1/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dudley Gordon, president of Macho Products, reviewed the information in the following memo dated January 5, 1993: MACHO PRODUCTS, Inc. • 2550 Kirby Ave. N.E. • Palm Bay, FL 32905-3494 USA (407) 729-6137 0 (800) 327-6812 • FAX (4Q7) 768-2598 MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Planning and Zoning Commission Indian River County, Florida FROM: Dudley J. Gordon, President, Macho Products DATE: January 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Planning MACHO PRODUCTS, INC I welcome the opportunity to provide you an overview of Macho Products actions to date in the area of environmental planning and to share with you our future plans in this important area. Macho Products commenced manufacturing protective equipment for martial artists and law enforcement officials in 1980 in Palm Bay, Florida. Our production operations include .die -cutting foam, gluing and assembling the cut foam, and dipping the assembled product in a vinyl coating. The gluing and coating processes use solvents, -methyl ethel ketone (MEK) and toluene. These solvents are not carcinogens and carry official health hazard ratings of low (MEK) and moderate (Toluene). These hazard ratings are taken from Material Safety, Data Sheets. The source of the ratings is the National Fire Prevention Association. Our manufacturing process generates no significant solid wastes, no hazardous wastes,. no polluted effluents, and no visible air emission. The solvents used are called Volatile - Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOC emissions can contribute to smog. The quantity generated is small in comparison to existing sources (eg.. automobiles, power plants) and has'not caused problems. Nevertheless, by 1994 we expect to reduce VOC emissions by 85 percent. (The rate of reduction will be higher, but there will be increased production.) In so doing, we will drop to the category of a "minor" source. Macho Products was initially visited and inspected by representatives of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation-_- (FDER) in December 1983 and found to be "in compliance." No further visits or inspections were conducted until November 1988. At that time we were visited and told that we probably required an air permit. We requested that an application be sent to us. In January 1989, we received notice that the.FDER believed we were operating in violation of Florida statutes. It was determined that an air permit was required. We were cited for a "paperwork violation having a minor potential for harm" and were assessed the minimum possible fine of $ 600. In Ma198, we agreed to submit an Air Permit Application. We did so in June 1989 and were issued our permit in November '1989. operating under the conditions of that permitWe have been February 1992.- The permit conditions, as amended, limit our as amende nuain l EV7 JAN 121993 BOOK 88 Fr