BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
EN
THE MATTER
OF:
)
Petition
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
)
AS-
J
t
for
an
Adjusted
Standard
from
)
(Adjusted
Standard)
APR
032009
35IAC215.301
)
STATEoFlINO
PETITION
FOR
AN
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
Pollution
Control
So
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
(“Royal”),
through
its
attorneys,
Bryan
Cave LLP,
and
pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
§
104.400
et
seq.,
submits
this
Petition
to
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“IPCB”),
seeking
an
adjusted standard
from
35
Iii.
Adm. Code
§215.301
(commonly
known
as
the
“8
lb/hr
Rule”)
as
it
applies
to
the emissions
of
volatile
organic
material
(“VOM”)
at
Royal’s
Dix,
Illinois
swimming
pool
manufacturing
facility.
I.
BACKGROUND
Royal
operates
a
fiberglass
pool
manufacturing
facility
located
at
312
Duncan
Road,
Dix,
Illinois
(the
“Dix
Plant”).
The
facility
has
one
large
production
building
in
which
composite
pooi
manufacturing
occurs
in
two
production
bay
areas
that
each
measure
30’
wide
x
60’
long.
The
production
bays utilize
a
50,000-cfm
cross-flow
ventilation
system
that
exhausts
air
from
the
work
areas
to
the
outside
atmosphere
through
a 36-foot
tall
vertical
discharge
stack
in
order
to
limit
worker
exposure
to
styrene.
Levels
of
styrene,
the
VOM
of
concern
at
the
Dix
Plant,
are
within
the
OSHA
permissible
exposure
limits.
Royal
has
always
strived
to
comply
with
environmental
and
other
regulations
that
apply
to
operations
at
the
Dix
Plant
and,
until
recently,
has
been
able
to
demonstrate
compliance with
such
rules.
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
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”).
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
(“EA”),
Royal
computed
the
VOM
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
VOM emissions
from
certain
of
its
operations
(gelcoat
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
VOM
emissions,
Royal
realized
that
the
cost
for
compliance
via
either
of
these options
will neither
allow
it to
remain
competitive
nor
profitable,
and
may
force
closure
of
the
Dix
Plant. Royal
met
with
Illinois
EPA
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
would
apply
for
an
adjustment
from
the
8
lb/hr Rule.’
Accordingly,
Royal
offers
the
following
summary
of
reasons
as
to
why
it
should receive
an
adjusted
standard
with
respect
to
the
8
lb/hr
Rule:
•
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
(the
“Composites
MACT”).
EPA
estimates
that
the
annual
cost
for
a
facility
to
comply
with
the
MACT
is
$2,800/tQn
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
removed
and
will
reduce
styrene
emissions
by
an
average
of
43%.
Royal
is
currently
in
compliance
with
the
MACT
emission
limits.
•
Royal
has
a
very
low
overall
emission
rate.
Royal’s
emission
rate
is
only
elevated
perhaps
one
hour
per
shift,
but the
emission
rate
average
is
relatively
low
during
the
entire
workshift.
Accordingly,
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
lb/hr
Rule
on
a
strict
hourly
basis
using
emission
controls
unreasonably
high.
o
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
amount
to
approximately
$636,000
to
install
and
over
$360,000
per
year
to
operate.
This
equates
to
approximately
$33,000
per
ton
of
pollutant
removed.
•
Although
some
alternate
methods
for
manufacturing
fiberglass
reinforced
plastic
(“FRP”)
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
‘I
To
the
extent
the
IPCB
does
not
grant
Royal
an
adjusted
standard
pursuant
to
this
Petition,
Royal
reserves
all
rights
and
defenses
it
may
have
concerning
the
application
of
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
to
Royal’s
operations,
and
this
Petition
shall
not
act
as
a
waiver
of
such
rights
or
defenses,
nor
as
an
admission
of
positions
taken
by
Illinois
EPA.
2
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
lb/hr
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
poois.
•
The
8
lb/br
Rule
puts
Royal
at
a competitive
disadvantage
to
other
swimming
pooi
manufacturers
located
in states
without
a
similar
8
lb/hr Rule.
Royal
and
its
consultant
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
other
manufacturing
facility
is
located),
and
none
of
those
states
have
an
8
lb/hr
Rule.
Royal
and
its consultant
are
not
familiar
with
any
other
swimming
pool
manufacturing
operations
within
Illinois.
II.
35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE
104.406
REQUIREMENTS
A.
Standard
From
Which
Relief
is
Sought
--
104.406(a)
Royal
requests
an
adjusted
standard
from
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
2
15.301
(Use
of
Organic
Material,
otherwise
known
as the
“8 lb/hr
Rule”).
Illinois’
organic
material
emission
limitations
were
originally
promulgated
as
Rule
205
in 1971.
Section
215.301
now
provides:
“No person
shall
cause or
allow
the discharge
of more
than
3.6
kg/br
(8 lbs/br)
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.”
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
§
215.101
states
that
“the
definitions
of
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
201
and
211
apply
to
this
part.”
Pursuant
to
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
201.102,
“emission
source”
means
“any
equipment
or facility
of a type
capable
of emitting
specified
air
contaminants
to
the atmosphere.”
Additionally,
§
211.4250(b)
defines
“organic
material”
as:
“Any
chemical
compound
of carbon
including
diluents
and
thinners
which
are
liquids
at standard
conditions
and
which
are
used
as dissolvers,
viscosity
reducers,
or cleaning
agents,
but excluding
methane,
acetone,
carbon
monoxide,
carbon
dioxide,
carbonic
acid,
metallic
carbonic
acid,
metallic
carbide,
metallic
carbonates,
and
ammonium
carbonate.”
B.
Nature
of
the Regulation
of
General
Applicability
— Section
104.406(b)
This
regulation
was
promulgated
to
implement
the
federal
requirements
under
the
Clean
3
Air
Act,
42
Usc
§
7401
et
seq.
C.
Level
of
Justification
—
Section
104.406(c)
The
regulation
of
general
applicability
from
which
Royal
seeks
an
adjusted
standard
does
not
specify
a
level
ofjustification
for
an
adjusted
standard.
P.
Facility
and
Process
Description
—
Section
104.406(d)
Royal
operates
a
fiberglass
swimming
pool
manufacturing
facility
in
Dix,
Illinois.
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”
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
Dix
Plant
manufactures
approximately
240
pools
per
year,
averaging
one
pool
per
day
in
the
spring
and
fall,
two
pools
per
day
in
the
summer,
and
no
pools
per
day
in
the
winter.
2
”
Additional
information
regarding
Royal’s
history
and
operations
(including
photographs)
are
set
forth
Section
1
of
the
attached
Technical
Document.
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.
A
thin
layer
of
white
gelcoat
is
applied
to
each
bare
waxed
pool
mold
with
a
Magnum
Venus
Products
(“MVP”)
high-volume
low-pressure
(“HVLP”)
fluid
impingement
technology
(“FIT”)
applicator
gun.
The
gelcoat
applicator
has
a
2520
gelcoat
tipthat
is
operated
as
an
atomizing
gelcoat
spray
applicator.
The
white
gelcoat
used
at
Dix
is
made
by
HK
Research
and
contains
28%
styrene
monomer
by
weight
and
3%
methyl
methacrylate
(MMA)
by
weight.
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
(“yE”)
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
V
2
oz.
chopped
glass
strand
mat
(“CSM”),
woven
glass
roving
(“WR”),
and
isophthalic
(“ISO”)
corrosion-resistant
resin
is
applied
to
the
2!
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.
The
CAAPP
application
estimates
the
Dix
Plant’s
maximum
VOM
emissions
at
about
25
tpy,
approximately
18.3
tons
of
which
relate
to
potential
styrene
emissions.
4
cured
VE
layer
with the
same
MVP
applicator
that is
used
to apply
the
gelcoat
and
VE
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.
The
other
manufacturing
steps
include:
(1)
parts
finishing, including
trimming, grinding
and
sanding
of
finished
pools
parts;
(2)
gelcoat
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
gelcoat
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
gelcoat
application.
These
other
steps
do
not
have
significant
amounts
of
VOM
emissions.
VOM
Emissions
Estimates.
The
VOM
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
VOM
and volatile
organic
HAP
species
such
as
methyl
methacrylate
(“MMA”).
The
gelcoating
process
on the
largest
pool
made
by
Royal
results
in
about
32.43
lbs
of
VOM
emitted
per
pooi
during
the
one-hour
gelcoating
process.
The
resin
process
on
the largest
pooi
results
in about
58.58
lbs
of
VOM
emitted
during
the eight-hour
resin
application
process.
The
total
VOM
emitted
during
fabrication
of the
largest
pool
is about
90.63
lbs
of
VOM.
Annual
VOM
emissions
at the
Dix
Plant
for 2006
and
2007
were
11.6
tpy
and
14.8
tpy,
respectively.
For
more
detailed
information
regarding
Royal’s
VOM
emissions,
see
Section
2
of
the
Technical
Document
filed
contemporaneously
with
this
Petition.
Compliance
with
the
Composites
MA
CT.
The
Composites
MACT,
40
C.F.R.
63
Subpart
WWWW,
requires
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
Composites
MACT
by
February
2006.
To
comply
with
the
work
practice
standards
in
the
Composites
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 VOM
emissions.
By
complying
with
the
Composites
MACT,
United
States
EPA
estimates
that
industry-wide,
reinforced
plastic
composite
manufacturers
will
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
an average
of 43%.
Section
2
of the
Technical
Document
contains
spreadsheets
identif’ing Royal’s
monthly
and
annual
VOM
emissions
for
2006
and
2007
and
compares
such
emissions
to the
limits
set forth
in
the
Composites
MACT.
Section
2
of
the
Technical
Document
also
contains
Royal’s
Initial
MACT
Notification
Letter.
Royal
meets
the
MACT
emission
standards
by
using
the HAP
emissions
factor
averaging
option
(see
40
CFR
63.58
10(b))
and
Royal
has
continually
been
in
compliance
with
the emission
limits
set forth
in
the
Composites
MACT.
E.
Investigation
of Compliance
Alternatives:
Methods
for
Reducing
VOM
Emissions
From
Royal’s
Swimming
Pool Manufacturing
Operations
—
Section
104.406(e)
Royal
investigated
compliance
alternatives
that
would
help
enable
it to
comply
with
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
on a
strict
hourly
basis.
Specifically,
Royal
investigated
the
following
alternatives:
5
(1)
reducing
VOM
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
lb/hr
Rule
on
a
strict
hourly
basis.
In
addition,
Royal
could
not
identify
any
feasible
compliance
alternatives
to
further reduce
VOM
emissions
from
Royal’s
operations.
1.
Lower
VOM
Content
Materials
Royal
has
already
reduced
the
VOM
concentration
in
its
production
materials
(gelcoat
and
resin
materials)
in compliance
with
the
MACT.
However,
while
complying
with
the
MACT
alone
will
not
reduce
Royal’s
emissions
to
a
level
satisfactory
to
meet
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
on
a
strict
hourly basis,
further
reduction
of
styrene
in
the
resins
(below
that
needed
to
comply
with
MACT)
is
not
currently
technically
feasible
while
still
maintaining
product
integrity.
This
is
discussed
in
further
detail
in Sections
3,
4
and
5
of
the
Technical
Document.
2.
Alternate
Operating
Procedure
and
Methods
Royal
carefully
studied
the
gelcoating
process
at
the
Dix
Plant,
and
considered
every
recognized
alternative
procedure
or
and
method
that
might
reduce
the
hourly VOM
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
pooi.
The
pooi
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.
Non
atomizing
gelcoat
equipment
is
available
that
might
reduce the
gelcoat
emission
rate.
However,
the
available
non-atomizing
equipment
will
not
provide
an
acceptable
surface
finish
and
has
failed
to
reduce
gelcoat
emissions
as
promised
by
the
manufacturer.
•
The
gelcoat
process
takes
about
one
hour
for
the
largest
pool
model
and
the
largest
pool
model
requires
at
least
220
pounds
of
gelcoat.
6
•
The
white
gelcoat
used
by
Royal
is state-of-the—art
and
contains
the
lowest
feasible
monomer
contents
of
28%
styrene
and
3%
MMA.
This
gelcoat provides
a
flexible,
durable,
glossy
finish
that must
resist
impact, weathering,
temperature
extremes,
UV
radiation,
and
blistering.
o
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
gelcoat
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.
Further
increasing
the
airflow,
as
might
be
recommended
by
an air
flow
study,
would
only
serve
to
make
add-on
controls
even
more
costly, not
more
feasible.
The
cost
of
the
lowest-cost
control
equipment
is
detailed
in
the
next
section.
3.
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
Composites
MACT
standard, averaging
72%
of
the
MACT
emissions
limit.
See
Sections
4
and
5of
the
attached
Technical
Document
for
more
information
on
Royal’s
compliance
with
the
Composites
MACT.
According
to
the
Composites
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
Composites
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
emits
less
than
12
tpy
of
HAP,
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
Engineering
Environmental
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.
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.
3
’
Due
to
the
size
of
this
study,
Royal
is
not
including
a
copy
with
this
Petition.
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.
7
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
I
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
.
Microbes
are
unreliable
and
must
stay warm
and
moist
Biodigestion
.
.
Digestion
beds
must
be
huge
to
handle
exhaust
airflow
.
infeasible
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
costly
Conventionalthan
RTO
recuperative
oxidation
is
always
more
RTO
is
better
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 50,000
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
adsorber
in
questionable
due
to
an
unexpected
failure
Preconcentration
of
the
activated
charcoal
sorbent
media
at
one
of
the
economically
w/RTO
sites.
A
preconcentrator
system
large
enough
to
handle
infeasible
the
proposed
50,000
cfm
exhaust
airflow
at
the
Dix
Plant
would
cost
almost
one
million
dollars
to
install
and
operate.
A
detailed
add-on
control
cost
estimate
for
a
skid-mounted
RTO
system
for
the
Dix
Plant
was
previously
submitted
to
Illinois
EPA
on
February
28,
2006
and
is
attached
in
the
accompanying
Technical
Document
at
Section
3.
As detailed
in
this
analysis,
the
skid-mounted
RTO
control
option
would
cost
approximately
$33,300
per
ton
of
styrene
and
MMA
removed
per
year.
As
such,
the
cost
effectiveness
of
the
RTO
control
option
is
more
than
three
times
greater
than
what
is
widely
regarded
as
affordable.
The
annual
operating
cost
of
the RTO
control
8
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.
F.
Royal’s
Proposed
Adjusted
Standard
—
Section
104.406(f)
As
set
forth
above,
the
rule of
general
applicability
from
which
Royal
seeks
this
adjusted
Standard
prohibits
Royal
from
emitting
“more
than
8
lbs/hr
of
organic
material
into
the
atmosphere
from
any
emission
source.”
35 I.A.C.
§215.301.
Because
IEPA
will
not
allow
averaging
of
emissions
to
meet
this
standard,
Royal
can
not
comply
with
the
8
lb/hr Rule
as
interpreted
by
IEPA.
Accordingly,
Royal
proposes
that,
in
lieu
of
being
subject
to
35
I.A.C.
§215.301,
Royal
shall
comply
with
the
MACT
Standard
finalized
at
40
C.F.R.
Part
63,
Subpart
WWWW
(the
“Composites
MACT”).
As
discussed
in
Section
II.D
of
this
Petition,
Royal
has
come
into
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
of
the Composites
MACT
Standard.
According
to
the
Composites
MACT,
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
the MACT
will
cost
$2,800/ton
annually
and
will
reduce
emissions
by
an
average
of
43%.
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
5/28/1),
the
Board
grants
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools
(“Royal”)
an
adjusted
standard
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code.
215.201
(“8
lb/hr
Rule”),
effective
200_.
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
VOM
emissions,
and
(b)
materials
that have
a
reduced
VOM
content
and/or
are
compliant
with
the
Composites
MACT
HAP
content.
Where
practicable,
Royal
must
substitute
current
materials
with
lower
VOM
content
materials
as
long
as
such
substitution
does
not
result
in
a
net
increase
in
VOM
emissions.
b. Royal
must
perform
any
reasonable
test
of
new
technologically
or
economically
reasonable
production
methods
or
materials
applicable
to
the
open-mold
swimming
pooi manufacturing
industry,
which
may reduce
VOM
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
9
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.
G.
Quantitative
and
Qualitative
Description
of
Royal’s
Impact
on
the
Environment
Before
and
After
the
Proposed
Adjusted
Standard
— Section
104.406(g)
Air
Quality
Impact
Analysis
of
Royal’s Operations.
As
indicated,
the
Dix
Plant
is
already
in
compliance
with
the
Composites
MACT,
and
the
proposed
adjusted
standard
will
not
impact
future
compliance
with
the
MACT.
Additionally,
attached
at Section
6
of
the
Technical
Document
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
attached
Air
Quality
Impact
Analysis
is
useful
given
the
obvious
concerns
about
hourly
emissions
that
are
reflected
in
the
8
lb/hr
Rule.
Should
Royal’s
petition
be
granted,
there
will
not
be
any
increase
on
a
per
unit
basis
over
the
current
emissions
from
the
Dix
Plant.
This
petition
merely
seeks
to
allow
Royal
to
continue
manufacturing
in
the
same
manner,
and
granting
the
petition
will
not
amount
to
an
increase
of
per
unit
emissions.
Cross-Media
Environmental
Impacts
Resulting
from
an
Adjusted
Standard.
None.
The
Dix
Plant’s
waste
and
wastewater
generation
is independent
of
VOM
emissions,
thus
no
change
in
the
nature
or
volume
of waste
and
wastewater
generation
is
anticipated.
H.
Justification
— Section
104.406(h)
Under
Section
28.1
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
(the
“Act”),
the
Board
may
grant
an
adjusted
standard
for
persons
who
can
justify
such
an
adjustment
consistent
with
subsection
(a)
of
Section
27
of
the
Act:
415
I.L.C.S.
5/28.1.
Moreover,
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
upon
adequate
proof
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.
Significantly,
the
proposed
adjusted
standard
is
consistent
with
prior
adjusted
standards
from
the
8
lb/hr
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
10
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
lb/hr
Rule
because
compliance
with
a
MACT
standard
similar
to the
Composites
MACT
could
be
demonstrated.
See
Section
7
of
the
attached
Technical
Document
for
a
copy
of
the
IPCB’s
opinion
and
order
regarding
the
Crownline
petition.
The adjusted
standard
proposed
herein
is
based
on
the
adjusted standard
approved
by
the
IPCB
in response
to
Crownline’s
petition.
1.
Factors
Relating
to
Royal
are
Substantially
and
Significantly
Different
The
primary
intent
of
the
8 lb/hr
Rule
was
to
prevent
ozone
formation
and
odor
nuisance.
However,
the
Board
did
not
contemplate
the
methods
Royal Fiberglass
Pools
would
use
to
manufacture
swimming
pools
at
the
Dix
Plant
when
it promulgated
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
in
1971.
The
manufacture
of
large
composite
parts
such
as
swimming
pool
shells
involves
a batch-type
process
rather
than
a continuous
application
process
typically
used
in
manufacturing
processes
for
other
products.
This
fact,
together
with
the
ventilation
system
needed
to
comply with
OSHA’
s
worker
protection
regulation
at
29
C.F.R. Part
1910,
makes
the
use
of
add-on
emission
controls
economically
infeasible.
Under
OSHA
health
and
safety
standards
for
styrene,
the
Dix
Plant
must
maintain
large
airflow
to
ventilate
the
work
areas
properly.
The
small
emission
rate
and
large
airflow
makes
the
cost
of
using
add-on
emissions
controls
unaffordable.
Attached
at
Section
8
of
the
Technical
Document
is
a
February
25,
2008
letter
from
Rob
Haberlein
to
Dale
Guariglia
which
discusses
the
costs
of
add-on
controls
and
why
a
reduction
in
ventilation
airflow
at
the
Dix
Plant
would
be
prohibited
by
the
OSHA
requirements.
In
short,
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools
believes
that
the
Board
did
not
anticipate
the
requisite
production
methods
for
manufacturing
large
composite
parts
and
the
OSHA
standard
when
adopting
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
in
1971.
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
lb/hr
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,
if
not
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
11
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
1-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
II.G
of
this
Petition,
the
daily
amounts
of
VOM
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
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
pooi
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
pooi
molds
and
necessary
batch-type
sequence
of
the
gelcoat
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
50,000
cubic
feet
of
plant
air
every
minute.
This
makes
the
use
of
add-on
emission
controls
for
Royal’s
operations
fiscally
impractical.
See
Section
8
of
the
Technical
Document.
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.
12
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.
2.
The
Existence
of Those
Factors
Justifies
an
Adjusted
Standard
As
discussed
fully
in Section
II.E.
of
this
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.
The
existence
of these
factors,
coupled
with
JEPA’s
endorsement
of
Royal’s
efforts
to obtain
an adjusted
standard
justifies
the
granting
of an
adjusted
standard.
3.
The
Requested
Standard
Will
Not Result
in Adverse
Environmental
or
Health
Effects.
As
discussed
previously
in Section
II.G
of this
Petition,
the
requested
adjusted
standard
will
have
little,
if any,
adverse
impact
on
the
environment
or
health.
By
complying
with
the
Composites
MACT,
Royal
has
limited
its
VOM
emissions
and
also
decreased the
amount
of
solid
and
hazardous
waste
Royal
generates.
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.
4.
The
Proposed
Adjusted
Standard
is
Consistent
with
Federal
Law
The granting
of
this
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
poo
1
manufacturers’
emissions
of
organic
material
in
excess
of
8
lbs/hr,
on
a strict
hourly
basis.
Because
Royal
is proposing
to
comply
with
the
Composites
MACT,
the
proposed
adjusted
standard
is
consistent
with
federal
law.
I.
Consistency
with
Federal
Law
— Section
104.406(1)
There
is
no
Clean
Air
Act
equivalent
rule
or regulation
prohibiting
VOM
emissions
from
reinforced
plastic
composite
manufacturing
in
excess
of
8 lbs/hr
on a
strictly
hourly
basis.
Regardless,
the
facility
must
comply
with
the
new
federal
NESHAP
for
reinforced
plastic
composite
manufacturing.
For
these
reasons,
the
proposed
adjusted
standard
is
consistent
with
federal
law.
13
J.
Hearing
—
Section
104.406(j)
Royal
requests
a
hearing
in
this
matter.
K.
Supporting
Document
—
Section
104.406(k)
The
Technical
Document
is
filed
contemporaneously
with
this
Petition.
III.
CONCLUSION
The
requested
adjusted
standard
should
be
granted
as
an
alternative
to
Royal’s
compliance
with
35
IAC
§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
IAC
§
215.301
as
set
forth
herein.
Respectfully
Submitted,
BRYAN
CAVE
LLP
By:
-‘
/,
Dale
A.
Guariglia,
MO
Ba #32988
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
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
certifies
that
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
Petition
was
served
upon
the
following
parties
on
the
31st
day
of
March,
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
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Attn:
Charles
Matoesian
lDt
.
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
Petition
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools
Inc
)
AS-
CEVE
For
an
Adjusted
Standard
from
)
(AdjuedStaiidard)
CLERK’S OFFICE
35
IAC
§
215.301
)
APR
03
2009
MOTION
FOR
EXPEDITED
REVIEW
STATE
OF
ILUNOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
(“Royal”),
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
Bryan
Cave
LLP,
respectfully
requests
that
the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
consider
its
petition
for Adjusted
Standard
on
an
expedited
basis.
In
support
of
its
motion,
Royal
provides:
1.
Royal
owns
a
fiberglass
swimming
pooi manufacturing
facility
in
Dix, Illinois.
2.
On
January
10,
2006,
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“IEPA”)
issued
Violation
Notice
A-2005-00281
to
Royal,
alleging
a
violation
of 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
§215.301,
which
states
in
part that
“[njo
person
shall
cause
or
allow
the discharge
of
more
than
3.6
kg/hr
(8
lbs/br)
of
organic
material
into
the
atmosphere
from any
emission
source.”
This
section
is
commonly
known
as
the
“8
lb/hr
Rule.”
3.
Royal
determined
that,
based
on
IEPA’s
strict
hourly
interpretation
of
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
8
lb/hr
Rule,
the
hourly
volatile
organic
material
(“VOM”)
emissions
from certain
of
its
operations
did
not
appear
to
comply
with
IEPA’
s
interpretation
of
the
rule.
Royal
also
realized
that
the
costs
associated
with
add-on
controls
and/or
changing
manufacturing
procedures
and methods
were
neither
economically
nor
technologically
viable,
and
could
require
the
closure
of
the
Dix
Plant.
4.
However,
Royal
is
subject
to,
and in
compliance
with,
the National
Emission
Standard
for Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Reinforced
Plastic
Composite
Manufacturing
Facilities,
found
at
40
C.F.R.
Part
63
Subpart
WWWW
(the
“Composites
MACT”).
5.
Royal
met
with
IEPA
and
presented
evidence
demonstrating
why
requiring
Royal’s
compliance
with
the
8
lb/hr
Rule
on
a
strict
hourly
basis
is
unreasonable,
especially
considering
Royal’s
overall
VOM
emissions
and
the
limited
amount
of
time
that
Royal’s
operations
exceed
the
8
lb/br
Rule.
After
hearing
and
considering
the
information
presented
by
Royal,
IEPA
agreed
that
applying
the
8
lb/hour
Rule
to
Royal’s
operations
on
a
strict
hourly
basis
would
indeed
impose
an
unreasonable
burden.
Consequently,
Royal
has concluded
to
petition
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
for
an
adjusted
standard.
6.
Royal
believes that
its
proposed
adjusted
standard
is
reasonable
given
that:
(a)
Royal’s
VOM
emissions
meet
the emissions
limitations
of the
Composites
MACT;
(b)
Royal’s
proposed
adjusted
standard
will
not result
in adverse
environmental
or
health effects;
and
(c)
IPCB
has
granted petitions
for
adjusted
variances
in situations
similar
to this
in the
past,
notably
in the
petition
of
Crownline
Boats, Inc.
See Opinion
and
Order
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
In re:
Crownline
Boats,
Inc.,
Docket
No. AS 04-01
(July 22,
2002).
7.
Royal
believes
that
the
information
necessary
for
the
Board to proceed
with
its
review
of
this
matter
is
contained
in Royal’s
petition.
If more
information
is needed,
Royal
will
fully
cooperate
to expeditiously
provide
such
information
to the Board
and its hearing
officer.
8.
This motion
for
expedited
review
is
being
filed
at
the
request
of Royal
to
allow
Royal
to
continue
operations
in
the state of
Illinois
without
concern for
IEPA
intervention.
WHEREFORE,
Royal
respectfully
requests
that
the Board
grant
this
motion and
expedite
review
of
its
petition
for
adjusted
standard.
Respectfully
submitted,
BRYAN
CAVE LLP
By:
Dale
D
A.
Guariglia,
MissouK
Bar
# 32998
Brandon
W. Neuschafer,
Missouri
Bar
#53232
One
Metropolitan
Square
211 N.
Broadway,
Suite 3600
St. Louis,
Missouri
63102
Telephone:
(314) 259-2000
Telefax:
(314)
259-2020
Attorneys
for Royal Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
certifies
that
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
motion
was served
upon
the
following
parties
on
the
31st
day
of
March,
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
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Attn:
Charles
Matoesian
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
flSl
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
Petition
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
)
for
an
Adjusted
Standard
from
)
35IAC215.30l
)
MOTION
FOR
ADMISSION
PRO
HAC
VICE
ON
BEHALF
OF
ROYAL
FIBERGLASS
POOLS,
INC.
COMES
NOW,
Dale
A. Guariglia,
of
the
law
firm
of
Bryan
Cave
LLP,
and
pursuant
to
Section
101.400
of
the
Rules
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
files
this
Motion
for
Admission
Pro
Hac
Vice
in
this
matter
on behalf
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc..
In
support
of
this
Motion,
Dale
A.
Guariglia
states
as
follows:
1.
Dale
A.
Guariglia
is
in
good
standing
and admitted
to
practice
before
all
state
courts
in
the
State
of
Missouri.
Respectfully
submitted,
BRYAN
AVE
LLP
By:
Dale
A:
Guariglia,
Missouri
Bar
#32998
One
Metropolitan
Square
211
N.
Broadway,
Suite
3600
St.
Louis,
MO
63
102-2750
Telephone:
(314)
259-2000
Telefax:
(314)
259-2020
Attorney
for
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
AS-
(Adjusted
Standard)
RCEV
CLERKS
OFRCE
APR
03
2009
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
2416020.1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
certifies
that
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
motion
was
served
upon
the
following
parties
on
the
31st
day
of
March,
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
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Attn:
Charles
Matoesian
rz
2416020.1
MOTION
FOR
ADMISSION
PRO
HAC
VICE
ON
BEHALF
OF
ROYAL
FIBERGLASS
POOLS,
INC.
COMES
NOW,
Brandon
W.
Neuschafer,
of
the
law
firm
of
Bryan
Cave
LLP,
and
pursuant
to
Section
101.400
of
the
Rules
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
files
this
Motion
for
Admission
Pro
Hac
Vice
in
this
matter
on
behalf
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc..
In
support
of
this
Motion,
Brandon
W.
Neuschafer
states
as
follows:
1.
Brandon
W.
Neuschafer
is
in
good
standing
and
admitted
to
practice
before
all
state
courts
in
the
State
of
Missouri.
Respectfully
submitted,
BRYAN
VELLP
By:
4
don
schafea53232
One
Metropolitan
Square
211
N.
Broadway,
Suite
3600
St.
Louis,
MO
63102-2750
Telephone:
(314)
259-2000
Telefax:
(314)
259-2020
Attorney
for
Royal
Fiberglass Pools,
Inc.
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
iN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
I
ECEUVE
CLERK’S
OFFICE
)
Petition
of
Royal
Fiberglass
Pools,
Inc.
)
AS-
DL1i’
APR
032009
for
an
Adjusted
Standard
from
)
(Adjusted
Standrd)
35
IAC
§
215.301
)
Pollution
STATE
OF
Control
IWNOIS
Board
2524351.1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
certifies
that
a
copy of
the
foregoing
motion
was
served
upon
the
following
parties
on
the
31St
day
of
March,
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
1021
North
Grand Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Attn:
Charles
Matoesian
2524351.1