A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	DEQ art glass permanent rulemaking 2016
2	Public comment points to respond to
4	Point ID	short summary	Summary of Comment	DEQ response	Notes	Assigned to	Response Status
5	1	flexibility	DEQ should give more compliance time and flexibility to CAGMs	DEQ is confident that the requirements and deadlines in the proposed rules are achievable by all affected facilities. DEQ is also committed to work with all affected companies to issue necessary emission control device approvals and test plan approvals as quickly as possible. We have revised the rule to reduce source testing costs and uncertainties by replacing the 99% capture efficiency standard with a standard at the baghouse outlet. In addition, DEQ added a pathway for facilities to apply for an extension of time to comply in 340-244-9005.			draft
6	2	don't shut down	DEQ should consider the economic effect on glass artists. DEQ should not shut down the glass industry.	The proposed permanent rules are intended to ensure that CAGMs operate in a way that is protective of human health and the environment. We are confident that facilities can meet these requirements while continuing to serve their customers.			draft
7	3	don't increase glass prices	If compliance with the rule is expensive, glass will be too expensive for glass artists to buy.	CAGMs must operate in a way that does not harm the health of their neighbors. DEQ believes the proposed rule requirements provide that protection to facility neighbors in a way that is also achievable for the affected facilities.			draft
8	4	other facilities	The pollution measured around Bullseye may be coming from other sources. DEQ should have collected more wind direction and velocity data. It is likely that metals pollution near Bullseye is actually coming from fly ash used in making cement at the Lehigh Cement facility. There may be other point sources and mobile sources of these pollutants.	Data collected in late 2015 near Bullseye measured significant concentrations of metal HAPs in air. Subsequent air data showed very marked reductions in these HAPs once these materials were taken out of Bullseye’s production process and controls were installed. This demonstrates that Bullseye was clearly the source of these significant elevation in air data. DEQ’s work to identify and control remaining sources of air toxics around the Bullseye facility is ongoing. Both the Bullseye and Lehigh facility are completing new controls and management practices to address residual elevated hexavalent chromium detections in recent monitoring events.		Keith Johnson	draft
9	5	statewide	DEQ should apply this rule statewide instead of only in the Portland area.	Based on comments received, DEQ is proposing that the permanent rule apply statewide. While there are no known air quality problems related to CAGM operations outside the Portland area, applying the rule statewide gives all Oregonians protections from current and potential future CAGM emissions and helps provide a “level playing field” for CAGMs that install the controls necessary to comply.			draft
10	6	500 lb/year	DEQ should lower the applicability threshold of the rule so that all facilities making at least 500 lbs per year (or even a smaller amount) of HAP-containing glass are regulated.	DEQ proposes to lower the applicability threshold from 10 tons per year of colored art glass to 5 tons per year of colored art glass. DEQ proposes to lower the applicability threshold based on comments that suggest lowering the threshold, and because DEQ has received information that indicates that the three smaller colored art glass facilities in the Portland AQMA that DEQ intended to regulate under the temporary rules may actually fall below the current 10 ton per year threshold. However, in proposing to lower the threshold, DEQ also does not wish to make the threshold so low that the rule would encompass facilities whose primary purpose is the production of items made from colored glass, such as glass art pieces or other glass items, and that might make small quantities of glass for special purposes. Five tons per year is 10,000 pounds per year, and DEQ assumes a typical working year is 50 weeks. To produce 10,000 pounds of glass in a year, a CAGM would have to produce an average of 200 pounds of glass per working week. Producing this much glass per week would require two small glass making furnaces, each making 50 pounds of glass two times per week. DEQ considers this level of production to reasonably represent a level that defines an art glass manufacturing operation, but is high enough to exclude facilities whose primary purpose is the production of items made from colored glass. DEQ acknowledges that at this time there is no information available to quantify the metal HAP emissions from colored art glass manufacturing operations, and that the proposed 5 ton per year threshold is therefore somewhat arbitrary. However, the proposed threshold is consistent with the intent of the temporary CAGM rules, which was to rapidly require emission controls on CAGMs.			draft
11	7	all metals	The rule should regulate all heavy metals or all hazardous air pollutants (HAP), not just arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel.	DEQ agrees that the proposed rules should apply to all HAPs likely to be emitted by CAGMs, and has expanded the list of HAPs regulated by the proposed rules to add cobalt and selenium to the existing list of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. The proposed rules prohibit the use of the listed HAPs in uncontrolled furnaces after the applicable compliance dates.	Add uranium, antimony, beryllium, mercury?		need review if adding other metals
12	8	99.9%	The temporary rule requires CAGMs to show that their baghouses capture 99.0% of incoming particulate matter. Baghouses can capture more than that, and DEQ should require them to demonstrate that they are capturing 99.9%.	DEQ agrees that baghouses are capable of capture efficiencies higher than the 99.0% standard in the temporary rule. DEQ has learned that there are practical problems with demonstrating capture efficiency with a source test, particularly for the smaller (Tier 1) facilities. To show 99.0% (or 99.9%) capture efficiency with a source test, a facility needs to test the inlet and the outlet of the baghouse. The inlet concentration would need to be at least 100x (or 1,000x) of the outlet concentration. Chemical tests are not accurate below a certain threshold (the method reporting limit, MRL) and if a reading is below the MRL then the sample concentration is assumed to be the MRL. To show 99.0% capture efficiency, the source test must be run until the inlet sample is at least 100x the MRL. Unfortunately that takes a very long time, especially at Tier 1 facilities (~ one week per test run), because their baghouse systems pull in a lot of air from the room and are very dilute. Long test runs are expensive and prone to error. One facility, Northstar, reported that they were quoted a cost of $350k for a source test, which may be more than the cost of buying and installing a baghouse. DEQ is proposing a rule revision so that facilities will have to meet an emissions standard of 0.005 gr/dscf (grains of particulate per dry standard cubic foot of air) rather than a baghouse capture efficiency standard. This is a standard type of emissions testing for other facility types and will reduce source testing costs.	If requiring baghouse leak detection or HEPA filter, mention that here.		draft
13	9	health benchmarks	DEQ should modify the health benchmarks in the rule to make them more protective, especially the 36 ng/m3 daily average source impact level for hexavalent chromium. The 36 ng/m3 can't be exceeded without also exceeding the 0.08 ng/m3 annual limit. Health benchmarks should take into account sensitive populations.	DEQ has partnered with the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to rely on their expertise in estimating environmental risks and setting health benchmarks. Because chronic exposure to pollutants can cause harm through different mechanisms than intense, acute exposures, OHA recommended that DEQ incorporate an annual and 24 hour limit on chromium emissions from Tier 2 facilities. Facilities are bound by both limits, so the most stringent is the one that matters. DEQ is proposing to change the 36 ng/m3 limit based on new information submitted by OHA. OHA recommended that DEQ revise the 24 hour health benchmark for hexavalent chromium to 5 ng/m3. 5 ng/m3 is the intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The health based Ambient Benchmark Concentrations and the daily maximum ambient concentration limits recently developed by DEQ and OHA all include conservative assumptions that encompass the protection of sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and people who are health-impaired. With respect to chromium VI, the rules also limit long-term exposure to sensitive human receptors located in places such as schools, daycare centers and hospitals, and limit short-term exposure at any location off of the facility’s property. OHA is beginning a process to review and revise other health benchmarks. If OHA revises other benchmarks as part of that process, the updated data could be incorporated into the art glass rule in a future rulemaking.	Sue MacMillan reviewed the 2nd to last paragraph.		draft
14	10	all glass factories	This rule should be changed to regulate all glass factories (such as Owens Brockaway and General Glass), not just CAGMs	The purpose of the proposed rules is to regulate emissions of certain HAPs from colored art glass manufacturers. As noted in another response, it is making glass using raw materials that contain the specified HAPs that makes a facility potentially subject to the proposed rules. DEQ has reviewed other glass making facilities and believes that currently there are five facilities that meet the proposed definition of colored art glass manufacturer (CAGM): Bullseye, Uroboros, Northstar, Troutman Art Glass and Glass Alchemy. DEQ is proposing to make this rule apply statewide, and other CAGMs may be identified in the future. Owens Brockway makes container glass, some of which is colored brown or green, but does not deliberately use raw materials that contain the specified HAPs. The colors in the container glass are achieved using iron oxides, and iron is not a HAP. Owens Brockway is regulated under other rules and is required to have a Title V air permit, but does not meet the definition of CAGM and is not regulated under the proposed rule. General Glass was also identified by commenters. General Glass manufactures glass products starting from sheet glass, but General Glass does not make glass in the sense of melting raw materials or cullet to produce glass and therefore does not meet the definition of CAGM and is not regulated under the proposed rule.			draft
15	11	health-based	This rule's requirements are technology-based, but the rule restrictions should be health-based	DEQ has begun the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking process to develop a statewide risk-based air toxics permitting program that will cover many industry types. There will be many opportunities for public input and participation in that process. The approach proposed in the art glass rule is a combination of risk and technology based approaches. It requires emission control devices to reduce the rate at which CAGMs emit metals, which is a technology-based requirement. It also incorporates elements of a risk-based program by establishing health based acceptable source impact levels for chromium usage at Tier 2 facilities. For rules to be only health based may be ideal, but the availability of emission control technology and its ability to control emissions must also be taken into account.			draft
16	12	translate	DEQ should provide translation for non-English speakers and specific outreach to communities of color and low-income communities.	DEQ can provide language translation for meetings or written materials upon request. Please contact DEQ and let us know if there is a specific community or language group that wants to request this.			draft
17	13	air permits on website	DEQ should make air emissions permits publicly available through its database	Making air permit records accessible to the public via DEQ’s website is a good suggestion but outside the scope of this rulemaking process.			draft
18	14	NESHAP 6S	This rule is less stringent than NESHAP 6S in some ways, so it should not apply to furnaces that are subject to NESHAP 6S.	The proposed rules are designed to apply even at furnaces that are subject to NESHAP 6S. At furnaces subject to both regulations, the restrictions of both regulations would apply and not just one or the other.			draft
19	15	can't operate until permit issued	Facilities should not be able to operate until the public has had a chance to comment on the proposed permit and DEQ has issued it.	Because the process of issuing a permit is long, it is DEQ’s policy that when a new rule is put in place, existing facilities can continue to operate during the period between submitting an application and when DEQ issues the permit. Facilities do not have to wait until the permit is issued to begin operating.			draft
20	16	more public comment	The public should be able to comment at more steps in the process, including commenting on source test plans and pollutant dispersion modeling.	Opportunities for public participation are a required and valuable part of DEQ’s rulemaking process. For this rulemaking DEQ convened a fiscal advisory committee, held a public hearing, and accepted public comment via our website as well as email. The proposed rule requires all Tier 1 and Tier 2 CAGMs to obtain air permits. As part of DEQ’s process for issuing air permits the public has an opportunity to comment on whether DEQ has correctly applied the rules and statutes to the proposed permit. The public can also request a public hearing. Soliciting and responding to public comment takes significant time and effort, and DEQ is not able to do that at all steps in the process.			draft
21	17	health-based applicability	DEQ should base the applicability threshold on the amount of metals used (lbs/year) and their relative health risks, rather than on the amount of glass. Some glass contains concentrated HAP and other recipes are very dilute. Also, some HAP like hexavalent chromium are more dangerous than others.	DEQ agrees that setting an applicability threshold based on health risks is a good idea; however this approach would add technical complexity that DEQ intends to address through the development of a health-based air toxics permitting rule (Cleaner Air Oregon) that may incorporate this concept.	Al Hooton		draft
22	18	don't apply to glass users	Because of the way that 'melt' and 'furnace' are used in the rule, it may apply to some art glass users that are remelting glass rather than making it from powdered raw materials.	DEQ understands the commenter’s concerns and agrees that it is not DEQ’s intent to regulate glassworking. DEQ’s intent is to regulate the process of making colored art glass using raw material that contains specified HAPs. Thus, for a facility to possibly be regulated under the proposed rule, two criteria must be met: 1. The facility must make (manufacture) glass; and 2. The glass must be colored using raw material that contains specified HAPs. These two criteria are explained below. The facility must make (manufacture) glass. To make (manufacture) glass is a broad concept, and in DEQ’s views it means to make a new glass product that is different from the starting materials. This can include starting with a mix of sand, soda and other materials and heating the mix to create glass. It can also include starting with two pre-made glasses and heating them together to create a new glass product that has a different appearance than the two starting glasses; DEQ considers that a glassworker could “make” glass in this way. The glass must be colored using raw material that contains specified HAPs. The terms “colored” and “specified HAPs” are unambiguous, and most of the definition of “raw material” is also unambiguous, with the possible exception of subsection (c), which is considered in more detail below. For the proposed rules to be applicable to a facility that makes glass (as described above), that facility must make colored glass using raw material that contains the specified HAPs. Two examples are given below to explain this: Example 1: A facility can start with a mix of sand, soda and other materials and heat the mix to create glass. If cadmium sulfide is added to the mix for the purpose of achieving a colored glass product, the cadmium sulfide meets the definition of raw material, and that raw material contains one of the specified HAPs. The facility may be regulated under the rule if it produces more than the threshold amount of colored art glass. Example 2: A facility can start with cullet (i.e. pieces of one or multiple pre-made glasses) and heat the cullet to create a new glass product. Cullet is excluded from the definition of raw material, and if only cullet is melted, then no raw material is used and making glass in this manner is not subject to the proposed rules. However, if cadmium sulfide is added to the cullet, the cadmium sulfide meets the definition of raw material, and that raw material contains one of the specified HAPs. The facility may be regulated under the rule if it produces more than the threshold amount of colored art glass. It is conceivable that a glassworker could make colored art glass in the manner described in Example 2. If that glassworker made more than the threshold amount of colored art glass, then that glassworker would be subject to the proposed rules. However, if a glassworker made any amount glass but did not use raw material that contained the specified HAPs, then that glassworker would not be subject to the proposed rules. In the final analysis, it is making glass using raw materials that contain the specified HAPs that makes a facility potentially subject to the proposed rules. With regard to subsection (c), DEQ agrees that further clarification will be helpful. Subsection (c) in the temporary rules reads as follows: “Raw material includes glass materials that contain metal HAPs in amounts that materially affect the color of the finished product and that are used as coloring agents.” In Examples 1 and 2 above, cadmium sulfide is added for the purpose of achieving a colored glass product, and the cadmium sulfide is a raw material. DEQ understands that cadmium sulfide may be obtained in powder form, or in a glassified or vitrified form to minimize worker exposure to toxic cadmium sulfide dust. In the glassified form, the cadmium sulfide is essentially encased in a glass or glass-like carrier, but it has the same purpose as cadmium sulfide powder. If a glass formulation calls for one pound of cadmium, then that pound can be added by using an amount of cadmium sulfide powder that contains one pound of cadmium, or it can be added by using an amount of glassified cadmium sulfide that contains one pound of cadmium. The powder form of cadmium sulfide is a raw material, and the glassified form of cadmium sulfide is also a raw material. Although cadmium sulfide is used in these examples, the same concept applies to all of the HAPs regulated under the proposed rules. DEQ appreciates the commenter’s suggestions but has determined that the suggested changes are unnecessary. However, in view of any confusion that may be caused by subsection (c) in the definition of raw material, DEQ is proposing to revise subsection (c) to read as follows: “Raw material includes glass materials that contain glass-making HAPs in amounts that materially affect the color of the finished product and that are used as coloring agents. For example, one pound of cadmium sulfide may be used in a glass formulation for the purpose of achieving a particular color throughout the final glass product. The pound of cadmium sulfide may be added in powder form, or in a glassified or vitrified form; all of these are raw materials.”	Chris Mini	George	needs review
23	19	EJ	DEQ is required by to do demographic analysis to make sure that it does not have disproportionate adverse impacts on communities of color.		CRAG. Ask Sue Langston, Stephanie Caldera, (and Nina DeConcini if possible) to review.	Paul	needs review
24	20	BLDS	DEQ should require baghouse leak detection		EPA comment. Jaclyn will decide		needs review
25	21	grain loading	DEQ should replace the 99.0% capture efficiency test with a "grain loading" test at the baghouse outlet, with a particulate matter limit set at 0.005 gr/dscf	DEQ is recommending this change.	EPA		draft
26	22	Method 29 at outlet	DEQ should allow Tier 2 facilities to use Method 29 to measure total chromium at the baghouse outlet and assume all of it is hexavalent chromium, instead of using Method 0061 to measure hexavalent chromium.	DEQ agrees that this method is conservative (because it assumes the worst case, that all chromium is in the hexavalent form) and is proposing a change to the rule language to allow this.	Bullseye		draft
27	23	0.2 lb/ton	DEQ should allow facilities to meet the NESHAP 6S limit (0.2 lb of particulate emitted per ton of glass produced) instead of demonstrating 99.0% capture efficiency from the baghouse.	DEQ is proposing a change to the rule to eliminate the capture efficiency standard and replace it with an outlet PM grain loading limit of 0.005 gr/dscf. The 0.2 lb/ton NESHAP limit would apply in addition to the grain loading standard at furnaces that are subject to NESHAP 6S.	Bullseye comment. Need to edit response if BLDS or HEPA is an alternative to the grain loading source test.		needs review
28	24	no metals in uncontrolled furnaces	CAGMs should not be allowed to use any metals in uncontrolled furnaces	Under the proposed rules CAGMs are not allowed to use glassmaking HAPs in an uncontrolled furnace. Some glassmaking HAPs are newly added to the list in this proposal and have a later compliance date.	do we still have the "source testing and modeling" option for Tier 1s?		draft
29	25	thermal oxidizers	CAGMs should be required to use better control devices such as thermal oxidizers	Thermal oxidizers are not effective in reducing metal emissions. Fabric filters (baghouses) are effective against metal particulates and appear to be the control devices most facilities will use to comply with the rule requirements.			draft
30	26	no chromium	CAGMs should not be allowed to use chromium in any form, because it transforms to hexavalent chromium.	DEQ believes that control devices such as baghouses are highly effective and that, if following the proposed regulations, CAGMS can use glassmaking HAP including chromium without undue impact to human health and the environment. Tier 2s facilities are required to source test and set usage limits in order to keep their impact below health benchmarks.			draft
31	27	emissions monitoring	DEQ should require monitoring of emissions rather than monitoring of the control devices	DEQ does not agree that this type of monitoring should be required. DEQ believes the testing required by the rule is sufficient to demonstrate the performance of the emission control devices			draft
32	28	baghouses not effective	In the Bullseye source test, the capture efficiency for chromium was less than for particulate matter. Baghouses are not effective if pollution is in a gas state or in very small particles.	The boiling point for chromium is 4,841°F. Baghouses operate at a much lower temperature than that, so chromium would not be in vapor form when passing through the baghouse. The Bullseye source test referenced in the comment only included one test run, so it's unknown whether that one data point is accurate under all circumstances. It's possible that chromium is being emitted at a very small particle size that is difficult for the baghouse to filter out. In any case, under the revised rule Tier 2 facilities are required to test their outlet emissions using EPA Method 29, which includes all emissions (filterable and condensable) and set production limits to keep chromium emissions below health benchmarks. That further data will measure actual chromium emissions and limit them to keep the air safe to breathe.		George	needs review
33	29	cumulative health effects	Rule should take into account cumulative/interactive effects instead of pretending that people are exposed to a single pollutant in isolation	The health benchmarks incorporated into the proposed rule were developed with the help of the Oregon Health Authority. OHA is beginning a process to revise those benchmarks and if revised, DEQ could incorporate those changes in a future update to the art glass rule.	OHA may have better answer		draft
34	30	fenceline monitoring	Self-monitoring is insufficient. DEQ should conduct ongoing inspections.	The proposed rule would require all affected facilities to get a DEQ permit. DEQ performs inspections of permitted sources on a regular basis.			draft
35	31	Best Available Technology	CAGMS should have to demonstrate on an annual basis that they are using the best available technology to limit toxic emissions from their facilities.	DEQ believes that existing technology can reduce CAGM emissions to levels below health benchmarks. If improved technologies are developed in the future, DEQ could revisit this rule in a future rulemaking.			draft
36	32	future additions	The rule should include a clause to allow for the future regulation of other materials from glass manufacturing if found to exceed either short and/or long term health standards for air shed quality.	The rule does not include language that would allow new materials to be regulated without going through a new rulemaking process. However, if new information comes to light DEQ could revisit the rule, or in an emergency the Governor's office could order DEQ to take action.	not sure about legal basis for emergency action. Mention Cleaner Air Oregon.	George	needs review
37	33	precautionary principle	Where health impacts are uncertain, DEQ should err on the side of being more protective of health. Limits should reflect sensitive populations.	The health benchmarks incorporated into the proposed rule were developed with the help of the Oregon Health Authority. OHA is beginning a process to revise those benchmarks and if revised, DEQ could incorporate those changes in a future update to the art glass rule.			draft
38	34	facility limits vs furnace limits	Rule should set per-facility emission limits so that cumulative impact of multiple furnaces does not exceed health benchmarks.	With respect to chromium emissions, the daily usage limits will be based on the ambient impacts from all furnaces, not just individual furnaces.		George	draft
39	35	Cr6 conversion	Rule should assume that all trivalent chromium converts to the more dangerous hexavelent chromium form in glass production.	Tier 2 facilities are required to set production limits to make sure that chromium emissions are below health benchmarks. To set those production limits, the proposed rules allow CAGMs two options: assume that 100 percent of chromium emitted is in the form of hexavelent chromium, or conduct testing to quantify the emissions of hexavalent chromium. The choice of which option to use is up to the individual CAGMs; however, all testing procedures must be approved by DEQ.			draft
40	36	enforcement	There should be heavy fines for violations, a plan for repeat offenders, and the ability to shut facility down if it poses an immediate risk to the public and environment.	When major violations are found at a permitted facility, DEQ's Office of Compliance and Enforcement performs formal enforcement, including a penalty calculated in accordance with guidance. Penalties are larger for repeat violations and DEQ does have the ability to do Cease and Desist orders in emergency situations DEQ follows established enforcement procedures, with fines based on the amounts and procedures specified in OAR Chapter 340, Division 12. (Note, asked for Paul G. to help with response) Paul G’s response: You can revoke a permit under OAR 340-216-0082(4). (4)(b) of that rule repeats some of the “serious danger” language that is also in ORS 468.115, which was the statute invoked against Bullseye. You may also want to say something about determining appropriate enforcement steps based on the severity of the violation, but that prior violation history is a factor that you consider when determining how to enforce. Or something like that.	What legal basis is needed for Cease & Desist orders?	George	needs review
41	37	cold shops	Rule should regulate dust and wastewater from cutting and cold processing of glass	Particulates from cutting and grinding operations are larger and heavier, and much less likely to be emitted to the outside of the facility. This rule does not regulate water emissions.	Are there other regs for stormwater, wastewater to sewer, or fugitive emissions from waste / broken glass near dumpster?		draft
42	38	NESHAP	DEQ should not rely on the NESHAP to protect neighbors	This rule is in addition to and more stringent than the federal NESHAP Subpart SSSSSS.			draft
43	39	September 1st	DEQ should apply the new rules by September 1st	DEQ disagrees that the rules should apply to all heavy metals by September 1, 2016. When rules that require the installation of emission control devices are adopted, agencies must give the affected facilities time to design, obtain building permits, obtain the emission control device and install it. When the temporary rules were adopted, the Tier 2 CAGMs were given until September 1, 2016 to comply with the rules. The Tier 1 CAGMs were contacted sometime after the Tier 2 CAGMs, and had less warning that they would be regulated, so were given an extra month. If the rules become applicable statewide, as proposed, CAGMs outside the Portland AQMA will need time to comply and DEQ has proposed to give them until April 1, 2017. In addition to the above considerations, only the Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to approve new rules. The EQC will meet on September 29th to consider DEQ's proposal and changes approved by the EQC would not take effect retroactively.			draft
44	40	video	DEQ should get modern video recording equipment and broadcast and post all public meetings.	DEQ has recorded and posted some recent meetings but currently does not have the equipment or staff expertise to produce high-quality video. DEQ is considering requesting funding for this.			draft
45	41	other facilities (2)	Ambient concentrations didn't decrease after the temp rule was put in place, so the pollution must be coming from other sources.	Concentrations have remained fairly consistent during this time, however Bullseye ceased using metal HAPs well in advance of the enactment of the temporary rules. Therefore, no specific reductions would have been expected. There was one spiking event in May, which again was clearly attributable to Bullseye, which resulted in the implementation of new restrictions above and beyond the temporary rules in order to protect public health.		Keith Johnson	draft
46	42	batch vs continuous furnace	The only rule change needed is to 'close the loophole on the definition of batch production' so that furnaces that are kept hot are subject to NESHAP 6S. DEQ should not add other regulation.	EPA's current interpretation of NESHAP Subpart SSSSSS is that furnaces that are kept hot meet the definition of 'continuous furnace' and are subject to 6S if all other applicability criteria are met. However, 6S applies only to individual furnaces that produce 50 tons per year of colored glass using any of 6 listed HAPs. Many of the HAP-emitting furnaces at CAGMs would not be subject to 6S. The proposed rule applies to all furnaces at Tier 1 and Tier 2 CAGMs that produce any amount of colored glass using any of a larger list of HAPs.			draft
47	43	visible emissions	Are CAGMs subject to a limit on visible emissions?	Visible emissions from colored art glass manufacturers are subject to another rule, Oregon Administrative Rule 340-208-0110. DEQ will include permit conditions to implement this rule in permits issued to CAGMs.			draft
48	44	no rules without public comment	DEQ should never propose rules without going through public comment	The EQC has authority to adopt temporary rules without public notice when there is a need to act quickly, as there was in early 2016 for the temporary art glass rules. As a safeguard against abusing the temporary rulemaking authority, temporary rules are only effective for six months and then either expire or can be renewed/revised through the normal rulemaking process, which includes full public notice and opportunity to comment on the rules.			draft
49	45	public notice for permitting actions	The public should be notified about any proposed permits.	Public notice is given for all proposed air quality permits, with the public notice procedures varying depending on the type of permit. Public notice requirements are specified in Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 340, Division 209, available on DEQ’s website or through the State of Oregon website. To receive email notification of public notices, please go to DEQ’s website at http://www.oregon.gov/DEQ/pages/index.aspx and click on “Public Notices” on the left side of the page, then click on the link “Sign up for email notifications when this page is updated” near the top of the page.			draft
50	46	fugitive emissions	The rule should monitor and restrict fugitive emissions.	By their very nature, fugitive emissions are difficult to control. DEQ’s observations of gas-fired glass-making furnaces indicate little or no fugitive emissions during normal operation. Fugitive emissions may occur during charging of raw materials, which happens several times at the beginning of the glass-making process. However, it is an operational necessity that the furnace be opened during charging and the possibility of some fugitive emissions during that time is unavoidable. If DEQ determines that operational practices need to be limited to reduce fugitive emissions, DEQ already has the authority to establish such limits under OAR 340-226-0120			draft
51	47	cumulative effects of multiple facilities	The rule should account for the additive effects of emissions from multiple facilities affecting the same geographic area.	In addition to this rulemaking that regulates CAGMs, DEQ is also working on a larger rulemaking to develop an air toxics program that will apply more broadly to air toxics emissions. While the larger air toxics program may be able to consider comments such as this, the CAGM rules have limited scope and applicability and are intended only to address only one industrial sector.			draft

52	48	ambient monitoring	DEQ should continue long term ambient air monitoring near glass factories.	DEQ has limited resources for air monitoring, and has a responsibility to monitor around the state, not just near the glass factories. DEQ is continuing to monitor near the glass factories at this time, but the monitors will eventually have to be relocated so that monitoring can be done at other locations.	reviewed by Brian Boling		draft
53	49	recordkeeping	The rule should require CAGMs to maintain a list of all hazardous materials kept on site and used in glass furnaces	DEQ’s air quality program is concerned with emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. As such, DEQ can require facilities to keep records of air emissions and of activities and materials that contribute to those emissions. The proposed rule requires Tier 2 CAGMs to keep daily records of all glass formulations produced. DEQ may include additional recordkeeping requirements when issuing permits to CAGMs. Other hazardous materials that may be on site at a facility or that may be emitted to other media (e.g. water or landfill) would be regulated by other programs and are outside the scope of the air quality program.			draft
54	50	allow uncontrolled furnaces if under grain loading standard	Facillities should be able to operate without control devices if their emissions are below the grain loading standard listed in the rule.	The proposed grain loading standard is only intended to ensure that control devices are working. The grain loading standard is not intended to show health protectiveness because grain loading does not measure the facility's HAP emissions. Further, this rule has been developed in advance of the risk-based rules that DEQ is currently working on. Without those rules in place, DEQ does not have a basis for establishing health-based criteria for all the glassmaking HAPs. Instead, DEQ has taken the protective approach of requiring emission control devices.			draft
55	51	address all HAP sources	This rule should address all HAP sources	This rule is specifically targeted to address CAGM emissions. The Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking is underway and will more broadly address HAP emissions from other sources.			draft