IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.:(l.

ORIGINAL

A P PEA RAN C E- S

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Proceedings held on April 23, 2004, at

12:00 p.m., at the offices of the West Frankfort City

Hall, 201 East Nolen Street, West Frankfort, Illinois,

before Ms. Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BY: David Bloomberg

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

ReCEIVED

CLtiRK'S OFF/CE

MAY - 62004

STATE OF ILUNDIS

P.o/lutron Control Board

RECEIVED

Division of Legal Counsel

MAY 10 2004

EnVironmental Protection

Agency

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

PETITION OF CROWNLINE ~OATS, INC.,} AS 04-01

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301 )

VOLUME 1

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Alisa Liu

BRYAN CAVE, LLP

BY: Dale A. Guariglia

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102

ADVANCE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.

BY: Andrew Polcyn, M.E.

300 Second Street

St. Charles, MO 63301

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

Keefe Reporting Company
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

I N D E X

WITNESSES

JAMES T. CLAXTON:

DALE A. GUARIGLIA:

ANDREW J. POLCYN:

E X H I BIT S

IDENTIFICATION

Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 (marked):

Exhibit Nos. 4 thro~gh 8 (marked):

Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 (admitted):

Keefe Reporting Company

PG.

6

8

35

PG.

4'

11

42

2
1 PROCEEDINGS

2 (Hearing Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 were

3 marked.)

4 (April 23 2004 l2:~0 p.m.)

5 HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon: My

6 name is Carol Sudman. I'm a hearing officer with the

7 Pollution Control Board. Joining me today is Alisa Liu

8 from the Board's technical unit. This is the hearing

9 for Adjusted Standard 04-1, Petition of Crownline Boats

10 for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Illinois Administrative'

11 Code 215.301.

12 It is April 23, 2004, and we are

13 beginning at 12:00 p.m. I wili mention that the C~ty

14 Hall has moved about half a block recently, but I did

15 post a note on the old building, and it does appear that

16 everybody made it all right. It was notca big move, but

. 17 we had to change facilities, so I apologize for the

18 inconvenience.

19 I will note for record that there are

20 no members of the public present. Members of the public

21 are allowed to provide public comment, if they so

22 choose. In this petition, Crownline seeks an adjusted

23 standard from a regulation pertaining to the emission of

24 volatile organic material at Crownline's West Frankfort

Keefe Reporting Company

3
1 boat manufacturing facility.

2 You should know that it is the

3 Pollution Control Board and not me tha~ will make the

4 final decision in this case. My purpose is to conduct

5 the hearing in a neutral and orderly ~anner, so that we

6 have a clear record of the proceedings. I will also

7 assess the credibility of any witnesses on the record at

8 the end of the hearing.

9 This hearing was noticed pursuant to

10 the Act and the Board's rules, and will be conducted

11 pursuant to Sections 101.600 through 101.632 and 104.422

12 of the Board's procedural rules.

13 At this time, I would like to ask the

14 parties to please make their appearances on the record.

15 MR. GUARIGLIA: I am Dale Gua-riglia with the

16 law firm of Bryan Cave representing Crownline Boats.

17 MR. MATOESIAN: Charles Matoesian appearing

18 for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

19 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. Are

20 there any preliminary matters you wish to discuss on the

21 record?

22 MR. MATOESIAN: No.

23 HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Guariglia, would you like

24 to make an opening statement?

Keefe Reporting Company

4
1 MR. GUARIGLIA: I think what I would like to do

2 is to have our first witness speak first, Mr. Tim

3 Claxton of Crown1ine Boats.

4 HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Matoesian, do you have an

5 opening s.tatement?

6 MR. MATOESIAN: Just a brief one, but they can

7 go ahead.

8 HEARING OFFICER: I mean, are you making an

9 opening statement, or are you ready to --

10 MR. GUARIGLIA: I think "Ie' re ready to begin'.

11 HEARING OFFICER: Well, let me ask Mr. Matoesian

12 to make your opening statement.

13 MR. MATOESIAN: I was just going to state t~at

14 we filed a brief or recommendation on January 20, 2004,

15 recommending that this Adjusted Standard be granted, and

16 pursuant to conversation with the Petitioner, we will

17 just stand on our brief at this time.

18 However, I do have Mr. David Bloorrberg

19 with me. He's an environmental protection engineer with

20 the air quality planning section for the Bureau of Air,

21 and he is available to answer any questions that the

22 technical staff may have.

23 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Mr. Guariglia, you

24 may call your first witness, or is that going to be you?

Keefe Reporting Company

5
this is probably just as well.

MR. CLAXTON: I will speak up. My name is Tim

Claxton_ I'm President of Crownline Boats. I'm also

you, Ms. Sudman, and you, Ms. Liu, for making the

appearance today. We appreciate your interest in this

matter. Also in the room are other Crownline personnel,

as we have identified.

Crownline B~ats, as I said; is a

family-owned manufacturing operation. We're located

here in West Frankfort. Ownership of the company is

MR. GUARIGLIA: No. Mr. Claxton will be the

first witness.

HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Claxton?

MR. CLAXTON: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER: WoUld the court reporter'

please swear in the witness.

(At which point in the hearing, Tim

Claxton was sworn.)

HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Claxton, I don't know if

you would like Mr. Guariglia, would you like to have

him sit there, or would you like to have him sit up

here?

one of the owners of Crownline. I would like to thank

MR. GUARIGLIA: If the court reporter can hear,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1'0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

6

Keefe Reporting Company
1 myself, and two sisters. Myself and one of my sisters

2 are active in the business. The other is not.

3 We began operations as a manufacturing

4 concern in 1991. As a start-up operation, we began

5 with, aPProximately, 15 employees. Over the course of

6 the last 13 years, we have grown to a company size now

7 of employees in excess of over 650 employees. We're one

8 of the largest emp~oyers in Franklin County and the

9 region, at large.

10 we compete in a national and an

11 international marketplace with companies that are much

12 larger than us, much more diverse than us, and companies

13 that, quite frankly, have manufacturing operations that

14 are not in the state of Illinois where we are being

15 asked to comply with some regulations, in specific, the

16 eight-pound-per-hour rule that we are asking the

17 adjustment for.

18 ~hese companies -- we don't -- they

19 don't have to comply with the same regulations that we

20 are being asked to. We are simply here today to ask

21 that the state of Illinois allow us to take to the field

22 on a level field.

23 We have, throughout the life of our

24 business, been -- I think we have been a good corporate"

Keefe Reporting Company

7
1 neighbor. We have tried to certainly comply with any

2 regulations that might be placed upon us by any

3 governing body. We just think that we are being asked

4 to meet a regulation that our competitors aren't, and . '

5 it's puts, us at a disadvanta'ge. This is important'to

6 Crownline,

7 As I said, we are a family, local

8 company, We have always been in this area. I grew up

9 here. My sisters grew up here. We still live here. We

10 work, play here. We don't feel like we are, in any way,

11 endangering or negatively impacting'the environment

12 through our manufacturing process.

13 It would be most appreciative if you

14 would listen to Mr. Guariglia's presentation here today,

15 and see your way clear to a positive recommendation for

16 Crownline. Thank you,

17

18

MR. MATOESIAN: No questions.

HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. - Thank you very

19 much, sir.

20 MR. GUARIGLIA: I would like to testify now, so

21 I guess if you would like to swear me in.

22 (At which point in the proceedings, Dale

23 Guariglia was sworn in.)

24 MR. GUARIGLIA·: Ms. Sudman, Ms. Liu, thank you'

Keefe Reporting Company

,8
1 for the opportunity to speak with the Board here today,

2 and come before you.

3 As I mentioned, my name is Dale

4 Guariglia with the law firm Bryan Cave representing ,

5 Crownline.Boats, and we are here today to request an

6 Adjusted Standard on behalf of Crownline Boats from the

7 eight-pound-per-hour rule, as set forth in our petition.

8 I think it may be somewhat helpful to

9 understand a little bit of background as to how we got

10 to this place, procedurally. Crownline had submitted an

11 application for a Title V permit back in the 1990's. As

12 a. part of that process of having the permit discussed

13 with the IEPA, at that time, the issue came up as to how

14 Crownline would comply with the eight-pound-per-hour

15 rule. And, also, during this time, the emission factors

16 at Crownline had been using to calculate.VOM emissions

17 from its operations were changed. The federal EPA

18 decided that the old emission factors that the industry

19 had been using were no longer accurate or valid, and

20 because they, supposably, underestimated emissions, and,

21 therefore, issued new emission factors for the

22 boat~building industry, so Crownline began these

23 discussions with IEPA as to how it was going to be

24 demonstrating compliance with the eight-pound-per-hour'

Keefe Reporting Company

9
1 rule.

2 During ~hose discussions, there was

3 questions about whether averaging could be used to ~eet

4 the eight-pound-per-hour rule, and also what the ,

5 emission Source was under the eight-pound-per-hour" rule.

6 During those discussions,IEPA determined that averaging

7 should not be used to comply with the

8 eight-pound-per-hour rule, and that that emission source

9 should be considered the part that is being

10 manufactured.

11 As a" result of those discu~sions,

12 Crownline, basically, determined that, if it had to

13 comply with the eight-pound-per-hour rule on a strict

14 hourly basis, that there could be no averaging, that

15 Crownline could not comply on that basis, and,

16 therefore, discussed this with IEPA, and"IEPA encouraged

17 Crownline" to seek an Adjusted Standard. As a result of

18 that, we filed our petition for an adjusted standard

19 last fall.

20 Also, Crownline was issued a Title V

21 permit back in November of last year, which,

22 specifically, provided that they were to obtain an

23 adjusted standard by the end of this year or to

24 demonstrate their compliance with the

Keefe Reporting Company

10
1 eight-pound-per-hour rule.

2 Let me -- I have prepared a kind of a

3 bullet-point presentation, which I have given to each of

4 you and to IEPA. It is marked I think as Exhibit 3. If

5 you would· like, you can follow along with what I have to

6 say. It might just make it a little bit easier. I will

7 follow this fairly closely.

8 I forgot. We do have another set of

9 exhibits, which are a series of photographs. I don't

10 know if you want to mark these. Why don't you mark

11 'these as Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7 and 8.

12 HEARING OFFICER: Sure. Let me ask you this, do

13 you have any more exhibits coming?

14 MR. GUARIGLIA: I do not think we do, no.

15 HEARING OFFICER: Okay, because I could mark

16 them a~ a set.

MR. GUARIGLIA: That would be fine. We could

(Exhibit Nos. 4 through 8 were marked.)

MR GUARIGLIA: Let me take a brief minute to,

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR GUARIGLIA: Yes.

or

11

Keefe Reporting Company
1 talk about Crownline's production process. Essentially,

2 by a six-step process, although I'm combining a few here

3 near the end, but essentially, the first would be mold

4 fabrication where the molds are built in order to make ,

. 5 the parts ·to construct the boats.

6 The second is gelcoat application,

7 essentially, spraying, making the outside smooth part of

8 the boat, and I will spend a little bit more time on

9 that, and then moving to lamination where you are

10 actually constructing the fiberglass part, itself.

11 Grind and trim is, essentielly, taking

12 off the excess parts or excess scrap from the parts.

13 You go into woodworking, upholstery, and final assembly

14 where you have things like upholstery, carpets, seats,

15 stereos, the things people like in'their boats, and,

16 finally,_- sh:i,pping out.

17 The process that I will spend the most

18 time on talking about here today is gelcoat and

19 lamination because those are the areas where there is

20 the most VOM emissions from the plant, but it is

21 important to point out, though, that, on a· strict hourly

22 basis, a number of the other processes, besides gel coat

23 and lamination, will also not need the

24 eight-pound-per-hour rule on a strict hourly basis.

Keefe Reporting Company

12
1 First, the gelcoat application.

2 Exhibit No.4 is a photograph, actually, of a mold that

3 is being prepared, and it is being prepared in a gelcoat

4 booth, and the mold that is done as this is,

5 actually, -the bottom part of 'a hull of a boat on Exhibit

6 4, and once this mold is prepared, it is essentially

7 flipped over in order to make -- in order to begin the

8 gelcoat process.

9 Exhibit 5 that you have there is a

10 photograph of a deck that is being prepared in the

11 gelcoa t process. What -the gelcoat process is it's kind

12 of a very interesting, actually, if there is anything

13 interesting in manufacturing, but bUilding, like I said,

14 the hull of a boat you would start with a mold that

15 looks like a big bathtub, and you spray this gelcoat

16 inside of it, which becomes the exterior~coating of the

17 hull, so you're, essentially, painting the outside of

18 the hull before you actually even build the hull, so yqu

19 spray that in the mold, and allow that to cure, and then

20 you would move over to the lamination station where the

21 fiberglass would be put in to create,. actually, the

22 hull, and the gelcoat will adhere to the fiberglass to

23 create the hull of the boat.

24 There are 31 air-atomized guns that

Keefe Reporting Company

13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

are used in the gelcoat booth that are sprayed. The

gelcoat is done in a single application that is sprayed

into the part or into the mold, and Crownli·ne has

already . instituted worker protection , and also pOllution

control equipment in having

180,000-cubic-feet-per-minute ventilation system in

order to keep the air in compliance with the OSHA Worker

Protection Standards for styrene. Under the OSHA Worker

Protection Standard, you could not have more than 100

parts per million of styrene, and, as a result of that,

you have to move a lot of air through the facility in

order to protect the workers.

We do have -- Crownline does have

dedicated spray booths to reduce the styrene levels and

plant air outside of the booths. It also filters to

filter ·out. particular matter, and also uses low styrene

resin, 33.4 percent average currently right now.

After the molds -- or after the

gelcoat is cured, these molds are moved over to the

lamination area where the fiberglass is sprayed in using

a flow-coat chopper gun. Essentially, what you have is

glass fibers that are mixed with a resin and a catalyst,

and are sprayed into these molds. If you refer to

photographs 6 and 7, that shows the area in the

Keefe Reporting Company

14
1 lamination areas. You can see in the center of

2 photograph 6 there is actually a spraying of lamination

3 that's going on, and then, in photograph 7, marked as

4 Exhibit 7, what happens after or as a part of spraying

5 the fiberglass into the boat'mold you do have several

6 people that will be then rolling the fiberglass smooth

7 in there in order to eliminate any air bubbles, so you

8 will have -- ther'e are 24 separate flow-Coat applicator

9 guns that are used, and often, when a part is sprayed

10 with these guns, you will have two or more guns being

11 sprayed at the same time.

12 Depending upon the size of the part,

13 you may have more than one layer that is actually layed,

14 and so what you would do is you would spray in a layer,

15 also known as a skin of the fiberglass, wait for that to

16 cure. 'That would usually be about an hour or two, and

17 then come back in, and lay a second layer in, and

18 depending upon the size of the part,there may be two to

19 three layers that are sprayed in order to complete the

20 part.

21 Crownline also has Worker Protection

22 Push Control Equipment in the lamination area.

23 160,000-cubic-feet-per-minute ventilation system for the

24 OSHA Worker Protection requirements. Panel filters,

Keefe Reporting Company

15
1 also, to control particulate and submerged-fill resin

2 tanks in order to reduce splashing.

3 Let's spend just a minute tal~ing --

4 I·"m on page five of my outline on Exnibi t 3. Regarding

5 the compliance with the new MACT Standard, since that is

6 the basis for what Crownline is asking to comply with,

7 as opposed to the eight-pound-per-hour rule. Beginning

8 August 23, 2004, Crownline, like all other boat

9 manufactures in the US, are going to have to comply with

10 the new MACT Standard, and this sets a floor using the

11 emission limits achieved by the best performing 12

12 percent of the boat manufactures in the country, and

13 that was -- in most of those companies, most of those

14 manufacturing companies will use lower styrene resins

15 and gelcoats and flow-coat applicators in order to

16 comply with the new MACT Standard.

17 The EPA, in comparing the MACT

18 Standard, determined that end tail stack controls woul¢

19 not be needed -- would not be the MACT floor in order to

20 comply. Crownline is currently in compliance with the

21 emission standards under the MACT, and has been in

22 compliance for about six to eight months, essentially

23 about a year early from what the EPA has required.

24 The -- some of the questions that were

Keefe Reporting Company

16
1 submitted through the He~ring Officer's order asked

2 about what the costs had been for Crownline to comply

3 with the MACT Standard, and in Exhibit No.1, I have

4 detailed those costs, but let me just mention them here.

5 Essentially, there was a $96;000 capital cost to

6 Crownline for changing out .its air-atomized spray guns

7 to use the lower emission flow-coat guns. There's also

8 about a $4,000 a week extra expense that Crownline's

9 incurred in labor costs in the sense of it requires more

10 people to, basically, rollout the fiberglass, and also .

11~0 touch-up in order to just to ~aintain product quality

12 because, with the lower styrene resins, i~ does effect

13 product quality, and does require additional labor.

14 There's also about a $6,000 a year

15 reporting, recordkeeping requirement that will be

16 needed," and then, also, Crownline's spent" about $80,000

17 in consulting costs in just trying to get- up to speed

18 with the MACT.

19 Essentially, kind of what this all

20 boils down to is about an amount of $215,600 per year in

21 costs which Crownline is incurring in complying with the

22 MACT Standard, which works out to be about $4,312 per

23 ton.

24 Crownline -- and let me mention one

Keefe Reporting Company

17
1 thing, also, with regard to the MACT Standard, and our

2 adjusted standard re~uest. The -- I have provided, as

3 Exhibit 1, responses to the questions, and imrnedia tely

4 after those responses there is a one page that says,

5 "Crownline Boats, =nc., Revised adjusted standard'

6 Language." That is now the new language that Crownline

7 is requesting for ~he adjusted standard, and this is

8 language chat Cro~nline and the IEPA have discussed, and

9 we are both in agree3ent as to the teres of that

10 language for the aijusted standard. Do you see that in

-11 the packet?

12 MS. LIU: Could you point me in the right

13 direction?

14 MR. GUARIG~IA: Sure. Exhibit~, the responses.

15 HEARING O??ICER: Page nine.

16 .MR. GUARIG~=A: The first page right after --

17 it's a one-page --

18 MS. LIU: =hank you.

19 ~B. GUARIG::'IA: Sure. If I'm not making myself

20 clear, please stop ce, and, you know, feel free to

21 interrupt. Let me calk about just Crownline's

22 investigation of o~her alternatives to comply with the

23 eight-pound-per-hour rule.

24 Crownline did investigate three

Kse:e Reporting Company

. 18
1 different options for complying with the

2 eight-pound-per-hour rule. One was reducing VOM content

3 in production materials. The second was alter~ative

4 production ~ethods! i.e., is there a better, different

5 way to make a boat that's on1y going to have eight·

6 pounds per hour emitted, and the third is comply by

7 installing end-of-the-pipe emission controls.

8 Essentially, other than

9 end-of-the-pipe emission controls, none of the other

10 technologies, reducing content of VOM materials and

11 production materials, or doing a different kind of

12 production method, neither of those would cause

13 Crown line to comply with the eight-pound-per-rule-hour

14 rule, so it would only be putting tail stat controls on.

15 Crownline has reduced its VO~ content

16 and its· pr9duction materials in order to·comply with the

17 MACT, and has seen reductions in total VOM as a result

18 of that. However, further reduction is really not

19 technically feasible at this point while still being

20 able to maintain product quality. I mean, you are

21 essentially building a boat that is going to be going

22 through a lot of wear and tear, a product that's going

23 through a lot of wear and tear, so this is different

24 than, like, a fiberglass hot tub, so you will have

Keefe Reporting Company

19
1 people riding it going at who knows what kind of speeds,

2 so you will want to maintain a very strong product

3 quality in order to protect the safety of the boaters.

4 And so, as a result of that, right now going to a lower

5 styrene resin or gelcoat just has not been able to·

6 maintain that product quality.

7 Second, Crownline looked at

8 alternative production methods, and for, both, open

9 molding and closed molding, and -chose are detailed in

10 our petition in a technical docQ"ent that will attach to

11 the petition, so I'm not going to go through those, but,

12 essentially, there's really no qualitative data -- or

13 I'm sorry -- quantitative data to show actually how much

14 those alternative methods would reduce emissions, and

15 really without add-on controls, none of those

16 alternatives would allow Crownline to actually comply

17 with the eight-pound-per-hour-rule on a strict hourly

18 basis; and even further, those alternative technologies

19 only relate to the lamination process, bring the

,

20 fiberglass in the boat, and don't apply to some of the

21 other areas, such as gelcoating, caulking, adhesives

22 that go on the carpet, and so even if an alternative was

23 used in the facility, it would still not allow Crownline.

24 to fully comply with the eight-pound-per-hour rule on a

Keefe Reporting Compa~y

20
1 strict hourly basis.

2 Let me talk for a minute abo~L the use

3 of tail end or end-of-the-pipe controls for CrcNnline,

4 and why those' are really not ,feasible. Crownl~ne did

, 5 obtain cost quotes from Control System Suppliers, took

6 those quotes, put them into an EPA spreadsheet for

7 estimating cost on a per-ton basis, and the costs that

8 were identified were essentially up front capital costs

9 would be needed of 7- to 14-~illion dollars in order to

10 install those, and also annualized operation costs of

11 four-and-a-half'to 6-million dollars every year just to

12 operate these pollution control devices, and also which

13 would; basically, come out to I believe at about $35,000

14 to $58,000 per ton of YOM removed, and the reason these

15 costs are so high is because of th~ OSHA Worker

16 Protection.Standard. You have to just move an

17 incredible amount of air through that facility in order

18 to keep the styrene levels low enough that you don't -~

19 you're not exposing the workers there to unacceptable

20 levels of styrene. So, as a result of that, when you

21 move that much air through the facility, it. just

22 exponentially increases the costs of. any end-of-the-pipe

23 pollution control limit.

24 One of the things that Crownline has

Keefe Reporting Company

21
1 done is install an $800,000 air ventilation system in

2 its facility in order to make sure it does comply with

3 the OSHA Standard.

4 Let me tall" a minute about the impact

5 on the environment in comparing the adjusted, if

6 Crownline were to comply with the adjusted standard, as

7 opposed to the eight-pound-per-hour-rule. I'm on page

8 11 of my outline, which is Exhibit 3.

9 Essentially, Crownline's pre-MACT

10 compliance emissions were, approximately, 245 tons per

11 year. Ana Crownline's current emissions are,

12 approximately, 195 tons per year, and this is

13 sometimes it's hard to do a perfect comparison, and this

14 comparison here is based upon an equal amount of boats

15 being produced in order to compare those, and,

16 obviously, the total amount of VOM produced is going to

17 vary, depending on how many boats, and what models of

18 boats were produced, but, essentially, there's been

19 about a 50-ton reduction that will be realized by

20 Crownline, or is being realized now by Crownline

21 complying with the MACT Standard.

22 If Crownline were to comply with the

23 eight-pound-per-hour rule, assuming that we could reduce.

24 our emissions down to eight pounds per hour, we have --

Keefe Reporting Company

22
1 Crown1ine has calculated that the· emissions would be,

2 approximately, 144 tons a year, so there would be about

3 an additional 50-ton decrease of emissions, if we could

4 comply with the eight-pound-per-hour rule.

5 Let me mention why that is not

6 significant. Really, for a c8uple reasons. One, is, in

7 order to comply, we would nee~ tail stat controls for

8 the entire facility, ~nd one of the options would be to

9 put on an oxidizer at the facility, which is going to

10 require an incredible amount of natural gas to be

11 burned. As a result of that, you are going to have

12 energy consUIT~tion that we wouldn't have otherwise, and

13 you're also going to have NOx being produced, which you

14 wouldn't have otherwise by jus~ complying with the MACT

15 Standard, so you are going to get some additional air

16 contaminates as a result of putting on tail stat

17 controls.

18 Also, the other thing is the

19 eight-poun~-per-hour rule is a little unique in the

20 sense that there may be, theoretically, able to comply

21 with it, but, yet, still emit the same amount of total

22 VON. For example, let's say you could develop a resin

23 or a gelcoat that cured over a longer period of time.

24 So instead of emitting 14 pounds in the first hour,

Keefe Reporting Company

23
1 which would be a violation of the eight-pound-per-hour

2 rule, let's say it would be able to be spread out over

3 two hours and have seven pounds in one hour, seven

4 pounds in a second hour, you wo~ld be in compliance with ,

,

5 the eight-pound-per-hour-rule, but you would still 'have

6 the same amount of VOM being produced, and what we

7 believe by complying with the MACT is that we are having

8 a real reduction in the total amount of VOM produced.

9 Let me talk, also, about ozone impact

10 from Crownline's operation, and comparing between 'if

11 we're complying with the MACT, which we are, versus

12 complying with the eight-pound-per-hour rule.

13 Essentially, what we had done was we had performed an

14 ambient air quality impact analysis that Crownline's

15 consultant, Andy Polcyn with Advanced Environmental, had

16 prepared. _ And looking at a few scenarios, one would be

17 if we complied with the MACT, versus if we complied with

18 the eight-pound-per-hour rule, and this air impact

19 quality modeling, essentially, looks at what the

20 background concentration of ozone is, and then look,s at

21 what the extent of increase would be based upon a level

22 of VOM being emitted by the plant.

23 What you have marked as Exhibit 2,

24 which I have provided, is a comparison of ozone impact

Keefe Reporting Company

24
1 based upon different tons of VOM being emitted. In

2 column one, it shows different amounts of VOM being

3 emitted, and then it would show, in column 4, the

4 contr~bution to ozone, the increase in ozone that would ,

5 result from those VOM emissions shown in column 1. "

6 Crownline, let's say, roughly, their

7 emissions, let's say, would be 250 tons a year. That

8 would show an increase of, essentially, eight

9 thousandths of a part per million of ozone increase in

10 South Central Illinois. That compares with the first

11 column, the first line which is 160 tons per year, which

12 would be, essentially, if we are complying with the

13 eight-pound-per~hour rule, there would be an increase of

14 essentially five thousandths parts per million.

15 Let me -- basically~ the bottom line

16 here is" that the difference between complying with the

17 MACT, and complying with the eight-pound~per-hour rule

18 is that we would only see a possible increase of three:

19 thousandth's of a part per million increase in ozone by

20 complying with the adjusted standard we are requesting,

21 as opposed to the eight-pound-per-hour rule, but then

22 again, as I also mentioned, there would be additional

23 NOx submitted if we did comply with the

24 eight-pound-per-hour rule, so, essentially, kind of the"

Keefe Reporting Company

25
1 bottom line is that we would see a very insignificant

2 possible increase in ozone, but the other thing to keep

3 in mind here is that Crownline's current emissions, as

4 complying with MACT; are still 40 to 50 tons less as a

5 couple years ago, so, as compared to where we were a

6 couple years ago, we are really not asking for an

7 increase here at all. We are saying we are decreasing

8 our emissions by complying with the MACT Standard, and

9 these emissions -- Crownline's current emissions should

10 not cause any exceedence of the one-hour ozone standard,

11 and based upon this'chart, you would· have to, basically,

12 triple to quadruple Crownline's emissions up to,

13 approximately, 917 tons per year before you would get

14 close to an actual exceedence of the one-hour ozone

15 rule.

16 Let me mention I guess briefly cross

17 media impact from complying with the adjusted standard,

18 as opposed to eight-pound-per-hour rule. Essentially,

19 we just don't see that there would really be any

20 increase in cross media impacts from complying with the

21 adjusted standard. As a matter of fact, the EPA

22 indicated, when they developed the MACT Standard, that

23 there would be no adverse impact on water quality.

24 There would be no increased energy consumption.

Keefe Reporting Company

26
1 Actually, the amount of solid waste would actually

2 decrease.

3 Going over to page 15 of my outline

4 talking, basically, about the justification for this

5 rule, and· why the factors re'lating to Crownline are

6 sUbstantially and significantly different than what the

7 Board looked at when they developed the

8 eight-pound-per-hour rule.

9 The eight-pound-per-hour rule "'=.s

10 promulgated in 1971 as a catch-all provision, and the

11 factors relied upon by the Board ~- it's kind of hard to

12 tell what they were really thinking 30 years ago more

, , 13 than 30 years ago -- but what we have kind of seen in

14 some of the Board decisions it looks like it was

15 twofold; one, to exceedence of the one-hour ozone

16 standa:r:d, and the other was to reduce odors; and,

17 basically, both of those really should not be an issue

18 in its application to Crown1ine, in ·that Crownlin2 is·

19 putting a system in place in order to eliminate odors.

20 Several -- probably 10 years ago -- there was an odor

21 .problem from the facility, and they have installed

22 equipment in order to reduce that, and since then, there

23 really hasn't been any complaints in the community about

24 odor from the facility; and, second, as I mentioned

Keefe Reporting Company

27
1 earlier, the increased impact ozone is insignificant

2 from Crownline's operation, so the factors that the

3 Board was really designed to look at were not really

4 that -~ are really not applicable to Crownline's

5 application.

6 I guess, moreover, not only looking at

7 what the Board looked at in "71, but what also the Board

8 didn't look at in "71 because they couldn't have looked

9 at it as thinking about all the things that have

10 happened since "71, and that if the Board had known

11 ,about some of these developments, maybe they would have

12 or maybe would have made the eight-pound-per-hour rule

13 different, and, essentially, what you have back in "71

14 there was no emission data for boat building, and that

15 ,came out in 1991, and, also, that was significantly

16 changed in the late 1990's and had the Board had that

17 information, they may have done something different.

18 Also, just the OSHA Worker Protection'

19 Standard, and the need to plush so much air through

20 these facilities. That's not something the Board

21 considered back in 71, nor could it have done that, nor

22 could it have ever foreseen there would be the OSHA

23 Standard, and also just the recently-issued ~~CT

24 Standard, that now there is a federal guideline

Keefe Reporting Company

28
1 specifically for reducing VOM emissions from boat

2 manufacturers.

3 Essent~a11y, the existence of these

4 factors justify the granting of an adjusted standard. I

5 do have, pn page 17, it talks about -- of my outline --

6 that those adjusted standards will be consistent with

7 federal law. That is definitely clear, since we are

8 basically, essentially, asking to comply with the MACT

9 Standard, which is a federal standard.

10 There is also no rederal equivalent to

11 the eight-pound-per-hour rule, so it's not like we are

12 asking to get out of something that's also a federal

13 requirement. And the adjusted ~tandard will become part

14 of the Illinois SIP, which is part of the federal

15 regulations.

16 Let me conclude by, basically, saying

17 that this is a very important issue for .Crownline, and

18 it would put Crownline in a significant competitive

19 disadvantage to its competitors in other states, if this

20 adjusted standard was not issued.

21 As I mentioned, I don't think

22 Crownline does not believe that the factors the Board

23 looked at are the same when they developed, in 1971, the

24 eight-pound-per-hour rule, as to what the factors are·

Keefe Reporting Company

29
1 that are applicable to Crownline, as far as the adjusted

2 standard. The Board did not consider many factors that

3 it, obviously, could have, because of these developments

4 that have occurred since then.

5 I mentioned, also, that the adjusted

6 standard will have little impact on the environment

7 compared to the eight-pound-per-hour rule, and is also

8 reducing Crownline's emissions compared to what they

9 were before. Just the cost of tail stat controls, .the

10 inability to use other alternatives means that, if

11 Crownline were to have to comply with the

12 eight-pound-per-hour rute, they would be, essentially,

13 putting themselves out of business just because of the

14 extra costs of $4 million to $6 million a year that just

15 cannot be added to the bottom line here by increasing

16 both stats.

17 It is Crownline's desire to continue

18 to operate in Southern Illinois. They are locally owned

19 and operated here, but I think I would be remiss if I

20 did not say that, if the adjusted standard is not

21 granted, that Crownline would be faced with tough

22 decisions, and one of those would be whether it could

23 move to another state where the eight-pound-per-hour

24 rule is not in existence. That's not Crownline's

Keefe Reporting Company

30
recess?

MR. GUARIGLIA: Before we do that, let ~e just

HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Mr. Matoesian, do

you have any questions?

desire. They would prefer to stay right here in

Southern Illinois, but it may make it difficult to do

that, so thank you very much. That is all I have to say

for now.

any

No thank you.

Ms. Liu, do you have

MR. MATOESIAN:

HEARING OFFICER:

questions for Mr. Guariglia?

MS. LIU: If it would be all right, Exhibit 1 i5

rather lengthy, and I would like to look it over.

HEARING OFFICER: Would you like to take a short

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 spend a minute just ~alking through Exhibit 1, an~ the

16 attachments on there. There are several· attachrr.ents.

17 The first is, as I mentioned ~e=ore,

18 the revised language for the adjusted standard, ~hich

19 Crownline has come to agreement on with the IEPA, and in

20 addition to complying with the MACT Standard, paragraph

21 A, essentially, says that we will also -- Crownline will

22 continue to inve~tigate other ways and methods and

23 production that may lower our VOM emissions there, and,

24 also, the IEPA can request any reasonable test for

31

Keefe Reporting Company
1 Crownline to conduct in order to look at different

2 technologies or production materials that would also

3 lower VOM, so we have a continuing obligatio~ to do

4 that, and are' also going to agree to provide a report ,

,

5 once a year to the IEPA as to what efforts we have'

6 taken, and what would be the results of those tests,

7 Also attached -- the second thing

8 that's attached is I think a six-page document. The

9 first page is entitled "Exhibit 1." The Order had asked

10 whether we had ~ounds-per-hour emission calculations for

11 our gel coat and lamination area because, in'our

12 technical document, we did have 'those for small parts.

13 This document is those calculations.

14 Essentially, the last two pages show the pound-per-hour

15 based upon per boat model. You will see Exhibit 5 and

16 Exhibit 6. We had not included those in.the technical

17 documen~ because they were developed in the year 2000

18 based upon some old production data that, over time,'

19 Crownline realized was really not current data, and may

20 not have been as accurate as Crownline would like, so we

21 had not included this in the technical document. Since

22 the Order, specifically, asked if ~e had this, we are

23 providing it here, but we have put on notes on the

24 document indicating that there is some concern about its

Keefe Reporting Company

32
1 exact accuracy. We think that it probably overes"i~ates

2 emissions. We have gone back -- Crownline, its

3 consultant, Advanced Environmental, has gone back, and

4 looked at several of the boat models since then, a~j has

5 determined that, even though' these estimates do

6 overestimate some of the emissions, there will s"i~l be

7 boat models that would still not comply with the

8 eight-pound-per-hour rule on a strict hourly basis.

9 The next document in the hando~t is a

10 chart entitled, "Crownline Boats Emissions from SIall

11 Parts Production by Boat Model." One of the questions

12 was there was a similar chart in the technica,l c:>c'.,-,nent

13 that did not have units of measurement on it, anc "his

14 is just that same chart showing the units of measurement

15 that we had failed to include in the original char""

16 And last, but not least, there's -- and I apologize for

17 throwing all of this at you so quickly -- is one of the

18 questions in the Order was, "What is the half li~i"?" 9r

19 "What is the MACT limit, emission limit, for Croom:'ine?"

20 And the way the MACT Standard is set up is it's g:>ing to

21 be based upon a different -- or it's going to vary

22 monthly, depending upon the type of gelcoats and the

23 resins you use, and it's based upon an equation "hat is,

24 used, so every month a different limit is produced.

Keefe Reporting Company

33
1 What we have done is included the

2 emissions and the half limits for che last six months

3 here on here. Now, on this cover sheet, it shows that

4 we have been in compliance with the ~~CT. The

5 percentages here for compliance stat~s seen below that

6 is the percentage we are below our e2ission limit each

7 month, and then attached is the spreadsheets for each

8 month showing how we calculated thae emission

9 limitation, and, also, what our e2issions were.

10 So, hopefully, that helps a little bit'

11 ,in your review as to what these dcc~cents are, and we

12 would also be happy to answer any questions and

. 13 technical questions. I do have Crownline's consultant,

14 Andy Polcyn, who could better able answer these kind of

15 detailed questions than I can.

16 -HEARING OFFICER: Thank-you. We.will take a

17 brief recess to allow Ms. Liu to review this document,

18 so we'll go off the record now. Thank you.

19

20

(A small break was taken at 1:06 p.m.)

HEARING OFFICER: We'll go back on the record

21 now. Ms. Liu , do you have any:quescions for

22 Mr. Guariglia?

23 MR. LIU: Just a couple. I want to thank you

24 very much for the thoroughness of che exhibits you

Keefe Reporting Corr,p~~y

34
in?

provided in response to the Hearing Officer-ordered

No.1, you respond to question 5 A-I at the very bottom.

MR. GUARIGLIA: Yes.

have it in hand in writing, so thank you for that.

I just had a couple questions, as I

On page 7 of Hearing Exhibit

I really appreciate it. It's very nice to

was going, through it.

questions.

MS. LIU: In your response, you say that

Crownline's pre-MACT emissions were, approximately, 204

tons of HA?s per year. I was wondering if that might

have been a mispriht. I noticed in the technical

document to the petition, Exhibit 3 of Appendix- 6 and

Exhibit 4, they list the pre-MACT scenario and the MACT

scenario with the total emissions per year, and I

believe the pre-MACT number was 244.82 tons .

, MR. GUARIGLIA: Could we have Mr.: Polcyn sworn

(At which point in the 'proceedings, Andrew

Polcyn was sworn.)

HE~qING OFFICER: Would you please state your

name before we begin.

MR. POLCYN: My name is Andrew Polcyn with

Advanced Environmental Associates, their consultant to'

Crownline. The number of 244.82, is that what you're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

35

Keefe Reporting Company
1 looking at, that Table l4? This is Exhibit 3 of

2 Appendix 6.

3 MS. LIU: Yes.

4 MR. POLCYN: Thls is strictly showing VOM. The

5 HAPs -- there's a differentiation between HAPs, or'

6 hazardous air pollutants, and VOM. Not all HAPs are

7 VOM, so, consequently, you are going to have more VOM

8 because there are materials that are not hazardous, as

9 defined by USEPA, so, therefore, that's why you have got

10 a number of 244, or 245, let's say, for total VOM,

11 versus the HAPs that are just the hazardous fraction of

12 that.

13 MS. LIU: Thank you for clarifying that. Just

14 to follow up, I don't remember ever seeing a

15 differentiation in the tables of the total HAPs and the

16 total V0M's since the eight-pound-per-hoilr rule just

17 refers to VOM' s, in general. I kind of looked at it

18 this way. On page eight of the responses in Exhibit 1,:

19 Crownline estimates, in point five, that there is a 25

20 percent reduction in its HAPs emissions by complying

21 with the MACT Standard, and I was .Just wondering if you

22 could elaborate on which figures you, used to come up

23 with the 25 percent.

24 MR. POLCYN: The 25 percent is based on -- first

Keefe Reporting Company

36
1 of all, you have to look at the baseline, where do we

2 start from, and we were looking at data back from year

3 20'00, I believe, as a starting point. In other '-lords,

4 looking at what the amount of HAP existed, as applied

5 pre-MACT"before MACT, such as in the resin and the

6 gelcoat, and then after compliance with the ~~CT, which

7 is the current scenario, what the differential would be

8 there, so, basically, we wound up using, initially, the

9 original data. So, for instance, just to go back where

10 we showed a difference of about a 50-ton reduction, that·

11 was looking at, actually we used the year 2003 data more

12 recently, the mix of boats to have a most representative

13 scenario of what's going on right now, and had Crownline'

14 been using the old resins, meaning the high-styrene

15 resins and gelcoats, then the emissions would have been

16 X so many tons. I can't remember what that number is

17 right off the top of my head, and then the current

18 ,scenario where they currently are is'SO tons less,

19 basically, so did that answer your question or did I

20 just confuse you more?

21 MS. LIU: You're going along the lines I'm

,22 thinking. I was just wondering if you could point me to

23 the numbers you use. Is the 204 your pre-MACT nurrber

24 minus 50 tons?

Keefe Reporting Company

37
1 MR. POLCYN: You are referring to which response

2 here? You said page eight?

3 A. Page eight, point nur~er five. The

4 response 6egihs, "Crownline estimates its per~ent ,

5 reduction· in total HAP emissions at, approximately; 25

6 percent."

7 MR. POLCYN: Honestly, I don't recall. I would

8 have to take a look at that, but Dale may be -- hold on

9 one second. Let me grab that.

10 MR. GUARIGLIA: The pre-~j}\.CT would have been 204'

11 tons of HAPs and the MACT ·compliance would have been

12 153, or, basically, 154 tons rounded up, which would be

13 a difference of 50 tons.

14 MS. LIU: Does that happen to appear anywhere in

15 the exhibits or the petition?

16 MR. GUARIGLIA: We included it in the exhibits.

17 I don't believe it does in the sense that most of the

18 information we provided originally with the technical

19 document were based upon total VOM's, and the questions

20 in the order were related to HAPs, and so I don't know,

21 unless these would have that. We could provide that :to

22 you, if yo~ would like, but I don't know that we have --

23 I don't know that it· is in these materials.

24 MS. LIU: Would that be difficult to do?

Keefe Reporting Company

38
for instance, M sub I is massive of open molds and resin

of gelcoat, and used in the past 12 months of the

MR. POLCYN: No.

MS. LIU: That would be helpful, maybe in the

post-hearing brief, or something like that.

MR. GUARIGLIA: We could do it as a follo~-up

to the hearing. That would be no problem at all ..

MS. LIU: One last question. In the back part

of your Hearing Exhibit 1, the MACT Compliance Summary,

the several tables that you provided by month on the

calculated HAP emissions. I was wondering if ·you could

elaborate on some of the abbreviations used in the

column headings. There was a mass used, and then

underneath it the letters "MI." And pounds per year. I

was wondering what "MI" stood for.

MR. POLCYN: without going back to the MACT

Standard, all of these items, "PEl" and "MI" those all

come from the MACT Standard, the equations, and I can

pull that out. It's all -- that's included in the Title

V permit, as well as -- let me find an equation. All

the definitions -- it starts on 44234. All of the terms

are defined in -- I believe the ones you are talking

about, M sub·I, it's in the federal register on page

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

44236. That's of the August 22,2001, pUblication, so

39

Keefe Reporting Company
It's just like other standards that

exist right now. As an example, if you are applying

paint, there's a paint rule where you are allowed to

MS. LIU: Could you put that in this, as well,

since we don't, actually, incorporate the Federal

Register in the record for this hearing? That would be

good to know, if it was a question that came up in the

future.

operation. N is the number of different open-molded

resins used, and so forth. There's quite a few

definitions that are in here, PVI. We didn't define

those because' they are in the standard, but if you need

that, we can certainly proviae that as an adjunct to the

submittal.

calculations were done using the USEPA it's called point

value averaging method to demonstrate compliance to,

both, calculate the emission limit that Mr. Guariglia

mentioned earlier that it's calculated on' a monthly

basis, and then, once you do that, then you use another

set of equations to determine are you, in fact, in

compliance because the compliance is, basically, not so

much total emissions, as it is emissions per pound of

material applied.

MR. POLCYN: For the record, all. of the

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

40

Keefe Reporting Company
1 have no more than so much in the amount of VOC's or

2 VON's in that material, and it's typically per gallon or

3 in some mass measure.

4 MS. ~IU: Just out of curiosity, you don't

5 actually paint the boats. lt's a gelcoat?

6 MR. POLCYN: Gelcoat is like painting, yes.

7 It's an art, actually. If you do it wrong, it doesn't

8 look very good. You don't sell the boat.

9 MR. GUARIGLIA: You paint it before you actually

10 build it, so it's a sprayed in the molds first.

11 MR. POLCYN: It's a pigmented type of resin,

12 but, basically, it's to provide the appearance of the

13 boat and the rest of the resin that's typically called

14 the production resin provides the strength of the boat,

15 whether it's the hull or the deck, the thickness that

16 would withstand the bumps and waves of Kentucky Lake or

17 Rend Lake.

18 MS. LIU: I do have one question for the Agency.

19 In their testimony, Crownline indicated that the Agency

20 was agreeable to its revised wording for the adjusted

21 standard. Do you support that that?

22

23

MR. MATOESIAN: Yes, we do.

HEARING OFFICER: I will give the Agency an

24 opportunity to elaborate further on their position.

Keefe Reporting Company

41
1 MS. LIU: I was also wondering -- they discussed

2 a little bit of history of what they thought the

3 eight-pound-per-hour rule was about, since it was

4 adopted so long agp. I was wondering if the Agency had

5 any additional information that they wanted to add·to

6 what Crown1ine interpreted.

7 MR. MATOESIAN: If we decide to put anything,

8 we'll just put it in the post-hearing brief.

9 MS. LIU: Thank you.

10 HEARING OFFICER: Is that it?

11 MS. LIU: That's it for me.

12 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Mr. Guariglia, did you

13 have anything more you wanted to present?

14 MR. GUARIGLIA: No, we do not.

15 HEARING OFFICER: Would you like to move your

16 exhibits into evidence? I don't think we did that.

17 MR. GUARIGLIA: Yes, I would. I· would make a

18 motion to move my exhibits.

19 HEARING OFFICER: I assume there's no objection.

20 MR. MATOESIAN: No objection.

21 HEARING OFFICER: All of your exhibits, which I

22 believe are Nos. 1 through 8, are admitted. Thank you.

23 The Agency -- you already touched upon

24 this -- you don't have anything further you would like'

Keefe Reporting Company

42
1 to add at this time?

2 MR. MATOESIAN: No, we don't.

3 HEARING OFFICER: Well, before we hear closing

4 arguments, if· there are any, let's go off the record to

5 discuss a. transcript and briefing schedule.

6 (Discussion was held off the record.)

7 HEARING OFFICER: We've just had an

8 off-the-record discussion regarding the transcript and

9 post-hearing sUbmittals. The transcript of these

10 proceedings will be available from the court reporter by'

11 May 5, 2004, and will be posted on the Board's website.

12 The pUblic comment deadline is May 20, 2004. PUblic

13 comment must be filed in accordance with Section 101.628

14 of the Board's procedural rules.

15 The parties have decided to do a

16 concurr€nt.filing of their post-hearing submittals.

17 These are not going to be traditional briefs, but they

18 are actually going to be responsive filings to some

19 questions Alisa had, as well as any other final

20 arguments the parties wish to make. Those documents

21 will be due on May 14, and the Mailbox Rule will apply.

22· Mr. Guariglia, would you like to make

23 a closing statement?

24 MR. GUARIGLIA: No, I do not.

Keefe Reporting Company

43
Keefe Reporting Company

44
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS)

2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR) SS

3

4 I, Holly A. Schmid, a Notary ,Public in

5 and for the County of Williamson, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that

6 pursuant to agreement between counsel there appeared

7 before me on April 23, 2004, at the office of the West

8 Frankfort City Hall, Wesc Frankfort, Illinois, Mr. Dale

9 Guariglia, Mr. Andrew Polcyn, and Mr. Tim Claxton, who

10 were first duly sworn by me to testify the •..,~ole truth

11 of their knowledge touching upon the above =atter so far

12 as they should be examined and their examina~ion was

13 taken by me in shorthand and afterwards tra~scribed upon

14 the typewriter (but not signed by the witnesses, and

15

16

17

18

said hearing is herewith returned.

IN WITN~SS WHEREOF I have hereunto set

my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this Isc day of

May, 2004.

19

20

21

22

23

24

OFFICIAL SEAL

HOLLY A. SCHMID

Notary Public, State of Illinois

My Commission Expires 05-17-D6

Notary Public -- CSR

084-98-254587

45

Keefe Repo~ting Company
A 42:23 applicators 16:15 12:2416:620:18 .30:1640:15

abbreviations 39:10 ago 26:5,6 27:12,13 applied 37:4 40:21 21:1,733:840:17 bottom 13:5 25:15

able 19:2020:5 27:2042:4 apply 20:2043:21 bathtub 13: 15 26:130:1535:6

'23:2024:234: 14 agree 32:4 applying 40:23 become 29: 13 break34:19

about 3:1410:3 12:1 agreeable 41 :20 appreciate 6:19 becomes 13:16 brief5:6,14,17

12:18 15:16 16:22 agreement 18:9 35:2 before 1:1,8 9:2 11:2434:1739:3

16:23 17:2,8,14,16 31:1945:6 appreciative 8:13 13:1826:13 30:9 42:8

17:20,2218:21 ahead 5:7 approximately 7:5 31:14,1735:21 briefing 43:5

21 :2,1322:4,19 air 5:20,2014:7,11 22:10,1223:2 37:541:943:3 briefiy 26:16

23:2 24:9 27:4,23 14:1515:721:17 26:13 35:9 38:5 45:7 briefs 43: 17

28:9,11 29:532:24 21:2122:123:15 April I:6 3:4,12 began 7:3,49:22 bring 20:19

37:1039:2142:3 24:14,1828:19 45;7 begin 5:1013:7 Broadway I: 16

above 45:11 36:6 are" 8:8 14:20,24 35:21 Bryan 1:14 4:16 9:4

accordance43:13 . air-atomized 13:24 15:2232:11 beginning 3:13 16:7 bubbles 15:7

accuracy 33: I 17:6 areas 12:19 15:1 begins 38:4 build 13:18 41:10

accurate 9:1932:20 Alisa 1:20 3:7 43:19 20:21 behalf9:6 building 3:1513:13

achieved 16: 11 allow7:2113:19 arguments 43:4,20 being 7:14,208:3 19:2128:14

Act4:10 20: 16,23 34:17 art-41:7 10:913:3,3,10 built 12:4

active 7:2 allowed 3:2140:24 asked 7:15,208:3 15:1019:1922:15 bullet-point 11:3

actua126:14 along 11:5 37:21 17:132:9,22 22:2023:1324:6 bumps41:16

actually 12:10 13:2 already 14:4 42:23 asking 7:1616:6 24:2225:1,2 Bureau 5:20

13:5,12,18,21 15:2 alternative 19:3 26:629:8,12 believe 21:1324:7 burned 23:11

15:13 20:13,16 20:8,14,18,22 assembly 12: 13 . 29:2235:1537:3 business 7:2,24

27:1,137:1140:8 alternatives 18:22 assess 4:7 38:1739:2042:22 30:13

41:5,7,943:18 . 20:1630:10 Assistant 1:12 below 34:5,6

add 42:5 43:1 although 12:2 Associates 1:18 . besides 12:22 C

added 30:15 always 8:8 35:23 best 16:11 C 1:9

addition 31 :20 ambient 24:14 assume 11:2142:19 better 19:4 34:14 calculate 9:16 40:15

additional 17:13 amount 17:20 21:17 assuming 22:23 between 24:I0 calculated 23:1 34:8

23:3,1525:2242:5 22:14,1623:10,21 attach 20: 10 25:1636:545:6 39:940:16

add-on 20:15 24:6,827:137:4 attached 32:7,834:7 big 3:16 13:15 calculations 32:10

adhere 13:22 41: 1 attachments 31: 16 bit 9:9 11:6 12:8 32:13 40:13

adhesives 20:21 amounts 25:2 31:16 34:1042:2 call 5:24

adjourned 44: 12,13 analysis 24:14 August 16:839:22 block3:14 called 40: 13 41: 13

adjunct 40:5 Andrew 1:18 2:6 available 5:2143:10 Bloomberg I:II came 9:1328:15

adjusted 1:4 3:9,10 35:18,2245:9 Avenue 1:12 5:18 40:10

3:225:159:6 Andy 24:15 34:14 average 14:17 Board 1:1 3:74:3 capital 17:5 21:8

10:17,18,2318:2,5 annualized 21:10 averaging 10:3,6,14 9:127:7,11,14 Carol 1:8 3:6

18:7,1022:5,6 another 11:8 30:23 40:14 ' 28:3,7,7,10,16,20 carpet 20:22

25:2026:17,21 40:17 A-135:6 29:2230:2 carpets 12:14

29:4,6,13,2030:1 answer 5:2134:12 Board's 3:8 4:10,12 case 4:4

30:5,2031:18 34:1437:19 B 43:11,14 catalyst 14:22 .

41:20 anything 13:12 42:7 B2:7 boat4:112:813:5 catch-all 27: 10

adjustment 7:17 42:13,24 back9:11 10:21 13:14,23 15:5 16:8 caulking 20:21

ADM 1:4 anywhere 38:14 15:1728:13,21 16:1219:5,21 cause 19:12 26:10

Administrative 3:10 apologize 3:17 33:2,334:2037:2 20:2028:1429:1 Cave 1:144:169:4

admitted 2:1242:22 33:16 37:939:6,14 32:1533:4,7,11 center 15: 1

adopted 42:4 appear 3:15 38:14 background 9:9 41:8,13,14 Central25:10

ADVANCE 1:18 appearance 6:19 24:20 boaters 20:3 certainly 8:140:5

Advanced 24:15 41:12 based 22:1424:21 boats 1:3 3:94:16 CERTIFY 45:5

33:335:23 appearances 4:14 25:126:1132:15 5:36:16,229:5,6 change 3:17

adverse 26:23 appeared 45:6 32:1833:21,23' 12:5,1518:522:14 changed 9:1728:16

affixed 45:17 appearing 4:17 36:2438:1944:8 22:17,1833:10 changing 17:6

after 14:18,18 15:4 Appendix 35:12 baseline 37:1 37:1241:5 Charles 1:11,19

18:4,1637:6 36:2 basically 10:12 boat-building 9:22 4:17

afternoon 3:5 applicable 28:4 30:1 17:1021:13 25:15 body 8:3 chart 26:1133:10

afterwards 45:13 application 9: 11 26:11 27:4,1729:8 boils 17:20 33:12,14,15

again 25:22 12:6 13:1 14:2 29:1637:8,19 booth 13:4 14:1 choose 3:22

Agency 1:10 4:18 27:1828:5 38:1240:1941:12 booths 14:14,15 chopper 14:21

41:18,19,2342:4 applicator 15:8 basis 10:14,15 12:22 both 18:9 20:8 27:17 City 1:7 3:13 45:8

1

Kp.p.ff': "RP:nortino- rommmv
CLAIR)SS 45:2 concentration 24:20 21:2422:6,20,20 developed 26:22 25:13,17,21,24

clarifying 36:13 concern 7:432:24 22:22.23: 1 25:6 27:729:2332:17 26:1827:8,928:12

Claxton 2:45:36:1 conclude 29: 16 27:5,18,1829:17 developments 28:11 29:11,2430:7,12

6:3,4,8,9,15,16 44:10 29:18,2230:1,11 30:3 30:2333:836:16

45:9 concurrent 43:16 30:2131:19,21 devices 21:12 42:3

clear 4:6 8:15 18:20 conduct 4:4 32:1 32:1,19,2033:2,10 difference 25: 16 eight-pound-per-...

29:7 conducted 4:10 33:1935:2436:19 37: 1038:13 20: 1722:724:5

close 26:14 confuse 37:20 31:13 38:441:19 different 19:1,4,11 eight-ponnd-per-.r...

closed 20:9 consequently 36:7 42:6 19:2325:1,227:6 19:13

closely 11:7 consider 30:2 Cro'mline's 3:24 28:13,1732:1 elaborate 36:22

closing 43:3,23 cqnsidered 10:9 12:1 17:8,1618:21 33:21,2440:1' 39:1041:24

coating 13:16 28:21 22;9,11 24:10,14 differential37:7 eliminate 15:7 27:19

Code 1:4 3:11 consistent 29:6 26;3,9,1228:2,4 differentiation 36:5 emission 3:239:15

column 25:2,3,5,11 construct 12:5 30:8,17,2434:13 36:15 9:18,21 10:5,8

39:11 constructing 12:10 35:9 difficult 31:2 38:24 16:11,21'17:719:7

combining 12:2 consultant 24:15 CSR45:21 direction 18:13 19:928:1432:10

come 9:215:17 33:334:1335:23 cure 13:19 15:16 disadvantage 8:5 33:1934:6,840:15

21:13 31:19 36:22 consulting 17:17 cured 14:19 23:23 29:19 emissions 9:16,20

39:16 consumption 23: 12 curiosity 41:4 discuss 4:20 43:5 12:2020:1422:10 .

coming 11:13 26:24 current 22:1126:3,9 discussed 9: 12 10:16 22:11,2423:1,3

comment3:2143:12 contaminates 23:16 32:1937:7,17 18:842:1 25:5,726:3,8,9,9

43:13 content 19:2,10,15 currently 14:17 discussion 43:6,8 26: 1229:1 30:8

community 27:23 continue 30: 17 16:2037:18 discussions 9:23 31:2333:2,6,10

compaules 7:11,12 31:22 10:2,6,11 34:f,935:9,14

7:1816:13,14 continuing 32:3 D diverse 7:12 36:2037:1538:5

company 6:24 7:6 contribution 25:4 D 2:1 document20:10 39:940:20,20

8:8 controll:l 3:74:3 Dale 1:15 2:5 4:15 32:8,12,13,17,.21 emit23:21

compare 22:15 14:5 15:22 16:1 8:22 9:3 38:8 45:8 32:2433:9,12 emitted 19:6 24:22

compared 26:530:7 21:5,12,23 data20:12,13 28:14 34:1735:1238:19 25:1,3

30:8 controls 16:1819:7 32:18,1937:2,9,11 documents 34:11 emitting 23:24

compares 25:10 19:9,1420:1521:3 D"id 1:11 5:18 43:20 employees 7:5,7,7

comparing 16:17 23:7,1730:9 day45:17 doing 19:11 employers 7:8

22:524:10 conversation 5:16 deadline 43:12 dollars 21:9,11 encouraged 10:16

comparison 22:13 corporate 7:24 decide 42:7 done 13:4 14:222:1 end4:8 10:2312:3

22:1424:24 cost 17:5 21:5,7 30:9 decided 9:18 43:15 24:13 28:17,21 16:1821:3

compete 7:10 costs 17:2,4,9,17,21 decision 4:4 34:140:13 endangering 8:11

competitive 29: 18 21 :7,8,10,15,22 decisions 27:14 down 17:20 22:24 end-of-the-pipe

competitors 8:4 30:14 30:22 due43:21 19:7,921:3,22

29:19 counsel1:1245:6 deck 13:10 41:15 Quly45:10 energy 23:1226:24

complaints 27:23 country 16:12 decrease 23:327:2 during 9:1510:2,6 engineer 5: 19

complete 15:19 County 7:8 45 :2,5 decreasing 26:7 44:7 enough 21:18

compliance 9:24 couple 23:626:5,6 dedicated 14:14 entire 23:8

10:2414:716:5,20 34:2335:4 define 40:3 E entitled 32:933:10

. 16:2222:1024:4 course 7:5 defined 36:939:20 E 1:9,9,11 2:1,7 environment 8:11

34:4,537:638:11 court 6:5,13 43:10 definitely 29:7 each 11:3 34:6,7 22:530:6

39:740:14,19,19 cover 34:3 definitions 39:19 earlier 28:1 40:16 environmental1:10

complied 24:17,17 create 13:21,23 40:3 early 16:23 1:184:185:19

comply7:15,198:1 credibility 4:7 44:7 demonstrate 10:24 easier 11:6 24:1533:335:23

9:1410:7,13,15 credible 44:9 40:14 East 1:7,12 EPA9:1716:17,23

16:6,9,16,20 17:2 cross 26: 16,20 demonstrating 9:24 effect 17:12 21:626:21

18:2219:6,13,16 Crownline 1:3 3:9 depending 15:12,18 efforts 32:5 equal22:14

20:16,2422:2,6,22 3:224:165:36:16 22:1733:22 eight 16:22 19:5 equation 33:23

23:4,7,2025:23 6:17,20,228:6,16 designed 28:3 22:2425:836:18 39:18

29:830:1133:7 9:5,6,10,14,16,22 desire 30:17 31:1 38:2,3 equations 39:16

complying 17:21 10:12,15,17,20 detailed 17:420:9 eight-pound-per-... 41):18

19:122:2123:14 11:21 14:3,13 34:15 7:169:7,14,24 equipment 14:5

24:7,11,1225:12 15:21 16:6,8,20 determine40:18 10:4,5,8,13 11:1 15:2227:22

25:16,17,2026:4,8 17:2,6,21,2418:5 determined 10:6,12 12:2416:718:23 equivalent 29:10

26:17,2031:20 18:6,8,2419:13,15 16:1833:5 19:220:2422:23 essentially 12:1,3,7

36:20 20:7,16,2321:3,4 develop 23:22 23:4,1924:1,12,18 12:11 13:6,17

2

Keefe Reporting Company
14:2116:2217:5 family 8:7 fully 20:24 H 10:16,1611:418:8 '

17:1919:8,21 family-owned 6:23 further·19:1820:18 H2:7 31:19,2432:5

20:1221:822:9,18 far 30: I 45: II 41:2442:24 half3:14 33,:18 34:2 IL 1:13

24:13,1925:8,12 feasible 19:19 21:4 future 40: II Hall 1:7 3:1445:8 ILL 1:4

25:14,2426:18 federal 9:1728:24 hand 35:3 45:17 illinois 1:1,7,10 3:10

28:13 29:3,8 30:12 29:7,9,10,12,14 G handout 33:9 4:187:14,2125:10

31:2132:14 39:2140:8 gallon 41:2 HAP 37:4 38:5 39:9 29:1430:1831:2

estimates 33:536:19 feel 8:10 18:20 gas23:10 happen 38:14 45:1,8

38:4 few 12:2 24:16 40:2 gelcoat 12:6,18,22 happened 28:10 immediately 18:3

estimating 21:7 fiberglass 12:10 13:1,3,8,11,11,15 happens 15:4 impact22:424:9,14

even 13:1820:18,22 .13:21,22 14:20 13:2214:1,2,19 happy 34:12 24:18,2426:17,23

33:5 15:5,6,1517:10 20,:523:2332:1 I HAPs 35:10 36:5,5 28: I 30:6

ever 28:22 36:14 19:2420:20 37,:6 39:24 41:5,6 36:6,11,15,20 impacting 8: 11

every21:1133:24' fibers 14:22 gelcoating 20:21 38:11,20 impacts 26:20

everybody 3: 16 field 7:21,22 gelcoats 16:1533:22 hard 22:13 27:11 important 8:5 12:21

evidence 42: 16 fignres 36:22 37:15 having 9:1214:5 29:17

exact 33:1 filed 5:1410:18 general 36:1 7 24:7 inability 30: 10

examination45:12 43:13 give 41 :23 hazardous 36:6,8,11 Inc 1:3 18:5

examined 45:12 filing 43:16 given 11:3 head 37:17 include 33:15

example 23 :22 fIlings 43:18 glass 14:22 headings 39:1 I included 32: 16,2i

40:23 filter 14:i6 go 5:712:13 20:1 I hear 6:13 43:3 34:1 38':i6 39:17

exceedence 26:10,i4 fIlters 14: 15 15:24 20:2234:18,20 hearing 1:8 3:2,5,6 inconvenience 3:18

27:15 final 4:4 12: 13 43: i9 37:943:4 3:84:5,8,9,19,23 incorporate 40:8

excess 7:712:12,12 finally 12:16 going 5: 13,249:23 5:4,8,11,236:3,5,7 .increase 24:21 25:4

Exhibit 2:10,1 1,12 , find 39:18 44:9 15:3 16:9 19:5,21 6:98:18 11:12,15 25:8,9,13,18,19

3:2 11:4,18,23 fine 11:17 19:21,2220:1,4,1 I 11:2017:118:15 ' 26:2,7,20

13:2,5,9 15:4 16:4 firm 4:169:4 22:1623:9,11,13 31:5;8,1234:16,20 increased 26:24

17:318:3,1422:8 first 5:2,2,24 6:2 23:1527:332:4 35:1,5,2039:'5,7 28:1

24:2331:10,15 12:3 I3:1 18:16 33:20,21 35:5 36:7 40:941:2342:10 increases 21 :22

32:9,15,1635:5,12 23:2425:10,11 37:13,2139:14 42:12,15,19,21 increasing 30:I5

35:13 36:1,18 39:7 31:1732:936:24 43:17,18 43:3,744:1,3,8,13 incredible 21:17

exhibits 11:9,11,13 41:1045:10 gone 33:2,3 45:15 23:10

34:2438:15,16 five 16:4 25:14 good 3:5 7:2440: 10 held 1:643:6 incurred 17:9

42:16,18,21 36:1938:3 41:8 helpful 9:8 39:2 incurring 17:21

exist 40:23 flipped 13:7 governing 8:3 helps 34:10 indicated 26:22

existed 37:4 fioor 16:10,19 grab 38:9 hereunto 45:16 41:19

existence 29:3 30:24 flow-coat 14:21 15:8 Grand 1:12 herewith 45:15 indicating 32:24

expense 17:8 - 16:1517:7 granted 5:1530:21 lJ.igh 21:15 industry 9:18,22

experience 44:8 follow 11:5,736:14 granting 29:4 high-styrene 37:14 information 28:I7

exponentially 21 :22 follow-up 39:4 grew 8:8,9 him 6:11,11 38:1842:5

exposing 21:19 foreseen 28:22 Grind 12:11 history 42:2 initially 37:8

extent 24:21 forgot 11:8 grown 7:6 hold 38:8 in~ide 13:16

exterior 13:16 forth 9:740:2 Gnariglia 1:15 2:5 " Holly 45:4,20 insignificant 26: 1

extra 17:8 30:14 four II: 19 4:15,15,235:1,10 Honestly 38:7 28:1

four-and-a-half 5:236:1,10,13 hopefully 34:10 in;tall21:10 22:1

F 21:11 8:20,23,249:4 hot 19:24 installed 27:21

fabrication 12:4 fraction 36:I I 11:14,17,22,24 hour 15:16 19:6 installing 19:7

faced 30:21 Frankfort 1:7,7 18:14,16,1931:9 22:2423:2424:3,4 instance 37:939:23

facilities 3:1728:20 3:24 6:24 45:8',8 3I:1434:2235:7 • hourly 10:1412:21 instead 11:1823:24

facility4:1 11:21 FranklIn 7:8 ' 35:1638:10,16 12:2420:1721:1 instituted 14:4

14:11 20:2321:17 frankly 7: 13 39:440:1541:9 33:8 . interest 6:I 9

21:2122:223:8,9 free 18:20 42:12,14,1743:22 hours 24:3 interesting 13:12,13

27:21,24 from 1:4 3:8,10,23 43:2445:9 hull 13:5,14,17,18 inteniational 7:1 I

fact 26:2140:18 9:6,17 12:12,20 Gnariglia's 8:14 13:18,22,2341:15 interpreted 42:6

factors 9:15,18,21 16:2321:524:10 guess 8:2126:16 interrupt 18:2I

27:5,11 28:229:4 25:526:17,20 28:6 I iuvestigate 18:24

29:22,2430:2 27:21,2428:229:1 guideliue 28:24 IDENTIFICATION 31:22

failed 33:15 33:1037:2,239:16 gun 14:21 2:9 investigation 18:22

fairly 11:7 43:10 guns 13:24 15:9,10 identified 6:2121:8 issue 9:13 27:17

fall 10:19 front 21:8 15:iO 17:6,7 IEPA9:13,23 10:6 29:17

3
issued 9:21 10:20 layers 15:19 36:137:2,4,11 matter 1:2 6:20 42:13

29:20 least33:16 looks 13:)5 24:19,20 14:1626:2145:11 moreover 28:6

items 39: 15 legal44:8 27:14 mallers 4:20 most8:1312:17,20

i.e 19:4 lengthy 31:11 lot14:11 19:22,23 may 5:22,249:8 16:13,13 37:12

less 26:4 37:18 Louis 1:16 15:13,1823:20 38:17

J let 5:11 11:2,12,24 low 14:16 21:18 28:1731:2,23 motion 42: 18

J2:6 17:4,2418:2121:2 lower 16:14 17:7,12 32:1938:843:11 move3:1613:20

JAMES 2:4 22:423:524:9 20:4 31 :23 32:3 43:12,2145:18 14:11 21:16,21

January 5:14 25:1526:1629:16 L.L.C 1:18 maybe28:11,12 30:2342:15,18

Joining 3:7 31:1438:939:18 39:2 moved 3:1414:19

judgment44:8 letters 39:12 M mean 5:8 19:20- moving 12:9

just5:6,13,176:14 lei's 16:3 23:22 24:2 M 39:21,23 meaning 37:14 much4:197:11,12

8:311:616:317:4 25:6,736:1043:4 MACT 16:5,10,16 means 30:10 8:1920:13 21:21

17:11,1718:21 level 7:22 24:21 16:17,19,2117:3 measure 41:3 28:1931:334:24

20:521:11,16,21 levels 14:14 21:18 17:18,22 18:1 measurement 33: 13 40:2041:1

23:1426:1928:18 21:20 19:17 22:2123:14 33:14 must43:13

28:2330:9,13,14 life 7:23 24:7,11,1725:17 media 26: 17,20 myself7:1,1 18:19

31:14,1533:14 like4:13,23 5:1 6:10 26:4,8,2228:23 meet 8:4 10:3 M.E 1:18

34:2335:436:11 6:10,11,17 8:10,20 29:831:2033:19 members 3:20,20

36:13,16,2137:9 8:2111:512:14,15 33:2034:435:13 44:4 N

37:20,2240:22 13:13,15 16:8 36:2137:5,638:11 mention 3:13 17:4 N 1:9 2:140:1

41:442:843:7 19:2427:1429:11 39:7,14,16 17:2423:526:16 name 3:66:159:3

justification 27:4 31:11,1232:20 made 3:16 28:12 mentioned 9:325:22 35:21,22

justify 29:4 38:22 39:3 40:22 Mailbox 43:21 27:2429:21 30:5 national7:10

41:642:15,24 maintain 17: 11 31:1740:16 natur"a123:10

K 43:22 19:2020:2,6 method 19:12 40:14 near 12:3

keep 14:7 21:18 limit 21:23 33:18,19 make4:3,14,245:12 methods 19:4 20:8 need 12:23 23:7

26:2 33:19,2434:6 11:612:413:7 20:1431:22 28:1940:4

Kentucky41:16 40:15 19:522:231:2 Metropolitan i:15 needed 16:19 17:16

kind 11:2 13:11 limitation 34:9 42:1743:20,22 MI 39:12,13,15 21:9

17:1919:11 20:1 limits 16:11 34:2 44:1;' might 8:2 11:6 negatively 8: 11

25:2427:11,13 line 25:11,15 26:1 making 5:8 6: 18 35:10 neighbor 8:1

34:.14 36:17 30:15 12:718:19 million 14:10 25:9 neither 19: 12

know 4:26:911:10 lines 37:21 manner 4:5 25:14,1930:14,14 neutral4:5

18:20 38:20,22,23 list35:13 manufactured 10:10 mind 26:3 new 9:21 16:5,10,16

40:10 listen 8:14 manufacturers 29:2 minus 37:24 18:6

knowledge 45: 11 little 9:9 11:6 12:8 manufactures 16:9 minute 11:24 16:3 nex133:9

known 15:1528:10. 23:1930:634:10 16:12 -;n:2 22:4 31:15 nice 35:2

knows 20:1 42:2 manufacturing 4: 1 misprint 35:11 nine 18:15

Uu 1:20 3:7 6:18 6:237:3,13 8:12 mix37:12 Nolen 1:7

L 8:2418:12,1831:8 13:13 16:14 mixed 14:22 none 19:920:15

labor 17:9,13 31:1034:17,21,23 many 22:17 30:2 - MO 1:16,19 North 1:12,Hi

Lake 41:16,17 35:836:3,13 37:21 37:16 modeI32:1533:11 Nos 2:10,11,123:2

lamination 12:9,19 38:14,2439:2,6 mark 11:10,10,15 modeling 24:19 11:2342:22

12:23 13:2014:20 40:741:4,1842:1 11:18 models 22:17 33:4,7 Notarial45:17

15:1,2,2220:19 42:9,11 marked 2:10,11 3:3 mold 12:3 13:2,4,6 Notary 45:4,21

32:11 live 8:9 11:4,23 15:324:23 13:14,19 14:3 15:5 note 3:15,1944:4

language 18:6,6,8 LLP 1:14 marketplace 7:11 molding 20:9,9 notes 32:23

18:1031:18 local 8:7 mass 39:1141:3 molds 12:414:18,19 noticed 4:9 35:11

large 7:9 locally 30:18 massive 39:23 14:2339:2341:10 November 10:21

larger 7:12 located 6:23 materiaI3:2440:21 month 33:24 34:7,8 N0x23:13 25:23

largest 7:8 long 42:4 41:2 39:8 number 12:2235:15

last7:610:19,21 longer 9:19 23:23 materials 19:3,10,11 monthly 33:22 '.35:2436:1037:16

32:1433:1634:2 100k28:3,831:11 19:16 32:2 36:8 40:16 37:2338:340:1

39:6 32:137:138:8 38:23 months 16:22 34:2 nllmbers 37:23

late 28:16 41:8 Matoesian 1:114:17 39:24

law 4: 16 9:4 29:7 looked 20:727:7 4:17,225:4,6,11 more7:1211:13 0

lay 15:17 28:7,8 29:23 33:4 5:13 8:17 31:5,7 12:8 14:9 15:10,13 objection 42:19,20

layed 15:13 36:17 41:22 42:7,20 43:2 17:927:1236:7 obligation 32:3

layer 15:13,14,17 looking 24:1628:6 44:1,2 - 37:11,2041:1 obtain 10:22 21:5

4

Keefe Reporting Company
obviously 22: 16 22:2,1523:727:19 parties 4:1443:15 14:421:12,23 39:8

30:3 27:2232:1,9,22 43:20 position 41 :24 pro\ides41:14

occurred 30:4 33:1838:20 parts 12:5,12,12 positive 8:15 pro'iding 32:23

odor 27:20,24 orderly 4:5 14:1025:1432:12 possible 25:18 26:2 provision 27:10

odors 27:16,19 organic 3:24 33:11 post 3:15 public 3:20,20,21

off 12:12 34:18 original 33:15 37:9 past39:24 posted 43: II 43:12,1244:4 45:4

37:1743:4,6 origInally 38:18 PE139:15 post-hearIng 39:3 45:21

office 45:7 OSHA 14:7,8 15:24 people 12:1515:6 42:843:9,16 publication 39:22

officer 1:8 3:5,6 21:1522:328:18 17:1020:1 pound 40:20 pull 39: 17

4:19,235:4,8,11 28:22 per 14:1017:20,22 pounds 19:6 22:24 purpose4:4

5:236:3,5,98:18 other 6:20 7:2 12:22 19:621:1422:10 23:2424:3,4 39)2 pursuant 4:9,11

11:12,15,2018:15 16:8 18:22 19:8,9 22:12,2425:9,11 pounds-per-hour 5:1645:6

31:5,8,1234:16,20 20:21 23:1826:2 25':14,1926:13 32:10 Push 15:22

35:2041:2342:10 27:1629:1930:10 32:1535:10,14 pound-per-hour put 13:21 21:623:9

42:12,15,19,21 31:22 37:3 40:22 39:1240:2041:2 32:14 29:1832:'2340:7

43:3,744:1,3 43:19 percent 14:1716:12· prefer 31:1 42:7,8

Officer's 17:1 otherwise 23:12,14 36:20,23,24 38:4,6 prellm1nary 4:20 puts 8:5

Officer-ordered out 12:16,21 14:16 percentage 34:6 prepared 11:2 13:3 putting 19:14 23:16

35:1 17:6,10,22 21:13 percentages 34:5 13:3,6,1024:16 27:1930:13

offices 1:7 24:228:1529:12 perfect 22:13 present 1:20 3:20 P\140:3

off-the-record 43:8 30:1339:1741:4 performed 24:13 42:1344:5 p.rn 1:7 3:4,13 34:19

often 15:9 outllne 16:4 22:8 performIng 16:11 presentation 8: 14

Okay 11:15 42:12 27:329:5 period 23:23 11:3 0

44:3 outside 12:7 13:17 permit 9:11,12 President 6: 16 -quadruple 26:12

old 3:15 9:18 32:18 14:15 10:2139:18 pre-lVIACT 22:9 qualiiative 20:12

37:14 over 7:5,713:7,20 personnel 6:20 35:9,13,1537:5,23 quality 5:2017:11

once 13:6 32:5 40:17 14:1923:2324:2 pertaining 3:23 38:10 17:1319:2020:3,6

one 1:15 5:6 6:17 27:331:1132:18 per-ton 21:7 probably 6:14 :P:20 24:14,1926:23

7:1,715:13 17:24 overestimate 33:6 petition 1:3 3:9,22 33:1 quantitative 20:13

18:419:221:24 overestimates 33: 1 9:7 10:1820:10,11 problem 27:2139:5 question 35:6 37:19

23:6,824:3,16 owned 30:18 35:1238:15 procedural 4:12 39:640:1041:18

25:227:1530:22 owners 6:17 Petitioner 5:16 43:14 questions5:218:17

33:11,1738:939:6 Ownership 6:24 PG2:3,9 procedurally 9:10 10:3 16:24 18:3

41:18 oxidizer 23:9 photograph 13:2,10 proceed 44:6 31:6,933:11,18

ones 39:20 ozone 24:9,20,24 15:2,3 proceedings 1:6 3:1 34:12,13,15,21

one-hour 26:10,14 25:4,4,9,1926:2 photographs 11:9 4:68:2235:18 35:2,4 38:19 43:19

27:15 26:10,1427:15 11:18,1914:24 43:1044:11 quickly 33:17

one-page 18:11 28:1 pigmented 41: 11 prpcess 8:12 9:12 quite 7:13 40:2

only 19:5,14 20·:19 - place 9:10 11:20 > 12:1,2,1713:8,11 quotes 21 :5,6

25:1828:6 P 27:19 13:1120:19

open 20:8 39:23 P 1:9,9 placed 8:2 processes 12:22 R

opening 4:245:5,9 packet 18:11 planning 5:20 produced 22:15,16 R 1:9

5:12 page 16:4 18:4,15 plant 12:20 14:15 22:1823:13 24:6,8 rather 31: 11

open-molded 40:1 18:1622:727:3 24:22 33:24 ready 5:9,10

operate21:1230:18 29:532:935:5 _ play 8:10 product 17:11,13 real 24:8

operated 30:19 36:1838:2,339:21 please 4:146:6 19:20,2220:2,6 realized 22: 19,20

operation 6:23 7:4 pages32:14 18:2035:20 production 12:1 32:19

21:1024:1028:2 paint 40:24,24 41:5 plush 28:19 19:3,4,11,12,16 really 19:18 20:12

40:1 41:9 point 6:7 8:22 12:21 20:831:2332:2,i8 20:1521:423:6

operations 7:3,13 painting 13:1741:6 18:1219:1935:18 33:1141:14 26:6,1927:12,17

9:17 Panel 15:24 36:1937:3,2238:3 promulgated 27:10 27:23 28:3,3,4

opportunity 9: 1 paragraph 31 :20 40:13 protect 14:12 20:3 32:1935:2

41:24 part 9:1210:912:7 Polcyn 1:18 2:6 protection 1:10 4:18 reason 21:14

opposed 16:7 22:7 12:1013:5 14:3 24:1534:1435:16 5:19 14:4,8,9 reasonable 31 :24

25:2126:18 15:4,9,12,18,20 35:19,22,2236:4 15:21,2421:16 reasens 23:6

options 19:1 23:8 25:9,1929:13,14 36:2438:1,739:1 28:18 recall 38:7

order 12:4 13:7,7 39:6 39:1440:1241:6 provide 3:21 32:4 recently 3:1437:12

14:7,1215:7,19 participation 44: 12 41:11 45:9 38:2140:541:12 recently-issued

16:2,15,19 17:1,11 particular 14:16 pollutants 36:6 provided 10:22 18:2 28:23

19:1620:321:9,17 particulate 16:1 pollution 1:13:7 4:3 24:2435:138:18 recess 31:13 34:17

5

Keefe Reporting Company
recommendation 40:2 section 5:20 43: 13 28:11 32:18,24 5:1243:2344:6

5:148:15 respond 35:6 Sections4:11 33:639:1041 :3 states 29:19

recommending 5: 15 response 35:1,838:1 see 8:1515:1 18:10 43:18 station 13 :20

record 3:19 4:6,7,14 38:4 25:1826:1,19 something 28: 17,20 stats 30:16

4:2134:18,2040:9 responses 18:3,4,14 32:15 29:1239:3 status 34:5

40:1243:4,6 36:18 seeing 36:14 sometimes 22: 13 stay 31:1

recordkeeping responsive 43:18 seek 10:17 somewhat 9:8 stereos 12:15

17:15 rest 41:13 seeks 3:22 sorry 20:13 still 8:9 19:1920:23

reduce 14: 14 16:2 result 10:11,17 seen 19:17 27:13 source 10:5,8 23:21 24:526:4

20:1422:2327:16 14:1019:1720:4 34:5 South 25:10 33:6,744:4

27:22 .21:2023:11,16 sell 41:8 Southern 30:18'31:2 stood 39: 13

reduced 19:15 25:5 sense 17:9.23:20 sp~ak5:2 6:15 9:1 stop 18:20

reducing 19:2,10 results 32:6 38~17 specific 7:15 Street 1:7, 19

29:1 30:8 returned 45: 15 separate 15:8 specifically 10:22 . strength 41: 14

reduction 19: 18 review 34:11,17 series 11:9 29:132:22 strict 10:13 12:21,24

22:1924:836:20 revised 18:531:18 set9:7 11:8,1633:20 speed 17:17 20:1721:133:8

37:1038:5 41:20 40:1845:16 speeds 20:1 strictly 36:4

reductions 19:17 riding 20:1 sets 16:10 spend 12:8,1716:3 strong 20:2

refer 14:23 right 3:16 14:17 seven 24:3,3 31: 15 styrene 14:8,10,14

referring 38: 1 18:12,1620:431:1 several 15:5 27:20 spent 17:16 14:16 16:1417:12

refers 36:17 31:1037:13,17 31:1633:439:8 splashing 16:2 20:521:18,20

regard 18:1 40:23 sheet 34:3 spray 13:15,19 sub 39:21,23

regarding 16:443:8 roll 17:10 shipping 12:16 14:1415:1417:6 submerged-ftlI16:1

region 7:9 rolling 15:6 short 31:12 sprayed 14:1,2,20 submittal 40:6

register 39:2140:9 room 6:20 shorthand 45:13 14:2315:9,11,19 subniittals 43:9,16

regulation 3:23 8:4 roughly 25:6 show 20:1325:3,8 41:10 submitted 9:1017:1

regulations 7: 15,19 rounded 38:12 32:14 spraying 12:7 15:2,4 25:23

8:229:15 rule7:169:7,15 showed 37:10 spread 24:2 substantially 27:6

relate 20:19 10:1,4,5,8,1311:1 showing 33:14 34:8 spreadsheet 21:6 Sudman 1:83:6

related 38:20 12:2416:7 18:23 36:1 spreadsheets 34:7 6:188:24

relating 27:5 19:2,1420:24 shovm25:5 Springfield I: 13 Suite I: 16

relied 27: 11 22:2323:4,1924:2 shows 14:2425:2 Square 1:15 Summary 39:7

remember 36:14 24:12,1825:13,17 34:3 St 1:16,19 45:2 Suppliers 21:5

37:16 25:21,2426:15,18 signed 45: 14 stack 16:18 support 41:21

remiss 30:19 27:5,8,928:12 significant 23:6 staff 5:22 supposably 9:20

removed 21:14 29: 11,2430:7,12 29:18 stand5:1744:12 sure 11:12 18:14,19

Rend41:17 30:2433:836:16 significantly 27:6 standard 1:4 3:9,10 22:2

report 32:4 40:2442:343:21 28:15 :3:235:159:6 swear 6:6 8:21

reporter 6:5,13 rules 4:10,1243:14 similar 33: 12 , 10:17,18,2314:9 sworn 6:8 8:23

43:10 simply 7:20 . 16:5,10,16,18 17:3 35:16,1945:10

reporting 17:15 S since 16:5 27:22 . 17:2218:1,2,5,7 system 14:6 15:23

representative S 1:9 2:7 28:1029:730:4 18:1021:1622:3,6 . 21:522:127:19

37:12 safety 20:3 32:2133:436:16 22:2123:1525:20

representing 4:16 same 7:1915:11 40:842:3 26:8,10,17,21,22 T

9:4 23:21 24:6 29:23 single 14:2 27:1628:19,23,24 T2:4,7

request 9:518:2 33:14 SIP 29:14 29:4,9,9,13,20 Table 36:1

31:24 saying 26:7 29:16 sir 8:19 30:2,6,2031:18,20 tables 36: 1539:8

requesting 18:7 says 18:4 31:21 sisters 7:1,18:9 33:2036:21 39:1S tail 16:18 19:1421:3

25:20 scenario 35:13,14 sit 6:11,11 39:1640:441:21 23:7,16 30:9

require 17:13 23:10 37:7,13,18 six 16:2234:2 standards 14:8 take 7:21 11:20,24

required 16:23 scenarios 24:16 six-page 32:8 16:2129:640:22 31:1234:1638:8

requirement 17:15 schedule 43:5 six-step 12:2 start 13:14 37:2 taken 32:6 34:19

29:13 Schmid45:4,20 size 7:6 15:12,18 starting 37:3 .45:13

requirements 15:24 scrap 12:12 skin 15:15 starts 39: 19 taking 12:11

requires 17:9 Sea14S:17 small 32:12 33:10 start-up 7:4 talk 12:1 18:2121:2

resin 14:17,2216:1 seats 12:14 34:19 stat 19:14 23:7,16 22:424:9

20:523:22 37:5 second 1:1912:6 smooth 12:7 15:6 30:9 talking 12:1816:3

39:2341:11,13,14 IS: 17 19:3 20:7 solid 27:1 stateS:13 7:14,21 2j':4 39:20

resins 16:14 17:12 24:427:2432:7 some 7:1516:24 30:2335:2045:1 talks 29:5

33:2337:14,15 38:9 20:20 23:IS 27:14 statement4:245:S,9 tanks 16:2

.

6

Keefe Reporting Company
tear 19:22,23 39:17 V whole45:10 17:318:3,1425:5

technical 3:8 5:22 today 3:76:197:20 V 9:11 10:2039:18 Williamson 45:5 3UO,15 32:9 35:6

20:1032:12,16,21 8:149:1,512:18 valid 9:19 wish 4:20 43:20 36: 1839:742:22

33:1234:1335:11 ton 17:23 21:14 va1ne40:14. withstand 41:16 1st45:17

38:18 tons 22:10,12 23:2 vary 22:17 33:21 witness 5:2,24 6:2,6 1:0634:19

technically 19: 19 25:1,7,1126:4,13 ventilation 14:6 45:16 1:3544:13

technologies 19:10 35:10,1537:16,18 15:2322:1 witnesses 2:3 4:7 1027:20

20:1832:2 37:2438:11,12,13 versns 24:11,17 44:7,945: 14 10014:9

teIl27:12 top 37:17 36: II nondering35:IO 101.6004:11

terms 18:9 39:19 total 19:17 22:16 very4:19 8:1"8.13:12 36:21 37:22 39:9 101.62843:13

test 31 :24 23:2124:835:14 20:226:129:17 39:1342:1,4 101.6324:11

testify 8:20 45:10 36:10,15,1638:5 31:3 34:24 35:2,6 woodworking 12:13 10211 :12

testifying 44:7,9 38:1940:20 41:8 wording 41 :20 104.4224:11

testimony41:19 touched 42:23 violation 24:1 words37:3 112:1122:8

tests 32:6 touching 45:11 VOC's 41:1 work 8:10 1216:1139:24

thank 4: 19 5:23 touch-up 17:11 volatile 3:24 worker 14:4,7,8 12:001:73:4,13

6:178:16,18,18,24 tough 30:21 VOLUME 1:22 15:21,2421:15 13 7:6

18:1831:3,5,7 traditional43:17 YOM 9:16 12:20 28:18 1423:2436:143:21

34:16,18,2335:3 transcribed 45:13 19:2,10,15,17 workers 14:12 14-million 21:9

36:13 42:9,22 transcript 43:5,8,9 21:1422:1623:22 21:19 14423:2

44:11 tried 8:1 24:6,8,2225:1,2,5 works 17:22 157:527:3

their 4:1410:24 trim 12:11 29: 1 31 :23 32:3 wouldn't 23:12,14 15338:12

12: 1525:635:23 triple 26:12 36:4,6;7,7,10 wound 37:8 15438:12.

41:19,2443:16 truth 45:10 VOM'd6:16,17 writing 35:3 16025:11

45:11,12 trying 17:17 38:19 wrong41:7 160,00O-cubicefee!...

themselves 30: 13 tub 19:24 VON's41:2 15:23

theoretically 23 :20 two 7:115:10,16,18 X 1729:5

thickness 41:15 24:332:14 W X2:1,737:16 180,OOO-cubic-feet...

thing 18:1 23:18 twofold 27:15 wait 15:1"5 14:6

26:232:7 type 33:22 41:11 walking 31:15 y 19522:12

things 12:14,15 typewriter 45:14 want 11:10 20:2 year 10:21,23 16:23 197127:1029:23

21:2428:9 typically 41:2,13 34:23 17:14,2021:11 1990's 9:11 28:16

think 5:1,107:24 wanted 42:5,13 22:11,1223:225:7 1991 7:4.28:15

8:39:811:4,14 U waste 27:1 25:11 26:13 30:14

29:2130:1932:8 unacceptable 21 :19 water 26:23 32:5,1735:10,14 2

33:142:16 under 10:5 14:8 waves 41:16 37:2,1139:12 224:23

thinking 27:1228:9 16:21 way 8:10,1519:5 years 7:626:5,6 205:1443:12

37:22 . underestimated 33:2036:18 27:12,13,20 200032'1737:3

third 19:6 9:20 . ways 200139:22 31:22

thoroughness 34:24 underneath 39:12 wear 19:22,23 $ 200337:11

though 12:21 33:5 understand 9:9 website 43:11 $215,60017:20 20041:63:4,125:14

thought 42:2 unique 23:19 week 17:8 $35,00021 :13 i6:8 43:11,12 45:7

thousandths 25:9,14 unit 3:8 well 5:11 6:1439:18 $430:14 45:18

thousandth's 25:19 units 33:13,14 40:743:3,19 $4,000 17:8 2011:7

three 15:19 18:24 uuless 38:21 were 3:2 9:17,19 $4,312 17:22 20435:937:23

25:18 upholstery 12:13,14 10:22 11:23 16:24 $58,00021:14 38:10

through 2:10,11,12 nse 16:1417:721:2 21:8,822:6,10,18 $630:14 2111:16

3:24:11 8:12 30:1033:2337:23 22:2226:527:12 $6,00017:14 215.3011:43:11

11:23 14:11 17:1 40:17 28:330:9,11 32:17 $80,00017:16 22 39:22

19:22,2320:11 used 10:3,7 14:1 34:9 35:9 37:2 $800,00022: 1 231:63:4,1216:8

21:17,2128:19 15:920:23 33:24 38:19,2040:13 . $96,000 17:5 45:7

31:1535:542:22 36:2237:11 39:10 45:10 24 -15:8

throughont 7:23 39:11,2440:2 West 1:7,73:246:24 0 24436:10

throwing 33:17 USEPA36:940:13 45:7,8 04-01 1:3 244.8235:15,24

. Tim 5:26:7,1545:9 uses 14:16 we'll 34:18,20 42:8 04-13:9 24522:1036:10

time 4:13 5:17 9:13 using 9:16,19 14:20 we're 5:10 6:23 7:7 084-98-254587 2536:19,23,2438:5

9:1512:8,1815:11 16: 10 37:8,14 24:11 45:22 25025:7

23:2332:1843:1 40:13 We've 43:7

44:3,10 usually 15:16 WHEREOF 45:16 1 3

Title 9:11 10:20 while 19:19 11:222:10,123:2 32:10 3:211:4 16:4

7
22:835:1236:1

3027:12,13

-

-

3001:19

31 13:24

33.4 14:17

351:42:63:10

36001:16

4

42:10,llll:ll,18

ll:23 13:2,625:3

35:13

.,

- 4026:4 , 422:12

4423439:19

4423639:225 5 II:ll,18 13:9

32:1535:643:ll

5026:437:18,24

38:13

50-ton 22:1923:3

37:10

6

- 62:4ll:UI4:24

IS:2 32:16 35:12

36:2

6-mlllion 21:II

62794-92761:13

631021:16

633011:19

6507:7

7

711: II 14:24 15:3,4

21:935:5

7128:7,8,10,13,21

,

8

82:5,11,1211:11,23

42:22

9

91726:13

8

Keefe Reporting Company
\

, IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.J]

)

)

)

)

)

. ...t\

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD \:

May 13, 2004 (")

-!-: q..:.t'\.

S;. <; 'i~

% -:; '%- t:.

AS 04-01 'Y- <::3 0

(Adjusted Stanci?~ ()

(l -<l-0 t" ?-(Q ,

CROWNLINE BOATS, INC. POST HEARING RESPONSE ~.

S;.

On April 23, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held at the City Hall in West Frankfort,

IN THE l\1ATTER OF:

PETITION OF CROW'NLINEBOATS, INC.

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35

ILL ADM, CODE 215.301

Illinois. At the conclusion of the hearing, the representative from the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, Ms. Alisa Liu, requested Crownline Boats, Inc. ("Crownline") to provide three additional

pieces ofinformati.on. This pleading shall provide the additional information requested from

Crownline at the hearing.

First, Miss Liu requested Crownline to provide definitions for the terms used in the monthly

l'viACT compliance spreadsheets attached to the pleading Crownline entered into evidence at the

hearing entided "Responses of Crownline Boats, Inc. to Questions in Hearing Officer Order of

April 6, 2004." As explained at the hearing, the terms used in the spre,a'dsheets were taken from d,e

federal rule entided "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat

Manufacturing", 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV (the "l\,1ACT Standard',). Attached at Exhibit A

are pages 44233-44235 from the August 22, 2001, Federal Register when the MACT Standard was

finalized, which sets forth the definitions of the terms used in Crownline's MACT compliance

spreadsheets.

Second, at the hearing Crownline presented to the Court revised language for its proposed

Adjusted Standard, which IEPA also expressed their support for at the hearing. Attached at Exhibit

B is a copy ofCrownline's revised Adjusted Standard language.

1837122
Third, in its pleading "Responses of Crownline Boats, Inc. to Questions in Hearing Officer's

Order ofAprilG, 2004", Crownline stated that its emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants ("HAPs")

prior to complying with the MACT standard were approximately 204 tons per year. Crownline also

estimated that it had·reduced its HAP emissions by approximately 50 tons peryear (a reduction of ,

approximately 25%) by complying with the MACT St~ndard. (See responses to questions 2(b) and

7(a» .. At the hearing, Miss Liu asked if Crownline could provide additional information regarding

the 50 ton/25% reduction in HAPs. Attached hereto and labeled as Exhibits C and D are two

spreadsheets showing 12-month rolling total air emissions. Exhibit C identifies that as of December

2003, Crownline's 12-month rolling HAP emissions were 153.91 tons. This amount represents.

Crownline's estimated actual emissions on a 12-month rolling average as of December 2003 while

being in compliance with the JYIACT Standard. Exhibit D is an estimate ofwhat Crownline's

emissions would have been ifit made the exact same number of boats and boat models as in Exhibit

C, but was not complying with the JYIACT Standard. Exhibit D identifies that Crownline's 12-·

month rolling HAP emissions would have been approximately 204.18 tons per year if it had not

been complying with the };~IACT Standard.

The above information should satisfy the requests made of Crownline at the April 23, 2004

hearing.

1837122
1837122

BRYAN CAVE,LLP

By: f)~,4r;z/~

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave LLP

One t>Ietropolitan Square

Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102

314/259-2606

daguariglia@b.t;yancave.com

Attorneys for Crownline Boats, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing response were mailed, first class, on

May 13, 2004, to each of following persons: Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer, Illinois Pollution·

Control Board, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19274, Springfield, IL 62794-9274;

Dorothy M. Gunn, Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph

Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, and Charles Matoesian, Assistant Counsel, IEPA, ~021

North Grand Avenue East, P. O. Box 19276, Springt;ield, IL 92794-9276.

1837122
,

--

A
l\prll 1.j, 1.VV4,

Exhibit A

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 163 /Wednesday, August 22, 2001/Rules and Regulations 44233

(d) This subpart does not apply to

aluminum coating operations on

aluminum boats intended for

commercial or military

(nonrecreational) use, antifoulant

coatings, assembly adhesives, fiberglass

hull and deck coatings, research and

development activities, mold sealing

and release agents, mold stripping and

cleaning solvents, and wood coatings as .

defined in § 63.5779. This subpart does

nol apply to materials contained in

handheld aerosol cans. -

§ 63.5686 How do I demonstrate that my

facility is not a major source?

You can demonstrate that your facility

is not a major source by using the

procedures in either paragraph (a) or (b)

of this section.

(a) Emission option. You must

demonstrate that your facility does not

emit, and does not have the potential to

emit as defined in § 63.2, considering

federally enforceable permit limits, 9.1

megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of

a single HAP or 22.7 megagrams (25

tons) or more per year of a combination

of HAP. To calculate your facilHy's

potential to emit, you must include

emissions from the boat manufacturing

facility and all other sources that are

collocated and under common

ownership or control with the boat

manufacturing facility.

(b) Material consumption option. This

option can be used i£'you manufacture

either fiberglass boats qr aluminum

recreational boats at your facility. You

must meet the criteria in paragraph

(b)(l), (2), or (3) of this section and

comply with the requirements'in

paragraph (c) of this section. !fjrou ~_

initially rely on the limits and criteria

specified in paragraph (b)(l), (2), or (3)

of this section to become an area source,

but then exceed the relevant limit

(without first obtaining and complying

with other limits that keep your

potential to emit HAP below major

source levels), your facility will then

become a major source, and you must

comply with all applicable provisions of

this subpart beginning on the

compliance date specified in § 63.5695.

Nothing in this paragraph is intended to

preclude you from limiting your

facility's potential to emit through other

federally enforceable mechanisms

available through your permitting

authority.

(1) If your facility is primarily a

fiberglass boat manufacturing facility,

you must demonstrate that you consume

less than 45.4 megagrams per rolling 12-

month period of all combined polyesterand vinylester-based resins and gel

coats (including tooling and production

resins and gel coats, and clear gel coats),

and you must demonstrate that at .least

90 percent of total annual HAP

emissions at the facility (including

emissions from aluminum recreational

boat manufacturing or other source

categories) originate from the fiberglass

boat manufacturing materials.

(2) If your facility is primarily an

aluminum recreational boat

manufacturing facility,~you must

demonstrate that it consutnes less than

18.2 megagrams per rolling lz-month

period of all combined surface coatings,

aluminum wiped own solvents,

application gun cleaning solvents, and

carpet and fabric adhesives; and you

must demonstrate that at least 90

percent of total annual HAP emission~

at the facility (including emissions from

fiberglass boat manufacturing or other

source categories) originate from the

aluminum recreational boat

manufacturing materials.

(3) If your facility is a fiberglass boat

or an aluminum recreational boat .'

manufacturing facility, you must

demonstrate that the boat manufacturing

materials consumed per rolling] 2-

month period contain a total ofless than

4.6 megagrams of any single HAP and

less than 11.4 megagrams of all

combined HAP, and you must

demonstrate that at least 90 percent of

total annual HAP emissions at the

facility (including emissions from other

source categories) originate from these

boat manufacturing materials.

(c) If you use the material

consumption option described in

paragraph (b) of this section to

demonstrate that you are not a major

source, you must comply with the

requirements of paragraphs (c)(l)

through (3) of this section.

(1) If your facility has HAP emissions

that do not originate from boat

manufacturing operations or materials

described in paragraph (b), then you

must keep any records necessary to

demonstrate that the 90 percent

criterion is met.

(2) A rolling 12-month period

includes the previous 12 months of

operation. You must maintain records of

the total amount of materials described

in paragraph (b) of this section used .

each month, and, if necessary, the HAP

content of each material and-Lle

calculation of the total HAP consumed

each month. Because records are needed

for a 12~month period, you must keep

records beginning no later than 12

months before the compliance date

specified in § 63.5695. Records must be

kept for 5 years after they are created.

l3) In determining whether the 90

percent criterion included in paragraph

(b) of this section is met, you do not

need to include materials used in

routine janitorial, building, or facility

grounds maintenance; personal uses by

employees or other persons; or products

used for maintaining motor vehicles

operated by the facility.

§ 63.5689 What parts of my facility are covered by this subpart?

. The affected sotirce (the portion of

your boat manufacturing facility

covered by this subpart) is the

combination of all of the boat

manufacturing operations listed in .

paragraphs (a) through (I) of this section.

(a) Open molding resin and gel coat

operations (including pigmented gel

coat, clear gel coat, production resin,

tooling gel coat, and tooling resin).

(b) Closed molding resin operations.

(c) Resin and gel coat mixing

operations.

(d) Resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning operations.

(e) Carpet and fabric adhesive

operations. . _.

(f) Aluminum hull and deck coating

operations, including solvent wipedown

operations and paint spray gun cleaning

operations, on aluminum recreational

boats.

§ 63.5692 How do I know if my boat

manufacturing facility is a new source or an existing source?

(a) A boat manufacturing facility is a

new source ifit meets the criteria in

paragrapbs (a)(l) through (3) of this

section.

(1) You commence construction of the

affected source after July 14, 2000.

(2) It is a major source.

(3).It is a completely new boat

manu"facturing affected source where no

other boat manufacturing affected

source existed prior to the construction

of the new source.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart,

an existing source is any sourCe that is

not a new source.

§ 63.5695 When must I comply with this

subpart?

You must comply with the standards

in this subpart by the compliance dates

specified in Table 1 to this subpart.

Standards for Open Molding Resin and

Gel Coat Operations

§ 63.5698 What emission limit must! meet

for open molding resin and gel coat

operations?

(a) You must limit organic HAP

emissions from the five open molding

operations listed in paragraphs (a)(I)

through (5) of this section to the

emission limit specified in paragraph (b)

of this section. Operations listed in·

paragraph (d) are exempt from this

limit.

(1) Prodl.:'-ction resin.
44234 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 163/Wednesday, August 22, 200l/Rules and Regulations

(2) Pigmented gel coat.

(3) Clear gel coat.

(4) Tooling resin.

(5) Tooling gel coat.

(b) You must limit organic HAP

emissions from open molding

operations to the limit specified by

equation 1 of this section, based on a 12·

month rolling average.

HAP Limit = [46(M R)+ I59(M PG )+291(M CG )+54(M TR ) +214(M TG )J (Eq. I)

Where:

HAP Limit= total allowable organic

HAP that can be emitted from the

open molding operations.

kilograms.

MR = mass of production resin used in

the past 12 months. excluding any

materials exempt under paragraph

(d) of this section, megagrams.

M"G = mass of pigmented gel coat used

in the past 12 months. excluding

any 'materials exempt under

paragraph (d) of this section.

megagrams.

MeG = mass of clear gel coat used in the

past 12 months, excluding any

materials exempt under paragraph

(d) of this section, megagrams.

MTR = mass of tooling resin used in the

past'12 months, excluding any

materials exempt under paragraph

(d) of this section, megagrams.

M TG = mass of tooling gel coat used in

the past 12 months, excluding any

materials exempt under paragraph

(d) of this section, megagrams.

(c) The open molding emission limit.

is the same for both new and existing

sources.

(d) The materials specified in

paragraphs (d)(l) through (3) of this

section are exempt from the open

molding emission limit specified in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(l) Production resins (including skin

coat resins) that must meet

specifications for use in military vessels

or must be approved by the U.S. Coast

Guard for use in the construction of

lifeboats, rescue boats, and other lifesaving appliances approved under 46

CFR subchapter Q or the construction of

small passenger vessels regulated by 46

CFR subchapter T. Production resins for

which this exemption is used must be

applied with nonatomizing (non-spray)

resin application equipment. You must

keep a record of the resins for which

you are using this exemption.

(2) Pigmented, clear. and tooling gel

coat used for part or mold repair and

touch up. The total gel coat materials

included in this exemption must not

exceed 1 percent by weight of all gel

coat used at your facility on a lZ·month

roIIing·average basis. You must keep a

record of the amount of gel coats used

per month for which you are using this

exemption and copies of calculations

showing that the exempt amount does

not exceed 1 percent of aU gel coat used.

(3) Pure, 100 percent v~nylester resin

used for skin coats. This exemption

does not apply to blends of vinylester

and polyester resins used for skin coats.

The total resin materials included in the

exemption cannot exceed 5 percent by

weight of all resin used at your facility

on a 12·month rolIing·average basis.

You must keep a record of the amout:lt

of 100 percent vinyl ester skin coat resin

used per month that is eligible for this

exemption and copies of calculations

showing that the exempt amount does

not exceed 5··percent of all resin used.

§ 63.5701 What are my options for

complying with the open molding emission

limit?

You must use one or more of the

options listed in paragraphs (a) through

(c) of this section to meet the emission

limit in § 63.5698 for the resins and gel

coats used in open molding operations

at your facility.

(a) Maximum achievable control

technology (MACTi model point value

averaging (emissions averaging) option.

(l) Demonstrate that emissions from

the open molding resin and gel coat

op~rations that you average meet the

emission limit in § 63.5698 using the

procedures described in § 63.5710.

Compliance with this option is based on

a lZ-month rolling average.

(Z) Those operations and materials not.

included in the emissions average must

comply with either paragraph (b) or (c)

of this section.

(b) Compliant materials option.

Demonstrate compliance by using resins

and gel coats that meet the organic HAP

content requirements in Table 2 to this

subpart. Compliance with this option is

based on a lZ-month rolling average.

(c) Add·on:control optidn. Use an

enclosure and add·on control device,

and demonstrate that the resulting

emissions meet the emission limit in

§ 63.5698. Compliance with this option

is based on control device performance

testing and control device monitoring.

§ 63.5704 What are the general

requirements for complying with the open

molding emission limit?

(a) Emissions averaging option. For

those open molding operations and

materials complying using the

emissions averaging option, you must

demonstrate compliance by performing

the steps in paragraphs (a)[l) through (5)

of this section.

(1) Use the methods'specified in

§ 63.5758 to determine the organic HAP

content of resins and gel coats.

(2) Complete the calculations

described in § 63.5710 to show that the

organic HAP emissions do not exceed

the limit specified in § 63.5698.

(3) Keep records as specified in

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (Iv) of this

section for each resin and gel coat.

(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.

(ii) Amount of material used per

month. .

(iii) Application method used for

production resin and tooling resin. This

record is not required if all production

resins and tooling resins are applied

with nonatomized·technology.

(iv) Calculations performed to

demonstrate compliance based on

MACT model point values, as described

in §63.5710.

(4) Prepare and submit tbe

implementation plan described in

§ 63.5707 to the Administrator and keep

it up to date.

(5) Submit semiannual compliance

reports to the Administrator as specified

in § E;3.5764.

(b) ·Compliant materials·option. F~r

each open molding operation complying

using the compliant materials option,

you must demonstrate compliance by

performing the steps in paragr.aphs

(b)(l) through (4) of this section.

(1) Use the methods specified in

§ 63.5758 to determine the organic HAP

content of resins and gel coats.

(2) Complete the calculations

described in § 63.5713 to show that the

weighted·average organic HAP content

does not exceed the limit specified in

·Table Zto this subpart.

(3) Keep records as specified in

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through [iv) of this

section for each resin and gel coat.

(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.

(ii) Application method for· .

production resin and tooling resin. This

record is not required if all production

resins and tooling resins are applied

with nonatomized technology.

(iii) Amount of material used per

month. This record is not required·for

an operation if all materials used for

that operation comply with the organic

HAP content requirements.
Federal Register I Vol. 66, No. 163 /Wednesday, Au-gust 22, 20011 Rules and Regulations 44235

(iv) Calculations performed, if

required, to demonstrate compliance

based on weighted-average organic HAP

content as described in § 63.5713.

(4) Submit semiannual compliance

reports to the Administrator as specified

in § 63.5764.

(e) Add-on control option. If you are

using an add-on control device. you '

must demonstrate compliance by

performing the steps in paragraphs (c)(l)

through (5) of this section.

(1) Conduct a performance test of the

control device as specified in §§ 63.5719

and 63.5722 to demonstrate initial

compliance.

(2) Use the performance test results to

determine control device paramelers to

monitor after the performance test as

specified in §63.5725.

(3) Comply with the operating limits

specified in § 63.5715 and the control

device and emission capture system

monitoring requirements specifie"i:l in

§ 63.5725 to demonstrate continuous

compliance.

(4) Keep the records specified in

§ 63.5767.

(5) Submit to the Administrator the

notifications and reports specified. in

§§ 63.5761 and 63.5764.

§ 63.5707 What is an implementation plan

for open molding operations and when do

I need to prepare one?

(a) You must prepare an

implementation plan for all open

molding operations for which you

comply by using the emissions

averaging option described in

§ 63.5704(a).

(b) The implementation plan must

describe the steps you wHI take to bring

the open molding operations covered by

this subpart into compliance. For each

operation included in the emissions

average, your implementation plan must

include the elements listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this

section.

(1) A description of each operation

included in the average.

(2) The maximum organic HAP

content of the materials used, the

application method used (if any

atomized resin application methods are

used in the average), and any other

methods used to control emissions.

(3) Calculations showing that the

operations covered by the plan will

comply with the open molding emission

limit specified in § 63.5698.

(c) You must submit the

implementation plan to the

Administrator with the notification of

compliance status specified in

§ 63.5761.

(d) You must keep the

implementation plan on site and

provide it to the Administrator when

asked.

(e) If you revise the implementation

plan, you must submit the revised plan

with your next semiannual compliance

report specified in § 63.5764.

§ 63.571 0 How do I demonstrate

compliance using emissions averaging?

(a) Compliance using the emissions

averaging option is demonstrated on a

12·month rolling-average basis and is

determined at the end of every month

(12 times per year). The first 12-month

rolling·average period begins on the

compliance date specified in § 63.5695.

(b) At the end of the twelfth month

after your compliance date and at the

end of every subsequent month, use

equation 1 of this section ·to dem.onstrate

that the organic HAP emissions from

those operations included in the average

do not exceed the emission Iimit in

§ 63.5698 calculated for the same 12-

month period. (lnelude terms in

equation 1 of § 63.5698 and equation 1

of this section for only those operations

and materials included in the average.)

(Eq. I)

Where:

PVop=weighted-average MACf modei

point value for each open molding

operation (PVR, PVPG, PVCG ,

PVPVTR, and PVPVTG) included in

the average, kilograms of HAP per

megagram of material applied.

Mj=mass ofresin or gel coat i used

within an operation in the past 12

months, megagrams.

PVTG= Weighted-average MACf model

point value for tooling gel coat used

in the past 12 months, kilograms

per megagram.

MTG= Mass of tooling gel coat used in

the past 12 months, megagrams.

(c) At the end of every month, use

equation 2 of this section to compute

the weighted-average MAC!' model

point value for each open molding resin

and gel coat operation included in the

average.

Where:

HAP emissions= Organic HAP

emissions calculated using.MACT

model point values for each

operation included in the average,

kilograms.

PVR =Weighted·average 1v1ACT model

point value for production resin

used in the past 12 months,

kilograms per megagram.

MR= Mass of production resin used in

the past 12 months, megagrams.

PVpo= Weighted-average MACTmodel

point value for pigmented gel coat

used in the past 12 months,

kilograms per megagram.

Mf>G= Mass of pigmented gel coat used

in the past 12 months, megagrams.

PVco= Weighted-average MACTmodel

point value for clear gel coat used

in the past 12 months, kilograms

per megagram.

MeG= Mass of clear gel coat used in the

past 12 months, megagrams.

PVTR= Weighted-average MACT model

point value for tooling resin used in

the past 12 months, kilograms per

megagram.

MTR = Mass of tooling resin used in the

past 12 months, megagrams.

"

L(MiPVi)

H (Eq. 2)

n=number of different open molding

resins and gel coats used within an

operation in the past 12 months.

PVj=the MACf model point value for

,. resin or gel coat i used ....ithin an

operation in the past 12 months,

kilograms of HA.P per megagram of

material applied.

(d) You must use the equations in

Table 3 to this subpart to calculate the

MACf model point value (PVj ) for each

resin and gel coat used in each

operation in the past 12 months.

(e) If the organic HAP emissions, as

calculated in paragraph(b) of this

section, are less than the organic HAP

limit calculated in § 63.5698(b) for the

same 12-month period, then you are in

compliance with the emission limit in

§ 63.5698 for those operations and

ma,terials included in the average.

§ 63.5713 How do I demonstrate

compliance using compliant materials?

(a) Compliance using the organic HAP

content requirements listed in Table 2 to

this subpart is based on a 12-month

rolling average that is calculated at- the

end of every month. The first 12-month

rolling-average period begins on the

compliance date specified in § 63.5695.
8
April 23, 2004

Exhibit B

CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.

REVISED ADJUSTED STANDARD LANGUAGE

As an alternative to complian'ce with the 8 lblhr Rule found at 35 lAC § 215.301, this adjusted

standard allows Crownline to limit its discharge o( organic material into the atmosphere from its

boat manufacturing oper"ations by operating in full compliance with the National Emission Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 4'0

CFR §63 Subpart VVVV, as may be amended in the future, and with the following conditions:

a. Crownline shall continue to investigate boat production methods with a reduced VOM

content and, where practicable, shall substitute current coatings with lower VOM content cOatings

as long as such substitution does not result in a net increase in VOM emissions. Crownline shall be

required to do any reasonable test of new technologically or economically reasonable production

methods or materials applicable to the open-mold fiberglass boat manufacturing industry which may

reduce VOM emissions at Crownline's facility which the Illinois EPA Bureau of Air specitically

requests in writing that they do. An annual report summarizing the activities and results ofthese

investigatory efforts shall be prepared by Crownline and submitted to the Illinois EPA Bureau of

Air, Compliance and Enforcement Section.

b. The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission activities at the

Crownline West Frankfort facility as of the date ofthis filing

c. Nothing in this adjusted standard shall relieve Crownline of its duty to operate in full

compliance with the Clean Air Act, its CAAPP, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and other

applicable regulations not otherwise discussed herein. .

1817792
c
Crownline Boats, Inc.-

Monthly Emissions Summary

12-Month Rolling Total

5/13/04

ExhibitC
5113104

Exhibit C

Monthly

Dec.Q31 Nov-031 . Oct-031 sep-031 Aug-031 Jul-031 Jun:031 May-031 Mr.()3/ M"r:031 F"b-03L.Jan-03LDec.Q21

<

Xylene (tons)

MEK lions'

12~Month Roiling Total

Xylene (tons)

0.01/

0.75/

0.011

0.84/

0.09/

1.01!

0.071

0.98!

0.16/

0.98!

0.05/

0.92!

0.111

0.94!

0.05/

0.83!

0.051

0.78!

0.11/

0.73/

0.04/

0.62!

0.10/

0.S8!

0.091

OA8!

MEK (tOI1S

Monthly

Dec.Q31 Nov.Q31 Oct-031 Sep.Q31 Aug-031 Jul.Q31 Jun:031 May,031 AQr.Q31 M",:031 F"b.Q31 __ Jan-o~'--Dec.Q21

0/ 0.01/ 0.011 0.011 0.011 001/ 0.01! 0.01/ 0.011 0.01! 0.01/ 0.10/ 0.00/
Nov-02 Ocl.o2 Sep.o2 Aug.o2

15.32 17.19 13.49 21.86

12.93 15.16 11.79 19.16

313 268 254 323

Nov-02 Oct-02 Sep..Q2 Aug-02

9.08 12.01 8.56 15.36

2.31 2.02 1.71 3.08

Nov·02 Oct-02 Sep-02 Aug..Q2

1.06 0.79 1.22 0.41

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jul.o2 Jun-02 May.o2 Apr.o2 Mar·02 Feb-02 Jan·02

13.97 18.30 19.95 17.04 14.17 14.20 12.22

11.80 15.78 16.89 14.96 12.23 12.59 10.6.0

323 400 452 320 305 269 247

JUI-02

9.04

1.76

Jul.o2

0.72

0.00

5/13/04

Exhibit C
z

zz

0

00 0 0 < 0 0 b 0 < "

'"

6 !:;

" ':1

6

0

'"

m

'" '" '"

0

0

0

0

0

n !"

0 !:l. !"

0 !:l.

" '" ;;;"

6 ':16

0

'" '" '" '" '" '" C1l C1l C1l Q

0 0 'C !"0 'C

0

0 'C

"

'"

6

"

6 0; ':16

0

'"

0 "" '" '" :» " " c c c 0 0

'"

0

'" 0 0'"

" ':1

6

"

6 :.... ':1 6'

0

'" '"

0

'" '" '"

'- '- '-

0

0

c !"

0

c 0 0c

"

"

b

"

b

"

"

b 0 0

'"

0

"" '" '"

N

'"
,
5113104

Exhibit D

Crownline Boats, Inc.

Monthly Emissions Summary

If Crownline Was Not Complying with MACT'

12-Month Rollin~ Total

Oec-031 Nov-031 oct-031 sep-031 Aug-03! JUI-03L_~un-031 May-o.1 Apr-031 Mar-031 Feb-031 Jan-031 oec-021

Monthly

10.111 17.331 23.531 27.071 23.951 18.691 20.421 25.791 23.27 1 23.771 20.181 19,251 13.391

Oec-031 Nov-031 oCl-031 sep-031 AU9-031 Jul-031 Jun'.o31 May-031 Apr-031 Mar-031 Feb-031 Jan-031 Oec-021

Monthly

Toluene (Ions) 0,05! 0.23! 0.83! 1.88! 0.261 0.85! 0.83! 0.87! 0,67! 0.76! 0,78! 1,27/ 0.441

Hexane tons 0

12-Month Roiling Total

8,011 9,231 10,501 10.461 9,80! 9.951 9.821 8.991 8.121 7.451 6.691 5.91! 4.641

'This chart was-prepared loeslimate what Crownline's air emissions would have been if It made the same number

and models of boats as it did In the months shown, but Crownllne was not complying with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart

VVW (the "MACr"),
5/13/04

Exhibit D

Doc-03! _ Nov-03! (jct-031 Sop-03! Aug-03! Jut-03! Jun-03! May-031 J\P-'-Q~I Mar-03LE~~-03! Jan-03!_[)",,-o?!

Monthly

DMP (Ions)

DB? (Ions

12-Month Roiling Total

OMP (tons)

DBP (tons

Monthty

MEK (tons

12-Month Rolling Total

0.011 0.011 0·D11 0.011 0,011 0,011 0,011 0.011 0,021 0,011 0.021 0,011 0.001

01 01 0,16! 0,151 '0.081 I I I I I I ! I

0.1 31 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.1 31 0.1 31 0.141 0.1 31 0.121 0.101 0,091 0.071 0,061

1.401 1.481 1.691 1~651 1.601 1.641 1.481 1.331 1.211 1,031 0.941 0,711 0.63!

00c-03\ Nov-03\ Oct-03\ Sop-OJ! Aug-03\ Jut.03\ Jun-03\ May.03\ Apr-03\ Mar-03\ Feb-03\ Jan-03\ Oec-02\

0.011 0.011 0,091 0.071 0.161 ' 0.051 " q.111 0.051 0,051 0.111 0.041 0.101 0.091

Xylene (tons)

MEK (tons

0.75! 0,841 1.011 0.98! 0.98! 0.92 1 0.94! 0,83! 0,78! 0.73! 0,62! 0.58! 0.481

Monthly

Oec-031 Nov-031 Oct.031 S.p.0~LAug-03! ----"ul.03! Jun-~L_May-031 Apr-O~I .. Mar-031 Feb-03jJan-031 Oec-021

Cumene (tons) 01 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0,011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.101 0.001

Other (tons) I 0

12-Month Roiling Total

Cumene (tons) 0.101 0.201 0.201 0,201 0.201 0.201 0.191 0.181 0.171 0.161 0.151 0.141 0.041

Other (tons)1 0,00
Nov-02 Oct-02 Scp-02 Aug-Q2

15.32 17.19 13.49 21.86

12.93 15.16 11.79 19.16

313 268 254 323

Nov-02 Oct-02 Scp-Q2 Aug-02

9.08 12.01 6.56 15.36

2.31 2.02 1.71 3.06

Nov#02 Oct-QZ Sep-02 Aug-02

1.06 0.79 1.22 0.41

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jul-02

13.97

11.60

323

Jul-02

9.04

1.76

Jul-02

0.72

0.00

5/13/04

Exhibit D
5/13/04

Nov-Q2 Oct-02 Sep-Q2 Aug-Q2 Jul..Q2

Exhibit D

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

0.16 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.08

Nov-02 Oct-02 Sep-02 Aug-02

0.09 0.06 0.07 0.10

021 0~2 O~O 0~6

Nov~02 Oct·02 Sep~02 Aug·02

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jul-02

om

0.10

Jul-02

0.00

0.00
.'

, ,

, Iy

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO._

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301

)

)

) .

) , )

AS 04-01

(ADJUSTED STANDARD - AIR)

NOTICE

TO: Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer

I1linois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274 '

Springfield, I1linois 62794-9274

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have filed with the Office ofthe Pollution

Control Board the RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF on behalfofthe Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith sen::ed upon you.

Date: May 14,2004 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

BY:~=::::::?::""=::::"--,--....6::":::::::""":"4~­ Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276 .

Spring field, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5544

THIS FILING IS SOBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF CROWNLINE BOATS, INC.

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

35 ILL. ADM: CODE 215.301

)

)

)

)

)

)

AS 04-01

(Adjusted Standard-Air)

RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or

"Agency") by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and hereby submits its Post-Hearing

Briefwith the Illinois poliution Control Board ("Board") in this matter. In support oftrus

Post-Hearing Brief, the llIinois EPA states as follows:

I. Crownline, Inc. ("Crownline") filed its Petition for Adjusted Standard ("Petition")

on December 4, 2003, pursuant to Section 28.I of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and the regulations of the Board at 35 III. Adm. Code

Section 104.402. The Petition requests that the Board giant Crownline an adjusted

standard from 35 III. Adm. Code Section 215.301, the Use of Organic Material Rule,

better known as the "8 Iblhr Rule" as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic

material (''YOM'') from Crownline's West Frankfort, Illinois, boat manufacturing facility.

. 2. On February 5th,: 2004, the Board found that the Crownline petition met the

requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code Section 104.406 and accepted the matter for hearing.

3. On or about January 20th, 2004, the Illinois EPA filed its recommendation with the

Board recommending that the Board GRANT the Petition for Adjusted Standard.

I
4. A hearing was held on this matter on April 23rd, 2004. Testimony was presented by Mr.

Dale Guariglia, Mr. James Claxton and Mr. Andy Polcyn for Petitioner. Certain questions were

posed by Ms. Alisa Liu ofthe Board's technical staff. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Carol Sudman,

determined that the qu.estions should be addressed by the parties in their post-hearing briefs. See

Transcript p. 42,Lines 7 - 21.

5. The questions were primarily directed at clarifying points in the Petitioner's Brief. This

reply is concerned solely with the few questions addressed to the Illinois EPA.

6. On page 40 ofthe Transcript, lines 19 through 21, Ms. Liu asks Mr. Matoesian

"[i]n their testimony, Crownline indicated that the Agency was agreeable to its revised

wording for the adjusted standard. Do you support that that?" The Illinois EPA states in

elaboration ofits answer at hearing that the Agency has come to an agreement with the

Petitioner over the wording ofthe AdjustedStandard and supports the granting ofthe

Adjusted Standard based on the language submitted at hearing by the Petitioner. This

language has been added to Crownline Boats, Inc. Post Hearing Response at Exhibit B.

7. On pageAl ofthe Transcript, lines 1 through 6, Ms.,tiu asks ifthe TIlinois EPA

has any additional information concerning the 8 lblhr rule that it would like to add to

"what Crownline interpreted." The Illinois EPA agrees with Crownline when it states

that when the Board enacted the 8 Iblhr rule the Board did not, and could not, have

anticipated Crownline's particular situation especially when the newer emissions factors

established by the U.S. EPA are considered.

8. As the schedule for filing the Post-Hearing Briefs was concurrent, the lllinois .

EPA reserves the right to provide additional answers and clarifications should the .

2
Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief contain matter found objectionable or requiring

clarification.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends that

Crownline's Petition for an Adjusted Standard be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

ILLINOIS EVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGi/

BY~ .

Charles E. Matoeslan

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: May 14, 2004

1021N. Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544 .

3
STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

COUNTY OF SANGAMON )

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I haye served the attached Respondeq.t's PostHearing Brief upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing it in an envelope addressed to:

TO: Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, TIIinois 60601

Dale A. Guariglia

Bryan Cave, LLP

One Metropolitan Square

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600

St. Louis, MO 63102-2750

Carol SUdman, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

and mailing it by First Class Mail from Springfield, Illinois on May 14, 2004, with sufficient

postage affixed.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

this 14th day ofMay, 2004

JS Mil ~cebJC Notary Public ~~~~~**·=·~~~?~V~~Vvv~~~i.

OFFICIAL SEAL .r. 3: BRENDA BOEHNER ~: :i: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS :r.

:::MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 11·14·2005::: ~~~r~vv(~~~~V~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~

TIDS FlLING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 22, 2002

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO. I5

.~.fEECE8VED D,VISion of Leaal C .~. '., Oll,1.o"'i

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF C:R.0WNLINE BOATS, INC.

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.301

J", ) UL. 2j 2004

)

) AS 04-01 Environmental Protection , (Adjusted Standard) , Agency

DALE A. GUARIGLIA, BRYAN CAVE, LLP, and ANDREW POLCYN, M.E., ADVANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., APPPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

and

CHARLES E. MATOESIAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):

Crownline Boats, Inc. (Crownline) is a fiberglass boat manufacturer located in West

Frankfort, Franklin County. In this opinion and order, the Board exempts Cro.wnline from

compliance with the volatile organic materiaJ (YOM) control requirements at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 2I5.30r.' Crownline remains subject, under state and federal laws, to VOM controls set

forth in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) along with

additional conditions contained in this order.

On December 5, 2003, Crownline Boats, Inc. (Crownline) filed a petition for an adjusted

standard from 35 TIL Adm. Code 215.301 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations, commonly

known as the "8 Iblhr Rule," as that Board regulation pertains to the emissions ofVOM.

Crownline's facility is located at 11884 Country Club Road, West Frankfort, Franklin County.

In the petition, Crownline requested a hearing, which was held April 23, 2004. The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation that the Board grant ,

Crownline's petition on January 22,2004.

Accompanying the petition, Crownline filed a motion for expedited review. Crownline

asserts that the Agency recently issued Crownline a Title V Clean Air Act Permit Program

(CAAPP) permit and Title I permit, requiring Crownline either to obtain an adjusted ,standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 or demonstrate compliance with that section by December 31,

2004. On the same day, DaJe A. Guariglia filed a motion requesting permission to appear pro

hac vice on behalfof petitioner in this proceeding in accordance with Section I01.400(a)(3). 35

Ill. Adm. Code 101.400(a)(3). The Board granted both Crownline's motion for expeditedreview

and Mr. Guariglia's motion to appear pro hac vice.

Based on the record before it, the Board finds that Crownline has provided sufficient

justification for each ofthe Section 28.1 factors. The Board grants Crownline an adjusted

standard from the 8 Ib/hr Rule subject to conditions outlined in this order.
2

ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE

The Environmental Protection Act (Act)(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (2002)) and Board rules

provide that a petitioner may request, and the Board may grant, an environmental standard that is

different from the generally applicable standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner.

This is called an adjusted standard. The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard

proceeding are found at Section 28.1 ofthe Act and Part 104, Subpart D ofthe Board's

procedural rules. 415 ILCS 5/28.1; 35 Ill. Adm. CO:de 104.400 et at.

The Board rules for the content requirements ofthe petition and Agency recommendation

are found at Section 104.406 and Section 104.416, respectively. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406,

104.416.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 5, 2003, Crownline filed this petition (pet.), accompanied by a motion for

expedited review, with the Board for an adjusted standard from the paper coating rule.' From

December 10, 2003 through December 24, 2003, Crownline published notice ofthe petition in

the West FranJ...fort Daily American, and filedthe certificate of publication with the Board on

January 5, 2004. The Agency filed its recommendation (Rec.) that the Board gnmt Crownline's

requested relief on January 22,2004, subject to certain tenns and conditions contained in the

Agency's recommendation. .

On April 23, 2003, Hearing Officer Carol Sudman conducted a hearing in this matter at

the offices ofthe West Frankfort City Administration Office, 110 North Jefferson Street, West

Frankfort. Three witnesses testified at hearing: Mr. James T. Claxton, president ofCrownline

Boats; Mr.Dale Guariglia, attorney for Crownline; and !'vir. Andrew Polcyn, consultant for

Crownline. Hearing .officer Sudman found all three witnesses credible. Mr. David Bloomberg

was also present on behalf ofthe Agency's Bureau ofAir. At hearing, Crownline offered eight

exhibits (Pet. Exh.). Crownline filed a post-hearing brief on May 14, 2004 (Pet. Br.), and the

Agency filed a post-hearing brief on May 17, 2004 (Ag. Br.).

FACTUALBACKGRO~~

The Facilitv

Crownline owns and operates a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility where it

manufactures approximately 30 different models ofpersonal recreation fiberglass bo:ats ranging

from 17'6" open bow boat, to a 29' cabin cruiser. Pet. at 4. Since it began operations in 1991,

Crownline has manufactured approximately 40,000 boats, currently producing between 15-20

boats each day. The Frankfort facility began operation in 1994 and employs approximately'500-

600 individuals. Id.

Crownline's boat manufacturing process involves the following production areas: (I)

mold fabrication; (2) gelcoat application; (3) lamination; (4) grind & trim; (5) woodworking; (6)

upholstery; (7) final assembly; and (8) shipping. This petition focuses mainly on the gelcoat and
3

lamination production areas, since they generate most ofCrownline's YOM emissions and are,

therefore, most impacted by the 8 lblhr Rule. In addition,Crownline notes that the use of

adhesives, lacquers, and caulks in other production areas also do not meet the 8 lblhr Rule on a

shict hourly bases. Pet. at 4. CrownJine's YOM emissions that do not meet the 8 lblhr Rule

consist primarily ofstYTene. ld.

Gelcoat Application

The purpose ofthe gelcoat application is to provide color and a smooth surface to the

fiberglass boats. Pet. at 5. Molds are prepared for the gelcoat application by cleaning with

stripping solvent and a wax-releasing agent applied. Pet. at 4. In one offour gelcoat booths,

gelcoat is applied to the hull or deck mold in a single application using air atomized spray guns.

There are thirty-one atomized spray guns in the gelcoat area. !d.

Lamination

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

stations. Pet. at 5. During lamination, glass fibers, polyester resin and a resin catalyst are

applied to the mold using non-atomized flow-coat chopper guns (flow-coat guns). The layer of

fiberglass and resin is then rolled flat using hand rollers to remove any air bubbles that were

created in the application. Laminate is applied in layers called "skins" and requires curing

periods between each skin application. Pet. At 5. Three resin skins are typically applied to

decks and two to three skins for hulls, followed by a separate application to build the boat floor.

ld.

Pollution Control Equipment In Use

In the gelcoat application and lamination processes, Crownli.j1e uses the following: (1) a

high-volume ventilation-system to keep styrene levels below the w\?rker exposure limit required

by OSHA; (2) enclosed spray booths in the gelcoat application process to reduce YOM

emissions into the plant air when using spray guns; (3) use oflower styrene-content gelcoat

(33.4%) and resin with lower hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content (35% HAP); (4) flow-coat

guns in place of air atomized spray guns in the lamination area, (5) panel filters inside the spray

booths and lamination areas to control particulate emissions from the spray guns; and (6)

submerged-fill resin tanks in the lamination process to reduce splashing and the creation ofVOM

emissions. Pet. at 5.

YOM Emissions

Crownline states that the YOM emissions from the faCility vary depending on the type

and size of each custom boat it manufactures. Pet. at 5. Crownline's emissions consist primarily

ofstyrene, but also include other VOMs and volatile organic HAPs such as methyl methacrylate

(MMA). Technical Doc. at 6, 7, App. 7. .

For purposes of complying with the 8 lblhr Rule, the Agency directed Crownline to·

consider each boat part (e.g., hull, deck, etc.) as the "emission source." Pet. Exh. 1 at 4. From
-,

4

the individual emission sources, Crownline estimated hourly VOM emissions. Among the

highest were 34.08 lblhr for gray lacquer, 15.89 lblhr for carpet adhesive, 21.8 lblhr for gelcoat,

and 19.81blhr for resin. Technical Doc. App. 7, Pet. Exh. 1, Exh. 5 and 6. Crownline notes that

some values were overestimated, but several boat models still have parts with emissions greater

than 8 lblhr ,vhen VOM emissions are determined on a strictly hourly basis. Pet. Exh. 1 at 5.

According to its 2002 Annual Emissions Report, Crownline estimated VOM emissions

totaled 187 tons per year. To quantify and compare potential VOM reductions, Crownline

calculated its annual VOM emissions based on 200'3 production data under three scenarios: preMACT, MACT, and the 8 lblhr Rule in place. The pre-MACT scenario resulted in 244.82 tpy -

VOM, while the MACT scenario resulted in 199.79 tpyVOM, and the 8lblhr scenario yielded

144.36 tpy VOM. Technical Doc. App. 6, Exh. 3, 4 and 5. In terms of HAP, Crownline's preMACT emissions were approximately 204 tpy HAP, while the MACT scenario would result in a

50 tpy reduction in HAP. Pet. Exh. 1 at 7.

CAAPP Permit

In discussions between the Agency and CrownIine regarding Crownline's draft CAAPP

operating permit, the AgeJ:.lcy stated that Crownline could not average emissions to demonstrate

compliance with the 8 1blhr Rule. The Agency stated that the 8 lblhr Rule specifies a maximum

hourly emission rate and, therefore, compliance would need to be demonstrated on a strict hourly

basis, not on an average from any longer period oftime. Crownllne determined that based on the

Agency's interpretation, it could not comply with the 8 lblhr Rule. Pet. at 1.

On November 13, 2003, the Agency issued Crownline aTitle V CAAPP permit and Title

I permit (No. 055070AAU). The Title V permit states that CrownIine is to obtain an adjusted

standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 or demonstrate compliance with Section 215.301 by

December 31, 2004.. Pet. at 2. Crownline's CAAPP permit limits aJ1Ilual emissions to 249 tons

ofVOM per year. Pet. Exh. 1 at 8. -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Board agrees with CrownIine and the Agency that the regulation of general

applicability at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does not specify a level ofjustification for an adjusted

standard. Pet. at 11; Rec. at 7. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.l(c) ofthe Act, the burden of

proofis on the petitioner to demonstrate that:

1. 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 ofthose 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
5

4. The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415

ILCS 5/28.I(c) (2002): 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104,426(a).

CURRE:'\T APPLICABLE STANDARDS

One standard applicable to Crownline's boat manufacturing operations is set forth in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 215.301. Section 215.301 provide~:

No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kglhr(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 215.301.

For purposes of complying with the 8 Iblhr Rule, the Agency has directed Crownline to

consider each boat part (e.g., hull, deck, etc.) an emission source. Pet. Exh. I at 4.

Under separate federal regulation effective August 23,2004, Crownline must also meet

newly promulgated NESHAPs for :Kew and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities applicable to

boat manufacturers that are major sources ofHAP. Pet. at 6; citing 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart

VVVV, 40 C.F.R. 63.5683. Under Section 9.I(a) ofthe Act, NESHAP rules are applicable in

Illinois and enforceable under the Act without additional rulemaking activity by the Board. 415

ILCS 5/9.1 (a) (2002).

The rule requires that boat manufacturers use maximum available control technology

(MACT) to meet the "MACT floor," which is the'emission limitations achieved by the top

performing 12% ofbnat manufacturers in the nation. Pet. at 6. To comply with a HAP limit

calculated for a facility, manufacturers can use one ofthe foilowing.options: emissions

averaging using a 12-month rolling average, compliant materials, and/or add-on controls. 40

C.F.R. 63.5701, 63.5710. Other requirements include: using lower HAP content gel-coat and

resins; covering resin, gelcoat and solvent containers; and using cleaning solvents and adhesives

containing no more than 5% HAP. The MACT standard does not require air pollution

equipment. To comply with MACT, Crownline opines that most boat manufacturers with open

molding operations will have to use flow-coat guns and low-HAP production materials in their

resins, gelcoats, and adhesives. A flow coat gun generates fewer emissions because it operates at

a lower pressure and has a non-atomized delivery system. The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates that by complying with the new MACT standard, boat

manufacturers will reduce HAP emissions by an average of35%. Pet. at 2, 6; citing 66 F.R.

44222.

Crownline states it is currently in compliance with the new MACT standard. Crownline

uses flow-coat guns in its lamination operating and resin and gelcoat with lower percentages of

HAP content. Pet. at 6. Crownline has not yet made a demonstration of compliance to the

USEPA, and will not be required to do so until August 2005. Pet. Exh. I at 3.
6

CROWNLINE'S PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD

In the petition, Crownline proposed the following adjusted standard language for

adoption by the !"oard:

Pursuant to the authority under Section 28:1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act,

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

shall apply solely to Crownline Boats, Inc. ("Crownline"). As an alternative to

compliance with 35 lAC § 215.301, this adjusted standard allows Crownline to

limit its discharge of organic material into the atmosphere from its boat

manufacturing operations by complying with 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.

The Agency recommended that the Board grant Crownline the requested adjusted

standard so long as Crownline complied with the following additional conditions:

a. Crownline shall operate in full compliance with the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for New and Existing Board

Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Section 63 Subpa!i

VVVV, as may be amended in the future.

b. Operation in full compliance with the National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing

Facilities, set forth at 40 CFR Section §63 Subpart VVVV, as may be

amended in the future, shall be in lieu of compliance with the 8 Ibfhr Rule

found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301.

c. Crownline:shall continue to investigate boat production methods with a

reduced YOM content and, where practicable, shall substitute current

coatings with lower YOM content coatings as long as such substitution

does not result in a new increase in YOM emissions. Crownline shall be

. required to do any test which the Illinois EPA specifically recommends

that they do. An annual report summarizing the activities and results of

these investigatory efforts shall be prepared by Crownline and submitted

to the Illinois EPA Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement.

d. The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission

activities at the Crownline West Frankfort facility as ofthe date ofthis

filing.

e. Crownline shall operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its

CAAPP, the lllinois Environmental Protection Act and other applicable

regulations not otherwise discussed herein. Rec. at 5·6.
7

At hearing, Crownline submitted the following revised adjusted standard language,

agreed to by the Agency (Tr. at 41, Pet. Br., Exh. B), for adoption:

As an alternative to compliance with the 8 lblhr Rule found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

215.301, this adjusted standard allows Crownline to limit its discharge of organic

material into the atmosphere from its boat manufacturing operations by operating

in full compliance wiih the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities, set forth at 40

C.F.R. §63, Subpart VVVV, as may be arn~nded in the future, and with the'

following conditions:

a. Crownline shall continue to investigate boat production methods with a

reduced YOM content and, where practicable, shall substitute current

coatings with lower YOM content coatings as long as such substitution

does not result in a net increase in YOM emissions. Crownline shall be

required to do any reasonable test of new technologically or economically

reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the open-mold

fiberglass boat manufacturing industry which may reduce YOM emissions

at Crownline's facility which the Illinois EPA Bureau ofAir specifically

requests in writing that they do. An annual report summarizing the

activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts shall be prepared by

Crownline and submitted to the Illinois EPA Bureau ofAir, Compliance

and Enforcement Section.

b. The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the emission

activities at the Crownline West Frankfort facility as ofthe date ofthis

filing.

c. Nothing in this adjusted standard shall relieve CrownHne ofits duty to

operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its CAAPP, the lllinois

Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not

otherwise discussed herein.

.. CROWNLINE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE lVIACT STANDARD

Under separate NESHAP requirements applicable to Crownline under Section 9.1(a) of

the Act, Crownline states it took steps early to comply with the MACT and carne info

compliance with MACT emission limits more than a year prior to the deadline. Pet. at 2.

However, Crownline has not yet dempnstrated compliance, and will not have to until August

2005. Pet. Exh. I at 3. Crownline states that it will demonstrate compliance to USEPA with the

new MACT standard by using the "model point value averaging option" based on a 12-moIith

rolling average and by using compliant materials. Id. Crownline notes that its HAP emission

limits will vary from month to month based on an equation set forth in 40 C.F.R. 63.5698. Pet.

Exh. 1 at 6.

\
8

The USEPA estimates that compliance with the MACT standard by the boat

manufacturing industry will result in an annual cost of compliance of $4,060 per ton of HAP

reduced and will reduce HAP emissions by an average of35%. 66 F.R. 44222. Crownline

estimates its annual compliance costs at approximately $215,600 per year and that it will reduce

annual HAP 'emissions (not total YOM) by approximately 50 tons, or 25%. Pet. Exh. 1 at 2.

Crownline's annual compliance cost is approximately $4,312 per ton ofHAP reduced, which is

similar to USEPA's estimate 6f$4,060 per ton HAP reduced. Pet. Exh. I at 3,8. In terms of

YOM, Crownline estimated a reduction from 244.8f tpy YOM to 199.79 tpy YOM under the

MACT scenario. Technical Doc., App. 6, Exh. 3 and 4. .

EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVES

Crownline states it has investigated the following alternatives that would help Crownline

comply with the 81b/lu' Rule: (1) reducing YOM content in production materials; (2) using

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

control. Crownline states that investigations proved that,other than end-of-the-pipe emission

controls, many ofthe alternatives would not bring Crownline into compliance with the' 8 Iblhr

Rule on a strict hourly basis. Pet. at 6.

.Reducing YOM in Production Materials

Crownline has reduced YOM in its resin and gelcoat production materials to meet the

federal MACT standard. However,meeting the MACT standard alone will not bring Crownline

into compliance with the State 8 lblhr Rule. Crownline states that it is not possible to further

reduce styrene in the resins and still maintain product integrity. Pet. at 6. Crownline and its

consultant, Advanced Environmental Associates (AEA), could not identify any compliance

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

Using Alternative Operating Procedures and Methods

Crownline states that it investigated both open molding and closed molding alternative

production methods. However, Crownline found that even tho\lgh the alternatives investigated

would reduce YOM emissions, they would not bring Crownline into compliance with the 8 lb/hr

Rule on a strictly hourly basis. Crownline explained that the open and closed molding

alternative production methods investigated are only available to the lamination process and

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

adhesive operations. Pet. at 7. Crownline replaced its atomized spray chopper guns used for

resin application with flow-coat guns in its lamination area. Technical Doc. at 4. The flow-coat

guns have lower pressure and internal mixing as compared to the atomized guns. Pei. at 5.

Crownline states it experimented with using flow-coat guns in the gelcoat process, but they had '

too much of a negative impact on product quality. Pet. Exh. I at 2.

End-of-Pipe Controls

In developing the MACT, the USEPA did not include any emission control technologies

as the MACT floor for the following reasons: (I) only one boat manufactiJrer used tailstack,

emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions; (2) the cost of emission control systems

was very high because very high air flows needed by facilities to comply with OSHA's styrene
9

regulations; and (3) the boat manufacturing industry can reduce HAP content ofresins, gelcoat,

and other materials to significantly reduce total HAP emissions without undue financial burden.

Pet. at 7.

Crownline's consultant investigated the various end-of-pipe control technologies. As a

result ofthe analysis, Crownline determined that emission controls are cost prohibitive and,

therefore, not an economically reasonable option. For example, up-front capital costs to install

tail-stack controls range from $7 million to $14 million with annual costs ranging from 54.5

million to nearly $6 mil1ion. Crownline estimates that such control would range from

approximately $35,000 to $58,000 per ton ofVOM removed. Pet. at 8; Technical Doc. at 16, 18.

Crownline explains that the reason end-of-pipe controls are so costly is because of the

large volume of air that must be treated in order to reduce the relatively small amount of YOM.

As discussed above, Crownline must move a large volume of air through the gelcoat and

lamination areas to maintain compliance with OSHA's 8-hour worker exposure limit for styrene.

Technical Doc. at 16, 18.·

SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS

Crownline states that the primary intent ofthe 8 lb/hr Rule was to prevent ozone

formation and odor nuisance. Crownline asserts that the Board did not contemplate the methods

Crownline uses to manufacture boats at the Frankfort facility when it promulgated the 8 lb/hr

Rule in 1971. Pet. at 11. Crownline states that manufacturing fiberglass boat decks or hulls

involves a batch-type process rather than a continuous application process typically used in

manufacturing processes for other products. Crownline argues this fact together with the

ventilation system it uses to comply with OSHA's workerprotection.regulation at 29 C.F.R.

1910 makes the use of add-on emission controls economically unreasonable. Under OSHA

worker health and safety standards for styrene, Crownline must maintain high air flow to

ventilate building air:. The high air flow makes the cost of using tail~end stack emissions controls

unreasonably high. Crownline states that the Board did not anticipate the current fiberglass boat

production methods and the OSHA standard when it adopted the 8 Ib/hr Rule in 1971. Pet. at 12-

13.

IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Crownline contends that its requested adjusted standard will not adversely impact the

environment or human health. Pet. at 13. Through AEA, Crownline performed an ambient

air quality analysis to estimate Crownline's impact on ozone f6nnation in south-central lilinois.

Pet. at 9. AEA used an ozone screening method developed by the USEPA to determine the

impacts of ozone formation. Id. Crownline contends that even without the changes it

implemented to meet the MACT standard, the Crownline facility would not cause or contribute

to any ozone exceedences in south-central Illinois. Based on its Ozone Impact Analysis,

Crownline could more than triple its current annual YOM emissions without causing an

exceedance of the I-hour ozone NAAQS. Pet. Exh. 1 at 8, Pet. Exh. 2. Currently, the

Crownline facility emits approximately 195 tons/yr ofVOM per year, and is permitted to

produce 249 tpy YOM. Tr. at 22; Pet. Exh. 1 at 8. Compliance with the 8 Ib/hr Rule would
"

10

yield approximately 144 tons of YOM per year. Rec. at 6. Before making any changes, the

facility would emit approximately 245 tons/yr of YOM for similar production figures. ld.

The Agency agrees with Crownline that if Crownline could capture the YOM emissions and

release them uniformly, rather than in spurts, it could comply with the 8 Ib/hr Rule while not

reducing emissions at all. Rec. at 6.

Crownline asserts th~t the Agency estimales a decrease in the amount of solid waste

generated and no adverse impacts on water quality and energy consumption from .the adjusted

standard. Pet. at 11.

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

Crownline states there is no Clean Air Act equivalent rule or regulation prohibiting boat

manufacturers' emissions of YOM in excess of 8 Ibslhr, on a strictly hourly basis. Crownline

points out that regardless, the facility must comply with the new federal NESHAP for boat

manufacturers. Moreover, Crownline contends that if the Board grants Crownline'~ requested

relief, Crownline will submit the adjusted standard to the USEPA to be included in IlliIiois'

State Implementation Plan (SIP). For these reasons, Crownline states the proposed adjusted

standard is consistent with federal law. Pet. at 13.

DISCUSSION

Crownline seeks relief from the State's 8 Iblhr Rule in the form of an adjusted standard.

Under separate federal regulation applicable to it under Section 9.1(a) ofthe Act, Crownline is

already required to comply with the NESHAP for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing

Facilities, which limits HAP emissions from facilities such as the Crownline West Frankfort

plant. Crownline must comply with the MACT emissions limits under this standard by

August 23, 2004. Accordingly, Crownline requests that Section 215'.301 not apply to their

operations. The Agency recommends that the Board grant Crownline the requested relief subject

to certain conditions. If granted, the adjusted standard would apply only to the materials and

methods Crownline uses to manufacture fiberglass boats at its West Frankfort facility.

The Board finds that' Crownline's request for relief from the 8 lblhr Rule meets the

statutory "fundamentally different" factors ofsection 28.1 (c) ofthe Act. Crownline has

demonstrated that:. (1) factors relating to it are substantially and significantly different from the

factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation; (2) the existence ofthese

factors justifies an adjusted standard; (3) the requested standard ,will not cause substantially or

significantly more adverse enviromnental or health effects than the effects considered by the

Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and (4) the. adjusted standard is consistent

with applicable federal laws. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(c) (2002).

Crownline bases its justification for the requested relief on the lack of an economically

reasonable or technically feasible alternative. The Board fmds that the efforts beyond those

Crownline has already implemented in the three categories of alternatives that Crownline

investigated (reducing YOM content in production materials, employing alternative operating

procedures and production methods, and applying end-of-pipe controls) are not currently
11

technically feasible or economically reasonable. Additionally, the Ozone Impact Anal ysis shows

that Crownline's emissions will not cause negative health or environmental effects.

The Board finds no inconsistency between granting Crownline's requested relief and

federal law. Finally, the Board finds that the Board did not anticipate the batch-type processes of

coating and laminating fiberglass boat parts that Crownline employs at the West Frankfort

facility when it promulgated the 81blhr Rule at Seclion 215.301. As a matter oflaw, Crownline

must comply with the MACT emissions limits by August 23, 2004, which Crownline states it has

achieved over a year early. .

The Agency's recommended adjusted standard language contains some conditions that

Crownline's proposed language does not include. Rec. at 5. Specifically, the Agency proposed

language limiting Crownline's reliefto apply specifically to the emission activities at the

Crownline West Frankfort facility, the effective date being the Board's final decision in this

matter. The Agency's adjusted standard language reiterated that Crownline must operate in full

compliance with the federal standard. ld. The Agency proposed language requiring Crownline

to continue to investigate boat production methods and, where practicable, substitute curren~

coatings with lower YOM content coatings as long as the substitution does not result in increased

YOM emissions. The Agency further proposed that Crownline must do testing as the Agency

recommends and submit annual reports summarizing the activities and results ofits

investigations to the Agency, Bureau ofAir. !d.

At hearing, Crownline submitted revised language, including three conditions, with no

objection by the Agency. The revised wording incorporated the Agency's proposals to: (1)

continue to investigate boat production methods with a reduced YOM content and, where

practicable, substitute current coatings with lower YOM content coatings so long as the

substitution does not result in higher YOM emissions; (2) perform any reasonable test of new

production methods'or materials that the Agency, Bureau ofAir, request in writing that they do;

and (3) submit an arinual.report summarizing the activities and results oftheir investigations..

The revised wording also reiterates that Crownline must operate in compliance with the federal

standard.

In granting this adjusted standard, the Board is adopting conditions similar, but not

identical in wording, to those suggested by the parties. The Board used Crownline's revised

language and, as the Agency recommended, the Board has tightened up the description ofthe

facility and clarified reporting requirements. The balance ofthe changes are non-substantive,

and are intended to bring this order into conformity with the Board's usual drafting style in

adjusted standards.

CONCLUSION

The Board grants Crownline's requested relief and exempts it from the 8 Iblhr Rule at

Section 215.301 ofthe Board's regulations at its facility in West Frankfort, Franklin County,

Crownline remains subject to the NESHAP applicable to its facility and suggested conditions.

The reliefis effective as ofthe date ofthis order.
12

This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and conclusions oflaw.

ORDER

,'.

1. Pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS

5/28.1), the Board grants Crownline Boats, Inc: an adjusted standard from 35 TIL

Adm. Code 215.301 (8 lblhr Rule), effective July 24, 2004. The adjusted standard

applies to the emissions of volatile c(rganic material (YOM) into the atmosphere

from Crownline's boat manufacturing facility located at 11884 Country Club

Road, West Frankfort, Franklin County.

2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.301 does not apply.. Crownline remains subject to the

following:

a. Crownline must continue to investigate boat production methods that

generate fewer YOM emissions and materials that have a reduced YOM

content. Where practicable, CrownIine must substitute current materials

with lower YOM content materials 'as long as such substitution does not

result in a net increase in YOM emissions.

b. Crownline must perform any reasonable test of new technologically or

economically reasonable production methods or materials applicable to the

open-mold fiberglass boat manufacturing industry, which may reduce.

YOM emissions at Crownline's facility which the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) specifically requests in writing that they do.

c. _Crownline must prepare and submit each year an annual report

- SUIT)i:IJarizing the activities and results ofthese.iilVestigatory efforts. The

annual report must be submitted to the Agency; Bureau ofAir,

Compliance and Enforcement Section;

d. Crownline must operate in full compliance with the Clean Air Act, its

Clean Air Act Permit Program permit, the National Emissions Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing

Facilities, set forth at 40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart YVVV, as required by Section

9.1(a) ofthe Act, and any other applicableregulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41 (a) ofthe Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board ordersmay

be appealed directly to the lllinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the

order. 415 ILCS 5/41 (a) (2000); see also 35 TIL Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.

Illinois Supreme Court Rille 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the lllinois

Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 TIL 2d R. 335. The

Board's procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
13

orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.520; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board

adopted the above opinion and order on July 22, 2004, by a vote of 5-0.

~A.~ ./

Dorothy M. Gunn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board