Center for Industrial Services

In this issue ...

1. MACT PRESSURE RELEASED
2. ARE YOU FEELING THE HEAT FROM BEING NEAR AN ENDANGERED PARK?
3. TARGETED GUIDELINES AND TOUGH ENFORCEMENT TWO KEY ELEMENTS IN OSHA'S MAKEOVER
4. ERGONOMIC TIPS FOR OFFICE WORKERS FROM ASSE
5. NEW INK STUDY RELEASED
6. QUALITY, MANAGEMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY WORKSHOPS MAY - JUNE

MACT PRESSURE RELEASED

Industry is getting a two-year reprieve from EPA's controversial technology-based air rule. But to whom does it apply?

Under the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) "hammer" rule, if EPA misses a MACT due date by 18 months, major sources in that category will need to prepare and file detailed case-by-case Title V permit applications proposing a source specific MACT. The "hammer" date for a number of source categories is May 15, 2002.

Under an agreement with industry, EPA was supposed to sign off in February on a final rule to delay the hammer date. In the last minute, EPA officials decided not to sign the final rule because it allowed for only a six-month reprieve. A rule was finally signed on April 5 that extended the deadline for two years until May 15, 2004. EPA hopes by that time to have issued all the MACTs so that states and industry can avoid having to set source-specific individual MACTs.

Under the new amendments, EPA is dealing with the MACT hammer in a two-phased approach. Notification requirements are due May 15, 2002. Facilities must submit to their permitting authority only source types, names, and locations. Full information, including process, pollutant, and control information, to be used in establishing MACT limits, is due by May 15, 2004.

But who must submit the notification this May, and what is the state's position?

The following letter, issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to Tennessee industrial sources, contained information related to activation of section 112(j) and related requirements.

"Important Regulatory Information/ May Require Action No Later Than May 15, 2002"

This letter is provided as a courtesy notification to ensure you are aware of certain requirements in Chapter 1200-3-31 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations, section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act, and sections 63.50 through 63.56 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and to advise you of this agency's and the EPA's procedures for implementing statutory and regulatory requirements that might apply to your company.This agency is alerting you-and others in the state who are potentially impacted by activation of section 112(j) and related requirements-in case these statutory and regulatory requirements impact your company.

Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(b), the Tennessee regulation to implement the federal requirement in section 112(j)(2) of the Clean Air Act, specifies that if the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for a source category is not promulgated by the EPA within 18 months after the date that it is scheduled to be promulgated then a major source of hazardous air pollutants that is to be subject to that standard must file a MACT permit application (Title 5 application) with the technical secretary before the end of that 18-month period.

The texts of section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa112.txt

Text of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations is at: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-03/1200-03.htm

It now appears that some of the scheduled MACT standards will not be promulgated within 18 months after their scheduled date. Specifically, some of the MACT standards that were scheduled to be promulgated by Nov. 15, 2000, are now expected to not be promulgated by May 15, 2002. This means that major sources of hazardous air pollutants that have operations in those source categories for which scheduled MACT standards are not promulgated by May 15, 2002, must file MACT permit applications by this May 15, 2002, date.

Please refer to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112j/info/112(j)-table2.html for the EPA's current list of source categories for which it forecasts it will not promulgate MACT standards by May 15, 2002. At this website you can get information about the probable applicability criteria of these MACT standards.

This federal delay may have significant implications for your company. Consequently, you must submit a MACT permit application to the technical secretary by May 15, 2002, if your source:

1. Is a major source of hazardous air pollutants, and
2. Contains operations that are in a source category or source categories for which MACT standards were to be promulgated by Nov. 15, 2000, but will not be promulgated by May 15, 2002.

With regard to the content of each MACT application due by May 15, 2002, recent amendments to section 40 CFR 63.52, 63.53, and 63.55 are pertinent for certain sources in Tennessee. These amendments are pertinent because Paragraph 1200-3-31-.03(1) specifies that the technical secretary is to recognize such regulations in determining MACT.

On April 5, 2002, the EPA promulgated amendments to the CFR that create a two-part MACT application process. These amendments require the submittal of a part 1 application followed later by a part 2 application. The text of the Federal Register notice of these amendments is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fr_notices/gprctd_fr.pdf.

As specified in section 63.52(a)(1), the information listed in section 63.53(a) is to be included in each permit application that is due by May 15, 2002. If you conclude that this federal and the corresponding state regulation apply to your company, you must submit a timely part 1 application that provides the following information:

1. The name and address (physical location) of the major source.
2. A brief description of the major source and an identification of the relevant source category.
3. An identification of the types of emission points belonging to the relevant source category.
4. An identification of any affected source for which a section 112(g) MACT determination has been made.

As specified in section 63.52(e), the information listed in section 63.53(b) is to be included in the part 2 application, due within 24 months after the submittal date of the part 1 application. (The procedure for submitting the part 2 application is not being addressed at this time.)

This agency recommends you follow the form of the enclosed example application in drafting your application. As you can see in this example, a part 1 application is to be simply a letter to the technical secretary. The example letter states that it is to fulfill the requirement to submit a part 1 application, and contains the information required by section 63.53(a). In addition, the letter contains a statement of certification, as required by Part 1200-3-9-.02(11)(d)4 for a Title 5 application, and the signature of a responsible official of the source, as defined in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b).

DOE HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC.
321 Front Street
Portland, Tennessee 37148
May 10, 2002

Mr. Barry R. Stephens, P.E.
Technical Secretary
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
9th Floor, L & C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1531

Re: 112(j) Part 1 MACT Permit Application

Dear Mr. Stephens:

Doe Heavy Industries, Inc., submits this part 1 application to fulfill the requirements of Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(b) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. This regulation requires the submittal of a 112(j) part 1 MACT permit application by May 15, 2002. Doe Heavy Industries expects that its metal coating operations will be subject to the anticipated subpart MMMM of 40 CFR 63 and that its two natural gas fired boilers may become subject to the anticipated subpart DDDDD.

With regard to the 112(j) matter, Doe Heavy Industries is engaged in the coating of large industrial equipment, with curing heat provided by steam generated in natural gas fired boilers. This facility is at 321 Front Street, Portland, Sumner County. It is expected that this source will be subject to the emission standards of subpart MMMM, the MACT rule for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts, and may become subject to the standards of subpart DDDDD, the rule for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. The source contains six large paint spray booths and two smaller touch-up booths. A regenerative thermal incineration unit serves the six large booths. No emission control is employed on the touch-up booths. The two boilers exhaust through a common stack with no add-on controls. No 112(g) determination has been made for any source at Doe Heavy Industries.

I certify that I am a responsible official of the company, as defined in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b). Also, based upon information and belief I formed after reasonable inquiry, I certify that the statements and information provided above are true, accurate, and complete.

Please feel free to contact Mr. James M. Doe or me at (615) 123-4567 if there are any questions about this matter.

Sincerely,
John H. Doe
John H. Doe
President

cc: Doug Neeley, EPA

If you determine your source or sources within a single contiguous area are subject to the requirements of Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(b) and section 63.52(a)(1) and 63.53(a), please submit your part 1 application (a single application) by May 15, 2002. If you desire to attach to your letter data sheets or forms (perhaps developed by your company or industry for the 112(j) situation) that provide any of the information listed in section 63.53(a) instead of including this information in the body of your letter, you are welcome to do so. The two essential elements of a part 1 application are the information listed in section 63.53(a) and the certification required by Part 1200-3-9-.02(11)(d)4.

Finally, section 63.55(b) requires that a copy of the application also be submitted to the EPA at the same time as the submittal to the technical secretary. This copy is to be sent to the address as follows:

Mr. Doug Neeley
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

If you are not certain that your source or sources are subject to the requirements of Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(b) and section 63.52(a)(1) and 63.53(a) but suspect that they might be, it is recommended that you submit a part 1 application by May 15, 2002. Such a submittal will not make your sources subject to the requirements of these regulations or the subsequently promulgated MACT standards simply because you mistakenly submit a part 1 application. However, you may be subject to enforcement action if it is later determined that you should have submitted such an application. This recommendation applies also for those sources that are now major sources for hazardous air pollutants [and] have applied to become conditional major sources, but for which permits limiting potential emissions to below major source thresholds for hazardous air pollutants (25 tpy, 10 tpy, and lesser quantities, if applicable) have not yet been issued.

Please feel free to contact this agency's MACT Hammer Help Desk at (615) 532-0554 if you have any questions about this matter. Questions received by phone or mail will be answered to the one making the inquiry. Those questions and their answers, without attribution to the ones who submitted the questions, will be posted to the TDEC Air web page, at http://www.state.tn.us/environment/air.htm, for reference by anyone interested in this matter. A generic copy of this letter, with links to the referenced statute and regulations, and a copy of the example application will be posted to this web page."

A discussion ensued at a recent air advisory committee meeting at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as to just whom this rule applies. Industry representatives claim that it applies only to major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A DEP representative said that EPA told her all major sources should submit the notification because the Agency is of the opinion that anyone who is already a Title V major source will be subject to the rule primarily because of the boiler and industrial furnace category.

Return to Top

ARE YOU FEELING THE HEAT FROM BEING NEAR AN ENDANGERED PARK?

Facilities whose air emissions affect visibility in national parks are feeling the heat once again as enviros spotlight "endangered" parks.

The National Park Conservation Association's (NPCA) decried what it considers the effects of pollution and suburban sprawl on the nation's crown jewels with the release of its fourth annual list of America's Ten Most Endangered National Parks.

Four new parks were added to the list, highlighting the encroaching effects of poor air quality and preservation funding on even the most protected lands. Among those added was New York City's Federal Hall National Memorial, which suffered structural damage as a result of the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Other parks on the list paint a worrisome portrait for environmentalists and a haunting foreshadow of increased regulatory scrutiny for industry. NPCA contends that Yellowstone National Park continues to suffer poor air quality because of snowmobile use, and non-native species of plants and wildlife pose invasive threats. A proposed housing project threatens the Valley Forge National Historic Park, and pollutants from coal-fired power plants are putting the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in jeopardy.

The NPCA was not shy about pointing fingers. "Of special concern is the Bush administration's failure to improve park air quality. Recently, the administration announced its intention to weaken the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program, designed to reduce emissions in aging power plants, without providing a strong enough alternative."

"Air pollution plagues national parks across America," said NPCA President Thomas Kiernan. "The administration's recently proposed approach to improving air quality may not only fail to improve park air but may actually make it worse." The NPCA called on Congress to readdress 2001's Clean Smokestacks Act and Clean Power Act.

Will the latest data on the erosion of national treasures urge further public attention to air-quality issues and force the Bush administration's hand on NSR reform? Until the administration responds, facilities that are located anywhere near a national monument may feel the effects of these new concerns directly through increased regulation designed to prevent regional haze, a product of sulfur dioxide released from older power plants.

The other parks on NPCA's list are Big Bend National Park in Texas, Everglades National Park/Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, Glacier National Park in Montana, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Alaska, Mojave National Park in California, and Ocmulgee National Monument in Georgia.

For more information, contact NPCA President Tom Kiernan at (202) 454-3311.

Return to Top

TARGETED GUIDELINES AND TOUGH ENFORCEMENT TWO KEY ELEMENTS IN OSHA'S MAKEOVER

OSHA chief John Henshaw's plans to revitalize the agency, interrupted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, are slowly moving from a set of principles to practical programs.

OSHA recently unveiled its long-delayed plan for attacking ergonomics-related problems in the workplace, describing a four-pronged strategy:

1. Guidelines - OSHA will start work immediately on voluntary guidelines targeted at specific industries and specific tasks. Officials will study injury and illness rates for various industries, including construction, agriculture, and maritime, to decide which ones could benefit from such guidelines. You can expect to see these documents begin to come out of the agency by the end of the year.
2. Enforcement - OSHA plans to go after industries with serious ergonomics problems with special ergo inspection teams that will work closely with Labor Department attorneys and experts to prosecute violators under the General Duty Clause.
3. Assistance - OSHA will use a special web site and training grants to give employers tools to identify and control ergo hazards. A special effort will be aimed at Hispanics and immigrant workers, since many work in industries with high ergonomic-related hazard rates, and press investigations in the past year have criticized OSHA for ignoring these workers.
4. Research - OSHA is forming a national advisory committee to identify areas where more ergonomics research is needed.

"This plan is a major improvement over the rejected old rule because it will prevent ergonomics injuries before they occur and reach a much larger number of at-risk workers," Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said in a prepared statement.

For additional information, log on to www.osha.gov.

Return to Top

ERGONOMIC TIPS FOR OFFICE WORKERS FROM ASSE

Concerned about the spate of musculoskeletal injuries among U.S. workers, the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) is urging employers to develop "an effective ergonomic system to reduce those injuries."

ASSE president Eddie Greer says ergonomic programs lead to increased productivity, reduced workers' compensation and health claims, and a decline in the number of lost workdays. "Efficient ergonomic systems are a valuable asset for business and increase the U.S.'s ability to compete in a rapidly changing global market," he states.

Acknowledging that there is no "one size fits all" approach when it comes to MSD-related injuries, ASSE recommends the following strategies to increase worker safety and comfort:

• Chairs should have a five-point star base for stability, an adjustable backrest for angle, height, and depth, and padded and adjustable arm wrests; the edge of the seat pan should be at least four inches from the area behind the knee.
• The top of the computer screen should be slightly below eye level.
• Keyboards should be detachable and adjustable to allow straight/parallel hand-forearm posture. The height of the wrist rest should equal the home row key height.
• Feet should always be supported and never allowed to dangle. Elbows should be kept close to the body for support. The lumbar curve of the back should be maintained, and the head should be tilted no more than 15 degrees forward to maintain a vertical position.

The characters on the screen should be brighter than the screen background. Bright light sources in the peripheral field of the computer screen should be avoided. Window shades should be adjusted or screens tilted to avoid glare.

Return to Top

NEW INK STUDY RELEASED

To protect workers and the environment, printers and ink formulators need more information about all aspects of inks, especially their chemical hazards, exposures, and risks.

"Flexographic Ink Options: A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA)" evaluated solvent-based, water-based, and ultra-violet-cured inks as printed on wide-web film substrates. This study assessed the performance, environmental, human health, and cost aspects of 45 ink formulations.

The two-volume report can be ordered from EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (ask for EPA 744-R-02-001A and B), and will soon be available from DfE's website at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/projects/flexo/index.htm.

For more information, contact Karen Chu at 202-564-8773 or chu.karen@epa.gov.

Return to Top

QUALITY, MANAGEMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY WORKSHOPS - MAY - JUNE

For more information about the courses listed below, please Click Here. Or, call us: (615) 532-8657 or toll-free at (888) 763-7439. To register for any of these courses, please use this Registration Form.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

QS 9000/ISO 14001 Internal Auditor

• Nashville June 11-13

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

EMS/ISO 14001 Implementation

• Jackson June 18
• Knoxville June 20
• Nashville June 19

8-Hour Form R Report

• Chattanooga May 22
• Jackson May 29
• Knoxville May 21
• Memphis May 30
• Nashville May 28

Construction Storm Water Permit Regulatory Requirements

• Chattanooga June 5
• Jackson June 7
• Knoxville June 4
• Nashville June 6

HAZARDOUS WASTE/CHEMICAL SITE WORKER

16-Hour Industrial Incident Management System

• Gatlinburg June 19- 20

40-Hour Site Worker

• Gatlinburg June 10 - 14
• Nashville May 20-24

8-Hour Site Worker Refresher

• Nashville May 30

DOT COMPLIANCE

8-Hour DOT Refresher

• Nashville May 31

SAFETY

Basic Healthcare Safety Issues

• Knoxville May 28

How to Effectively Use Safety Teams

• Jackson June 25
• Knoxville June 4
• Nashville June 18

SUBSCRIBE FREE: http://www.tmep.utk.edu/

Feedback by e-mail: gsmelcer@tennessee.edu
Feedback by phone: (615) 532-8657 or (888) 763-7439
WRAP Sheet archive: http://www.tmep.utk.edu/formspub.html
WRAP Sheet is published by the Tennessee Manufacturing Extension Program: http://www.tmep.utk.edu

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, sustainable development, environmental, community and worker health, democracy, public disclosure, and corporate accountability. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without fee or payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Return to Top