BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS
)
POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
AS 09-4
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
(Adjusted Standard - Air)
215.301
POST HEARING
BRIEF OF PETITIONER ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS
Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. ("Royal"), through its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP,
submits this Post Hearing Brief.
On July 17, 2009, Royal submitted its First Amended Petition For An Adjusted
Standard ("First Amended Petition") to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("I PCB"),
seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code §215.301 (Use of Organic Material,
otherwise known as the "8 lb/hr Rule") as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic
material ("V OM") at Royal's Dix, Illinois swimming pool manufacturing facility.
Section 215.301 provides:
"No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kglhr (8 lbslhr) of
organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source, except as
provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 and the following exception: If
no odor nuisance exists the limitation of this Subpart shall apply only to
photochemically reactive material."
On August 20, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois
EPA") filed with the IPCB its Recommendation that Royal's First Amended Petition be
granted.
On October 28, 2009, a hearing on this matter was held before Hearing Officer
Carol Webb, at which Royal and the Illinois EPA presented testimony.
Royal submits this Post-Hearing Brief in furtherance of its First Amended Petition
for an Adjusted Standard.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Facility and Process Description
Royal operates a fiberglass pool manufacturing facility located at 312 Duncan
Road, Dix, Illinois (the "Dix Plant"). Royal manufactures twenty different models of
fiberglass pools, ranging from 12' wide x 16' long x 3' 10" deep to
17'
wide x 40' 6"
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
long x 8' deep. The Dix Plant began operations in the early 1990s and during peak
season employs approximately twenty individuals plus another five to ten contract
haulers.
The facility has one large production building in which composite pool
manufacturing occurs inside three self-contained rooms, which are called "bays," that are
located inside the plant building. Most
of the pool production occurs in the two main
bays (Bay 1 and Bay 2), but pool finishing, part repair, and some occasional small pool
production occurs in the third bay. All three bays are connected to a common exhaust
ventilation system. The production bays utilize an approximate
35,000-cfm cross-flow
ventilation system that exhausts air from the work areas to the outside atmosphere
through a 36 inch diameter, 36 foot tall vertical discharge stack in order to control worker
exposure to styrene.
The
CAAPP permit application submitted
to Illinois EPA in November 2004
requested a maximum facility-wide annual production cap
of 400 pools per year, which
corresponds to full production (two pools per day) in spring, summer and fall. This same
facility-wide annual production cap
of 400 pools per year is also included in Royal's
modification to its permit application filed on July 14, 2009.
Composite Pool Manufacturing Procedure.
The composite pool manufacturing
at the Dix Plant consists
of three basic process steps, all of which emit VOMs and would
be subject to the requested adjusted standard:
1.
Gelcoat application.
Either a thin layer of white gelcoat or two layers
(one
of which is translucent gelcoat and the other is regular production gelcoat) is
applied
to each bare waxed pool mold with a Magnum Venus Products ("MVP")
high-volume low-pressure fluid impingement technology applicator gun. The
gelcoat applicator is operated as an atomizing gelcoat spray gun. The white
gelcoat used at Dix contains 27% styrene monomer by weight and 3% methyl
methacrylate (MMA) by weight. The two layer gelcoats range from 27%
- 38%
styrene and 3% - 10% MMA. This gelcoat is the state-of-the-art in low-HAP
formulations for swimming pool production.
2.
Barrier coat resin application.
A 100 to 120 mil (0.100 to 0.120")
laminate layer
of three ounce glass mat and vinyl ester ("VE") corrosion-resistant
resin is applied to the cured gelcoat layer with the same MVP applicator that is
used to apply gelcoat. However, the gelcoat tip is replaced with a 5020 VE tip
and the pump pressure is adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application
of the
VE resin. The VE resin contains up to 48% styrene content by weight.
3.
Isophthalic structural resin application.
A series of consecutive
laminate layers consisting
of 1 Y2 oz. chopped glass strand mat, woven glass
roving, and isophthalic ("ISO") corrosion-resistant resin is applied to the cured
VE layer with the same MVP applicator that is used to apply the gelcoat and VE
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
resin. However, the VE tip is replaced with a 7025 ISO resin tip and the pump
pressure is adjusted to allow for the non-atomized application
of the ISO resin.
Other manufacturing steps include: (l) parts finishing, including trimming,
grinding and sanding
of finished pools parts; (2) ge1coat and resin cleanup, in which
acetone, non-HAP and non-VOC cleaning solvent is used to clean gelcoat and resin
residues from the application equipment and roller tools; and (3) mold repair and mold
prep, in which very small amounts
of tooling ge1coat and tooling resin are used to repair
the molds and a small quantity of mold cleaner, mold sealer, and mold release (called
mold wax), is used to prepare the bare mold for ge1coat application. These other steps do
not have significant amounts ofVOM emissions.
B.
Procedural Background
Royal has always strived to comply with environmental and other regulations that
apply to operations at the Dix Plant. In keeping with its desire to comply with applicable
rules, in November of 2004, Royal submitted an application for a Clean Air Act Permits
Program ("CAAPP") operating permit from the Illinois EP A.
lI
To date, a permit has not
been issued. Royal is aware that Illinois EPA has rejected the use
of averaging to
demonstrate compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule. The Illinois EPA has stated that the 8
lb/hr Rule specifies a maximum hourly emission rate and, therefore, compliance with the
rule would need to be demonstrated
on a strict hourly basis, not on an average from any
longer time period.
On January 10, 2006, the Illinois EPA issued Violation Notice A-2005-00281 to
Royal. After receipt of this Notice, representatives of Royal met with Illinois EPA in
person and also corresponded with Illinois EPA regarding the notice. As part of these
communications, Royal provided a significant amount
of information to Illinois EPA
regarding the Dix Plant and the relevant industry. With assistance from its environmental
consultant, Engineering Environmental Consulting Services ("EECS"), Royal computed
the
YOM emitted during the manufacture of the various pools Royal constructs. Royal
discovered that, based on Illinois EPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating
compliance, the hourly YOM emissions from certain
of its operations (ge1coat and resin
application) did not appear to comply with IEPA's interpretation of the 8 lb/hr Rule.
After carefully examining its options for add-on controls and/or for changing
manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Royal's levels
of hourly YOM emissions,
Royal realized that the cost for compliance via either
of these options will neither allow it
to remain competitive nor profitable, and will force closure of the Dix Plant. Royal met
with Illinois EP A and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring
Royal's
compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis is unreasonable.
After
considering the information presented by Royal, Illinois EPA agreed that applying the 8
lb/hour Rule to Royal's operations on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an
unreasonable burden. Royal and Illinois EPA agreed that Royal should apply for an
adjustment from the 8 lb/hr Rule.
liOn
July 14,2009, Royal submitted to Illinois EPA a modification to its CAAPP permit application.
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
C.
Facility Air Emissions
1.
VOM Emissions Estimates.
The YOM emissions from the Dix Plant
vary depending on the type and size
of each swimming pool part. The facility emissions
consist predominately
of styrene, but also include small amounts of other YOM and
volatile organic HAP species such as methyl methacrylate ("MMA"). The average
YOM
emissions per pool for the gelcoating process is 53.8 lbs of YOM. The resin process
averages 94.4 lbs
of YOM emitted per pool. The total average YOM emitted per pool is
148.8Ibs. The maximum facility-wide hourly
YOM emission rate is 156.70 lbs per hour.
Annual
YOM emissions at the Dix Plant for 2007 and 2008 were 14.8 tpy and 11.6 tpy,
respectively. Royal's current
CAAPP application estimates the Dix Plant's
maximum
YOM emissions at about 29.76 tpy, approximately 27.54 tons of which relate to potential
styrene emissions. Additional information regarding Royal's YOM emissions, is set
forth in
Royal's First Amended Petition.
2. Compliance with the Composites MACT.
Royal is currently subject to
the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for reinforced plastic
composite manufacturing facilities, found at 40
CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW (the
"MACT").
EPA estimates that industry-wide, compliance with the MACT will reduce
styrene emissions from subject facilities by an average
of 43%. Royal has been in
continuous compliance with the MACT since it became effective. The
MACT required
that subject facilities similar to Royal's be in compliance with the work practice
standards contained therein
by April 21, 2006. Royal was in compliance with the MACT
by February 2006. To comply with the work practice standards in the MACT, Royal
adopted standards requiring that all resin containers are closed when
not in use, and
implementing the use
of acetone, which has no HAP or YOM emissions. Royal meets
the
MACT emission standards by using the HAP emissions factor averaging option (see
40
CFR 63.5810(b)) and Royal has continually been in compliance with the emission
limits set forth in the MACT.
II.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Section 28.1(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, if a
regulation
of general applicability does not specify a level of justification required of a
petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted
standards whenever the Board determines, upon adequate
proof by petitioner, that:
1) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different
from the factors relied upon
by the Board in adopting the general regulation
applicable to that petitioner;
2) the existence
of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered
by the
Board in adopting the rule
of general applicability; and
4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
The regulation of general applicability from which Royal seeks an adjusted
standard does not specify a level
of justification for an adjusted standard.
A.
Factors Relating to Royal are Substantially and Significantly
Different from the Factors Relied upon by the Board in Adopting the 8 lblhr Rule
The factors relating to Royal's operations are substantially and significantly
different than the general factors relied upon by the Board in promulgating the 8 lblhr
Rule. The 8 lb/hr Rule was first promulgated in 1971 as Chapter
2: Air Pollution, Rule
205. 4 PCB 191, R71-23. Because it was adopted over 30 years ago, it is difficult,
ifnot
impossible, to know exactly what factors the Board relied upon in adopting this rule.
However, based upon Illinois Pollution Control Board case law and a common sense
reading
of the rule, Royal believes that the factors primarily relied upon by the Board
involved concerns about preventing ozone formation. In fact, it appears that the main
intent
of the rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic material utilized control
equipment already in place to ensure that their facilities do not cause a violation
of the
one-hour ozone standard nor create an odor nuisance. For example, in Illinois v.
Processing and Books, Inc., the IPCB explained that:
"Rule 205: Organic Material Emission Standards serves both to achieve and
maintain compliance with the federal air quality standard for photochemical
oxidants (0.08
ppm for one hour not to exceed more than once per year, 36 Fed.
Reg. 22385 Nov.
25,1971) and to prevent local nuisances .... the major purpose
of these regulations is for control of photochemical oxidants. In addition, odor
causing organic emissions were included
if a local odor nuisance exits ... these
provisions are designed to require the use
of equipment that is already in use at
numerous facilities
... "
1977 WL 9986, *4 (Ill. Pol. Control. Bd.). From this explanation it is evident that
the Board was most concerned with: (1) protecting ambient air quality by preventing any
violation
of the I-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odor nuisances from
manufacturing operations. A review
of Royal's operations shows that the main purposes
of this rule are not furthered through its application to Royal: first, as discussed in Section
11.0
of this First Amended Petition, the daily amounts of YOM emitted by Royal's
operations have a negligible impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a
violation
of the ozone NAAQS; and second, Royal has a tall stack in place to minimize
odor nuisance from its operations.
The above quote from the Illinois Pollution Control Board also shows that, when
adopting the rule in 1971, the Board most likely relied upon the fact that facilities would
have no problem complying with the rule by utilizing equipment already available and in
use by most facilities subject to the rule.
It
is clear that this rule was promulgated as a
catch-all provision, intending to cast a wide net over all operations which emit organic
materials.
However, the Board could not possibly have contemplated all the
circumstances in which organic material is emitted, and, in fact, there is no indication that
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
the Board considered the factors peculiar to pool fabrication when adopting this rule.
There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherent or otherwise
necessary to Royal's operations that the Board did not consider (nor could it have) when
it adopted the 8 lb/hr Rule in 1971. The building
of a fiberglass swimming pool involves
a batch-type process (of applying layers or skins), rather than a continuous application
process. This
is an important distinction because compliance with the rule can be
reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that involve
the use of materials that emit VOMs) are of a continuous nature or, are at least are
distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period. For continuous or near-continuous
operations, the use
of emission controls, as provided by 35 I.A.C. 215.302, is
economically feasible. Due to the large size
of the swimming pool molds and necessary
batch-type sequence of the gel coat and resin application processes at the Dix Plant, they
are neither continuous nor evenly distributed over a longer period of time.
Additionally, the advent
of OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR
1910, requires manufacturers who use materials that contain and emit styrene to maintain
an in-plant work area atmosphere (worker breathing air)
of less than 100 ppm. To do so,
Royal had to install a large ventilation system that exhausts approximately 35,000 cubic
feet of plant air every minute. This makes the use of add-on emission controls for
Royal's operations fiscally impractical. (See discussion below and in Section II.E. of
Royal's First Amended Petition). The Board could not have possibly anticipated this
OSHA requirement and its affect when it made its decision to adopt the 8 lb/hr Rule for
all manufacturing facilities in the State.
Finally, on June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the one-hour average ozone standard,
which was replaced by an eight-hour average standard. See
69 Fed. Reg. 23951 (Apr. 30,
2005). As referenced by the Board in Illinois v. Processing and Books, Inc., the 8 lb/hr
Rule was designed in primary part to assist in achieving compliance with EPA's one-hour
average standard. Although Royal is not requesting that the Board revoke the 8 lb/hr
Rule, Royal asserts that the elimination
of one of the fundamental purposes of the 8 lb/h
Rule supports this request for an adjusted standard.
Because the IPCB could not (and did not) consider these factors relating to
Royal's operations, Royal contends that it is unreasonable to expect
it
to demonstrate
compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.
B.
The Existence of Those Factors Justifies an Adjusted Standard
As discussed in Section II.E. of Royal's First Amended Petition, Royal has
investigated numerous compliance alternatives that have proven to be neither
economically nor technically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to
Royal's operations (discussed above). The existence of these factors, coupled with
IEPA's endorsement
of Royal's efforts to obtain an adjusted standard justifies the
granting of an adjusted standard.
6
.-. -,."<
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
Royal investigated compliance alternatives that would help enable it to comply
with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis. As discussed below, Royal investigated: (1)
reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative operating
procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control technologies.
It
is
important to note, however, that other than add-on emission controls, many
of the
alternatives investigated would not allow Royal to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule on a
strict hourly basis. In addition, Royal could not identify any feasible compliance
alternatives to further reduce
YOM emissions from Royal's operations.
1.
Lower YOM Content Materials
Royal has already reduced the YOM concentration in its production materials
(gelcoat and resin materials) in compliance with the MACT. Complying with the MACT
alone will not reduce Royal's emissions to a level satisfactory to meet the 8
lblhr Rule
on
a strict hourly basis. While Royal has inquired of its suppliers regarding lower YOM
content production materials, further reduction
of styrene in the resins (below that needed
to comply with MACT) is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining
product integrity.
2.
Alternate Operating Procedure and Methods
Royal carefully studied the gelcoating process at the Dix Plant, and considered
every recognized alternative procedure and method that might reduce the hourly
YOM
emissions rate. However, this study revealed inherent process limitations that precluded
the use
of any effective alternative:
•
Composite swimming pools are produced with open molding processes
on very
large male molds.
•
Composite pools are too large to use any closed molding process. Even
if closed
molding was feasible for the smallest pool model, the gelcoat layer must still be
applied to the "open" closed mold with a gelcoat applicator.
• A high-quality gelcoat finish is an essential component
of a commercially
acceptable composite pool. The pool models are much too large to use a vacuum-
formed thermoplastic shell finish, which is the only acceptable alternative finish
that is used for smaller spa pools.
•
Gelcoat must be applied to the pool mold in a single uniform layer. Gelcoat
cannot be applied in separate strips or sections, because the lapped gelcoat seams
would be structurally unsound and unsightly.
•
Gelcoat must be applied to the mold with an atomizing mechanical applicator.
Although non-atomizing gelcoat equipment is available that might reduce the
gelcoat emission rate, the available non-atomizing equipment will not provide an
acceptable surface finish and has failed to reduce gelcoat emissions as promised
by the manufacturer.
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
•
The gelcoat process takes about one hour for the largest pool model and the
largest pool model requires at least 360 pounds
of gelcoat.
•
The white gelcoat used by Royal is state-of-the-art and contains the lowest
feasible monomer contents
of 27% styrene and 3% MMA. This gelcoat provides
a flexible, durable, glossy finish that must resist impact, weathering, temperature
extremes,
UV radiation, and blistering.
•
The emissions from the current gelcoat process cannot
be appreciably reduced
with any additional workpractice improvements, pollution prevention techniques,
or gelcoat material substitutions.
•
The application
of ge1coat takes place in large work bay areas that require
significant amounts
of ventilation airflow to protect the workers against styrene
exposure. This ventilation
is required by OSHA regulations. The relatively large
airflow rate and low styrene exposure limits established by OSHA result in a large
dilute exhaust stream that cannot be economically controlled with add-on air
pollution control equipment. The cost
of the lowest-cost control equipment is
detailed in the next section.
3.
Feasibility of Add-On Air Pollution Controls
The cost and feasibility of add-on air pollution controls at reinforced plastic
composite manufacturing facilities has been thoroughly studied and documented as part
of the Composites MACT (40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart WWWW). The Dix Plant is fully
compliant with the HAP emission limits listed in the MACT standard, averaging 72%
of
the MACT emissions limit.
According to the MACT, a composites facility such as the Dix Plant is not
required to install add-on air pollution controls.
During the promulgation and
development
of the MACT, the United States EPA discovered that add-on air pollution
controls are not cost effective at most existing composite facilities. The United States
EPA also determined that add-on controls with 95% control efficiency would only be
cost effective for new composite facilities that emit more than
100 tpy
of HAP or new
facility that produces large parts such as swimming pools and emits more than 250 tpy
of
HAP. The Dix Plant emitted less than 12 tons of HAPs in 2008, so add-on controls
would not be cost effective by a very wide margin.
A comprehensive study entitled
"Feasibility and Cost of the Capture and Control
of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Open Molding of Reinforced Plastic
Composites"
prepared by EECS was submitted to United States EPA in April 2000 as
part
of the promulgation of the Composites MACT rule. This report has 377 pages of
information concerning the cost and feasibility of add-on controls at composites facilities.
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
Very little has changed since the 2000 publication date, except that the cost of electricity
and natural gas needed to operate add-on controls has risen dramatically.2/
An abbreviated summary of the air pollution control systems, which are detailed
in the aforementioned study and are available for use, is contained in the following table:
Commercially Available Air Pollution Controls
Technology
Applicability Concerns
Status at the
Dix Plant
Absorption
Styrene is nearly insoluble in water
infeasible
Styrene polymerizes on sorbent media
Adsorption
Desorbed styrene is not reusable
infeasible
Desorbed styrene must be disposed as hazardous waste
Biodigestion
Microbes are unreliable and must stay warm and moist
infeasible
Digestion beds must be huge to handle exhaust airflow
Styrene concentration in air too low to be economic
Condensation
Condensate is mostly water with trace styrene
infeasible
Condensate must be disposed as hazardous waste
Flare
Styrene concentration in air is too low to be economic
infeasible
TO
Conventional recuperative oxidation is always more
R TO is better
costly than R TO
Regenerative thermal oxidation is currently employed
technically
at one truck cap plant and several large bathware plants
feasible
that produce small parts on automated production lines,
Oxidation
RTO
operate continuously (24 hr/day, 360 days/yr) and have
economically
uncontrolled styrene emissions >250 tpy. A
RTO
infeasible
system large enough to handle the 35,000 cfm exhaust
airflow at the Dix Plant would cost over $600,000 to
install and over $300,000 per year to operate.
CO
Catalytic media has a relatively short lifetime and is
infeasible
unreliable
Preconcentration is currently employed at four large
technically
bathware plants. The long-term performance
of the
questionable
Preconcentration
adsorber in questionable due to an unexpected failure
w/RTO
of the activated charcoal sorbent media at one of the
economically
sites. A preconcentrator system large enough to handle
infeasible
the
35,000 cfm exhaust airflow at the Dix Plant would
cost almost one million dollars to install and operate.
Royal commissioned EECS to prepare a detailed control cost analysis for a skid-
mounted RTO system for the Dix Plant. EECS's report
of its analysis was submitted to
Illinois EPA on June
19,2009 and was attached to Royal's First Amended Petition. As
detailed in this analysis, the skid-mounted R TO control option would have an installed
21
Due to the size of this study, Royal is not including a copy with this Brief.
It
is part of EPA's
docket regarding the Composites MACT rule promulgation and adoption. Should the Board desire a copy
of the study, Royal would be pleased to provide it to the Board.
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
capital cost approximately $709,500 and would have annual operating costs of over
$470,000 per year. The cost effectiveness for this add-on control would be about
$18,400 per ton
of styrene and MMA removed per year. As such, the cost effectiveness
of the RTO control option is much greater than what is widely regarded as affordable.
The annual operating cost of the RTO control options is several times greater than the
annual profit for the Dix Plant. Hence, add-on controls are prohibitively expensive and
not economically feasible for the Dix Plant.
c.
The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Adverse Environmental
or Health Effects.
As discussed in Section II.G of Royal's First Amended Petition, the requested
adjusted standard will have little,
if any, adverse impact on the environment or health.
By complying with the MACT, Royal has limited its YOM emissions. Even without
these changes, Royal's operations do not cause or contribute to any ozone exceedances.
With respect to health effects, Royal notes that Illinois does not have a health standard for
styrene emissions, and this manufacturing process is the same process used by swimming
pool manufacturers in many other states.
1.
Air Quality Impact Analysis of Royal's Operations.
As indicated,
the Dix Plant is already in compliance with the MACT, and the proposed adjusted
standard will not impact future compliance with the MACT. Additionally, attached to
Royal's First Amended Petition
is an Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Dix Plant. This
analysis presents the worst-case scenario for ozone emissions using the proposed adjusted
standard. Based on the results
of the analysis, the worst-case one-hour average ozone
impact is still only 74% of the one-hour ozone standard. Royal understands that in 2005,
EPA replaced the one-hour average ozone standard with an eight-hour average standard,
but believes the hourly calculation presented in the Air Quality Impact Analysis is useful
given the obvious concerns about hourly emissions that are reflected in the 8 lblhr Rule.
Should Royal's First Amended Petition be granted, there will not be any increase
on a per unit basis over the current emissions from the Dix Plant. Royal's First Amended
Petition merely seeks to allow Royal to continue manufacturing in the same manner, and
granting the First Amended Petition will not amount to an increase of per unit emissions.
In addition, at the hearing, Dr. Robert Haberlein testified on behalf
of Royal
regarding the impact to air quality
if Royal's adjusted standard was granted. Dr.
Haberlein testified that Royal's emissions will have a negligible effect on ozone and air
quality. (Hearing Transcript, pgs. 25- 27, 31-32). In addition, although the Air Quality
Impact Analysis attached to the First Amended Petition indicates that the worst case one-
hour average ozone impact is 4 ppb, Dr. Haberlein testified at the hearing that based on
Scheffe Table 1, which was used for the analysis, the lowest ozone impact possible from
the Table is 4 ppb for any source less than 50 tons of YOM per year, but that the actual
worst case impact from Royal operations is probably much less than 4 ppb.
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
2.
Cross-Media Environmental Impacts Resulting from an Adjusted
Standard.
There should be no negative cross environmental impacts resulting from the
requested adjusted standard. In general, the Dix Plant's waste and wastewater generation
is independent
of YOM emissions, thus no significant change in the nature or volume of
waste and wastewater generation is anticipated. However, as part of MACT compliance,
Royal converted its resin spray applicators to low-emitting non-atomized applicators.
The non-atomized applicators reduce the amount of overspray, and therefore the amount
of solid and hazardous waste generated. Although not required by the MACT standard,
Royal has eliminated all colored backcoat gelcoats and now uses just white backcoat.
This requires less flushing of the gelcoat lines, and as a result, less waste gelcoat material
is generated.
D.
The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law
The granting
of the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law and
will not violate any provision of the federal Clean Air Act. Specifically, there is no Clean
Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting swimming pool manufacturers'
emissions
of organic material in excess of 8 lbs/hr, on a strict hourly basis. Because
Royal is proposing to comply with the MACT, the proposed adjusted standard is
consistent with federal law.
III.
ROYAL'S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
As set forth in Royal's First Amended Petition, Royal proposes the following
language for a Board order to impose the adjusted standard:
1.
Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415
ILCS
5/2811), the Board grants Royal Fiberglass Pools ("Royal") an adjusted
standard from
35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.201 ("8 lblhr Rule"), effective
,
20_. The adjusted standard applies to the emissions of volatile organic
material ("VOM") into the atmosphere from Royal's swimming pool
manufacturing facility located in Dix, Illinois.
2.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply. Royal remains subject to the
following:
a. Royal must continue to investigate: (a) swimming pool production
methods that generate fewer YOM emissions, and (b) materials that have
a reduced YOM content and/or are compliant with the Composites
MACT HAP content. Where practicable, Royal must substitute current
materials with lower YOM content materials as long as such substitution
does not result in a net increase in YOM emissions.
b. Royal must perform any reasonable test of new technologically or
economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
the open-mold swimming pool manufacturing industry, which may reduce
YOM emissions at Royal's facility which the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing they do.
After performance
of such tests, Royal must prepare and submit a report
summarizing the activities and results
of these investigatory efforts. The
report must be submitted to the Agency, Bureau of Air, Compliance and
Enforcement Section.
c. Royal must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its Clean
Air Act Permit Program permit (once issued), the National Emissions
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composite
Manufacturing Facilities, set forth in 40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart WWWW.as
required by Section 9.1 (a) of the Act, and any other applicable regulation.
Significantly, this proposed adjusted standard is consistent with prior adjusted
standards from the 8 lblhr Rule issued by the IPCB for similar manufacturing processes.
Specifically, on July 22, 2002, the IPCB granted Crownline Boats, Inc.'s ("Crownline")
Petition for Adjusted Standard. Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing
facility in West Frankfort, Illinois, using a gelcoat and resin application process very
similar to that employed by Royal.
Crownline was granted an exemption from
compliance with the 8 lblhr Rule because compliance with a MACT standard similar to
the Composites MACT could be demonstrated. The adjusted standard proposed herein is
based on the adjusted standard approved by the IPCB in response to Crownline's petition.
In its Recommendation filed August 20, 2009, Illinois EPA suggested adding the
following condition to the language
of the adjusted standard: "The relief granted in this
proceeding shall
be limited to the emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as of the date
of this filing." Royal opposes the addition of such a provision. The language is vague
and ambiguous as to what is meant by "emission activities at Royal's Dix facility as of
the date of this filing." First, it is unclear what date is being referred to and whether it is
the date that an order would be issued or some other date? Second, and more
importantly, such a provision can be read to mean that only those activities taking place
on the date in question are governed by the relief granted. If Royal is not conducting
manufacturing activities on the date in question, does that mean that the relief granted in
this proceeding does not apply to any
of Royal's air emissions? In addition, such
language was not included in the Adjusted Standard issued to Crownleine, discussed
above. Because of the ambiguity of this proposed language and the precedent in the
Crownline matter, Royal requests that it not be added to the language of any adjusted
standard which may be issued in this proceeding.
Finally, both Royal and the Illinois EPA oppose any restrictions which would be
placed on Royals' manufacturing operations as part of an adjusted standard in situations
were there may be ozone action days. (See, Illinois EPA Response to Further Questions
posed by the IPCB, filed Oct. 27, 2009, pgs. 3-4). This issue was raised in the IPCB's
questions to Royal and the Illinois EPA.
In the pleadings it filed with the IPCB and in
the testimony it presented at the hearing, Royal detailed that such restrictions would be
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
logistically unworkable and would be an unreasonable burden to impose on a facility
which often has
10 or fewer employees working. In addition, Illinois EPA stated: "[i]t
would be inappropriate to require a single facility amongst a group of potentially
contributing facilities to accept a condition limiting VOM emitting operations on ozone
action days
... "
IV.
SUMMARY
In summary, Royal offers the following reasons as to why it should receive the
adjusted standard requested in lieu of having to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict
hourly basis:
•
Royal is already subject to National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing facilities, found at 40
CFR Part
63 Subpart WWWW. EPA estimates that the annual cost for a facility
to comply with the MACT is $2,800/ton
of hazardous air pollutants removed and
will reduce styrene emissions by an average
of 43%.
Royal has been in
continuous compliance with the MACT since
it's implementation.
•
Technical and regulatory constraints (such as the high air flow needed to ventilate
building air in order to comply with OSHA worker health & safety standards)
make the cost for Royal to comply with the 8 lblhr Rule on a strict hourly basis
using emission controls unreasonably high.
•
The capital costs associated with tail-stack (end-of-pipe) controls for Royal to
comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis would cost approximately
$709,500 to install and over $470,000 per year to operate. This equates to
approximately $18,400 per ton
of pollutant removed.
•
Although some alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic
products exist, none
of them can be technically or economically applied to a
swimming pool manufacturing operation such as Royal's and none
of them will
actually allow Royal to fully comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.
•
The high cost
of using either end-of-stack emission controls or very expensive
alternative production methods (those requiring complete re-tooling and re-design
of production methods and procedures), will put Royal at a significant
competitive disadvantage. This will result in one of the following scenarios:
•
•
To remain competitive, Royal will be forced to move to another state
which does not have an 8 lblhr Rule (or any similar limitation); or
Royal will eventually be forced out
of business because it will not be able
to compete for customers due to the high cost
of its swimming pools
and/or due to the diminished quality/durability
of its swimming pools.
•
The 8 lb/hr Rule puts Royal at a competitive disadvantage to other swimming
pool manufacturers located in states without a similar 8 lb/hr Rule. Royal and its
13
)
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
consultant, EECS, are familiar with swimming pool manufacturing facilities in at
least seven other states (Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, South
Carolina,
New York and Louisiana, where Royal's only other manufacturing
facility is located), and none of those states have an 8 lblhr Rule. Royal and its
consultant are not familiar with any other swimming pool manufacturing
operations within Illinois.
v.
CONCLUSION
The requested adjusted standard should be granted as an alternative to Royal's
compliance with
35 lAC §215.301. Notwithstanding the technical impracticality of
complying with the requirements of the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis, to require
Royal to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule would result in substantial economic hardship to
Royal, and perhaps even closure of the Dix Plant.
WHEREFORE,
Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. respectfully requests an adjusted
standard from 35 lAC § 215.301 as set forth herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP
BY:'D&4a.~
Dale A. Guariglia, MO B #
8
Brandon W. Neuschafer,
MO Bar #53232
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Tel. (314) 259-2000
Fax. (314) 259-2020
Attorneys for Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc.
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a ccpUfthe foregoing Post-Hearing Briefwas
served upon the following parties on the
,_. '<fay of December, 2009:
Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk
100 West Randolph Street
James
R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601-3218
Division
of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1
021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Attn: Charles Matoesian
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009