPlastic Composites Production. We are confident that 

### we 

### will meet the standards for open molding using COITQSiQq 

### resistantproducts with the HAP emission averaging option. " . !fyou have anyquestions, please feel free to contactme at337-332-4386.
Thank 

### you,

Tony

### Hebert GeneralManager

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

" 

# .

• 

# -,

?



### Yes



### . YesNo' 

### Yes Yes 

### No All emissions were calculated usingthe current 

### Unified**E~iE,-:!~c** the CFA. Please see Attachment C for a**spreadsheetof:-tQe,,'~~. ~-~r~~**  

### ,**';;-~** 

### ....**""~:«:."<** 

### -,- emission

### factors
. ,,>< "<"" .lI!' ' 

### • ....,"'4' , ControlEquipnrenJ



## 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''llmajor 

### sot¥:ce. Hence; NESHAP SubpartWWWW applies to this site. An 

### initialnotificatIon fonn 

### will be sent 

### laterthis yearor

### when the major sourcethreshold has been exceeded. The facility currently meets the MACf • standard using the averaging option.



### EPCRA Section 31113U 

### EPCRA Section 

### 313 NSPS

- 40 SubpartK NESHAP .'4{) 

## eFR Part 63 

### SubpartWWWW Annual Toxic CriteriaPollutant

### Report Chemical AccidentPrevention 

### OtherApplicableRules

### m~~l#j**tiaDi~lr** 

### 2, 2009


### Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. Dix, Illinois Air PermitApplication Data

GeneralData Royal Pools is located at 

### 312 Duncan

### Road Dix, lllinois, 

### JeffersonCounty. Please see 

### .AttachmentA 

### for the

### contactandbilling infonnation.
ProcessDescription 

### Royal Pools fabricates fiberglass 

### swimming pools and spas 

### using the 

### latesttechnology 

### in resin and 

### gelcoatapplication, highquality, 

### corrosion

### resistanceresins and gelcoals, and 

### hand lay-up. 

### MaJJ!rial Usage Royal Poolsrequests to be 

### pennittedto construct400 

### pools peryearusingthe following materials: Resin: 396,240 100 Gelcoat: 88,310 100 MEKP: 7,6801bs Acetone: 29,000 

### Ibs 

### Material SafetyData

### S.heets for the 

### materials 

### listed above 

### areinAttachment

### B
Emission SoIUCl!S .-''o:l. •



## . '.'

..;.

## ..**~".** 

### EmisSions 

### are generatedfrom the fabrication ofswimmingpools 

### andspas 

### which 

### occurs . '. inavented warehouse. Insignlfl£iUf/Activities 

### I. 250 Gallon 

### Diesel Tank

- the 

### vapor presswe 

### ofdiesel 

### is 0.009 psia

### makingthe tank 

### an insignificant sourceofemissions. 

### 2. 2Propane

### Tanks

- the 

### propane tanks 

### are UIJdecpressure 

### and 

### arenot vented 

### 3. Resin 

### Storage

### Tanks

- the 

### resin 

### is stored 

### in atank designed and

### patentedby Royal Pools. The 

### tanks 

### utilize and 

### int.ema1 floating 

### roofto reduceventing 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-22.feO-OCl02 - ", r."oJ 

# 11\1312 Duncan lld. L.J'-tUC> 4;lV Dix. IL 62830 (618) 266-7089



# ------

. , 

# ... ,j SENDER: COMPlETETHIS**SECTIO~** • f;OtJPLETE THIS SECTIONONOEUVERY
.



### CPR Part 63 : Pollutants:

.**T~** 

### .ng corrosion Ce<tifiedMail• 0 Expno$S ,". o Regist"""' 0 IlObn**_,,,,,~.** o Insured Mai 0 C.OD '. • 

## ". 7003 ·2260 0002**04Q~'b~07 ~2"~Attide**  Nlmber**'.fT~ht>m semcel~**  "CII;complete items 1, 2. and 3_AIso complete A Sg>atLn> item 4 it Restricted Deliveryis 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~** • \ -oron the front ifspace**pe;rm~** 'I..
.**12~~:--,-.,......~1.4"""''-'-''''''~~''-~**



### TonyHebert 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 oftime 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 ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on October 5, 2009, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on October 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.usAS 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 OFROYAL 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 100WestRandolph, 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 BYTHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OFROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS' PETITION FOR AN 

### ADJUSTED STANDARD ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency acopy ofwhich is herewith served upon you. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 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 OrderofJune 4, 2009.
28.l.e 2. 

## If granted, will 

### the adjustedstandardbe submit/edto USEPAfor inclusion in the Illinois SIP? 

### Yes. 104.406(d) 5. Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone al/ainmentstatus of the county in which the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone al/ainmentstatuspoisedto be changed in the near future? 

### 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 addressedto both thepetitionerandtheAgency: The Air QualityImpact Analysisfor ozone wasperformedbasedon the assumption that 25 tonsperyearwouldbe the maximum VOMemil/edandthat the I-hourozone standard is 120ppb. However, there are no limitationsproposed in the adjustedstandardlanguage. (a) Wouldyouplease comment onproposinga condition in the adjustedstandardlanguage that wouldlimit VOMs to 

### 25 tpy orless. 

### IEPA has no objection to an annual YOM emission limit being included in the adjusted standard language. (b) 

### Wouldyou alsoplease comment onproposing a condition that wouldrequire are-evaluation of the adjustedstandard

## if the 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 ofemission limits on all major sources in the nonattainment area as part ofthe SJP process. lfchanges are deemed necessary, the JIIinois EPA will initiate a rulemaking before the Board at that time. 104.406(g) 21. This qllestion is addressedto bothpetitioneralld theAgency: Thepetition allpage 10 states, "Royal understands that in 2005, EPA replaced the one-houraverage ozolle standard with an eight-houraverage standard, but helieves the hourly calculationpresentedin the attachedAir QualityImpactAnalysis is usefulgiven the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 

### 8 lblhrRule. " As of March 2008, theprimary ozone standardwas strengthened from 0.08partspermillion (ppm), set in 1997to a level of 0.075ppm averagedover 

### 8 hours 

### (73 FR16436; March 27, 2008). (a) Since theAir QualityImpactAnalysispresented ill the TechnicalDocument Section 6 is basedon thepreviolls ozone standard, wouldyoupleaseprovide all analysis of ozone impact ill terms of the 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 alldtable used in Royal Pool'sAir Quality ImpactAllalysis (TSD Sec. 6) the same for determining the ozone increment for either 1-hollras well as 8-hourperiods of time? (c) is the SchejJe (Sept. 1988)procedure still the USEPA recommelldedprocedure? (d) Please comment on the results of the Air QualityImpactAllalysis 

## if the ozone increment were added to the 8-hourhackgroundairquality reading of the 4th highest measured ozone concelltrationfrom thepast 4 consecutiveyears. (e) Has the IEPA providedany guidance in conducting the Air Quality ImpactAnalysis or indicatedappropriate measures 

## if the ozone increment appears to cause orbe contributing to a violation of the 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-hourbasis. 21. This questiOlI is addressedio both thepetitioner and theAgency: The Petition atpage 12 states, "
... the daily amounts ofYOMemittedbyRoyal's operatiolls have a negligible impact on ambiellt ozone levels andwouldnot calise a violation of the ozolleNAAQS
... " Since Hamiltoll County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences of the 8-hourozone standardof 

### 75 ppb , wouldyouplease comment on including a condition in tlte adjustedstalldardlimitillgRoyal Pools YOMemil/ing operations on OZOlle action days where ambient cOllditions are likely to exceedthe 

### 75ppb 8-hourozone 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: 

### lsiCharles 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 100West 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