I 1EI'tt~1lQ.-

December 4, 2003

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Ms. Dorothy Gunn

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West 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:

Enclosed please find the following documents printed on recycled 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 for Admission 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 Technical Document in 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 of the petition to our

office. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Irvine

Jefferson City

Kansas City

Kuwait

los Angeles

New York

Phoenix

RiY2ldh

Shanghai

Sllouis

United Arab Emiratas jDubai)

Washington.OC

And Bryan Cave.

A Multin8tional Partnership,

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 of the 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 of Legal 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 of Ctownline Boats, Inc.

for an Adjusted Standard from

35 lAC § 215.301

)

)

)

)

)

AS-

(Adjusted Standard)

MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

ON BEHALF OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.

COMES NOW, Dale A. Guariglia, of the law firm of Bryan Cave liP, and pursuant to Section

101.400 of the Rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, files this Motion for Admission Pro Hac

Vice in this matter on behalf of Crownline Boats, I!'c. In support of this 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 of Missouri.

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 of the 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 comply with 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 of the 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 of averaging 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 on IEPA's strict hourly interpretation of demonstrating

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 of VOMs 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 nor profitable. 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 of this matter is 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

100 West Randolph Street

] ames R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Dale

Dda~~ A. Guariglia
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)

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

Control Board ("IPCB"), seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code §215.301

(commonly known as the "8 lb/hr Rule") as it applies to the emissions of volatile 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. Crownline has always strived to comply with environmental and other regUlations that

apply to operations at its West Frankfort facility and, until recently, has been able to demonstrate

compliance with such rules. In keeping with its desire to comply with applicable rules,

Crownline had timely submitted its application for a Clean Air Act Permits Program (CAAPP)

operating permit from IEPA. Upon review ofthe draft CAAPP permit prepared by the IEPA,

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

demonstrate compliance with the requirements ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule. Crownline had proposed to

use a form of averaging emissions.

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

IEPA stated that the 8 lb/hr Rule specifies a maximum hourly emission rate and, therefore,

compliance with the rule would need to be demonstrated on a strict hourly basis, not on an '

average from any longer time period.

With assistance from its environmental consultant, Advance Environmental Associates,

LLC (AEA), Crownline computed the YOM emissions from the building of a boat 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 appear to comply with IEPA's interpretation ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule.

Crownline met with IEPA and presented evidence demonstrating why requiring

Crownline's compliance with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis is 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. After hearing,

and considering the information presented by Crownline, its consultant and attorney, IEPA

agreed that applying the 8 lblhour Rule to Crownline's operations on a strict hourly basis would

1

1346752.09
indeed impose an unreasonable burden and encouraged Crownline to file a petition for an

adjusted standard. On November 13, 2003 IEPA issued Crownline a Title V CAAPP Permit and

Title I Permit, LD. # 055070AAU, (the "Title V Permit"). 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 of hourly YOM emissions,

Crownline realized that the cost for compliance via either ofthese options will neither allow the.

Company to remain competitive nor profitable. Consequently, Crownline has concluded to

petition the IPCB for an adjusted standard. l

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

receive an adjusted standard with respect to the 8 Ib/hr Rule:

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

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 Air Pollutants for Boat

Manufacturing Facilities (the "P"fACT"), found at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart VVVV. EPA

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

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

.36%. 66 FR .44222. Crownline took steps early to comply with the MACT and came in

to compliance with the MACT emission limits more than a y~iJ.r prior to the deadline.

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

order to comply with OSHA worker health & safety staridards) make the cost for :.

Crownline to comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis using tail stack

emission controls unreasonably high.

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

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

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

the costs Crownline will have to incur to comply with the newly promulgated MACT

standard.

• Although some alternate methods for manufacturing fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)

products exist, very few ofthem can be technically or economically applied to a boat

I To the extent.the IPCB does not grant Cro"mline an adjusted standard pursuant to this Petition, Crownline reserves

all rights and defenses it may have concerning the application ofthe 8 Ib/hr Rule to Cro\VnJine's operations, and this

Petition shall not act as a waiver ofsuch rights or defenses, nor as an admission ofpositions taken by !EPA.

2

1346752.09
manufacturing operation such as Crownline's and none ofthem will actually allow

Crownline to fully comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

• The high cost of using either tail stack emission controls or very expensive alternative

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

methods and procedures), will put Crownline at a significant competitive disadvantage

relative to boat manufacturers in other states. This will result in one ofthe following . . 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 out of business because it will not be

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

to the diminished quality/durability 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 originally promulgated as Rule 205 in 1971. Section 215.30 I 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 and the following exception: If

no odor nuisance exists the limitation ofthis Subpart shall apply only to

photochemically reactive material." .

35 Ill. Adm. Code § 215.101 states that "the definitions of35 Ill. Admin. Code 201 and 211

apply to this part." Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 20Ll 02, "emission source" means "axty

equipment or facility of a type capable of emitting specified air contaminants to the atmosphere."

Additionally, § 2 I1.4250(b) defines "organic material" as:

"Any chemical compound of carbon 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 of General Applicability- Section 104.406(b)

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

Air Act, 42 USC § 7401 et seq.

C. Level ofJustification - Section 104.406(c)

3

1146752.09
The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Crownline seeks an adjusted standard

does. not specifY a level ofjustification for an adjusted standard.

D. Facility and Process Description - Section 104.406(d)

Crownline operates a fiberglass boat 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 it began 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 following production . areas:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Mold Fabrication - boat molds are built; .

Ge1coat Application - applying ge1coat (which is the exterior coating ofthe boat)

coating to the pre-formed boat molds;

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

to constitute the fiberglass structure ofthe boat;

Grind & Trim - cutting excess material from the fiberglass parts, smoothing

surfaces, and laminated floor support structures and floor to hull;

Woodworking

Upholstery - assembling the seats and other vinyl fabric products required in the

boats;.

Final Assembly - assembling the hulls and decks and installing mechanical

equipment; and .

Shipping.

This petition is primarily concerned with the ge1coat and lamination production areas,

which generate most ofCrownline's YOM emissions (the majority ofwhich consists ofstyrene),

and are therefore the two production areas most impacted by the 8 Iblhr Rule.2 Accordingly, the

following discussion shall provide details regarding these two production areas.

Gelcoat Application. Once the molds leave the Mold Fabrication Shop, where they are

prepared for the application of ge1coat by being cleaned with a stripping solvent and a wax

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 deck mold) in a single applicatiqn (using air '.

atomized spray guns), thereby, creating a single initial layer. (See Photographs in Appendix 2 of

the Technical Document). The ge1coat area has thirty-one air atomized spray guns. Gelcoat is

2 Itshould be noted however, that CrownIine's other production areas using adhesives, lacquers and caulks, would

also not meet the 8 Iblhr Rule ona strict hourly basis. See Section 3.2 ofthe Technical Document for a discussion of

emissions from these operations.

4

1346752.09
applied to the mold to provide color and a smooth surface to the outside ofthe fiberglass boats.

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

production area:

• a high volume (180,000 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 air when using spray

guns;

• use of a lower styrene-content gelcoat ( 33.4%); and

• panel filters built into the spray booth to control particulate emissions from the

overspray ofthe spray guns.

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

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

applied to the mold using non-atomized flow-coat chopper guns ("flow-coat guns"). (See

Photographs in Appendix 2 ofthe Technical Document): The lamination area has twenty-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 both Me deposited simultaneously on the mold.surface.. The layer offiberslass and resin

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

application and allowed to cure. Laminate is applied to a part in a series oflayers called "skins".

The process involves application of a skin, followed by a curing period before the next skin can

be applied. This process is repeated until all ofthe required number ofskins have been applied

and have cured. For decks, 3 resin skins are typically applied. For hulls, 2-3 resin skins are

applied, followed by a separate application to build the boat floor. The time required for

applying one skin varies depending on the size of the 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 established by OSHA and to

reduce outdoor odors;

• panel filters built in each side ofthe laminating area to control particulate

emissions; and

• submerged-fill resin tanks to reduce splashing and the amount ofvolatiles coming

off the tanks.

For the year 2002, Crownline's estimated YOM emissions totaled 187 tonsfyr as 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 on the type and size of each'

custom boat it manufactures. The calculations for estimating YOM (styrene) emissions from

Crownline's operations are presented in Section 3 of the Technical Document.

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

AEA, Crownline's emissions, ifthis adjusted standard petition is granted, will not cause ozone

5

1346752.09
exceedences in south-central Hlinois.

Compliance with the New MACT Standard. Beginning August 23,2004, Crownline,

like all other boat manufacturers in the U.S., must meet the newly promulgated MACT standard

for boat manufacturers. 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart VVVV. The rule requires that subject boat

manufacturers meet the "MACT floor", which is the emission limitations achieved by the bestperforming 12% ofboat manufacturers in the natioT,l. U.S. EPA determined that the MACT floor

for boat manufacturers ""ould not be air pollution control equipment since only one facility in the

country uses such equipment. To comply with MACT, most boat manufacturers with open

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

adhesives, etc). A flow-coat gun has lower emissions since it is operated at a lower pressure and

it has a non-atomized resin delivery system. By complying with the MACT, EPA estimates that.

boat manufacturers will reduce styrene emissions by an average of 36%.

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

new MACT emission limits. To comply with the MACT, Crownline switched to flow-coat guns

in its lamination operation (rather than air atomized guns) and resin that has a HAP content of

35% (as opposed to 42%) and gelcoat that has a HAP content of33.4%.

E. Investigation ofCompliance Alternatives: Methods for Reducing YOM Emissions

From Crownline's Boat Manufacturing Operations - Section 104.406(e)

Crownline and AEA investigated compliance alternatives that would help enable

Crownline to comply with the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis. Crownline investigated the

following alternatives: (1) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using alternative

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

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

many ofthe alternatives investigated would not allow Crownline to cOmply with the 8 lblhr Rule

on a strict hourly basis. In addition, Crownline and AEA could not identify any compliance

alternatives to reduce YOM emissions from Crownline's use ofadhesives, lacquer and caulks.

1. Reducing YOM Content in Production Materials

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

compliance with the MACT. However, while complying with the MACT alone will not reduce

Crownline's emissions to a lev~l satisfactory to meet the 8 lb/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis,

further reduction ofstyrene in ihe resins (below that needed to comply with MACT) is not

currently technically feasible while still maintaining product integrity. This is discussed in

further detail in Section 4 ofthe Technical Document. .

2. Feasibility 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

1346752.09
application, pre-preg materials, in-house resin impregnation, and vacuum bagging. Crownline

also investigated various "closed molding" methods such as resin transfer molding, resin

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

alternative manufacturing technologies is 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 of each 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 if any 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 meet the 8 lb/hr Rule

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

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

and adhesive operations.

3. Feasibility of Applying Tail-End Controls at Crownline to Achieve Reduced

Levels of YOM Emissions

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

variety of emission control technologies for the possibility ofserving as the "MACT floor" (i.e.,

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

(Hazardous Air Pollutant) emission reduction. As a result ofthese studies, U.S. EPA concluded

that none ofthe technologies should serve as the MACT floor. U.S. EPA concluded this based

on the following primary factors3

:

•

•

•

With one partial exception, no boat manufacturers employed any tailstack

emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions;

The very high air flows needed by facilities to comply with OSHA's requirement

to maintain.worker 8-hr exposure levels for styrene make the cost of emission

control systems very high;

Reduction ofHAP content ofresins, gelcoat and other materials are achievable

and can significantly reduce total HAP emissions without placing an undue

financial burden on the boat manufacturing industry.

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

technologies for specific applicability to Crownline's operations for purposes of complying with

the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis. This consisted ofobtaining cost quotes from a select

number of control system suppliers and inserting these quotes and other Crownline-specific

operational parameters into U.S. EPA's spreadsheet for estimating control technology costs on a

per ton basis for the boat building industry. Based on this analysis, Crownline has concluded that

the installation of emission controls for its operations is cost prohibitive and, therefore, not a

feasible option regardless ofwhich technology one may choose to apply.

The up-front capital costs to install tail-stack controls to control YOM emissions range

3 See Assessment ofStyrene Emission Covtrolsfor FRP/C and Boat Building Industries, EPA Contract 68-D 1-0118,

W.A.156.

7

1346752.09
from $7 million to$14 million and annualized cost for these same controls range from

approximately $4.5 million to nearly $6 million. Using the EPA methodology for estimating

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

operations iftail-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 a baseline

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 boat manufacturers outside ofIllinois.

The primary reason for these high costs is the very large volume of air (400,000 cfrn for

gelcoat and laminations areas and 654,000 cfrn for all ofCrownline's operations) that would

have to be treated in order reduce the emitted YOM. The large volume of air moved through the.

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

exposure limit for styrene. In order to protect worker health and safety in accordance with this

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

cost of approximately $800,000.

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

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

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

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

F. Crownline's Proposed Adjusted Standard - Section 104.406(f)

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

adjusted Standard prohibits Crownline from emitting "more than 8 lbs/hr of organic material into

the atmosphere from any emission source." 35 lAC §215.301. Because lEPA will not allow

averaging of emissio"ils tomeet this standard, Crownline can not cOIl,)ply with the 8 lb/hr Rule as

interpreted by lEPA. Accordingly, Crownline proposes that, in lieu ofbeing subject to 35 lAC

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

Subpart VVVV. As discussed in Section IID ofthis Petition, in order to comply with the MACT,

Crownline must (and has): (I) replace atomized spray guns with flow-coat guns; and (2) use

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

of 42.3% to resins with a styrene content of35%). According to the MACT Standard, EPA

estimates that to.comply with the MACT it will cost $4,060Iton armually and will requce

emissions by an average of36%.

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

standard:

Pursuant to the authority under Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act, the

Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard. This adjusted standard shall apply

solely to Crownline Boats, Inc. ("Crownline"). As an alternative to compliance with35

lAC § 215.301,this adjusted standard allows Crownline to limit its discharge of orgaillc

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

8

1346752.09
the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 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 adj usted standard. First, the impact on ambient air quality from YOM

emissions from Crownline's operations will not cause ozone exeedences in south-central Illinois.

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

compliance with the MACT) will reduce emissions at Crownline's facility as compared to

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

Iblhr Rule (on a strict hourly basis) Third, although compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule (on a strict

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

Crownline could comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule and still emit the same amount of VOMs if

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

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

1. Ozone Impact From Crownline's Current Operations

An Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Impact Analysis (the "Analysis") was 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 of both VOCs and NOx that the source in question

emits. Using this information, the method requires a computation which produces an ambient air

quality ozone concentration value resulting from the facility's operations that is then added to the

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

the area that can be impacted by the VOC/NOx emissions from the facility. This combined value

is then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone (I-hour .~

standard) of 0.12 ppm to determine ifthe impact will cause (or contributed significantly enough)

to an exceedence ofthis I-hour ozone standard.

After computing the amount ofozone predicted by the Ozone Screening Method, the results

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

9

1346752.09
at the Dale Monitor to exceed the NAAQS of 0.12 ppm. The maximum level of ozone that the

Ozone Screening Method 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 of air quality in south-central Illinois. Since the Crownline plant is located in a rural

area (far from any ozone non-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, a material 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 a year 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 estimated 245 tons/yr ofVOM \vhich would be

emitted by Crownline's operations ifit did not complywith the MACT (based upon an equal

amount of boats being produced). See Section 3.1 ofthe Technical Document, for a discussion

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

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

reduced. Therefore, qualitatively, ifCrownline complies with the proposed adjusted standard,

then the impact on air quality in south-central Illinois \vill be reduced. Furthermore, Crownline's

compliance with the MACT Standard, will cause a greater percentageofthe models and sizes of

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

basis.

3. Emissions if Crownline Complies With the 8 Ib/hr Rule

IfCrownline would comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule (on a strict hourly basis), 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

Iblhr Rule (on a strict hourly basis) by Crownline would reduce emissions as compared to the

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

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

This would be true ifCrownline could somehow extend the time that emissions are released to

the atmosphere. For example, instead of emitting 14 Ibs ofVOM in one hour, ifit were

technologically possible for Crownline to spread out its gelcoat and lamination application'

operations over a longer time period, Crownline would comply with the 8 Iblhr Rule (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 boat production data.

10

1346752.09
Crownline to demonstrate compliance with the 8 Iblhr Rule without any real reduction in the

total daily amount of VOMs emitted to the atmosphere. This is one ofthe reasons why

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

nor necessary. By complying with the MACT Standard and no other measures, Crownline has

achieved signIficant real reductions in the total amount ofVOMs emitted on a daily and annual

basis.

4. Cross Media Impacts From the Adjusted Standard

There would not be expected to be any adverse cross media impacts 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. With regard to solid and hazardous waste impacts, U.S. EPA

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

generated by the boat manufacturing industry ... the decrease ... is directly related to switching

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

greater transfer efficiency ofresin from flowcoaters to the part being manufactured ... [and] .

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

and personal protective equipment for workers." Id. In addition, if Crownline would install an

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

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

H. Justification - Section 104.406(h)

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

an adjusted standard for persons who can justifY such an adjustment consistent with subsection

(a) of Section 27 ofthe Act. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 ..Moreover, if a regulation of general applicability

does not specifY a level ofjustification required of a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted

standard, the Board may grant individual adjusted standards upon adequate proofthat: (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 factors justifies an adjusted standard; (3).the requested standard will not result in

environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects

considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and (4) the adjusted

standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

1. Factors Relating to Crownline are Substantially and Significantly Different

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

than the general factors relied upon by the Board in promulgating 35 IAC §215.301. Rule

215.301 was first promulgated in 1971 as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Rule 205. 4 PCB 191, R71-

23. Because it was adopted over 30 years ago, it is difficult, 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, Crownline believes that the

factors primarily relied upon by the Board involved concerns about preventing ozone formation.

II

1346752.09
In fact, it appears that the main intent ofthe rule was to ensure that operations emitting organic

material utilized control equipment already in place to ensure that their facilities do not cause a

violation ofthe one-hour ozone standard nor create an odor nuisance. For example, in Illinois v.

Processing and Books. Inc., the !PCB explained that:

"Rule 205: Organic Material Emission Standards serves both to achieve and maintain

compliance with the 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 major purpose ofthese regulations is for control of'

photochemical oxidants. ill addition; odor causing organic emissions were included if a

local odor nuisance exits ... these provisions are designed to require the use of

equipment that is already in use at numerous facilities ...."

1977 WL 9986, *4 (Ill. Pol. Control. Bd.). From this explanation it is evident that the

Board was most concerned with: (1) protecting ambient air quality by preventing any violation of

the I-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) controlling any odor nUIsances from manufacturing .

operations. A review ofCrownline's operations shows that the main purposes ofthis rule are" not

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

this petition, the daily amounts ofYOM emitted by Crownline's operations have a negligible

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

second, Crownline has control technology in place to ensure that its operations do not cause an

odor nuisance.

The above quote from the TIlinois Pollution Control Board also shows that, when

adopting the rule in 1971, the Board most likely relied upon the fact that facilities would have no

problem complying with the rule by utilizing equipment already available and in use by most

facilities subject to the rule. It is clear that this rule was promulgated as a catch-all provision,

intending to cast a wide net over all operations which emit organic materials. However, the

Board could not possibly have contemplated all the circumstances in which organic material is

emitted, and, in fact, there is no indication that the Board considered the factors peculiar toboat

building when adopting this rule.

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

necessary to Crownline's operations that the Board did not consider (nor could it have) when it

adopted the 8 Ib/hr Rule in 1971. Not only are the factors relating to boat building significantly

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

from boat building was not even available to the Board until after 1991. The building of a

fiberglass boat hull or deck involves a batch-type process (of applying layers or skins), rather

than a continuous application process. This is an important distinction because compliance with

the rule can be reasonably accomplished and demonstrated when manufacturing operations (that.

involve the use ofmaterials that emit YOMs) are of a continuous nature or, are at least are .

distributed more evenly over a 24 hour period. For continuous or near-continuous operations, the

use of emission controls, as provided by 35 IAC 215.302, is economically feasible. Due to the

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

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

12

1346752.09
over a longer period oftime.

Additionally, the advent of OSHA's worker protection regulation at 29 CFR 1910,

requires manufacturers who use materials that contain and emit styrene to maintain an in-plant

work area atmosphere (worker breathing air) ofless than 100 ppm. To do so, Crownline had to

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

every minute. This makes th~ use of add-on emissi9n controls for Crownline's operations

fiscally impractical. .The Board could not have possibly anticipated this OSHA reqllirement and

its affect when it made {ts decision to adopt the 8 Ib/hr Rule for all manufacturing facilities in the'

State.

Because the Board could not (and did not) consider these factors relating to Crownline's ,

operations, Crownline contends that it is unreasonable to expect it to demonstrate compliance

with the 8 Ib/hr Rule on a strict hourly basis.

2. The Existence of Those 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 economically nor 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 standard justifies the granting of an adjusted standard.

3. The Requested Staudard Will Not result iu Adverse Environmental or

Health Effects.

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

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

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

area and uses lower styrene content resins, thus reducing its 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 Air Act. Specifically, there is no Clean Air Act

equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting boat manufacturers' emissions of organic material in

excess of 8 Ibs/hr, on a strict hourly basis. Because Crownline is proposing tO,comply with th~

new federal MACT for boat 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

1346752.09
I. Consistency with Federal 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 attached to 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 comply with the rule of general

applicability would result in substantial economic hardship to Cro\mline. Moreover, it is

technically impractical for Crownline to comply with the requirements ofthe S Ib/hr Rule on a

strict hourly basis.

WHEREFORE, Crownline Boats, Inc. respectfully requests an adjusted standard from

35 IAC § 215.301 as set forth herein.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

1346752.09
CERTIFICATE 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