BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

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 QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 2009 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: November 16, 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, November 16, 2009

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

)

ILLINOIS EPA’S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 2009

NOW COMES

Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

questions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“Board”) asked at the hearing held on

October 28, 2009.

Question 1, Page 47 – 48 of the transcript:

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

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

Royal's Dix facility as of the date of this filing." Royal's original petition indicated

that they had a production level of around 220 pools per year but there was a

desire to go to 400 pools per year as a cap. I just was wondering if you could

please clarify whether or not the Agency's proposed condition to limit the

emissions activities actually related only to the types of emissions activities or

was it meant to relate to the level or the amount of emissions?

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

types of emissions activities, i.e., fiberglass pool manufacturing at the Dix facility. Condition

D is not meant to relate to the level or the amount of emissions. However, the level and

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

includes the annual production cap of 400 pools.

Question 2, page 49 – 50 of the TR:

Yesterday the Illinois EPA filed a response to some of the pre-hearing questions

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

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

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

statement that it doesn't endorse the use of scaling factors that are based on

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

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

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

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

assumptions other than steady-state?

Response: The IEPA’s October 27, 2009 written response to Question 21(d) of the Hearing

Officer Order stated, in part, the following: “The Agency does not endorse the use of scaling

factors that are based on steady-state, Gaussian plume-type assumptions.” Regrettably, this

sentence is an incomplete expression of the intended concept. The sentence should have read:

The Agency does not endorse the use of scaling factors that are based on steady-state,

Gaussian plume-type assumptions for estimating alternative averaging time concentrations of

pollutants that are secondarily formed.

Question 3, page 50 of the TR:

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

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

they meant parts per billion?

Response: The units for the “combined ozone increment and ozone design value” were

incorrectly specified as parts per million (“72 ppm”). The correct units are parts per billion

(ppb), and so the text should have read 72 ppb

Question 4, page 50 of the TR:

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

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

and ozone design value of 72, and I was wondering how it goes down when you

combine the two, or was that an oversight?

Response: The design value is dependent upon the specific years of monitoring data from

which it is calculated. As indicated in the IEPA’s October 27, 2009 written response to

Question 21(d), the “2005-2007 8-hour ozone design value” for the Hamilton County monitor

is “73 ppb”. The 2007-2009 8-hour ozone design value using the Hamilton County monitoring

data is 68 ppb

(this lower value reflects cleaner ambient air in more recent years). The

addition of the 4 ppb ozone increment from the Air Quality Impact Analysis gives a total

“combined ozone increment and ozone design value” of 72 ppb. It should be noted that IEPA

follows USEPA’s convention of reporting the 8-hour average ozone concentration, when

expressed in units of parts per million, to three decimal places (any digits to the right of the

third decimal place are truncated).

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

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

Charles E. Matoesian

/S/ Charles E. Matoesian___

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: November 16, 2009

1020 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/7782-5544

(217)782-9807 Facsimile

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

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

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

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 2009, upon the

following persons:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Dale A. Guariglia

Brandon W. Neuschafer

Bryan Cave LLP

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600

211 N. Broadway

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

/s/ Charles E. Matoesian

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated: November 16, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143 (TDD)

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