BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS,

)

AS 2009-04

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301

)

)

NOTICE

TO:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board

the ILLINOIS EPA’S RESPONSE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS’

PETITION FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: /s/ Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: October 27, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

217.782.5544

ON RECYCLED PAPER

217.782.9143 (TDD)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PETITION OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS POOLS,

)

AS 2009-04

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301

)

)

LL A’

RESPONSE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ROYAL FIBERGLASS

L’ A A AA

NOW COMES

Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

"ll E" y, y y, l E. M

toesian, and files this response to the

lllll ’

’

Order of October 21, 2009.

1.

Question 19(b)

, “W

proposing a condition that would require a re-evaluation of the adjusted standard if the

.”

“

.” . 6

-4-09

at 7.

, “

a condition requiring re-evaluation is necessary

… ,

.” . . 6

-4-09 at 2.

Would the Agency please clarify if this comment is intended to suggest that a condition

should be included in the adjusted standard language requiring the re-evaluation of the

adjusted standard if there is a change in the ozone? Or was this comment simply to clarify

that a rulemaking is the usual course of action when changes are deemed necessary?

Response to Question 19(b) of the Hearing Officer Order:

The Agency does not believe that a

revision to the ozone NAAQS should automatically trigger a re-evaluation of the adjusted standard. If

monitoring data show a violation of the ozone NAAQS, then a revision to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) that considers all contributing sources to nonattainment would properly address this matter.

---

2

2.

Question 21(d)

, “

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

.”

Royal responded that Royal does not have ready access to the 4-year data and that the

“

-hour average

.” . 6

-4-09 at 8.

Royal characterized the a

“.”

Resp. to HOO 6-4-09 at 7. Royal estimated the 1-hr average ozone increment to be 4 ppb.

“”

respons

, “

impacts on an 8-

.”

The Board directs the parties to the following documents and asks for further clarifications

regarding the air quality impacts.

***

(a)

In light of the information above, please comment on the results of the Air Quality

Impact Analysis if the scaled ozone increment were added to the 8-hour background

air quality reading of the 4

th

highest measured ozone concentration from the most

recent 3 years.

(b)

Please comment on how this value relates to the 75 ppb 8-hour NAAQS.

(c)

Please indicate if the air quality impact from the adjusted standard would still be

considered negligible.

Response to Question 21(d) of the Hearing Officer Order:

The Agency wishes to clarify that it

considers an ozone increment increase of as little as 2 ppb (for both 1-hour and 8-hour

averaging periods) to be potentially significant; thus, a 4 ppb increase would be of potential

significance. The characterization of a 4 ppb ozone

aiualityiatasSeglig

is not

ile

osisteiththee’spositio.

TheBoa’sf

-

uopllouestiosotethatthege’sosetoQuestiodiluded

thestatetthatSUSEPhasotpidedeeguidaet

ne

o

imp

a

a

d

ct

d

s o

o

n

zo

an 8-

houasis.Fosiglefailityassessts,theIEPisotaaofayue

USEPA guidance, and therefore will continue to conduct air quality reviews based upon the

established methodology (Scheffe Method). Importantly, this methodology does not specify the

estimation of an 8-hour ozone increment from the 1-hour ozone increment. The Agency does not

endorse the use of scaling factors that are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type

assumptions. Ozone is a secondarily formed pollutant, not a directly emitted pollutant, and is

therefore not steady state.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---

3

The Scheffe Method is a screening technique, which by design is conservative in order to be

protective of the ozone air quality standards. It is unrealistic to expect that the maximum

predicted ozone increment would occur coincidentally with the 4

th

highest 8-hour ozone

concentration for a given year. If the ozone increment from the Air Quality Impact Analysis

Seaddedoth

-h

e

ou

8

r background air quality reading of the 4

th

highest measured ozone

oetiofthesteyeas

-2007, Hamilton County), it would be 81 ppb,

somewhat below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 85 ppb (the level determined by monitoring

data rounding conventions). But more importantly, if the 4 ppb ozone increment were added to

the 2005-2007 8-hour ozone design value (73 ppb)---the design value being the appropriate

metric for comparison with the ozone NAAQS---the combined contribution would be even lower.

Recently (March 12, 2008), USEPA tightened the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards

to 0.075 ppm (75 ppb). A comparison of this new level of the standard with 2007-2009 Hamilton

County monitoring data, shows a combined ozone increment and ozone design value of 72

ppm. The potential air quality impact from the adjusted standard is significant, but it is not

expected to cause or contribute to violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

3.

Question 22

, “

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-

?”

“

e it would be unworkable from a

logistical standpoint. It would require Royal to monitor every day whether the ambient

„‟ .

„

‟ . ,

would require Royal to then contact its employees on

.” . 6

-4-09

at 8-9.

The Agency responded that the IEPA has no objection to such a condition. Ag. Resp. to

HOO 6-4-09 at 2-3.

Again, the Board directs the parties to the following information and asks for further

comments on a potential condition in the adjusted standard limiting Royal Pools VOM

emitting operations on ozone action days.

***

Response to Question 22 of the Hearing Officer Order

: The 2008 8-hour ozone standard is

currently being reconsidered by USEPA, but based upon the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 Hamilton

County ozone data, the area is clearly in attainment with the 75 ppb standard. The SIP-

development process exists to remedy nonattainment conditions. It would be inappropriate to

require a single facility amongst a group of potentially contributing facilities to accept a

oditioliigSVOMetigopetiosoozoeatiodaysheaieoditios

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---

4

are likely to exceed the 75 ppb 8-

houestadad

The Agency would support voluntary

actions by the company on ozone action days, not mandatory requirements.

***

(a)

Since the Scheffe method bases the ozone increment on the daily maximum NMOC

emissions rate, would you please comment on the calculation below estimating the

daily impact of the ozone increment of 4 ppb as represented in the petition?

Response to Question 22(a) of the Hearing Officer Order:

The maximum emissions rate of

29.76 tons per year is derived from a maximum daily rate projected to occur for every day the

facility is in operation. The maximum daily rate (229 lb/day) is unlikely to occur continuously;

furthermore, the magnitude and distribution of ozone from precursor emissions, with changing

meteorological conditions, would also be highly variable. Consequently, the 4 ppb maximum

ozone increment would not be attained on days when emission rates were less than the

maximum daily rate or when meteorological conditions were not conducive to ozone formation.

(b)

‟

.

-east) area, the

local air monitoring station for Royal in Hamilton County does indicate that days do

occur where the ozone concentrations are above 75 ppb. This results in an Air

Quality Index greater than 100. While Ozone Action Days are not declared for

Hamilton or Jefferson County, would the Agency please clarify if these days typically

coincide with ozone action days for the St. Louis (Metro-east) area?

Response to Question 22(b) of the Hearing Officer Order:

An exceedance of the 8-hour ozone

standard in Hamilton or Jefferson County would likely coincide with an ozone action day

declaration in the Metro-east area. Based on the past several years of ozone data in both

Hamilton County and the Metro-east region, 8-hour concentrations have been consistently

lower in Hamilton County. Therefore, an exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard in the more

rural regions of Hamilton County would likely coincide with exceedances in the more urban

areas of Metro-east.

(c)

Since the Agency has indicated the IEPA would have no objection to including a

condition regarding VOM limitations on ozone action days, would the Agency please

elaborate on how this might be done?

1)

Does the Agency recommend a numeric emission limitation? If so, should

VOM emissions be limited to 229 lb/day on ozone action days in order to

ensure the daily environmental impact of the adjusted standard is no

“”?

the Agency suggest a different numerical limit or a different way to limit

VOM emissions on ozone action days?

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---

5

2)

To show compliance with this possible condition, does the Agency believe

the VOM limitation could be documented simply through recordkeeping of

‟

ne action days without additional air

monitoring?

3)

Is air quality information available to Royal in a real time format for the

Hamilton air monitoring station? If so, would it be possible for Royal to

rely on such information to limit its VOM emissions?

4)

If not, does the Agency recommend that Royal rely on forecasts made for

the St. Louis (Metro-east) area for ozone action days since this is the

closest monitoring area that provides forecasts and alerts? Would the

Agency recommend that Royal observe ozone actions days as those days

where the St. Louis (Metro-east) air monitoring system measures an Air

Quality Index of 100 or greater?

Response to Question 22(c) of the Hearing Officer Order:

As noted previously, the Agency

would support voluntary actions by the company to limit VOM emitting operations on ozone

action days, but not mandatory limits for those operations on ozone action days.

(d)

Would Royal please comment on how it might comply with this possible

condition?

1) In order to ensure the daily environmental impact of the adjusted standard

“”,

would Royal please consider ways to track operations showing how VOM

emissions are limited as might be suggested by the Agency (such as no

more than 229 lb/day) on ozone action days?

2) Would Royal please address the steps it would take to determine when

there will be an ozone action day?

3) Would Royal please address how it would keep records of its operations

(without additional air monitoring) on ozone action days to ensure

compliance with this condition?

Response to Question 22(d) of the Hearing Officer Order:

This question is not addressed to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---

6

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: /s/Charles E. Matoesian_

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: October 27, 2009

1020 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/7782-5544

(217)782-9807 Facsimile

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 27, 2009

---