RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAJ~
22200k
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Dale Guariglia
Bryan Cave
One Metropolitan Square
211
North Broadway, Suite 3600
St.
Louis, Missouri 63102-2750
Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
N. Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution
Control Board the RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLiNOIS EPA AND AN APPEARANCE
ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
Date:
January 20, 2004
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Spring field, IL 62794-9276
217/782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
~harlesE.
Matoesiarf~
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS,
INC.
FOR AN ADJUSTED FROM
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301
STATE OF ILUNOIS
Pollution Control Board
)
)
)
AS
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Air)
)
NOTICE
RECEØVED
-
CLERK’S
OFFICE
JAN
22
2004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR~TATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF CR0WNLINE BOATS, INC.
)
AS
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard-Air)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301
)
)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS EPA
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
hereby
submits
its
recommendation in the above captioned matter pursuant to the regulations ofthe Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”)
at 35
111.
Adm.
Code Section
104.416.
The Illinois EPA recommends that the
Board GRANT the petitionofCrownline Boats, Inc., subjectto the terms and conditions contained
in this recommendation.
In support ofthis recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
BACKGROUND
1.
Crownline,
Inc.
(“Crownline”)
filed its
Petition
for
Adjusted
Standard
(“Petition”) on
December 4, 2003,
pursuant to Section 28.1
ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/28.1,
and
the regulations of the Board
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section
104.402.
The
Petition requests
that
the Board
grant Crownline an
adjusted standard
from
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
-
Section 215.301, theUse ofOrganic Material Rule,better known asthe “8 lb/hrRule” as itappliesto
the emissions ofvolatile organic material (“VOM”) from Crownline’s West Frankfort, Illinois, boat
manufacturing facility.
The 8 lb/hr Rule states:
No person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kg/hr
(8 lbs/br) of
organic material intothe atmosphere from any emissionsource, except asprovidedin
Sections 215.302,215.303,215.304 and the following exception: Ifno odor nuisance
exists the limitation of this
Subpart
shall apply only
to
photochemically reactive
material.
2.
The Petition
for Adjusted
Standard
stems
from
Crownline’s
request to use
averaging to
comply with the
8 lb/hr Rule for VOM as set
forth
in
its
application for Clean Air Act
Permit
Program (“CAAPP”)
permit (no. 96030137) received by the Illinois EPA on March 7,
1996.
The
request was followed by several meetings between the parties during which Crownline presented
evidence that it couldnot reasonably comply with the 8 lb/hrRule on
a strict hourly basis, and that
emissions averaging would result in no measurable negative impact on ambient air quality.
(Pet.
App. at 1).
After reviewingthe evidence, the Illinois EPA encouraged Crownline to file a Petition
for an Adjusted Standard.
This Petition
covers the Crownline gelcoat and lamination areas, plus
other boat manufacturing activities at the source.
3.
On January
5,
2004, Crownline filed a ProofofPublication ofNotice with the Board forthis
Petition.
The notice appeared in the
West Frankfort DailyAmerican
on December 10,
17,
and 24,
2003.
4.
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.416, the Illinois EPAis requiredto filea response
to a Petition for Adjusted Standard within 45
days offiling.
DESCRIPTION
OF THE FACILITY
5.
The Crownline facilityis locatedin West Frankfort, Hancock County, Illinois.
(Pet. App. at
-
4). Crownline employs approximately500-600 peoplein its facility and produces approximately 15
to 20 fiberglass boats per day.
Id.
The Illinois EPA accepts Crownline’s description ofits facility
and process and incorporates by reference
Section II. D ofthe current Petition.
6.
A new MACT standard for boatmanufacturers becomes effective on August 23, 2004.
40
CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV.
Crownline is already in compliance with this new MACT standard.
(Pet. App. at 6).
To comply with the MACTstandard, Crownlinereplaced its air atomizedguns with
2
flow-coat guns in its lamination operation,
introduced a lower Hazardous Air Pollutant (“HAP”)
content resin
(35
as compared to 42),
and switched to a gelcoat with a HAP content of33.4.
COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVES
7.
Crownline asserts in its Petition that its operationswere not contemplated by the 81b/hr Rule,
which was established in
1971.
Id. at
11,
12.
Crownline states that the “factors relating to boat
building”
are
“significantly
different
from
most
manufacturing
operations which
emit
organic
material,” and “emission data from boat building
was not even available to the Board until after
1991.”
Id.
Moreover, fiberglassboat production is a batch-typeprocess involving the applicationof
layers of “skins” to a boat frame.
~.
Because materials are not applied continuously, but rather in
steps, VOM emissions are not constant and even.
Crownline states that emission controls are more
economically feasible where processes are continuous.
I.
8.
Finally,
Crownline asserts the requirements ofOSHA’s worker protection regulation at 29
CFR 1910 preventcompliance with the 8 lb/hrRule.
j4. at 13.
OSHA rules require workplaces that
emit styrene to “maintain an in-plant work area atmosphere.
.
.ofless than
100 ppm.” Id.
Crownline
has thus installed a ventilation system “that exhausts approximately 654,000 cubic feet ofplant air
every minute.”
Id.
Because ofthe enormous rate of air transfer, Crownline asserts that add-on
emission controls are fiscally impractical.
~.
Crownline further assertsthat theBoard in 1971 could
not have possibly anticipated the promulgation ofthe OSHA rules.
Id.
9.
Crownline obtained the services ofAdvance Environmental Associates, LLC (“AEA”), to
assess the technical and economic feasibility ofcompliance alternatives.
14.
at 6.
The alternatives
considered were “(1) reducing VOM content in productionmaterials; (2)using alternative operating
procedures and methods;
and
(3) installing end-of-the-pipe emission control technologies.”
14.
3
Crownline
claims
that
other than end-of-the-pipe
emission controls,
“many of the alternatives
investigatedwould not allow itto comply with the 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourly basis.”
14.
Further,
Crownlinedeclares that it couldnot identify any compliance alternatives to reduce VOM emissions
from the use ofadhesives, laquer and caulks.
14.
10.
Crownline contends that
end-of-the-pipe emission controls are not economically feasible.
Crownline estimates up-front capital costs at $7
to $14 million with annualized costs ranging from
$4.5
million to
$6 million, and a cost per ton ofVOM removed of $35,000 to
$58,000.
Id. at 8.
Crownline explains these figures in Section 4.3 ofthe
Technical Document in Support ofa Petition
By
Crownline Boats,
Inc. for
an
Adjusted
Standard
(“Technical Document”)
appended
to
the
Petition. Id. In Crownline’s estimation, the main reason forthese high costs is the ventilation system
required by the OSHA regulations.
Id.
Lastly,
as Crownline notes, when developing
the MACT
standard,
one
of the
factors
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“USEPA”)
considered was that with one partial exception, no boat manufactureruses tailstack emissioncontrol
technologies to reduce HAP emissions.
14.
at 7.
11.
Crownline also investigated alternative production methods which could result in reduced
VOM
emissions.
These
included
“open
moulding”
methods
such
as
using
“rollers
for resin
application, pre-preg materials, in-house resin impregnation, and vacuum bagging.”
14.
at 6,
7.
“Closed
moulding”
methods included
“resin transfer molding,
resin infusion,
and
the patented
Virtual
Engineered
Composites
(“VEC”)
technology.”
Id.
at
7.
Crownline
states
that
these
alternatives
were
all
found to
be
technologically or economically impractical
and
explains
its
reasoning in Section 4.2 ofthe
Technical Document.
14.
12.
Crownline has already reduced VOM concentration in its production materials in order to
4
comply with the forthcoming MACT standard.
Id.
Compliance with the MACT does not
yield
compliance with the
8 lb/hr Rule.
Crownline
states that reduction ofstyrene in the resins, beyond
that required by the MACT, is not technically feasible while maintaining product integrity.
14.
PROPOSED ADJUSTED
STANDARD
13.
Crownline has requested
an
Adjusted
Standard
from
the
Board’s
air pollution
control
requirements found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.301, insofar as that regulation applies to the
VOMemissions from Crownline’s production facilityin WestFrankfort, Illinois.
Theillinois EPA
recommends
that
the Board
GRANT
Crownline’s
petition,
and
requests
that
the Board allow
Crownline to operate its boat productionfacility so long as it complies with thefollowing conditions:
a.
Crownline shall operate in full compliance with the National EmissionStandards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants forNew and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR
Section
63
Subpart VVVV, as may be amended in the future.
b.
Operationin full compliance with theNational Emission Standardfor Hazardous Air
Pollutants
for New and
Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities,
set
forth at 40
CFR Section 63
Subpart VVVV, asmaybe amended in the future, shall be in lieu ofcompliance with the 8 lb/hrRule
found at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Section 215.301.
c.
Crownline shall continue
to
investigate boat production methods with a reduced
VOM content
and, where practicable, shall substitute current coatings with lower VOM content
coatings as long as suchsubstitution does not resultin anet increase in VOM emissions.
Crownline
shall be required to do
any test which the Illinois EPA specifically recommends that they do.
An
annual report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts shall be prepared
by
Crownline and
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA Bureau of Air,
Compliance and
Enforcement
5
Section.
d.
Therelief granted in this proceeding shallbe limited to the emission activities at the
Crownline West Frankfort facility as ofthe date ofthis
filing.
e.
Crownline shall operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act,
its CAAPP, the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act
and
other applicable
regulations not
otherwise discussed
herein.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
14.
Crownline estimates that at its current production rate of 15 to 20 boats per day, its facility
will emit approximately 200 tons/yr ofVOM ifit complies with the forthcoming MACT.
14.
at 10.
Compliance with the
8 lb/hrRule would yield an expected 144 tons ofVOM based upon estimated
2003 production data.
Id.
Compliance with neither the MACT nor the 8 lb/hrRule would yield an
estimated 245 tons/yr ofVOM emissions for similar production figures.
Id.
15.
AEA prepared an Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis which estimated Crownline’s impact
on
ozone formation
in
south
central Illinois.
Id. at
9.
Discussed in
detail
in
Section
5
of the
Technical Document, the
analysis showed that the potential
impact from Cromwell’s
operations
would not cause an ozone concentration at the nearest monitor (Dale, Illinois-25
miles distant) in
-
excess ofthe NAAQS of 0.12 ppm.
Id. at 9,
10.
The Illinois EPA does not dispute this analysis.
16.
Inaddition, Crownline presents a valid pointwhen it states that ifit could somehow capture
VOM emissions and release them uniformly, rather than in bursts, it could comply with the 8 lb/hr
Rule while not reducing emissions at all.
14.
at 10.
17.
Crownline asserts that no cross-media impact is expected from the granting ofthe adjusted
standard.
Id. at
11.
6
18.
Considered
together,
the
batch
process
nature
of the
business
which
produces
VOM
emissions
in
spurts,
the
fact that
the Section
215.301
rule
did
not
anticipate an
operation
like
Crownline’s,
compliance with the forthcoming MACT standard a year early, and the high cost of
add-on
control
technology due
in part
to
OSHA requirements,
favor
an
adjusted
standard
for
Crownline.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
19.
Section 28.1 ofthe Act states that the Board maygrant individual adjusted standards
from
rules
of general
applicability whenever
the Board
determines
that
an
applicant can justify an
adjustment.
In
adopting
a
rule
of general
applicability,
the
Board may
specify
the
level
of
justification required ofa petitioner for an adjusted standard. Ifa rule ofgeneral applicability does
not contain a level ofjustification that the petitioner must meet to
obtain an adjusted standard, the
requirements of Section 28.1(c) of the Act apply.
Section 28.1(c)
states that the Board may grant
individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines that:
(1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and sufficiently different
from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulations
applicable to that petitioner;
(2)
The existence ofthose factors justifies an adjusted standard;
(3)
The requested
standard will not
result
in
environmental or health
effects
substantially and sufficientlymore adversethanthe effectsconsideredby the
Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and
(4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
20.
Theregulation ofgeneral applicability from which Crownline seeks an adjustedstandard,35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.301, doesnot specifya level ofjustification that Crownlinemust satisfy
to obtain an adjusted standard.
Therefore, Crownline must satisfy the level ofjustification set forth
7
in
Section
28.1(c)
of the
Act.
As
summarized
below,
the
requested
adjusted
standard
for
Crownline’s boat production operations is justified.
21.
The Illinois
EPA agrees with
Crownline’s analysis
of the justification for its
proposed
Adjusted Standard as set forth in Section ll.Hofthe Petition, and hereby incorporates that sectionby
reference.
The
8
lb/hr Rule at Section
2 15.301
simply did not
anticipate the type of operation
Crownline maintains.
Unlike many other manufacturers, Crownline
emits
VOM in
spurts as it
applies
a
“skin”
to
the
boat
frame.
What
is
more,
reasonable
alternative
emission
control•
technologies either do not result in compliance with the
8 lb/hrRule orare prohibitively expensive
due in no small part to the OSHA requirement for continual ventilation.
CONSISTENCY WITH
FEDERAL
LAW
-
22.
The Board may grant the proposed adjusted
standard consistent
with federal
law
under
Section
110 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 7410,
which grants the individual states the
authority to promulgate aplan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofairquality
standards, subjectto approval by USEPA.
Pursuant to federal law, states also have the authority to
revise such a plan, subject to USEPA approval.
By following its adjusted standard procedure with
respect to
the Board’s federally authorized and
approved air emission regulations,
the Board is
exercising
the authority granted
to
the states through Section
110
of the
Clean Air Act.
If the
requested adjusted standard is adopted by the Board, Illinois EPA has the authority and will submit
the adjusted standard to USEPA as a SIP revision, thus complying with federal law.
HEARING
23.
Crownline has requested a hearing before the Pollution Control Board.
8
WHEREFORE,
the Illinois
EPA
recommends
that
Crownline’s
Petition
for
Adjusted
Standard be GRANTED, and an order be entered adopting the adjusted standard with the specific
language presented in this Recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMEN
PROTECTION AGENCY
Dated:
Assistant
Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
1020 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
627949276
(217)782-5544
~217)782-9807 Facsimile
9
RECE~VED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
JAN
22
2004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION C0NTR~IT~t~Q~
ILLINOIS
l~’oIlution
Control
Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301
)
AS
)
(Adjusted Standard
—
Air)
)
APPEARANCE
I hereby file my Appearance
in
this
proceeding,
on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency.
DATED:
January 20,
2004
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
217/782-5544
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)SS.
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached Recommendation of the
Illinois EPA and an Appearance upon the person to whom.it is directed, by placing it in
an
eiivelope addressed to:
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dale Guariglia
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway,
Suite 3600
St. Louis Missouri 63102-2750
Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62 794-9276
and mailing it by First Class Mail from Springfield,
Illinois on January 20,
2004, with sufficient
postage affixed.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this
20th
day of January, 2004
~)
Notary
ublic
OF~CIALSEAL
BRENDA
BOEHNER
:~
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE O~JLLINOIS :~
:~.MYCOMMISSION
EXPIRE.
1-14.2OO5~