# I**1EI'tt~1lQ.-**

December 4, 2003
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Dorothy Gunn Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board 100West Randolph Street Chicago, illinois 60601-3218 Re: Petition for Adjusted Standard Dl.leGuuiglU**D~"c** (314)259-= daguuigli:1@bryancave.com

Bryan C2I'I'e llP One**M~tropoli!"n** Square 211 North Bro2ldway Suite 3600 51. louis. MO 63102·2750 Tel (314) 259·2000 Fax (314) 259-2020 ww·......bryancave.com**Chic~go** Hong Kong

, Dear Ms. Gunn:

Enclosedplease find the following documents printed onrecycled paper:

• Check in the amount of$75 payable to the Illinois Pollution Control Board for the petition filing fee;

• Notice ofAppearance (original plus 4 copies);

• Motion forAdmission 

### Pro Hac Vice (original plus 4 copies);

• Motion for Expedited Review.(originaJ plus 4 copies); and

• An original and 9 copies of Crownline Boats, Inc.'s Petition for Adjusted Standard and the TechnicalDocumentin Support Also, we have enclosed an additional copy of the petition and a self-addressed stamped envelope so that you may retum a file-stamped copy ofthe petition to our office. Thankyou foryour attention to this matter. Irvine Jefferson City Kansas City Kuwait los Angeles New York Phoenix RiY2ldh Shanghai Sllouis United Arab EmiratasjDubai) Washington.OC AndBryan Cave. AMultin8tionalPartnership, london

Sincerely,

# U~ /J. Dale Guariglia Enclosures cc: Guy Coons Andy Polcyn$75;00

, -: .... CHECK NO. 

### 556130 CHECK DATE 12101/03.

VOID9Q DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE

.- ; '. :-:-:.;. Bryan Cave Operating Account eat

....ot America, N.A. Cr.e Bank ct America Plaza SL lCl.:is, MO 63101 I :-r '1-**7~'·'°rrO"-rtr** ,O,I,S_.,O"o ,.••••." m," "II1T'·'''·' wf**~··"F"~1** ., .. I" '2.-'- V .,ups··""f'·"'2'·'·!"T

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

### BRYAN CAVE LLP

SEVENTY-FIVE AND 001100 Dollars One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway

. St Louis, MO 63102-2750 (314) 259·2000

TOniE ORDER**~o** 

# f ! i 

## i i I I I ! i I j 1 PAY 

### , ; 

### , 

# I 

# I !**,~ .::"~=""'='.::~=A.::=",_="-=,,,,,,,,"="O,-,,.::,",,,,-=.::,,,,,,=~,,,,,,,,,.=<CR=~:O~"~"'"""_··_**  Ii' 

### 5 5 b :I 

### 0 II'

BRYAN CAVE LLP 12101/03 CHECK NO. 556130

VOUCHER # INV.DATE INVOICE NO. DiOSCRIPTION . AMOUNT 135708 12-01-2003 0126211 12/1 Fee to file petition 75.00**.~**

,

.. .r: ,

- 

# ;)975 . TOTAL: 75.00

VENDOR: #1 Illinois Pollution Control Board

.**:.~:** .BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofCrownline Boats,Inc. For an Adjusted Standard from 35 IAC 

### § 215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS- (Adjusted Standard)
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 liP By: DaleA. Guariglia, Missouri B 32998 One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, lvlissouri 63102-2750 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Telefax: (314) 259-2020 Attorneys for Crownline Boats, Inc.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. The undersigned certifies**th~** copy ofthe foregoing notice was served upon the followmg patties on the Lfi"'day of 

### (.Je.u..-.. 

## L", V', 2003: Illinois Pollution Control**~oard,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 

# _UL\

# ~J~~?~<J~7::::::·**~b-=--------** Dale A. Guariglia
.BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofCtownline Boats, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 lAC § 215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS- (Adjusted Standard)

MOTION FORADMISSION PROHAC VICE ON BEHALF OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. COMES NOW, Dale A. Guariglia, ofthe law firm ofBryan Cave liP, and pursuant to Section 101.400 ofthe Rules ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, files this Motion forAdmission Pro Hac 

### Vice in this matter on behalfofCrownline Boats, I!'c. In support ofthis Motion, Dale A Gua.t!glia states as follows: 1. Dale A. Guariglia is in good standing and admitted to practice before all state coutts in the State ofMissouri.

Respectfully submitted,
.. BRYAN CAVE liP By: 

## \ Dale A. Guariglia, tvlissouri Bar 2998 OneMetropolitan 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 ceftiJies that a copy ofthe foregoing motion was served upon the following parties on the C/ft..day of\Je**u-""-~-sr** 

### , 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

# U~/.1·~~

.Dale A. Guariglia

",BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofCrownIine Boats, Inc. For an Adjusted Standard from 35 lAC 

### § 215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS- (Adjusted Standard)

. MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW Crownli.ri.e Boats, Inc. ("Crownline"), by and through its attorneys, Bryan Cave liP, respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board consider its petition for Adjusted Standard on an expedited basis. In support ofits motion, CrownIine provides: 1. ·CrownIine owns a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility at 11884 Country Club Road, West Frankfotl, Illinois
.

. 2. In keeping with its desire to complywith applicable environmental regulations, CrownIine timely submitted its application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program (CAAPP) operating permit from the Illinois Em-uonniental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Upon review ofthe draft CAAPP permit prepared by IEPA, CrownIinediscovered that the draft permit did not clearly state how CrownIine was to demonstrate compliance with 35 IAC §215.301 (commonly known as the "8Ib/hr Rule"). 3. Although CrownIine had proposed to use a form ofaveraging emissions to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule, IEPA decided th.at Crownline could not use averaging to demonstrate compliance and that Crownline would need to demonstrate compliance on a strict hourly basis. 4:. CrownIine determined that, based onIEPA's strict hourly interpretation ofdemonstrating compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule, the hourly volatile organic material ("VOM") emissions from certain ofits operations did not appear to comply with IEPA's interpretation ofthe rule. 5. CrownIine met with IEPA and presented e,-idence demonstrating why requiring CrownIine's compliance ,,-ith the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis is urireasonable and showing that compliance o·n an averaging basis would not cause any measurable negative impact on ambient air quality from the amount ofVOMs CrownIine's operations emit. After heating and considering the information presented by Crownline, IEPA agreed that applying the 8 Ib/hour Rule to Crownline's operations on a strict hourly basis would indeed impose an unreasonable burden and encouraged CrownIine to file a petition for an adjusted standard.6. On November 13,2003 TEPA issued CrownJine a Title V CAAPP Permit and Title I Permit, J.D. 

### # 055070AAU, (the "Title V Permit"). The Title V Permit provides that CrownIine is to obtain an adjusted standard from 35 lAC §215.301 or demonstrate compliance with §215.301 by December 31, 2004. 7. After carefully exanurung its options for add-on controls and/or for changing 

### , manufacturing methods!equipment to reduce CrownIine's levels of hourly VOM emissions, CrownIine realized that the cost for compliance via either of these options will neither allow the Company to remain competitive norprofitable. Consequently, CrownIine has concluded to petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board for an adjusted standard. 8. CrownIine 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 CrR 63 Subpart VVVV, and because its proposal will not result in adverse environmental or health effects. 9. CrownIine believes that the information, necessary for the Board to proceed with its review ofthis matteris contained in Crownline's petition. Ifmore information is needed, CrownIine will fully cooperate to expeditiously provide such information to the Board and its hearing officer'. 10. This motion for expedited renew is being filed at the request of IEPA and to allow CrownIine to be in compliance with the December 31, 2004 deadline in its Title V Permit. 11. Theundersigried attests that the facts contained in this Motion are true. WHEREFORE, Crownline respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion and expedite review ofits petition for adjusted standard. Respectfully submitted,
By: BRYANCAVELLP

# O~4-d 

# ?-2- Dale A. Guarigfu, Mi;uri B 

# #32998 One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Telefax: (314) 259-2020 Attorneys for CrownIine Boats, Inc.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. The undersigned**~tifjes** thatl copy ofthe foregoing motion was served upon the following parnes on the 

### I./t",day of(

### )~**~"'-r,** 2003:
. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk 100West Randolph Street ]ames 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

# Dda~~ Dale A. GuarigliaBEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Petition ofCrownline Boats, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from, 35 IAC § 215.301 ) ) ) ) ) AS- (Adjusted Standard)
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., submiis this petition to the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard ("IPCB"), seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code §215.301 (commonlyknown as the "8 lb/hrRule") 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, lllinois. Crownlinehas always strived to comply with environmental and otherregUlations that applyto 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 applicablerules, Crownlinehad timely submitted its application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program (CAAPP) operating permit from IEPA. Upon reviewofthe draft CAAPP permit prepared bythe IEPA, Crownline discovered that the draft permit did not clearly statehow Crownline was to demonstrate compliance with the requirements ofthe 8 lb/hrRule. Crownlinehad proposed to use a form ofaveraging emissions. IEPA decided that Crownline could not use averaging to demonstrate compliance. The IEPA stated that the 8 lb/hrRule specifies amaximum 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 longertime period. With assistance from its environmental consultant, Advance Environmental Associates, LLC (AEA), Crownline computed the YOM emissions from the building ofaboat hull,and deck, respectively. 'Crownline discovered that, based on IEPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating compliance, the hourly YOM emissions from certain ofits operations (gelcoat and resin application) did not appearto comply with IEPA's interpretation ofthe 8 lb/hrRule. Crownline metwith IEPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring Crownline's compliance with the 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis is umeasonable and showing that compliance on an averaging basis would not cause any measurable negative impact on ambient air quality from the amount ofVOMs Cro\\'Tlline's operations emit. Afterhearing, and considering the informationpresented by Crownline, its consultant and attorney, IEPA agreed that applying the 8 lblhourRule to Crownline's operations on a stricthourlybasis would
1 1346752.09indeed impose an unreasonable burden and encouraged Crownline to file apetition for an adjusted standard. On November 13, 2003 IEPA issued Crownline aTitle V CAAPP Permit and Title IPermit, LD. # 055070AAU, (the "Title VPermit"). The Title V Permitprovides that Crownline is to obtain an adjusted standard from 35 IAC §215.301 or demonstrate compliance with §215.301 by December 31,2004. After carefully examining its options for add;on controls and/or for changing manufacturing methods/equipment to reduce Crownline's levels ofhourly YOM emissions, Crownline realized that the cost for compliance via either ofthese options will neither allow the. Company to remain competitive norprofitable. Consequently, Crownline has concluded to petition the IPCB for an adjusted standard. l Accordingly, Crownline offers the following summary ofreasons as to why it should receive an adjusted standard with respect to the 8 Ib/hrRule:

• Thepurpose ofthe 8 Ib/hrRule (as originally drafted) is to reduce the potentialfor creating ozone in the atmosphere and, thereby, possibly causing the I-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 "P"fACT"), found at40 CFRPart 63 Subpart VVVV. EPA estimates that the annual cost for a facility to complywith the MACT is $4,060/ton of hazardous airpollutants removed and will reduce styrene emissions by an average of .36%. 66 FR.44222. Crownline took steps early to complywith the MACT and came in to compliance with the MACT emission limits more than a**y~iJ.r** priorto the deadline.

• Technical and regulatory constraints (high air flow needed to ventilate building airin orderto comply with OSHA workerhealth & safety staridards) make the cost for :. Crownline to complywith the 8 Ib/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis using tail stack emission controls unreasonablyhigh.

• The capital costs to install tail-stack controls for Crownline to complywith the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourlybasis would range from approximately $7 million to $14 million. This equates to approximately $35,000 to $58,000 per ton ofpollutantremoved on top of the costs Crownline will have to incurto complywith the newlypromulgatedMACT standard.

• Although some alternate methods formanufacturing fiberglass reinforcedplastic (FRP) products exist, very few ofthem canbe technically or economically applied to aboat

I To the extent.the IPCB does not grant Cro"mline an adjusted standardpursuant to this Petition, Crownline reserves all rights and defenses it mayhave concerning the application ofthe 8 Ib/hrRule to Cro\VnJine's operations, and this Petition shall not act as a waiver ofsuchrights or defenses, nor as an admission ofpositions taken by !EPA. 2 1346752.09manufacturing 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.

• Thehigh cost ofusing either tail stack emission controls orvery 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

. 

# . scenanos:

•

• 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 outofbusiness because itwill not be able to compete for customers due to the high cost ofits boats and/or due to the diminished quality/durability ofits boats. 

### II. 35 ILL. ADM. CODE § 

### 104.406 REQUIREMENTS A. Standard From Which Reliefis Sought

-- § 104.406(a) Crownlinerequests an adjusted standard from 35l1l. Adm. Code 

### § 215.301 (Use of Organic Material, otherwise known as the "8 Ib/hr Rule"). Illinois' organic material emission limitations were originallypromulgated as Rule 205 in 1971. Section 215.30I now provides: "No person shall cause or allow the discharge ofmore than 3.6 kg/hr (8 Ibslhr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission source,. except as provided in Sections 215.302, 215.303, 215.304 andthe following exception: If no odornuisance 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 applyto this part." Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### § 20Ll02, "emission source" means "axty equipment or facility ofa type capable ofemitting specified air contaminants to the atmosphere." Additionally, § 2 I1.4250(b) defines "organic material" as: "Anychemical compound ofcarbon including diluents and thiimers which are liquids at standard conditions and which are used as dissolvers, viscosity reducers, 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 underthe Clean Air Act, 42 USC 

### § 7401 et seq. C. Level ofJustification

- Section 104.406(c) 3 1146752.09The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Crownline seeks an adjusted standard does. not specifY alevel of justification for an adjusted standard. D. Facility and Process Description

- Section 104.406(d) Crownline operates a fiberglass boat manufa9turing 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 itbegan operations in 1991, Crownline has manufactured approximately 40,000 boats for dealers world-wide and currently manufactures approximately between 15-20 boats each day. The facility began 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 followingproduction


## .. . areas: • 

### •

•

•

• •



### •

• MoldFabrication

- boatmolds arebuilt;
. Ge1coat Application

- applying ge1coat (which is the exterior coating ofthe boat) coating to thepre-formed boat molds; Lamination

- applying glass fibers, polyesterresin and catalysts to the boatmold to constitutethe 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 othervinyl 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 ge1coat and laminationproduction areas, which generate most ofCrownline's YOM emissions (the majorityofwhich consists ofstyrene), and are therefore the two production areas most impacted bythe 8 IblhrRule.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 ofge1coat bybeing cleaned with a stripping solvent and awax releasing agent applied, the molds are moved to one offour gefcoat booths for the applica(ion of ge1coat. Gelcoat is applied to the part (hull or deckmold) in asingle applicatiqn (using air '. atomized spray guns), thereby, creating a single initial layer. (See Photographs in Appendix 2 of the Technical Document). The ge1coat areahas thirty-one air atomized spray guns. Gelcoat is

2 Itshould be noted however, that CrownIine's otherproduction areas using adhesives, lacquers and caulks, would also not meet the 8 Iblhr Rule ona stricthourly basis. See Section 3.2 ofthe Technical Document for adiscussion of emissions from these operations. 4 1346752.09applied to the mold to provide color and a smooth surface to the outside ofthe fiberglass boats. Crownline uses the following workerprotection/pollution control equipment in its gelcoat production area:
• ahigh volume (180,000 din) ventilation system to ensure that styrene levels are below the work.er exposure limit established by OSHA;
• dedicated spray booths to reduce the-contamination ofplant airwhen using spray guns;
• use ofa lower styrene-content gelcoat ( 33.4%); and
• panel filters built into the spraybooth to control particulate emissions from the oversprayofthe spray guns. Lamination. After the gelcoat has dried, the molds are moved to one oftwenty-four laminating stations. At the laminating station, glass fibers, polyesterresin and aresin 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 areahas**twenty-fo~** .flow-coat guns with a maximum capacity to use all twenty-four guns simultaneously. The flowcoat guns cut the glass fibers into predetermined lengths and then coats the glass with resin before bothMe deposited simultaneously on the mold.surface
.. The layer offiberslass andresin is then rolled flat using hand rollers to remove any airbubbles that were created in the application and allowed to cure. Laminate is applied to apart in a series oflayers called "skins". The process involves application ofa skin, followed by a curing period before the next skincan be applied. This process is repeated until all ofthe required numberofskins havebeen applied and have cured. For decks, 3 resin skins are typically applied. Forhulls, 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 following worker protection/pollution**cont~ol** equipment in its laminating stations:

• an elaborate ventilation system (160,000 cfrn) to vent air emissions to ensure that styrene levels are below the worker exposure limit establishedby OSHA andto 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 year2002, Crownline's estimated YOM emissions totaled 187 tonsfyras reported on the facility's 2002 Annual Emission Report. As previously discussed, Crownline's emissions consists primarily ofstyrene. Crownline's use ofstyrene and related YOM emissions from the resin lamination and gelcoat processes at its plant vary depending onthe type and size ofeach' custom boat it manufactures. The calculations for estimating YOM (styrene) emissions from Crownline's operations are presented in Section 3 ofthe Technical Document. As discussedbelow, based upon an Ambient Air QualityImpact Analysis performedby AEA, Crownline's emissions, ifthis adjusted standard petition is granted, will not cause ozone 5 1346752.09exceedences in south-central Hlinois. Compliance with the New MACT Standard. Beginning August 23,2004, Crownline, like all otherboat manufacturers inthe U.S., must meet the newlypromulgatedMACT standard forboat manufacturers. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart VVVV. The rule requires that subjectboat manufacturers meet the "MACT floor", which is the emission limitations achieved by the bestperforming 12% ofboat manufacturers in the natioT,l. U.S. EPA determined that the MACT floor forboat manufacturers ""ould notbe airpollution control equipment since only one facility in the country uses such equipment. To complywith MACT, mostboatmanufacturers with open molding operations will use flow-coat guns and low-HAP production materials (resins, gelcoats, adhesives, etc). A flow-coat gun has loweremissions since it is operated at a lowerpressure and ithas 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 currentlyin compliance (over ayear early) with the new MACT emission limits. To complywith the MACT, Crownline switched to flow-coat guns in its lamination operation (ratherthan air atomized guns) andresin that has a HAP content of 35% (as opposed to 42%) and gelcoat that has aHAP content of33.4%. E. Investigation ofComplianceAlternatives: Methods for ReducingYOM Emissions From Crownline's BoatManufacturing Operations

- Section 104.406(e) Crownline and AEA investigated compliance alternatives thatwould help enable Crownline to comply with the 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis. Crownline investigatedthe following alternatives: (1) reducing YOM content inproduction materials; (2) using alternative operating procedures and methods; and (3) installing end-of-the-pipe emission control technologies. It is importantto note, however, that otherthan end-of-the-pipe emission controls, many ofthe alternatives investigated would not allow Crownline to cOmply with the 8 lblhrRule on a strict hourlybasis. In addition, Crownline andAEA could not identify any compliance alternatives to reduce YOM emissions from Crownline's use of adhesives, lacquer and caulks. 1. Reducing YOM Content in Production Materials Crownline has alreadyreduced the YOM concentrationinits production materials in compliance with the MACT. However, while complying withthe MACT alone will not reduce Crownline's emissions to a**lev~l** satisfactoryto meet the 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis, furtherreduction ofstyrene in ihe resins (below that needed to comply withMACT) is not currently technically feasible while still maintaining product integrity. This is discussed in further detail in Section 4 ofthe Technical Document.
. 2. Feasibility ofReplacing Existing Production Methods with Alternate Production Methods There exist various production method alternatives which may result in reduced YOM emissions. Crownline investigated "open molding" methods such as use ofrollers for resin

6 1346752.09application, 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 discussed in detail in Section 4.2 ofthe Technical Document and provides an explanation as to why these alternatives are not technologically or economically viable for Crowllline. Putting the cost ofeach alternate maIJufac\J.!ring method aside, there is no quantitative data ofwhich CrownliIJe is aware which accurately shows how much styrene and/or VGM emissions would actually,be reduced ifany ofthese methods were to be employed. Moreover, it must be emphasized that although these alternative manufacturing methods would reduce YOM emissions, they would not cause Crownline to meetthe 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis without add-on controls since they only apply to the laminationprocess and there areno alternative technologies currently available for the gelcoat, lacquering, caulking,
. and adhesive operations. 3. Feasibility ofApplying Tail-End Controls at Crownline to Achieve Reduced Levels ofYOM Emissions In developing the MACT, U.S. EPA had anumber ofstudies performedto evaluate a variety ofemission control technologies for the possibility ofserving as the "MACT floor" (i.e., the minimum emission controls aboat manufacturerwould have to implement) forHAP (Hazardous AirPollutant) emissionreduction. As aresult 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 one partial exception, no boat manufacturers employed anytailstack emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions; The very high air flows needed by facilities to complywith OSHA's requirement to maintain.worker 8-hr exposure levels for styrenemake the cost ofemission control systems veryhigh; Reduction ofHAP content ofresins, gelcoat and othermaterials are achievable and can significantlyreduce total HAP emissions withoutplacing an undue financial burden on theboat manufacturing industry. Crownline, through its consultant, AEA, examined available emission control technologies for specific applicability to Crownline's operations forpurposes ofcomplying with the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourlybasis. 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 technologycosts on a perton basis for the boat building industry. Based on this analysis, Crownlinehas concluded that the installation ofemission controls for its operations is costprohibitive 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 YOM emissions range

3 SeeAssessmentof Styrene Emission Covtrolsfor FRP/CandBoatBuildingIndustries, EPA Contract 68-D 1-0118, W.A.156. 7 1346752.09from $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 perton 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 YOM emissions equivalent to MACT compliance as abaseline and installing tail-stack contro.ls having a 85% efficiency. A detailed discussion ofthese costs is included in Section 4.3 ofthe Technical Document., These are costsCrownline could not incur and still remain competitive with boatmanufacturers outside ofIllinois. The primaryreason for these high costs is the very large volume ofair (400,000 cfrn for gelcoat and laminations areas and 654,000 cfrn for all ofCrownline's operations) that would have to be treated in orderreduce the emitted YOM. The large volume ofairmoved through the. gelcoat and lamination areas is necessary to maintain compliance with OSHA's 8-hourworker exposure limit for styrene. In orderto protect worker health and safetyin 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 aviabIe method for reducing YOM emissions in order to complywith the 8 lb/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis. The primarybasis for this conclusion is the prohibitivelyhigh cost ofsuch controls as aresult ofthe high air volumes required to complywith the OSHA 8-hourworker 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 lAC §215.301. Because lEPA will not allow averaging ofemissio"ils tomeetthis standard, Crownline can not cOIl,)plywith the 8 lb/hrRule as interpreted by lEPA. Accordingly, Crownlineproposes that, in lieu ofbeing subject to 35 lAC §215.301, Crownline shall complywith the MACT Standard finalized at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV. As discussed in Section IID ofthis Petition, in orderto complywith theMACT, Crownline must (and has): (I) replace atomized spray guns with flow-coat guns; and (2) use resins with a lowerpercentage ofstyrene content (switch from using resins with a styrene content of42.3% to resins with a styrene content of35%). According to the MACT Standard, EPA estimates that to.complywith the MACT itwill cost $4,060Iton armually and will requce emissions by an average of36%. Crownline proposes the following language for aBoard orderto impose the adjusted standard: Pursuant to the authority under Section28.1 ofthe Environmental ProtectionAct, the Boardhereby adopts the following adjusted standard. This adjusted standard shall apply solely to CrownlineBoats, Inc. ("Crownline"). As an alternative to compliance with35 lAC § 215.301,this adjusted standard allows Crownline to limit its discharge oforgaillc material into the atmosphere from its boat manufacturing operations by complying with

8 1346752.09the 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**B~fore** and After the Proposed Adjusted Standard

- Section 104.406(g) Four issues are discussed in detail below concerning Crownline's impact on the environment from the adjusted standard. First, the impact on ambient airquality from YOM emissions from Crownline's operations will not causeozone 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 IblhrRule (on a strict hourly basis) Third, although compliance with the 8 IblhrRule (on a strict hourly basis) by Crownline would likelyreduce emissions even further, it is possible that Crownline could complywith the 8 IblhrRule 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 significantcross-media impacts. 1. Ozone ImpactFrom Crownline's Current Operations An Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Impact Analysis (the "Analysis") was performed by AEA to estimate Crownline's impact on ozone formation in south central llIinois. The Analysis used a method developed by USEPA, titled, "VOC/NOx 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 Docum.ent. The Analysis used data from an ozone monitor located in Dale, (Hamilton Count/), llIinois (the "Dale Monitor") as a basis. The Dille Monitor is located 25 miles ENE ofCrownline's facility and is sited in a location appropriate for determining impacts ofCrownline'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 examining the short term (24hr) maximum amount of VOCs and also the average annual amounts ofboth VOCs and NOxthat 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 berepresentative 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 (I-hour**.~** standard) of0.12 ppm to determine ifthe impact will cause (or contributed significantly enough) to an exceedence ofthis I-hourozone standard. After computing the amount ofozone predicted by the Ozone ScreeningMethod, the results show that the potential impact from Crownline's operations will notcause ozone concentrations

9 1346752.09at the Dale Monitorto exceed the NAAQS of0.12 ppm. The maximum level ofozone that the Ozone ScreeningMethod produced is 0.103 ppm. Quantitatively, based on the daily amounts ofVOM currently emitted into the atmosphere by Crownlirte'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 arural area (far from any ozonenon-attainment area), the t9tal amount ofVOMs emitted by the plant itselfwould not cause any violation ofthe ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, the majorityof Crownline's emissions consist ofstyrene, amaterial that is wen-known for its rapid degradation' (within less than 24 hours). 2. Compliance with the MACT Will Reduce YOM Emissions from Crownline's Facility Crownline's compliance with the MACT win reduce YOM emissions as compared to Crownline's past operations. Although Crownline is required by law to comply with, th.e MACT emission limits by August 23, 2004 (which Crowiiline achieved over ayear early), this win result in significant reductions in YOM emissions as compared to Crownline's past operations. It is estimated that Crownline's annual YOM emissions from complying with the MACT will be approximately 200 tons/yr. This compares to an estimated245 tons/yr ofVOM \vhich would be emitted by Crownline's operations ifit did not complywith 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 thatwith areduction in the amount ofHAP being emitted from the plant because ofthe MACT Standard, the amount ofozone formed will be reduced. Therefore, qualitatively, ifCrownline complies with the proposed adjusted standard, then the impact on airquality in south-central Illinois \vill be reduced. Furthermore, Crownline's compliance with the MACT Standard, will cause agreaterpercentageofthe models and sizes of boats that Crownline manufactures to be in compliancewith the 8 IblhrRule on a stricthourly basis. 3. Emissions ifCrownline Complies With the 8 Ib/hrRule IfCrownline would complywith the 8 Ib/hrRule (on a stricthourlybasis), it is estimated that Crownline's annual YOM emissions would be approximately 144 tons.4 (See Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 ofthe Technical Document for further discussion). Although compliance with the 8 IblhrRule (on a stricthourly basis) by Crownline wouldreduce emissions as compared to the MACT, it is theoreticallypossible that Crownline could demonstrate compliancewith the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a stricthourly basis and still emit the same amount ofVOMs on a daily and annual basis. This wouldbe true ifCrownline could somehow extend the time that emissions are releasedto the atmosphere. For example, instead ofemitting 14 Ibs ofVOM in one hour, ifit were technologically possible for Crownline to spreadout its gelcoat and lamination application' operations over a longer timeperiod, Crownline would comply with the 8 IblhrRule (on a strict hourly basis) by emitting 7 Ibs in one hour and 7 Ibs in the next hour. This approach would allow

4 Based upon estimated 2003 boatproductiondata. 10 1346752.09Crownline to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule without anyreal 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 nornecessary. By complying with the MACT Standard and no othermeasures, Crownline has achieved signIficant realreductions 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 ifthis 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. Withregard to solid and hazardous waste impacts, U.S. EPA explained in its preamble that "the proposedNESHAP 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 greatertransfer efficiency ofresin from flowcoaters to the part being manufactured
... [and]
. consequently reduces the amount ofwaste from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste, andpersonal protective equipment for workers." Id. In addition, ifCrownline would install an oxidizer as atail 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, ifaregulation ofgeneral applicability does not specifY a level of justificationrequired ofapetitionerto qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted standards upon adequateproofthat: (I) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to that petitioner; (2) the existence of those factorsjustifies an adjusted standard; (3) .the requested standard will not result in environmental orhealth effects substantially and significantlymore adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral 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 Chapter2: AirPollution, Rule 205. 4 PCB 191, R71- 23. Because it was adopted over30 years ago, it is difficult, ifnot 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 ofthe rule, Crownlinebelieves that the factors primarilyrelied upon bythe Board involved concerns about preventing ozone formation.

II 1346752.09In fact, it appears that the main intentofthe rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic material utilized control equipment already in place to ensure thattheir facilities do not cause a violation ofthe one-hour ozone standardnor create an odor nuisance. For example, in Illinois v. Processing and Books. Inc., the !PCB explained that: "Rule 205: Organic Material Emission Standards serves bothto achieve and maintain compliance withthe federal air quality stand;rrd for photochemical oxidants (0.08 ppm for one hour not to exceed more than once per year, 36 Fed. Reg. 22385 Nov
..25, 1971) and to**preventIo~al** nuisances
.... the majorpurpose ofthese regulations is for control of' photochemical oxidants. ill addition; odor causing organic emissions were included ifa local odornuisance exits
... these provisions are designed to require the use of equipment that is already in use atnumerous 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 airquality bypreventing any violation of the I-hourozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odornUIsances from manufacturing
. operations. A review ofCrownline's operations shows thatthe main purposes ofthis rule are"not furthered through its application to Crownline: first, as thoroughly discussed in Section JI.G. of this petition, the daily amounts ofYOM emitted by Crownline's operations have anegligible 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 TIlinois Pollution Control Board also shows that, when adopting the rule in 1971, the Board most likelyrelied upon the fact that facilities would have no problem complying with the rule byutilizing equipment already available and in use bymost facilities subject to the rule. It is clear thatthis 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 peculiar toboat building when adopting this rule. There are other substantial and significant factors which are inherent orotherwise necessary to Crownline's operations that the Board did not consider (nor could it have) when it adopted the 8 Ib/hrRule in 1971. Not onlyare the factors relating to boatbuilding significantly different from most manufacturing operations which emit organic material, but emission data from boatbuilding was not even available to the Board until after 1991. Thebuilding ofa fiberglass boat hull or deck involves abatch-typeprocess (ofapplying layers or skins), rather than a continuous applicationprocess. This is an important distinctionbecause compliance with the rule can be reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that. involve the use ofmaterials that emit YOMs) are ofa continuous nature or, are at least are . distributed more evenly over a 24 hourperiod. Forcontinuous ornear-continuous operations, the use ofemission controls, as provided by 35 IAC 215.302, is economicallyfeasible. Dueto the large size ofthe parts (boat hulls and decks) and necessarybatch-type sequence ofthe gelcoat and resin application processes at Crownline, they are neither continuous norevenly distributed

12 1346752.09over a longerperiod oftime. Additionally, the adventofOSHA'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 (workerbreathing 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

### th~ use ofadd-on emissi9n controls for Crownline's operations fiscally impractical.
.The Board could not have possibly anticipated this OSHAreqllirement and its affect when it made {ts decision to adopt the 8 Ib/hrRule 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 Ib/hrRule on a strict hourlybasis. 2. The Existence ofThose Factors Justifies an Adjusted Staudard As discussed fully in Section II.E. ofthis petition, Crownline has investigated numerous compliance alternatives that have proven to be neither economicallynor technically feasible due to the substantially different factors relating to fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. The existence ofthese factors, coupled with IEPA's endorsement ofCrownline's efforts to obtain an adjusted standardjustifies the granting ofan adjusted standard. 3. The Requested Staudard Will Not result iu Adverse Environmental or Health Effects. As discussedpreviously in Section II.G. ofthis petition, the requested adjusted standard will have little, ifany, adverse impact on the environment orhealth. 

### 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 YOM emissions and also decreasing the amount ofsolid 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 AirAct. Specifically, there is no Clean AirAct equivalent rule orregulationprohibiting boat manufacturers' emissions oforganic material in excess of8 Ibs/hr, on a strict hourlybasis. Because Crownline is proposing tO,complywith**th~** new federal MACT forboat manufacturers as part ofthe adjusted standard, the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Moreover, under federal law, the Board'sgrant ofthis adjusted standard will be submitted to U.S. EPA for inclusion in Jl1inois' SIP. It will thus comport with federal procedural requirements.

13 1346752.09I. Consistency withFederal Law

- Section 104.406(i) See discussion immediately above. J. Hearing

- Section 104.406(j) Crownline requests a hearing in this matter. , 

### K. Supporting Document

- Section 104.406(k) The Technical Document and its Appendices are attachedto this Petition. ill. CONCLUSION The requested adjusted standard should be granted as an alternative to Crownline's compliance with 35 IAC§215.301. To require Crownline to complywith the rule ofgeneral applicability would result in substantial economic hardship to Cro\mline. Moreover, it is technically impractical for Crownline to complywith the requirements ofthe S Ib/hrRule 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, BRYANCAVELLP By:

## ~,**.~** .
. !**~dc** 

## r:;: . ,e---

Dale A. Guariglia, MBar#3b?sS 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 1346752.09CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing petition was served upon the following parties on the tjt'--day of 

### 'Pe.fi.-.<.-vlA..b-u; 2003: Illinois Pollution Control**Boa~d,** 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 

# D**./l1----~ ~/**  pale A. Guariglia

15 1346752.09