7
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 4, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS
POOLS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
215.301
)
)
)
)
)
AS 09-4
(Adjusted Standard - Air)
HEARING OFFICER ORDER
The parties are advised that this matter has been assigned to the hearing officer identified
below. From this date forward, any pleading filed with the Clerk of the Board in this matter
must also be served individually on the hearing officer.
The hearing officer directs petitioner and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) to address the pre-hearing questions attached to this order. Please note that questions
19, 21, and 22 are directed to both parties. The remaining questions are directed to petitioner,
although the Agency may comment as it sees fit.
Written responses to the Board’s questions, as well as any pre-hearing testimony, must be
filed at least 14 days before the hearing. A hearing date will be set when the parties decide how
much time will be needed to prepare these documents. The Agency’s deadline for filing its
recommendation is June 12, 2009.
The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing
officer at 11:00 a.m. on June 22, 2009. The status conference shall be initiated by the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
217/524-8509
webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
7
AS 09-4 ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS
BOARD QUESTIONS FOR PETITIONER AND IEPA
SECTION 28.1.c.
1.
The petition on page 13 states, “By complying with the Composites MACT, Royal has
limited its VOM emissions and also decreased the amount of solid and hazardous waste
Royal generates.” Would you please elaborate on Royal’s reduction of solid and
hazardous waste resulting from compliance with MACT?
2.
If granted, will the adjusted standard be submitted to USEPA for inclusion in the Illinois
SIP?
104.406(d)
3.
Would you please provide a map indicating the location of the Dix Plant?
4.
The petition indicates that Royal’s other manufacturing facility is located in Louisiana.
(a)
Are there other states where Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. has similar
manufacturing facilities?
(b)
Do any of those states have state-specific limitations on VOM emissions beyond
the MACT? If so, how does Royal Fiberglass Pools, Inc. address compliance in
other states?
5.
Please describe the area affected. What is the ozone attainment status of the county in
which the Dix Plant is located? Is the ozone attainment status poised to be changed in the
near future?
6.
In Section 2 of the Technical Document, the chart entitled “January 2005: Monthly
HAP/VOC/MACT Emissions Log for the Royal Pools Dix Facility” was printed larger
than the page, so the table on the far right appears to have been cut off. If so, would you
please resubmit the table with the missing information?
7.
In general, the most recent data provided appears to be from 2005.
(a)
Would you please comment on any change in quantities or materials used since
then?
(b)
If possible, would you please submit information reflecting the most recent
available data?
(c)
Although the Technical Document Section 3 at page 5 states that 250 pools per
year is a more reasonable estimate than the 400 pools per year used in the CAAPP
permit application, would you please comment on any anticipated growth or
change in operations.
(d)
Section 2 of the Technical Document on page 9 makes a calculation based on
“Reducing the maximum annual production rate from 250 to 200 pools per
year…” and comments, “A facility-wide production cap of 220 pools per year
7
would reclassify the Dix Plant as a synthetic minor source – the maximum
emission rate would be just under the major HAP source emission threshold of 10
tpy.” Is Royal Pools considering revising their CAAPP Permit application to
reflect a production cap of 220 pools per year and a HAP emission threshold of 10
tpy?
8.
Royal Pools states that, “EPA explained that the annual emission rate and the facility
CAAPP status has no bearing on compliance with 35 IAC 215 Subpart K.” TSD Section
4 at 2. Would you please comment on the maximum potential to emit on an hourly basis
if production were capped at 400 pools per year, or at 220 pools per year?
9.
In Section 3 of the Technical Document on page 5, the Pool Production Schedule
indicates a typical work schedule of two pools per day during 100% full production, with
the “greatest hourly gelcoat process emission rate” of 64.86 lb/hr. In Section 2, the chart
of “Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAP/VOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility/Maximum
Hourly Baseline” indicates maximum hourly usage of 17.42 lb VOM/hour for resin
application, 36.78 lb VOM/hour for gelcoat application, 0.08 lb VOM/hour for catalyst,
plus 1 lb VOM/hour for mold wax.
(a)
Would you please explain the difference in the “maximum hourly baseline” and
the “hourly potential-to-emit” and indicate which the chart in Section 2 is
depicting?
(b)
Would you please indicate the overall maximum potential hourly VOM
emissions?
(c)
Since Royal can produce 2 pools per day at 100% full production, would you
please comment on the scenario that both pools would undergo gelcoat
application during the same hour?
(d)
Does Royal Pools have an operating procedure in place that would limit gelcoat
application and curing to one pool at a time?
(e)
Would Royal Pools please comment on including such a limitation in the adjusted
standard conditions?
(f)
Would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard
limiting the adjusted standard to Royal’s current operations and limiting the
maximum hourly VOM emissions to 64.86 lb/hr?
10.
Would you please define MMA, AMS, DMP, MEK (MEKP) referenced in Section 2 of
the Technical Document.
11.
In Section 2 of the Technical Document, the chart entitled, “Maximum Hourly Baseline:
Hourly Potential-to-Emit HAP/VOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility” lists “Bondo”
having a 12.57% Styrene Emission Factor and a 100% Other VOC Emission Factor. The
information under VOC Content (Styrene, MMA, AMS, Other), however, is blank for
Bondo. Is information available on the HAP/VOC content of Bondo? Since Bondo is
7
not listed in the 2005 Monthly HAP/VOC/MACT Emissions Logs, would you please
comment on how seldom it is used.
12.
In AS 04-1, Crownline used booths equipped with dry filter medium to reduce particulate
emissions; lower styrene-content gelcoat (33.4%); panel filters built in each side of the
laminating area to control particulate emissions; tanks equipped with submerged inlets to
reduce splashing and release of VOMs when filling; and flow-coat spray guns for
lamination to reduce VOM emissions experienced with previous air atomized guns
.
(AS
04-1 Pet. at 5-6.) Would you please comment on the potential to employ such efforts at
Royal’s Dix Plant?
104.406(e)
13.
The petition on pages 5-6 states, “Specifically, Royal investigated the following
alternatives: (1) reducing VOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative
operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing add-on emission control
technologies.” The Technical Document Section 3 provides details of the evaluation of
add-on emission controls, however, details do not seem to be provided for the other two
alternatives mentioned. Would you please elaborate numbers (1) and (2) above?
14.
In Sec. 2 of the Technical Document, the chart entitled “Hourly Potential-to-Emit
HAP/VOC for the Royal Pools Dix Facility” lists the HAP/VOC content of the materials
used. The petition on page 7 states that the white gelcoat used contains the lowest
feasible monomer contents of 28% styrene and 3% MMA. Sections 2 and 3 also indicate
161,800 lb of resin (47.5% styrene) and 3136 lb of MEKP Catalyst (2% MEK, 37%
DMP) were used in 2005. Did Royal Pools investigate the availability of or experiment
with other lower HAP/VOC content materials? If so, would you please document your
efforts?
15.
Section 3 of the Technical Document on page 10 states, “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.” Would you please
document your efforts to evaluate the non-atomizing gelcoat equipment?
16.
In the Federal Register, USEPA estimates there are approximately 435 existing major
source facilities that will be subject to the Federal rule 40 CFR 63 Subpart WWWW.
Annual compliance costs for all existing major source facilities were estimated at $21.5
million. This included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
(68 FR 19381)
(a)
What costs has Royal incurred to meet the Federal rule?
(b)
Has Royal estimated the additional compliance costs associated with monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting?
7
104.406(f)
17.
The petition on page two refers to “Royal’s Initial MACT Notification Letter” being
contained in Section 2 of the Technical Document, however, the letter appears to be
missing from that Section. Would you please provide a copy or indicate where it can be
found in the record?
18.
Royal indicates that it meets the Composites MACT by ensuring that all resin containers
are closed when not in use and that acetone (non-HAP/non-VOC) is used in resin and
gelcoat cleanup. (Pet. at 5.) Royal also indicates that it uses a 28% styrene monomer
gelcoat that is “state-of-the-art in low-HAP formulations for swimming pool production.”
Did Royal switch to this gelcoat to comply with MACT?
19.
This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency:
The Air Quality
Impact Analysis for ozone was performed based on the assumption that 25 tons per year
would be the maximum VOM emitted and that the 1-hour ozone standard is 120 ppb.
However, there are no limitations proposed in the adjusted standard language.
(a)
Would you please comment on proposing a condition in the adjusted standard
language that would limit VOMs to 25 tpy or less.
(b)
Would you also please comment on proposing a condition that would require a re-
evaluation of the adjusted standard if the ozone NAAQS is revised.
20.
Could you please indicate if Royal has made a demonstration of compliance with the
NESHAP regulations under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW to USEPA yet? [40 CFR
63.5840] Did USEPA respond to the compliance demonstration, and if so, how?
104.406(g)
21.
This question is addressed to both petitioner and the Agency:
The petition on page 10
states, “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.”
As of March 2008, the primary ozone standard was strengthened from 0.08 parts per
million (ppm), set in 1997 to a level of 0.075 ppm averaged over 8 hours (73 FR16436;
March 27, 2008).
(a)
Since the Air Quality Impact Analysis presented in the Technical Document
Section 6 is based on the previous ozone standard, would you please provide an
analysis of ozone impact in terms of the current ozone NAAQS?
(b)
Is the Scheffe (Sept. 1988) procedure and table used in Royal Pool’s Air Quality
Impact Analysis (TSD Sec. 6) the same for determining the ozone increment for
either 1-hour as well as 8-hour periods of time?
(c)
Is the Scheffe (Sept. 1988) procedure still the USEPA recommended procedure?
7
(d)
Please comment on the results of the Air Quality Impact Analysis if the ozone
increment were added to the 8-hour background air quality reading of the 4
th
highest measured ozone concentration from the past 4 consecutive years.
(e)
Has the IEPA provided any guidance in conducting the Air Quality Impact
Analysis or indicated appropriate measures if the ozone increment appears to
cause or be contributing to a violation of the ozone NAAQS?
22.
This question is addressed to both the petitioner and the Agency:
The Petition at page
12 states, “…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…”
Since Hamilton County ozone monitoring stations already show exceedences of the 8-
hour ozone standard of 75 ppb , would you please comment on including a condition in
the adjusted standard limiting Royal Pools VOM emitting operations on ozone action
days where ambient conditions are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-hour ozone standard?
23.
If Royal were to experience a growth in production, could you please comment on how
such growth would affect the VOM emissions on an hourly and 12-month average basis?
Would you please comment on including a condition in the adjusted standard that would
limit the amount of VOM emissions to a level consistent with the time Royal’s adjusted
standard petition was submitted?
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing order were mailed, first class, on
June 4, 2009, to each of the persons on the attached service list.
It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the
following on June 4, 2009:
John T. Therriault
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
217/524-8509
webbc@ipcb.state.il.us
AS 2009-004
*
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
AS 2009-004
Dale A. Guariglia
Bryan Cave, LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
AS 2009-004
Brandon W. Neuschafer
Bryan Cave, LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
