1/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JAN j 2 1993 BOOK 88 pnF 404 air emissions to two hundred and five and one-half (205 1/2) tons; require that we install, not later than July 1, 1994, a state-of-the-art pollution control device or convert to a water-based or low solvent content coating; provide FDER evidence prior to January 1,. 1993 that we have contracted for the installation of one of the mandated remediai-actions; provide a schedule prior to January 1, 1993 showing that contracted work will commence and terminate with completion occurirrg not later than July 1, 1994; and provide quarterly progress reports to the FDER. Macho Products has cooperated with the FDER to the maximum extent possible in'our efforts to resolve this issue. To date, we have accomplished everything we have been requested to de -:}by the FDER and within the timeframe specified. In. our search for an acceptable water-based or low solvent coating, we have interacted with more than 200 paint manufacturers and formulators. We have been exhaustive in contacting emission reduction equipment manufacturers while exploring the various applications for thermal and catalytic incineration, absorption, adsorption, condensation. and bio -filtration. We have retained the services of nine separate consulting firms to assist us in researching alternate processes or technologies. These efforts have to date cost us in excess of $100,000. Macho Products will install a state-of-the-art emission reduction device. We would have preferred the remedy of changing our manufacturing process to water-based or low solvent coatings since we .believe they represent the emerging technology in the vinyl coating industry and will be reality in three to five years. Moreover, it would have been less costly since the emission reduction option entails capital costs approximating $ 350,000, Plus operating costs and the costs of unique construction requirements for the coating facility. The advantages of process change vis-a-vis the emission reduction equipment notwithstanding, the Board of Directors of Macho Products made the coimmni.t ment that one of the remedial actions mandated by the FDER would be in place when our new factory commenced operations iii'ladian Rivar County. This commitment was made even though the required cc-Mrletion date of July 1, 1994 postdates the Projected factory operation date by nine to twelve months. Tharefore, umi December 29, 1992, I wrote to Mr. .C. H. Fanc, Chief Bureau of Air Regulation, FDER and advised him of the - following: . a. we have puxGhased the land for a new manufacturing site in Indian River Couiity. b. we have retained the essential consultants and providers of goods and serviveg to build a 40,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility in Indian River. C ijfity, C. our contract with our mechanical engineering consultant includes engineering and design of a coating facility which will house our emission reduction equipment. d. we have retained the services of the prestigious environmental engineering firm of Geraghty & Miller to assist in the preparation and submission of the Air Permit Application for our new plant location. e. we have signed a letter of intent with Stelter and Brinck, Inc. to purchase a fume incinerator for treatment of our exhaust stream and established, for planning purposes, a July 1993 equipment delivery date. _ 20