IEPAATTACHMENT NO 

# d 

# 3

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD February 18, 20I0
IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FOR A ADJUSTED ) STA DARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 215.301 ) AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard)

DALE A. GUARIGLIA APPEARED 0 BEHALF OF ROYALFIBERGLASS POOLS, INC. and
CHARLES E. MATOESIA APPEARED 0 BEHALF OFTHE ILLINOIS ENYIRO ME TALPROTECTIO AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDEROF TI-IE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
OnApril 3, 2009, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) filed a petition for an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code 215.30I ofthe Board's airpollution regulations, commonly known as the "8 IblhrRule." Royal filed an amended petition onJuly 17,2009. Royal seeks relieffrom the 8 Ib/hr Rule as the rule applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material (YOM) from Royal's fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. In the petition, Royal requested ahearing, which was held October 28,2009. The T\Iinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation that the Board grant Royal's petition on August20, 2009.
In this opinion, the Board first sets forth the legal framework within which the Board determines whether to issue adjusted standards underSection28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 lLCS 5/28.1 (2008». ext, the Board provides the procedural history, and the factual background ofthe case. The Board then describes the applicable standard of review, the generally applicable standard, and the petitioners' requested relief. Afterpresenting the applicable standard ofreview, the Board examines the record regarding the four statutory factors petitioners mustdemonstrate. This examination is followed by the Board's discussion of the statutory standards before reaching its conclusions oneach ofthem. Based on the record before it, the Board finds that Royal has provided sufficient justification foreach ofthe Section28.1 factors. Accordingly, the Board grants Royal an adjusted standard from the 8 Iblhr Rule subjectto conditions outlined in this order.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
The Act (4I5 ILCS 5/1 el

### seq. (2008» and Board rules provide that apetitioner may request, and the Board may grant, an environmental standard that is different from the generally applicable standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner. This is called an adjusted

### 2

standard. The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section 28.1 ofthe Act and Section 104.Subpart D ofthe Board's procedural mles. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.400 etseq. The Board's procedural rules specify the required contents for the adjusted standard petition. See 35 

### TIl. Adm. Code 104.406, 104.416. Once apetition foran adjusted standard is filed, the Agency must file its recommendation with the Board. See415 ILCS 5/28.1 (d)(3) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416. The adjusted standard proceeding is adjudicatory in nature and therefore is not subject to the rulemaking provisions ofthe Actorthe Illinois Administrative ProcedureAct (5 ILCS 10011-1 etseq. (2008)). See415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202 (defining "adjudicatoryproceeding").
Section 28.I(d)(l) ofthe Act (4151LCS 5/28.1 (2008)) and Section 104.408(a) ofthe Board's procedural mles (35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a) (quoting the Act)) require the adjusted standard petitionerto publish notice ofthe petition's filing by advertisement in anewspaperof general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the proposed adjusted standard. Under those provisions, publication musttake place within 14 days afterthe petition is filed. The newspapernotice must indicate that any person may cause apublic hearing to be held on the proposed adjusted standard by filing ahearing request with the Board within 21 days after publication. See 415ILCS 5/28.I(d)(l) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(b).
The burden ofproofin an adjusted standard proceeding is on thepetitioner. See415 ILCS 5/28. I(b), (c) (2008); 35 III. Adm. Code 104.426. Once granted, the adjusted standard, instead of the rule ofgeneral applicability, applies to the petitioner. See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202, 104.400(a). In granting adjusted standards, the Board may impose conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes ofthe Act. See 415 ILCS 5/28.I(a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.428(a). 

### PROCEDURAL BACKGRO D On April 3,2009, Royal filed this petition (Pet.) with the Board for an adjusted standard from the 8 IblhrRule, accompanied by aTechnical Support Document (TSD), amotion for expedited review, and motion to appearpro hac vice. OnApril 24,2009, Royal filed a ''Notice ofPublication ofPetition foran Adjusted Standard" indicating that notice ofthe petition was published in theMt. VenlOlI RegisterNews onApril 13,2009. On June 4, 2009, the Board issued an orderaccepting the petition for hearing, denying Royal's motion forexpedited review, and granting Mr. Guariglia's motion to appearpro hac vice. Also on June 4, 2009, the Board's Hearing Officer issued an orderdirecting Royal and the Agency to address prehearing questions. On July 17, 2009, Royal filed aFirstAmended Petition (Am. Pet.). On August 6, 2009, the Board issued an orderaccepting the amendedpetition for hearing. On August20, 2009, the Agency filed its recommendation (Rec.) that the Board grant Royal's requested relief, subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the Agency's recommendation. Royal and the Agency filed separate responses to the Hearing Officer's

### 3
prehearing questions, on October2, 2009 and October 14,2009, respectively. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09, Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09.
On October21, 2009, the Board's Hearing Officerdirected Royal and the Agency to address additional prehearing questions based on the amended petition, the Agency's recommendation, and responses to the earlier prehearing questions. On October27, 2009, the Agency filcd a response to the Hearing Officer's additional prehearing questions. Ag. Resp. to 110010-21-09.
On October28,2009, Hearing OfficerCarol Webb conducted ahearing in this matterat the

## c.E. Brehem Memorial Public Library, 101 South 7th Street, Mt. Vernon, Jefferson County. Three witnesses testified athearing: Mr. Clifford Hebert, ownerofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.; Robert A. Ilaberiein, Ph.D, consultant for Royal; and Mr. Andrew Russo, Agency's Bureau of Air. Hearing OfficerWebb found all three witnesscs credible.
On ovember 16,2009, the Agency filed comments clarifying the Agency's earlier responses to the additional prehearing questions (Ag. Resp. to Hearing). On December 7, 2009, Royal filed a response to the Agency's comments and apost-hearingbrief(Pet. Br.). On December 16,2009, the Agency filed apost-hearingbriefaccompanied by amotion for leave to file illslalller (Ag. Br.). The Board grants the Agency's motion to file illstalllerthe post-hearing brief.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Board will begin this section by describing the facility and the manufacturing process ofRoyal. ext the Board will explain the pollution control equipment in use by Royal and describe the VOM emissions. This section will conclude with adescription ofthe CAAPP permitand a violation noticereceived by Royal. The Facility Royal operates a fiberglass swimmingpool manufacturing facility where Royal manufactures 20 differentmodels offiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3' 10" deep to 17' wide x40' 6" long x 8' deep. Am. Pet. at4. Royal began operations atthe Dix plant in the early I990s, and currently employs approximately 20 people during peak season in addition to 5 to 10 contracthaulers. 

### 1<1. Royal currentlyproduces about240 pools peryear, however, Royal is anticipating increased production and requested amaximum facility-wide annual production cap of400 pools peryear in its Clean AirAct Permit Program (CAAPP) pernlit application filed on July 14,2009. Pet. at4, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 3, Am. Pet. at 4. Manufacturing Process Royal's compositepool manufacturing process starts with abare waxed mold ofa pool turned upside down. The mold is sprayed with athin layerofgelcoat, which laterbecomes the inside layerofthe finished pool. Overthe gelcoat, various layers ofresin and fiberglass are applied to the mold to provide thickness and strength for the pool. Royal's counsel explains that4

"it is a hands-on process where you have a person spraying on resin with a gun and then another person rolling it out with a rollerto nallen it and to give it strength

...." Tr. at 10-11, Am. Pel. at4. Royal's swimming pool manufacturing process involves 3 basic steps, all ofwhich produce YOM emissions that would be subject to the requested adjusted standard: (1) gelcoat application; (2) barriercoat resin application; and (3) isophthalic structural resin application. Am. Pel. at 5. Othermanufacturing steps that do notproduce significant YOM emissions include: (I) parts finishing; (2) gelcoat and resin cleanup; and (3) mold repairand mold prep. Am. Pet. at 5.
This petition revolves mainly around the 3 basic steps ofapplying ofgelcoat, barriercoat resin, and isophthalic structural resin since these processes generate most ofRoyal's YOM emissions that are impacted by the 8 lbfhr Rule. The YOM emissions consist primarily of styrene, but also include small amounts ofother YOM and volatile organic HAP species, such as methyl metacrylate (MMA) and methy ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP). Am. Pet. at 4-5; Am. Pet. Exh. B ofExh. 2, Pet. Tcchnical Support Document Section 2, 3; Pet. Resp. at 5. Royal's Dix planthouses three self-contained rooms (bays) where the composite pool manufacturing occurs. To control workerexposure to styrene, all three bays are connected to a common exhaust ventilation system that vents to the atmosphere through a 36-foot tall stack. Am. Pet. at I.
Gclcoat Application
Gelcoat is applied to bare waxed pool molds with high-volume low pressure (HVLP) nuid impingement technology (FIT) applicatorgun. This applicatorgun is used with an atomizing gelcoat spray applicator. Am. Pet. at4. Gelcoat is applied eitheras a single layerof white gelcoat or as two layers oftranslucent gelcoat and regularproduction gelcoal. Royal states that the gelcoat used is "the state-of-the-art in low-HAP [hazardous airpollutant] formulations for swimming pool production." Am. Pet. at4-5. The white gelcoatcontains 27% styrene monomer and 3% MMA by weight. The two layergelcoats range from 27%

- 38% styrene and 3%

- 10% MMA. 

### !d.
Barrier Coat Resin Application
Afler the gelcoat has cured, a laminate layerofglass mat and vinyl ester (VE) corrosionresin is applied to the cured gelcoat layerusing the HVLP applicator gun with a non-atomizing applicator. The VE resin contains up to 48% styrene by weight. Am. Pet. at 5. Isophthalic Structural Resin Application
After the VE resin layerhas cured, a series oflaminate layers is applied to the curcd resin layer. The layers consist ofchopped glass strand mat (CSM), woven glass roving (WR), and isophthalic (ISO) corrosion-resistant resin and are applied with a HVLP applicatorgun with a non-atomized applicator. Am. Pel. at 5.

### 5

Pollution Control Equipment in Use Royal states thatthe facility employs the same techniques used by Crownline in Crownlinc's adjusted standard to control YOM and particulateemissions 

### (see In the Mallerof: Petition ofCrownline Boats. Inc. foran Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30I, AS 04-1 (July 22. 2004)):
I. booths equipped with dry filter medium to reduce particulateemissions, 2. lower styrene-contentgelcoat (24-38% styrene and 3-10% MMA), 3. panel filters built in each side ofthe laminating area to control particulate emiSSions, 4. tanks equipped with submerged inlets to reduce splashing and release of YOMs when filling, and 5. flow-coat spray guns for lamination to reduce YOM emissions experienced with previous air atomizedguns. Pet. Resp. at 5 referring to Crownline Boats, AS 04-1 Pet. at 5-6.
In the pool manufacturing facility, Royal uses a 35,000cubic feet perminute (cfm) crossflow ventilation system to control workerexposure to styrene. The ventilation system exhausts air from the workareas to the outside through a 36-foottall vertical stack. Am. Pet. at 1.
In the gelcoat application processes, Royal uses the following: (I) high-volume lowpressure (HYLP) fluid impingement technology (FIT) applicatorgun that is operated as an atomizing gelcoat spray gun and (2) gelcoatthat is "state-of-the-artin low-HAP formulations for swimmingpool production." Am. Pet. at4-5. In the resin application process, Royal uses the same applicatorgun operated with adifferenttip and pressure to allow for non-atomized application. Pet. at 5. The resin applicators were converted to non-atomized applicators as part ofMACTcompliance since they were low-emitting and reduced the amount ofoverspray, resulting in less solid and hazardous waste generated. Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at I. Royal also adopted workpractice standards to comply with the Composites Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards: (I) requiring all resin containers be closed when not in use, and (2) implementing the use ofacetone in resin and gelcoatcleanup, which has no HAP orYOM emissions. Am. Pet. at 5, Pet. at 5. Royal states that the YOM content ofthe gelcoats and resins is also MACTcompliant. Am. Pet. at 6, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. Although not required by MACT, Royal has also eliminated all colored backcoatgelcoats, now usingjustwhite, resulting in less flushing ofthe gelcoat lines and less waste. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at I. YOM Emissions
As noted above, Royal's YOM emissions subject to the 8 IblhrRules are primarily generated during the application ofgelcoat, barrier coatresin, and isophthalic structural resin. Royal characterized the YOM emissions as variable depending on the type and size ofeach swimmingpool manufactured. The YOM emissions from the Dix plantconsist mainly of6
styrene, but also include smalleramounts ofother VOMs and volatile organic HAP such as MMA and MEKP. Am. Pet. at 5, Pel. Resp. at 5. Royal estimates the avcrage YOM emissions perpool as follows: 53.8 Ib/pool from gelcoating and 94.4 Ib/pool from resin application, with a total average YOM of148.8 Ib/pool. Am. Pet. at 5. The estimates for the resin application include YOM emissions from the both the barriercoat resin and isophthalic stmctural resin applications.
On an hourly basis for a single pool, Royal estimates amaximum gelcoat YOM emission rate of78.55 Ibs/hrand amaximum resin YOM emission rate of47.17 Ibs/hr. Am. Pet. Section 2. Royal states that the maximum facility-wide hourly YOM emission rate is 156.70 Ibs/hr. This corresponds to simultaneous gelcoat applications to Royal's two greatest YOM-emitting pool molds at 78.55 and 78.15 Ibs/hr. Am. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2. Royal's reponed annual YOM emissions for2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tons peryear (tpy) and 11.6 tpy, respectively, when maximum pool production was estimated at 250 pools peryear. Am. Pct. at 5, Exh. 2; Pet. TSD Section 3 at 5, Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at 2. Royal's CAAPP application estimates maximum YOM cmissions at 29.76 tpy for aproposed cap of400 pools per year. Am. Pet. at5, Exh. 2. With emissions greaterthan 10 tpy ofa single HAP, Royal is a majorHAP source. Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 

### 1-100 at 3.
CAAPP Permit Royal submitted an application for a CAAPP permitin Novemberof2004 and later submitted amodification to its application onJuly 14,2009. Royal notes that apemlit has not yet bccn issued. Am. Pet. at I. Royal notes that the Agency has rejected the use ofaveraging to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Since that mle specifies a maximum hourly emission rate, the Agency believes thatcompliance demonstration must bebasedon a strict hourly basis and noton an average from a longertime period. 

### ld.
Violation Notice Royal received aViolation otice issued by the Agency on January 10,2006 that listed a single violation of35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30I, which limits the discharge ofYOM emissions from an emission source to 8 Ib/hr(8 Ib/hrRule). Pet. Attach. 3 at ). Royal met with the Agency and in tum worked with an environmental consultantto determine the amounts ofYOM emitted during the manufacture ofvarious pools that Royal constructs. Royal became aware that the Agency does not allow the use ofaveraging to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Since that mle specifies a maximum hourlyemission rate, the Agency believes that compliance demonstration mustbe based on a stricthourly basis. By working with the consultant to determine the amounts ofYOM emitted during manufacturing, Royal found that the hourly YOM emissions from some ofits operations did not appearto comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Am. Pel. at 2.

### 7

C RRENT APPLICABLE STAi'lDARDS
The Board will begin by discussing the current standards applicable in Illinois and follow with adiscussion ofapplicable federal standards.
Illinois The generally applicable standard at issue in this adjusted standard proceeding is set forth in 35 III. Adm. Code 215.301. Section 215.301 provides:

o person shall cause orallow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kgfhr (8 Ibslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from anyemission source, exceptas provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If no odornuisance exists the limitation ofthis Subpart shall apply only to photochemically reactive material. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301.
This rule, which is commonly referred to as the 8 Ib/hrRule, was initially adopted by the Board as Rule 205(!) in In the MallerofAirPollution Control Regulations

- Emission Standards, R71-23 (Apr. 14, 1972). Rule 205 was re-codified as 35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 at7111. Reg. 13601, Corrected at 7 

### Ill. Reg. 14575. Forpurposes ofcomplying with the 81blhrRule, the Agency has indicated that averaging is not acceptable and thatcompliance mustbe demonstrated on a strict hourly basis. Am. Pet. at 1-2, Rec. at 2.
Federal
Under separate federal regulation, Royal is already subjectto the National Emission Standard forHazardous AirPollutants (NEStJAP) for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities. Pet. at 2; citing40 CFR Part 63 SubpartWWWW, 40 C.F.R. 63.5780- 63.5935. Subpart WWWW is the U ational Emissions Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production", and the compliance date was April 21, 2006. Rec. at 3, seeTable 2 to Subpart WWWW ofPart 63, 68 FR 19380. Under Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act,

EStJAP rules are applicable in Illinois and enforceable underthe Act without additional rulemaking activity by the Board. 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (a) (2008). Subpart 

### WWWWapplies to new and existing reinforced plastic composites production facilities and regulates the use ofthermosetresins and gelcoats, which emitHAPs such as styrene and MMA. 68 FR 19375. The requirements take the form ofHAP emissions limits, operating limits, and workpractice standards. 68 FR 19378. Requirements for new and existing sources below the 100 tpy threshold are basedon the MACT floor level ofcontrol. !d. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) explains, U[t]he MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed forNESHAP." ForSubpart 

### WWWW, USEPA adds, U[t]he floors for existing sources are mainly based on pollution prevention, not add-on controls." 68 FR 19377.

### 8
Royal's Dix Facility emissions are greater than 10 tpy for a single IIAP and the facility is amajorHAP source, but emissions are less than the 100 tpy threshold. Am. Pet. at 5, Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at 3. USEPA estimated that there are approximately435 existing major source facilities that will be subject to Subpart WWWW, and predicts that the rule will reduce cmissions ofHAP nationwide by 43%. 68 FR 19381, 19375.
ROYAL'S PROPOSED ADJ STED STA DARD
In the petition, Royal proposed the following adjusted standard language for adoption by the Board: I. Pursuantto Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/28.1), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.20I ("8 Ib/hr Rule"), effective

__,20IO. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material ("VOM") into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility located in Dix, Illinois.
2. 35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply. Royal remains subject to the following:

a. Royal mustcontinue to investigate: (a) swimming pool production methods thatgenerate fewer YOM emissions, and (b) materials thathave a reduced YOM content and/orare compliantwith the Composites MACT HAP content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current materials with lowerYOM content materials as longas such substitution does not result in a netincrease in YOM emissions.
b. Royal must perfoml any reasonable test ofnew technologically or economically reasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing they do. Afterperformance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submitareport summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory cfforts. The report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.

c. Royal mustoperate in full compliance with the Clean AirAct, its Clean AirAct Permit Program permit (once issued), the ational Emissions Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth in40 C.F.R. 63, SubpartWWWW.as required by Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act, and any oUlerapplicable regulation. Am. Pet. at 9-10.

### 9
AGENCY 

### RECOM IE OATIOi\"
On August 20, 2009, the Agency filed the recommendation thatlhe Board grant Royal's amendcd adjusted standard petition 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 at40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WV,TWW, as may be amended in the future.
b. Operation in full compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, shall be in lieu ofcompliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.30I.

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 re ult in a net increase in YOM emissions. Royal shall be required to do any test ofnew technologically or economically reasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the openmold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOM emissions atRoyal's facility which the Illinois EPA specificallyrequests in writing theydo. Afterperformanceofsuch tests, Royal mustprepare and submita report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts. The report must be submitted to the Illinois EPA, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
d. The reliefgranted in this proceeding 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 AirAct, its CAAPP, the ational Emission Standard forHazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and otherapplicable regulations not otherwise discussed herein. Rec. at 6-7.
The Agency's suggested one additional condition (d) that was not similarly proposcd by Royal. Rec. at 7. At hearing, the Board's staffasked the Agency to clarify whetherthe Agency's proposed condition (d) was intended to limit the types ofemissions activities orthe level or amount ofemissions. Tr. at47-48. The Agency clarified that the condition was meant only to limit the type ofemissions activities, i.e., fiberglass pool manufacturing atthe Dix facility. The Agency noted that the level and amount ofemissions are to be in compliance with the proposed pern1it conditions, which include an annual production cap of400 pools. Ag. Resp.10

to Hearing at I. Royal responded in opposition to proposed condition (d) on the grounds that the condition is unclearon the date and could be read as limiting Royal to "only those activities taking place on the date in question

...." Pet. Br. at 12. In addition, Royal argues that such language was not included in the adjusted standard granted to Crownline. 

### It/. at 12, referring to Crownline Boats, AS 04-1.
After discussion, the Agency and Royal came to agreement on the proposed language of the adjusted standard condition (d) as follows:
d. The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existingas ofAugust20, 2009, at Royal's Dix facility. Ag. Br. at 1-2. 

### STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board agrees with Royal and the Agency that the regulation ofgeneral applicability at35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 does not specify alevel of justification for an adjusted standard. Am. Pet. at4; Rec. at 8. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.1 (c) ofthe Act, the burden ofproofis on the petitioner to demonstrate that:
I. Factors relating to thatpetitionerare substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to thatpetitioner; 2. The existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; 3. The requested standard will not result in environmental orhealth effects sub tantiallyand significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and 4. The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415 ILCS 5/28.I(c) (2008); 3511I. Adm. Code 104.426(a).


### SUBSTANTIALLYDIFFERENT FACTORS Royal states that the primary intentofthe 8 Ib/hr Rule was to preventozone formation and odornuisance. Royal asserts thatthe Board did notcontemplate the methods Royal uses to manufacture swimming pools at the Dix plantwhen the Board promulgated the 8 Ib/hrRule in 1971. Am. Pet. at II. Royal explains that manufacturing large parts such as swimming pools is necessarily abatch-type process ratherthan atypical continuous application used forother products. !d. Royal's investigation ofalternatives found inherent limitations in the manufacturing process thatprecluded the use ofalternative manufacturing methods. Am. Pet. at 6,7-9. As to add-on airpollution controls, as noted above, Royal argues that the ventilation system Royal uses to comply with Occupational Health and SafetyAdministration's (OSHA) workerprotection regulation at29 CFR 

### §1910 makes the use ofadd-on emission controls economicallyunreasonable. Royal maintains that the Board did not anticipate the batch-type process used for manufacturing large composite parts coupled with the requirement to meet theII

OSHA standard for styrene exposure through engineering controls when adopting the 8 Ib/hr Rule in 1971. Am. Pet. at II. Another significantly differentfactor Royal notes is thatRoyal is not aware ofanyother swimming pool manufacturing operations in lIIinois. From abusiness perspective, Royal concludes thatwithout the adjusted standard, Royal will eitherbe forced out ofbusiness because ofthe high costofcompliance or forced to move to another state which does not have an 8lb/hr Rule (or similar limitation). Pet. Br. at 13. Royal states the instant petition does not conflictwith the primary intentofthe 8 lb/hr Rule to prevent ozone formation and odornuisance. The AirQuality ImpactAnalysis indicates that Royal's emissions would notcause a violation ofthe ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS). Additionally, Royal has a 36ft. tall stack to exhaustemissions to minimize odor nuisance from Royal's operations. Am. Pet. at I, 10, 12; TSD Section 6. EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLiANCE ANI) ALTERNATIVES The compliance alternatives investigated by Royal to complywith the 8 Ib/hrRule on a strict hourly basis include: (I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. Other than add-on emission controls, Royal stresses thatmany ofthe alternatives investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 Ib/hrRule on a stricthourly basis. Am. Pet. at 6. Reducing VOM in Production Materials Royal states that the VOM concentration in the production materials for gelcoatand resin has already been reduced in compliance with the Composites MACT. However, using production materials that comply with the Composites MACT will notbe sufficient to reduce emissions levels to meet the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Royal worked with suppliers to inquire about the feasibility ofusing lower YOM-content production materials. Royal found that lowering the styrenecontent in the resins below the current level used to comply with the Composites MACT is notcurrentlytechnically feasible while still maintaining acceptable product integrity. Am. Pet. at 6. From suppliers, Royal understands thatthe lowerVOM resin materials do notprovide adequate corrosion protection for high quality swimming pool parts. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. Royal states that the gelcoat used atthe facility is already "state-of-the-art and contains the lowest feasible monomercontents of27% styrene and 3% MMA." Am. Pet. at 7. In addition, Royal ceased using aclear gelcoat which had ahigherYOM content than the "state-ofthe-art" white gelcoatRoyal currently uses. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. Using Alternative Operating Procedures and Methods
As a part ofRoyal's investigation into compliance alternatives, Royal examined the gelcoating process at the Dix plant, and considered ways to reduce the hourly YOM emissions12

rate. Royal states thatRoyal found limitations inherent in the facility's processes that precluded the use ofany effective alternatives. Royal explains that the pools are produced with open molding process on a large scale, too large for any closed molding proccss. The gelcoatcannot be applied in sections, only in a single uniform laycr to avoid seams that would sacrifice structural stability and aesthetics. Further, Royal notes that gelcoat mustbe applied to the mold with an atomizing applicator. While non-atomizing applicatorthatreduces gelcoatemissions rate is available, Royal states that non-atomizing equipment for the gelcoat would not provide an acceptable surface finish. Royal adds thatthe non-atomizing applicator for gelcoats has also not reduced emissions, as promised by the manufacturer. Royal states that the gelcoat used at the facility is already "state-of-the-art and contains the lowest feasible monomercontents of27% styrene and 3% MMA" Am. Pet. at 6-7. Add-On Air Pollution Controls Royal states that the Composites MACT does not require installation ofadd-on air pollution controls. Royal notes thatUSEPA found that add-on airpollution controls are notcost effective at most cxistingcomposite facilities. Royal maintains that USEPA found that add-on controls with 95 % control efficiency would onlybe costeffective for new facilities that emit more than 100 tpy ofHAP or new facilities that produce largeparts such as swimming pools with HAP cmissions greaterthan 250 tpy. Royal notes that the Dix plantemits less than 12 tpy ofI-LAPs. Am. Pet. at 7. evertheless, Royal summarized add-on airpollution control options detailed in a 2000 study submitted to USEpA as part ofthe promulgation ofthe Composites MACT rule entitled, "Feasibility and Costofthe Capture and Control ofHazardous AirPollutant Emissions from the Open Molding ofReinforced Plastic Composites." Am. Pet. at 7-8. The summary listed commercially available airpollution controls and assessed the feasibility ofcach atthe Dix plant: absorption, adsorption, biodigestion, condensation, flare, oxidation, and preconcentration with regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO). Ofthe options, only RTO was considered technically feasiblc for Royal, however, RTO was also considered economically infeasible. Am. Pet. at 8. Royal commissioned the authorofthe study, Engineering Environmental Consulting Services (EECS), to prepare an analysis forthe costofa skid-mounted RTO system at the Dix plant. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. With an cstimated capital cost of$709,500 and annual operaling costofover$470,000, the cost effectiveness ofan RTO system would be $ I8,400perton of HAP (styrene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. Royal slates the annual operating cost alone is several times greaterthan thc Dix plant's annual profit, and add-on controls are not economically feasible for the facility. Am. Pet. at 9.
As staled earlier, Royal uses ahigh air flow ventilation system to comply with the OSIIA's workerprotection regulation at 29 CFR §1910 for styrene. At hearing, Royal's witness Dr. Haberlein, testified thatOSHA requires the use ofengineering controls, such as the high air flow ventilation system, to control exposure to workers. Atthe Dix plant, Royal is required to use engineeringcontrols rather than rely on personal protectiveequipment, such as a selfcontained breathing apparatus, to control workerexposure. Tr. at 54. Consequently, any add-on airpollution control options that Royal evaluated needed to be able to handle the high air flow. The RTO system in the costanalysis was designed to handle the 35,000 efm exhaust air flow.13

Am. Pet. Exh. 3 at 6. Royal states the high air flow makes the cost ofusing add-on emissions controls economically infeasible. Am. Pet. at II.
Roval's Compliance with the MACT Standard Royal indicates that the facility was in compliance with the Composites MACTby February2006. Royal meets the MACT emission standards by using the HAP emissions factor averaging option. Am. Pet. at 5-6, citing40 CFR §63.5810(b). Royal's Dix plant is averaging 72% ofthe MACT emissions limit. Am. Pet. at7. To comply with the work practice standards in the Composites MACT, Royal implemented procedures for all resin containers to be closed when not in use and for acetone, which Royal indicates has no HAP or YOM emission , to be used for resin and gelcoat cleanup. Am. Pet. at 5. Royal also converted the resin spray applicators to low-emitting non-atomized applicators to reduce the amount ofoverspray and the resulting amount ofsolid and hazardous waste generated. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at I. Royal has submitted all the required initial and periodic NESHAP MACT demonstrations to the USEPA, buthas not yet received a response. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7. USEPA estimated thatthe Composites MACT will reduce HAP emissions by an average of43% industry-wide. Am. Pel. at 5-6. USEPA also estimates there are approximately435 existing major source facilities thatwill be subjectto the federal rule40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW. USEPA estimated annual compliance costs for all existing major source facilities of $21.5 million, which included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reportingcosts. 68FR 19381. Royal stated that Royal spentapproximately $40,000 to upgrade the resin sprayers to non-atomized applicators to meet the federal rule. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 6. Royal also spentnearly $10,000 to establish a system to track, record, and report the facility's emissions underthe Composites MACT standard. On an annual basis, Royal spends $1,500 per yearto track and reportemissions. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 6.
Summarv Royal argues that the evaluation ofcompliancealternatives has shown that the alternatives are neithereconomically reasonable nortechnically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to Royal's operations. Royal asserts that the existence ofthese factors coupled with the Agency's concurrence regarding the requested relief justifies the grantofan adjusted standard. Am. Pet. at 13.
IMPACT ON 

### HIE ENVIRO 1ENT Royal states that the requested adjusted standard seeks only to allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same manner, and will notresult in an increase in emissions on a perunit basis. Am. Pet. at 10. Royal maintains that the Dix plant is already in compliance with the federal requirements for the Composites MACT, and adds thatthe proposed adjusted standard will not interfere with Royal's federal complianceefforts. Am. Pet. at 10.14

The Agency adds thatJefferson County, where the Dix plant is located, is currently in attainmentwith the Ozone NAAQS, and no change is imminent. Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09.
Air Qualitv Impact Analvsis Royal commissioned EECS to conducta "worst-case airquality ozone impactanalysis of the maximum VOC emissions from the Royal Pools facility in Dix, l1Iinois". TSD Section 6. The airquality impactanalysis utilized the Scheffe ozone screening tables (September 1988) I for determining the I-hourozone increment attributable to Royal's emissions. Id. The analysis was conducted based on a proposed maximum annual styrene emission rate of25 tpy, reflective ofa production cap of400 pools peryear. Based on the Scheffe screening table for n,ral areas, EECS arrived at a I-hourozone increment of4 pans perbillion (ppb). The airquality impact analysis then added the I-hourozone increment for the Dix facility to the I-hour average ozone baseline for the local area of85 ppb for the years 2003 to 2006. Based on ambientozone data from the nearest monitoring station in Hamilton County, EECS estimated the worst-case onehouraverage ozone impactat 89 ppb. TSD Seclion 6. Although the analysis was based on a proposed maximum annual styrene emission rate of 25 tpy, laterRoyal clarified that the currentCAAPI' application requests a Potential to Emit (PTE) of29.76 tpy. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7. Royal characterized the ozone impactas "negligible". Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8, Tr. at 25-27. Dr. Haberlein elaborated that Royal's actual worst-case I-hourozone increment is much less than 4 ppb, so the characterization of"negligible" is in the sense that4 ppb is the lowestvalue in the Scheffe table. Tr. at 25-27. Dr. Haberlein testified that, in the column ofthe table representing the ratio ofYOM to Ox emissions at the Dix plantas greaterthan 20, "

... you can be a IOO-ton [peryear YOM] source and you'll have the same impact, according to the table." Tr. at 26.
The Agencycharacterized the ozone incrementof4 ppb estimated for Royal's Dix plant as "potentially significant", as is an increase ofas little as 2 ppb (forboth the I-hour and 8-hour averaging period). Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 2. However, the Agency noted that the Scheffe Method is a screeningtechnique and is conservativeby design to be protective ofthe ozone airquality standards. The Agency considers itunrealistic that the maximum predicted ozone increment of4 ppb would occurat the same time as the4th highest 8-hourozone concentration for a given year. The Agency commented that Royal's maximum daily rate (229 Ib/day) based on the PTE of29.76 tpy is not likely to occuron a continuous basis. The Agency points out, "[t]he4 ppb ozone incrementwould notbe attained on days when emissions rates

1The Scheffe ozone screening tables are found in "VOCINOxPoint Source ScreeningTables" by Richard D. Scheffe. USEPA, Qffiee ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Teehnical Support Division, Source ReceptorAnalysis Branch. September 1988. Both Royal and the Agency indicated that the Scheffe procedure is the procedure currently used by the Agency to evaluate ozone impacts for single facility assessments. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8, Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 2, Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 2.15

were less than the maximum daily rate orwhen meteorological conditions werc not conducive to ozone formation" Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 4. evertheless, the Agency calculated that by adding the ozone increment of4 ppb to the 4th highest measured 8-hourozone concentration for the local airmonitor in Hamilton County for the years 2005-2007, the ozone conccntration would be 81 ppb. More importantly, the Agency points out, is the result ifthe 4 ppb ozone increment is added to the 2007-2009 8-hour ozone design value of68 ppb, which yields aconcentration of72 ppb. 2 Ag. Resp. to HOO 10- 2 I-09 at 3, Ag. Resp. to Hearing at2. The Agency nOles thatthis lower 8-hourozone design value reflects cleanerambient air in the more recent years. Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2.
In conclusion, the Agency states, "[t]he potential airquality impact from the adjustcd standard is significant, but it is notexpected to cause orcontribute to violations ofthe 8-hour ozone standard." Ag. Resp. to 

### 1-100 10-21-09 at 3.
OzoneAction Davs
Both Royal and the Agcncy were dirccted to comment on the conccptoflimiting Royal's YOM-emitting operations during Ozone Actions Days. See Haas dated 6-4-2009 and 10-21- 2009. Specifically, the partics were askcd to address any correlation between ozone exceedences in the local monitoring area and Ozone Action Days in the St. Louis (Metro-cast) area. Thc Agency replied that an excecdance ofthe 8-hourozone standard in Hamilton County would likely coincide with exceedances in the Metro-eastarea. Ag. Resp. to 

### 1-100 10-21-09 at4. Regarding the question as to whether the adjusted standard should include acondition limiting Royal's YOM-emitting operations on Ozone Action Days, the Agency replied, "It would be inappropriate to require a single facility amongsta group ofpotentiallycontributing facilities to accept a condition limiting 'YOM emitting operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-hourozone standard.'" Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. Based on the 2007-2009 Hamilton County ozone data, the Agency states that thc area is clearlyin attainment with the 75 ppb 8-hourozone AAQS. The Agency did not favor mandatory limits on YOM-emittingoperations at Royal during Ozone Action Days. Rather, the Agency supports voluntaryactions. Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. Royal also opposed mandatory limits on YOM-emitting operations based on Ozone Action Days as logisticallyunworkable. Royal explains that such conditions would require Royal to monitor ambient conditions and contactemployees on a daily basis to inform them whether to come into work thatday. Royal states that this would impose an unrcasonable burden

2 Pcr40 CFR 51.900(d), the 

### "S-Hollrozonedesign vallie is the 8-hourozone concentration calculated according to 40 CFR part 50, appendix \." Per40 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

### 1.3, the 

### "Design Vailles/orPrimaryandSecondaryAmbientAir QllalityStandards/or Ozone"are calculated as follows: "Thus, for the primary and secondary ozone standards, the 3-yearaverage annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-houraverage ozone concentration is also the airquality design value for the site."16

on a facility which often has 10 or fewer employees working. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8-9, Pel. Br. at 12-13.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW Royal asserts thatgranting ofthe proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Royal states that there is no Clean AirAct equivalent rule orregulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers' emissions ofVOM in excess of8lbs/hr, on a strictlyhourly basis. Royal points outthat regardless, the facility mustcomply with the federal Composites MACT. Am. Pet. at 13-14, Pet. Br. at II. The Agency agrees with Royal that the granting ofthe adjusted standard is consistent with the federal law. The Agency notes that Section 110ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA), 42 U.S.c. Section 74JO grants the individual states the authority to promulgate aplan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcementofairquality standards, subject to USEPA approval. The Agency notes that the CAA also allows the states to revise the implementation plan. The adjusted standard procedure allows the Board to exercise the authority granted to the states by Section 110 ofthe CAA. Ree. at 9. Finally, the Agency states that, ifthe Board adopts the proposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard to USEPA as a State Implementation Plan revision. [d. at 10.
DISCUSSION Royal seeks relieffrom the Board's nile limiting YOM emissions to 8 lblhr (8Ib/hr Rule) in the form ofan adjusted standard. Royal argues that alternatives aimed atcomplying with the 8 Ib/hrrule are nottechnically feasible for Royal's batch-type manufacturing and airpollution controls are noteconomically reasonable due to the high volume air flow. Under separate federal regulation applicable to Royal pursuant to Section 9.I(a) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/9. 1(a) (2008», Royal asserts that the Dix facility is already required to complywith the ESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production which limits HAP emissions from facilities such as Royal's Dix plant. 40 CFRPart 63 Subpart WWWW, 40 CFR §63.5780-63.5935. Royal was required to comply with MACT emission limits under this standard by April 21 ,2006. Rec. at 3, 

### See Table 2 to SubpartWWWW ofPart 63, 68 FR 19380. Accordingly, Royal requests that Section 215.301 not apply to theiroperations. The Agency recommends that the Board grant Royal the requested reliefsubject to certain conditions. Ifgranted, the adjusted standard would apply only to the swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spraybooths) at Royal's Dix plant. In the following sections, the Board discusses each of the Section 28.1 factors that petitioners mustdemonstrate in ordertojustifytheirrequested adjusted standard and reaches findings on them.
Substantiallv Different Factors The Board adopted the 8 Iblhr Rule for YOM emissions as Rule 205(1) in Emissions Standards, R71-23 on April 14, 1972. As noted by Royal, the primary intentofthe 8lb/hrRule was to "achieve and maintain compliance with the federal airquality standard for photochemical oxidants (0.08 ppm for one hour not more than once peryear, 36 Fed. Reg.22385, ov.25, 1971) and to prevent local nuisances." 

### See Emission Standards, R71-23 at4-336. While the17

Board found that most sources would be able to comply with 8 Iblhr Rule, the Board recognized that the control costwould be very high forcertain industries with the large volumes ofexhaust gas orthe low value ofthe product to be recovered. 

### !d. at4-339. As such, the Board exempted certain sources such as fuel combustion emission sources from the 8 Iblhr Rule. However, in adopting the 8 IblhrRule, the Board did notcontemplate compliance issues associated with an industry such as Royal, which uses abatch-type process coupled with high flow rate ventilation system.The Board notes that in adopting the 8 Iblhr Rule, the Board also did nOI contemplate the manufacture oflarge parts, such as storage tanks and swimming pools that necessitate the batchtype process. In this regard, Dr. Haberlein testified that the 8 Iblhr Rule is actually a deterrent to new large part manufacturers moving into Illinois. Tr. at44. Dr. Haberlein testified that "people want to build wind blades. People want to build underground storage tanks. People want to build large boats, orwill hopefully someday want to build large boats again in this state. You can't do any ofthat in composites in 

### Illinois." Jd. Dr. Haberlein states "I've had at leastone company come to me that wanted to site a wind blade facility here, and Itold them, don't do it because you'll be in front ofthe Board and it's going to costyou $50,000, and so they wenIto North Dakota." !d. He maintains that the 8 IblhrRule has "created a barrier for anybody to make large composites parts in the state ofIJIinois that's impossible to meet." 

### !d. Royal also questions the Agency's stricthourly interpretation ofdemonstration of compliance, which requires compliance to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis and not on an average from any longerperiod oftime. Am. Pet. at 1-2. Royal states "Afterconsidering the information presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 IblhrRule to Royal's operation on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden". Jd. at 2. Further, Royal's evaluation ofcompliance alternatives, which are discussed below, indicate thatnone ofthe evaluated alternatives are technically feasible oreconomically reasonable. In this regard, Royal estimates the cost effectiveness forcontrolling YOM emissions at the Dix plant to be $18,400 perton oftIAP (styrene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. The Board notes that this is significantly higherthan the estimated average cost ofthe Composites MACT rule ofS2,800 perton HAP removed forexisting sources. 68 FR 19382. The Board further notes prevention ofozone formation and nuisance odoratRoyal's Dix plant is now addressed by the federal Composites MACT, which was not in existence when the Board adopted the 8 Iblhr Rule. The record indicates that the Dix plant has been in compliance with the Composites MACT sinceJune 2006.
In lightofthe above, the Board finds that the issues concerning the control ofYOM emissions at Royal's Dix plant were not anticipated when the Board promulgated the 8 Iblhr Rule in 1972. Therefore, the Board finds that factors relating to petitioners are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to petitioner.18

Efforts to Achieve Compliance and Alternatives
As noted above, Royal'sjustification for the requested reliefis based on the lack ofan economicallyreasonable or technically feasible alternative. Royal evaluated several options to comply with the 8 IblhrRule on a strict hourly basis, including: (I) reducingYOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. The evaluation found that add-on emissions control utilizing regenerative thernlal oxidation (RTO) was the only technically feasible option availablc forRoyal to comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis. Royal has already reduced YOM concentration in Royal's production material in compliance with the Composites MACT and considered alternative operating procedures and methods. Regarding add-on controls, Royal estimates the cost effectiveness ofusing askid mounted RTO to be $18,400 perton ofHAP (styrene and MMA). This high cost, Royal argues, makes the use ofRTO atthe Dix plant economicallyunreasonable. Further, Royal maintains that the Composites MACT does not rcquire that require add-on controls [orfacilities such as the Dix plant. The Agency concurs with Royal's position regardingcompliance alternative analysis.
The Board agrees with Royal that requiring Royal to install skid mounted RTO to comply with the 81blhr Rule would impose an unreasonable economic burden, especially since such controls are not required by the Composites MACT. In developing the Composites MACT, the USEPA stated, "[t]he floors for existing sources are mainly based onpollution prevention, not add-on controls." 68 FR 19377. USEPA found that facilities producing large parts, such as storage tanks and swimming pools, "presented different technical issues from facilities that have successfully incorporated 95 % capture and control." 68 FR 19387. USEPA "detenmined that capture and control was not the appropriate floor for large parts manufacturers, the floors for these specific operations are now the same as the floors for existing operation, which are emission limits based on the use oflow-HAP materials and nonatomized resin application." 

### ld. Regarding otheroptions, the Board notes that Royal has already reduced YOM content in the production materials and considered alternative operating procedures and methods. Further, Royal has committed to investigateproduction methods, materials, and tcchnologies thatmay reduce YOM emissions at Royal's Dix plant. Thus, the Board finds thatthe efforts beyond those Royal has already implemented to comply with the Composites MACTare notcurrently technically feasible oreconomicallyreasonable. Impact on the Environment
As noted earlier, the primary impactofYOM emissions from Royal's Dix plant is whether such emissions cause orcontribute to violations ofthe 8-hourozone standard. Royal relies on an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Royal's consultant. The environmental impact is assessed by adding the ozone increment attributable to operations atthe Dix plant to the 4th highestmeasured I-hourozone concentration for the years 2003-2006 in Hamilton County. Royal then compares the resulting 89 ppb to a I-hourozone standard of 125 ppb, stating, "[t]heworst-case one-houraverage ozone impact is still only 74% ofthe one-hourozone standard." Am. Pel. at 10, TSD Section 6. Royal acknowledges thatUSEPA replaced thc I-hour19

average ozone standard with an 8-houraverage ozone standard in 2005. Ilowever, Royal believes the hourly calculation of89 ppb is "useful given the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 8 Ibfhr Rule." Am. Pel. at 10. NAAQS for Ozone
In July 1997, USEPA reviscd the ozone AAQS, "by replacing the existing primary 1- houraverage standard with an 8-houraverage

## a) [ozone] standard set at a level of0.08 ppm, which is equivalent to 0.084 ppm using the standard rounding conventions." 73 FR 16437, March 27, 200

. EffectiveJune 15,2005, USEPA revoked the I-hourozone standard) for all areas with effective 8-hourozone designations, except the 8-hourozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas. 70 FR44471, August 3, 2005. Per40 CFR §81.314, "[t]he 1- hourozone standard is revoked effectiveJune 15,2005 for all areas in Illinois. The Jersey Co. and SI. Louis areas are maintenance areas for the I-hour AAQS forpurposes of40 CFR Part 51 Subpart X.,,4 In March 2008, the 8-hourozone standard was strengthened from 0.08 ppm, set in 1997, to alevel of0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008. The Board notes that Royal's Air Quality ImpactAnalysis relied on the I-hourozonc increment provided by the Scheffe method to assess the impactin terms ofthe I-hourozone standard instead ofthe 8-hourstandard. When questions were posed in the Board's Hearing OfficerOrder (6-4-09) whetheran 8-hourozone increment could be determined, Royal replied that the Scheffe method, "is not mathematically compatible with assessments ofeight-hour average impacts." Pel. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8. The Agency also responded, stating that USEPA has notprovided any more recent guidance to address ozone impacts on an 8-hourbasis, so the Agency still uses the Scheffe method for single sources. The Agency indicated the Scheffe method "does not specify the estimation ofan 8-hourozone increment from the I-hour ozone incremenl." Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at2. Regarding the possibility ofapplying a scaling factor to the I-hour incrementto achieve an 8-hourincrement, Dr. Haberlein testified that USEPA has notprovided any guidance regarding scaling airquality impacts from aone-hour impact to an eight-hour impact forozone. Tr. at 30-31. The Agency stated, "[t]heAgency does notendorse the use ofscaling factors that are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type assumptions for estimatingalternative averaging time concentrations ofpollutants that are secondarily formed." HOO 10-21-09 at 2-3, Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2. The Board notes that Ozone is a secondarily fomled pollutanl. Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at2. Dr. Haberlein added thatozone formation is not chemically stable, but rather highly reactive, and that photochemical models for ozone are very different from the Gaussian plume dispersion models. Tr. at29-30.
) The I-hourozone standard was 0.12 parts permillion (ppm), and the national 8-hourstandard was 0.80 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9, 50.10. 4 Per40 CFR §51 Subpart X, 51.900(k), 

### "Mailltellallcearea/orthe I-hourNAAQS means an area that was designated nonattainment for the I-hour AAQS on orafterNovember 15, 1990 and was redesignated to attainment for the I-hour NAAQS subject to a maintenance plan as required by section 175A ofthe CAA."20

To address the airquality impact ofRoyal's operations on attainmentofthe 8-hourozone standard, the Board notes that the Agency continues to rely on the 4 ppb ozone increment from the Scheffe method. However, instead ofadding the ozone increment to the I-houraverage ozone baseline for the local area as Royal does, the Agency adds the 4 ppb to the 8-hourozone design value of68 ppb for Hamilton County from the years 2007-2009. With these values, the Agency arrives at a combined ozone incrementand ozone design value of72 ppb. Ag. Resp. to HOO J0-21-09 at 3, and Ag. Resp. to Hearing al 2. Based on this, the Agency concludes thaI the adjusted standard "is not expected to cause orcontribute to violations ofthe 8-hourozone standard." Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 3.
OzoneAction Davs
As mentioned earlier, Royal was directed to address possible operational controls on production at Royal's Dix plant to reduce YOM emissions during Ozone Action Days in the Metro East area. HOO 6-4-09 at 7, HOO J0-21-09 at 3-6. Although the Agency supports voluntary actions, the Agency Slates, "It would be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group ofpotentially contributing facilities to accept a condition limiting 'YOM emitting operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-hourozone standard.'" Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. Based on the 2007-2009 Hamilton County ozone data, the Agency states thatthe area is clearly in attainmentwith the 75 ppb 8-hourozone NAAQS and no change is imminent. Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5, Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at I. The Agencyhas indicated that ifthe adjusted standard is granted, the terms will be submitted to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at I. The Agency further states, "Ifmonitoring data show a violation ofthe ozone AAQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that considers all contributing sources to nonattainment would properly address this matter." Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at I. Operational Limits Royal states that the potential maximum facility-wide hourly YOM emission rate is 156.70 Ibslhr

.. This corresponds to simultaneous gelcoatapplications to Royal's two greatest YOM-emitting pool molds at 78.55 and 78.15 Ibs/hr. Am. Pet. at5, Exh. 2. Royal was asked whether itwould be willing to initiate an operating procedure thatwould limit gelcoat application and curing to one pool at atime to comply with 8 Ib/hrRule. HOO 6-4-09. Royal responded that the facility has no such operating procedure inplace and would be opposed one like this. Royal explained that hourly emissions would notbe significantly reduced because waiting to gelcoatthe second pool afterthe first would simplyresult in the fir tpool receiving the resin application (which also generates YOM emissions) while the second pool is being gelcoated. Additionally, Royal points outthat such operational limits would make it very difficult to produce400 pools peryear, would increaseproduction costs, and would be impractical for Royal to demonstrate compliance. Pel. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at4.21

Board Finding The record indicates thal granting the adjusted standard would notresult in adverse impacton airquality in terms ofexceedance ofthe ozone NAAQS. Although reliance on the Scheffc method may not be the mostappropriate way to determine the impactofRoyal's YOM emissions on the 8-hourozone standard, the Board finds the Agency's reliance on the Scheffe method to be acceptable given the lack ofany guidance from theUSEPA. As noted above, the Agency's analysis ofusing the Scheffe method shows that granting ofthe adjusted standard is notexpected to cause orcontribute to violations ofthe 8-hourozone standard. Also, the Board notes thatthe Composites MACT addresses control ofYOM emissions from Royal's Dix plant. Additionally, the Board expects Royal to continue efforts to further reduce YOM emissions to achieve compliance with the generally applicable YOM limitation. To this end, as proposed by the Royal, the Board will require Royal to continue efforts to reduce YOM emissions from operations at the Dix plant. Lastly, regarding thc issue ofpotential operational limits orcontrols on ozone action days, the Board agrees with the Agency that singling out the Royal facility foroperational limits would be inappropriate since all contributing sources should be considered underthe SIP ifthere is a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS. In light ofthe above, the Board finds thatgranting the adjusted standard would not result in advcrse impact on airquality as itrelates to exceedance ofthe ozone AAQS. Consistency with Federal Law
As noted by the Agency, the Board has the authority under Section I10 ofthe CAA to the Board to adoptregulations, which are part ofthe State'splan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcementofairquality standards (the SIP). Further, the Board notes that following the adjusted standard procedureto revise a Board regulation on site-specific basis is consistentwith the authority granted to the states underthe Section 110 ofthe CAA. Also ifthe Board adopts the proposed adjusted standard, the Agencywill submitthe adjusted standard as SIP revision to USEPA. Thus, the Board finds thatgranting petitioners the requested relieffrom the 8 Iblhr Rule at Section 215.301 is consistent with federal law. Section 28.I(cl Summary The Board finds that Royal has provided adequate proof in accordance with Section 28.1 (c) ofthe Act that: (I) factors relating to itare substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation; (2) the existence ofthese factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard will notcause substantially or significantly more adverse environmental or health effects than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent with applicable federal laws. 415 ILCS 5/28. 1(c) (2008).22

Conditions
The conditions ofthe adjusted standard proposed by Royal were substantively the same as tho e proposed by the Agency, with one exception. The conditions require Royal to operate in compliance with the federal standards for the Clean AirAct, its CAAPP permit, and the

ESI-IAP for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing facilities in lieu ofthe Illinois 8 Iblhr standard. In addition, both Royal and the Agcncy proposed conditions requiring Royal to: (I) continuc to investigate swimming pool production methods with areduced YOM content and, where practicable, substitute currentcoatings with lower YOM contentcoatings so long as the substitution does not result in higherYOM emissions; (2) perfoml any reasonable test ofncw production methods ormaterials that the Agency requests in writing that they do; and (3) submit an report summarizing the activities and results oftheir investigations.
The Agency's recommendation contains one additional condition that Royal did not include. Specifically, the Agency proposed, "[t]he reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as ofthe date ofthis filing." Rec. at7. Afterdiscussion, the Agency and Royal came to agreement on the proposed language ofthe adjusted standardconditions as follows: The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, atRoyal's Dix facility. Ag. Br. at 1-2.
In granting this adjusted standard, the Board is adopting conditions similar, but not identical in wording, to those suggested by the parties. The changes are non-substantive, and are intended to bring this orderinto conformity with the Board's usual drafting style in adjusted standards.

The Board finds that Royal has provided sufficientjustification for an adjusted [rom the 8 Iblhr Rule at Section 215.301 as that rule applies to Royal's facility in Dix, Jefferson County and therefore grants Royal the requested adjusted standard, subject to conditions. Royal remains subject to the NESHAP applicable to its facility. The reliefis effective as ofthe date ofthis order

. This opinion constitutes thc Board's findings offact and conclusions oflaw. ORDER
I. Pursuantto Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code215.301 (8lblhr Rule), effective February 18, 2010. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material (YOM) into thc atmosphere fTOm Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility23

at 312 Duncan Lanc, Dix, Jeffcrson County.
2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does notapply. Royal remains subject to the following:

a. Royal mustcontinue to investigate swimming pool production methods that generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that havc a reduced YOM content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current materials with lowerYOM contcnt materials as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase in YOM emissions.
b. Royal must perform any reasonable lest ofnew technologically or economically reasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the flIinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specificallyrequests in writing thattheydo.

c. Afterperfomlance ofsuch tests, Royal mustprepare and submit an annual report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts in (a) and (b) above. The report mustbe submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
d. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean AirAct(42 U.S.c. §7401 

### elseq.), Royal's Clean AirActPermit Program permit, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future and as required by Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/9.I(a) (2008), the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and any otherapplicable regulation.

e. The reliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, atRoyal's Dix facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) ofthe Environmental Protection Actprovides that final Board orders may be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2008); 

### see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 cstablishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 TIl. 2d R. 335. The Board's procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days afterthe order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### 101.520; seealso 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.24


### T, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Jllinois Pollution Control Board, certify thatthe Board adopted the above opinion and orderon February 18,20I0, by a vote of4- O.

John Therriault, AssistantClerk l1linois Pollution Control BoardSENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION I • Complete hems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete I Item 4 IfReslr1cted Delivery Isdesired. I • Print your nama and address on the reverse 

### I SO that we can return the card to you.

• Attach thiscardto thoback01the mallploco, or on the front tf space permits.
1. ArtlcIeAddr"-'o: 2/18/10 

# e.:!,

. AS 2009-004 Brandon W. NeuschaCer Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis. MO 63102-2750 COMPLETETHIS SECTIONON DEUVERY A Slgnature X 

# ,6", j-' 

# g:.....
B. Rec_ by (PrintedNIJ«"'J 

# Ie. Oat.**~'Jvo<y** 

## / f.c. C V L 

# 1. 2..!> ./D D. IsdaUvoryaddress dlfferentfrom ltem1? 0 Yes tfYES, ontO( deliVeryaddress below: 0 No

3. _Typo Mall 0 Expn>so M>JI 

### o R8g1at..... 0 -."

_ torMe<cI1andlsa 

### o Insunld Mall 0 C.O.D. , 4. Reslr1ctad Dellvet)'? (Extm Hle) 0 Yes 

### I
2. Artlcle Numb« (IronslerfromstJlVlcelabel) 7009 0960 0000 5942 1781 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Clomeotlc Relum Receipt3.

# SoMce""" 'It.certffled Moll 0 Exproos M&l 

## b Registered 0 Return ReeelpttorMfJfChondfee 

### o Insured Mall 0 C.O.D. • Complete**~ems** 1. 2. and 3. Also complete**~em** 4 if Restr1c1ed Delivery Is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse

SOthat we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the backof the mailplece.

or on thefront Ifspace permits. 

### \-----------,-=-=..,,------

....1.1 D. IsdeIive<y

_ <Off""",, from Item 11 0 'I\>s

1. MieleAddressed to: 2/J8/1 0 B.M• If YES. onlo, dollve<yaddnlSS below: 0 No

II 

### AS 2009-004

Dale A. 

### Guariglia Beyan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Squaee 211 North Broadway. Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

4. Rostl1etod De/lvorj? {Extta -i 0 Ves 2. ArUde Number (T,.."slerfrom_1BbeI) 

### 7009 0960 0000 5942 1774 PS Form3811 ,February 2004 DomestJc Ro_ R_t