# analysis

Notes:
is there visible emissions monitoring through another rule?


Notes:
Additional document is picture of stained glass window.


Notes:
Additional document is picture of glass art.


Notes:
wants 'highest, strongest' emissions standards.


Notes:
Appears to be same as previous comment, with comment included as Word doc with some words highlighted.


Notes:
regulate cold shops too
require baghouse filters to be rated for 99.9% capture
precautionary principle


Notes:
wants 99.9% capture rate
wants 'all glass factories', not just art glass


Notes:
revise benchmarks, revise rule to depend on new benchmarks
Apply to General Glass and Owens-Brockaway
wants 99.9% limit
video recording equipment for all public meetings


Notes:
99.9% capture rate
all glass factories, not just art glass


Notes:
update health benchmarks
apply to all glass factories, not just art glass
99.9% capture rate


Notes:
99.9% capture rate
revise health benchmarks
apply to all glass factories, not just art glass


Notes:
"there is a simple fix to everything: close the loophole on the definition of batch production. Because that is basically what is happening here. The art glass industry has followed the rules, and like any logical entity, utilized the loophole to its advantage - so close the loophole."


Notes:
wants more info about DEQ actions & hex chrome concentrations
translation for non-English speakers
make air emissions data publicly available
DEQ should have online searchable database of permits
diesel emissions


Notes:
suggests 500 lb threshold instead of 10 tons


Notes:
supports lower threshold calculated based on modeling and ambient benchmarks
and grain loading standard at 0.005 gr/dscf


Notes:
regulate differently for making from raw materials vs those who re-melt. Any size manufacturer that is using raw materials should be regulated.


Notes:
As a representative and resident of Southeast Portland, I am deeply concerned about the environmental and human health impacts of uncontrolled metal emissions.  If we truly care about the health of all Oregonians, I encourage the DEQ and EQC to consider extending the permanent rule to art glass manufacturers statewide. The issue of industrial air toxics is not limited to the Portland Metro Area, and the proposed permanent rule may provide a competitive advantage to businesses in other regions of the state. I believe that all known sources of air pollution should be subject to the DEQ’s health-based regulations, regardless of geographic location. In broadening the scope of the permanent rule, we can better protect the health and wellbeing of all Oregon residents.


Notes:
99.9% control efficiency
apply to all glass manufacturers
revise health benchmarks


Notes:
99.9% capture
revise Cr6 benchmark to 0.08 ng/m3 (and use that as daily acceptable source impact level in 340-244-9040)


Notes:
99.9% capture
include all glass factories
revise health benchmarks


Notes:
99.9% capture rate
apply to all glass factories, not just art glass


Notes:
For Tier 2 chrome usage limits, suggests testing for total Cr at outlet of baghouse (Method 29) and assuming all of it is Cr6.
suggests 0.2 lb/ton emission rate rather than 99% control efficiency


Notes:
ensure public notice and comment instead of locking the public out of DEQ decisions
health-based standards


Notes:
benchmarks should be the most conservative
99.9% capture rate
all glass manufacturers, not just art glass


Notes:
include all sources of metal emissions
some of comment is a duplicate of their previous entry.


Notes:
Based on wind data and the ratio between different heavy metals, believes the metal emissions measured near Bullseye are from fly ash used at Lehigh Cement.


Notes:
believes the metals are mostly coming from Lehigh Cement, based on his read of the wind data.


Notes:
5 ng/m3 benchmark for Cr6, to replace current 36 ng/m3 in the rule.


Notes:
control filterable and condensable at 99.9%
apply to all glass manufacturers
more public notice and comment
health-based standards


Notes:
'no wind data was collected or analyzed'
believes lead is from Lehigh Cement, not from Bullseye


Notes:
wants health-based standards
all glass manufacturers not just CAGM


Notes:
wants health-based not technology based
500 lb/year threshold not 10 tpy
legal requirement to consider effect on EJ communities [asked Paul to draft response]
rule should only apply to furnaces to which NESHAP 6S does not apply
no emissions before DEQ permit issued
public participation in details of permit app, etc
99.9% control efficiency
source test should include condensables
clarify that Tier 2 can't use metal HAP in uncontrolled furnace 9040(2)
revise Cr6 limit 36 ng/m3


Notes:
revise baghouse source test method to reduce cost


Notes:
health-based standards
99.9% capture
filterable and condensable


Notes:
suggests baghouse outlet grain loading limit of 0.01 gr/dscf or 0.001 gr/dscf as a replacement for 99% standard
500 lbs/year threshold instead of 10 tpy
add cadmium to list of metals (currently Cr6) that tier 1s can't use in uncontrolled furnace
keep Tier 1 permits below $2-4,000/year


Notes:
supports change from 99% control efficiency to grain loading


Notes:
suggests change to 99% source test "revise the rule to specify that a source test of the control
device is required under 9070(2)(h), but specify that it is an EPA Method 5 test with run time
capped at 2 hours or 31.8 dscf sampling volume, whichever is shorter. If that length of test run
does not generate enough particulate on the filter to be measurable, then the control device has
clearly been demonstrated to be performing its job."


Notes:
filterable and condensable 99.9%
all HAPs


Notes:
replace 99.0% with an outlet grain loading standard of 0.005 gr/dscf.
Bag leak detection systems
Cr6 should be tested at baghouse outlet, not inlet.


Notes:
suggests that DEQ not finalize art glass rules until the CAO regulation is complete.
Requested details on when DEQ / OHA would step in under 340-244-9090


Notes:
don't allow Cr use in uncontrolled furnaces
reduce 10 tpy threshold
do fuel-fired furnaces really emit more than electrically fired (enough to merit use in criteria between Tier 1 / Tier 2)? 
Use 0.35 ng/m3 as 24-hr limit for Cr6 (from Ontario)


Notes:
"thermal oxidizers"
no metals in uncontrolled furnaces
no chromium in any form should be allowed
require regular monitoring of emissions
revise ambient benchmarks


Notes:
99.9% control efficiency
'close loopholes that allow emissions from uncontrolled furnaces'
include condensable particulate matter
consider fugitive emissions
etc


Notes:
submitted copy of CRAG Law Center's comments during the temporary rule rulemaking. Points Katharine emphasized: 
the rule is not health-based, 
should not allow emissions from any uncontrolled furnaces, and
 is too narrow (should apply statewide and to all metal HAPs emitted by these facilities). 
Facilities should not be able to emit HAPs until DEQ issues the permit.
Public involvement in detailed decisions about design of the control device, source testing etc.
Baghouse leak detection devices.


Notes:
believes current definition of 'molten glass' and 'melt' need revision
don't include colored glass in definition of raw material


Notes:
99.9% capture efficiency
all glass factories, not just CAGM
update health benchmarks


Notes:
grain loading standard
cadmium volatilizes, it should be more regulated


# responses

DEQresponse:
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.


DEQresponse:
THIS RESPONSE NEEDS TO BE REVISED TO COMPORT WITH CHANGES TO THE RULE - GFD 8/18/16

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 the 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.
DEQ’s understanding of these two criteria is explained below.

The facility must make (manufacture) glass.
To make (manufacture) glass is a broad concept, and in DEQ’s view 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. It is the second criteria above that more narrowly limits the applicability of the proposed rules.

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 is a raw material and 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 two pre-made glasses and heat them to create glass. If cadmium sulfide is added to the mix for the purpose of achieving a colored glass product, the cadmium sulfide is a raw material and 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, above. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.


DEQresponse:
DEQ does not agree that these rules should apply to any glass manufacturer using metal HAPs, but has proposed to lower the applicability threshold from 10 tons of colored glass per year to 5 tons of colored glass per year. DEQ understands the concern that very small glass manufacturing operations could emit uncontrolled glass-making HAPs, but DEQ also considers it inappropriate to regulate individual glass artists. To produce 5 tons per year would require producing 200 pounds per week for 50 weeks per year. DEQ considers it unlikely that an individual artist or small glass-working shop would produce this much colored glass,  while this level of production is achievable by the smallest of the CAGMs that DEQ intended to regulate when the temporary rule was adopted in April, 2016.

DEQ agrees that these rules should apply statewide and has revised the proposed rules to do so. DEQ's authority is limited to within Oregon and cannot make them apply nationwide.

DEQ agrees that the testing required to show 99.0 percent baghouse capture efficiency would be cost-prohibitive and has revised the proposed rules to require that CAGMs either test to show that particulate matter emissions at the control device outlet do not exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot, or install a bag leak detection system.

?????????????????????????????????   Make sure this comports with the actual final proposed rule language

DEQ agrees in principle that HAPs should be effectively regulated statewide, including all HAPs emitted by colored art glass manufacturers; however, DEQ has not revised the proposed rule to do this for the following reasons:

First, DEQ is currently proceeding with development of rules that will broadly regulate air toxic emissions in Oregon. The future rules are intended to encompass a broad range of manufacturing operations and apply similar health-based standards to all regulated facilities. In contrast to the future air toxics rules, the temporary colored art glass rules were narrowly focused on reducing the elevated levels of air toxics that were associated with CAGMs in Portland, primarily by imposing emission control requirements. The temporary colored art glass rules were never intended to be the broader health-based air toxics rules, and DEQ is not proposing to change that.

Second, DEQ does not know and cannot anticipate what health-protective criteria will be establised in the future air toxics rules. Although the proposed art glass rules do include health-protective criteria for chromium VI, it is possible that the future air toxics rules will set different criteria which may require revision to the chromium criteria in the art glass rules. DEQ does not consider it appropriate to propose additional health-protective criteria in the proposed art glass rule that may similarly require revisions  in the future.

DEQ revised the proposed rules based on this comment.


# SummariesAndResponses

Summary of Comment:
DEQ should give more compliance time and flexibility to CAGMs

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should consider the economic effect on glass artists. DEQ should not shut down the glass industry.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
If compliance with the rule is expensive, glass will be too expensive for glass artists to buy.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should apply this rule statewide instead of only in the Portland area.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
The rule should regulate all heavy metals or all hazardous air pollutants (HAP), not just arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel.

DEQ response:
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 selenium. Selenium has been detected in the air near Bullseye at concentrations close to health screening levels. The proposed rules prohibit the use of the listed HAPs in uncontrolled furnaces after the applicable compliance dates.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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.

Notes:
If requiring baghouse leak detection or HEPA filter, mention that here.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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.

Notes:
Sue MacMillan reviewed the 2nd to last paragraph.


Summary of Comment:
This rule should be changed to regulate all glass factories (such as Owens Brockaway and General Glass), not just CAGMs

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
This rule's requirements are technology-based, but the rule restrictions should be health-based

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should provide translation for non-English speakers and specific outreach to communities of color and low-income communities.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should make air emissions permits publicly available through its database

DEQ response:
Making air permit records accessible to the public via DEQ’s website is a good suggestion but outside the scope of this rulemaking process.


Summary of Comment:
This rule is less stringent than NESHAP 6S in some ways, so it should not apply to furnaces that are subject to NESHAP 6S.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
The public should be able to comment at more steps in the process, including commenting on source test plans and pollutant dispersion modeling.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
It is not DEQ’s intent to regulate glassworking. DEQ’s intent is to regulate the HAP emissions from the process of making colored art glass using raw material that contains specified HAPs. The process of remelting pre-made glass would not be regulated under this rule, unless glassmaking HAPs are being added (in a form such as a powder or as a special concentrated frit). DEQ is proposing to change the definition of raw material to make this distinction clearer.

Notes:
George is working on the definition of raw material. Look at this again when that is complete.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ has a legal obligation to do a demographic analysis to make sure the proposed rule does not have disproportionate adverse impacts on communities of color.

DEQ response:
DEQ has considered whether the proposed rule would result in distinct adverse impacts on communities of color, and has concluded that it will not. The purpose of this rule is to reduce art glass manufacturers' emissions of metal HAPs to surrounding communities. With the proposed change to apply it statewide, the rule does not differentiate based on the location of the facilities, nor does it encourage or discourage the location of the facilities in any particular area. All communities that are impacted by this source category would also benefit from the protection of the rules.

Some commenters have suggested that the facilities regulated by this rule are in wealthy areas, and that the source category should be defined differently so that disadvantaged communities would benefit more. Several commenters mentioned Owens Brockway and General Glass as glass-related facilities that they felt should be regulated by the rule.

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 manufactures glass products starting from sheet glass, but 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.

Notes:
Emailed Sue Langston, Stephanie Caldera, and Nina DeConcini for review on 8/30/2016.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should require baghouse leak detection

DEQ response:
DEQ is proposing that, in addition to the grain loading test, Tier 2 facilities be required to either install baghouse leak detection systems (BLDS) or HEPA after-filters on each baghouse. DEQ feels that HEPA after-filters, like BLDS, provide added assurance that the baghouse remains effective over time.

Because emissions from Tier 1 facilities are more dilute, DEQ proposes that they can either perform the grain loading test, install a BLDS, or install a HEPA after-filter.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should replace the 99.0% capture efficiency test with a "grain loading" test at the baghouse outlet, with limit on filterable particulate matter set at 0.005 gr/dscf.


Summary of Comment:
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 or measuring at the baghouse inlet and estimating the outlet emissions based on capture efficiency.

DEQ response:
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.

DEQ is also proposing to


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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. (Tier 2 facilities would be required to perform the outlet grain loading source test. Tier 1 facilities could perform the grain loading test or install a baghouse leak detection system or HEPA after-filter.) The 0.2 lb/ton NESHAP limit would apply in addition to the grain loading standard at furnaces that are subject to NESHAP 6S.


Summary of Comment:
CAGMs should not be allowed to use any metals in uncontrolled furnaces

DEQ response:
Under the proposed rules Tier 2 CAGMs are not allowed to use glassmaking HAPs in an uncontrolled furnace. Tier 1 CAGMs would not be able to use glassmaking HAPs in an uncontrolled furnace unless they had done source testing and air dispersion modeling to show that doing so does not pose a risk to people nearby. Some glassmaking HAPs are newly added to the list in this proposal and have a later compliance date.


Summary of Comment:
CAGMs should be required to use better control devices such as thermal oxidizers

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
CAGMs should not be allowed to use chromium in any form, because it transforms to hexavalent chromium.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should require monitoring of emissions rather than monitoring of the control devices

DEQ response:
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


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
The temporary rules, adopted in April, 2016, required a test to determine how much chromium III was converted to chromium VI. To ensure that the test would give a valid result, which requires capturing a large enough sample, the rules required testing at a baghouse inlet, before the filters in the baghouse reduce the amount of pollutant in the exhaust gases.

The temporary rules included a provision for setting maximum chromium usage rates that would keep a Tier 2 CAGM’s ambient chromium VI impacts from exceeding the health-based levels specified in the rules. To do this, it was also necessary to learn the actual emission rate of chromium VI, which the amount of chromium VI coming out of the baghouse (i.e. from the baghouse outlet). At that time, DEQ assumed that baghouse control efficiency for chromium VI would be the same as the baghouse control efficiency for particulate matter since DEQ expected all chromium VI to be in particulate form. Therefore, the rules also required testing for particulate matter both at the baghouse inlet and outlet (i.e. before and after the filters). By testing before and after the filters, the particulate matter removal efficiency could be calculated, and this removal efficiency could then be used to calculate the chromium VI emission rate.

In June, Bullseye performed this testing and also took an extra sample of chromium at the baghouse outlet. Based on the inlet and outlet testing for chromium, the calculated efficiency for chromium removal was significantly less than 99.0 percent, whereas the removal efficiency for particulate matter was over 99.0 percent.

Since the test only gave one data point for chromium removal efficiency, DEQ does not consider this to definitively show that the removal efficiency of chromium VI is less than 99.0 percent because there may be an unknown error in that single test. Other possible explanations for this result are: some of the chromium particles are so small that the baghouse does not capture all of them, or some of the chromium is in a gaseous form and passes through the baghouse as condensable matter. DEQ does not consider the last explanation very likely, but regardless of why the chromium removal efficiency appears to be low, the test result calls into question the assumption that the chromium removal efficiency is the same as the particulate matter removal efficiency. DEQ has therefore taken a different approach in the proposed permanent rules.

Rather than relying on testing for chromium at the baghouse inlet and using removal efficiency to calculate the chromium emission rate, DEQ is now proposing that the chromium emission rate be measured directly at the baghouse outlet. This will provide the information needed to set maximum usage rates that will keep a Tier 2 CAGM’s ambient chromium VI impacts from exceeding the health-based levels specified in the rules. With this change in approach, testing for particulate matter removal efficiency is no longer necessary and the requirement to test for particulate matter removal efficiency has been replaced with a simpler test in the proposed rules.

Finally, although the June source test result suggests that the chromium control efficiency for a baghouse is less than 99.0 percent, it also suggests that the chromium emissions are controlled to a significant extent, and DEQ still considers baghouses to be appropriate emission control devices for CAGM emissions.


Summary of Comment:
Rule should take into account cumulative/interactive effects instead of pretending that people are exposed to a single pollutant in isolation

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
Self-monitoring is insufficient. DEQ should conduct ongoing inspections.

DEQ response:
The proposed rule would require all affected facilities to get a DEQ permit. DEQ performs inspections of permitted sources on a regular basis.


Summary of Comment:
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 response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
The proposed rules include OAR 340-244-9090, which allows DEQ to set a limit on a CAGM’s use of a glassmaking HAP if that HAP is determined to pose an unacceptable risk to human health in the area of a CAGM. However, the rule would not allow DEQ to add materials to the list of glassmaking HAPs without going through a new rulemaking process. 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.

With respect to other materials that may be emitted, DEQ is working on the development of a larger state-wide rule (the Cleaner Air Oregon rule) to regulate air toxics emissions from industrial emissions sources. This larger rule is expected to provide a uniform program for the regulation of air toxics emissions. The rule is being developed over 2016 and 2017, with significant information gathering and opportunity for public input.


Summary of Comment:
Where health impacts are uncertain, DEQ should err on the side of being more protective of health. Limits should reflect sensitive populations.


Summary of Comment:
Rule should set per-facility emission limits so that cumulative impact of multiple furnaces does not exceed health benchmarks.

DEQ response:
The emissions limits in the proposed rule (chromium usage limits for Tier 2 facilities and limits for Tier 1 facilities that choose the 'source test and model' compliance pathway) are on a facility-wide basis and not a per-furnace basis.


Summary of Comment:
Rule should assume that all trivalent chromium converts to the more dangerous hexavelent chromium form in glass production.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
DEQ follows established enforcement procedures in Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 340, Division 12. Fines are based on the amounts and procedures specified in these rules, and include provisions for increasing fines for repeated violations.

In addition, under Oregon Revised Statute 468.115, if DEQ finds that air pollution presents imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, at the Governor’s direction, DEQ can issue a cease and desist order against the person or persons responsible for the pollution. The order can be effective for no more than 10 days and may be renewed by order of the Governor.


Summary of Comment:
Rule should regulate dust and wastewater from cutting and cold processing of glass

DEQ response:
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.

Notes:
Are there other regs for stormwater, wastewater to sewer, or fugitive emissions from waste / broken glass near dumpster?


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should not rely on the NESHAP to protect neighbors

DEQ response:
This rule is in addition to and more stringent than the federal NESHAP Subpart SSSSSS.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should apply the new rules by September 1st

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should get modern video recording equipment and broadcast and post all public meetings.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
Ambient concentrations didn't decrease after the temp rule was put in place, so the pollution must be coming from other sources.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
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.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
Are CAGMs subject to a limit on visible emissions?

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should never propose rules without going through public comment

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
The public should be notified about any proposed permits.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
The rule should monitor and restrict fugitive emissions.

DEQ response:
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


short summary:
cumulative effects of multiple facilities

Summary of Comment:
The rule should account for the additive effects of emissions from multiple facilities affecting the same geographic area.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should continue long term ambient air monitoring near glass factories.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
The rule should require CAGMs to maintain a list of all hazardous materials kept on site and used in glass furnaces

DEQ response:
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.


short summary:
allow uncontrolled furnaces if under grain loading standard

Summary of Comment:
Facillities should be able to operate without control devices if their emissions are below the grain loading standard listed in the rule.

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
This rule should address all HAP sources

DEQ response:
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.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should lower the costs for the permits Tier 1 facilities will be required to get so that they are no more than $2-4,000 per year.

DEQ response:
Permit fees for Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP), the type that Tier 1 facilities would be required to have, are set in rule across multiple facility types and are not specific to this proposed rule. The class of ACDP permit these facilities would be required to have currently has a $7,200 application fee and $4,608 annual fee per facility.


Summary of Comment:
CAGMs shouldn't be able to use cadmium in an uncontrolled furnace

DEQ response:
Under the proposed rule (and earlier temporary rule) Tier 2 facilities are not allowed to use cadmium in an uncontrolled furnace. Tier 1 facilities would only be able to use cadmium in an uncontrolled furnace if they performed source testing and dispersion modeling to show that emissions would not exceed health benchmarks.


Summary of Comment:
The source test requirement at OAR 340-244-9070(2)(h) should require EPA Method 5, not DEQ Method 5.

DEQ response:
DEQ is proposing to replace the 99.0% baghouse capture efficiency standard with a grain loading standard of 0.005 gr/dscf (grains of particulate matter [PM] per dry standard cubic feet of air). Grain loading is based on filterable PM as measured using DEQ Method 5. 

The grain loading standard is intended to check that the control device is working. Baghouses are a form of filter and can only control filterable emissions, so the grain loading standard is based on filterable PM. EPA Method 5 does not separate the filterable and condensable forms of PM.

Notes:
Did I get this right about DEQ Method 5 vs EPA Method 5?


Summary of Comment:
The 99% capture efficiency test is unworkable. DEQ should set a limit for the run length and sampling volume, and specify that the facility passes if inlet PM is non-detect at that point.

DEQ response:
DEQ recognizes that determining compliance with the 99.0% capture efficiency standard can lead to unreasonably long and expensive source tests, particularly for Tier 1 facilities that have very dilute emissions streams. DEQ is proposing to replace the 99.0% capture efficiency standard with other means to ensure that the baghouse is working. Tier 2 facilities would be required to meet a grain loading standard of 0.005 gr/dscf at the outlet of the control device and install either a baghouse leak detection device or a HEPA filter. Tier 1 facilities would be required to either meet the grain loading standard or install a baghouse leak detection device or install a HEPA filter.


Summary of Comment:
DEQ should wait to propose a permanent rule until the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking finishes. Otherwise, the rule for art glass manufacturers may have different or incompatible requirements.

DEQ response:
The current, temporary rules on art glass manufacturers will expire on October 18th, 2016, and cannot be extended. DEQ is moving to regulate colored art glass manufacturers (CAGMs) in response to data that showed residents near CAGMs were exposed to unhealthy air, in some cases exceeding acute (24-hr) health benchmarks. DEQ feels that these permanent rules are needed now. It is not yet known whether the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking will supersede this rule or leave it in place.


Summary of Comment:
The proposed 340-244-9090 says that DEQ "must set a limit on the CAGM’s use of the metal HAP of concern" if ambient concentrations pose an unacceptable risk. How would this work in detail? Doesn't this presuppose the result of the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking?

DEQ response:
The proposed language at OAR 340-244-9090 would give DEQ the authority to act if, despite the rule, DEQ determined that CAGM emissions were found to still be posing an unacceptable risk to people near them. Such a determination would be made in consultation with the Oregon Health Authority but the details are otherwise not specified. DEQ feels this discretion is appropriate because of the potentially actute risks posed by CAGM emissions. The Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking may supersede this rule or leave it in place.


Summary of Comment:
The proposed rule treats electrically heated and fuel-fired furnaces differently in the thresholds between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Are emissions really that different? The 100 tpy threshold for a facility with only electrically fired furnaces to become Tier 2 should be lowered.

DEQ response:
DEQ is not aware of data comparing the relative emissions of fuel-fired and electrically heated furnaces. However, the physics of fuel-fired furnaces are likely to result in higher emission rates. DEQ is lowering the applicability threshold for the rule to 5 tpy but is not proposing to adjust the Tier 1 / Tier 2 threshold for electrically fired furnaces at this time.


Summary of Comment:
What requirements will apply to CAGMs that are under the threshold?

DEQ response:
The proposed rule only applies to facilities that produce 5 or more tons per year (previously 10 tpy) of glass containing the specified HAPs. It does not impose requirements on CAGMs who are below that threshold.


Summary of Comment:
Facilities should be required to measure and report actual emissions.

DEQ response:
The rule requires facilities to measure parameters of their emission control devices to ensure that they are operating correctly. Source testing to measure actual emissions costs thousands of dollars, and doing so on an ongoing basis would be cost-prohibitive.


