1 2 

### (EPAATTACHMENTNO.

# ft

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

3 IN THE MATTER OF, 4 5 6 7 Petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools. Inc., for an Adjusted Standard from 35 IAC 215.301 AS 09-4 (Adjusted Standard)

Proceedings held on October 28, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., at 8 the C.E. Brehm Memorial Public Library, 101 South 7th Street, Mt. Vernon, Illinois, before Carol Webb, Hearing 9 Officer. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reported By, Karen Waugh, CSR, RPR CSR License No, 084-003688 KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

11 North 44th Street Belleville, IL 62226 (618) 277-0190

Keefe Reporting Company1 2 3 Board Members present: APPEARANCES

4 (No board members present) 5 6 Board StaffMembers present: 7 Alisa Liu, P.E. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BRYAN BY, CAVE Mr. Dale A. Guariglia Attorney at Law One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2750 On behalf of Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 16 BY: Mr. Charles Matoesian Assistant Counsel 17 Division of Legal Counsel 1021 North Grand Avenue East 18 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 On behalf of the Illinois EPA 19 20 21 22 23 24
Keefe Reporting Company 21 2 3 4 5 

### WITNESS Cliff Hebert Dr. Robert A. Haberlein Andrew J. Russo 

### INDEX PAGE NUHBER 6 13 47

6 (No exhibits were marked.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Keefe Reporting Company 31 2 3 PROCEEDINGS (October 28, 2009; 10,30 a.m.) HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Good morning. 

### My 4 name is Carol Webb. Joining me today is Alisa Liu from 5 the Board's technical unit. This is the hearing for 6 AS 09-4, the petition of Royal Fiberglass Pools for an 7 adjusted standard from 35 Illinois Administrative Code 8 215.301. It is October 28, 2009, and we are beginning at 9 10:30 a.m. There are no members of the public present. 

### 10 At 

### issue today is petitioner's request for relief 

### 11 from the rules pertaining to emissions ofvolatile 12 organic

### materials at petitioner's facility at 312 Duncan 13 Road in Dix, Jefferson County. The Pollution Control 14 Board members will make the final decision. 

### My purpose 15 is to conduct the hearing in a neutral and orderly manner 16 80 that we have a clear record of the proceedings. I 17 will also assess the credibility of any witnesses on the 18 record at the end of the hearing. 19 This hearing was noticed pursuant to the Act and 20 the Board's rules and will be conducted pursuant to 21 Sections 101.600 through 101.632 and 104.422 of the 22 Board's procedural rules. At this time I would like to 23 ask the parties to please make their appearances on the 24 record.
Keefe Reporting Company 4

### 1 MR. GUARIGLIA: Dale Guariglia with Bryan 2 Cave in St. Louis, and with me are Rob Haberlein, who is 3 with Engineering Environmental Consulting Services, and 4 Mr. CliffHebert, who is the owner of Royal Fiberglass 5 Pools. 6 HEARING OFFICERWEBB: Thank you very much. 7 MR. MATOESIAN: Hello. My name is

-- Good 8 morning. 

### My name is Charles Matoesian. I'm**appear~ng** 

### 9 for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and 10 with me today is Mr. Andrew Russo, who is an 11 environmental protection engineer. We are appearing 12 mainly to answer questions, andjust to state on the 13 record, the

-- we recently filed some responses to the 14 second set ofquestions from the Board. Today we would 15 like to stand on those, and just any follow-ups would 16 have to be in writing ifwe -- if that's okay

### with the 17 Board, and the answers as far as follow-up questions to 18 those be in writing, but otherwise, that's all we really 19 have to say. Thankyou. 

### 20 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Okay. Are there any 21 other preliminary issues anybody wants to bring up? 22 Would the petitioner like to make any opening statement? 23 MR. GUARIGLIA: No, I do not need to make an 24 opening statement but obviously do want to walk through
Keefe Reporting Company 51 the-- 2 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Yes, sure. Mr. 3 Matoesian, do you have any opening statement? 4 MR. MATOESIAN, No. 5 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, All right. 6 Mr. Guariglia, you may begin your case. 7 MR. GUARIGLIA: May it please the Board? 8 HEARINGOFFICER WEBB, Yes. 9 MR. GUARIGLIA: Let me first introduce 10 Mr. CliffHebert, who is the owner of Royal Fiberglass 11 Pools, and have himjust say a few words about the 12 background of the company and what we do. 13 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Okay. Mr. Hebert, 14 would you please sit up here just so it's a little easier 15 

### for the court reporter to hear you? And the court 16 

### reporter will please swear in the witness. 17 MR. HEBERT: I'mCliffHebert. I'm the 18 owner of Royal Fiberglass Pools. 

### 19 (Witness sworn.) 20 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Go ahead, Mr. Hebert. 21 MR. HEBERT: I'mCliffHebert. I'm owner of 22 Royal Fiberglass Pools. I'm from south Louisiana, so if 23 I speak a little funny, 1 1mFrench. We've been in Dix 24 24 years, we've been manufacturing 23 years, and it's been a Keefe Reporting Company 61 good part of our company. The reason we were up here is 2 because we have dealers in St. Louis and Louisville, 3 Kentucky, and Indianapolis. So we've enjoyed our stay, 4 and I want to thank the Board for allowing us to be here 5 this morning, especially right next to the plant, and 6 hopefully the case we're pleading is because we do have 7 people that are employed that they've been here quite a 8 while. We also have support staffback in Louisiana that 9 supports the

-- ourmission here in Illinois. So again, 10 I want to thank the Board for allowing us to be here, and 11 weld like to stay here much longer. Working together, I 12 think we can. 13 MR. GUARIGLIA, Thank you. 14 HEARINGOFFICERWEBB, Mr. Matoesian, did 15 you have any questions you wanted to ask? 16 MR. MATOESIAN, No, I did not. 17 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, And, Ms. Liu, you did 18 not have any questions for this witness, or do you? 19 MS. LIU: I believe we do have some 20 unanswered questions from the pre-hearing questions from 21 the hearing officer order, and I'mnot sure when you're 22 planning to address those. 23 MR. GUARIGLIA: Dr. Haberlein will address 24 those.
Keefe Reporting Company 71 MS. LIU, All right. That's fine. Thank 

### 2 you very much, and goodmorning. 3 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Thank you. 4 MR. HEBERT: Yes, malam. I forgot to 5 introduce my wife, Becky, came up with me, better half. 6 MR. GUARIGLIA; Before I call Dr. Haberlein 7 and have him testify, I wanted to give some background 8 with regard to the operations of Royal Fiberglass Pools, 9 and most of this is set out in the petition. I thought I 10 would try and cover it here at the public hearing. 11 We are, you know, seeking an adjusted standard 

### 12 fromwhat's known as the eight pound per hour rule, and 13 

### we did file our first amended petition July 17, 2009, 14 which does set forth a number of the

-- most of the 

### 15 testimony, the detailed testimony ofwhat we are 16 

### presenting today, and then also Dr. Haberlein will 17 address some of the questions that the Board posed to us 18 last week. 19 Royal operates a facility, as you are aware, in 20 Dix, Illinois, and manufactures approximately 20 21 different types of fiberglass swimming pools. They 22 You know, the pools range from

-- anywhere from, like, 12 23 feet wide to 16 feet long to 40 feet to, you know, 17 24 feet wide, so some of these are smaller in nature, some Keefe Reporting Company 81 of them are very large in nature; some take, you know, 2 maybe a day to construct, others may take several days in 3 order to construct them, and it's done in a building 4 single building they have in Dix, Illinois, that 5 essentially has three construction bays. Apool wouldbe 6 constructed all in one bay but different operations would 7 take place in that bay. Essentially, two of the bays are 8 the main construction bays for the pools; a third one is 9 for, you know, various other operations. 10 And in November 2004 Royal did submit an 11 application for a Clean AirAct permit to operate this 12 facility and also amended that this summer in July. As a 13 part of that Clean AirAct permit, Title Vpermit, Royal 14 has set forth a limit of 29

-- I can't remember the exact 15 number of tons per year, but it is in the permit 16 application. Shortly after originally filing its Title V 17 application in January 2006, IEPA did issue a notice of 18 violation to Royal Pools for alleged violations of the 19 eight poundper hour rule. Representatives ofRoyal met 20 with IEPA on various occasions, corresponded, and 21 basically was agreed at that point that the best course 22 ofaction in order to complywith the Illinois 23 environmental regulations, particularly the eight pound 24 per hour rule, would be to seek this adjusted standard,
Keefe Reporting Company 91 and it was determined

-- it was agreed with IEPA at that 2 point tha it did not appear that there were economical 3 or technically feasible options for complying with the 4 eight pound per hour rule, and so that's why we're here 5 today. 6 Let me spend just a minute or two talking about 7 composite pool manufacturing procedures, which I find 8 fairly fascinating, but it's and there's some 9 pictures, I think, in the first amended petition, but 10 essentially it is taking a mold of a pool, a wax mold, 11 which is essentially

-- looks like a pool only turned 12 upside down, and so instead of a pool shape, you1ve got a 13 mound shape, and you will then

-- they will then spray 14 what is called a gelcoat, a thin layer of this gelcoat on 15 the outside of the mold, which then actually becomes the 16 inside layer, the finished layer of the inside of the 17 pool. That is done with a gelcoat that has approximately 18 about 27 percent styrene, which is a hazardous air 19 pollutant, and about 3 percent methyl

-- 20 DR. HABERLEIN: Methyl methacrylate. 21 MR. GUARIGLIA: Methacrylate. Thank you. 22 After that you have various layers of resin and 23 fiberglass that are put onto the back of the pool in 24 order to provide a thickness and strength for the pool,
Keefe Reporting Company 101 and those resins also do have hazardous air pollutants as 2 a part of them. The gelcoat is put on with an atomized 3 spray gun. The resin application is using a non-atomized 4 spray gun, and that is being done to comply with the MACT 5 standard, which I will talk about here shortly. 6 The

-- We have set forth in the first amended 7 petition some of the VOM emission estimates for this 8 operation, and it is an operation that is going to

-- the 9 emissions are going to vary depending upon the size of 10 the pool that's being done and the number of pools that 11 are being manufactured at one time, and so it's

-- 12 because of the process, where it is a hands-on process 13 where you have a person spraying on resin with a gun and 14 then another person rolling it out with a roller to 15 flatten it and to give it strength, the exact amount of 16 resin or gelcoat that is used is going to vary slightly 17 frompool to pool, and so there's no way to exactly 18 measure exactly how much of resin or how much ofgelcoat 19 is going to be used on each pool, but, you know, for the 20 most part, it is fairly consistent. 21 From

-- Royal did hire Dr. Haberlein in order to 22 assist with estimating what the emissions would be from 23 the pool manufacturing, and our estimates are set forth 24 in here that the average VOM emissions per pool for the
Keefe Reporting Company 111 gelcoating process is 53.8 pounds of VOM. The resin 2 process is average 94.4 pounds of VOM, which is a total 3 of 148 pounds of VOM per pool, and obviously the larger 4 pools are going to have more; the smaller pools would be 5 less. The current Clean AirAct permit application 6 estimates that the 

### Dix plant's maximumVOM emissions 7 would be 29.76 tons per year. 27.54 of those tons would 8 relate to styrene emissions, and that would be based upon 9 a

-- manufacturing 400 pools at the facility, which the 10 Dix plant has not done in the past. We are hoping

-- II Royal 

### is hoping that with the better economy that is 12 hopefully on the horizon that people will again start 13 buying swimming pools and that they will be able to pick 14 up production, because right now production is slower 15 than it has been in the past few years. 16 I did make briefmention of the composites 17 what's commonly referred to as the composites MACT that 18 EPA

-- federal EPA has issued a MACT standard for the 19 composites

-- plastic composite manufacturing facility, 20 which is specifically applicable to Royal's operations, 21 and that does impose certain restrictions upon the amount 22 of hazardous airpollutants that can be included in the 23 materials that are used and certain operating procedures. 24 The

-- Royal has been in compliance with the composites
Keefe Reporting Company 121 MACT since February 2006 and has been in compliance by a 2 very healthy margin over the last couple years. 3 One thing that is interesting to note about the 4 composites MACT and EPA's promulgation and finalization 5 of that is that at the time it was issued, EPA did look 6 at, you know, whether add-on controls, whether emission 7 controls, end-of-stack controls wouldbe appropriate for 8 this type of industry and did conclude that those 9 end-of-stack controls would not be appropriate for 10 technological reasons, for economic reasons, and so 11 therefore 

### did not impose those upon the plastics 12 composites manufacturing business. 13 Let me now call Dr. Haberlein to the stand and 14 have him sworn in and have him give his testimony. 

### 15 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Will the court 16 reporterplease swear in the witness? 17 (Witness sworn.) 18 DR. ROBERT A. HABERLEIN, produced, sworn and 19 examined on behalf of the Petitioner, testified as 

### 20 follows, 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. GUARIGLIA, 23 Q. Dr. Haberlein, could you summarize for the 24 Board your educational background?
Keefe Reporting Company 131 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering 

### from the University of Kansas. Q. 

### And undergrad? A. I have a bachelor of engineering degree from Wichita State University, also Kansas, and a master's 

### degree from the University of Kansas as well, also engineering. Q. Would you summarize for the Board some of your relevant work history as it 

### relates to fiberglass parts manufacturing and air emission

-- estimating air emission controls? A. Yes. I was introduced to reinforced 

### plastics because I got a job at Cobalt Boats in Neodesha, Kansas. They hired me as their engineering manager, which I did for two years. The company owner came to me and said, you shouldgo back to school, so that's 

### why I endedup getting a Ph.D. But that'S how I got introduced to composites, so I actually operateda boat plant for a couple ofyears. Boat plants are also fiberglass users. They make boats out of fiberglass, and these boats, although they weren't quite as large as the boats at the pools at Royal, they were close. Our largest boat
was a 40-foot boat, so it was essentially as big as the length that they use as one of these pools.
Keefe Reporting Company 141 I

-- When I got

-- When I finished my -- I 2 started working as a consultant in 1984 for local 3 composite shops, solving ventilation problems for OSHA 4 compliance. When I graduated from University of Kansas 5 in 1990, I was faced with a decision ofwhat I was going 6 to do with myself, decided to continue to consult rather 7 than teach. The people I hadbeen working for offeredme 8 a partnership in a small consulting firm in D.C. who was 9 lead by the former administrator of OSHA he was a 10 junior administrator at OSHA

-- and so I took themup on 11 that. He died of cancer fairly shortly after that and I 12 essentially took over the company. I am sole proprietor 13 at this point. I have a couple of folks that work for me 14 as a subcontractor. 15 I represent Over the last 26 years I've been 16 working for the entire spectrumof people that make 17 composites, both large and small. I work for large 18 corporations that have many plants; I work for 19 mom-and-pop operations like Royal Pools. Somewhere in 20 the lId say mid

-- well, early '90s I got involved with 21 the promulgation of the composites MACT. I ended up 22 working aboard the

-- what was then called the Composites 23 FabricationAssociation, which is now called the American 24 Composites Manufacturing Association, as their technical
Keefe Reporting Company 151 lead on all of the technical issues involving MACT. I 2 got to know the first author of the MACT rule. Madeleine 3 Strum; I got to know the second author of the composites 4 MACT rule quite well, Keith Barnett; and 1 1min contact 5 on a fairly routine basis with Steve Shedd, who is also 6 involved as a caretaker of the MACT rule. I have 7 directly asked for modifications to the composites MACT B that have been made. 9 During this period we recognized the fact that 10 the AP-42 factors that USEPA had developed for this 11 industry were inaccurate, so the trade association asked 12 me to develop a new set of emission factors called the 13 UEF. I developed those emission factors and presented 14 them to USEPA. They have since begrudgingly accepted 15 them in the AP-42, and they're also the basis

-- the 16 actual only basis for the table 1 equations in the 17 MACT

-- composites MACT rule, which establish HAP 1B emissions. So in effect, everybody in this country uses 19 the emission factors I developed. 20 I continue to make changes to the UEF factors 21 through the ANSI process. The American National 22 Standards Institute has created a subgroup to allow 23 public and governmental agencies to make modifications to 24 the UEF. I have put in three petitions which have been
Keefe Reporting Company 161 accepted and 1 have one petition pending. which 1 think 2 will be accepted. to modify the UEF. 1 believe only one 3 other person has made a change, so 1 1mthe most active 4 person as far as developing and maintaining these 5 factors. 6 Q. The

-- Couldyou summarize your work 7 relating to

-- work you've done for some of your clients 8 relating to calculating air emissions. also emission 9 controls that may be required to control emissions for 10 such companies? 11 A. These activities take place through the 12 permitting work that 1 do for companies. Oftentimes a 13 company will either start up and need a permit

-- that 14 requires that they do modeling as part of the permitting 15 effort, so I discoveredback in the early '90s that there 16 were a number ofmodels being developedby USEPA for that 17 use. Nobody was doing the modeling. I did mymaster's 18 thesis on modeling, so I figured it was a perfect fit, so 19 I taught myself how to do these models and I kind of grew 20 up with the EPA as far as learning how these models 21 should be used and how to use them. I am really not the 22 worldls authority on dispersion modeling. There are 23 other people that are. but 1 can understand these models 24 at the code level, which means I can go into the actual
Keefe Reporting Company 171 code and make changes or make comments and

-- because I 2 am a programer, you know, by training, and I've done that 3 on occasion when there were issues before EPA and they 4 didn't understand their own models.

A. Adetailed discussion would take hours, but I can -- because there's so much diversity in this industry. There'S just

-- We make everything from wind blades to widgets that go in computers. It's just a huge industry, so all of the techniques that are available to make parts are too

-- however, swimming pools, really the only thing that is doable and is practical or could be done would be to try to do some type of closed molding operation where you would essentially build a giant tool about the investigation that you did, the review you did of compliance alternatives for Royal for reducing their VOM emissions from their manufacturing operations. The

-- Are you familiar with alternative methods for manufacturing fiberglass parts other than open mold? 

### A. Yes. Q. And could you explain for the Board what

some of those other methods of manufacturing fiberglass products are other than open mold, which is used by Royal? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit

Keefe Reporting Company 181 that would then smash down and do the process through 2 closed molding. 3 The problem with that, why it's not feasible for 4 Royal beyond just the fact that it's exorbitantly 5 expensive, is that the tooling itself could only be one 6 part and the technical challenges would task a company of 7 thousands. It would not be something that a company that 8 has eight employees could undertake. There's just not 9 the manpower or the expertise, and nobody's doing it. No 10 one has done it, so it's not really

-- to say, could you 11 do it through a closed molding process, you know, the 12 answer would be yeah. Can it be done feasibly? No. Can 13 it be done affordably? No. And there may even be 14 practical issues about whether a person who tried to 15 undertake it, if they could do it. But closed molding

the resin portion of the process where they would inject the resin instead of apply it with a non-atomized applicator. They still have to apply the gelcoat with a spray gun. There is no technology that does that in you know, could conceivably handle would actually be 16 17 18 19 20 21 closed molds. There is no technology that applies 22 coating to the mold beyond what they're doing right now. 23 They are state-of-the-art for the way you apply gelcoat. 24 Q. So the other fiberglass pool manufacturers
Keefe Reporting Company 19

### that you're aware of were not using othermethods other than open mold manufacturing? A. All the other swimming pool manufacturers 

### who are my clients are doing exactly what they do at the Dixplant. Q. 

### As a part ofyour work for Royal, did you review the feasibility and cost of add-on pollution controls for Royal's facility?

Q_ 

### And what air pollution controls did you consider? A. There are a number of controls. Part of the 

### work I did for the MACTpromulgation, which is in the dock.et, was a 40D-some-page report called "Feasibility and Cost ofAdd-on Controls for Reinforced Plastics." That was a document that we submitted to USEPA during the 

### MACTpromulgation which helped themunderstand the costs, and their

-- they concluded that the cost to control would be beyond the reach of the majority of the industry. There is a detailed discussion in that report that talks about all of the exotic control technologies that have been considered for this particular industry. Only oxidation works for a variety of scientific reasons. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. 

### Yes.

Keefe Reporting Company 201 There are two versions of oxidation. One is 2 preconcentration and oxidation; the other is just 3 straight oxidation. I looked at both of those 4 technologies for this facility and discovered that the 5 cost would be

-- the best

-- cheapest would be over 6 $18,000 per ton, and that's typically called cost 7 effectiveness and that's typically how EPA makes an 8 assessment, but we discovered during the MACT 9 promulgation that there are other cost issues, especially 10 for small businesses. That's one of the reasons that 

### EPA 11 decided not to require cost control. You can look at 12 cost per ton, and that's the way the EPA likes to do it, 13 but there's the capital cost, the capital cost to 14 actually purchase the equipment, and it's one thing if 15 you're a large refiner

-- a three million dollar 16 investment is fine

-- but when you're an eight-man 17 company, 

### a three million dollar investment is beyond 18 reach. 19 So that actually has been anticipated by USEPA. 20 The EPA economists have sat down and discussed looking at 21 the affordability of costs based on a percent of 22 capitalization of the facility, and they've established 23 some guidelines. Mr. Hebert's facility would be so 24 beyond that guideline, it pales. It's one. Second is
Keefe Reporting Company 21

### costs so high. Q. 

### Yes. A. Yeah, okay. When you 

### make a very large part using a substance that has

-- it's reasonably toxic to the workers, you need a large airflow to control exposures. You also need a large airflow to control flammability. There are a number ofOSHArequirements operating cost. 

### Afacility that operates controls at a cost that's beyond their profit cannot afford the controls regardless of the cost per ton, so in Mr. Hebert's case, the same thing applies, that he won't make a profit 

### if he tries to run these controls. So the 

### fact that it's $18,000 per ton, which is much more than is considered to be affordable, is sort of moot when you consider the fact that he can't get the money to invest it 

### and he couldn't operate and make a profit. So in this case, add-on controls are clearly not affordable and they're not feasible. Q_ 

### What about the operations at this facility

or other pool manufacturing facilities are driving that cost? What about those operations would cause them to that the cost is sogreat that it needs a -- that the systemwould not be able to handle it? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

### 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### A. I 

### think you1re referring to why are the

Keefe Reporting Company 22that question? Q. It's an EPA guidance document? A. Yes, it is. Q. What were the results of the air impact analysis you conducted? that you use a certain amount of airflow in parts. If you look at those

-- Mr. Hebert's facility is using a 

### large amount of airflow to control those exposures and flammability issues. It's a dilute stream, very large airflow, so it makes it very difficult to try to get a concentrated smaller stream that might be affordable. Q. Dr. Haberlein, as a part of your work for Royal, did you prepare an air impact analysis that looked at VOM emissions from Royal's facility? 

### A. Yes. Q. 

### How didyou conduct that air impact analysis? A. We looked only at ozone and we used the 

### ScheEfe table to get an estimate ofwhat we considered the worst case and conservative estimate of the ozone 

### impact. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. 

### A.

A. And the ScheEfe table is? How much time do you want me to spend on

It turns out the Scheffe table is used as a Keefe Reporting Company 231 shortcut method to try to get an estimate of the ozone 2 that might be causedby emissions from a stationary 3 source. Photochemical modeling is conducted by EPA at 4 the regional level, typically in airsheds. We're talking 5 about air boxes that cover hundreds of kilometers with 6 inputs from thousands, maybe tens of thousands of sources 7 using sophisticated atmospheric chemistry and sunlight 8 and transport. Turns out that NOx controls the ozone 9 formation in most areas, these rural areas. Now, that's 10 not the case in urban areas, but in this case it's

-- in 11 Royal's case, I consider it to be a rural area. So how 12 does an individual source do such a model? It is beyond 13 the ability ofmany of the local EPAoffices. You sure 14 wouldn't expect an eight-man company to do it or -- and I 15 can't do it. EPA can't do it. 16 So they developed a shortcut method. An expert, 17 Mr. Scheffe, who is truly an expert in ozone modeling, 18 came up with the idea of coming up with a table. This 19 table would enable stationary sources to show compliance 20 with the one-hourozone standard that has been in effect, 21 and he put down a lot of reservations using the table, 22 that, you know, it had a limiteduse, but EPA felt a need 23 to checkoffa box that a model was done for a stationary 24 source because it is part of the Clean AirAct, and this
Keefe Reporting Company 24

### 1 allowed somebody to do that without going through what 2 would be perhaps a $100,000 modeling exercise. 3 Q. 

### And did your analysis show that the VOM 4 emissions fromRoyal's facility would have a negligible 5 impact on ozone formation? 6 A. Well, the word negligible was mine. The 7 table doesn't have negligible in it, so -- and I had a 8 reason for using that word. The table entry is the 9 lowest table entry. It's four parts per billion. Itls 10 all the way to the left and the top. The way the table 11 is organized, you -- ifyou go to the top and to the 12 left, the number goes down. Ifyou go to the bottomand 13 the right, the number goes up. At the upper left-hand 14 corner you have four parts perbillion, and that is the 15 lowest the table will yield. I believe itls even lower, 16 and I believe it for several reasons. 17 First of all, Royal's emissions are much less 18 than the 50 tons per year that are at that table line, so 19 they're actually way above the table, or at least above 20 the table. They're 29 tons. You'll also notice in the 21 table that it doesn't reallymatter ifyou're 100 tons or 22 75 tons or 50 tons if you're over there on all the way 23 to the left, because really you're down in the noise of 24 the model at that point, so it makes no difference if
Keefe Reporting Company 251 you're greater than 20

-- the ratio between VOM and NOx 2 is greater than 20. Ifyoutre in that column, you can be 3 a 100-ton source and you'll have the same impact, 4 according to the table. 5 In fact, the Royal operation 

### is way to the left 6 of the table. This is not a NOx emitter. They emit a 7 tiny amount of NOx, on the order of a few hundredpounds 8 in the winter, which is not known for ozone exceedances, 9 and otherwise they're not emitting any NOx. They're not 10 a power plant. They're not a SiMETCO. They don't have a 11 big boileron site. Theytre not a smelter. Theytre not 12 a foundry. They're not a source of NOx. They're not an 13 urban center that has a million cars driving to and from 14 work that are emitting NOx. As part of the research I 15 conducted to prepare for this board hearing, I discovered 16 that EPA has come to the conclusion that NOx and NOx 17 transport to rural areas is the reason that you have 18 ozone exceedances. I can't show you the data because I 19 don't have it, but I believe that's the case here. Now, 20 what that means is clear. What that means is that it's 21 the NOx thatts causing the problem, not the VOM, so the 22 tiny bit ofVOM that's emitted by this facility is not 23 going to have any impact on the ozone exceedances in this 24 area, and that's where my conclusion that it's negligible
Keefe Reporting Company 261 comes from. 2 There is more, however. I believe the actual 3 worst case is probably much less than four ppb. That's 4 why I said it was negligible. It's NOx limited in this 5 area most likely, so increases in VOM aren't going to 6 matter. It's the NOx that comes in from St. Louis that 7 matters. And one last thing. Just think about it in 8 terms of common sense. Ifyou think that adding a 29-ton 9 source is going to add four ppb, well, ifyou add ten 10 sources, you're going to add 40 ppb? And there are at 11 least 100 of these little sources, I'm guessing, in 12 Jefferson County ifyou take a hard look, so is that 13 addition of 29 tons going to add another 400 ppb, which 14 is, you know, many, many times the limit? No. I mean, 15 common sense tells you that you can't use the table just 16 to add and add and add. Now, in fact, photochemical 17 modeling takes everybody into this giant box and puts all 18 of their stuff in, andbecause of that, the little bit 19 that would be addedby his facility isn't really going to 20 matter. 21 Q. Is it true that since Royal is currently 22 operating and has been for several years at this facility 23 in Dix, Illinois, its air emissions have not increased 24 ozone formation from the levels they are at now? Keefe Reporting Company 27

### Q. Are these documents relevant to Royal's emissions ofVOMs and its effect on ozone formation? A. No. A. That goes to the common sense point that I just made. If you were to shut them down

-- First of 

### all, they're not a 29-ton source, but 

### if you were to shut them down

-- let's say they're a 12-ton source or a 20-ton source right now. If you shut them down tomorrow, deny the application, for example, it isn't going to make any difference in what the ozone level is. Same amount 

### ofNOx is still going to float in from St. Louis and there's still voe in this atmosphere. You're going to 

### have the same level, and 

### if that's the case, then their impact is truly negligible. Q. The Board filed some follow-up questions last week that it's asked Royal to respond to. and I have
a number ofquestions for you, Dr. Haberlein, regarding those questions so you can respond to those on behalfof Royal. You've read those questions? A. Yes. O. Boardquestion 2 references a USEPAguidance document and a USDA letter. Are you familiar with those documents? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### A. Yes.

Keefe Reporting Company 281 Q. Could you explain that? 2 A. Well, I mean, that's kind of a hard question 3 to answer yes and no. They certainly reference the topic 4 and the issue, but are they applicable to this situation? 5 The answer to that is no, and the reason why is the 6 Scheffe table was initially designed to be a one-hour 7 table. There is no provision for applying a screening 8 factor to the Scheffe table to get an eight-hour average. 9 Ifyou look at the reference

-- and there was I think a 10 miswording in the Board's question. USEPA does not have 11 screening factors for ozone impacts. Those are for air 12 taxies impacts, for the simple Gaussian plume dispersion, 13 and those screening factors are used

-- I use them. I 14 use them all the time when I do a screen model or a CT 15 screen model or an ISC model. I

-- Not ISC, but for all 16 the screening models I use the factors. 17 If you look carefully at their reference, ifyou 18 look at the first page of the reference, it says that it 19 should be used for chemically stable substances, and 20 ozone formation is not chemically stable. It is highly 21 reactive. In fact, if you go backwards and look at the 22 other source documents where these factors are used, like 23 the T screen references or the original equation, which I 24 have a copy of there, that was used to develop these
Keefe Reporting Company 291 screening factors, in all cases the USEPA reference says, 2 shall be used for chemically stable or non-reactive 3 substances. They're referring to Gaussian plume 4 dispersion where you have a substance that's being 5 emittedby a facility, it disperses locally, usually 6 touches down within a few hundred meters and you get an 7 impact. The screening models develop a one-hour number 8 based on one-hour data that was developed by Pasquale, 9 who was the guy that originally developed this, and it's 10 reasonably accurate. I got some plots I can show you of 11 models, and you can see fromjust looking at the plots 12 that those screening levels make sense. But the only 13 thing that a photochemical model and a dispersion model 14 have in common is the word model. They are completely 15 different, and these screening factors that have been 16 suggested to be used, that use isn't appropriate. 17 Q. And so these documents are not appropriate 18 for scaling air quality impacts from a one-hour ozone 19 standard to an eight-hour standard? 20 

### A. That is correct. 21 Q. Are you aware of any EPA or IEPA guidance 22 documents which provide guidance regarding scaling air 23 quality impacts from a one-hour ozone standard to an 24 eight-hour ozone standard?
Keefe Reporting Company 301 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I have been told directly by EPA there is no 

### guidance on the subject by the form ofdocuments or any guidance. There's no -- And it's not just Illinois EPA. It's most of the EPA agencies donlt have any guidance on how to do this. Federal EPA is still struggling with how to do this. This is

-- That's 

### why the Scheffe table was created originally when they were struggling with the 

### one-hour standard. It's beyond the resource base ofmost local EPA offices to do this. because these models are difficult to do for airsheds, let alone try to do it 

### for every stationary source within the airshed. Q. 

### In the Board's follow-up questions, they made reference to some ozone monitoring data for eight-hour and one-hour monitoring that has been done. Were you aware of that data

-- A. Yes. Q.

-- previously? Based on this data and the EPA guidance reference in the Board's questions, is it proper to use a scaling factor to estimate an eight-hour

ozone increment from a one-hour increment? 

### A**~.** Q_ Based on the information provided in the Board's follow-up questions, do you still believe that Royal's emissions will have a negligible effect on air
Keefe Reporting Company 311 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 quality?

### A. Yes. Q. In Board question 3 it discusses placing 

### conditions in the adjusted standard limiting Royal's VOM emissions on ozone action days. Question 3(a) sets forth


### an equation for

-- which identifies a maximumdaily amount of VOMa that might be emitted from the facility. Could you comment upon the equation that's set forth in 

### the Board's questions? A. You know, I'd like to make a comment on that 

### but perhaps not address the question directly, and this may be a bit oblique, but with yourpermission, I

-- bear with me. I'll indicate why I disagree with the Board. That question is like the dog

-- the tail wagging the dog. I think we could debate and probably find a number that would somehow represent a maximum hourly emission 17 from a facility. The problem is that there is no 18 record-keeping scheme that an eight-man company can 19 implement to actually show compliance with that. 20 Typically, when I encounter this at the state level when 21 I'mworking with state agencies over permitting language 22 conditions, I always point out that donlt write a 23 condition in a permit unless there's some way to keep 24 track of it and therefore you can enforce it, and so I'd
Keefe Reporting Company 321 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### rather maybe address that first before we start talking about the number, because 

### if there's no way to do it, 

### then why even try to come up with a number that makes sense? 

### Q. What would be some of the problems in trying to keep track of it? 

### A. Okay. You're asking an eight-man company to figure out a way to measure the amount ofmaterial they
use on a daily basis, do a calculation of that material to determine 

### if they're in compliance with the limit. 

### Q. What would that involve? A. They have material scattered around the 

### facility in five-gallon pails, 55-gallon drums and much larger square boxes called totes. You could conceivably weigh those drums, although that would be a maintenance challenge, but typicallywhat you have to do wouldbe in the morning go around with a bunch of sticks andput the stick down into the vessel, pull the stick out and see what the depth is, write that number down. There's a risk

-- and it'S a real risk

-- of contaminating the material when you do that, and understand even a speck of sawdust will screw up the equipment; now you're down. So people do sticking of their tanks with great reluctance because they usually have a problem if they do it 

### over Keefe Reporting Company 331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### and over again. But in this case you'd have togo -- somebody would have to go around with a clipboard and put a stick 

### in all of the drums andpails and totes in the facility and write those numbers down, and then during the day, when a new tote was brought in or a new drumwas brought in, you'd have to make note that the drum had been moved out and a new one had been brought in. You'd have to check to see how much was left in the bottom, because 

### there's always some left at the bottom. I guess you could try to stick it. 

### You wouldn't get a very accurate amount. And then at the end of the day you have to go 

### around and find the ones you sticked before and restick them so you get the difference, meanwhile keeping track of what was new and what was old. That person would have to go into the office before they left for work

-- left from work and do the mathematics associated with figuring out how much we used of what material and then input it into a program I've developed a program you could probably do that to and

come up with a number, and until then they wouldn't know if they were in compliance or not. There could be a math

error. At any step that math error could either underpredict or overpredict the emissions. So it would

Keefe Reporting Company 341 become what I call a logistic and record-keeping 2 nightmare to try to do such a thing. 3 This was discussed with federal EPA. Federal EPA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 wanted us to have real time, you know, record-keeping and reporting as part of the MACT standard, and we went through this a year. They had to actually visit three facilities to understand the scope of the problem, and that's why they ended up at the end of the rule making it into a monthly record that is kept, and it's based on purchases, because they recognized that itls so difficult to keep track of all these materials that there really

was no other way to do it. Q. In the Board's questions it makes reference to the possibility of a condition upon Royal if there was
ozone action days in East St. Louis, how workable it would be to monitor those ozone action days and then take steps to limit VOM emissions or base the production for Royal on those days. From your experience in, you know, operating a -- or managing a facility, how difficult would that be to

-- logistically to be checking for ozone action days every day and dealing with workers I schedules and things like that? A. It would be the first time I have ever seen 24 that applied to a composite shop in my years. I have a Keefe Reporting Company 351 client, the largest emitterof styrene in L.A., in the 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. That 3 facility is subject to many programs to try to limit 4 emissions during ozone events, and they have ozone events 5 there all the time, and those ozone events probably would 6 be affected by their

### voe emissions, because there, 7 they're

## voe limited. They have lots ofNOx, so it's the 8 

## voe that causes increases. Every single thing that 9 they're subject to, that 1'maware of, at least, is 10 voluntary, because South Coast recognizes that there's 11 just no workable way a company can call someone up and 12 then turn around and call all their employees and tell 13 them, don't come. It's just not a workable solution. 14 It's not practical to do that. 15 And I have one other thought about this as far as 16 the purpose of it, even if you were to force the company 17 to do it, okay? I'mnot understanding the purpose. If 18 the purpose is to try to somehow reduce the ozone in 19 Jefferson County by having their workers stay home, 20 recognize that it's the NOx coming over from St. Louis 21 that's causing the problem, not the VOC fromhis 22 facility. So let'S say there is an event in East 23 St. Louis, because there's a whole lot of NOx over there. 24 That stuff's floating over here. There's plenty of VOC Keefe Reporting Company 361 around here. Itls VOC dominated. So itls the NOx that's 2 controlling it, so if these people stay home, they're 3 going to have exactly the same impact because it's the 4 NOx that's driving this area. S MR. GUARIGLIA: Thank you. I don't have any 6 further questions. 7 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Okay. Mr. Matoesian, B do you have any questions? 9 MR. MATOESIAN: No questions. 10 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Okay. Ms. Liu, I'm 11 sure you have a few questions. 12 EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. LIU, 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 Q. Good morning. Doctor. A. Good morning. O. Thankyou for making the very long trip to be with us today and for the history ofyour background. That was fascinating to listen to that. It's nice to actually meet the personbehind a lot of those USEPA numbers we see, so welcome. The last subject that you have been talking about deals with some sort ofa way to limit operations during ozone action days, and thatls kind ofa condition that's a little bit of a wild card 24 here. Illinois EPA has expressed an interest in perhaps
Keefe Reporting Company 371 a voluntary way to do it, and you've also expressed the 2 logistical difficulty in actually implementing something, 3 whether or not it's a mandatory requirement or as a 4 voluntary means of addressing it. One of the things that 5 you mentioned was how difficult it would actually be to 6 monitor the VOM emissions without having to go through 7 some very tedious tasks that actually might impact 8 product quality. 9 I noticed, though, in the first amended petition 10 in Exhibit 2, there's a table, Exhibit C, that provides 11 estimates of maximum hourly usage of certain materials 12 depending on the type ofpool, the type of coating and 13 the type ofphase that it is in production. I was 14 wondering if logistically it might be simpler to have an 15 idea of what the facility was planning to do that day and 16 to simply go to the table to get an idea ofhow much they 17 would be emitting that day other than doing measurements 18 around the facility that might actually impact product 19 quality. I don't know ifyou're familiar enough with the 20 daily operations to say whether or not that would be 21 logistically possible or not. 22 A. I just was -- didn't know if you were 23 finished asking the question or not. Yeah, if

-- first 24 of all, that table, I asked them to prepare that for me Keefe Reporting Company 381 because I was trying to get a grip on how much material 2 they actually

-- how much gelcoat they actually use. 3 That's

-- was really the initial emphasis of this, 4 because it was the gelcoating operation that led to the 5 violation notice, and I really wasn't comfortable, 6 because they had just changed their gelcoating operation, 7 that I knew what the number was. You'll notice that the 8 number went up significantly from when I first started to 9 when we did the last bid, and that wasn't an oversight. 10 It was just they didn't know, so I asked them to actually 11 measure those numbers, and they went to a lot of trouble 12 to come up with that data. It was a one-time thing. It 13 wasn't done 14 Q. It's very complete. 15 A. Yeah. It wasn't done every day. It was, 16 you know, do this, do that. It was very difficult for 17 them to come up with that data, and I thank you for doing 18 it, because it helped. What you're referring to is what 19 I typically call the bill of material approach, okay? I 20 got into this in Arkansas with the boat manufacturer and 21 the Arkansas DEQ, for example; you know how many boats 22 you're building, you know what boats are -- what boats 23 take on the average, so can't you come up with some way 24 that you're keeping track of what you're making that you Keefe Reporting Company 39

### can't keep track ofyour emissions, and that's the bill of material approach. In their case -- Q. 

### Bill and material?

Q. Bill of material? A. You see, every boat has a bill of material, you know, how many cleats and seats and, you know, 

### speedometers and also how many pounds of gelcoat and how many pounds of resin, so it's sort of logical that you 

### could use the bill ofmaterial to come up with a scheme for doing, you know, emissions on a daily basis, okay? The problem in Arkansas was that their bill ofmaterial
was horrible, that the bill ofmaterial had beenjust sort of created on the 

### fly as a guess, and so it was 80 

### inaccurate, there were these huge discrepancies between the boats they build andhowmuch material they use, which is, you know, a real problem for a lot of reasons beyondjust emissions. So there's that problemwith it. It's just ifyou try to say that, okay, Royal is

-- builds 14 pool models, they alsodo it in a number of different colors, so we're going to have to deal with the fact that there are different colors and different model sizes; let's just develop a pounds perday for each one of these pools, and ifwe know what you're making today, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### A. Bill of 

### material.

Keefe Reporting Company 401 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 we can just estimate the emissions. It sounds logical. 

### That's why I call it 

### the bill ofmaterial approach. The problem is they don't build a pool a day. They might build two little pools in one day. but more likely they're going to build a part of a pool today, they may 

### gelcoat a large pool today, and then they maydo part of the resin tomorrow and then they may do a little bit more 

### of the resin the next day and then they finish it 

### the fourth, or they may make a pool and a half in one day and then do another pool in a day. So they don't make a part 

### that you can attribute to a day, so the bill ofmaterial won't work because I don't know what part of the bill of material got used in the day I'm trying to add up. That's just, I think, impossiblejust because ofhow they're making their stuff there. That's why that approach won't work. O. It would be very intensive on a personnel level, wouldn't it, to have someone there for the sole purpose of tracking A. Material. O.

-- the forecast as well as what they were going to do that day just tomake sure it was at a certain A. I don't even think

-- What you've suggested Keefe Reporting Company 411 is

-- I do follow you and I understand where you're 2 headed with that. It isn't just intensive. I don't 3 think they have a way to do it. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Here's why. When they add resin to the

-- 6 The gelcoat they do in an hour or thereabouts. That's 7 why I had them focus on that, because it was clear. 8 There's another thing too. Oftentimes the EPAwill 9 suggest that, well, why don't you chop your operation up 10 into parts and that way you can deal with our rule and we 11 don't have to deal with you. You know how many times 12 I've been told to put in 20 guns because we have a rule 13 on a gun, and ifwe have 20 guns, you can do it; I don't 14 care if you use them, as long as they're there. It's, 15 you know, that type of thing to get around a difficult 16 rule. This is a very difficult rule for them, for the 17 Illinois EPA. They created this rule some time ago, and 18 in my conversations with them, it's an extraordinarily 19 difficult rule. I would guess that there are hundreds, 20 perhaps thousands of companies that are violating this 21 rule right now. Youjust haven't found themyet, and if 22 they were all here today, you'd be having one hearing 23 after another after another after another asking for an 24 adjusted standard on this rule. Keefe Reporting Company 421 And Illinois is not alone. Ohio EPA is 2 struggling with exactly the same thing, and 1'minvolved 3 intimately with their 840 rule. They're on the verge of 4 getting rid of that rule because they've found it to be 5 unworkable as well. At least they have an offramp. 6 They call it a G(9)(g) where you can do a study and get 7 out of it without going through the Board. So it's an 8 extraordinarily difficult rule for a small fabricator to 9 deal with anyway, and the states have trouble with it. 10 So, you know, I'm looking for a way to make this 11 work. The problemhere 

### in particular that just makes it 12 impossible, makes it clearly impossible and there's just 13 no way around it, is the fact that they have to apply all 14 of this gelcoat at one time, and the rule doesn't allow 15 you to chop it up into different guns. It's just that 16 much from the unit. So they're putting

-- as you see, 17 putting down all of this gelcoat on this large part. 18 They don't have a choice. They can't put a little bit 19 over here and a little bit over there, a little bit over 20 here, or put it on with ten guns somehow. They've got to 21 put it on 

### in one hour because it's the finish and it 22 can't have any gaps or Beams on it, and so because of 23 that

-- and that's why that document was prepared, to 24 show you the scope of the problem. They're 

### in order of
Keefe Reporting Company 431 magnitude greater

-- more than in order of magnitude 2 greater of the eight pounds, and there's just no way 3 around it. 4 And just to go a bit farther, just

-- I told him 5 to shut me up, but, see, I didn't tell you that, so 6 just

-- you can tell me I've said enough ifyou'd like. 7 There's another problem that's greater, actually, than 8 their issue, and I'm sort of talking for the association 9 now. People want tobuild windblades. People want to 10 build underground storage tanks. People want to build 11 large boats, or will hopefully some day want to build 12 large boats again in this state. You can't do any of 13 that in composites in Illinois. I've had at least one 14 company come to me that wanted to site a windblade 15 facility here, and I told them, don't do it because 16 you'll be in front of the Board and it's going to cost 17 you $50,000, and so they went to North Dakota. It's 18 You've created a barrier for anybody to make large 19 composites parts in the state of Illinois that's 20 impossible to meet, because who wants to come here and 21 deal with this? Who wants to hire Dale and me to sit in 22 front of the Board for

-- how many years now is it again, 23 Dale, we've been doing this? And it

-- so it's a 24 barrier, and ifyou look at the documents and see the
Keefe Reporting Company 441 issue and

-- you'll understand it's a barrier. It's not 2 just something I'm saying. It really is a problem, 3 because you got to put gelcoat on the part all at once. 4 It's in about an hour, and ifyou make anything bigger 5 than a bathtub, you can't meet it. 

### 6 MS. LIU: Thank you very much, Doctor. 7 Thank you. 

### 8 FURTHER EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. GUARIGLIA, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. I have one follow-up question, Dr. Haberlein. With regard to the condition that was proposed in the Board's follow-up questions with regard to checking ozone in East St. Louis and limiting the amounts of production, would such a limitation have any negligible effect on ozone formation

-- A. I

-- As I've explained Q. in your opinion? A. As live explained in all my rambling testimony here, I don't see how it would have any real impact on that's why I said I thought it was negligible. 

### MR. GUARIGLIA, Thank you. HEARING OFFICERWEBB; Alisa, were you done? Did you have anything else?
Keefe Reporting Company 451 MS. LIU: I don't have any further questions 2 for you, Doctor, but I do have some for the Agency as a 3 follow-up to what they had filed yesterday, but thank you 4 again so much for 

### 5 DR. HABERLEIN, Thankyou very much. 6 MS. LIU,

-- going to the depth that you 7 did. Thank you. 

### 8 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Before we get to 9 those, Mr. Guariglia, do you have anything else you would 10 like to present before we move on to the Agency? 11 MR. GUARIGLIA: Let me follow up with a few 12 concluding remarks, unless we're going to do -- 

### 13 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, I

-- Yeah, we'll do 14 that, but, yeah, we'll do closing statements at the end.

closing. MR. GUARIGLIA: I'll just stick it in at the

answer some of the questions that -- MR. MATOESIAN: Maybe some questions. 

### HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Okay. Well, ifwe HEARING OFFICERWEBB, All right. Mr. Matoesian, you do not have anything you had planned to present today, but you do have a witness MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. who may be able to 

### HEARING OFFICERWEBB, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Keefe Reporting Company 461 could call your witness to the stand, please, if that 2 would be all right, and the court please swear in the 3 witness. 4 (Witness sworn.) 

### 5 HEARING**O~~ICER** 

### WEBB, Okay. I guess we'll 6 go ahead and begin with Ms. Liu, unless anybody else -- 7 unless you care to 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

### MR. GUARIGLIA, No. HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Okay. MR. GUARIGLIA: As long as I can reserve the right to ask questions in follow-up. 

### HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Absolutely. ANDREW J. RUSSO, produced, sworn and examined on behalf of the Agency, testified as follows: 

### EXAMINATION BY MS. LIU, Q. Good morning, Mr. Russo. A. Good morning. Q. Thank you for coming today. A. You're welcome. Q. The Agency's recommendation excuse my voice -- included five proposed conditions. I believe Royal proposed three and the Agency proposed five. There'S a condition 0 on page 7 of the recommendation,
Keefe Reporting Company 471 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and I'll restate i. It says, "The relief granted in 

### this proceeding shall be limited to the emissions activities at Royal's Dix facility as of the date of this filing." Royal's original petition indicated that they 

### had a production level of around 220 pools per year but there was a desire to go to 400 pools per year as a cap. I just was wondering 

### if you could please clarify whether


### or not the Agency's proposed condition to limit the emissions activities actually related only to the types of emissions activities or was it meant to relate to the level or the amount of emissions? 

### A. I can't answer 

### that today, but we'll get back to you in writing on that. Q. Okay. HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Before we continue, I think we -- did we remember to mention on the record who this witness is? I think we may have jumped into the question, so if we could

-- that's okay. My fault. Not yours. MS. LID: Was he sworn in? HEARING OFFICER WEBB: He was sworn, yes, but you are -- your name, sir? MR. RUSSO: My name is Andrew Russo. HEARING OFFICER WEBB, And your position
Keefe Reporting Company 481 with the IEPA is? 2 MR. RUSSO: I'man environmental protection 3 engineer with the Bureau of Air, Division of Pollution 4 Control. air quality planning section and regulatory 5 unit. 6 HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And your role in this 7 proceeding was? 8 MR. RUSSO; To consult with the petitioner 9 and review their petition prior to their filing it. 10 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, All right. Did you 11 have any other questions? Okay. Thank you. 12 Q. (By Ms. Liu) Thank you for hanging in there 13 with me. Yesterday the Illinois EPA filed a response to 14 some of the pre-hearing questions that we had had, and in 15 the response to question 21(d) of the hearing officer 16 order, the Agency talks about the scaling factors and 17 whether or not it was appropriate to use those when 18 applying the ozone increment, and the Agency makes the 19 statement that it doesn't endorse the use of scaling 20 factors that are based on steady-state assumptions, and 21 then it goes on to say that ozone is not steady-state. I 22 was wondering if there was a contradiction there, if it 23 needed to be clarified. Did the Agency mean that they 24 didn't endorse scaling factors for non-steady-state
Keefe Reporting Company 491 assumptions other than steady-state? 2 A. I don't know the answer to that, and if 3 possible, we'd like to reply in writing. 4 Q. Okay. Further on in that response, on 5 page 3, it talks about a combined ozone increment and 6 ozone design value of 72 parts permillion. Just wanted 7 to make sure, I think they meant parts per billion? 8 A. I think you are correct about that. 9 Q. And then the other question I had was they 10 do talk about the ozone design value being 73 parts per 11 billion, but then they talk about a combined ozone 12 increment and ozone design value of 72, and I was 13 wondering how it goes down when you combine the two, or 14 was that an oversight? 15 A. The air quality analysis or impact analysis 16 that has been provided, questions regarding that can be 17 answered in writing, andwe will be happy to do that. 18 MS. LIU, Okay. Ifyou will bearwith me, I 19 thank you very much for all your answers. Was there any 20 follow-up that Royal's counsel wanted to

-- 21 MR. GUARIGLIA, We do not have any 22 questions. I don't think we have any questions of this 23 witness. 24 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, You do not have any Keefe Reporting Company 501 questions? No one has any further questions for this 2 witness? Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. 3 MR. RUSSO; If I could have a comment off 4 the record? 5 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Well, we don't 6 usually do that. Why don't you talk to your lawyer 7 first. We'll go off the record for a moment so you can talk to your lawyer. (Discussion held off the record.) HEARING OFFICER WEBB, We've just had an off-the-record conversation about some procedural

witness here who was able to answer some of the Boardls questions, the parties have agreed that the 

### TEPA will file written responses to Ms. Liu's questions based on the language that is in the transcript. We will be getting the transcript by November 9, and the Board will get that up on our web site as quickly as possible. The 

### TEPA will file written responses to the Board's questions by November 16, and the petitioner is planning to file any response to the 

### TEPA's written answers in the same document as a post-hearing brief by December 7, so petitioner

-- by December 7, petitioner will file a document that will constitute their post-hearing brief 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 matters. Because the 

### EPA IEPA did not have their

Keefe Reporting Company 511 and their rely to the IEPA's written answers. The IEPA's 2 post-hearing brief will also be due by December 7, and, 3 Mr. Matoesian, you will let me know if the Agency decides 4 not to file a post-hearing brief

-- 5 MR. MATOESIAN, Sure. 6 HEARING OFFICERWEBB:

-- is that correct? 7 MR. MATOESIAN, Yes. 8 HEARINGOFFICER WEBB, All right. So just 9 to summarize, the transcript is due by November 9; the 10 IEPA's written answers are due by November 16; 11 petitioner's post-hearing brief and responses to the 12 IEPA's written answers are due by December 7; and the 13 Agency's post-hearing brief is also due by December 7. 14 Okay. The public comment deadline is November 12. Any 15 pUblic comment must be filed in accordance with 16 Section 101.628 of the Board's procedural rules. Would 17 the petitioner like to make a closing argument? 18 MR. GUARIGLIA: Yes, we would, Your Honor. 19 HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Okay. 20 MR. GUARIGLIA: The

-- Thanking again the 21 Board for their time and for your time, specifically your 22 personal time in hearing our petition, and for obviously 23 reading ourbriefs and spending time on those and 24 thinking through these issues.
Keefe Reporting Company 521 The

-- You know, part of the request for an 2 adjusted standard is to show that the rationale or the 3 justification for this is that factors relating to our 4 situation, to Royal's situation, are substantially and 5 significantly different than the factors that the Board 6 looked at when proposing the eight pound per hour rule, 7 and although it's hard to know what the Board exactly was 8 thinking 35 years ago when they proposed the eight pound 9 per hour rule, I'm sure there was very good reasons for 10 it at that time. However, I think at that time they 11 probably were not contemplating the fact of operations 12 like Royal where you have, you know, three things going 13 on that are significant. One is that you're dealing with 14 very large parts that are being manufactured. These are 15 not, you know, small like, you know, motorcycle helmets 16 where you could enclose them in a small container in a 17 small production facility to control the emissions off of 18 those. You also have

-- It is a batch operation as 19 opposed to a continuous operation. That makes 20 controlling those emissions a lot more difficult too. 21 And the biggest issue here is just, you know, 30 22 years ago there wasn't a worker protection standard that 23 there is now for styrene, and so Royal in order to 24 protect its workers needs to have a significant amount of
Keefe Reporting Company 531 airflow coming through those bays when they are 2 manufacturing their pools, because OSHA would not be too 3 kind if we decided to make the entire bay a containment 4 area and then vented the emissions out through a stack 5 and then put all the employees in a self-contained 6 breathing apparatus. OSHA would find that to be illegal 7 since we are supposed to use -- Royal's supposed to use 8 engineering controls to control exposure to workers 9 rather than trying to put people in personal protective 10 equipment, and so that's why the open bays need to be 11 open to the air and have a significant amount of air that 12 goes through there. 13 The

-- Royal is currently regulated under the EPA 14 composites MACT standard, and the EPA has spent, you 15 know, quite a bit of time and energy in looking at this 16 industry and regulating it in order to control emissions 17 of hazardous air pollutants, and so we are, you know, 18 reluctant and would be adverse to additional restrictions 19 that would place Royal at a competitive disadvantage to 20 other pool manufacturers throughout the country that 21 would not have to comply with, you know, very specific 22 requirements as suggested in some of the Board's 23 questions; that we would rather have a level playing 24 field, and that's what we think the EPA set forth in the
Keefe Reporting Company S41 MACT standard for all types ofboat

-- or 1 1msorry -- 2 all types of pool manufacturers throughout the United 3 States. 4 As Dr. Haberlein testified, you know, there are 5 just significant technical and regulatory constraints 6 from

-- yeah, technical, regulatory and just economic 7 constraints on either trying to manufacture pools in a 

## a different method than the open mold method, which is the 9 current method that all manufacturers in the United 10 States manufacture fiberglass pools, and that

-- just the 11 extreme high cost

-- up-front cost for doing any kind of 12 end-of-stack controls we were talking about. You know, 13 it's over $700,000 just to put those controls in, another 14 $470,000 per year to operate them. You know, injust 15 taking out to the base level, it would

-- Royal would 16 close the facility if they had to add those type of 17 controls on this facility andjust close up business and 18 leave the state and either leave manufacturing altogether 19 ormove to a different state such as Missouri and start 20 its operation up, which is not really going to ultimately 21 affect

-- you know, there won't be a significant change 22 in the emissions in the United States; it wouldjust be 23 moved to a different state. 24 The

-- We are -- You know, we just really ask the
Keefe Reporting Company 551 Board to grant this adjusted standard. We know that the 2 Boarddid grant a similar adjusted standard for Crownline 3 Pools just three years ago, and we have crafted our 4 request for an adjusted standardbased upon the language 5 that the Board granted for Crownline, and we would hope 6 that that same type of adjusted standard wouldbe issued 7 here; that there wouldn't be additional restrictions 8 placedupon Royal in this situation, particularly where 9 there seems to be, you know, no scientific basis for 10 restrictions such as contacting, you know, East St. Louis 11 to see if there's an ozone action day and then having to 12 go through the hoops of change operations when 13 Dr. Haberlein has testified that such a restriction 14 such a limitation on Royal's permit wouldreally have a 15 negligible effect on ozone in the long run. So we 16 hereby, you know, request again that the Boardwould 17 grant the adjusted standard as we have proposed in our 18 petition, in our first amendedpetition. Thank you. 19 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Thankyou very much. 20 Mr. Matoesian, do you have any final comments? 21 MR. MATOESIAN, Just briefly that we thank 22 the Board for their time and effort and that based upon 23 the information we have received, we would recommend that 24 the Boardgrant this adjusted standard as well. Thank
Keefe Reporting Company 561 2 you. 

### HEARING OFFICERWEBB, Thank you. At this 3 time I will again note that there are no members of the 4 public present to make any statements on the record. I 5 find all of the witnesses testifying today to be 6 credible, and at this time I will conclude the 7 proceedings. We stand adjourned and I thank everyone for 8 their participation. 9 (Hearing adjourned.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Keefe Reporting Company 57

### SS STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTYOFBOND 1 2 3 4 I, KAREN WAUGH, a Notary Public and Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Bond, State 6 of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I was present at the 7 C.E. Brehm Memorial Public Library, Mt. Vernon, Illinois,

#084-003688 Notary Public--CSR 8 on October 28. 2009, and did record the aforesaid 9 Hearing; that same was taken down in shorthand byme and 10 afterwards transcribed, and that the above and foregoing 11 is a true and correct transcript of said Hearing. 

### 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand 13 and affixed my Notarial Seal this 8th day of November, 14 2009. 15 16 17 18 19 20 

### 21 22 23 24
Keefe Reporting Company 58

### IEPAATTACHMENTNO

# 70 ElectronicFiling-Received,Clerk'sOffice,November16,2009 '-

BEFORETHEILLINOISPOLLUTIOi'iCOi'iTROLBOARD INTHEMATTEROF: ) ) 

### PETITIO OFROYALFIBERGLASSPOOLS, ) INC.FORANADJUSTEDSTANDARDFROM ) 35ILL.ADM.CODE215.301 ) )



### NOTICE AS2009-04 (AdjustedStandard-Air)

TO: JohnTherriault,AssistantClerk TIIinoisPollutionControlBoard JamesR.ThompsonCenter 100WestRandolph,Suite11-500 Chicago,Illinois60601-3218 DaleA.Guariglia BrandonW. euschafer BryanCaveLLP OneMetropolitanSquare,Suite3600 211N.Broadway SI.Louis,MO63102-2750 CarolWebb,HearingOfficer IllinoisPollutionControlBoard JamesR.ThompsonCenter 100WestRandolph,Suite11-500 Chicago,Illinois60601-3218

PLEASETAKE OnCEthatIhavetodayfiledwiththeOfficeofthePollutionControlBoard theILLINOISEPA'SRE PO SETOOUESTIO SPOSEDBY

## THEILUNOISPOLLUTION CO TROLBOARDATTHEHEARJNG

## 0 OCTOBER28,2009ofthellIinois EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyacopyofwhichisherewithserveduponyou.

ILLINOISENVlRO ME TAL PROTECTIONAGENCY By: lsi

### CharlesE.Matoesian CharlesE.Matoesian AssistantCounsel DivisionofLegalCounsel DATED: ovember16,2009 1021 1

### orthGrandAvenueEast P.O.Box19276 Springfield,lIIinois62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143(TOO) THISFILINGISS BMITTED ONRECYCLEDPAPER

# ElectronicFiling-Received,Clerk'sOffice,November16,2009

BEFORETHEILLINOISPOLLUTIO CONTROLBOARD INTHEMAITEROF: ) ) PETITIO OFROYALFIBERGLASSPOOLS, ) INC.FORANADJUSTEDSTANDARDFROM ) 35ILL.ADM.CODE215.301 ) ) AS2009-04 (AdjustedStandard-Air)

ILLI 

### OISEPA'SRESPONSETOOUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEILLINOIS POLLUTIOI CO'TROLBOARDATTHEHEARINGONOCTOBER28.2009

NOWCOMESRespondent,ILLINOISENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY ("IllinoisEPA"or"Agency"),byitsattorney,CharlesE.Matoesian,andfilesthisresponsctothe questionsoftheIllinoisPollutionControlBoard's("Board")askedatthehearingheldon Octobcr28,2009. QuestionI,Page47

-48ofthetranscript: There'saconditionDonpage7oftherecommendation,andI'llrestateit.Itsays, "Thereliefgrantedinthisproceedingshallbelimitedtotheemissionsactivitiesat Royal'sOixfacilityasofthedateofthisfiling."Royal'soriginalpetitionindicated thattheyhadaproductionlevelofaround220poolsperyearbuttherewasa desiretogoto400poolsperyearasacap.Ijustwaswonderingifyoucould pleaseclarifywhetherornottheAgency'sproposedconditiontolimitthe emissionsactivitiesactuallyrelatedonlytothetypesofemissionsactivitiesor wasitmeanttorelatetothelevelortheamountofemissions? Response: ConditionDonpage7

### of theIllinoisEPArecommendationrelatesonlytothe typesof emissionsactivities,i.e.,fiberglasspoolmannfaclIIringattheDixfacility. Condition Disnotmeanttorelatetothelevelortheamountof emissions. However,theleveland amountof emissionsaretobeincompliancewiththeproposedpermitconditions,that includestheann/wiproductioncapof 400pools. Question2,page49

-50oftheTR: YesterdaytheBlinoisEPAfiledaresponsetosomeofthepre-hearingquestions thatwehadhad,andintheresponsetoquestion21(d)ofthehearingofficerorder, theAgencytalksaboutthescalingfactorsandwhetherornotitwasappropriateto usethosewhenapplyingtheozoneincrement,andtheAgencymakesthe statementthatitdoesn'tendorsetheuseofscalingfactorsthatarebasedon

# ElectronicFiling-Received,Clerk'sOffice,November16,2009

steady-stateassumptions,andthenitgoesontosaythatozoneisnotsteady-state. Iwaswonderingiftherewasacontradictionthere,ifitneededtobeclarified.Did theAgencymeanthattheydidn'tendorsescalingfactorsfornon-steady-state assumptionsotherthansteady-state? 

### Respollse:TheIEPA'sOctober27,2009writtellre;"JOllsetoQllestioll21(d)OftheHearillg OfficerOrderstated,illpart,thefollowillg:"TheAgellcydoes1I0telldorsetheliseof scalillg factorsthatarebasedallsteady-state,Gallssiallpillme-typeassllmptioIlS."Regrettably,this selltellceisallillcompletee;'(pressiollof theilltelldedcOllcept.Theselltellceshollidhaveread: TheAgellcydoes1I0telldorsetheliseof scalillgfactorsthatarebasedallsteady-state, Gallssiallpillme-typeassllmptiollSforestimatillgalternativeaveragillgtimecOllcelltratiollsof polllltalltsthataresecolldarily formed. Question3,page50oftheTR: Funheroninthatresponse,onpage3,ittalksaboutacombinedozoneincrement andozonedesignvalueof72partspermillion.Justwantedtomakesure,Ithink theymeantpansperbillion? 

### Respollse:The1111

### itsforthe"combilledozolleillcremelltalldozolledesigllvallie"were illcorrectlyspecifiedaspartspermillioll("72

### ppm

## 'J.ThecorrectIIl1itsarepartsperbillioll (ppb),alldsothetextshollMhaveread

## Z2....1!.e!!.. Question4,page50oftheTR: AndthentheotherquestionIhadwastheydotalkabouttheozonedesignvalue being73partsperbillion,butthen theytalkaboutacombinedozoneincrement andozonedesignvalueof72,and[waswonderinghowitgoesdownwhenyou combinethetwo,orwasthatanoversight? 

### Respollse:Thedesigllvallieisdepelldellt"POIIthespecificyearsof mOllitorillgdatafrom whichitiscalclliated.Asilldicatedillthe1EPA'sOctober27,2009writtellrespollseto Qllestioll21

### (d),the"2005-20078-llOlIrozolledesigllvallie" fortheHamiltollCOlllltymOllitor is"73

### ppb".The2007-20098-hollrozolledesigllvallieIISillgtheHamiltollCOlllltymOllitorillg datais68

### ppb(thislowervalliereflectscleallerambielltairillmorerecelltyears).The additiollOfthe4

### ppbozolleillcremelltfromtheAirQllalityImpactAllalysisgivesatotal "combilledozolleillcremelltalldozolledesigllvallie"Of72

### ppb.ltshollidbe1I0tedthatIEPA followsUSEPA'scOllvelltiollofreportillgthe8-hollraverageozollecOllcellfratioll,whell expressedillIIl1itsof partspermillioll,tothreedecimalplaces(allydigitstotherightof the thirddecimalplacearetmllcatedj.

# ElectronicFiling-Received,Clerk'sOffice,November16,2009

Respectfullysubmitted, 

### ILLINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY



### By: lSI

### CharlesE.Matoesian CharlesE.Matoesian AssistantCounsel DivisionofLegalCounsel DATED:November16,2009 1020NorthGrandAvenueEast P.O.Box19276 Springfield,Illinois62794-9276 21717782-5544 (217)782-9807Facsimile

# ElectronicFiling-Received,Clerk'sOffice,November16,2009

STATEOFILLINOIS COU TYOFSANGAMON ) ) ) 

### SS

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE I,theundersigned,anattorney,statethatIhaveservedelectronicallytheattached ILLINOISEPA'SRESPONSETOFURTHEROUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEILLINOIS POLLUTIO CO TROLBOARDATTHEHEARINGONOCTOBER28,2009,uponthe followingpersons: JohnThcrriault,AssistantClerk IllinoisPollutionControlBoard JamesR.ThompsonCenter 100WestRandolphSt.,Suite11-500 Chicago,IL6060I DaleA.Guariglia BrandonW.Neuschafer BryanCaveLLP OneMetropolitanSquare,Suite3600 21IN.Broadway St.Louis,MO63102-2750

Dated: November16,2009 102INorthGrandAvenueEast P.O.Box19276 Springfield,Illinois62794-9276 217.782.5544 217782.9143(TDD) CarolWebb,HearingOfficer IllinoisPollutionControlBoard JamesR.ThompsonCenter 100WestRandolphSt.,SuiteJ

### 1-500 Chicago,IL60601

ILLINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY, 

### lsiCharlesE.Matoesian CharlesE.Matoesian AssistantCounsel DivisionofLegalCounsel