1.  Wants more compliance time or flexibility

Example (from commentID #2)

…We all want cleaner air. We all want a thriving economy and jobs. While Bullseye employs about 125 people, many thousands of people depend on their success worldwide to support their families and to pay taxes. They export about 35% of their production. They are a strong contributor to our community both in special projects and income. Bullseye attracts tourism revenue in many of our service sectors due to classes, tours and retail sales of products.

Bullseye is at present adding baghouses to their furnaces that will allow them to produce glass with 99.9% filtration rate. It is difficult to meet the deadlines for installation when nearly 80% of production had been shut down for a period of time, and at present are strictly limited, with limited impact on air quality.

As recent air monitoring data has shown, there has been little change in air quality since Bullseye has been limited in their production. That points to a stronger likelihood of other bigger contributors in the neighborhood. Please use objective scientific methods and data and consult with glass professionals for advice in making sound decisions when developing pollution control solutions for the glass art industry. Please be fair in application of rules to art glass manufacturers. Please consider the impact on jobs, tax revenues, and the limited win on pollution control when applying subjective and stringent rules on the glass industry with short notification in relationship to the environments they operate in. This effort has a huge financial impact and may well cause production to shift overseas. Sending production to China will not clean our air. It will not support the Oregonians who work in the art glass industry, nor any of those across our continent and the rest of the world. It will not provide any tax revenues.

Thank you for your time. Please consider using scientific data to have a real impact on our health and air quality, on art and our economy as changes are made in environmental regulations.

Sincerely,

Melody Roth

Answer:

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. [Insert line about extra time added, if we are giving some.]

2.  Consider economic effect on glass artists

Example (commentID #10)

Good afternoon, I am writing to let you know how important my ability to obtain the beautiful glass of Bullseye is to my business. I have a small but nice fused glass business in Atlanta, GA. I do not know how my business can continue if the glass Bullseye produces is discontinued. I do believe we should not taint the air we breathe and sincerely hope all the parties involved will seek a reasonable and mutually beneficial solution so that I can continue in my business. Thanks, MM

Answer:

DEQ

[?]

3.  Don’t shut down glass industry

Example (from commentID #9)

Fused glass is a family affair for 3 generations of my family. I would appreciate it if you would find a way to help control the pollution rather than shutting factories down. The loss of a USA manufacturer would probably cause the price of glass to rise forcing hobbiest out of their hobby.

Answer:

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. It’s not DEQ’s intent to shut down CAGMs, but instead to provide clear rules that specify what they need to do in order to operate while protecting public health and the environment.

4.  Other sources pollute too

Example (commentID 1651)

There is really no way to proceed without all the facts about the air quality. Without wind direction & velocity data, you cannot effectively identify or rule out the sources of heavy metals detected at the daycare. DEQ needs to start over - DEQ needs to collect wind data at the same location and times the air sampling is done. DEQ also needs to understand that ambient air monitoring in an error - ambient air monitoring is typically employed in buildings with closed environments. For outside, wind data is imperative as the atmosphere is dynamic. When wind direction & velocity data is compared to the air sampling data - it indicates that the highest heavy metal concentrations detected at the daycare came from nearly 40 degrees south of Bullseye Glass - the location of Lehigh Southwest Cement. Lehigh is within 100' feet of the monitoring station with a huge footprint - meaning that anytime the wind is from 285 through 325, the air monitoring station is downwind. Wind direction and velocity data indicate that the air monitoring station was downwind of Lehigh for 51 out of 104 days sampled - about 6 days it was downwind of Bullseye Glass.

Similar pattern at Powell Park & 22nd - Monitoring station is only downwind for a few days out of 104.

The detected levels are quite different between the two stations. All things being equal, then the detected levels should be similar or closer than they are. The reason for the discrepancy is that Powell Park monitoring station is farther away from Lehigh.

It's not possible to engage in rulemaking without *all* the facts. The proposed rules will do nothing to reduce the heavy metals being lofted into the atmosphere at Lehigh. The infants & children under 5 will still be in harms way. This IS the reason why wind direction & velocity data is critical. The health & safety of children is at stake. DEQ must get it right the first time. STOP - START OVER COLLECT WIND DATA.

Answer:

[do we have monitoring data that would help us determine how much of the pollution was coming from Bullseye?]

[what is our response to the points about wind direction?]

DEQ has begun the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking process to develop a statewide risk-based air toxics program that will cover many industry types.

5.  Supports applying rule statewide

Answer: [are we extending the rule statewide?]

DEQ has begun the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking process for a statewide risk-based air toxics program that will cover many industry types. There will be many opportunities for public input and participation in that process. DEQ is currently reviewing risk-based air toxics programs from California, Washington, and other states to help inform new risk-based regulation in Oregon.

6.  Supports lowering 10 tpy threshold

Answer:

7.  Supports including more metals in list

Answer:

8.  Supports higher capture efficiency (99.9%)

Answer:

DEQ agrees that baghouses are capable of capture efficiencies higher than the 99% standard in the temporary rule. However,

9.  Supports revised health benchmarks

Answer:

The Oregon Health Authority is advising DEQ on the correct health benchmarks to use. Based on the comment submitted by OHA, DEQ is changing the 24 hour health benchmark for hexavalent chromium (Cr6) from 36 ng/m3 to 5 ng/m3. 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.

10.  Supports including all glass manufacturers

Answer:

Large scale bottle manufacturers are already subject to regulations that require control devices and reductions of emissions through technology based standards. This proposed rule is applicable to a different industry with different emissions and impacts. Additional health risk impacts from large bottle manufacturers may also be addressed as part of the permanent rulemaking mentioned in other comment responses.

11.  Wants this rule to be "health-based"

Answer:

12.  Wants more public involvement

Answer: