:'.;

: J. . • .. '
. No:rrcE QfPETlTIOSIlY CROWNIWE 

# ,'.' .'**'Bofi:ji~figm ~:LfGil~~~t~Tltll:nD,'** 
, ',; :CONtROLBOARD , " .' CrQwnHne**:~;Q~~l~.** Inc.,**·wh.~th, man~factur~s** **·flb.~rglass boa.~!**  at**.itsJ~cmty:** at 118841 Country Club,**Ro~d.t·West**

·'Frankfort, m)JJoi,:·62896,' ha' filed a petition with the Illinois
.. Pollution " Control , ..**B'oard~.for** an.adjus'ted standard ori December.5, 2003 (Board Docket Number AS04·l) ,ee!dng an adjusted 'tandard from ·35: Ill. Adm, tode § 215.301 (Use of Organic Material.'

· otherwise known as the 8Iblhr'Rule).

· -Crownline 'proPoses. the following**ad~usted** standard**applica~le"** '10 its " fibergla.ss .boat' manufacturing

·**ope~~on.".:'purs\1ant** :to, the authority "underJ Section

.28;1 .of"'tne Env1ronin1mtal Protection Act;· the Board herebY:l,ldopts' the fo'llowing**~djtisted** standard. "This adjusted 'standard shilll. apply' 'solely 10 'Crownline: 'Boots, 

### mc:' ("Crow'ntile")." As: an {lltemative to' compliance Wiol', 35 iIAC. § 215.301, thi$,. pdjusted

.,**standar4.,.a1low~i',:~row.Ql~n~** to limil**,its·:;'~~~h.~8e** of**organic):m:At~rillr:inlo** '-,t,he almosphere: from**it~** boat**manuf~ciurlni~'operations by:,'co~plying**  ': with' the

National ,Emission Sfimdard' for' Hazardous '.**~ir** Pollutants for New and Existing, Boat, Manufacturing Paciiitie', 'et forth at 40 CFR §63Subpar!·vv.VV,'a, may bC amended in the futUJ¥," ' Any .person m",y cause a:·public'
..heari,:!g 10 -be**h~ld** in the, above-described adjuslj:d standar.d proceeding by filing "a hearing request .with :Ihe Illinois: Pollulion Control Board within'; 2:( days after. ,the ,·dale" 'of publication of this'**notic~.** The. hearing, request should

_

:elearly: -indicate Ole,::dOcket .,·number**Jor·~tht}':jl~.uP.t~d** '" standard'proceedinSi
.... fquhd in**thisnotice"'''''d;~»'t**

'. hemailedtothe;.CI.••**Ic1.~I**

### •.**t~e.BOai.d.lIiino\rFp.\ip~iln**

.Control**Board;.I¢,W;.,Randolph""treekSu'te::H;~.OO. ,.~** **'Chicago"Illill0i~,',6<>60f.** ,"**,.'~** ..**'~.,:'** ;:;

### >L~2~2,,12I!O; 

## 1.#;17;12124';
. STATE OF ILLINOIS} 

# C 

# 'f"
.. FRANKLIN COUNTY 55. 

# ertl.lcate ofPubhcatlOll
: THIS CERTIFIES that the annexed is 

### a true and exact printed .1 

### copy of a Notice which was published 'once each week for



# . --3 successive weeks in the DAILYAMERICANa Daily Newspaper ofgeneral circulation published in the City of West Frankfort, County ofFranklin and State ofIllinois. The Daily American is a newspaper as defined in Act--Chapter 100, 

### Section.s 1 

### and 5 

### Illinois Revised Statutes
.

The first publication ofthe said n.otice appeared in the said**~Y** 

### AMERICAN in the issue b.earing the date of /0**20~:** 

### and the last PublicatiC!n ofsaid
I

### n0:ti,e appeared in the issue ofsaid paper bearing date of ,JR' I 

### C<V'fuA • 

### ofj 20 

### 03 

### I hereby certify that I am Ihe publisher ofthe Daily American. and that Imake this certificate on behalfof**saidl1e~spaper.** 

### Dated at West Frankfort, Illinois This 

# /2

# t 6Q- 

### of 

## ;/Oec./ 20 

### 03' DAlLYAMERICAN, Publisher 

## ¥ n ) Pril1ter'sFee 

## /o<';l, /0 By.J.()67U::::::....:..::::

_ 

### •



### fi 

# g z p 

# II'J'EPAATTACHMENTNO.

AS 

# oLf-OV

# I
. (Adjusted Standard

-**Ai~)** ) )



### , 

### )

, )

) 

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTioN CONTROL**BOA~** 

## 222004 STATE OF ILUNOIS 

### pollution Control Board
. IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION OF CROWNLINEBOATS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED FROM
. 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301
NOTICE TO: Dorothy Gunn, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James 

### R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

.Chicago, lllinois 60601 Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 N. Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 Dale Guariglia Bryan Cave One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2750
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 TIlinois Environmental Protection Agency, 

### a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

. 

### . Date: January 20, 2004 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

### BY:~=","""S-::::-~--:-....p;.L:..--,'-7L--­ Charles E. Matoesi Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel ; 

### .,

. 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Spring field, IL 62794-9276 217/782-5544 THIS FILING IS SUBMmED ON RECYCLED PAPER

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE



## JAN 222004

AS 

# 04-{)01 (Adjusted Standard-Air) BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOA.R5TATE OF ILLINOIS Pollution Gontrol Board W THE MATTER OF: )' ) )

, )

, )

) PETITION OF CROWNLlNE BOATS, INC. FORAN ADmSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE215.301



### RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS EPA The TIlinois Environmental Protection Agency (''Illinois EPA'') hereby submits its recommendation 

### inthe above captioned matterpursuantto the regulations ofthePollution**Co~trol**

. Board ("Board'') at 35 

## m. Adm. Code Section 104.416. The llIinois EPA recommends that the

Board GRANT the petition ofCrownlineBoats,Inc:, subjectto the terms andC?nditions 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~:pursllant** to Section28.1 ofthe illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and the regulations ofthe Board at 35 TIl. Adm. Code Section 104.402. The Petition requests that the Board grant Crownline an adjusted standard from 35 TIL Adm.' Code

.Section215.301, theUse ofOrganicMaterialRille, betterknown as the "81blhrRule" as itapplies to the emissions of vola tile organicmaterial ("VOM") from Crownline's WestFrankfort, minois, boat manufacturing facility. The 8 Ib/hrRule states: No person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore 

### than 3.6 kglbr (8 Ibslhr) of
. organic material intothe atmosphere fromanyemissionsource, exceptasprovidedin Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 andthefollowing exception: 

### Ifno odornuisance exists the limitation ofthis Subpart shall apply only to photochemically reactive material. 

# l2, The Petition for Adjusted Standard stems from Crownline's request to use averaging to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule for VOM as set forth in its application for Clean Air Act Permit Program ("CAAPP") permit (no. 96030137) received by the IlIinois EPA on March 7, 1996. The request was followed by several meetings between'the parties during which Crownline presented evidence that it could notreasonably complywith the 8 Ib/hrRule on a stricthourlybasis, and that emissions averaging would result in no measurable negative impact onambient air quality. (pet. App. at 1). Afterreviewing the evidence, the lllinois EPA encouraged Crownline to file a Petition for an Adjusted Standard. This Petition covers the Crownline ge1coat and lamination areas, plus otherboatmanufacturing activities at the source. 3. On January 5, 2004, Crownline filed aProofofPublication of NoticewiththeBoardfor this Petition. The notice appeared in the West FrankfortDailyAmerican on December 10, 17, and 24, 2003. 4. Pursuantto 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.416, theillinois EPA is requiredto file aresponse to a Petition for Adjusted Standard within 45 days offiling. 

### DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY 5. The Crownline facilityis located inWestFrankfort, HancockCounty, Illinois. (pet. App. at 4). Crowuline employs approximately 500-600peopleinits facility andproduces approximately 15 to 20 fiberglass boats per day. Id. The Illinois EPA accepts Crowuline's description ofits facility andprocess and incorporates by'reference Section II. D ofthe current P·etition. 6. A new MACT standard for boat manufacturers becomes effective on August 23, 2004. 40 CPRPart 63, SubpartVVVV. Crownline is alreadyin compliance withthis newMACT standard.' (pet. App. at 6). To complywiththeMACT standard, Crownlinereplacedits airatomized

### guns with
. 2 

# (flow-coat guns in its lamination operation, introduced a lower Hazardous Air Pollutant ("HAP") contentresin (35% as compared to 42%), and switched to a gelcoat with aHAP content of33.4%:

, COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES 7. Crownline asserts in its Petition that its operationswerenot contemplatedbythe 8lb/hrRule, , which was established in 1971. ld. at 11, 12. CrO\vnline 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." ld. Moreover, fiberglass boatproductionis abatch-typeprocess involvingthe**appljcati~n** of layers of"skins" to 'aboat frame. ld. Because materials are not applied continuously, butratherin steps, YOM emissions arenot constant and even. Crowcline states that emission controls aremore economically feasible where processes are continuous. ld. 8. Finally, Crownline asserts the requirements ofOSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR 1910 prevent compliancewiththe 8lb/hrRule. ld. at 13. OSHArules requireworkplaces that emit styrene to "maintain an in-plantworkareaatmosphere
...ofless than 100ppm." ld. Crownline has thus installed a ventilation system "that exhausts approximately 654,000 cubic feet ofplant 

### air every minute." ld. Because ofthe enonnous rate of

### air transfer, Crownline asserts that add-on emissioncontrols are fiscallyimpractical. ld
.. Crownlinefurtherasserts thattheBoardin 1971 could not have possibly anticipated the promulgation ofthe OSHA rules. ld. 9. Crownline obtained the services ofAdvance Environmental Associates, LLC ("ABA"), to
assess the technical and economic feasibility ofcompliance aitematives. ld. at 6. The alternatives considered were "(1) reducingYOM contentinproductionmaterials; (2) using alternativeoperating procedures and methods; and (3) installing end-of-the-pipe emission control technologies." ld. 

### 3

### Crownline claims that other than end-of-the-pipe emission controls, "many ofthe alternatives investigatedwould not allow itto complywith the 81blhrRule on a stricthourlybasis." Id. Further, Crownline declares thatitcouldnotideptify any compliance alternatives to reduce YOM emissions from the use ofadhesives, laquer and caulks. IeL
. 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 inSection4.3 ofthe TechnicalDocument in Supportof a Pet!tion By Crownline Boats, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard ("Technical Document") appended to the Petition. Id. In 

### Crownline's estimation, themainreasonfor thesehighcostsis theventilation 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") consideredwas thatwithonepartial exception, no boatmanufactureruses tailstackemissioncontrol technologies to reduce HAP emissions. Id. at 7. 11. Crownline also investigated alternative productionmethods 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." Id. 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 altematives were all found to be technologically or economically impractical and explains its reasoning in Section 4.2 ofthe TechnicalDocument. rd. 12. Crownline has 

### already reduced YOM concentration in its production materials in order to . 

### 4comply with the forthcoming MACT standard. Id. Compliance with the MACT does not yield compliancewith the 8 Iblhr Rule.· Crownline states that reduction ofstyrene in the resins, beyond that required by the MACT, is not technically feasible while maintaining product integrity. Id. 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 YOM emissions from Crownline'sproduction facilityinWestFrankfort, lllinois. Theillinois EPA recommends that the Board GRANT Crownline's petition, and requests that the Board a!low Crownlineto operateitsboatproduction facility so long as itcomplies withthe following conditions:


### a Crownline shall operate 

### in full compliancewiththeNationalEITI!ssionStandards for Hazardous AirPollutants forNew and Existing BoatManufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR Section 63 SubpartVVVV, as may be amended in the future. b. Operationin full compliancewiththeNationalEmission StandardforHazardous Air Pollutants for New.and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR Section 63

- . 

### . . SubpartVVVV, asmaybe amendedinthe future, shallbe inlieuofcompliancewiththe 81blhrRule found at 35 

### TIl. Adm. Code Section 215.301.
c. Crownline shall continue to investigate boat production methods with a reduced YOM content and, where practicable, shall substitute current coatings with lower YOM content coatings as long as such substitutiondoes notresultin anet increaseinVOMemissions. Crownline shall be required to do any test which the illinois EPA speci.6.caIlyrecommends that they do. An armual report summarizing the activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts shallbeprepared
. by Crownline and submitted to the lllinois EPA Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement 5 it

# ·

.

Section. d.. The reliefgranted 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 lllinois Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not otherwise discussed herein. 

### ENVIRON1l1ENTAL IMPACT 14. Crownline estimates that at its currentproduction rate of15 to 20 boats per day, its fac.ility will emit approximately 200 tons/yr ofVOM ifit complies withthe forthcoming MACT. Id.at 10. Compliance with the 8 lb/hrRule would yield an expected 144 tons ofVOM**ba~ed** upon estimated 2003 production data. Id. Compliancewithneitherthe MACT nor the 8 1b/hrRule would yield an estimated 245 tons/yr ofVOM emissions for similarproduction figures. Id.· 15. ABAprepared anAmbient

### Air QualityImpactAnalysis which estimatedCrowuline;s impact
on ozone formatio)) in south central illinois. Id. at 9. Discussed iIi detail in Section 5 ofthe Technical Document, the analysis showed that the potential impact from Cromwell's operations would not cause an ozone concentration at the nearest monitor (Dale, lllinois-25 miles distant) in
excess ofthe NAAQS of0.12 ppm. Id. at 9,10. The illinois EPA does not dispute this analysis. 16. In addition, Crownline presents avalidpointwhen itstates that ifit could somehow capture YOM emissions and release them uniformly, ratherthan in bursts, it could comply

### withthe 8 Th/hr Rule while not reducing emissions at all. Id. at 10. 

### 17. Crownline asserts that no cross-mediaimpact is expected from the granting of the adjusted standard. Id. at 11. 

### 618.
.Considered together, the batch process nature of the business which produces YOM 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**~tandard** for, Crownline. STANDARD OF REVIEW 19. Section 28.1 ofthe Act states that the Board may grant individual adjusted standards from rules of general applicability whenever the Board determines that an applicant canjustif'y an adjustment. 

### In adopting a rule of general applicability, the Board may specif'y the 'level of justificationrequired ofa petitionerfor an adjusted standard. 

### Ifa rule ofgeneraJ applicability does not contain a level of justification that the petitioner must meet to obtain an adjusted standard, the requirements ofSection 28.1 (c) ofthe Act apply. Section 28.1 (c) states that the Board may grant individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines that: (l) - .
(2) (3)
(4) Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and sufficiently different from the factors relieduponbythe Boardin adopting the general regulations

- applicable to that petitioner; The existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; The requested standard will not result in enviromnental or health effects substantially and sufficientlymore adverse thanthe effectsconsideredbytheBoard in adopting the nile ofgeneral applicability; and The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 20. The

### ~egulation ofgeneral applicabilityfromwhich CrciWIiline seeks an adjusted standard, 35 

### llI. Adm. Code Section215.301, does not specif'yalevel of justificationthat Crownlinemustsatisf'y to obtain an adjusted standard. Therefore, Crownlinemust satisf'ythe level of justificationset forth


### 7in Section 28.l(c) of the Act. As summarized below, the requested adjusted standard for Crownline's boat production operations isjustified. 21. The illinois EPA agrees with Crownline's.analysis of the justification for its proposed 

### , Adjusted Standard as set forth inSection

### n.B ofthePetition, andherebyincorporates tliatsectionby, reference. The 8 lblhr Rule at Section 215.301 simply did not anticipate the type ofoperation Crownline maintains. Unlike many other manufacturers, Crownline emits YOM in spurts as it applies a "skin" to the boat frame. What is more, reasonable alternative emission control' technologies eitherdo not result in compliance withthe 8 lblhrRule or areprohibitively**expe~ive** due in no small partto 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'1 10 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7410, which grants the individual states the authorityto promulgate

# a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofairquality standards, subjectto approval byUSEP 

### A. Pursuantto federal law,**st~tes** also have the authorityto revise such aplan, subject to USEPA approval. By following its adjusted standardprocedurewith 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 ofthe Clean 

### Air Act. 

### Ifthe requested adjusted standard is adopted bytheBoard, illinois EPAhas 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.



### 8WHEREFORE, the Illinois EPA recommends that Crownline's Petition for Adjusted Standard be GRANTED, and an orderbe entered adopting the adjusted standard with the specific langJIage presented 

### in this Recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

1020 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, lllinois 627949276 (217)782-5544 (217)782-9807 Facsimile ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY By'.:::;·

### ~==----"'=''''7-''<:­ Charles E. Mato Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

9 

# iI :I

, I



# I

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE



## JAN 

## 222004

AS 

# O+--oo[ (Adjusted Standard

- Air) BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION**CONTRrS1iI~~ILLINOIS**


### . ''P6! ution Control Board INTHEMAITEROF: ) ) )

, )

, 

### ) PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301

APPEARANCE I hereby file my Appearance in this proceeding, on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: January 20, 2004 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, illinois 62794-9276 217/782-5544 THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPERSTATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SANGAMON )
PROOF OF SERVICE 

### , I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have seIVed the attached Recommendation ofthe Illinois EPA lind an ApjJearance upon the person to whom.it is directed, byplacing it in an envelope addressed to: TO: Dorothy

### dunn, Clerk llIinois Pollution Control Board James 

### R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11·500 Chicago, llIinois 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, llIinois**62794~9276**

and mailing itby First Class Mail from Springfield, illinois on January 20,2004, with sufficient postage affixed.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 20th day ofJanuary, 2004

t--:·o:··:··:··:··:··:··:··:·,y·;··;··:··:·**~:**..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..: ..:-:. S· OFFICIAL SEAL
. 

### :i:**~:** BRENDA BOEHNEr. :;. :,: NOTARY PUBUC. STATE OF ILLINOIS .;-**~:MY** COMMISSION EXPIRE. 1)-14-2005:;**':":":":":":":":":":":":":":"~""""'"** 

### ..:

### ..:

# ..:

# ..**:~'**

## L IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.

# J

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD February 5, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. ) FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ), 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ) ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas): AS 04-01 (Adjusted Standard)

On December 5, 2003, Crownline Boats, Inc. (Crownline) filed a petition for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301, commonly known as the "8Ib/hrRule," as that Board regulation pertains to the emissions ofvolatile organic material (VOM) at CrownIine's West Frankfort, Illinois boat manufacturing facility. Crownline's facility is located at 11884 Country Club Road, West Frankfort, Franklin County. In the petition, CrownIine requests a hearing in this matter. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation that the Board grant CrownIine's petition on January 22, 2004. As discussed below, the Board accepts CrownIine's petition for hearing. Accompanying the petition, CrownIine filed a motion for expedited review in this matter. Crownline asserts that the Agency recently issued CrownIine a Title V CAAPP Permit and Title I Permit, requiring CrownIine either to obtain an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 or demonstrate compliance with that section by December 31, 2004. The Board grants CrownIine's motion for expedited review. Also on December 5, 2003, Dale A. Guariglia filed a motion requesting permission to appearpro hac vice on behalfofpetitioner in 

### this proceeding in accordance with Section 101.400(a)(3). 35·m. Adm. Code 101.400(a)(3). 

### Mr. Guariglia is a member in good standing. and admitted to practice in the State ofMissouri. The Board grants

### Mr. Guariglia's motion to appearpro hac vice. Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2002» imd 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408 require publication ofa notice ofan adjusted standard proceeding in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the area affected by the petitioner's activity. The notice must be published within 14 days offiling a petition for an adjusted standard with the Board. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a). As required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.410, CrownIine timely filed a certificate ofpublication with the Board, postmarked December 30,2003, indicating that notice ofthe petition was published in the West FrankfortDailyAmerican on December 10, 17, and 24, 2003. The Board finds that the notice meets the requirements ofSection 28.1 ofthe Act and Section 104.408 ofthe Board's procedural rules. The Board also finds the petition meets the petition content requirements ofthe Board's procedural rules, and accepts this matterfor hearing. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406. A hearing is to be scheduled and completed in a timely manner. The assigned hearing officer must inform the Clerk ofthe Board ofthe time and location ofthe2 hearing at least 40 days in advance ofhearing so that a 30-day public notice ofhearing may be published. CONCLUSION The Board grants Crownline's motion for expedited review, grants Mr. Guariglia's motion to appearpro hac vice, and accepts Crownli,ne's petition for hearing. IT 

### IS SO ORDERED. I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certifY that the Board adopted the above order on February 5, 2004, by a vote of4-0. 

# d1"7AL
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control BoardIEPAATTACHMENT

# ~o, 

# 5 ' 17'···...,. "." -::.**:~**

Ci_;2:-;'i{;I.:t,**Vj~r';IC:'::** 

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO!\TROL BOARD February 6, 2004 

### IN THE MATTER OF:
. ) ) 

### PETITION OF CROWLINE BOATS, 

### INC, ) FOR AN ADJUSTED ST

### MillARD FROM 

### 35) , ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ) , AS 04-01 (Adjusted Standard) 

# FEB 62004 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Pollution Control Board

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 ofthe Board in this matter must also be served individually on the hearing officer. The parties are directed to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer at 9:30 a.m, on February 17, 2004, The telephone status conference will be initiated by the complainant. The parties shall be prepared to 

### discuss the status ofthis matter. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED,

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer
. Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Ayenue East P.O. Box 19274
. Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb.state.il.us2 

### CERTfFfCATE OF SERVICE It 

### is hereby certified that tme copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, to each ofthe following on February 6,2004: Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Charles E. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel IEPA, Division ofLegal Counsel 

### , . 

### 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 It 

### is her:eby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on Febmary 6, 2004: Dorothy M. Gunn Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509
. sudmanc@ipcb.state.il.us

# .' IEPA ATTACHMENTNO.

# Jz..-

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215301 ) )
, )

, )

) AS-2004-001 (Adjusted Standard

- Air)

CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.'S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS EPA Crownline Boats, Inc. ("Crownline"), hereby submits.its Response to the Recommendation ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") filed in this case on or aboutJanuary' 20, 2004. This Response is filed pursuant to the regulations ofthe Pollution Control Board ("Board'') , at 35 Ill. Adm, Code 

### § 104-416.
The Recommendation filed by the IEPA reco=ended that the Board gtant Crownline's Petition for an Adjusted Standard subject to certain tenns and conditions set forth in IEPA's Recommendation, Although Crownline welcomes IEPA's recommendation that the Adjusted Standard Petition be gtanted, Crownline objects to one ofthe tenns and conditions contained within IEPA's Recommendation. In Paragtaph 13c ofIEPA's Recommendation, IEPA recommends that the Board gtant Crownline's Petition with the condition that "Crownline shall be required to do any test which the Illinois EPA specifically recommends that they do." This recommended condition is vague and overly broad. The condition does not specify what type oftests IEP A may request Crownline to conduct, the scope ofsuch tests, nor how often such tests can be requested. Crownline opposes this broad authority \vithout limits, In an attempt to reach a resolution onthis, Crownline and IEPA have begun discussions regarding this recommendAMe

# tVe D I ni\tlsion of**~enal** 

### Counsel working together in an effort to agtee upon compromise language. tTs CroWiiline s hope that'pnor 

## FEB 062004 Environmental Protection Agencyto the expected hearing on its Adjusted Standard Petition, Crownline and IEPA will reach an agreement as to the conditions which would be acceptable to both IEPA and Crownline. 

### WHEREFORE, Crownline requests that the Board grant Crownline's Petition for an Adjusted Standard but without the condition allowu;g IEPA to require Crownline to perform tests. Respectfully Submitted, BRYAN CAVELLP

# BY:~vZ~Y~~ D kAGuariglia, MO B

# t:f3F
. 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.

1767309.1 2STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SANGAMON )
PROOF OF SERVICE

, I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached Response ofC;rownline Boats, Inc. upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing it in an envelope addressed to:
TO:
.Dorothy Gunn, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illi.llOis 60601 Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division oftegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 102 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue, East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 6279+-9276

and mailing it by First

## Cla~s Mail from St. Louis, Missouri on Februartf!-, 2004, with sufficient· postage affixed.

# Y1~f9% Dale A. Guariglia, Esq.

1767309.1 3ILU;-';OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD February 17, 2004 IEPA ATTACHMENT:NO.l 

### RECEJVE!I:I

CLERK'S OFFICE



## FEB 17 2004 STATE OF ILLINOIS Pollution Control Board IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OF CRO\VLlNE BOATS. INC. ) FOR AN ADJUS"(ED STANDARD FROM 35 ) ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 

# 1 AS 04-01 (Adj Llsted Standard)


### HEARING OFFICER ORDER After several discussions this week, the hearing date was changed to April 23, 2004. The parties are reminded to participate in a telephone status conference with the hearing officer at 10:00 a.m. on April I, 2004. The telephone status conference will be initiated by the complainant. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the status of this matter. IT IS 

### 50 ORDERED.

Carol 5udman Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois '62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb.state.il.us**~'"""'=';\!7=** .



### .. .

### b~tb,~I)J~D DIvision of LpG'>' r"nl 

### ...,..... 'V:...unsei 

## FEB 

## 18**200~** Environmentai 

### Protection' AgencyCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, to each ofthe following on "February 17,2004: Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Charles E. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel IEPA, Division ofLegal Counsel 10:'21 North GrandAvenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on February 17, 2004: Dorothy lvl. Gunn Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson,Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Sudman Hearing 0 fficer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb.state.il.llsILLINOIS POLLUTION COT\TROL BOARD February 17,2004 IEPA ATTACHMENT

# NO:~ IAECEJVED

CLERK'S OF;=ICS



## FEB j 

## 7**200~** STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Pollution Control Boarj IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) PETITION OF CROWUNE BOATS, INC. ) FOR AN ADJUSTED STAi-mARD FROM 35 )

## , ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ), AS 04-01

.(Adjusted Standard)
NOTICE OF HEARING A hearing in the above-captioned matter is scheduled and will be held in accordance \\'itll
. the following schedule: DATE: 

### TIME: PLACE: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:00 p.m. City Hall Council Room 20I E. Nolen Street West Frankfort, Illinois



# \

\ The hearing is open to the public. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illinois PollutionControl Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb.state.iI.us

## RlECE~Vf2:D Division of L002 1 

### Counsel 

## FEB 18**20C~** III**~·,~T'i"·!j':llL-:** W,!J; til;: :\:,l\:ri;':<lI\' \'.jt!1 DISliliiiu,_, :\." .1', ';J:**:I~~r:li~·~~::~~.~e~~,::~,il.r.~.l.~~~'t-:jtrnvi'tdnthe)ltat :P"(9t~9.~~9.n~':,,·,;·** **·.,'il~\ d,~,.pi:!::~·\.**  p:,\(ln.' 1\:{ju:r:I:J; :lu:;ili:lf)" :,Id, ;1"/
.. ' ',' ·(t.,
..... )
.. ,,,_, C-,r,-
.. l/ ',).1,.11, t'L,
.. " ,,,',_ ;., ·,-10. '. 11.'11 \)1,;, {'b
...... ,. - '\,**Sllit~:** . ' )IJlJ. {:liic';I':",**1l!lIil~l,. {)~!(I(**  (l. ;\{**<.ch':i~i!,** .r:-.: lr : : 2·
... ·1 UH l. t;\\**Ilt;m:~f** 3 i 2iS: -\.-J(,("I; ,'f ;!

## oJAgenay:S i**-H(I)_~:.** (i·**-~** ;'.!. ' p.-illf t,-**J.l:~' Il~',(ril(g.** 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hcrcby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order wcrc mailed, first class, to each ofthe folkm'ing on February 17,2004: Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Charles E. Matoesian. Assistant Counsel lEPA, Division of Legal Counsel 1021 North Grand Avenue East· P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was handdelivered to the following on Febnrary 17, 2004: Dorothy [\1. Gunn 1I1inois Pollution Control Board James R. ThompsonCenter 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, lIIinois 60601

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sUdmanc@ipcb.state.il.usIEPAATTACHMENT NO. 

### RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

HEARING OFFICER ORDER ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD April 6, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF:
. ) ) PETITION OF CROWNLlNE BOATS, INC. ) FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35) ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 . ) 

## , AS 04-0 I (Adjusted Standard) 

## APR - 62004 STATE OF ILLINOIS Pollution Control Board 

# RECEIVED Division of Legal Coun 

## APR 

# U 7 2004 Environmental Protec On April 1, 2004, the parties participated in a telephone status conference with the 

## Agency hearing officer. To facilitate the Board's decision on this adjusted standard, petitioner should be prepared to allswer the following questions at the hearing set for April 23, 2004. AS 2004-1 Crownline Boat. Inc. 35 lAC 104.406 (e) I. In the Fedenil Register, the United States Environrnental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates there are approximately I 19 existing facilities that \vill be subject to the Federal mle 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart VVVV. Annual compliance costs for all existing facilities were estimated at $ 14 million. This included capital, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs (66 FR 44222). Petition at S notes that USEPA estimates that complying with 40 C.F.R. Subpart VVVV will cost 54,060/ton of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) reduced/year. USEPA also**~stimated** the capital costs for new equipment:

• Resin Application Equipment (flowcoaters): $6000/unit
• Adhesive application Equipment: $6000/unit
• Resin and Gel Coat Mixer Covers: $ ISO/container (66 FR 44222) (a) Would you please quantify the costs Crownline has spent on replacing the atomized spray guns with flow-coat guns and switching to a lower styrene**resin~** Crownline has already made the change in:the lamination process. Does Crownline consider switching to flow-coat guns in the gel coat process an alternative as well? (b) What other costs have Crownline incurred to meet the Federal mle? (c) Has Crownline estimated the additional compliance costs associated with monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting?2 2. Petition at 2 (Pet. at 2) states, "Crownline took steps early to comply with the [Federal] Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and came into compliance with the MACT emission limits more that a year prior to the deadline." Pet. at 2. Furthur down on that same page; the petition states that the costs to install tail-stack controls to comply with the Slb/hr Rule would range from approximately 57 million to 514 million and that "this equates to approximately 53),000 to 558,000 per ton ofpollutant removed on top of the costs Crownline \viI! have to incur to comply with the newly promulgated MACT standard" (emphasis added). Pet. at 2. ' (a) Would you please clarify whether Crownline has already incurred costs to come into compliance with the Federal standardry Ifso, what was the cost incurred to comply with the Federal standard? Does Crownline expect to incur additional costsry (b)
. Could you please calculate a total cost/ton HAP reduced/year that Crownline will incur as a result ofcomplying with 40 C.F.R. Subpart VVVV. 35 lAC 104.406 (f) 3. Petition at 2 states, "Crownline took steps early to comply with the MACT and came into compliance with the MACT emission limits more than a year prior to the deadline." Pet. at 2. (a) Could you please indicate ifCrownline has made a demonstration ofcompliance with the new NESHAP regulations under 40 C.F.R. Part 64 Subpart VVVV to USEPA yetry Did USEPA respond to the compliance'demonstration, and ifso, howry (b) Since Crownline is proposing replacing the I-hour a.veraging time under the 8 lb/hr rule, would you please describe over what time period emissions will be averaged under 40 C.F.R. Subpart VVVV? Since the boat-building process takes an av;rage of22 days, would it be technically feasible and economically: reasonable to average emissions on a I-day, 7-day or 30-day rolling average instead ofa 12-month rolling average? Would this help to more closely monitor the daily and seasonal impact ofthe emissions that the I-hour averaging required under the S lb/hr rule? 4. Petition at 3 quotes the definition of"emission source" from 35 lAC 201.102 as "any equipment or facility ofa type capable ofemitting spe.cified air contaminants to the atmosphere." The Petition's Technical Document in Appendix 5 is a letter from· Crownline's environmental consultant to lEPA seeking to resolve the issue ofproperly defining the term "emission source" for purposes ofapplying the S lb/hr rule. (a) Could you please explain how Crownline is regulated under 35 lAC 215.301 in the context ofthe definition of"emission source." Is the whole facility regulated as one source or do individual sources exist within the facility that are regulated3

as separate sources? Could you please identify the indi vidual emission source(s) at Crownline regulated under 35 lAC 215.301? Is each boat line or model line considered an emission**source~** Is the process ofbuilding each boat considered an emission source? Is each spray gun considered an emission**source~** (b) The lIlinois Environmental Protection Agency's (Agency) recommendation (1- 22-04) included one condition relating to testing which Crownline found vague and overly broad. In Crownline's Response to the Recommendation ofthe Agency, Crownline suggests the t,,:o parties might reach a compromise on this language in time for hearing. Could you please provide an update on this? 35 lAC 104.406 (g) 5. The Technical Document prepared by Advance Environmental Associates (AEA) on page 7 states, "Estimates ofhourly Volative Organic Materials (VOM) emissions from Crownline's gelcoat and lamination operations in compliance with the MACT are set forth in Exhibit 4 ofAppendix 6." However, Exhibit 40fAppendix 6 seems to sho\y the annual total emissions in tons per year (tpy) rather than estimates ofthe total emissions onan hoqrly basis in pounds per hour (Ib/hr). Appendix 7 shows estimates ofhourly YOM emissions (lb/hr), but only from the caulking, adhesive and lacquer operations. (a) Could you please provide data in a fomlat similar to Appendix 7 in Iblhr for the gelcoat and lamination operations for the sake ofcomparison to the 8 Iblhr**nIle~** (b) Appendix 8 ofthe Technical Document contains a table entitled "Crownline Small Part Usage in Pounds ofMaterial; MACT Compliance Scenario." Could you please specify the units ofmeasurement for each column in the table? 6. The Federal NESHAP regulations at 40 C.F.R. 63.5698 pro,YiCle a fom1Ula to calculate the HAP emission limit based on a 12-month rolling average. (a) Would you please identify Crownline's HAP Emission Limit per40 C.F.R. 63.5698 and show how Crownline calculated it. 7. Pet. at 2 references USEPA's discussion ofthe National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Boat Manufacturing in the Federal Register (66 FR 44222). Referring to the Federal Register discussion, USEPA provides the following figures: :

• Existing facilities: 119
• -Rate ofgrowth: 5 facilities/year for next 5 years
• 1997 baseline emissions: 9920 tpy
• NESHAP reductions: 3450 tpy • % total reduction in HAP: 35%
• Total Annual Compliance Costs: $14 million
• Annual Costs: $4060 / ton HAP reduced4



### • Capital costs: o Resin application equipment: $6000/unit o 

### Adhesive application equipment: $6000/unit o 

### Resin and gel coat mixer covers: $180/year/container (66 FR 44222) 

### Based on these figures, the following**aver~ges** 

### can be calculated:

• 1997 baseline emissions: 9920 tpy/l19 facilities = 

### 83.4 tpy/tacility
• NESHAP emissions reductions: (9920-3450 tpy)/l19 facilities 

### = 54.4 

### tpy/facility
• Annual Compliance Costs: $14 million I 

### 119 facilities = 

### $117,647 'facility • % total reduction in 

### HAP: 35% (a) Could you please make a relative comparison ofCrownline's figures to the averages calculated above:
1. 

### How do Crownline's 2003 Pre-MACT emissions compare to the average ofthe facilities as depicted above?
II. 

### How do Crownline's proposed NESHAP emissions reductions compare to the average ofthe facilities above?
111. 

### How do Crownline's annual compliance costs compare with the average ofthe facilities above?
IV. 

### How does Crown1ine's annual cost ofreduced HAP compare to the U,sEPA figure of$4060/ton?
v. 

### Comparing the Pre-MACT Scenario to the MACT Siandard Compliance Scenario presented as Exhibits 3 and 4 in Appendix 6 ofthe Technical Document, would you please estimate the % reduction in total HAP emissions. Comparing the Pre-MACT Scenario to the 

### 8 lblhr Compliance Scenario presented in Exhibits 3 and 5, would you please estimate the % reduction in total 

### HAP emissions. Would you please compare these percentage reduction figures to the 35% overall figure that USEPA estimated? Ifthe percentage reduction proposed by Crownline for this adjusted standard is less than 35%, are there additional measures Crownline could take to improve its reduction to more closely approach the 35%? Ifyou are familiar with other affected facilities in the boat 'manufacturing industry, could you please comment on how closely their reductions approach USEPA's anticipated overall percent reduction of 35%? (b) IfCrownline were to experience a growth in production, could you please comment on how such growth would affect the YOM emissions:5

I. Could you please estimate on an hourly and annual basis how potential growth would affect YOM emissions in comparison to the data provided for-the 2003 production year? For example, would Crownline add new production lines? Increase hours/day ofproduction" Build a new facility?
II. By estimating a larger figure to represent potential increased YOM emissions 5 to 10 years in t'he future, how would the Ozone Impact Analysis conducted by AEA change in showing an exceedence at the loc,al 

### air monitor? . Ill. Would such potential increased YOM emissions from Crownline's operations require the Agency to return to USEPA for another State Implementation Plan revision? IT IS SO ORDERED.

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, IIIinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sUdmanc@ipcb.state.il.us6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on April 6, 2004, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand d,elivered to the following on April 6, 2004: ' ' Dorothy M, GUM Illinois Pollution Control Board James K Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 

### II-SOD Chicago, Illinois 6060

### I

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021.:North Grand Avenue East P.O, Box 19274 Springfield, Illi110is 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb,state,il.us. [PCB servicelabels.asp

AS 2004-001 

### • IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

AS 2004-001 Dale A. Guariglia Bryan Cave, LLP One Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 AS 2004-001 Charles E. Matoesian IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Page rof 1" IEPA ATTACHMENT NO
.

## .JQ. RECEIVED

CLECiK'S OFFICE. 

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD April 26, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) 

### PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. ) FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ) 

## , ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 ) , AS 04-01. (Adjusted Standard) ,lOR 

# 0, 2004
• ;""\1 It. ... STATE OF ILLINOIS Pollution Control Board



### HEARING REPORT On April 23, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held at City Hall in West Frankfort, Franklin, County. Attorney Dale Guariglia appeared on behalfofthe petitioner. Attorney Charles Matosian appeared on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Witness Credibilitv Three witnesses testified during the hearing: Mr. 

### James Claxton Mr. Dale Guariglia Mr. Andrew Polcyn Based upon my legaljudgment, experience, and observations at hearing, I find that the

. credibility ofwitness is not an issue in this'matter. Exhibits

• > 

### The petitioner offered 8 exhibits as evidence at hearing. An exhibit list itemizing the offered exhibits and summarizing their status is attached to this order. Briefing Schedule The complete transcript is due May 5,2004, and the public comment deadline is May 20, 2004. The parties briefs are due May 14, 2004. The mailbox rule will apply. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

# RECEIVED DiVisIon of Legal Counsel 

## APR 27 200li 

## environmental Protection Agency

### 2

Carol Sudman Hearing Officer Illil10is Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc(@'ipcb.state.il.us.'

AS 04-1 

### 3

Exhibit List 

### Exhibit Description Status Petitioner's Exhibit #1 Responses 

### to Board questions in hearing Admitted officer order dated April 6, 2004 Petitioner's Exhibit #2 Comparison ofVOM emissions vs. Ozone Admitted' impact Petitioner's Exhibit #3 Outline ofpetitioner's presentation Admitted Petitioner's Exhibits #4-8 Demonstrative photographs ofpetitioner's Admitted operations4 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It 

### is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on April 26, 2004, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list.

. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on April 26, 2004:' Dorothy M. Guim Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060 I



### Carol Sudrnan Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 217/524-8509 sudmanc@ipcb.state.iLusPage I of 1

### ~'inrnr~-ir£~

Stat Declsloo Due:

Charles' E;'Ma(oesl,,-n;AsslstantCounsel,' 314/259-2000 314/259-2020 Case Name: In the Hati:er of:**P~titlon** of Crownlln..:: BO:its, Inc. rOr an AdJust<ed "Standud from 35 lAC Section 215.301 Board Members: t-1e!,3s, N.J.; Hearing Officers: Sudman, C.; Status Report Track

• 

# lOne Metropolitan Square St. Louis 211 North Broadway, Suite MO 63102-2750 13600 case No: AS**~004-001** Case Tyoe: AajUSt.e-d Standard MedIa Type: Air Fr<!nklln Date FlIgd: 1215/2003

Bryan Cave, LlP Petitioner Dale A. Guariglia