IEPA ATTACHMENT NO d3

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 18, 20 I0

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 ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC.

and

CHARLES E. MATOESIA APPEARED 0 BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS

ENYIRO ME TAL PROTECTIO AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF TI-IE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):

On April 3, 2009, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) filed a petition for an adjusted

standard from 35 III. Adm. Code 215.30 I of the Board's air pollution regulations, commonly

known as the "8 Iblhr Rule." Royal filed an amended petition on July 17,2009. Royal seeks

relief from the 8 Ib/hr Rule as the rule applies to the emissions of volatile organic material

(YOM) from Royal's fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan

Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. In the petition, Royal requested a hearing, which was held October

28,2009. The T\Iinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation that

the Board grant Royal's petition on August 20, 2009.

In this opinion, the Board first sets forth the legal framework within which the Board

determines whether to issue adjusted standards under Section 28.1 of the Environmental

Protection Act (Act) (415 lLCS 5/28.1 (2008». ext, the Board provides the procedural history,

and the factual background of the case. The Board then describes the applicable standard of

review, the generally applicable standard, and the petitioners' requested relief. After presenting

the applicable standard ofreview, the Board examines the record regarding the four statutory

factors petitioners must demonstrate. This examination is followed by the Board's discussion of

the statutory standards before reaching its conclusions on each of them.

Based on the record before it, the Board finds that Royal has provided sufficient

justification for each of the Section 28.1 factors. Accordingly, the Board grants Royal an

adjusted standard from the 8 Iblhr Rule subject to conditions outlined in this order.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD

The Act (4 I5 ILCS 5/1 el seq. (2008» and Board rules provide that a petitioner 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 of the Act and Section 104.Subpart D of the Board's procedural mles. 415 ILCS

5/28.1 (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.400 et seq.

The Board's procedural rules specify the required contents for the adjusted standard

petition. See 35 TIl. Adm. Code 104.406, 104.416. Once a petition for an adjusted standard is

filed, the Agency must file its recommendation with the Board. See 415 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 of the Act or the Illinois Administrative

Procedure Act (5 ILCS 10011-1 et seq. (2008)). See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 101.202 (defining "adjudicatory proceeding").

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 petitioner to publish notice ofthe petition's filing by advertisement in a newspaper of

general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the proposed adjusted standard. Under

those provisions, publication must take place within 14 days after the petition is filed. The

newspaper notice must indicate that any person may cause a public hearing to be held on the

proposed adjusted standard by filing a hearing 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 of proof in an adjusted standard proceeding is on the petitioner. See 415 ILCS

5/28. I(b), (c) (2008); 35 III. Adm. Code 104.426. Once granted, the adjusted standard, instead of

the rule of general 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 Iblhr Rule, accompanied by a Technical Support Document (TSD), a motion for

expedited review, and motion to appear pro hac vice. On April 24,2009, Royal filed a ''Notice

of Publication of Petition for an Adjusted Standard" indicating that notice of the petition was

published in the Mt. VenlOlI Register News on April 13,2009.

On June 4, 2009, the Board issued an order accepting the petition for hearing, denying

Royal's motion for expedited review, and granting Mr. Guariglia's motion to appear pro hac

vice. Also on June 4, 2009, the Board's Hearing Officer issued an order directing Royal and the

Agency to address prehearing questions. On July 17, 2009, Royal filed a First Amended Petition

(Am. Pet.). On August 6, 2009, the Board issued an order accepting the amended petition for

hearing.

On August 20, 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 October 2, 2009 and October 14,2009, respectively. Pet. Resp. to HOO

6-4-09, Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09.

On October 21, 2009, the Board's Hearing Officer directed 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 October 27, 2009, the

Agency filcd a response to the Hearing Officer's additional prehearing questions. Ag. Resp. to

110010-21-09.

On October 28,2009, Hearing Officer Carol Webb conducted a hearing in this matter at

the c.E. Brehem Memorial Public Library, 101 South 7th Street, Mt. Vernon, Jefferson County.

Three witnesses testified at hearing: Mr. Clifford Hebert, owner ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.;

Robert A. Ilaberiein, Ph.D, consultant for Royal; and Mr. Andrew Russo, Agency's Bureau of

Air. Hearing Officer Webb 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 a post-hearing brief (Pet. Br.). On

December 16,2009, the Agency filed a post-hearing brief accompanied by a motion for leave to

file illslalller (Ag. Br.). The Board grants the Agency's motion to file illstalller the post-hearing

brief.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Board will begin this section by describing the facility and the manufacturing

process of Royal. ext the Board will explain the pollution control equipment in use by Royal

and describe the VOM emissions. This section will conclude with a description of the CAAPP

permit and a violation notice received by Royal.

The Facility

Royal operates a fiberglass swimming pool manufacturing facility where Royal

manufactures 20 different models of fiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3' 10"

deep to 17' wide x 40' 6" long x 8' deep. Am. Pet. at 4. Royal began operations at the Dix plant

in the early I990s, and currently employs approximately 20 people during peak season in

addition to 5 to 10 contract haulers. 1<1. Royal currently produces about 240 pools per year,

however, Royal is anticipating increased production and requested a maximum facility-wide

annual production cap of 400 pools per year in its Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP)

pernlit application filed on July 14,2009. Pet. at 4, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 3, Am. Pet. at 4.

Manufacturing Process

Royal's composite pool manufacturing process starts with a bare waxed mold ofa pool

turned upside down. The mold is sprayed with a thin layer of gelcoat, which later becomes the

inside layer of the finished pool. Over the gelcoat, various layers ofresin and fiberglass are

applied to the mold to provide thickness and strength for the pool. Royal's counsel explains that
4

"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 roller to nallen it and to give it strength ...." Tr. at 10-11, Am. Pel.

at 4.

Royal's swimming pool manufacturing process involves 3 basic steps, all of which

produce YOM emissions that would be subject to the requested adjusted standard: (1) gelcoat

application; (2) barrier coat resin application; and (3) isophthalic structural resin application.

Am. Pel. at 5. Other manufacturing steps that do not produce significant YOM emissions

include: (I) parts finishing; (2) gelcoat and resin cleanup; and (3) mold repair and mold prep.

Am. Pet. at 5.

This petition revolves mainly around the 3 basic steps of applying of gelcoat, barrier coat

resin, and isophthalic structural resin since these processes generate most of Royal's YOM

emissions that are impacted by the 8 lbfhr Rule. The YOM emissions consist primarily of

styrene, but also include small amounts of other 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 plant houses three self-contained rooms (bays) where the composite pool

manufacturing occurs. To control worker exposure 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) applicator gun. This applicator gun is used with an

atomizing gelcoat spray applicator. Am. Pet. at 4. Gelcoat is applied either as a single layer of

white gelcoat or as two layers of translucent gelcoat and regular production gelcoal. Royal states

that the gelcoat used is "the state-of-the-art in low-HAP [hazardous air pollutant] formulations

for swimming pool production." Am. Pet. at 4-5. The white gelcoat contains 27% styrene

monomer and 3% MMA by weight. The two layer gel coats range from 27% - 38% styrene and

3% - 10% MMA. !d.

Barrier Coat Resin Application

Afler the gelcoat has cured, a laminate layer of glass mat and vinyl ester (VE) corrosionresin is applied to the cured gelcoat layer using 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 layer has cured, a series of laminate layers is applied to the curcd resin

layer. The layers consist of chopped glass strand mat (CSM), woven glass roving (WR), and

isophthalic (ISO) corrosion-resistant resin and are applied with a HVLP applicator gun with a

non-atomized applicator. Am. Pel. at 5.
5

Pollution Control Equipment in Use

Royal states that the facility employs the same techniques used by Crownline in

Crownlinc's adjusted standard to control YOM and particulate emissions (see In the Maller of:

Petition ofCrownline Boats. Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30 I, AS

04-1 (July 22. 2004)):

I. booths equipped with dry filter medium to reduce particulate emissions,

2. lower styrene-content gelcoat (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 atomized guns. Pet. Resp. at 5 referring to

Crownline Boats, AS 04-1 Pet. at 5-6.

In the pool manufacturing facility, Royal uses a 35,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) crossflow ventilation system to control worker exposure to styrene. The ventilation system exhausts

air from the work areas to the outside through a 36-foot tall vertical stack. Am. Pet. at 1.

In the gelcoat application processes, Royal uses the following: (I) high-volume lowpressure (HYLP) fluid impingement technology (FIT) applicator gun that is operated as an

atomizing gelcoat spray gun and (2) gelcoat that is "state-of-the-art in low-HAP formulations for

swimming pool production." Am. Pet. at 4-5. In the resin application process, Royal uses the

same applicator gun operated with a different tip and pressure to allow for non-atomized

application. Pet. at 5. The resin applicators were converted to non-atomized applicators as part

ofMACT compliance since they were low-emitting and reduced the amount of overspray,

resulting in less solid and hazardous waste generated. Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at I.

Royal also adopted work practice 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 of acetone in resin and gelcoat cleanup, which has

no HAP or YOM emissions. Am. Pet. at 5, Pet. at 5. Royal states that the YOM content of the

gelcoats and resins is also MACT compliant. Am. Pet. at 6, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5.

Although not required by MACT, Royal has also eliminated all colored backcoat gelcoats, now

using just white, 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 Iblhr Rules are primarily

generated during the application of gelcoat, barrier coat resin, and isophthalic structural resin.

Royal characterized the YOM emissions as variable depending on the type and size of each

swimming pool manufactured. The YOM emissions from the Dix plant consist mainly of
6

styrene, but also include smaller amounts of other VOMs and volatile organic HAP such as

MMA and MEKP. Am. Pet. at 5, Pel. Resp. at 5. Royal estimates the avcrage YOM emissions

per pool as follows: 53.8 Ib/pool from gelcoating and 94.4 Ib/pool from resin application, with a

total average YOM of 148.8 Ib/pool. Am. Pet. at 5. The estimates for the resin application

include YOM emissions from the both the barrier coat resin and isophthalic stmctural resin

applications.

On an hourly basis for a single pool, Royal estimates a maximum gelcoat YOM emission

rate of78.55 Ibs/hr and a maximum 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 for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tons per year (tpy)

and 11.6 tpy, respectively, when maximum pool production was estimated at 250 pools per year.

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 a proposed cap of 400 pools per

year. Am. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2. With emissions greater than 10 tpy of a single HAP, Royal is a

major HAP source. Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 1-100 at 3.

CAAPP Permit

Royal submitted an application for a CAAPP permit in November of2004 and later

submitted a modification to its application on July 14,2009. Royal notes that a pemlit has not

yet bccn issued. Am. Pet. at I. Royal notes that the Agency has rejected the use of averaging to

demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Since that mle specifies a maximum hourly

emission rate, the Agency believes that compliance demonstration must be based on a strict

hourly basis and not on an average from a longer time period. ld.

Violation Notice

Royal received a Violation otice issued by the Agency on January 10,2006 that listed a

single violation of35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.30 I, which limits the discharge of YOM emissions

from an emission source to 8 Ib/hr (8 Ib/hr Rule). Pet. Attach. 3 at ). Royal met with the

Agency and in tum worked with an environmental consultant to determine the amounts of YOM

emitted during the manufacture of various pools that Royal constructs. Royal became aware that

the Agency does not allow the use of averaging to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule.

Since that mle specifies a maximum hourly emission rate, the Agency believes that compliance

demonstration must be based on a strict hourly basis. By working with the consultant to

determine the amounts of YOM emitted during manufacturing, Royal found that the hourly

YOM emissions from some ofits operations did not appear to 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 a discussion of applicable 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 or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kgfhr (8 Ibslhr) of

organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as

provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If

no odor nuisance exists the limitation 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/hr Rule, was initially adopted by the

Board as Rule 205(!) in In the Maller of Air Pollution Control Regulations - Emission Standards,

R71-23 (Apr. 14, 1972). Rule 205 was re-codified as 35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 at 7111. Reg.

13601, Corrected at 7 Ill. Reg. 14575. For purposes of complying with the 81blhr Rule, the

Agency has indicated that averaging is not acceptable and that compliance must be demonstrated

on a strict hourly basis. Am. Pet. at 1-2, Rec. at 2.

Federal

Under separate federal regulation, Royal is already subject to the National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NEStJAP) for reinforced plastic composite

manufacturing facilities. Pet. at 2; citing 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW, 40 C.F.R. 63.5780-

63.5935. Subpart WWWW is the U ational Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Reinforced Plastic Composites Production", and the compliance date was April 21, 2006. Rec.

at 3, see Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63, 68 FR 19380. Under Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act,

EStJAP rules are applicable in Illinois and enforceable under the Act without additional

rulemaking activity by the Board. 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (a) (2008).

Subpart WWWW applies to new and existing reinforced plastic composites production

facilities and regulates the use ofthermoset resins and gelcoats, which emit HAPs such as

styrene and MMA. 68 FR 19375. The requirements take the form of HAP emissions limits,

operating limits, and work practice standards. 68 FR 19378. Requirements for new and existing

sources below the 100 tpy threshold are based on the MACT floor level of control. !d. The

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) explains, U[t]he MACT floor is the

minimum control level allowed for NESHAP." For Subpart 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

a major HAP 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 approximately 435 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. Pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS

5/28.1), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.20 I ("8 Ib/hr Rule"), effective __,20 IO. The

adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic material ("VOM")

into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility located

in Dix, Illinois.

2. 35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply. Royal remains subject to the

following:

a. Royal must continue to investigate: (a) swimming pool production

methods that generate fewer YOM emissions, and (b) materials that have a

reduced YOM content and/or are compliant with the Composites MACT

HAP content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current materials

with lower YOM content materials as long as such substitution does not

result in a net increase in YOM emissions.

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

economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the

open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce

YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental

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

After performance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report

summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory cfforts. The

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

Enforcement Section.

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

Air Act Permit Program permit (once issued), the ational Emissions

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite

Manufacturing Facilities, set forth in 40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart WWWW.as

required by Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act, and any oUler applicable 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 at 40 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

Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set

forth at 40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future,

shall be in lieu of compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Section 215.30 I.

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 of new technologically or

economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the openmold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOM emissions

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

After performance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report

summarizing the activities and results of these investigatory efforts. The report

must be submitted to the Illinois EPA, Bureau of Air, Compliance and

Enforcement Section.

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

Royal's Dix facility as ofthe date of this filing.

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

the ational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40

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

Illinois Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not

otherwise discussed herein. 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 staff asked the Agency to clarify whether the

Agency's proposed condition (d) was intended to limit the types of emissions activities or the

level or amount of emissions. Tr. at 47-48. The Agency clarified that the condition was meant

only to limit the type of emissions activities, i.e., fiberglass pool manufacturing at the Dix

facility. The Agency noted that the level and amount of emissions are to be in compliance with

the proposed pern1it conditions, which include an annual production cap of 400 pools. Ag. Resp.
10

to Hearing at I. Royal responded in opposition to proposed condition (d) on the grounds that the

condition is unclear on 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 relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool

manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as of August 20,

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 of general applicability

at35 III. Adm. Code 215.301 does not specify a level ofjustification for an adjusted standard.

Am. Pet. at4; Rec. at 8. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.1 (c) ofthe Act, the burden of proof is

on the petitioner to demonstrate that:

I. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly

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

regulation applicable to that petitioner;

2. The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;

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

sub tantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by

the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and

4. The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415

ILCS 5/28.I(c) (2008); 3511I. Adm. Code 104.426(a).

SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS

Royal states that the primary intent ofthe 8 Ib/hr Rule was to prevent ozone formation

and odor nuisance. Royal asserts that the Board did not contemplate the methods Royal uses to

manufacture swimming pools at the Dix plant when the Board promulgated the 8 Ib/hr Rule in

1971. Am. Pet. at II. Royal explains that manufacturing large parts such as swimming pools is

necessarily a batch-type process rather than a typical continuous application used for other

products. !d. Royal's investigation of alternatives found inherent limitations in the

manufacturing process that precluded the use of alternative manufacturing methods. Am. Pet. at

6,7-9. As to add-on air pollution controls, as noted above, Royal argues that the ventilation

system Royal uses to comply with Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA)

worker protection regulation at29 CFR §191 0 makes the use of add-on emission controls

economically unreasonable. Royal maintains that the Board did not anticipate the batch-type

process used for manufacturing large composite parts coupled with the requirement to meet the
II

OSHA standard for styrene exposure through engineering controls when adopting the 8 Ib/hr

Rule in 1971. Am. Pet. at II.

Another significantly different factor Royal notes is that Royal is not aware of any other

swimming pool manufacturing operations in lIIinois. From a business perspective, Royal

concludes that without the adjusted standard, Royal will either be forced out of business because

ofthe high cost of compliance 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 conflict with the primary intent of the 8 lb/hr

Rule to prevent ozone formation and odor nuisance. The Air Quality Impact Analysis indicates

that Royal's emissions would not cause a violation ofthe ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). Additionally, Royal has a 36ft. tall stack to exhaust emissions 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 comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule 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 that many ofthe alternatives

investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis. Am.

Pet. at 6.

Reducing VOM in Production Materials

Royal states that the VOM concentration in the production materials for gelcoat and resin

has already been reduced in compliance with the Composites MACT. However, using

production materials that comply with the Composites MACT will not be sufficient to reduce

emissions levels to meet the 8 Ib/hr Rule. Royal worked with suppliers to inquire about the

feasibility of using lower YOM-content production materials. Royal found that lowering the

styrene content in the resins below the current level used to comply with the Composites MACT

is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining acceptable product integrity. Am. Pet.

at 6. From suppliers, Royal understands that the lower VOM resin materials do not provide

adequate corrosion protection for high quality swimming pool parts. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09

at 5.

Royal states that the gelcoat used at the facility is already "state-of-the-art and contains

the lowest feasible monomer contents of27% styrene and 3% MMA." Am. Pet. at 7. In

addition, Royal ceased using a clear gelcoat which had a higher YOM content than the "state-ofthe-art" white gelcoat Royal currently uses. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5.

Using Alternative Operating Procedures and Methods

As a part of Royal's investigation into compliance alternatives, Royal examined the

gelcoating process at the Dix plant, and considered ways to reduce the hourly YOM emissions
12

rate. Royal states that Royal found limitations inherent in the facility's processes that precluded

the use of any 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 gelcoat cannot

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 must be applied to the mold

with an atomizing applicator. While non-atomizing applicator that reduces gelcoat emissions

rate is available, Royal states that non-atomizing equipment for the gelcoat would not provide an

acceptable surface finish. Royal adds that the 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 monomer contents 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 of add-on air

pollution controls. Royal notes that US EPA found that add-on air pollution controls are not cost

effective at most cxisting composite facilities. Royal maintains that USEPA found that add-on

controls with 95 % control efficiency would only be cost effective for new facilities that emit

more than 100 tpy of HAP or new facilities that produce large parts such as swimming pools

with HAP cmissions greater than 250 tpy. Royal notes that the Dix plant emits less than 12 tpy

ofI-LAPs. Am. Pet. at 7. evertheless, Royal summarized add-on air pollution control options

detailed in a 2000 study submitted to USEpA as part of the promulgation ofthe Composites

MACT rule entitled, "Feasibility and Cost ofthe Capture and Control of Hazardous Air Pollutant

Emissions from the Open Molding of Reinforced Plastic Composites." Am. Pet. at 7-8. The

summary listed commercially available air pollution controls and assessed the feasibility of cach

at the Dix plant: absorption, adsorption, biodigestion, condensation, flare, oxidation, and

preconcentration with regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO). Of the options, only RTO was

considered technically feasiblc for Royal, however, RTO was also considered economically

infeasible. Am. Pet. at 8.

Royal commissioned the author of the study, Engineering Environmental Consulting

Services (EECS), to prepare an analysis for the cost of a 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

cost of over $470,000, the cost effectiveness of an RTO system would be $ I8,400 per ton of

HAP (styrene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. Royal slates the annual operating cost

alone is several times greater than 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 a high air flow ventilation system to comply with the

OSIIA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR §1910 for styrene. At hearing, Royal's witness

Dr. Haberlein, testified that OSHA requires the use of engineering controls, such as the high air

flow ventilation system, to control exposure to workers. At the Dix plant, Royal is required to

use engineering controls rather than rely on personal protective equipment, such as a selfcontained breathing apparatus, to control worker exposure. Tr. at 54. Consequently, any add-on

air pollution control options that Royal evaluated needed to be able to handle the high air flow.

The RTO system in the cost analysis 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 of using 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 MACT by

February 2006. Royal meets the MACT emission standards by using the HAP emissions factor

averaging option. Am. Pet. at 5-6, citing 40 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 of overspray 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, but has not yet received a response. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7.

USEPA estimated that the Composites MACT will reduce HAP emissions by an average

of 43% industry-wide. Am. Pel. at 5-6. USEPA also estimates there are approximately 435

existing major source facilities that will be subject to the federal rule 40 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 reporting costs.

68FR 19381.

Royal stated that Royal spent approximately $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

spent nearly $10,000 to establish a system to track, record, and report the facility's emissions

under the Composites MACT standard. On an annual basis, Royal spends $1,500 per year to

track and report emissions. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 6.

Summarv

Royal argues that the evaluation of compliance alternatives has shown that the

alternatives are neither economically reasonable nor technically 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 reliefjustifies the grant of an

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 not result in an increase in emissions on a per unit

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 that the proposed adjusted standard

will not interfere with Royal's federal compliance efforts. Am. Pet. at 10.
14

The Agency adds that Jefferson County, where the Dix plant is located, is currently in

attainment with the Ozone NAAQS, and no change is imminent. Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09.

Air Qualitv Impact Analvsis

Royal commissioned EECS to conduct a "worst-case air quality ozone impact analysis of

the maximum VOC emissions from the Royal Pools facility in Dix, l1Iinois". TSD Section 6.

The air quality impact analysis utilized the Scheffe ozone screening tables (September 1988) I for

determining the I-hour ozone increment attributable to Royal's emissions. Id. The analysis was

conducted based on a proposed maximum annual styrene emission rate of25 tpy, reflective of a

production cap of 400 pools per year. Based on the Scheffe screening table for n,ral areas,

EECS arrived at a I-hour ozone increment of4 pans per billion (ppb). The air quality impact

analysis then added the I-hour ozone increment for the Dix facility to the I-hour average ozone

baseline for the local area of 85 ppb for the years 2003 to 2006. Based on ambient ozone data

from the nearest monitoring station in Hamilton County, EECS estimated the worst-case onehour average ozone impact at 89 ppb. TSD Seclion 6.

Although the analysis was based on a proposed maximum annual styrene emission rate of

25 tpy, later Royal clarified that the current CAAPI' application requests a Potential to Emit

(PTE) of29.76 tpy. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7.

Royal characterized the ozone impact as "negligible". Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8, Tr.

at 25-27. Dr. Haberlein elaborated that Royal's actual worst-case I-hour ozone increment is

much less than 4 ppb, so the characterization of "negligible" is in the sense that 4 ppb is the

lowest value in the Scheffe table. Tr. at 25-27. Dr. Haberlein testified that, in the column of the

table representing the ratio of YOM to Ox emissions at the Dix plant as greater than 20, "...

you can be a IOO-ton [per year YOM] source and you'll have the same impact, according to the

table." Tr. at 26.

The Agency characterized the ozone increment of 4 ppb estimated for Royal's Dix plant

as "potentially significant", as is an increase of as little as 2 ppb (for both 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 screening technique and is conservative by design to be protective of the

ozone air quality standards. The Agency considers it unrealistic that the maximum predicted

ozone increment of 4 ppb would occur at the same time as the 4th highest 8-hour ozone

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 occur on a continuous basis. The Agency

points out, "[t]he 4 ppb ozone increment would not be attained on days when emissions rates

1 The Scheffe ozone screening tables are found in "VOCINOx Point Source Screening Tables" by

Richard D. Scheffe. USEPA, Qffiee of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Teehnical Support

Division, Source Receptor Analysis 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 or when 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-hour ozone concentration for the local air monitor 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 of 68 ppb, which yields a concentration of 72 ppb. 2 Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-

2 I-09 at 3, Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2. The Agency nOles that this lower 8-hour ozone design

value reflects cleaner ambient air in the more recent years. Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2.

In conclusion, the Agency states, "[t]he potential air quality impact from the adjustcd

standard is significant, but it is not expected to cause or contribute to violations ofthe 8-hour

ozone standard." Ag. Resp. to 1-100 10-21-09 at 3.

Ozone Action Davs

Both Royal and the Agcncy were dirccted to comment on the conccpt of limiting 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-hour ozone standard in Hamilton County would

likely coincide with exceedances in the Metro-east area. Ag. Resp. to 1-100 10-21-09 at 4.

Regarding the question as to whether the adjusted standard should include a condition

limiting Royal's YOM-emitting operations on Ozone Action Days, the Agency replied, "It would

be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group of potentially 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-hour ozone 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

clearly in attainment with the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone AAQS. The Agency did not favor

mandatory limits on YOM-emitting operations at Royal during Ozone Action Days. Rather, the

Agency supports voluntary actions. 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 logistically unworkable. Royal explains that such conditions would require

Royal to monitor ambient conditions and contact employees on a daily basis to inform them

whether to come into work that day. Royal states that this would impose an unrcasonable burden

2 Pcr 40 CFR 51.900(d), the "S-Hollr ozone design vallie is the 8-hour ozone concentration

calculated according to 40 CFR part 50, appendix \." Per 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1.3, the

"Design Vailles/or Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Qllality Standards/or Ozone" are

calculated as follows: "Thus, for the primary and secondary ozone standards, the 3-year average

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is also the air quality

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 that granting of the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal

law. Royal states that there is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting

swimming pool manufacturers' emissions ofVOM in excess of8lbs/hr, on a strictly hourly

basis. Royal points out that regardless, the facility must comply with the federal Composites

MACT. Am. Pet. at 13-14, Pet. Br. at I I. The Agency agrees with Royal that the granting ofthe

adjusted standard is consistent with the federal law. The Agency notes that Section 110 ofthe

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.c. Section 74 JO grants the individual states the authority to

promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air quality 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 of the CAA. Ree. at 9. Finally, the Agency states that, if the

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 relief from the Board's nile limiting YOM emissions to 8 lblhr (8Ib/hr Rule)

in the form of an adjusted standard. Royal argues that alternatives aimed at complying with the 8

Ib/hr rule are not technically feasible for Royal's batch-type manufacturing and air pollution

controls are not economically 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 comply with the ESHAP for

Reinforced Plastics Composites Production which limits HAP emissions from facilities such as

Royal's Dix plant. 40 CFR Part 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 Subpart WWWW of Part 63, 68 FR 19380.

Accordingly, Royal requests that Section 215.301 not apply to their operations. The

Agency recommends that the Board grant Royal the requested reliefsubject to certain conditions.

If granted, the adjusted standard would apply only to the swimming pool manufacturing emission

units (spray booths) at Royal's Dix plant. In the following sections, the Board discusses each of

the Section 28.1 factors that petitioners must demonstrate in order to justify their requested

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 intent ofthe 8lb/hr Rule

was to "achieve and maintain compliance with the federal air quality standard for photochemical

oxidants (0.08 ppm for one hour not more than once per year, 36 Fed. Reg.22385, ov.25,

1971) and to prevent local nuisances." See Emission Standards, R71-23 at 4-336. While the
17

Board found that most sources would be able to comply with 8 Iblhr Rule, the Board recognized

that the control cost would be very high for certain industries with the large volumes of exhaust

gas or the low value of the product to be recovered. !d. at 4-339. As such, the Board exempted

certain sources such as fuel combustion emission sources from the 8 Iblhr Rule. However, in

adopting the 8 Iblhr Rule, the Board did not contemplate compliance issues associated with an

industry such as Royal, which uses a batch-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 of large 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. at 44. Dr. Haberlein testified that "people

want to build wind blades. People want to build underground storage tanks. People want to build

large boats, or will 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 least one company

come to me that wanted to site a wind blade facility here, and I told them, don't do it because

you'll be in front of the Board and it's going to cost you $50,000, and so they wenI to North

Dakota." !d. He maintains that the 8 Iblhr Rule 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 strict hourly interpretation of demonstration of

compliance, which requires compliance to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis and not on an

average from any longer period of time. Am. Pet. at 1-2. Royal states "After considering the

information presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 Iblhr Rule to Royal's

operation on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden". Jd. at 2.

Further, Royal's evaluation of compliance alternatives, which are discussed below,

indicate that none ofthe evaluated alternatives are technically feasible or economically

reasonable. In this regard, Royal estimates the cost effectiveness for controlling YOM emissions

at the Dix plant to be $18,400 per ton oftIAP (styrene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3.

The Board notes that this is significantly higher than the estimated average cost ofthe

Composites MACT rule ofS2,800 per ton HAP removed for existing sources. 68 FR 19382.

The Board further notes prevention of ozone formation and nuisance odor at Royal'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 since June 2006.

In light ofthe above, the Board finds that the issues concerning the control of YOM

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's justification for the requested relief is based on the lack of an

economically reasonable or technically feasible alternative. Royal evaluated several options to

comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis, including: (I) reducing YOM 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

for Royal 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 of using a skid mounted RTO to be $18,400 per ton of HAP

(styrene and MMA). This high cost, Royal argues, makes the use ofRTO at the Dix plant

economically unreasonable. Further, Royal maintains that the Composites MACT does not

rcquire that require add-on controls [or facilities such as the Dix plant. The Agency concurs with

Royal's position regarding compliance 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 on pollution 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 of low-HAP materials and nonatomized resin application." ld.

Regarding other options, 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 investigate production methods, materials, and tcchnologies that may

reduce YOM emissions at Royal's Dix plant. Thus, the Board finds that the efforts beyond those

Royal has already implemented to comply with the Composites MACT are not currently

technically feasible or economically reasonable.

Impact on the Environment

As noted earlier, the primary impact of YOM emissions from Royal's Dix plant is

whether such emissions cause or contribute to violations of the 8-hour ozone 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 at the Dix plant to

the 4th highest measured I-hour ozone concentration for the years 2003-2006 in Hamilton

County. Royal then compares the resulting 89 ppb to a I-hour ozone standard of 125 ppb,

stating, "[t]he worst-case one-hour average ozone impact is still only 74% ofthe one-hour ozone

standard." Am. Pel. at 10, TSD Section 6. Royal acknowledges that USEPA replaced thc I-hour
19

average ozone standard with an 8-hour average ozone standard in 2005. Ilowever, Royal

believes the hourly calculation of 89 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-

hour average standard with an 8-hour average a) [ozone] standard set at a level of 0.08 ppm,

which is equivalent to 0.084 ppm using the standard rounding conventions." 73 FR 16437,

March 27, 200 . Effective June 15,2005, USEPA revoked the I-hour ozone standard) for all

areas with effective 8-hour ozone designations, except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early

Action Compact (EAC) Areas. 70 FR44471, August 3, 2005. Per 40 CFR §81.314, "[t]he 1-

hour ozone standard is revoked effective June 15,2005 for all areas in Illinois. The Jersey Co.

and SI. Louis areas are maintenance areas for the I-hour AAQS for purposes of 40 CFR Part 51

Subpart X.,,4 In March 2008, the 8-hour ozone standard was strengthened from 0.08 ppm, set in

1997, to a level of 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008.

The Board notes that Royal's Air Quality Impact Analysis relied on the I-hour ozonc

increment provided by the Scheffe method to assess the impact in terms ofthe I-hour ozone

standard instead of the 8-hour standard. When questions were posed in the Board's Hearing

Officer Order (6-4-09) whether an 8-hour ozone increment could be determined, Royal replied

that the Scheffe method, "is not mathematically compatible with assessments of eight-hour

average impacts." Pel. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8. The Agency also responded, stating that

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

so the Agency still uses the Scheffe method for single sources. The Agency indicated the

Scheffe method "does not specify the estimation of an 8-hour ozone increment from the I-hour

ozone incremenl." Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 2.

Regarding the possibility of applying a scaling factor to the I-hour increment to achieve

an 8-hour increment, Dr. Haberlein testified that USEPA has not provided any guidance

regarding scaling air quality impacts from a one-hour impact to an eight-hour impact for ozone.

Tr. at 30-31. The Agency stated, "[t]he Agency does not endorse the use ofscaling factors that

are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type assumptions for estimating alternative averaging

time concentrations of pollutants 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 at 2. Dr. Haberlein added that ozone 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. at 29-30.

) The I-hour ozone standard was 0.12 parts per million (ppm), and the national 8-hour standard

was 0.80 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9, 50.10.

4 Per 40 CFR §51 Subpart X, 51.900(k), "Mailltellallce area/or the I-hour NAAQS means an

area that was designated nonattainment for the I-hour AAQS on or after November 15, 1990

and was redesignated to attainment for the I-hour NAAQS subject to a maintenance plan as

required by section 175A of the CAA."
20

To address the air quality impact of Royal's operations on attainment ofthe 8-hour ozone

standard, the Board notes that the Agency continues to rely on the 4 ppb ozone increment from

the Scheffe method. However, instead of adding the ozone increment to the I-hour average

ozone baseline for the local area as Royal does, the Agency adds the 4 ppb to the 8-hour ozone

design value of 68 ppb for Hamilton County from the years 2007-2009. With these values, the

Agency arrives at a combined ozone increment and ozone design value of 72 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 or contribute to violations ofthe 8-hour ozone

standard." Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 3.

Ozone Action 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 of potentially 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-hour ozone standard. '" Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. Based on the 2007-2009

Hamilton County ozone data, the Agency states that the area is clearly in attainment with the 75

ppb 8-hour ozone 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 Agency has indicated that if the 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, "If monitoring 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 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 was asked

whether it would be willing to initiate an operating procedure that would limit gelcoat

application and curing to one pool at a time to comply with 8 Ib/hr Rule. HOO 6-4-09. Royal

responded that the facility has no such operating procedure in place and would be opposed one

like this. Royal explained that hourly emissions would not be significantly reduced because

waiting to gelcoatthe second pool after the first would simply result in the fir t pool receiving

the resin application (which also generates YOM emissions) while the second pool is being

gelcoated. Additionally, Royal points out that such operational limits would make it very

difficult to produce 400 pools per year, would increase production costs, and would be

impractical for Royal to demonstrate compliance. Pel. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 4.
21

Board Finding

The record indicates thal granting the adjusted standard would not result in adverse

impact on air quality in terms ofexceedance ofthe ozone NAAQS. Although reliance on the

Scheffc method may not be the most appropriate way to determine the impact of Royal's YOM

emissions on the 8-hour ozone standard, the Board finds the Agency's reliance on the Scheffe

method to be acceptable given the lack of any guidance from the USEPA. As noted above, the

Agency's analysis of using the Scheffe method shows that granting of the adjusted standard is

not expected to cause or contribute to violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Also, the Board notes that the Composites MACT addresses control of YOM 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 of potential

operational limits or controls on ozone action days, the Board agrees with the Agency that

singling out the Royal facility for operational limits would be inappropriate since all contributing

sources should be considered under the SIP if there is a violation of the ozone NAAQS. In light

of the above, the Board finds that granting the adjusted standard would not result in advcrse

impact on air quality as it relates to exceedance ofthe ozone AAQS.

Consistency with Federal Law

As noted by the Agency, the Board has the authority under Section I 10 ofthe CAA to the

Board to adopt regulations, which are part of the State's plan for implementation, maintenance,

and enforcement of air quality standards (the SIP). Further, the Board notes that following the

adjusted standard procedure to revise a Board regulation on site-specific basis is consistent with

the authority granted to the states under the Section 110 of the CAA. Also if the Board adopts

the proposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard as SIP revision to

USEPA. Thus, the Board finds that granting petitioners the requested relief from 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 it are substantially and significantly different from

the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation; (2) the existence of these

factors justifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard will not cause substantially or

significantly more adverse environmental or health effects than the effects considered by the

Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent

with applicable federal laws. 415 ILCS 5/28. 1(c) (2008).
22

Conditions

The conditions of the 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 Air Act, its CAAPP permit, and the

ESI-IAP for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing facilities in lieu of the 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 a reduced YOM content and,

where practicable, substitute current coatings with lower YOM content coatings so long as the

substitution does not result in higher YOM emissions; (2) perfoml any reasonable test ofncw

production methods or materials that the Agency requests in writing that they do; and (3) submit

an report summarizing the activities and results of their investigations.

The Agency's recommendation contains one additional condition that Royal did not

include. Specifically, the Agency proposed, "[t]he relief granted in this proceeding shall be

limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as ofthe date ofthis filing." Rec. at 7.

After discussion, the Agency and Royal came to agreement on the proposed language of the

adjusted standard conditions as follows:

The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool

manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as of August 20,

2009, at Royal'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 order into conformity with the Board's usual drafting style in adjusted

standards.

The Board finds that Royal has provided sufficient justification 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 relief is effective as of the date of this

order .

This opinion constitutes thc Board's findings offact and conclusions of law.

ORDER

I. Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the 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. Code 215.301 (8lblhr Rule), effective February 18,

2010. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic material

(YOM) into thc atmosphere fTOm Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility
23

at 312 Duncan Lanc, Dix, Jeffcrson County.

2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply. Royal remains subject to the

following:

a. Royal must continue 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 lower YOM contcnt materials as long as such substitution does not

result in a net increase in YOM emissions.

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

economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the

open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce

YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the flIinois Environmental

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

c. After perfomlance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit an annual

report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts

in (a) and (b) above. The report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau

of Air, Compliance and Enforcement Section.

d. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act(42 U.S.c.

§7401 el seq.), Royal's Clean Air Act Permit Program permit, the National

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic

Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart

WWWW, as may be amended in the future and as required by Section

9.1 (a) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/9. I(a) (2008), the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act, and any other applicable regulation.

e. The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool

manufacturing emission units (spray booths) existing as of August 20,

2009, at Royal's Dix facility.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides 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 after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.520; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
24

T, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Jllinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the

Board adopted the above opinion and order on February 18,20 I0, by a vote of 4- O.

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

l1linois Pollution Control Board
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

I • Complete hems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete

I Item 4 If Reslr1cted Delivery Is desired.

I • Print your nama and address on the reverse

I SO that we can return the card to you.

• Attach this card to tho back 01 the 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

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DEUVERY

A Slgnature

X ,6", j-' g:.....

B. Rec_ by (Printed NIJ«"'J Ie. Oat.~'Jvo<y / f.c. C VL 1. 2..!> ./D

D. Is daUvory address dlfferent from ltem1? 0 Yes

tf YES, ontO( deliVery address below: 0 No

3. _Typo

Mall 0 Expn>so M>JI

o R8g1at..... 0 -." _ tor Me<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 Receipt
3. SoMce""" 'It.certffled Moll 0 Exproos M&l

b Registered 0 Return Reeelpt tor MfJfChondfee

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

SO that we can return the card to you.

• Attach this card to the back of the mailplece.

or on the front If space permits. \-----------,-=-=..,,------....1.1 D. Is deIive<y _ <Off""",, from Item 11 0 'I\>s

1. Miele Addressed to: 2/ J8/1 0 B. M• If YES. onlo, dollve<y addnlSS 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 Form 3811 , February 2004 DomestJc Ro_ R_t