## ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRANDAVENUE 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 JacksonBoulevard (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 ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. for an Adjusted Standardfrom351ll.Adm. Code Section215; JointMotionofLathamPools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools and Royal Fiberglass toReopen Docket and SubstituteParty DearMs. Hedman: ·Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air

### Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §7410 (a)(2)), and Section

28 ofthe Illinois Enviromnental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28), the Illinois Enviromnental ProtectionAgency (Illinois EPA) submits the following amendments to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). OnApril3, 2009, Royal FiberglassPools (Royal Fiberglass) filed apetitionfor an adjusted standard which was docketed bythe Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) as AS 09-4. A publichearing was held October28, 2009, inMountVernon, Illinois. TheIllinois EPAfiled post-hearingcomments in support ofthe proposed adjusted standard. On February 18, 2010, the Board adopted a Final Opinion and Order. However, onMay24, 2013, LathamPools Products, Inc., d/b/aViking Pools and Royal Fiberglass filed a Joint Motionto Reopen Docket and Substitute Party asking for a name change ofthe adjusted standard. Viking Pools stated that it acquired the facility from Royal Fiberglass on July I, 2012. Accordinglythe 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 ofLathamPools 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 18) 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 ofthis SIP revision submittal, the following documents are enclosed (two hard copies and one exact duplicate electronic copyondisc):

Attachment 1)

Attaclunent 2) Motion ofLatham Pools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools and Royal Fiberglass Reopen Docket and Substitute Party, filed May24, 2013. Supplemental Opinion and Order ofthe BoardbyD

. Glosser: The Board amends the order ofFebruary 18, 2010 to grant LathamPools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools an adjusted standard, dated September 5, 2013

.

Iffurther information is required, please contact Charles Matoesian ofmy staffat 217/782-5544.

# ia**~**

# onne**tt** Director AttaclunentsIEPAATTACHMENT NO.

# j_ J j ' ' BEFORE THE ILLI!'\OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Ji;;::::'::3 

# O D

# ff''lfNTAL .h.1U.u- ·

lNTHE 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 ofthe 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 ofits 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 ofvolatile 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 requestedthat the Board grant an adjusted standard for emissions from the Facility.
3. The Boardheld apublic hearingregardingthe 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 ofthe Orderis attached atExhibit 

### "A"hereto and made aparthereof.) 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 underthe name "Royal Fiberglass Pools." 6. On or about January 1, 2013, Viking Pools merged with Latham Pool Products, Inc. Latham Pools will continueto do business as Viking Pools at the Facility in Dix, Tllinois.
7. Since the acquisition ofthe Facility by Viking P.ools on or about July 1, 2012, the Facility has operated consistent with the Adjusted Standard. Vvl1ile ceriain components ofthe 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 perhour 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 ofThomas Straub, President ofthe corporate division operating the Facility, a true and con·ect copy ofwhich is attached at Exhibit "B" 

### hereto and made a parthereof.) 9. 

### As a consequence, while the ownership ofthe Facility has changed, none ofthe 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 ofthe assets ofthe Facility,

### therefore requests that the Board substitute it as the holder of the Adjusted Standard that it granted onFebmary 18, 20I0. 

### I0. Movant has operated the Facility consistent with the Adjusted Standard, and
agrees to continue to do so. Movant agrees to bebound by, and to operate the Facility consistent with, the Adjusted Standard, and to bebound by its provisions. 

### I1. 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 of1he

**Ensign-Bic~jord** 

### Company, (Jun. 5, 2003); 

### In re: Petition of Commonwealth Edison Co., (Mar. 16, 2000). 13. 

### Granting this Motion will nothave an adverse impact on any entity, human health

orthe envirom11ent. I4. 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 ofthis Motion for IEPA'sreview thereafter. 15. Royal Fiberglassjoins 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 ofdecidingthis Motion; substitute the current

owner ofLatham Pools Products, Inc. d/bia Viking Pools for its p1ior owner as the recipient of

### the Adjusted Standard as ofJuly 

### 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 (BarNo. 621 

### OY/4'99,6)/ 

## j /



# ~ I.

# f7 Duffy LawGroup 

# J1im 0):1 

### 2 N. LaSalle Street 

# pu &(' I Chicago. IL 60602 L Telephone: (312) 952-6I36 Facsimile: 

### (3 J2) 

### 346-8434 E-mail: oduft\·'Ci:pduffYgrouo.com 

### Attorney for Jfowml 

## / ! IILLINOIS POLLUTION CO:--.!TROL BOARD Febmary 18, 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) AS 09-4 POOLS, INC. FORAN 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 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY. OPINION AND ORDEROF 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 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations, commonly known as the "8 lb/hr Rule.'' Royal filed an amended petition on July 17, 2009. Royal seeks relieffi·om the 8 lb/lrr Rule as the mle applies to the emissions ofvolatile 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 onAugust 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 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)). Next, the Boardprovides theprocedural histmy, and the factual background ofthe case. The Board then describes the applicable standard of review, the generally applicable standard, and the petitioners' requested relief. After presenting the applicable standard ofreview, the Board examines the record regarding the four statutory factors petitioners must demonstrate. Tllis examination is followed bythe Board's discussion of the statutory standards before reaching its conclusions oneach ofthem. Based on the record before it, the Boardfinds that Royal has provided sufficient justificationfor each ofthe 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 FRAMEWORKFORADJUSTED STANDARD The Act (415 !LCS 

### 5!1 et seq. (2008)) and Board mles provide that apetitionermay 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 ofthe Act and Section !04.Subpal1 D ofthe Board'sproceduralmles. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I04.400 et seq. The Board's proceduralmles specify the required contents for the adjusted standard petition. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code I04.406, 104.416. Once apetition for an adjusted standard is filed, the Agencymust file its recommendation with the Board. See 415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(3) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I04.416. The adjusted standardproceeding is adjudicatory in nature and therefore is not subject to the mlemakingprovisions ofthe Act orthe Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS I0011-1 etseq. (2008)). See 415 ILCS 5/28.1(a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.202 (defining "adjudicatoryproceeding"). Section 28.1 (d)(I) ofthe Act ( 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)) and Section I04.408(a) ofthe Board's proceduralmles (35 

### 111. Adm. Code I04.408(a) (quoting the Act)) require the adjusted standard petitioner to publish notice ofthe petition's filing by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the proposed adjusted standard. Under those provisions, publication must take place within 14 days after the petition is filed. The newspapernotice must indicate that any person may cause a publichearing to be held on the proposed adjusted standard by filing a hearing request with the Board within21 days after publication. See 415 ILCS 5/28.l(d)(l) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code l04.408(b). Theburden ofproofin an adjusted standard proceedingis 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 mleofgeneral applicability, applies to the petitioner. See 415 ILCS 5/28.1(a) (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code IOJ .202, 1 04.400(a). In granting adjusted standards, the Board may impose conditions as maybe necessaryto accomplish the purposes ofthe 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 lbibrRule, accompanied by a Technical Support Document (TSD), a motion for expedited review, and motion to appearpro hacvice. On April24, 2009, Royal filed a "Notice ofPublication ofPetition for an Adjusted Standard" indicating that notice ofthepetition was published in theMt. Vernon RegisterNews on April 13, 2009. On.Tune4, 2009, the Board issued anorder accepting thepetition for hearing, denying Royal's motion for expeditedreview, and granting Mr. Guariglia's motion to appearpro hac vice. Also on June 4, 2009, the Board's Hearing Onicerissued an order directing Royal and the Agency to address preheatingquestions. OnJuly 17, 2009, Royal filed a First Amended Petition (Am. Pet.). OnAugust 6, 2009, the Board issued an order acceptingthe amended petition for 

### hearing. OnAugust 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 separateresponses to the Heming Officer"s3 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 earlierpreheaJing 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 October28, 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 ofRoyal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.: Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D, consultant for Royal; and Mr. Andrew Russo, Agency's Bureau of Air. Hearing OfficerWebb 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 aresponse to the Agency's comments and a post-hearing brief(Pet. Br.). On December 16, 2009, the Agency filed a post-hearing briefaccompanied 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 TheBoardwill begin this section by describing the facility and the manufactnring process ofRoyal. 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 ofthe CAAPP penni! and a violation notice received byRoyal. The Facilitv Royal operates a fiberglass swinuning pool manufacturing facility where Royal manufactures 20 different models offiberglass 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 currentlyproduces about 240 poolsperyear, however, Royal is anticipating increased production and requested a maximum facility-wide annual production cap of400 pools per year in its CleanAir Act Permit Program (CAAPP) permit application filed onJuly 14, 2009. Pet. at 4, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 3, Am. Pet. at 4. Manufacturing Process Royal's composite poolmanufactntingprocess starts with abare waxed mold ofa pool tnmcdupside down. The mold is sprayed with a thin layer ofgelcoat, which later becomes the inside layer ofthe finished pool. Over the gelcoat, various layers ofresin and fiberglass are applied to the mold to provide thickness and strength for the pool. Royal's counsel explains that

### 4

"itis a hands-on process where you have a person spraying onresin with a gun and then another person rolling it out with a rollerto flatten it and to give it strength

...." Tr. at 

### 10-1 I, Am. Pet. at4. Royal's swimmingpool manufacturing process involves 3 basic steps, all ofwhich 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. Othermanufacturing 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 petitionrevolves mainly around the 3 basic steps ofapplying ofgelcoat, barrier coat resin, and isophthalic stmctural resin since these processes generate most ofRoyal's YOM emissions that are impacted by the 8 lb/hr Rule. The YOM emissions consist primarily of styrene, but also include small amounts ofother YOM and volatile organic HAP species, such as methylmetacrylate (MMA) and methyethyl ketoneperoxide (MEKP). Am. Pet. at 4-5; Am. Pet. Exh. B ofExh. 2, Pet. Technical Support Document Section2, 3; Pet. Resp. at 5. Royal's Dix plant houses three self-contained rooms (bays) where the compositepool manufacturing occurs. To control workerexposure to styrene, all three bays are connected to a common exhaust ventilation system that vents to the atmospheretlu·ough a 36-foottall stack. Am. Pet. at I. Gelcoat Application Gelcoat is applied to bare waxed pool molds withhigh-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 oftranslucent gelcoat and regularproduction gelcoat. Royal states that the gelcoat used is "the state-of-the-al1 in low-HAP [hazardous airpollutant] formulations for swimming poolproduction." Am. Pet. at 4-5. The white gelcoat contains 27% styrene monomer and 3% Ml\1A. byweight. 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 layerofglass mat and vinyl ester (YE) corrosionresin is applied to the cured gelcoat layerusing 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 layerhas cured, a series oflaminate layers is applied to the cured resin layer. The layers consist ofchopped glass strand mat (CSM), woven glass roving (WR), and isophtha!ic (ISO) corrosion-resistant resin and are applied with a HVLP applicatorgun with a non-atomized applicator. Am. Pet. at 5.5

Pollution Control Equipment in 

### Use Royal states that the facility employs the sametechniques used by Crownline in Crownline's adjusted standard to control YOM andpmticulate 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 reducepatticulatc emissions, 2. lower styrene-contentgelcoat (24-38% styrene and 3-10% MMA), 3. panel filters built in each side ofthe 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 sprayguns for lamination to reduce YOM emissions experienced withprevious air atomized guns. Pet. Resp. at 5 refetTing to Crownline Boats, AS 04-1 Pet. at 5-6.
In thepool manufacturing facility, Royal uses a 35,000 cubic feet perminute (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-foottall vettical stack. 

### A.m. Pet. at 1. lnthe 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) gelcoatthat is "'state-of-the-att in low-HAP fonnulations for swimmingpool production." Am. Pet. at 4-5. In the resin application process. Royal uses the same applicator gun operated with 

### a different tip and pressureto allow for non-atomized application. Pet. at 5. The resin applicators were convettedto non-atomized applicators as part ofMACTcompliance since they were low-emitting and reduced the amount ofoverspray, resulting in less solid andhazardous waste generated. Pet. Resp. to 6-4-09 HOO at I. Royal also adopted workpractice standards to complywith the Composites Maximum Achievable Control Teclmology (MACT) standards: (1) requiring all resin containers be closed when notin use, and (2) implementing the use ofacetone in resin and gelcoat clemmp, whichhas no HAP or YOM emissions. Am. Pel. 

### at 5, Pet. at 5. Royal states that the YOMcontent ofthe gelcoats and resins is also MACT compliant. Am. Pet. at 6, Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. Althoughnotrequiredby MACT, Royalhas also eliminated all coloredbackcoat gelcoats, now usingjust white, resulting in less flushing ofthe gelcoat lines and less waste. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at I. YOMEmissions As noted above, Royal's YOM emissions subjectto the 8 lb/lu· Rules arc primarily generated during the application ofgelcoat, baniercoat resin, and isophthalic stmctural resin. Royal characterized the YOM emissions as variable depending on the type and size ofeach swimmingpool manufactured. TheYOM emissions from the Dixplant consistmainly of6
styrene, but also include smaller amounts ofother VOMs and volatile organic HAP such as MMA and MEKP. Am. Pet. at 5, Pet. Resp. at 5. Royal estimates the average YOM emissions perpool as follows: 53.8 lb/pool from gelcoating 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 gelcoat YOM emission rate of78.55 lbslhr and a maximum resin VOM emissionrate of47.17 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 YOMemissions for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tons peryear (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 aproposed cap of400 pools per year.. ".m. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2. With emissions greater than I0 tpy ofa 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 pennit in November of2004 and later submitted a modification to its application on July 14, 2009. Royal notes that a pennithas not yet been issued. Am. Pet. at I. Royal notes that the Agency has rejected theuse ofaveraging to demonstrate compliance withthe 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 hourlybasis and not on an average from a longertimeperiod. 

### !d. Violation Notice Royal received a Violation Notice issued bythe Agency onJanuary 10, 2006 that listed a single violation of35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301, which limits the discharge ofYOM emissions from an emission source to 8 lb/hr (8lbihrRule). 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 ofvarious pools that Royal constmcts. Royal became aware that the Agency does not allow the use ofaveragingto demonstrate compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule. Since that rule specifies a maximum hourly emission rate, theAgencybelieves that compliance demonstrationmustbe based on a strict hourly basis. Byworking with the consultant to detennine the amounts ofVO:vt emitted during manufacturing, Royal found that the hourly VOM emissions from some ofits operations did not appear to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule. Am. Pet. at 2.

### 7

CURRENT APPLICABLE STANDARDS The Board will beginby discussing the CUITent standards applicable in Illinois and follow with a discussion ofapplicable 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 orallow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kg/Ju· (8 lbslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided in Sections 215.302, 2J5.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If no odornuisance exists the limitation ofthis Subpa11 shall apply onlyto photochemically reactive material. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301. This IUle, which is commonlyrefeiTed to as the 8 lb/hr Rule, was initially adopted bythe Board as Rule 205(1) in In the Matter ofAirPollution 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. Forpurposes ofcomplyingwith the 8lbilu· Rule, the Agencyhas indicated that averaging is not acceptable and that compliance mustbe demonstrated on a strict hourly basis. Am. Pet. at 1-2, Rec. at 2. Federal Under separate federal regulation, Royal is already subjectto the )/ational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reintorced plastic composite manufacturing facilities. Pet. at 2; citing40 CFRPrut 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, seeTable2 to SubpmtWWWW ofPart 63, 68 FR 19380. Under Section 9.l(a) ofthe Act, NESH."J' mles are applicable in Illinois and enforceableunder the Act without additional mlemaking activity bythe Board. 415 ILCS 5/9.1(a) (2008). Subpmt W\VWW applies to new and existing reinforced plastic compositesproduction facilities and regulates theuse ofthe1mosetresins and gelcoats, which emit HAPs such as styTene and MMA. 68 FR 19375. The requirements take the fon11 ofHAP emissions limits, operating limits, and workpractice standards. 

### 68 FR 19378. Requirements tornew and existing sources below the 100 tpythreshold are based onthe MACT floor level ofcontrol. Jd. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (CSEPA) explains, "[t]heMACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP." For SubpartWWWW, USEPA adds, "[t]he floors for existing sources are mainlybased onpollutionprevention, 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 SubprutWWWW, and predicts that the mle will reduce emissions ofHAP 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 ofthe 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 ofvolatile 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 withthe 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 ofnew teclmologically or economically reasonable productionmethods or materials applicable to the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which mayreduce YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specificallyrequests in writing they do. Afterperformance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit a repmt sununruizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory effmts. The repottmustbe submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.

c. Royal must operate in full compliance with the CleanAirAct, its Clean AirAct Pe1mit Progrrun penni! (once issued), theNational Emissions Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufactu1ing Facilities, set forth in 40 C.P.R. 63, Subpart WWWW, as required by Section 9.1 (a) ofthe Act, and any other applicable regulation. Am. Pet. at 9-10.9
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION On August 20, 2009, the Agency filed the recommendation thatthe 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 AirPollutants torReinforced Plastic CompositeManufacturing 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 CompositeManufacturing Facilities, set f01th at 40 CFR Section 63 Subpart WWWW, as may be amended in the future, shall be in lien ofcompliance 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 contentmaterials as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase in VOM emissions. Royal shall berequired to do any test ofnew teclmologically or economicallyreasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the openmold swimmingpool manufacturing industry, which may reduce VOM emissions at Royal's facility whichthe Illinois EPA specificallyrequests in writing they do. Afterperfonnance ofsuch tests, Royal mustprepare and submit a repmt summarizingthe activities and results ofthese investigatory cffotts. The rcpmt mustbe submitted to the Illinois EPA, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section. d. Thereliefgranted inthis proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at Royal'sDix facility as ofthe date ofthis filing.

e. Royal shall operate in full compliancewith the CleanAirAct, its CAAPP, the National Emission Standardfor Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic CompositeManufacturingFacilities, set f01th at40 CFR Section 63 SubpartWWWW, as maybe amended inthe 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. Atheming, the Board's staffasked the Agencyto clarifywhetherthe Agency's proposed condition (d) was intended to limitthe types ofemissions activities or the level or amount ofemissions. Tr. at 47-48. TheAgency clarified that the condition was meant only to limit the type ofemissions activities, i.e., fiberglass poolmanufacturing at the Dix facility. TheAgencynoted that the level and amount ofemissions are to be in compliance with theproposed pe1mit conditions, which include an annual production cap of400 pools. Ag. Resp.10

to Hearing at 1. Royal responded in oppositionto proposed condition (d) onthe grounds that the condition is unclear on the date and could be read as limiting Royal to "only those activities taking placeon the date in question

...." Pet. Br. at 12. In addition, Royal argues that such language was notincluded in the adjusted standard granted to Crownline. 

### Id. at 12, referring to CrownlineBoats, AS 04-1. After discussion, the Agency and Royal cameto agreement ontheproposed language of the adjusted standard condition (d) as follows: d. The reliefgranted inthis proceeding shall be limited to the swimmingpool manufacturing emissionunits (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, at Royal's Dix facility. Ag. Br. at l-2. STANDARD OF REVIEW TheBoard agrees with Royal and the Agencythat the regulation ofgeneral 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. pursuantto Section 28.l(c) ofthe Act, the burden ofproofis on the petitionerto 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 thatpetitioner; 2. The existence ofthose factorsjustifies 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 ofgeneral applicability; and 4. The adjusted standard is consistentwith 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 primaryintent ofthe 8 lblhr Rule was to prevent ozonefonnation and odornnisance. Royal assetts that the Board did not contemplate the methods Royal uses to manufacture swinuuingpools atthe Dix plantwhenthe Boardpromulgated the 8 lb/hr Rule in 1971. Am. Pet. at 11. Royal explains that manufacn1ring large pmts such as swimmingpools is necessarily a batch-typeprocess rather than a typical continuous applicationused for other products. 

### Jd. Royal's investigation ofaltematives found inherent limitations in the manufacturingprocessthatprecludedthe use ofalternative manufacturing methods. Am. Pet. at 6, 7-9. As to add-on airpollution controls, as noted above, Royal argues that the ventilation systemRoyal uses to complywith Occupational Health and SafetyAdministration's (OSHA) workerprotectionregulation at 29 CFR §1910 makes the use ofadd-on emission controls economically unreasonable. Royal maintains that the Board did not anticipate thebatch-type process used for manufacturing large composite pmts coupled with the requirement to meetthe11

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 ofany other swinuningpool manufacturing operations in Illinois. From abusiness perspective, Royal concludes thatwithout the adjusted standard, Royal will either be forced outofbusiness because ofthe high costofcompliance 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 instantpetition does not conflict with the primary intent ofthe 

### 8 lb/hr Rule to prevent ozone !ormation and odornuisance. The Air Quality Impact Analysis indicates that Royal's emissions would not cause a violation ofthe ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (1\AAQS). Additionally, Royal has a 36ft. tall stack to exhaust emissions to minimize odornuisance from Royal's operations. Am. Pet. at I, I0, 12; TSD Section 6. EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AND ALTERl'IATIVES Thecompliance altematives investigated byRoyal to comply withthe 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis include: (I) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using altemative operatingprocedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies. Otherthan add-on emission controls, Royal stresses thatmany ofthe altematives investigated would not allow Royal to complywith the 8 lb/hrRule 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 alreadybeen reduced in compliance with the Composites MACT. However, using production mate1ials that comply with the Composites MACT 

### will notbe sufficient to reduce emissions levels to meet the 8 lb/lu Rule. Royal worked with suppliers to inquire about the feasibility ofusing lower YOM-contentproductionmaterials. Royal found that lowering the styrene content in the resins below the cutTen! level used to comply with the Composites MACT isnot cunentlyteclmically feasible whilestill maintaining acceptable product integrity. Am. Pet. at 6. Fromsuppliers, Royal understands that the lower VOM resin materials do not provide adequate corrosion protection for high quality swimmingpool 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 ahigher YOM content than the "state-ofthe-ai1" white gelcoat Royal cunentlyuses. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 5. Using Alternative Operating Procedures and Methods As a pa1t ofRoyal's investigation into compliance alternatives, Royal examined the gelcoating process at the Dixplant, and considered ways to reduce the hourly YOM emissions12

rate. Royal states that Royal found limitations inherent in the facility's processes that precluded the use ofany effective a!tematives. Royal explains that the pools arcproduced with open molding process on a large scale, too large for any closed molding process. The gelcoat cmmot beapplied 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 applicatorthat 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 gelcoatused 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 ofadd-on air pollution controls. Royal notes that USEPA found that add-on air pollution controls are not cost effective at most existing composite facilities. Royal maintains that USEPA found that add-on controls with 95 %control efficiency would only be cost effective for new facilities that emit more than 100 tpy ofHAP ornew 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 ofHAPs. Am. Pet. at 7. Nevertheless, Royal summarized add-on air pollution control options detailed in a 2000 study submitted to USEPA as pm1 ofthe promulgation ofthe Composites MACT mle entitled, "Feasibility and Cost ofthe Capture and Control ofHazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Open Molding ofReinforced Plastic Composites." Am. Pet. at 7-8. The summary listed commercially available airpollution controls and assessed thefeasibility ofeach at the Dix plant: absorption, adsorption, biodigestion, condensation, flare, oxidation, and preconcentration with regenerative thennal oxidation (RTO). Ofthe options, only RTO was considered technically feasible for Royal, however, RTO was also considered economically infeasible. Am. Pet. at 8. Royal commissioned the author ofthe study, Engineering Environmental Consulting Setvices (EECS), to prepare an analysis for the cost ofa skid-mounted RTO system atthe Dix plant. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. With an estimated capital cost of$709,500 and annual operating cost ofover $470,000, the cost effectiveness ofan RTO system would be S18,400 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 Dixplant'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 systemto comply with the OSHA'sworker protection regulation at 29 CFR §1910 for styrene. Athearing, Royal's witness Dr. Haberlein, testified that OSHArequires the use ofengineering controls, such as the high air flow ventilation system, to cont·ol exposure to workers. At the Dixplant, Royal is required to use engineering controls ratherthan 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 inthe 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 ofusing add-on emissions controls economically infeasible. Am. Pet. at II. Roval's Compliance with the MACT Standard Royal indicates that the facility was incompliance with the Composites lvL<\CT by February2006. Royal meets the MACT emission standardsbyusing the HAP emissions factor averaging option. Am. Pet. at 5-6, citing40 CFR §63.5810(b). Royal's Dixplantis averaging 72% ofthe I-.1ACTemissions limit. Am. Pet. at 7. To complywiththe work practice standards inthe CompositesMACT, Royal implementedprocedures for all resin containersto be closed when not in use and for acetone, which Royal indicateshasno 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 amountofoverspray and the resulting amount ofsolid 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 USEPA, buthas not yet received a response. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 

### 7. USEPA estimated that the Composites MACT will reduce HAP emissions by an average of43% industry-wide. Am. Pet. at 5-6. USEPA also estimates there are approximately 435 existing major source facilities that 

### will be subject to the federal rule 40 CFRPm163 Suhpat1 WWWW. USEPA estimated annual compliance costs for all existing major source facilities of $21.5 million, whichincluded 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 underthe Composites MACT standard. On an atmual basis, Royal spends $1,500 peryearto track and repot1 emissions. Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at6. Summarv Royal argues thatthe evaluation ofcompliance altematives has shown that the altematives are neither economically reasonable nortechnically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to Royal's operations. Royal asserts that the existence ofthese factors coupled with the Agency's concutTence regarding the requested relief justifies the grant ofan adjnsted standard. Am. Pet. at 13. IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Royal states that the requested adjusted standard seeks onlyto allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same marmer, and will not result inan increase in emissions on a pernnit basis. Am. Pet. at I0. Royal maintains that the Dixplant is already in compliancewith the federal requirements for the CompositesMACT, and adds that theproposed adjusted standard 

### will not interfere withRoyal'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 changeis 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) 1for dete1mining the !-hour ozone increment attributable to Royal's emissions. 

### Jd. The analysis was conductedbased on a proposed maximum mmual styrene emission rate of25 tpy, reflective ofa production cap of400 poolsperyear. Based on the Schetie screening table for rural areas, EECS aJTived at a !-hourozone increment of4 patts per billion (ppb). The air quality impact analysis then added the 1-hourozone increment for the Dix facility to the 1-hour average ozone baseline for the local area of85 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 characterizedthe 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 ofthe table representing the ratio ofVOM to NO, emissions at the Dix plant as greater than 20, "

... you can be a 1 00-ton [per yearVO:v!] source and you'll have the satne impact, according to the table." Tr. at 26. The Agency characteiized the ozone increment of4 ppb estimated for Royal's Dix plant as "potentially significant", as is an increase ofas little as 2 ppb (forboth the !-hourand 8-hour averaging period). Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 2. However, the Agencynoted that the Scheffe Method is a screening technique and is conservativebydesignto be protective ofthe ozone air quality standards. The Agency considers itumealistic that themaximumpredicted ozoneincrementof4 ppb would occurat the same time as the 4thhighest 8-hour ozone concentration for a given year. TheAgency commented that Royal's maximum daily rate (229 lb/day) based onthe PTE of29.76 tpy is not likely to occur on a continuous basis. The Agency points out, "[t]he4 ppb ozone increment would not be attained on days when emissions rates

1The Scheffe ozone screeningtables are found in "VOC/NO, Point Source Screening Tables"by Richard D. Scheffe. USEPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Source Receptor Analysis Branch. September 1988. Both Royal and the Agency indicated that the Scheffeprocedure is the procedure cunentlyused bythe 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 dailyrate 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 addingthe ozone increment of4 ppb to the 4th highest measured 8-hourozone concentration for the local air monitor in Hamilton County for the years 2005-2007, the ozone concentration would be 81 ppb. More impmtantly, the Agencypoints out, is the result ifthe 4 ppb ozone increment is added to the 2007-2009 8-hour ozone design value of68 ppb, which yields a concentration of72 ppb.2 Ag. Resp. to 1-IOO 10- 21-09 at 3, Ag. 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. Ag. Resp. to Hcaring at 2. In conclusion, the Agency states, "[t]hepotential air quality impact ti·om the adjusted standard is significant, but it is not expected to cause or contribute to violations ofthe 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 oflimiting 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 correlationbetween ozone exceedences in the local monitoring area and Ozone Action Days in the St. Louis (Metro-east) area. The Agency replied that an exceedance ofthe 8-hour ozone standard in Hamilton Countywould 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, "Itwould be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group ofpotentially contributing facilities to accept a condition limiting 'YOM emitting operations on ozone action days where ambient conditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-honr ozone standard."' Ag. Resp. to 1-IOO 10-21-09 at 3-5. Based onthe 2007-2009 Hamilton County ozone data, the Agency states that the area is clearly in attainment with the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS. TheAgency 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 infonnthem whether to come into work that day. Royal states that this would impose an unreasonable burden

2 Per40 CFR 51.900(d), the "8-Hour ozone design value is the 8-hour ozone concentration calculated according to 40 CFRpatt 50, appendix!." Per40 CFR Patt 50, Appendix 1.3, the "Design Valuesfor PrimmyandSecondmJ'AmbientAir 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 I0 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 ofthe proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Royal states that there is no Clean Air Act equivalentrule or regulationprohibiting swimmingpool manufacturers· emissions ofYOM in excess of8 lbs/hr, on a strictly hourly basis. Royal points out that regardless, the facility must complywith the federal Composites MACT. Am. Pet. at 13-14, Pet. Br. at 11. The Agency agrees with Royal that the granting ofthe adjusted standard is consistent with the federal law. The Agency notes that Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Section 7410 grants the individual states the authority to promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality standards, subject to USEP 

### A approval. The Agency notes that the CAA also allows the states to revise the implementationplan. The adjusted standard procedure allows the Board to exercise the authority granted to the states by Section 110 ofthe CAA. Rec. at 9. Finally, the Agency states that, ifthe Board adopts the proposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard to USEPA as a State Implementation Plan revision. 

### !d. at l0. DISCUSSION Royal seeks relieffrom the Board's mle limiting YOM emissions to 8lb/hr 

### (8Jb,1u· Rule) inthe fonn ofan adjusted standard. Royal argues that alternatives aimed at complying with the 8 lb/hr mle are nottechnically feasible for Royal'sbatch-type manufacturing and air pollution controls are not economically reasonable due to thehigh volume air flow. Under separate federal regulation applicable to Royal pursuant to Section 9.1(a) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/9.1 (a) (2008)), Royal asserts that the Dix facility is already required to comply with theNESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Productionwhich limits HAP emissions from facilities such as Royal's Dix plant. 40 CFRPart 63 Subpru1 WWWW, 40 CFR §63.5780-63.5935. Royal was required to comply with MACTemissionlimits underthis standardby April21, 2006. Rec. at 3, 

### See Table 2 to Subpart WWWW ofPat163. 68 FR 19380. Accordingly, Royal requests that Section 215.301 not apply to their operations. The Agency recommends that the Board grant Royal the requested reliefsubject to cettain conditions. Ifgranted, the adjusted standard would apply onlyto the swinm1ing pool manufacturing emission units (spray booths) at Royal's Dix plant. Inthe following sections, the Board discusses each of the Section 28.1 factors thatpetitioners must demonstrate in order tojustifytheir requested adjusted standard and reaches findings onthem. Substantially Different Factors The Board adopted the 8 lb/hr Rule for YOM emissions as Rule 205(f) in Emissions Standards, R71-23 onAprill4, 1972. As noted by Royal, the primary intent ofthe 8lblhrRule was to "achieve and maintain compliance with the federal air quality standard for photochemical oxidants (0.08 ppmfor one hournotmore than onceper year, 36 Fed. Reg.22385, Nov. 25, 1971) and to preventlocal nuisances." 

### See Emission Standards, R7l-23 at 4-336. While the17

Board found that most sources would be able to complywith 8 lb/hr Rule, the Board recognized that the control cost would be very high for certainindustries with the large volumes ofexhaust gas orthe low value ofthe 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, whichuses a batch-typeprocess coupled withhigh flow rate ventilation system.The Board notes that inadopting the 8 lbil1r Rule, the Board also did not contemplatethe manufacture oflarge pmts, such as storagetanks and swinuningpools that necessitate the batchtype process. In this regard, Dr. Haberlein testified that the 8 lb/Ju· Rule is actually a detetTent to new large pmtmanufacturers movinginto Illinois. Tr. at 44. Dr. Haberleintestified that "people want to build wind blades. People want to build underground storagetanks. People wantto build largeboats, orwill hopefully somedaywant to build large boats again in this state. You can't do any ofthat incomposites in Illinois." 

### !d. Dr. Haberlein states "I've had at least one company come to me that wanted to site a windblade facility here, and I told them, don'tdo it because you'll be in fi·ont ofthe Boardand it's going to cost you $50,000, and so they wentto 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 ofIllinois that's impossibleto meet." 

### !d. Royal also questions the Agency's stricthourlyinterpretation ofdemonstration of compliance, which requires compliance to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis and not on an average from any longerperiod oftime. Am. Pet. at l-2. Royal states "Afterconsideringthe infonnationpresented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8 lb/hr Rule to Royal's operation on a stricthourlybasis would indeed impose an umeasonable burden". 

### !d. at 2. Further, Royal's evaluation ofcompliance altemativcs, which are discussed below, indicate that none ofthe evaluated alternatives are technically feasible or economically reasonable. Inthis regard, Royal estimates the cost effectiveness for controlling YOM emissions at the Dix plant to be$18,400 perton ofHAP (styTene, MMA) removed. Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. 3. The Board notes that this is significantlyhigherthan the estimated average cost ofthe Composites MACTmle of$2,800 perton HAP removedfor existing sources. 68 FR 19382. The Board [Uither notes prevention ofozone fom1ation and nuisance odorat Royal's Dix plantis now addressed bythe federal Composites MACT, which was not in existence when the Board adopted the 8 lb!lu· Rule. Therecord indicatesthat the Dix plant hasbeen in compliance with the Composites MACTsince Jnne 2006. In light ofthe above, the Board finds that the issues conceming the control ofYOM emissions at Royal's Dixplant were not anticipated when the Boardpromulgated the 8lb/lu· Rule in 1972. Therefore, the Board finds that factors relating to petitioners are substantially and significantlydifferent from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to petitioner.18

Efforts to Achieve Compliance and Alternatives As noted above, Royal'sjustification for the requested reliefis based on the lack ofan economicallyreasonable ortechnically feasible altemative. Royal evaluated several options to comply with the 8 lbi11r Rule on a stticthourly 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/hrRule on a strict hourly basis. Royal has already reduced YOM concentration in Royal's production material in compliance with the Composites MACT and considered altemative operating procedures and methods. Regarding add-on controls, Royal estimates the cost effectiveness ofusing a skid mounted RTO to be S18,400 per ton ofHAP (styrene and MMA). This high cost, Royal argues, makes the use ofRTO at the Dixplant economicallyunreasonable. Fmthcr, Royal maintains that the Composites YIACT does not require that require add-on controls for facilities such as the Dixplant. 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 19377. USEPA found that facilities producing large patis, such as storage tanks and swimmingpools, "presented different teclmical issues from facilities that have successfully incorporated 95 % capture and control." 68 FR 19387. USEPA "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 oflow-HAP materials and nonatomized resin application." !d. Regarding other options, theBoardnotes that Royal has already reduced YOM content in theproduction materials and considered altemative operating procedures and methods. Further, Royal has conunittedto investigate production methods, matetials, and technologies thatmay reduce YOM emissions at Royal's Dixplant. 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 oreconomicallyreasonable. Impact on the Environment As noted earlier, theptimmyimpact ofYOM emissions from Royal's Dix plantis whether such emissions cause 

### or contributeto violations ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. Royal relies on an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared byRoyal's consultant. The environmental impact is assessedby adding the ozone increment attributable to operations at the Dix plant to the 4thhighest measured !-hourozone concentration for the years 2003-2006 in Hamilton County. Royal then comparesthe resulting 89 ppb to a !-hourozone standard of 125 ppb, stating, "[t]heworst-case one-hour average ozone impact is still only74% oftheone-hour ozone standard." Am. Pet. at 10, TSD Section 6. Royal acknowledges that USEPA replaced the 1-hour19

average ozone standard with an 8-hour average ozone standard in 2005. However, Royal believes the hourly calculation of89 ppb is ·'useful given the obvious concems abouthourly emissions that arc reflected in the 8 lb/hr Rule." Am. Pet. at I0. NAAQS for Ozone In July 1997, USEPA revised the ozone NAAQS, "byreplacing the existingprimary!- 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 !-hourozone 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 !- hourozone standard is revoked effective June 15. 2005 for all areas in Illinois. TheJersey Co. and St. Louis areas are maintenance areas for the !-hourNAAQS for purposes of40 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 QualityImpact Analysis relied on the !-hourozone incrementprovided by the Scheffe method to assess the impact in tenus ofthe !-hour ozone standard instead ofthe 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 ofeight-hour average impacts." Pet. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 8. The Agency also responded, stating that USEPA has not provided any more recent guidance to address ozone impacts on an 8-hourbasis, so the Agency still uses the Scheffe method for single sources. The Agency indicated the Scheffe method "does not specify the estimation ofan 8-hour ozone increment from the !-hour ozone increment." Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 2. Regarding the possibility ofapplying a scaling factor to the !-hourincrement to achieve an 8-hourincrement, Dr. Haberlein testified that USEPA has nul provided any guidance regarding scaling air quality impacts from a one-hourimpact to an eight-hour impact for ozone. Tr. at 30-31. The Agency stated, "[t]he Agency does not endorse the use ofscaling factors that are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type assumptions for estimating altemative averaging time concentrations ofpollutants 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 I0-21-09 at 2. Dr. Haberlein added that ozone f01mation is not chemically stable, but ratherhighlyreactive, and that photochemical models for ozone are very different fi·om the Gaussianplume dispersion models. Tr. at 29-30.

3The !-hourozone standard was 0.12 pa11s permillion (ppm), and the nationalS-hour standard was 0.80 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9, 50.10. 4 Per40 CFR §51 Subpm1 X, 51.900(k), 

### "Maimenance areaforthe 1-hourNAAQS means an area that was designated nonattainment for the !-hourNAAQS on or after November 15, 1990 and was redesignated to attairunent for the !-hourNAAQS subject to a maintenance plm1 as required by section 175A ofthe CAA."20

To address the air quality impact ofRoyal's operations on attainment ofthe 8-hour ozone standard, the Board notes that the Agency continues to rely on the 4 ppb ozone increment from the Scheffe method. However, instead ofadding the ozone increment to the 1-hour average ozone baseline for the local area as Royal does, theAgency adds the

### 4 ppb to the 8-hour ozone design value of68 ppb for Hamilton County from the years 2007-2009. Withthese values, the Agency arrives at a combinedozone increment and ozone design value of72 ppb. Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3, and Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 2. Based onthis, the Agency concludesthat the adjusted standard "is not expected to cause orcontribute to violations ofthe 8-hour ozone standard." Ag. Resp. to Hearing at 3. OzoneAction Davs As mentioned earlier, Royal was directed to address possible operational controls on production at Royal's Dixplant to reduce VOM emissions during Ozone Action Days inthe Metro East area. HOO 6-4-09 at 7, HOO 

### I0-21-09 at 

### 3-6. Althoughthe Agency suppmts voluntary actions, the Agency states, ""It would be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group ofpotentially cont1ibuting facilities to accept a conditionlimiting "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-hourozoneNAAQS and no change is imminent. Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 3-5, Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 1. The Agency has indicated that ifthe adjusted standardis granted, the ten11S will be submittedto USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). Ag. Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 1. The Agency further states, "Ifmonitoring data show a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that considers all conl!ibuting sources to nonattainment wouldproperly address this matter." Ag. Resp. to HOO 10-21-09 at 1. Operational Limits Royal states thatthepotential maximum facility-wide hourlyVOM emissionrate is 156.70 lbslhr

.. This conesponds to simultaneous gelcoat applications to Royal'stwo greatest VOM-emittingpool molds at 78.55 and 78.15 lbs/hr. Am. Pet. at 5, Exh. 2. Royal was asked whether it wouldbe willing to initiate an operatingprocedurethat would limit gelcoat application and cming to one pool at a time to complywith 8lb/hrRule. HOO 6-4-09. Royal responded that the facility has no such operating procedure inplace and would beopposed one like this. Royal explained that hourly emissions would not be significantlyreduced because waiting to gelcoat the secondpool afterthe first would simplyresult in the first pool receiving the resin application (which also generates VOMemissions) while the secondpool is being gelcoated. Additionally, Royal points out that such operational limits would make it very difficult to produce 400 pools peryear, would increaseproduction 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 ofexceedance ofthe ozone NAAQS. Although reliance on the Scheffe method may not bethe most appropriate way to dete1mine the impact ofRoyal's YOM emissions on the 8-holil· ozone standard, the Board finds the Agency'sreliance on the Scheffe method to be acceptable given the lack ofany guidance from the USEPA. As noted above, the Agency's analysis ofusing the Scheffe method shows that granting ofthe adjusted standard is not expected to cause or contributeto violations ofthe 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 proposedby the Royal, the Board will require Royal to continue eff011s to reduce YOM emissions from operations atthe Dix plant. Lastly, regarding the issue ofpotential operational limits or controls on ozone action days, the Board agrees with the Agency that singling outthe Royal facility for operational limits would be inappropJiate since all contributing sources should be considered under the SIP ifthere is a violation ofthe ozoneNAAQS. In light ofthe above, the Board finds that granting the adjusted standard would not result in adverse impact on airquality as it relates to exceedance ofthe ozoneNAAQS. Consistencv with Federal Law As noted bythe Agency, the Board has the authority under Section II0 ofthe CAA to the Boardto adopt regulations, which are pm1 ofthe State's planfor implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality standards (the SIP). Fm1her, the Board notes that following the adjusted standard procedure to revise a Boardregulation on site-specificbasis is consistent with the authority granted to the slates under the Section II0 ofthe CAA. Also ifthe Board adopts theproposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard as SIP revision to USEPA Thus, the Board finds that grantingpetitioners the requested relieffrom 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) ofthe Act that: (1) factors relating to it are substantiallyand significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation; (2) the existence ofthese factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard will not cause substantiallyor significantly more adverse environmental orhealth effects than the effects considered bythe Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent with applicable federal laws. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(c) (2008).22

Conditions The conditions ofthe 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 ofthe Illinois 8 lb/hr standard. In addition, bothRoyal and the Agencyproposed conditions requiring Royal to: (I) cominue to investigate swimmingpool 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 ofnew production methods or materials that the Agency requests in writing that they do; and (3) submit an rep011 summarizing the activities and results oftheir investigations. The Agency'sreconunendation contains one additional condition that Royal did not include. Specifically, the Agencyproposed, ·'[t]hereliefgranted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as ofthe date ofthis filing." Rec. at 7. After discussion, the Agency and Royal came to agreement on the proposed language ofthe adjusted standard conditions as follows: The reliefgranted inthis proceeding shall be limited to the swimming pool manufacturing emissionunits (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 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 bringthis order into confmmity with the Board's usual drafting style in adjusted standards. CONCLUSION The Board finds that Royal has provided sufficientjustificationfor 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 reliefis effective as ofthe date ofthis order. This opinion constitutes the Board's findings offact and conclusions oflaw. 

### ORDER 1. Pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2008)), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) an adjusted standard from 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 (8lb/luRule), effective February 18, 2010. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material (VOM) into the atmosphere from Royal's swimmingpool manufacturing facility23

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 swilll1ningpool production methods that generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a reduced YOMcontent. Wherepracticable, Royal must substitute cutTent materials with lower YOM content materials as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase inYOM emissions. b. Royal must perfonn any reasonable test ofnew technologically or economically reasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the open-mold swimmingpool manufacturing industry, which may reduce YOMemissions at Royal's facility whichthe []]inois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing that they do.

c. After perfonnance ofsuch tests, Royal must prepare and submit an ammal report summarizingthe activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts in (a) and (b) above. The repmt must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section. d. Royal must operate in full compliance with the CleanAir Act(42 U.S.C. §740I 

### etseq.), Royal's Clean AirActPennit Programpennit, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFRPmt 63 Subpart WWWW, as maybe amended inthe future and as required by Section 9.!(a) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/9.I(a) (2008), the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and m1y other applicable regulation.

e. Thereliefgranted inthis proceeding shallbe limited to the swimmingpool manufactu1ing emission units (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, at Royal'sDix facility. IT IS SO ORDERED. Section 4l(a) ofthe Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Comt within 35 days after tl1e Bom-d servesthe order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2008); 

### seealso 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1 01.300(d)(2), I01.906, 102.706. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois Appellate Coutt, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. I72 Ill. 2cl R. 335. The Board's procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider ormodify its final orders maybe filed withthe Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.520; 

### seealso 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, !02.700, 102.702.24
I, John Then·iault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board adopted the above opinion and order on February 18, 20I0, by a vote of4- 0.

John Theniault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board

### BECiiEIVr;:::O BEFORE THEILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

**Bt>a.~K'S** 

### OFFicE


### IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

## MAY 

## lit2U13
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 PETITIONTO SUBSTITUTE ADJUSTED STANDARD 

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

L l am over eighteen years of age. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth herein. Ifcalled uponto testify I would testify as follows. 2. I am the PresidentofViking Pools. 3. On or about July 1, 2012, 

### Viking Pools, LLC ("'Viking Pools") acquired all or substantially all ofthe assets ofRoyal 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, ofthe 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. FURTHERAFFIANT SA YETI-I NOT

### Subscribed and swornto me This 

## IOtt-day ofMay, 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

### CorTh1dssion



### e~lres **--'\f'"'I"'I..""\"'---"/J.,_,~"-:r-",J~"~u;.'** \<;fJ.;::-c..IL_

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD September 5, 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) 

### PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS ) POOLS, INC. FORAN ADWSTED ) STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) AS 09-4 215.301 ) (Adjusted Standard)

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THEBOARD (by D. Glosser): IEPAATTACHMENT NO. 

# 2-

OnApril 3, 2009, Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. (Royal) filed apetition for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 ofthe Board's air pollutionregulations, commonly known as the "8 lb/hr Rule." Royal filed an amended petitiononJuly 17, 2009. Royal sought relieffrom the 8 lb/hr Rule as the mle applies to the emissions ofvolatile organic material (VOM) from Royal's fiberglass swimmingpool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. On Febmary 18,2010, the Board found that Royal has provided sufficientjustificationfor an adjusted standard from the 8 lb!hr Rule and granted the relief subjectto conditions outlined inthe order. OnMay24, 2013, Royal and LathamPools Products, Inc., d/b/a Viking Pools (Viking Pools) filed ajointmotion asking thatthe Boardreopen the docket and substitute Viking Pools for Royal inthe adjusted standard (Mot.). After seeking an extension oftimeto file its response, granted bythehearing officer, onAugust 19, 2013, the Illinois Enviromental ProtectionAgency (IEPA) timely filed a response in support ofthe motion. Viking Pools states that since it acquired the facility on July 1, 2012, the facility has operated consistent withthe tenns ofthe adjusted standard. Mot. at 2. Certain components of the swimmingpool manufacturing emissionunits were reconfigured after acquisition; however, the change did not increasethe 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 poundperhour or29.76 tons peryear. 

### !d. Also, Viking Pools anticipates that substantially all employees will remain employed at thefacility. 

### !d. Viking Pools argues that onlythe ownership ofthe facility has changed; and none ofthe factors presentedto the Board inthe adjusted standardproceedinghave changed or are likelyto change. 

### !d. Therefore, Viking Pools asks the Board to substitute it as the holder ofthe adjusted standard. Viking Pools notes that the Board has granted motions to reopen dockets inthe past to substitute a new party as holder ofthe 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 ofthe Ensign-Bickford Co. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 237.102, AS 00-5 (June 5, 2003); In re: 

### Petition ofCommonwealth Edison Co. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.211, AS 96-10 (Mar. 16, 2000).

### The IEPA spoke with petitioners and onJuly 18, 2013, inspected the facility. IEPA has "satisfied itselfwith the operations" and does not object to the motionto substitute. DISCUSSION 

### The Boardhas the authority to grant adjusted standardsto pat1ies who canjustifysuch an adjustment. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(a) (2012). Forregulations ofgeneral applicability, which do not specifY a level of justificationfor an adjusted standard, thepetitionermustprovide adequate proofto demonstrate that the factors ofSection 28.1(c) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2012)) are met. The 8 lb/hr Rule (35 

### Ill. Adm. Code215.301) is such a mle. Section 28.l(c) ofthe Act provides: I. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different ii'om the factors relied upon bythe Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to that petitioner; 2. The existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; 3. The requested standard will not result in environmental orhealth effects substantially and significantlymore adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the mle ofgeneral applicability; and 4. The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(c) (2012). Royal soughtrelieffi·omthe Board's mlelimitingVOM emissions to 8lb/hr (8lb/hr Rule) in 

### the fonn ofan adjusted standard and the Board found that granting Royal the reliefwas approptiate. Viking Pools has indicated that it will continueto operate the facility in accordance withthe adjusted standard. The Board finds that the relevant factors required by Section 28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2012)), and metbyRoyal, have notchanged. TheBoard previously found that the existence ofthe factorsjustifiedthe adjusted standard, and that the adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Inthe past, the Board has granted ajointmotion to substitutethe name ofthe holder ofa previously granted adjusted standard. SeeIn rePetition ofCrownline 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); CommonwealthEdison Co., AS 96-10 (Mar. 16, 2000). Royal has transfened its interestto Viking Pools and Viking Pools has committed to follow the adjusted standard. Therefore, the Board grants the motionto 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 ofthe adjusted standard inthe Board's Febmary 18,2010 opinion and order. The adjusted standard order as amended today, is set below inits entirety and is effective inunediately.

### This supplemental opinion constitutes the Board's supplemental findings offact 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 ofvolatile organic material (YOM) into the atmosphere from Viking Pools' swimmingpool manufacturing facility at 312 Duncan Lane, Dix, Jefferson County. 2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 ofthe Board's airpollutionregulations, 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 swimmingpool production methods that generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a reduced YOM content. Wherepracticable, Viking Pools must substitute current materials with lower YOM content materials as long as such substitution does not result in a netincrease in VOM emissions. b. Viking Pools mustperfmm any reasonable test ofnew technologically or economicallyreasonable production methods ormaterials applicable to the open-mold swimmingpool manufacturingindustry, which mayreduce YOM emissions at Viking Pools' facility that the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency (IEPA) specifically requests in writing that they do.

c. Afterperfmmance ofsuchtests, Viking Pools must prepare and submit an annual repmt summarizingthe activities and results ofthese investigatory effmts in (a) and (b) above. The report mustbe submitted to the IEPA, Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section. d. Viking Pools must operate in full compliance withthe Clean Air Act, its CleanAir ActPenni! Programpermit, theNational Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for Reinforced Plastic CompositeManufacturing Facilities, set fmth at 40 CFR §63 Subpmt WWWW, as maybe amended in the future and as required by Section 9.1(a) ofthe Act, the Illinois Environn1ental Protection Act, and any other applicable regulation.

e. The reliefgranted inthis proceeding shall be limited to the swimmingpool manufacturing emissionunits (spray booths) existing as ofAugust 20, 2009, at Viking Pools' Dix facility. IT IS SO ORDERED.

### Section 41 (a) ofthe Environmental ProtectionAct provides that final Board orders may be appealed directlyto 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 whenthe Illinois Appellate Court, by statute, directlyreviews administrative orders. 172 

### Ill. 2d R. 335. The Board'sproceduralmlesprovide that motions for the Boardto reconsider ormodifY its final orders maybe filed with the Boardwithin 35 days after the orderis received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.520; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702. I, Jolm Theniault, Clerk ofthe Illinois PollutionControl Board, certifythat the Board adopted the above opinion and order on September 5, 2013, by a vote of4-0.

JohnTheJTiault, Clerk Illinois PollutionControl Board