ED

CLER~’~

Or~1r.r

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDDEG

~

2003

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

)

SThiTE OF

ILLINOIS

)

POllutfOfl

Control Board

Petition ofCrownline Boats,

Inc.

)

AS-

0

for an Adjusted Standard from

)

(Adjusted Standard)

35JAC~215.301

)

PETITION FOR

AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD

Crownline Boats,

Inc.

(“Crownline”), 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 ofvolatile organic

material (“VOM”) at Crownline’s West Frankfort, Illinois boat manufacturing facility.

I.

BACKGROUND

Crownline owns and

operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in West Frankfort,

Illinois.

Crownline has always strived to comply with environmental and other regulations that

apply to operations at its West Frankfort facility and, until

recently, has been able to

demonstrate

compliance with such rules.

In keeping with its desire to comply with

applicable rules,

Crownline had timely submitted

its application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program (CAAPP)

operating permit from 1EPA.

Upon review ofthe draft CAAPP permit prepared by the IEPA,

Crownline discovered that the draft permit did not clearly state how Crownline was to

demonstrate compliance with the requirements ofthe

8 lb/hr Rule.

Crownline had proposed to

use a form of averaging emissions.

IEPA decided that Crownline could not use averaging to demonstrate compliance.

The

JEPA 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.

With assistance from its environmental consultant,

Advance Environmental Associates,

LLC (AEA), Crownline computed the VOM emissions from the building ofa boat hull and deck,

respectively.

Crownline discovered that, based on IEPA’s strict hourly interpretation of

demonstrating compliance, the hourly VOM emissions from certain ofits operations (gelcoat

and

resin

application) did not appear to comply with IEPA’s interpretation ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule.

Crownline met with IEPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring

Crownline’s

compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis

is unreasonable and

showing that compliance on an

averaging basis would not cause any measurable negative impact

on ambient air quality from the amount ofVOMs Crownline’s operations emit.

After hearing

and considering the information presented by Crownline, its consultant

and attorney, IEPA

agreed that

applying the 8 lb/hour Rule to Crownline’s operations on a strict hourly basis would

1346752.09

---

indeed impose an unreasonable burden and encouraged Crownline to file a petition for an

adjusted standard.

On November 13, 2003

IEPA issued Crownline a Title V CAAPP Permit and

Title I Permit, I.D. # 055070AAU, (the “Title V Permit”).

The Title V Permit provides that

Crownline is to obtain

an adjusted standard from

35

IAC

§215.301

or demonstrate compliance

with

§215.301

by December31, 2004.

After carefully examining its options for add-on controls and/or for changing

manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Crownline’s levels ofhourly VOM emissions,

Crownline realized that the cost

for compliance via either ofthese options will neither allow the

Company to remain competitive nor profitable.

Consequently, Crownline has concluded to

petition the IPCB for an adjusted standard.’

Accordingly, Crownline offers the following summary ofreasons as to why it should

receive an

adjusted standard with respect to the 8 lb/hr Rule:

•

The purpose ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule (as originally drafted) is to reduce the potential for

creating ozone in the atmosphere and, thereby, possibly causing the 1-hour ozone

standard to be exceeded.

The potential for the level ofVOM emissions from Crownline’s

operations to cause or significantly contribute to an exceedence ofthe ozone standard is

very low.

•

By August 23, 2004, all boat manufacturers including Crownline, must meet the newly

promulgated National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants

for Boat

Manufacturing Facilities (the “MACT”), found at 40 CFR Part 63

Subpart VVVV.

EPA

estimates that the annual cost for a facility to comply with the MACT is $4,060/ton of

hazardous air pollutants removed and will reduce styrene emissions by an average of

36.

66 FR 44222.

Crownline took steps earlyto comply with the MACT and came in

to compliance with the MACT emission limits more than a year prior to the deadline.

•

Technical and regulatory constraints (high air flow needed to ventilate building air in

order to comply with OSHA workerhealth & safety standards) make the cost for

Crownline to

comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule

on a strict hourly basis using tail stack

emission controls unreasonably high.

•

The capital costs to install tail-stack controls for Crownline to comply with the 8 lb/hr

Rule on a strict hourly basis would range from approximately $7 million to $14 million.

This equates to approximately $35,000 to $58,000 per ton ofpollutant removed on top of

the costs Crownline will have to

incur to comply with the newly promulgated MACT

standard.

•

Although some

alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)

products exist, very few ofthem canbe technically or economically applied to

a boat

To the extentthe IPCB

does not grant Crownline an adjusted standardpursuant to

this

Petition, Crownline reserves

all

rights and defenses it

may

have concerning the

application of the 8

lb/hr Rule to

Crownli.ne’s

operations, and this

Petition shall not act as a waiver of such rights or defenses, nor as an admission of positions taken by IEPA.

2

1346752.09

---

manufacturing operation such as Crownline’s and none ofthem will actually allow

Crownline to fully comply with the

8

lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

•

The high cost ofusing either tail stack emission controls or very expensive alternative

production methods (those requiring complete re-tooling and re-design ofproduction

methods and procedures),

will put Crownline at a significant competitive disadvantage

relative to boat manufacturers in other states.

This will result in one ofthe following

scenarios:

•

To remain competitive, Crownline will be forced to move to another state

which does not have an

8 lb/hr Rule (or any

similar limitation); or

•

Crownline will eventually be forced out ofbusiness because it will not be

able to

compete for customers due to the high cost ofits boats and/or due

to the diminished quality/durability of its boats.

II.

35 ILL.

ADM.

CODE ~ 104.406 REQUIREMENTS

A.

Standard From Which Relief is

Sought

--

~

104.406(a)

Crownline 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 originallypromulgated as Rule 205 in 1971.

Section 215.301

now provides:

“No person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kg/hr (8 lbs/hr) 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 ofthis

Subpart shall apply only to

photochemically reactive material.”

35 Ill. Adm.

Code

§

215.101

states that “the definitions of35

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 ofa type capable of emitting specified air contaminants to

the atmosphere.”

Additionally,

§

211.4250(b) defines “organic material” as:

“Any chemical

compound ofcarbon including diluents and thinners which are

liquids at standard conditions and which are used as dissolvers, viscosityreducers,

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 ofthe Regulation ofGeneral Applicability

—

Section

104.406(b)

This regulation was promulgated to implement the federal requirements under the Clean

Air Act,

42 USC

§

7401

et seq.

C.

Level ofJustification

—

Section

104.406(c)

3

1346752.09

---

The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Crownline seeks an adjusted standard

does not specify a level ofjustification for an adjusted standard.

D.

Facility and Process Description

—

Section 104.406(d)

Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility in West Frankfort, Illinois.

Crownline manufactures

approximately 30 different models ofpersonal recreation fiberglass

boats ranging from a 17’6” open bow boat, to

a 29’ cabin cruiser.

Since it began operations in

1991, Crownline has manufactured approximately 40,000 boats for dealers world-wide and

currently manufactures approximately between 15-20boats each day.

The facilitybegan

operation in

1994 and employs approximately 500-600 individuals.

Additional information

regarding Crownline’s history and operations (along with photographs) are set forth Sections

1

and 2 ofthe attached Technical Document.

Crownline’s boat manufacturing production process involves the following production

areas:

•

Mold Fabrication

—

boat molds arebuilt;

•

Gelcoat Application

—

applying gelcoat (which is the exterior coating ofthe boat)

coating to the pre-formed boat molds;

•

Lamination

—

applying glass fibers, polyester resin and catalysts to the boat mold

to

constitute the fiberglass structure ofthe boat;

•

Grind & Trim

—

cutting excess material from the fiberglass parts, smoothing

surfaces, and laminated floor support structures and

floor to hull;

•

Woodworking

•

Upholstery

—

assembling the seats and other vinyl fabric products required in the

boats;

•

Final Assembly

—

assembling the hulls and decks and installing mechanical

equipment; and

•

Shipping.

This petition is primarily concerned with the gelcoat and lamination production areas,

which generate most ofCrownline’s VOM emissions (the majority ofwhich consists of styrene),

and are therefore the

two

production areas most impacted by the

8 lb/hr Rule.2

Accordingly, the

following discussion shall provide details regarding these

two

production areas.

Gelcoat Application.

Once the molds leave the Mold Fabrication Shop, where they are

prepared for the application ofgelcoat by being cleaned with a stripping solvent and a wax

releasing agent applied, the molds are moved to one of four gelcoat booths for the application of

gelcoat.

Gelcoat is applied to the part (hull or deckmold) in

a single application (using air

atomized spray guns), thereby, creating a single initial layer.

(See Photographs in Appendix 2 of

the Technical Document).

The gelcoat area has thirty-one air atomized spray guns.

Gelcoat is

2

~ should be noted however, that Crownline’s other production areas using adhesives, lacquers and caulks, would

also not meet the

8

lb/hrRule on a strict hourly basis.

See Section 3.2 ofthe

Technical Document for

a discussion of

emissions from these operations.

4

1346752.09

---

applied to

the mold to provide color and a smooth surface to the outside ofthe fiberglass boats.

Crownline uses the following worker protection/pollution control equipment in its gelcoat

production area:

•

a high volume (180,000 cfin) ventilation system to ensure that styrene levels

are

below the worker exposure limit established by OSHA;

•

dedicated spray booths to reduce the contamination ofplant air when using

spray

guns;

•

use ofa lower styrene-content gelcoat

(

33.4);

and

•

panel filters built into the spray booth to

control particulate emissions from the

overspray ofthe spray guns.

Lamination.

After the gelcoat has dried, the molds are moved to one oftwenty-four

laminating stations.

At the laminating station, glass fibers, polyester resin and a resin catalyst are

applied to the mold using non-atomized flow-coat chopper guns (“flow-coat guns”).

(See

Photographs in Appendix 2 ofthe Technical Document).

The lamination area has twenty-four

flow-coat guns with a maximum capacity to use all twenty-four guns simultaneously.

The flow-

coat guns cut the glass fibers into predetermined lengths and then coats the glass with resin

before both are deposited simultaneously on the mold surface.

The layer offiberglass and resin

is then rolled flat using hand rollers to remove any air bubbles that were created in the

application

and allowed to cure.

Laminate is applied to

a part in

a series of layers called “skins”.

The process involves application ofa skin, followed by a curingperiod before the next skin can

be applied.

This process is repeated until

all ofthe required number ofskins have been applied

and have cured.

For decks, 3 resin skins are typically applied.

For hulls, 2-3 resin skins are

applied, followed by a separate application to build the boat floor.

The time required for

applying one

skin varies depending on the size ofthe boat.

Crownline uses the followingworker

protection/pollution control equipment in its laminating stations:

•

an elaborate ventilation system (160,000 cfin) to vent air emissions to ensure that

styrene levels are below the worker exposure limit established by OSHA and to

reduce outdoor odors;

•

panel filters built in each side ofthe laminating area to

control particulate

emissions; and

•

submerged-fill resin tanks to

reduce splashing and the amount ofvolatiles coming

offthe tanks.

For the year 2002,

Crownline’s estimated VOM emissions totaled 187

tons/yr as reported

on the facility’s 2002 Annual Emission Report.

As previouslydiscussed, Crownline’s emissions

consists primarily ofstyrene.

Crownline’s use ofstyrene and related VOM emissions from the

resin lamination and

gelcoat processes at its plant vary depending on the type and size ofeach

custom boat it manufactures.

The calculations for estimating VOM (styrene) emissions from

Crownline’s operations are presented in Section

3 ofthe Technical Document.

As discussed below, based upon an Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis performed by

AEA, Crownline’s emissions, if this adjusted standard petition is granted, will not cause ozone

5

1346752.09

---

exceedences in south-central illinois.

Compliance with the

New

MACT

Standard.

Beginning August 23, 2004, Crownline,

like

all otherboat manufacturers in the U.S., must meet the newly promulgated MACT standard

for boat manufacturers.

40 CFR Part 63

Subpart VVVV.

The rule requires that subject boat

manufacturers meet the “MACT floor”, which is the emission limitations

achievedby the best-

performing 12

ofboat manufacturers in the nation.

U.S. EPA determined that the MACT floor

for boat manufacturers would not be air pollution control equipment since only one facilityin the

countryuses such equipment.

To

comply with MACT, most boat manufacturers with open

molding operations will use flow-coat guns and low-HAP production materials (resins, gelcoats,

adhesives, etc).

A flow-coat gun has lower emissions

since it is operated at a lower pressure and

it has a non-atomized resin delivery system.

By complying with the MACT, EPA estimates that

boat manufacturers will reduce styrene emissions by an average of36.

As previously stated, Crownline is currently in compliance (over a year early) with the

new MACT emission limits. To comply with the MACT, Crownline switched to

flow-coat guns

in its lamination operation (ratherthan air atomized guns) and resin that has a

HAP

content of

35

(as opposed to 42)

and gelcoat that has a

HAP

content of 33.4.

E.

Investigation ofCompliance Alternatives: Methods for Reducing VOM Emissions

From Crownline’s Boat Manufacturing Operations

—

Section 104.406(e)

Crownline and AEA investigated compliance alternatives that would help enable

Crownline to comply with the

8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

Crownline investigated the

following alternatives:

(1) reducing VOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative

operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing end-of-the-pipe emission control

technologies.

It is important to note, however, that other than end-of-the-pipe emission controls,

many of the alternatives investigated would not allow Crownline to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule

on a strict hourly basis.

In addition,

Crownline and AEA could not identify any compliance

alternatives to reduce VOM emissions from Crownline’s use ofadhesives, lacquer and caulks.

1.

Reducing

VOM Content in Production Materials

Crownline has already reduced the VOM concentration in its production materials in

compliance with the MACT.

However, while complying with the MACT alone will not reduce

Crownline’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

Section

4 ofthe Technical Document.

2.

Feasibility

of Replacing

Existing Production Methods with

Alternate

Production Methods

There exist various production method

alternatives which may result in

reduced VOM

emissions.

Crownline investigated “open molding” methods such as use ofrollers for resin

6

1346752.09

---

application, pre-preg materials, in-house resin impregnation,

and vacuum bagging.

Crownline

also investigated various “closed molding” methods such as resin transfer molding, resin

infusion, and the patented Virtual Engineered Composites (VEC) technology.

Each ofthese

alternative manufacturing technologies is discussedin detail in Section 4.2 of the Technical

Document and provides an explanation as to

why these alternatives are not technologically or

economically viable for Crownline.

Putting the cost ofeach alternate manufacturing method

aside, there is no

quantitative dataofwhich Crownline is aware which accurately shows how

much styrene and/or VOM emissions would

actuallybe reduced if any ofthese methods were to

be employed.

Moreover, it must be emphasized that although these alternative manufacturing

methods would reduce VOM emissions, they would not cause Crownline to meet the 8 lb/hr Rule

on a strict hourly basis without add-on controls since they only apply to the lamination process

and there are no alternative technologies currently available for the-gelcoat, lacquering, caulking,

and adhesive operations.

3.

Feasibility

ofApplying Tail-End Controls at Crownline to Achieve Reduced

Levels ofVOM

Emissions

In developing the MACT, U.S. EPA had a number ofstudies performed to evaluate a

variety ofemission control technologies for the possibility ofserving as the “MACT floor” (i.e.,

the minimum emission controls a boat manufacturer would have to implement) forHAP

(Hazardous Air Pollutant) emission reduction.

As a result ofthese studies, U.S. EPA concluded

that none ofthe technologies should serve as the MACT floor.

U.S. EPA concluded this based

on the following primary factors3:

•

With otie partial exception, no boat manufacturers employed any tailstack

emission control technologies to

reduce HAP emissions;

•

The very high air flows needed by facilities to

comply with OSHA’s requirement

to

maintain worker 8-hr exposure

levels for styrene make the cost ofemission

control systems very high;

•

Reduction ofHAP content ofresins, gelcoat and other materials are achievable

and can significantly reduce total

HAP

emissions without placing an undue

financial burden on the boat manufacturing industry.

Crownline, through its consultant, AEA, examined available emission control

technologies for specific applicability to Crownline’s operations for purposes ofcomplying with

the

8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

This consisted ofobtaining cost quotes from a select

number ofcontrol system suppliers and inserting these quotes

and other Crownline-specific

operational parameters into U.S.

EPA’s spreadsheet for estimating control technology costs on a

per ton basis for the boat building industry.

Based on this analysis, Crownline has concluded that

the installation ofemission controls for its

operations is cost prohibitive and, therefore, not a

feasible option regardless ofwhich technology one may choose to apply.

The up-front capital costs to

install tail-stack controls to control VOM emissions

range

~

Assessment ofStyrene Emission Controls for FRP/Cand BoatBuilding Industries,

EPA Contract 68-D 1-0118,

W.A.

156.

7

1346752.09

---

from $7 million to $14 million and annualized cost for these same controls range from

approximately

$4.5

million to nearly $6 million.

Using the EPA methodology for estimating

control technology costs, the estimated cost per ton ofVOM removed from Crownline’s

operations if tail-stack controls are installed range from approximately $35,000

to $58,000.

These costs assume

a level of VOM emissions

equivalentto MACT compliance as a baseline

and installing tail-stack controls having a 85

efficiency.

A detailed discussion ofthese costs

is

included in Section 4.3 ofthe Technical Document.

These are costs

Crownline could not incur

and still remain competitive with boatmanufacturers outside ofIllinois.

The primaryreason forthese high costs is the very large volume ofair (400,000 cfln for

gelcoat and laminations areas and

654,000 cfm for all ofCrownline’s operations) that would

have to be treated in order reduce the emitted VOM.

The large volume ofair moved through the

gelcoat and lamination areas is necessary to maintain compliance with OSHA’s 8-hour worker

exposure

limit for styrene.

In order to protect worker health and safety in accordance with this

OSHA requirement, Crownline installed a specially designed air flow management system at a

cost ofapproximately $800,000.

In summary, the application oftailstack emission controls is not a viable method for

reducing VOM emissions in order to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

The

primary basis for this conclusion is the prohibitively high cost of such controls as a result ofthe

high airvolumes required to comply with the OSHA 8-hour worker exposure limit for styrene.

F.

Crownline’s Proposed Adjusted Standard

—

Section

104.406(f)

As set forth above, the rule ofgeneral applicability from which Crownline seeks this

adjusted Standard prohibits Crownline from emitting “more than 8 lbs/hr oforganic material into

the atmosphere from any emission source.” 35

IAC §215.301.

Because JEPA will not allow

averaging ofemissions to meet this standard, Crownline can not comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule as

interpreted by IEPA.

Accordingly, Crownline proposes that, in lieu ofbeing subject to 35

IAC

§215.301,

Crownline shall comply with the MACT Standard finalized at 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart VVVV.

As discussed in Section

BID ofthis Petition, in order to comply with the MACT,

Crownline must (and has):

(1) replace atomized spray gunswith flow-coat guns;

and (2) use

resins with a lower percentage ofstyrene content (switch from using resins with a styrene content

of 42.3

to resins with a styrene content of35).

According to the MACT Standard, EPA

estimates that to

comply with the MACT it will cost $4,060/ton annually and will reduce

emissions by an average of36.

Crownline proposes the following language for a Board order to impose the adjusted

standard:

Pursuant to the authority under Section

28.1

ofthe Environmental Protection Act, the

Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard.

This adjusted standard shall apply

solely to Crownline Boats, Inc. (“Crownline”).

As an alternative to

compliance with 35

IAC

§

215.301,

this adjusted standard allows Crownline to

limit its discharge oforganic

material into the atmosphere from its boat manufacturing operations by complying with

8

1346752.09

---

the National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants for New and Existing Boat

Manufacturing Facilities,

set forth at 40 CFR §63 Subpart VVVV, as may be amended in

the future.

G.

Quantitative and Qualitative Description ofCrownline’s Impact on the

Environment Before and After the Proposed Adjusted Standard

—

Section

104.406(g)

Fourissues are discussed in detail below concerning Crownline’s impact on the

environment from the adjusted standard.

First, the impact on ambient air quality from VOM

emissions from

Crownline’s operations will not cause ozone exeedences in south-central

Illinois.

Second, the granting ofthe adjusted standard being sought by Crownline (and Crownline’s

compliance with the MACT) will reduce emissions

at Crownline’s facility as compared to

Crownline’s past operations and bring more ofCrownline’s operations in compliance with the 8

lb/hr Rule (on a strict hourly basis)

Third, although compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule (on a strict

hourly basis) by Crownline would likely reduce emissions even further, it is possible that

Crownline could comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule and still emit the same amount ofVOMs if

Crownline can somehow extend the time that emissions are released to the atmosphere.

Fourth,

the proposed adjusted standard does not involve any significant cross-media impacts.

1.

Ozone Impact From Crownline’s Current Operations

An Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Impact Analysis (the “Analysis”) was performedby AEA to

estimate Crownline’s impact on ozone formation in south central Illinois.

The Analysis used a

method developed by USEPA,

titled, “VOC/NO~

Point Source Screening Tables” (hereafter

referred to as the “Ozone Screening Method”) and is discussed in further detail in Section 5.0 of

the Technical Document.

The Analysis used data from an ozone monitor located in Dale,

(Hamilton County5), Illinois (the “Dale Monitor”) as a basis.

The Dale Monitor is

located 25

miles

ENE ofCrownline’s facility and is sited in a location appropriate fordetermining impacts

of Crownline’s operations on outdoor ambient ozone levels.

It should be noted that the Dale

Monitor was sited in its present location for reasons not related to Crownline or any ofits

operations.

The Ozone Screening Method is based on examiningthe short term (24hr) maximum amount of

VOCs and also the average annual amounts ofboth VOCs and NO~that the source in question

emits.

Using this

information, the method requires a computation which produces

an ambient air

quality ozone concentration value resulting from the facility’s operations that

is then added to the

background air quality levels measured at an ozone monitor considered to be representative of

the area that can be impacted by the VOC/NOX emissions from the facility.

This combined value

is then compared to

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone (1-hour

standard) of0.12 ppm to

determine if the impact will cause (orcontributed significantly enough)

to an exceedence ofthis 1-hour ozone standard.

After computing the amount ofozone predicted by the Ozone ScreeningMethod, the results

show that the potential impact from Crownline’s operations will not cause ozone concentrations

9

1346752.09

---

atthe Dale Monitor to exceed the NAAQS of 0.12 ppm.

The maximum level ofozone that the

Ozone Screening Method produced is 0.103 ppm.

Quantitatively, based on the daily amounts of VOM currently emitted into the atmosphere

by Crownline’s operations, it is

evident that such emissions

do not cause any significant

degradation ofair quality in south-central

Illinois.

Since the Crownline plant

is located in a rural

area (far from any ozone non-attainment area), the total amount ofVOMs emitted by the plant

itself would not cause

any violation ofthe ozone NAAQS.

Furthermore, the majority of

Crownline’s emissions consist of styrene, a material that

is well-known for its rapid degradation

(within less than 24 hours).

2.

Compliance

with

the

MACT Will Reduce VOM

Emissions

from Crownline’s

Facility

Crownline’s compliance with the MACT will reduce VOM emissions as compared to

Crownline’s past operations.

Although Crownline is required by law to comply with the MACT

emission limits by August 23, 2004

(which Crownline achieved over a year early), this will result

in significant reductions in VOM emissions

as compared to Crownline’s past operations.

It is

estimated that Crownline’s annual VOM emissions from complying with the MACT will be

approximately 200 tons/yr.

This compares to an estimated 245 tons/yr ofVOM which would be

emitted by Crownline’s operations if it did not comply with the MACT (based upon an equal

amount ofboats being produced).

See Section

3.1

ofthe Technical Document, for a discussion

ofthese calculations.

Moreover, it is logical that with a reduction in the amount ofHAP being

emitted from the plant because of the MACT Standard, the amount ofozone formed will be

reduced.

Therefore, qualitatively, if Crownline complies with the proposed adjusted standard,

then the impact on air quality in south-central Illinois will be reduced.

Furthermore, Crownline’s

compliance with the MACT Standard, will cause a greater percentage ofthe models

and sizes of

boats that Crownline manufactures to be in compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly

basis.

Emissions if Crownline Complies With the 8 lb/hr Rule

If Crownlinewould comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule (on a strict hourly basis), it is estimated

that Crownline’s annual VOM emissions would be approximately 144 tons.4

(See Sections 3.1.3

and 3.1.4 ofthe Technical Document forfurther discussion).

Although compliance with the 8

lb/hr Rule (on a strict hourly basis) by Crownline would reduce emissions

as compared to the

MACT, it is theoretically possible that Crownline could demonstrate compliance with the 8 lb/hr

Rule on a strict hourly basis and still emit the same amount of VOMs on a daily and annual basis.

This would be true if Crownline

could somehow extend the time that emissions are released to

the atmosphere.

For example, instead ofemitting

14 lbs of VOM in one hour, if it were

technologicallypossible for Crownline to

spread out its gelcoat and lamination application

operations over a longer time period, Crownline would comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule (on a strict

hourly basis) by emitting 7 lbs in one hour and 7 lbs in the next hour.

This approach would allow

~Based upon estimated 2003 boat production data.

10

1346752.09

---

Crownline to demonstrate compliance with the

8

lb/hr Rule without any real reduction in the

total daily amount ofVOMs emitted to the atmosphere.

This is one ofthe reasons why

Crownline believes that demonstrating compliance on a strict hourly basis is neither appropriate

nor necessary.

By complying with the MACT Standard and no other measures, Crownline has

achieved significant

real

reductions in the total amount ofVOMs emitted

on a daily and annual

basis.

4.

Cross Media Impacts From the Adjusted Standard

There would not be expected to be any adverse cross media impacts if this Adjusted

Standard Petition is granted.

U.S.

EPA stated in its preamble to the MACT Standard that there

would be no adverse effect on water quality and energy consumption from the implementation of

the MACT.

66 FR at 44222.

With regard to solid and hazardous waste impacts, U.S.

EPA

explained in its preamble that “the proposed NESHAP will decrease the amount ofsolid waste

generated by the boat manufacturing industry.

.

.

the decrease..

.

is directly related to switching

to nonatomized resin application equipment (i.e. flowcoaters and resin rollers)..

.

because ofa

greater transfer efficiency ofresin from

flowcoaters to the part being manufactured.

.

.

and

consequently reduces the amount ofwaste from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste,

and personal protective equipment for workers.”

Id.

In addition, if Crownline would install an

oxidizer as a tail stack control it will increase the amount ofnatural gas used by Crownline and

concomitantly increase the amount ofNOx emitted from Crownline’s facility.

H.

Justification

—

Section 104.406(h)

Under Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (the “Act”), the Board may grant

an adjusted standard for persons who canjustify such an adjustment consistent with subsection

(a) ofSection 27 ofthe Act.

415 ILCS

5/28.1. -Moreover, if a regulation ofgeneral applicability

does not specify a level ofjustification 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 substantiallyand 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.

1.

Factors

Relating to Crownline are Substantially and Significantly Different

The factors relating to Crownline’s operations are substantially and significantly different

than the general factors relied upon by the Board in promulgating 35

IAC §215.301.

Rule

215.301

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, Crownline believes that the

factors primarily relied upon by the Board involved concerns about preventing ozone format-ion.

11

1346752.09

---

In fact, it appears that the main intent ofthe 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 ofthe 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 hournot to exceed more than once per year, 36 Fed. Reg. 22385 Nov.

25,

1971)

and to prevent local nuisances.

.

.

.

the major purpose ofthese regulations is for control of

photochemical oxidants.

In addition, odorcausing organic emissions were included if a

local odor nuisance exits.

.

.

these provisions are designed to require the use of

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 odornuisances from manufacturing

operations.

A review ofCrownline’s operations shows that the main purposes ofthis rule are not

furthered through its application to Crownline: first, as thoroughly discussed in Section ll.G. of

this petition, the daily amounts ofVOM emitted by Crownline’s operations have a negligible

impact on ambient ozone levels and would not cause a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS; and

second, Crownline has control technology in place to

ensure that its operations do not cause an

odornuisance.

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 peculiarto boat

building when adopting this rule.

There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherent or otherwise

necessary to Crownline’s operations that the Board did not consider (norcould it have) when it

adopted the 8 lb/hr Rule in 1971.

Not only are the factors relating to boat building significantly

different from most manufacturing operations which emit organic material, but emission data

from boat building was not even available to the Board until

after 1991.

The building ofa

fiberglass boat hull or deck 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 ofmaterials that emit VOMs) are ofa continuous nature or, are at least are

distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period.

For continuous or near-continuous operations, the

use ofemission controls, as provided by 35 JAC 215.302,

is economically feasible.

Due to the

large size ofthe parts (boat hulls and decks) and necessary batch-type sequence ofthe gelcoat

and resin application processes at Crownline, they are neither continuous nor evenly distributed

12

1346752.09

---

over a longer period oftime.

Additionally, the advent ofOSHA’s workerprotection 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) ofless than 100 ppm.

To

do so, Crownline had to

install a large ventilation system that exhausts approximately 654,000 cubic feet ofplant air

every minute.

This makes the use ofadd-on emission controls for Crownline’s operations

fiscally impractical.

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.

Because the Board could not (and did not) considerthese factors relating to Crownline’s

operations, Crownline 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 ll.E. ofthis petition, Crownline has investigated numerous

compliance alternatives that have proven to be neither economically nor technically feasible due

to the substantially different factors relating to

fiberglass boat manufacturing operations.

The

existence of these factors, coupled with IEPA’s endorsement ofCrownline’s efforts to

obtain an

adjusted standardjustifies the granting of an adjusted standard.

3.

The Requested Standard Will Not result

in

Adverse

Environmental or

Health

Effects.

As discussed previously in Section I1.G. ofthis petition, the requested adjusted standard

will have little, if any, adverse impact on the environment or health.

By complying with the

MACT, Crownline has replaced its atomized spray guns with flow-coat guns in its lamination

area and uses lower styrene content resins, thus reducing its VOM emissions and also

decreasing

the amount of solid and hazardous waste Crownline generates.

Even without these changes,

Crownline’s operations do not cause or contribute to

any ozone

exceedences in south-central

Illinois.

4.

The Proposed Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law

The granting ofthis proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law and will not

violate any provision ofthe federal Clean Air Act.

Specifically, there is no Clean AirAct

equivalent rule orregulation prohibiting boat manufacturers’

emissions oforganic material in

excess of 8 lbs/hr,

on a strict hourly basis.

Because Crownline is proposing to comply with the

new federal MACT forboat manufacturers as part of the adjusted standard, the proposed adjusted

standard is consistent with federal law.

Moreover, under federal law, the Board’s grant ofthis

adjusted standard will be submitted to U.S. EPA for inclusion in Illinois’

SIP.

It will thus

comport with federal procedural requirements.

13

1346752.09

---

I.

Consistency with Federal Law

—

Section

104.406(i)

See discussion immediately above.

J.

Hearing

—

Section 104.406(i)

Crownline requests a hearing in this matter.

K.

Supporting Document

—

Section 104.406(k)

The Technical Document and its Appendices are attached to this Petition.

ifi.

CONCLUSION

The requested adjusted standard should be granted as an alternative to Crownline’s

compliance with 35 IAC

§215.301.

To require Crownline to comply with the rule ofgeneral

applicability would result in substantial economic hardship to Crownline.

Moreover, it is

technically impractical for Crownline to

comply with the requirements ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule on a

strict hourly basis.

WHEREFORE,

Crownline Boats, Inc. respectfully requests an

adjusted standard from

35 IAC

§

215.301

as set forth herein.

Respectfully Submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:______________________

Dale A. Guariglia, M

Bar #3~~

One Metropolitan Square

211

North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Tel. (314) 259-2000

Fax. (314) 259-2020

Attorneys for Crownline Boats, Inc.

14

1346752.09

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Theundersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing petition was served upon the

following parties on the

L/J’~’dayof

‘~~s4~ç~

2003:

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph Street

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Division ofLegal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

DaleX. Guariglia

15

1346752.09

---

Due

to

the

volume

of this

please

contact

the

Clerk’s

Office

to

view

this

file.

---

k ECE

VED

CLERK’S

QFFTCF

DEC

5

2003

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~W

~

t-~TEOF

ILLINOIS

pollution

co~~~0j~8

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

oard

)

Petition of Crownline Boats, Inc.

)

AS-

()q

00

fot an Adjusted Standard from

)

(Adjusted Standard)

35

lAG

§

215.301

)

MOTION FOR ADMISSION

PRO

HAC

VICE

ON BEHALF OF CROWNLINE BOATS, 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 forAdmission

Pro Hac

I/ice

in this matter on behalf of Crownline Boats, 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 CAVE LLP

By:

_________

Dale A. Guariglia, Missouri Bar~’~98

One Metropolitan Square

211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO

63102-2750

Telephone:

(314) 259-2000

Telefax:

(314) 259-2020

Attorneys for Crownline Boats, Inc.

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned ce~ti~fies

that a copy of the foregoing motion was served upon the following

parties on the ~t~day

of

~—k~

~

,

2003:

JUinois 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

Dale A. Guanglia

---

RE CE

lIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

-

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution Control Board

Petition of Crownline Boats, Inc.

)

AS-.

0q ~

For

an Adjusted Standard from

)

(Adjusted Standard)

35 lAG

§

215.301

)

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

Crownline

Boats,

Inc.

(“Crownline”),

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, Crownline provides:

1.

Crownline

owns

a fiberglass

boat manufacturing

facility

at 11884

Country

Club

Road,

West Frankfort, Illinois.

2.

In keepingwith its desire to comply with applicable environmental regulations, Crownline

timely

submitted

its

application

for

a

Clean Air Act Permits Program

(CAAPP)

operating permit

from

the

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”).

Upon

review of the

draft CAAPP

permit prepared

by

IEPA,

Crownline

discovered

that

the

draft permit

did

not

clearly state

how

Crownline was

to demonstrate compliance with 35

JAG §215.301

(commonly known as the

“8 lb/hr

Rule”).

3.

Although Crownline had proposed to use a form of averaging emissions

to comply with

the 8 lb/hr Rule, IEPA

decided that Crownline could not use averaging to demonstrate compliance

and that Crownline would need to demonstrate compliance on a strict hourly basis.

4.

Crownline determined that, based on

JEPA’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.

5.

Crownline

met

with

IEPA

and

presented

evidence

demonstrating

why

requiring

Crownline’s

compliance with the

8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis is unreasonable

and showing

that compliance

on an

averaging basis would not cause any measurable negative impact on ambient

air quality

from the

amount of VOMs

Crownline’s

operations emit.

After

hearing and considering

the

information

presented

by

Crownline,

JEPA

agreed

that

applying

the

8

lb/hour

Rule

to

Crownline’s

operations

on

a strict

hourly

basis would indeed impose

an

unreasonable burden

and

encouraged Crownline to file a petition for an adjusted standard.

---

6.

On

November

13,

2003

IEPA

issued

Crownilne

a Title V CAAPP

Permit

and Title

I

Permit,

I.D. #

055070AAU,

(the “Title V Permit”).

The Title V Permit provides that Crownline is

to

obtain an

adjusted standard from

35

lAG §215.301

or demonstrate

compliance with §215.301

by

December 31, 2004.

7.

After

carefully

examining

its

options

for

add-on

controls

and/or

for

changing

manufacturing

methods/equipment

to

reduce

Grownline’s

levels

of

hourly

VOM

emissions,

Crownline

realized that

the

cost for

compliance

via

either

of these

options

will

neither

allow

the

Company to

remain competitive nor profitable.

Consequently, Crownline has

concluded to petition

the

Illinois Pollution Control Board for an adjusted

standard.

8.

Crownline believes

that its

proposed adjusted

standard is reasonable

in light of

the

fact

that

its

VOM

emissions

will

meet

the

emissions

limitations

of

U.S.

EPA’s

newly promulgated

National Emission Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing Facilities,

found

at 40

CFR

63

Subpart VVVV, and because its

proposal will not result in

adverse

environmental or

health effects.

9.

Crownline

believes

that

the

information

necessary

for

the

Board

to

proceed

with

its

review of this matter is

contained in Crownline’s petition.

If more information is needed, Crownline

will fully cooperate to expeditiously provide such information to the Board and its

hearing officer.

10.

This

motion

for expedited review

is

being

filed

at the

request of JEPA

and

to

allow

Crownline to be in compliance with the December 31, 2004 deadline in its Title V Permit.

11.

The undersigned attests that the facts contained in this Motion are true.

WHEREFORE,

Crownline

respectfully

requests

that

the

Board

grant

this

motion

and

expedite review of its petition for adjusted standard.

Respectfully submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:

_________

DaleA. Guariglia, Mis’sLuri B~’#32998

One Metropolitan Square

211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis,

Missouri 63102

Telephone:

(314) 259-2000

Telefax: (314) 259-2020

Attorneys for Grownline Boats, Inc.

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned c~tifiesthat a copy of the foregoing motion was served upon the following

parties

on the ~L~\day of

~)~-c.&’~\,

~a2-.j,

2003:

IJinois

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

Dale A.

Guariglia

---

CLERK~

V~)

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

0~CE

5

2Uo~

IN THE MKITER OF:

)

STAT~

~-OF’IL1’

~(

c

~-1Noj$

Petition of Crownline Boats, Inc.

)

AS-

OhltrolBoqrd

For an Adjusted Standard from

)

(Adjusted Standard)

35

JAG

~

215.301

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appear as

counsel for

petitioner Crownline Boats, Inc.

Motion for Admission

Pro

Hac Vice

is pending.

Respectfully submitted,

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:

__________

Dale A.

Guariglia, Missouri B~32998

One Metropolitan Square

211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2750

Telephone:

(314) 259-2000

Telefax:

(314) 259-2020

Attorneys for Crownline Boats, Inc.

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies th~t~copy

of the foregoing notice was served upon the

followingparties on the ~L±~’day

of

ç—t~.~t

v, 2003:

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

Dale A. Guariglia