ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. B0X19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS62794-9276 • (217)782-2829 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR LISA BONNETT, DIRECTOR 

217/782-5544 

217/782-9143 (TDD) 

January 8, 2014 

Ms. Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard (R-19J) 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

7012 0470 0001 2973 9606 

Re: AS 09-4: In the Matter of: Petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted 

Standard from 351ll. Adm. Code Section 215; Joint Motion of Latham Pools Products, 

Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools and Royal Fiberglass to Reopen Docket and Substitute Party 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

·Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §7410 (a)(2)), and Section 

28 of the Illinois Enviromnental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28), the Illinois Enviromnental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) submits the following amendments to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

On April3, 2009, Royal Fiberglass Pools (Royal Fiberglass) filed a petition for an adjusted standard 

which was docketed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) as AS 09-4. A public hearing 

was held October 28, 2009, in Mount Vernon, Illinois. The Illinois EPA filed post-hearing comments 

in support of the proposed adjusted standard. On February 18, 2010, the Board adopted a Final 

Opinion and Order. 

However, on May 24, 2013, Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools and Royal 

Fiberglass filed a Joint Motion to Reopen Docket and Substitute Party asking for a name change 

of the adjusted standard. Viking Pools stated that it acquired the facility from Royal Fiberglass on 

July I, 2012. Accordingly the IPCB amended its February 18,2010 order and granted Latham 

Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools (Viking Pools) an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 215.301 (8 lb/hr Rule), effective September 5, 2013. This submission solely concerns the 

substitution of Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools as the owner and the granting of 

4302 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103 (815) 987-7760 

595 S. State, Elgin, ll60123 (847) 608-3131 

2125 S. First St., Champoign, !L 61820 (217) 278-5800 

2009 Mal! St., Collinsville, IL 62234 (6 1 8) 346-5120 

9511 Harrison St., Des Ploines,IL 60016 (847) 294-4000 

5407 N. University St., Arbor 113, Peoria, ll 61614 (309) 693-5462 

2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marion, ll 62959 (618) 993-7200 

100 W. Randolph, Suite 10-300, Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-6026 

PLEASE PRINT ON RECYClED PAPER 
the new adjusted standard for Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools for Royal 

Fiberglass. 

In order to assist with your review of this SIP revision submittal, the following documents are 

enclosed (two hard copies and one exact duplicate electronic copy on disc): 

Attachment 1) 

Attaclunent 2) 

Motion of Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools and Royal 

Fiberglass Reopen Docket and Substitute Party, filed May 24, 2013. 

Supplemental Opinion and Order of the Board by D. Glosser: The Board 

amends the order ofFebruary 18, 2010 to grant Latham Pools Products, 

Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools an adjusted standard, dated September 5, 2013. 

If further information is required, please contact Charles Matoesian of my staff at 217/782-5544. 

ia~ 

onnett Director 

Attaclunents 
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. j_ 

J j ' ' 

BEFORE THE ILLI!'\OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Ji;;::::'::3 OD ff''lfNTAL .h.1U.u- · 

lN THE MATTER OF: 

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS 

POOLS, INC. FOR AN 

ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODE 

215.301 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 09-4 . Jl.\f '> J, ~n•? (Adjusted Standar.a;) e. '1' co\J 

STATE Or ILLINOIS . Poltutiofl control Boara 

JOINT MOTION OF LATHAM POOLS PRODUCTS. INC. d/b/a VIKING POOLS 

AND ROYAL FIBERGLASS TO RE-OPEN DOCKET AND SUBSTITUTE PARTY 

LATHAM POOLS PRODUCTS, lNC. d/b/a VIKING POOLS (the "Movant"), by and 

tlu·ough its undersigned counsel and pursuant 35 Ill. Adm. Code§ 101.500 and other goveming 

law. respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") grant this Motion to 

Re-open Docket AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard), and substitute it for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. 

("Royal") as holder of the Adjusted Standard that the Board granted in that proceeding. As set 

forth in Paragraph 15 herein, ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, INC., joins in this Motion. In 

support of its Motion, Movants state as follows: 

1. Royal Fiberglass, on April 3, 2009, filed a "Petition for Adjusted Standard" (the 

"Petition") pursuant to 35 IlL Adm. Code § 104.400, et seq., seeking, among other things, an 

adjusted standard from the "8 Jb,11r Rule" for the emission of volatile organic material ("VOM") 

from its swimming pool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan Road, Dix, Illinois (the 

"Facility"). 

2. The 8 lb/hr Rule pertains to, among other things, VOM emiSSIOns. Royal 

Fiberglass requested that the Board grant an adjusted standard for emissions from the Facility. 

3. The Board held a public hearing regarding the Petition on October 28, 2009 in Mt 

Vernon, Illinois. 
4. The Board on Fcbmary 18, 2010 entered an Opinion and Order (the 2010 

"Order") granting the Petition and approving an adjusted standard for it, subject to the provisions 

and restrictions set ti:nih therein (collectively, the "Adjusted Standard"). (A tme and conect 

copy of the Order is attached at Exhibit "A" hereto and made a part hereof.) 

5. On or about July 1, 2012, Viking Pools, LLC ("Viking Pools") acquired all or 

substantially all of the assets of Royal Fiberglass at the facility in Dix, lllinois. TI1e Facility 

continued to operate under the name "Royal Fiberglass Pools." 

6. On or about January 1, 2013, Viking Pools merged with Latham Pool Products, 

Inc. Latham Pools will continue to do business as Viking Pools at the Facility in Dix, Tllinois. 

7. Since the acquisition of the Facility by Viking P.ools on or about July 1, 2012, the 

Facility has operated consistent with the Adjusted Standard. Vvl1ile ceriain components of the 

swimming pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) were reconfigured following the 

acquisition, such changes did not increase the Facility's potential to emit. Moreover, the Facility 

has operated in compliance with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpmi wwww and facility-wide VOM 

emissions have not exceeded 156.70 pounds per hour or 29.76 tons per year. 

8. l\-1ovant anticipates that all, or substantially alL of the employees previously 

employed at the Facility will continue working there. (See affidavit of Thomas Straub, President 

of the corporate division operating the Facility, a true and con·ect copy of which is attached at 

Exhibit "B" hereto and made a part hereof.) 

9. As a consequence, while the ownership of the Facility has changed, none of the 

factors presented to the Board when it granted the Adjusted Standard have changed, and are not 

expected to change. The Movant, as purchaser of substantially all of the assets of the Facility, 
therefore requests that the Board substitute it as the holder of the Adjusted Standard that it 

granted on Feb mary 18, 20 I 0. 

I 0. Movant has operated the Facility consistent with the Adjusted Standard, and 

agrees to continue to do so. Movant agrees to be bound by, and to operate the Facility consistent 

with, the Adjusted Standard, and to be bound by its provisions. 

I 1. Movant further af,>Tees that, in the event that it seeks to change operations at the 

Facility after the date hereof, it will take any and all steps necessary in advance to seek and 

obtain any and all required govemmental approvals, including without limitation pe1mit 

modifications and revisions to the Adjusted Standard, that may be required in advance of such 

changes. See Ex. B. 

12. The Board has authority to b'Tant this Motion. See, e.g., In re Petition of 

Cromwell-Phoenix, Inc., AS 03-05 (Nov. 20, 2003); In re: Petition of 1he Ensign-Bic~jord 

Company, (Jun. 5, 2003); In re: Petition of Commonwealth Edison Co., (Mar. 16, 2000). 

13. Granting this Motion will not have an adverse impact on any entity, human health 

or the envirom11ent. 

I 4. Undersigned counsel infonned counsel for the Illinois Envirom11ental Protection 

Agency ("IEPA") that it intends to file this Motion on or about April I9, 2013, and provided a 

draft of this Motion for IEP A's review thereafter. 

15. Royal Fiberglass joins in this Motion as set forth above. 

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the 

Board re-open Docket AS 09-4 solely for purposes of deciding this Motion; substitute the current 

owner of Latham Pools Products, Inc. d/bia Viking Pools for its p1ior owner as the recipient of 
the Adjusted Standard as of July L 2012: and grant any and all further relief that the Board 

deems 10 be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM POOL PRODUCTS.!;/' C. 1

b/a/ VJK6 

By: '- ~ - , 

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 621 OY/4'99,6)/ j / ~ I. f7 

Duffy Law Group J1im 0 ):1 

2 N. LaSalle Street pu &(' I 

Chicago. IL 60602 L 

Telephone: (312) 952-6 I 36 

Facsimile: (3 J 2) 346-8434 

E-mail: oduft\·'Ci:pduffYgrouo.com 

Attorney for Jfowml 

/ 

! 

I 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO:--.!TROL BOARD 

Febmary 18, 2010 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) AS 09-4 

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED ) (Adjusted Standard) 

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. AD\1. CODE ) 

215.301 ) 

DALE A. GUARIGLIA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ROYAL fii3ERGLASS POOLS, INC. 

and 

CHARLES E. MATOESIAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 

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

On April3. 2009, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) filed a petition for an adjusted 

standard fi·mn35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 of the Board's air pollution regulations, commonly 

known as the "8 lb/hr Rule.'' Royal filed an amended petition on July 17, 2009. Royal seeks 

relief fi·om the 8 lb/lrr Rule as the mle applies to the emissions of volatile organic material 

(VOM) from Royal's fiberglass swimming poolmanufactming facility located at 312 Duncan 

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

28, 2009. The Illinois Enviromnental 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 

detem1ines whether to issue adjusted standards under Section 28.1 of the Environmental 

Protection Act (Act) ( 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)). Next, the Board provides the procedural histmy, 

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 of review, the Board examines the record regarding the four statutory 

factors petitioners must demonstrate. Tllis 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 lbihr Rule subject to conditions outlined in this order. 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD 

The Act (415 !LCS 5!1 et seq. (2008)) and Board mles provide that a petitioner may 

request, and the Board may grant, an enviromnental standard that is different from the generally /1 

applicable standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner. This is called an adjusted T j 
2 

standard. The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at 

Section 28.1 of the Act and Section !04.Subpal1 D of the Board's proceduralmles. 415 ILCS 

5/28.1 (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 04.400 et seq. 

The Board's proceduralmles specify the required contents for the adjusted standard 

petition. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 04.406, 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 I 04.416. The adjusted standard proceeding is adjudicatory in nature 

and therefore is not subject to the mlemaking provisions of the Act or the Illinois Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 ILCS I 0011-1 et seq. (2008)). See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code I 01.202 (defining "adjudicatory proceeding"). 

Section 28.1 (d)( I) of the Act ( 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)) and Section I 04.408(a) of the 

Board's proceduralmles (35 111. Adm. Code I 04.408(a) (quoting the Act)) require the adjusted 

standard petitioner to publish notice of the 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 415 ILCS 5/28.l(d)(l) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code l04.408(b). 

The burden of proof in an adjusted standard proceeding is on the petitioner. See 415 ILCS 

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

the mle of general applicability, applies to the petitioner. See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2008); 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code I OJ .202, 1 04.400(a). In granting adjusted standards, the Board may impose 

conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. See 415 ILCS 5/28.1(a) 

(2008); 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 1 04.428(a). 

PROCEDCRALBACKGROUND 

On April 3, 2009, Royal filed this petition (Pet.) with the Board for an adjusted standard 

from the 8 lbibr Rule, accompanied by a Technical Support Document (TSD), a motion for 

expedited review, and motion to appear pro hac vice. On April24, 2009, Royal filed a "Notice 

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

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

On .Tune 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 Onicer issued an order directing Royal and the 

Agency to address preheating 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 te1ms and conditions contained in the Agency's 

recommendation. Royal and the Agency filed separate responses to the Heming 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 preheaJing questions. On October 27, 2009, the 

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

HOO 10-21-09. 

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

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

Tlu·ee witnesses testified at hearing: Mr. Clifford Hebert, owner of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.: 

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

Air. Hearing Officer Webb found all tlu·ee witnesses credible. 

On November 16, 2009, the Agency filed comments clmifying the Agency's earlier 

responses to the additional prehearing questions (Ag. Resp. to Hem·ing). On December 7, 2009, 

Royal tiled 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 instanter (Ag. Br.). The Board grants the Agency's motion to file instanter the post-heming 

brief. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

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

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

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

penni! and a violation notice received by Royal. 

The Facilitv 

Royal operates a fiberglass swinuning pool manufacturing facility where Royal 

manufactures 20 different models of fiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3' 1 0" 

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 1990s, and CUJTently employs approximately 20 people during peak season in 

addition to 5 to 10 contract haulers. !d. 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) 

permit 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 poolmanufactnting process starts with a bare waxed mold of a pool 

tnmcd upside down. The mold is sprayed with a thin layer of gel coat, which later becomes the 

inside layer of the finished pool. Over the gelcoat, various layers of resin 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 flatten it and to give it strength .... " Tr. at 10-1 I, Am. Pet. 

at4. 

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 stmctural resin application. 

Am. Pet. at 5. Other manufacturing steps that do not produce significant VOM emissions 

include: (I) pa11s 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 stmctural resin since these processes generate most of Royal's YOM 

emissions that are impacted by the 8 lb/hr Rule. The YOM emissions consist primarily of 

styrene, but also include small amounts of other YOM and volatile organic HAP species, such as 

methylmetacrylate (MMA) and methy ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP). Am. Pet. at 4-5; Am. 

Pet. Exh. B of Exh. 2, Pet. Technical 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 tlu·ough a 36-foot tall stack. 

Am. Pet. at I. 

Gelcoat Application 

Gelcoat is applied to bare waxed pool molds with high-volume low pressure (HVLP) 

fluid 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 gel coat and regular production gelcoat. Royal states 

that the gelcoat used is "the state-of-the-al1 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% Ml\1A. by weight. The two layer gelcoats range from 27%- 38% styrene and 

3% - 10% \1MA. ld. 

Barrier Coat Resin Application 

After the gelcoat has cured, a laminate layer of glass mat and vinyl ester (YE) corrosionresin is applied to the cured gel coat layer using the HYLP applicator gun with a non-atomizing 

applicator. The VE resin contains up to 48% styrene by weight. Am. Pet. at 5. 

lsophthalic Structural Resin Application 

After the YE resin layer has cured, a series oflaminate layers is applied to the cured resin 

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

isophtha!ic (ISO) corrosion-resistant resin and are applied with a HVLP applicator gun with a 

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

Pollution Control Equipment in Use 

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

Crownline's adjusted standard to control YOM and pmticulate emissions (see In the Matter of: 

Petition ofCrownline Boats, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code? 15.30L AS 

04-1 (Julv n 2004)): 

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

2. lower styrene-content gelcoat (24-38% styrene and 3-10% MMA), 

3. panel filters built in each side of the laminating area to control paniculate 

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 refetTing 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 tlu·ough a 36-foot tall vettical stack. A.m. Pet. at 1. 

ln 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) gel coat that is "'state-of-the-att in low-HAP fonnulations 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 convetted 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 Teclmology (MACT) standards: (1) requiring all resin containers be closed 

when not in use, and (2) implementing the use of acetone in resin and gelcoat clemmp, which has 

no HAP or YOM emissions. Am. Pel. 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 of the 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 lb/lu· Rules arc primarily 

generated during the application of gelcoat, banier coat resin, and isophthalic stmctural 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, Pet. Resp. at 5. Royal estimates the average YOM emissions 

per pool as follows: 53.8 lb/pool from gel coating and 94.4 lhipool from resin application, with a 

total average YOM of 14S.8Ib/pool. Am. Pet. at 5. The estimates for the resin application 

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

applications. 

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

rate of 78.55 lbslhr and a maximum resin VOM emission rate of 47.17 lbs/hr. Am. Pet. Section 

2. Royal states that the maximum facility-wide hourly YOM emission rate is !56. 70 lbs/hr. This 

cOITesponds to simultaneous gelcoat applications to Royal's two greatest VOM-emitting pool 

molds at 78.55 and 78.151bs/hr. Am. Pel. at5, Exh. 2. 

Royal's reported annual YOM emissions for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tons per year (tpy) 

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

Am. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2; Pet. TSD Section 3 at 5, Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at 2. Royal's CA.APP 

application estimates maximum YOM emissions at 29.76 tpy for a proposed cap of 400 pools per 

year .. ".m. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2. With emissions greater than I 0 tpy of a single HAP, Royal is a 

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

CAAPP Permit 

Royal submitted an application for a CAAPP penn it in November of 2004 and later 

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

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

demonstrate compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule. Since that rule 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. !d. 

Violation Notice 

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

single violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301, which limits the discharge of YOM emissions 

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

Agency and in turn worked with an environmental consultant to detennine the amounts ofVOM 

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

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

Since that rule 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 

detennine the amounts of VO:vt emitted during manufacturing, Royal found that the hourly 

VOM emissions from some of its operations did not appear to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule. 

Am. Pet. at 2. 
7 

CURRENT APPLICABLE STANDARDS 

The Board will begin by discussing the CUITent 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 fmth 

in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301. Section 215.301 provides: 

No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/Ju· (8 lbslhr) of 

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

provided in Sections 215.302, 2 J 5.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If 

no odor nuisance exists the limitation of this Subpa11 shall apply only to 

photochemically reactive material. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301. 

This IUle, which is commonly refeiTed to as the 8 lb/hr Rule, was initially adopted by the 

Board as Rule 205(1) in In the Matter of Air Pollution Control Regulations- Emission Standards, 

R71-23 (Apr. 14, 1972). Rule 205 was re-codified as 35lll. Adm. Code 215.301 at 7 Ill. Reg. 

13601, CmTected at ?Ill. Reg. 14575. For purposes of complying with the 8lbilu· 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 )/ational Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reintorced plastic composite 

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

63.5935. Subpa11 WW\VW is the ")/ational Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Reinforced Plastic Composites Production", and the compliance date was April21, 2006. Rcc. 

at 3, see Table 2 to Subpmt WWWW of Part 63, 68 FR 19380. Under Section 9.l(a) of the Act, 

NESH."J' mles are applicable in Illinois and enforceable under the Act without additional 

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

Subpmt W\VWW applies to new and existing reinforced plastic composites production 

facilities and regulates the use ofthe1moset resins and gelcoats, which emit HAPs such as 

styTene and MMA. 68 FR 19375. The requirements take the fon11 of HAP emissions limits, 

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

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

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

minimum control level allowed for NESHAP." For Subpart WWWW, USEPA adds, "[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 1 (J.tpy for a single HAP and the facility is 

a major HAP source, but emissions are less than the 100 tpy tln·eshold. 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 Subprut WWWW, and predicts that the mle will reduce emissions 

of HAP nationwide by43%. 68 FR 19381, 19375. 

ROYAL'S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD 

In the petition, Royal proposed the following adjusted standard language for adoption by 

the Board: 

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

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

fi·mn 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.201 ("'81b/hr Rule'"), effective __ ,2010. The 

adjusted standard applies to tbe emissions of volatile organic material ("YOM") 

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

in Dix. Illinois. 

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

follo,ving: 

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 perfom1 any reasonable test of new teclmologically 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 of such tests, Royal must prepare and submit a repmt 

sununruizing the activities and results of these investigatory effmts. The 

repott 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 Pe1mit Progrrun penni! (once issued), the National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite 

Manufactu1ing Facilities, set forth in 40 C.P.R. 63, Subpart WWWW, as 

required by Section 9.1 (a) of the Act, and any other applicable regulation. 

Am. Pet. at 9-10. 
9 

AGENCY RECOMMENDATION 

On August 20, 2009, the Agency filed the recommendation that the Board grant Royal's 

amended adjusted standard petition subject to the following conditions: 

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

Hazardous Air Pollutants tor Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing 

Facilities, set f01th at 40 CFR Section 63 Subpmt WVlVvW, as may be amended 

in the future. 

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

Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set 

f01th at 40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, 

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

Section 215.301. 

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

generate fewer VOM emissions and materials that have a reduced VOM content. 

V.'here practicable, Royal must substitute current materials with lower VOM 

content materials as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase in 

VOM emissions. Royal shall be required to do any test of new teclmologically or 

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

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

After perfonnance of such tests, Royal must prepare and submit a repmt 

summarizing the activities and results of these investigatory cffotts. The rcpmt 

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 of the date of this filing. 

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

the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set f01th at 40 

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

Illinois Enviromncntal 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 proposed by 

Royal. Rec. at 7. At heming, 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 4 7-48. 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 pe1mit conditions, which include an annual production cap of 400 pools. Ag. Resp. 
10 

to Hearing at 1. 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. I d. 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 l-2. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Board agrees with Royal and the Agency that the regulation of general applicability 

at 35 TIL Adm. Code 215.301 does not specify a level of justification for an adjusted standard. 

Am. Pet. at 4; Rec. at 8. Therefore. pursuant to Section 28.l(c) of the Act, the burden of proof is 

on the petitioner to demonstrate that: 

1. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly 

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

regulation applicable to that petitioner; 

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

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

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by 

the Board in adopting the mle of general applicability; and 

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

ILCS 5/28.l(c) (2008); 35lll. Adm. Code l04.426(a). 

SUBSTA.NTIALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS 

Royal states that the primary intent of the 8 lblhr Rule was to prevent ozone fonnation 

and odor nnisance. Royal assetts that the Board did not contemplate the methods Royal uses to 

manufacture swinuuing pools at the Dix plant when the Board promulgated the 8 lb/hr Rule in 

1971. Am. Pet. at 11. Royal explains that manufacn1ring large pmts such as swimming pools is 

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

products. Jd. Royal's investigation of altematives 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 at 29 CFR § 1910 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 pmts coupled with the requirement to meet the 
11 

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

Rule in 1971. Am. Pet. at 11. 

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

swinuning pool manufacturing operations in Illinois. From a business perspective, Royal 

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

of the high cost of compliance or forced to move to another state which does not have an 8 lb/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 !ormation and odor nuisance. The Air Quality Impact Analysis indicates 

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

Standard (1\AAQS). Additionally, Royal has a 36ft. tall stack to exhaust emissions to minimize 

odor nuisance from Royal's operations. Am. Pet. at I, I 0, 12; TSD Section 6. 

EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AND ALTERl'IA TIVES 

The compliance altematives investigated by Royal to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a 

strict hourly basis include: (I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using 

altemative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control 

technologies. Other than add-on emission controls, Royal stresses that many of the altematives 

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

Pet. at 6. 

Reducing V0:\1 in Production Materials 

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

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

production mate1ials that comply with the Composites MACT will not be sufficient to reduce 

emissions levels to meet the 8 lb/lu 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 cutTen! level used to comply with the Composites MACT 

is not cunently teclmically 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 pa11s. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 

at 5. 

Royal states that the gelcoat used at the facility is already "state-of-the-at1 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-ai1" white gelcoat Royal cunently uses. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. 

Using Alternative Operating Procedures and Methods 

As a pa1t 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 a!tematives. Royal explains that the pools arc produced with open 

molding process on a large scale, too large for any closed molding process. The gelcoat cmmot 

be applied in sections, only in a single uniform layer to avoid seams that would sacrifice 

stmctural stability and aesthetics. Fm1her, Royal notes that gelcoat must be applied to the mold 

with an atomizing applicator. While non-atomizing applicator that reduces gelcoal 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 gel coat 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 :v!ACT 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 existing composite facilities. Royal maintains that USEP A 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 emissions greater than 250 tpy. Royal notes that the Dix plant emits less than 12 tpy 

of HAPs. Am. Pet. at 7. Nevertheless, Royal summarized add-on air pollution control options 

detailed in a 2000 study submitted to US EPA as pm1 of the promulgation of the Composites 

MACT mle entitled, "Feasibility and Cost of the 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 each 

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

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

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

infeasible. Am. Pet. at 8. 

Royal commissioned the author of the study, Engineering Environmental Consulting 

Setvices (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 estimated capital cost of$709,500 and annual operating 

cost of over $470,000, the cost effectiveness of an RTO system would be S 18,400 per ton of 

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

alone is several times greater than the Dix plant's mmual profit, and add-on controls are not 

economically feasible for the facility. Am. Pet. at 9. 

As stated earlier, Royal uses a high air flow ventilation system to comply with the 

OSHA'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 cont·ol 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 tlow. 

The RTO system in the cost analysis was designed to handle the 35,000 cfm 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 lvL<\CT 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% of the I-.1ACTemissions limit. Am. Pet. at 7. 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 VOM emissions, to be 

used for resin and gclcoat 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 of solid and hazardous waste generated. Pet. Rcsp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 1. 

Royal has submitted all the required initial and periodic NESHAP M.A.CT demonstrations 

to the USEP A, but has not yet received a response. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7. 

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

of 43% industry-wide. Am. Pet. at 5-6. US EPA also estimates there are approximately 435 

existing major source facilities that will be subject to the federal rule 40 CFR Pm163 Suhpat1 

WWWW. USEPA estimated annual compliance costs for all existing major source facilities of 

$21.5 million, which included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and rep011ing costs. 

68 FR 19381. 

Royal stated that Royal spent approximately $40,000 to upgrade the resin sprayers to 

non-atomized applicators to meet the fecleralmle. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 6. Royal also 

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

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

track and repot1 emissions. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 6. 

Summarv 

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

altematives are neither economically reasonable nor technically feasible due to the substantially 

different factors relating to Royal's operations. Royal asserts that the existence of these factors 

coupled with the Agency's concutTence regarding the requested relief justifies the grant of an 

adjnsted standard. Am. Pet. at 13. 

IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

Royal states that the requested adjusted standard seeks only to allow Royal to continue 

manufacturing in the same marmer, and will not result in an increase in emissions on a per nnit 

basis. Am. Pet. at I 0. 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 effot1s. Am. Pet. at 10. 
14 

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

attainment with the Ozone 1\AAQS, and no change is inuninent. 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. 111inois''. TSD Section 6. 

The air quality impact analysis utilized the Scheffe ozone screening tables (September 1988) 1 for 

dete1mining the !-hour ozone increment attributable to Royal's emissions. Jd. The analysis was 

conducted based on a proposed maximum mmual styrene emission rate of 25 tpy, reflective of a 

production cap of 400 pools per year. Based on the Schetie screening table for rural areas, 

EECS aJTived at a !-hour ozone increment of 4 patts per billion (ppb ). The air quality impact 

analysis then added the 1-hour ozone increment for the Dix facility to the 1-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 Section 6. 

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

25 tpy, later Royal clarified that the current CAAPP 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 !-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 ofVOM to NO, emissions at the Dix plant as greater than 20, " ... 

you can be a 1 00-ton [per year VO:v!] source and you'll have the satne impact, according to the 

table." Tr. at 26. 

The Agency characteiized 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 !-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 umealistic 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 

lb/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 "VOC/NO, Point Source Screening Tables" by 

Richard D. Scheffe. US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support 

Division, Source Receptor Analysis Branch. September 1988. Both Royal and the Agency 

indicated that the Scheffe procedure is the procedure cunentl y 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 were not conducive to 

ozone fom1ation.'' Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 4. 

Nevettheless, the Agency calculated that by adding the ozone increment of 4 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 concentration would be 81 ppb. More impmtantly, the 

Agency points out, is the result if the 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 A g. Resp. to 1-IOO 10-

21-09 at 3, A g. Resp. to Hearing at 2. The Agency notes that this lower 8-hour ozone design 

value reflects cleaner ambient air in the more recent years. A g. Resp. to H caring at 2. 

In conclusion, the Agency states, "[t]he potential air quality impact ti·om the adjusted 

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

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

Ozone Action Davs 

Both Royal and the Agency were directed to comment on the concept of limiting Royal's 

VOM-emitting operations during Ozone Actions Days. See 1-IOOs dated 6-4-2009 and 10-21-

2009. Specifically, the pat1ies were asked to address any correlation between ozone exceedences 

in the local monitoring area and Ozone Action Days in the St. Louis (Metro-east) area. The 

Agency replied that an exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard in Hamilton County would 

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

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

limiting Royal's VOM-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-honr ozone standard."' A g. Resp. to 1-IOO 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. The Agency did not favor 

mandatory limits on VOM-emitting operations at Royal dming Ozone Action Days. Rather, the 

Agency suppmts voluntaty actions. Ag. Resp. to 1-IOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. 

Royal also opposed mandatory limits on VOM-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 infonn them 

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

2 Per 40 CFR 51.900(d), the "8-Hour ozone design value is the 8-hour ozone concentration 

calculated according to 40 CFR patt 50, appendix!." Per 40 CFR Patt 50, Appendix 1.3, the 

"Design Values for Prim my and SecondmJ' Ambient Air Quality Standards/or Ozone" are 

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

mmual founh-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentTation is also the air quality 

design value for the site." 
16 

on a facility which often has I 0 or fewer employees working. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8-9, 

Pet. 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 of YOM in excess of 8 lbs/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 11. The Agency agrees with Royal that the granting of the 

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

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Section 7410 grants the individual states the authority to 

promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air quality standards, 

subject to USEP A 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. Rec. at 9. Finally, the Agency states that, if the 

Board adopts the proposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard to 

US EPA as a State Implementation Plan revision. !d. at l 0. 

DISCUSSION 

Royal seeks relief from the Board's mle limiting YOM emissions to 8lb/hr (8Jb,1u· Rule) 

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

lb/hr mle 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 9.1 (a) of the Act ( 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (a) 

(2008)), Royal asserts that the Dix facility is already required to comply with the NESHAP for 

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

Royal's Dix plant. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpru1 WWWW, 40 CFR §63.5780-63.5935. Royal was 

required to comply with MACTemissionlimits under this standard by April21, 2006. Rec. at 3, 

See Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Pat163. 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 relief subject to cettain conditions. 

If granted, the adjusted standard would apply only to the swinm1ing 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. 

Substantially Different Factors 

The Board adopted the 8 lb/hr Rule for YOM emissions as Rule 205(f) in Emissions 

Standards, R71-23 on Aprill4, 1972. As noted by Royal, the primary intent of the 8lblhr 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, Nov. 25, 

1971) and to prevent local nuisances." See Emission Standards, R7l-23 at 4-336. While the 
17 

Board found that most sources would be able to comply with 8 lb/hr 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 

cettain sources such as fuel combustion emission sources from the 8 lb/lu· Rule. However, in 

adopting the 8 lb/hr Rule, the Board did not contemplate compliance issues associated with an 

industty such as Royal, which uses a batch-type process coupled with high flow rate ventilation 

system. 

The Board notes that in adopting the 8 lbil1r Rule, the Board also did not contemplate the 

manufacture of large pmts, such as storage tanks and swinuning pools that necessitate the batchtype process. In this regard, Dr. Haberlein testified that the 8 lb/Ju· Rule is actually a detetTent to 

new large pmt 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 of that in composites in Illinois." !d. 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 fi·ont of the Board and it's going to cost you $50,000, and so they went to Nmth 

Dakota." !d. He maintains that the 8 lb/Iu· Rule has "created a barrier for m1ybody to make large 

composites patts in the state of Illinois 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 l-2. Royal states "After considering the 

infonnation presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 lb/hr Rule to Royal's 

operation on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an umeasonable burden". !d. at 2. 

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

indicate that none of the 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 of HAP (styTene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. 

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

Composites MACT mle of $2,800 per ton HAP removed for existing sources. 68 FR 19382. 

The Board [Uither notes prevention of ozone fom1ation 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 lb!lu· Rule. The record indicates that the Dix plant has been in compliance with the 

Composites MACT since Jnne 2006. 

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

emissions at Royal's Dix plant were not anticipated when the Board promulgated the 8lb/lu· 

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 altemative. Royal evaluated several options to 

comply with the 8 lbi11r Rule on a sttict hourly basis, including: (I) reducing YOM content in 

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

add-on emission control technologies. The evaluation found that add-on emissions control 

utilizing regenerative thetmal oxidation (RTO) was the only technically feasible option available 

for Royal to comply with the 8 lb/hr 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 altemati ve operating procedures and methods. Regarding add-on controls, Royal 

estimates the cost effectiveness of using a skid mounted R TO to be S 18,400 per ton of HAP 

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

economically unreasonable. Fmthcr, Royal maintains that the Composites YIACT does not 

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

Royal's position regarding compliance altemative analysis. 

The Board agrees with Royal that requiring Royal to install skid mounted RTO to comply 

with the 8lb/Ju· 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 193 77. USEP A found that facilities producing large patis, such as 

storage tanks and swimming pools, "presented different teclmical issues from facilities that have 

successfully incorporated 95 % capture and control." 68 FR 19387. US EPA "detennined that 

capture and control was not the appropriate floor for large patts 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." !d. 

Regarding other options, the Board notes that Royal has already reduced YOM content in 

the production materials and considered altemative operating procedures and methods. Further, 

Royal has conunitted to investigate production methods, matetials, and technologies that may 

reduce YOM emissions at Royal's Dix plant. Thus, the Board finds that the effot1s beyond those 

Royal has already implemented to comply with the Composites MACT are not cun·ently 

technically feasible or economically reasonable. 

Impact on the Environment 

As noted earlier, the ptimmy 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 !-hour ozone concentration for the years 2003-2006 in Hamilton 

County. Royal then compares the resulting 89 ppb to a !-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. Pet. at 10, TSD Section 6. Royal acknowledges that USEPA replaced the 1-hour 
19 

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

believes the hourly calculation of 89 ppb is ·'useful given the obvious concems about hourly 

emissions that arc reflected in the 8 lb/hr Rule." Am. Pet. at I 0. 

NAAQS for Ozone 

In July 1997, USEPA revised the ozone NAAQS, "by replacing the existing primary!-

hour average standard with an 8-hour average 03 [ozone] standard set at a level of0.08 ppm, 

which is equivalent to 0.084ppm nsing the standard rounding conventions.'' 73 FR 16437, 

March 27,2008. Effective June 15, 2005, USEPA revoked the !-hour ozone standard3 for all 

areas with e±Tective 8-hom· ozone designations, except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early 

Action Compact (EAC) Areas. 70 FR4447l, August 3, 2005. Per40 CFR §81.314, "[t]he !-

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

and St. Louis areas are maintenance areas for the !-hour NAAQS 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 of0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436, March 27,2008. 

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

increment provided by the Scheffe method to assess the impact in tenus of the !-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 dete1mined, Royal replied 

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

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

US EPA 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 !-hour 

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

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

an 8-hour increment, Dr. Haberlein testified that USEP A has nul 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 of scaling factors that 

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

time concentrations of pollutants that are secondarily fanned." HOO 10-21-09 at 2-3, Ag. Resp. 

to Hearing at 2. The Board notes that Ozone is a secondarily fanned pollutant. Ag. Resp. to 

HOO I 0-21-09 at 2. Dr. Haberlein added that ozone f01mation is not chemically stable, but 

rather highly reactive, and that photochemical models for ozone are very different fi·om the 

Gaussian plume dispersion models. Tr. at 29-30. 

3 The !-hour ozone standard was 0.12 pa11s per million (ppm), and the nationalS-hour standard 

was 0.80 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9, 50.1 0. 

4 Per 40 CFR §51 Subpm1 X, 51.900(k), "Maimenance areafor the 1-hour NAAQS means an 

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

and was redesignated to attairunent for the !-hour NAAQS subject to a maintenance plm1 as 

required by section 175A of the CAA." 
20 

To address the air quality impact of Royal's operations on attainment of the 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 1-hour average 

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

design value of68 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 10-21-09 at 3, and Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2. Based on this, the Agency concludes that the 

adjusted standard "is not expected to cause or contribute to violations of the 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 VOM emissions during Ozone Action Days in the 

Metro East area. HOO 6-4-09 at 7, HOO I 0-21-09 at 3-6. Although the Agency suppmts 

voluntary actions, the Agency states, ""It would be inappropriate to require a single facility 

amongst a group of potentially cont1ibuting facilities to accept a condition limiting "VOM 

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. A g. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5, Ag. 

Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 1. The Agency has indicated that if the adjusted standard is granted, the 

ten11S will be submitted to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 1. The Agency further states, "If monitoring data show a violation 

of the ozone NAAQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that considers all 

conl!ibuting sources to nonattainment would properly address this matter." Ag. Resp. to HOO 

10-21-09 at 1. 

Operational Limits 

Royal states that the potential maximum facility-wide hourly VOM emission rate is 

156.70 lbslhr .. This conesponds to simultaneous gel coat applications to Royal's two greatest 

VOM-emitting pool molds at 78.55 and 78.15 lbs/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 cming to one pool at a time to comply with 8lb/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 gelcoat the second pool after the first would simply result in the first pool receiving 

the resin application (which also generates VOM 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. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 4. 
21 

Board Finding 

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

impact on air quality in terms of exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. Although reliance on the 

Scheffe method may not be the most appropriate way to dete1mine the impact of Royal's YOM 

emissions on the 8-holil· 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 ofVOM emissions 

from Royal's Dix plant. Additionally, the Board expects Royal to continue eff011s 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 eff011s to reduce 

YOM emissions from operations at the Dix plant. Lastly, regarding the 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 inappropJiate 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 adverse 

impact on air quality as it relates to exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. 

Consistencv with Federal Law 

As noted by the Agency, the Board has the authority under Section II 0 of the CAA to the 

Board to adopt regulations, which are pm1 of the State's plan for implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of air quality standards (the SIP). Fm1her, 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 slates under the Section II 0 ofthe CAA. Also if the Board adopts 

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

US EPA Thus, the Board finds that granting petitioners the requested relief from the 8 lb/hr Rule 

a! Section 215.301 is consistent with federal law. 

Section 28,l(c) Summarv 

The Board finds that Royal has provided adequate proof in accordance with Section 

28.l(c) of the Act that: (1) 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.l(c) (2008). 
22 

Conditions 

The conditions of the adjusted standard proposed by Royal were substantively the same 

as those 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 penni!, and the 

NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing facilities in lieu of the Illinois 8 lb/hr 

standard. In addition, both Royal and the Agency proposed conditions requiring Royal to: (I) 

cominue to investigate swimming pool production methods with a reduced VOM content and, 

where practicable, substitute cunent coatings with lower VOM content coatings so long as the 

suhstitution does not result in higher VOM emissions; (2) perfom1 any reasonable test of new 

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

an rep011 summarizing the activities and results of their investigations. 

The Agency's reconunendation 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 of the date of this 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 patties. The changes are non-substantive, and are 

intended to bring this order into confmmity with the Board's usual drafting style in adjusted 

standards. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that Royal has provided sufficient justification for an adjusted fi·mn the 8 

lb/hr Rule at Section 215.301 as that mle 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 the Board's findings offact and conclusions oflaw. 

ORDER 

1. 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 (8lb/lu Rule), effective February 18, 

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

(VOM) into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool manufacturing facility 
23 

at 312 Duncan Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. 

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

following: 

a. Royal must continue to investigate swilll1ning pool production methods 

that generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a reduced 

YOM content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute cutTent materials 

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

result in a net increase in YOM emissions. 

b. Royal must perfonn 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 []]inois Environmental 

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

c. After perfonnance of such tests, Royal must prepare and submit an ammal 

report summarizing the activities and results of these investigatory efforts 

in (a) and (b) above. The repmt 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. 

§ 740 I et seq.), Royal's Clean Air Act Pennit Program penn it, the National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic 

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

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

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

Protection Act, and m1y other applicable regulation. 

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

manufactu1ing emission units (spray booths) existing as of August 20, 

2009, at Royal's Dix facility. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Section 4l(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may 

be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Comt within 35 days after tl1e Bom-d serves the 

order. 415 ILCS 5/41 (a) (2008); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1 01.300(d)(2), I 01.906, 102.706. 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois 

Appellate Coutt, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. I 72 Ill. 2cl 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, !02.700, 102.702. 
24 

I, John Then·iault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the 

Board adopted the above opinion and order on February 18, 20 I 0, by a vote of 4- 0. 

John Theniault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 
BECiiEIVr;:::O 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL Bt>a.~K'S OFFicE 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) MAY lit 2U13 

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS 

POOLS, INC. FOR AN 

ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

215.301 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

AS 09-4 f'ollution Control Board 

(Adjusted Standard) 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO SUBSTITUTE ADJUSTED STANDARD 

l, Thomas Straub, being duly sworn, slates as follows: 

L l am over eighteen years of age. I have personal knowledge of the matters set 

forth herein. If called upon to testify I would testify as follows. 

2. I am the President of Viking Pools. 

3. On or about July 1, 2012, Viking Pools, LLC ("'Viking Pools") acquired all or 

substantially all of the assets of Royal Fiberglass at the facility in Dix, Illinois (the "Facility"). 

4. On or about January I, 2013, Viking Pools merged with Latham Pool Products, 

Inc. Latham Pools will continue to do business as Viking Pools at the Facility in Dix, Illinois. 

5. Viking Pools anticipates that all, or substantially all, of the employees previously 

employed at the Facility will continue working there. 

6. Viking Pools agrees that, in the event that it seeks to change operations at the 

Facility after the date hereof, it will take any and all steps necessary in advance to seek and 

obtain any and all required governmental approvals, including without limitation pem1it 

modifications and revisions to the Adjusted Standard, that may be required in advance of such 

changes. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETI-I NOT 
Subscribed and sworn to me 

This I Ott-day of May, 2013 

Notary Public 

c 

r:-.:: o.:::;;.·. ',~·.t_;;;_ i,'JS :ci-::i:JW:~:!gsd before me 

~''"~c:{vr_llit:\-\.i , ZDt3 

~ 

by ·TfD!Tii'tS t: . SrVJwp, 

(1_ !

1 

/J._j Notart Puhlic 

1;:iy CorTh 1 dssion e~lres --'\f'"'I"'I..""\"'---"/J.,_,~"-:r-",J~"~u;.' \<;fJ.;::-c..IL_ 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

September 5, 2013 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) 

POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADWSTED ) 

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) AS 09-4 

215.301 ) (Adjusted Standard) 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by D. Glosser): 

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. 2-

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

standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 of the Board's air pollution regulations, commonly 

known as the "8 lb/hr Rule." Royal filed an amended petition on July 17, 2009. Royal sought 

relief from the 8 lb/hr Rule as the mle applies to the emissions of volatile organic material 

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

Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. On Febmary 18,2010, the Board found that Royal has provided 

sufficient justification for an adjusted standard from the 8 lb!hr Rule and granted the relief 

subject to conditions outlined in the order. 

On May 24, 2013, Royal and Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools (Viking 

Pools) filed a joint motion asking that the Board reopen the docket and substitute Viking Pools 

for Royal in the adjusted standard (Mot.). After seeking an extension oftime to file its response, 

granted by the hearing officer, on August 19, 2013, the Illinois Enviromental Protection Agency 

(IEPA) timely filed a response in support of the motion. 

Viking Pools states that since it acquired the facility on July 1, 2012, the facility has 

operated consistent with the tenns of the adjusted standard. Mot. at 2. Certain components of 

the swimming pool manufacturing emission units were reconfigured after acquisition; however, 

the change did not increase the facilities' potential to emit. !d. Viking Pools offers that the 

facility has operated in compliance with federal rules and the facility-wide emissions ofVOM 

have not exceeded 156.70 pound per hour or 29.76 tons per year. !d. Also, Viking Pools 

anticipates that substantially all employees will remain employed at the facility. !d. Viking 

Pools argues that only the ownership of the facility has changed; and none of the factors 

presented to the Board in the adjusted standard proceeding have changed or are likely to change. 

!d. Therefore, Viking Pools asks the Board to substitute it as the holder of the adjusted standard. 

Viking Pools notes that the Board has granted motions to reopen dockets in the past to 

substitute a new party as holder of the adjusted standard. Mot. at 3, citing, In rePetition of 

Cromwell-Phoenix Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. 218.204(c), AS 3-5 (Nov. 

20, 2003); In re: Petition of the Ensign-Bickford Co. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 237.102, AS 00-5 (June 5, 2003); In re: Petition of Commonwealth Edison Co. for an 

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.211, AS 96-10 (Mar. 16, 2000). 
The IEP A spoke with petitioners and on July 18, 2013, inspected the facility. IEPA has 

"satisfied itself with the operations" and does not object to the motion to substitute. 

DISCUSSION 

The Board has the authority to grant adjusted standards to pat1ies who can justify such an 

adjustment. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(a) (2012). For regulations of general applicability, which do not 

specifY a level of justification for an adjusted standard, the petitioner must provide adequate 

proof to demonstrate that the factors of Section 28.1( c) of the Act ( 415 ILCS 5/28.1( c) (20 12)) 

are met. The 8 lb/hr Rule (35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301) is such a mle. Section 28.l(c) of the Act 

provides: 

I. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly 

different ii'om the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general 

regulation applicable to that petitioner; 

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

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

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by 

the Board in adopting the mle of general applicability; and 

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

ILCS 5/28.l(c) (2012). 

Royal sought relieffi·om the Board's mle limiting VOM emissions to 8lb/hr (8lb/hr 

Rule) in the fonn of an adjusted standard and the Board found that granting Royal the relief was 

approptiate. Viking Pools has indicated that it will continue to operate the facility in accordance 

with the adjusted standard. The Board finds that the relevant factors required by Section 28.1 of 

the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2012)), and met by Royal, have not changed. The Board previously 

found that the existence of the factors justified the adjusted standard, and that the adjusted 

standard is consistent with federal law. 

In the past, the Board has granted a joint motion to substitute the name of the holder of a 

previously granted adjusted standard. See In rePetition of Crownline Boars. Inc. for an Adjusted 

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301, AS 4-1 (Oct. 7, 2010); Cromwell-Phoenix, AS 3-5 

(Nov. 20, 2003); Ensiw-Bickford Co., AS 00-5 (June 5, 2003); Commonwealth Edison Co., AS 

96-10 (Mar. 16, 2000). Royal has transfened its interest to Viking Pools and Viking Pools has 

committed to follow the adjusted standard. Therefore, the Board grants the motion to substitute. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board reopens the docket and substitutes Latham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking 

Pools for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. as the recipient of the adjusted standard in the Board's 

Febmary 18,2010 opinion and order. The adjusted standard order as amended today, is set 

below in its entirety and is effective inunediately. 
This supplemental opinion constitutes the Board's supplemental findings of fact and 

conclusions oflaw. 

ORDER 

I. The Board amends its Febmary 18,2010 order in this matter and grants Latham 

Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools (Viking Pools) an adjusted standard from 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 (8lb/lu· Rule), effective September 5, 2013. The 

adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic material (YOM) into 

the atmosphere from Viking Pools' swimming pool manufacturing facility at 312 

Duncan Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. 

2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 of the Board's air pollution regulations, commonly 

known as the "8 lb/hr Rule" does not apply. Viking Pools remains subject to the 

following: 

a. Viking Pools must continue to investigate swimming pool production 

methods that generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a 

reduced YOM content. Where practicable, Viking Pools must substitute 

current materials with lower YOM content materials as long as such 

substitution does not result in a net increase in VOM emissions. 

b. Viking Pools must perfmm 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 Viking Pools' facility that the Illinois Environmental 

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

c. After perfmmance of such tests, Viking Pools must prepare and submit an 

annual repmt summarizing the activities and results of these investigatory 

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

Bureau of Air, Compliance and Enforcement Section. 

d. Viking Pools must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its 

Clean Air Act Penni! Program permit, the National Emission Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing 

Facilities, set fmth at 40 CFR §63 Subpmt WWWW, as may be amended 

in the future and as required by Section 9.1(a) of the Act, the Illinois 

Environn1ental 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 Viking Pools' 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 5/4l(a) (2012); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706. 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois 

Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The 

Board's proceduralmles 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. 

I, Jolm Theniault, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board 

adopted the above opinion and order on September 5, 2013, by a vote of 4-0. 

John TheJTiault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board