1

2

(EPA ATTACHMENT NO. 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 Company
1

2

3 Board Members present:

APPEARANCES

4 (No board members present)

5

6

Board Staff Members 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 2
1

2

3

4

5

WITNESS

Cl i ff 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 3
1

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 of volatile

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. Cliff Hebert, who is the owner of Royal Fiberglass

5 Pools.

6 HEARING OFFICER WEBB: 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, and just to state on the

13 record, the -- we recently filed some responses to the

14 second set of questions from the Board. Today we would

15 like to stand on those, and just any follow-ups would

16 have to be in writing if we -- 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. Thank you.

20 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, 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 5
1 the--

2 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Yes, sure. Mr.

3 Matoesian, do you have any opening statement?

4 MR. MATOESIAN, No.

5 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, All right.

6 Mr. Guariglia, you may begin your case.

7 MR. GUARIGLIA: May it please the Board?

8 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Yes.

9 MR. GUARIGLIA: Let me first introduce

10 Mr. Cliff Hebert, who is the owner of Royal Fiberglass

11 Pools, and have him just say a few words about the

12 background of the company and what we do.

13 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, 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'm Cliff Hebert. I'm the

18 owner of Royal Fiberglass Pools.

19 (Witness sworn.)

20 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Go ahead, Mr. Hebert.

21 MR. HEBERT: I'm Cliff Hebert. I'm owner of

22 Royal Fiberglass Pools. I'm from south Louisiana, so if

23 I speak a little funny, 1 1m French. We've been in Dix 24

24 years, we've been manufacturing 23 years, and it's been a

Keefe Reporting Company 6
1 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 staff back in Louisiana that

9 supports the -- our mission 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 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Mr. Matoesian, did

15 you have any questions you wanted to ask?

16 MR. MATOESIAN, No, I did not.

17 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, 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'm not sure when you're

22 planning to address those.

23 MR. GUARIGLIA: Dr. Haberlein will address

24 those.

Keefe Reporting Company 7
1 MS. LIU, All right. That's fine. Thank

2 you very much, and good morning.

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 from what'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 of what 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 8
1 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. A pool would be

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 Air Act permit to operate this

12 facility and also amended that this summer in July. As a

13 part of that Clean Air Act permit, Title V permit, 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 pound per hour rule. Representatives of Royal met

20 with IEPA on various occasions, corresponded, and

21 basically was agreed at that point that the best course

22 of action in order to comply with the Illinois

23 environmental regulations, particularly the eight pound

24 per hour rule, would be to seek this adjusted standard,

Keefe Reporting Company 9
1 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 10
1 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 gel coat that is used is going to vary slightly

17 from pool to pool, and so there's no way to exactly

18 measure exactly how much of resin or how much of gelcoat

19 is going to be used on each pool, but, you know, for the

20 most part, it i s 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 11
1 gel coating 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 Air Act permit application

6 estimates that the Dix plant's maximum VOM 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 brief mention 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 air pollutants 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 12
1 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 would be 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 reporter please 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 13
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 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 should go back to school, so that's why I

ended up getting a Ph.D. But that'S how I got introduced

to composites, so I actually operated a boat plant for a

couple of years. 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 14
1 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 of what I was going

6 to do with myself, decided to continue to consult rather

7 than teach. The people I had been working for offered me

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 them up 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 spectrum of 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 Fabrication Association, which is now called the American

24 Composites Manufacturing Association, as their technical

Keefe Reporting Company 15
1 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 1m in 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 16
1 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 1 m the most active

4 person as far as developing and maintaining these

5 factors.

6 Q. The -- Could you 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 discovered back in the early '90s that there

16 were a number of models being developed by USEPA for that

17 use. Nobody was doing the modeling. I did my master'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 17
1 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. A detailed 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 18
1 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 gel coat with a

spray gun. There is no technology that does that in

16 would actually be you know, could conceivably handle

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 other methods other

than open mold manufacturing?

A. All the other swimming pool manufacturers

who are my clients are doing exactly what they do at the

Dix plant.

Q. As a part of your 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 MACT promulgation, which is in the

dock.et, was a 40D-some-page report called "Feasibility

and Cost of Add-on Controls for Reinforced Plastics."

That was a document that we submitted to USEPA during the

MACT promulgation which helped them understand 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 20
1 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 of OSHA requirements

operating cost. A facility 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 so great that it needs a -- that the

system would 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 22
that 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 did you conduct that air impact

analysis?

A. We looked only at ozone and we used the

ScheEfe table to get an estimate of what 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 23
1 shortcut method to try to get an estimate of the ozone

2 that might be caused by 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 of many of the local EPA offices. 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-hour ozone 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 limited use, but EPA felt a need

23 to check off a box that a model was done for a stationary

24 source because it is part of the Clean Air Act, 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 from Royal'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 -- if you go to the top and to the

12 left, the number goes down. If you go to the bottom and

13 the right, the number goes up. At the upper left-hand

14 corner you have four parts per billion, 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 really matter if you'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 25
1 you're greater than 20 -- the ratio between VOM and NOx

2 is greater than 20. If youtre 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 hundred pounds

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 boiler on 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 of VOM 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 26
1 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. If you think that adding a 29-ton

9 source is going to add four ppb, well, if you 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 if you 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, and because of that, the little bit

19 that would be added by 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 of VOMs 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

of NOx 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 of questions for you, Dr. Haberlein, regarding

those questions so you can respond to those on behalf of

Royal. You've read those questions?

A. Yes.

O. Board question 2 references a USEPA guidance

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 28
1 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 If you 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, if you

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 29
1 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 emitted by 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 from just 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 30
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 have been told directly by EPA there is no

guidance on the subject by the form of documents 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 of most

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 31
1

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 maximum daily

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 your permission, 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'm working 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 32
1

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 of material 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 typically what you have to do would be in

the morning go around with a bunch of sticks and put 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 33
1

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 to go -- somebody

would have to go around with a clipboard and put a stick

in all of the drums and pails 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 drum was 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 34
1 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 35
1 client, the largest emitter of 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 of NOx, so it's the

8 voe that causes increases. Every single thing that

9 they're subject to, that 1 ' m aware 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'm not 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 from his

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 36
1 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 OFFICER WEBB, 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. Thank you for making the very long trip to

be with us today and for the history of your background.

That was fascinating to listen to that. It's nice to

actually meet the person behind a lot of those USEPA

numbers we see, so welcome. The last subject that you

have been talking about deals with some sort of a way to

limit operations during ozone action days, and thatls

kind of a condition that's a little bit of a wild card

24 here. Illinois EPA has expressed an interest in perhaps

Keefe Reporting Company 37
1 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 of pool, the type of coating and

13 the type of phase 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 of how 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 if you'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 38
1 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 of your 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 of material to come up with a scheme

for doing, you know, emissions on a daily basis, okay?

The problem in Arkansas was that their bill of material

was horrible, that the bill of material had been just

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 and how much material they use,

which is, you know, a real problem for a lot of reasons

beyond just emissions. So there's that problem with it.

It's just if you try to say that, okay, Royal is --

builds 14 pool models, they also do 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 per day for each one

of these pools, and if we 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 40
1

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 of material 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

gel coat a large pool today, and then they may do 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 of material

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, impossible just because of how

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 to make sure it was at a

certain

A. I don't even think -- What you've suggested

Keefe Reporting Company 41
1 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 EPA will

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 if we 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. You just haven't found them yet, 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 42
1 And Illinois is not alone. Ohio EPA is

2 struggling with exactly the same thing, and 1 ' m involved

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 off ramp.

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 problem here 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 43
1 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 if you'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 to build wind blades. 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 wind blade

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 if you look at the documents and see the

Keefe Reporting Company 44
1 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 if you 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 OFFICER WEBB; Alisa, were you done?

Did you have anything else?

Keefe Reporting Company 45
1 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 , Thank you very much.

6 MS. LIU, -- going to the depth that you

7 did. Thank you.

8 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, 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, if we

HEARING OFFICER WEBB, All right.

Mr. Matoesian, you do not have anything you had planned

to present today, but you do have a witness

MR. MATOESIAN: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB, who may be able to

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Keefe Reporting Company 46
1 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 OFFICER WEBB, 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 47
1

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 48
1 with the IEPA is?

2 MR. RUSSO: I'm an environmental protection

3 engineer with the Bureau of Air, Division of Pollution

4 Control. air quality planning section and regulatory

5 uni t.

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 OFFICER WEBB, 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 49
1 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 per million. 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, and we will be happy to do that.

18 MS. LIU, Okay. If you will bear with 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 OFFICER WEBB, You do not have any

Keefe Reporting Company 50
1 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 51
1 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 OFFICER WEBB: -- is that correct?

7 MR. MATOESIAN, Yes.

8 HEARING OFFICER 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 OFFICER WEBB, 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 our briefs and spending time on those and

24 thinking through these issues.

Keefe Reporting Company 52
1 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 53
1 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 S4
1 MACT standard for all types of boat -- or 1 1 m sorry --

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, in just

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 and just close up business and

18 leave the state and either leave manufacturing altogether

19 or move 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 would just be

23 moved to a different state.

24 The -- We are -- You know, we just really ask the

Keefe Reporting Company 55
1 Board to grant this adjusted standard. We know that the

2 Board did grant a similar adjusted standard for Crownline

3 Pools just three years ago, and we have crafted our

4 request for an adjusted standard based upon the language

5 that the Board granted for Crownline, and we would hope

6 that that same type of adjusted standard would be issued

7 here; that there wouldn't be additional restrictions

8 placed upon 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 would really have a

15 negligible effect on ozone in the long run. So we

16 hereby, you know, request again that the Board would

17 grant the adjusted standard as we have proposed in our

18 petition, in our first amended petition. Thank you.

19 HEARING OFFICER WEBB, Thank you 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 Board grant this adjusted standard as well. Thank

Keefe Reporting Company 56
1

2

you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB, 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

COUNTY OF BOND

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 by me 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
IEPA ATTACHMENT NO 70

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 16,2009 '-

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIOi'i COi'iTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

NOTICE

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

TIIinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. euschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

SI. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

PLEASE TAKE OnCE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board

the ILLINOIS EPA'S RE PO SE TO OUESTIO S POSED BY THE ILUNOIS POLLUTION

CO TROL BOARD AT THE HEARJNG 0 OCTOBER 28, 2009 ofthe llIinois

Environmental Protection Agency a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVlRO ME TAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: ovember 16, 2009

1021 1 orth Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, lIIinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TOO)

THIS FILING IS S BMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 16, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MAITER OF: )

)

PETITIO OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS, )

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

)

AS 2009-04

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

ILLI OIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO OUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTIOI CO 'TROL BOARD AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 28.2009

NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and files this responsc to the

questions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") asked at the hearing held on

Octobcr 28, 2009.

Question I, Page 47 - 48 of the transcript:

There's a condition D on page 7 of the recommendation, and I'll restate it. It says,

"The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emissions activities at

Royal's Oix facility as of the date ofthis 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. Ijust 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?

Response: Condition D on page 7 ofthe Illinois EPA recommendation relates only to the

types ofemissions activities, i.e., fiberglass poolmannfaclIIring at the Dix facility. Condition

Dis not meant to relate to the level or the amount ofemissions. However, the level and

amount ofemissions are to be in compliance with the proposed permit conditions, that

includes the ann/wi production cap of400 pools.

Question 2, page 49 - 50 of the TR:

Yesterday the Blinois EPA filed a response to some ofthe pre-hearing questions

that we had had, and in the response to question 21(d) of the hearing officer order,

the Agency talks about the scaling factors and whether or not it was appropriate to

use those when applying the ozone increment, and the Agency makes the

statement that it doesn't endorse the use ofscaling factors that are based on
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 16,2009

steady-state assumptions, and then it goes on to say that ozone is not steady-state.

I was wondering if there was a contradiction there, if it needed to be clarified. Did

the Agency mean that they didn't endorse scaling factors for non-steady-state

assumptions other than steady-state?

Respollse: The IEPA 's October 27,2009 writtell re;"JOllse to Qllestioll 21(d) Ofthe Hearillg

Officer Order stated, ill part, the followillg: "The Agellcy does 1I0t elldorse the lise ofscalillg

factors that are based all steady-state, Gallssiall pillme-type assllmptioIlS." Regrettably, this

selltellce is all ill complete e;'(pressioll ofthe illtellded cOllcept. The selltellce shollid have read:

The Agellcy does 1I0t elldorse the lise ofscalillg factors that are based all steady-state,

Gallssiall pillme-type assllmptiollS for estimatillg alternative averagillg time cOllcelltratiolls of

polllltallts that are secolldarilyformed.

Question 3, page 50 ofthe TR:

Funher on in that response, on page 3, it talks about a combined ozone increment

and ozone design value of 72 parts per million. Just wanted to make sure, I think

they meant pans per billion?

Respollse: The 1111 itsfor the "combilled ozolle illcremellt alld ozolle desigll vallie" were

ill correctly specified as parts per millioll ("72 ppm 'J. The correct IIl1its are parts per billioll

(ppb), alld so the text shollM have read Z2....1!.e!!..

Question 4, page 50 of the TR:

And then the other question I had was they do talk about the ozone design value

being 73 parts per billion, but then they talk about a combined ozone increment

and ozone design value of72, and [was wondering how it goes down when you

combine the two, or was that an oversight?

Respollse: The desigll vallie is depelldellt "POII the specific years ofmOllitorillg data from

which it is calclliated. As illdicated ill the 1EPA 's October 27,2009 writtell respollse to

Qllestioll 21(d), the "2005-2007 8-llOlIr ozolle desigll vallie" for the Hamiltoll COllllty mOllitor

is "73 ppb". The 2007-2009 8-hollr ozolle desigll vallie IISillg the Hamiltoll COllllty mOllitorillg

data is 68 ppb (this lower vallie reflects clealler ambiellt air ill more recellt years). The

additioll Ofthe 4 ppb ozolle illcremelltfrom the Air Qllality Impact Allalysis gives a total

"combilled ozolle illcremellt alld ozolle desigll vallie" Of 72 ppb.lt shollid be 1I0ted that IEPA

follows USEPA's cOllvelltioll ofreportillg the 8-hollr average ozolle cOllcellfratioll, whell

expressed ill IIl1its ofparts per millioll, to three decimal places (ally digits to the right ofthe

third decimal place are tmllcatedj.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 16,2009

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: lSI Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: November 16, 2009

1020 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

21717782-5544

(217)782-9807 Facsimile
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 16, 2009

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COU TY OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached

ILLINOIS EPA'S RESPONSE TO FURTHER OUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTIO CO TROL BOARD AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 2009, upon the

following persons:

John Thcrriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

21 IN. Broadway

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Dated: November 16, 2009

102 I North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217 782.9143 (TDD)

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite J 1-500

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

lsi Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel