A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
1	DEQ art glass permanent rulemaking 2016
2	Public comment points to respond to
4	Point ID	short summary	Summary of Comment	Category	DEQ response	Commenter	Notes	Response Status	Assigned to	text
5	5	Statewide	DEQ should apply this rule statewide instead of only in the Portland area.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: Statewide DEQ should apply this rule statewide instead of only in the Portland area. 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.
6	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.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: 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. 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.
7	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.	Rule applicability	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.			draft		Rule applicability Comment: All metals The rule should regulate all heavy metals or all hazardous air pollutants (HAP), not just arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. 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.
8	10	All glass factories	This rule should be changed to regulate all glass factories (such as Owens Brockaway and General Glass), not just CAGMs.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: All glass factories This rule should be changed to regulate all glass factories (such as Owens Brockaway and General Glass), not just CAGMs. 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.
9	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.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: 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. 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.
10	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.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: 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. 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.
11	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.	Rule applicability	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.	Chris Mini		draft		Rule applicability Comment: 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. 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.
12	51	Address all HAP sources	This rule should address all HAP sources.	Rule applicability	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		Rule applicability Comment: Address all HAP sources This rule should address all HAP sources. 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.
13	58	Fuel-fired furnaces	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.	Rule applicability	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.	Multnomah County Heath Department		draft		Rule applicability Comment: Fuel-fired furnaces 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. 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.
14	59	Facilities under threshold	What requirements will apply to CAGMs that are under the threshold?	Rule applicability	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.	Multnomah County Heath Department		draft		Rule applicability Comment: Facilities under threshold What requirements will apply to CAGMs that are under the threshold? 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.
15	30	Self-reported data	Self-monitoring is insufficient. DEQ should conduct ongoing inspections.	enforcement	The proposed rule would require all affected facilities to get a DEQ permit. DEQ performs inspections of permitted sources on a regular basis.			draft		enforcement Comment: Self-reported data Self-monitoring is insufficient. DEQ should conduct ongoing inspections. Response The proposed rule would require all affected facilities to get a DEQ permit. DEQ performs inspections of permitted sources on a regular basis.
16	36	Enforcement penalties	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.	enforcement	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.			draft		enforcement Comment: Enforcement penalties 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. 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.
17	19	Environmental justice	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.	general rulemaking	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.	CRAG	Emailed Sue Langston, Stephanie Caldera, and Nina DeConcini for review on 8/30/2016.	needs review		general rulemaking Comment: Environmental justice 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. 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.
18	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.	general rulemaking	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.			draft		general rulemaking Comment: 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. 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.
19	39	September 1st	DEQ should apply the new rules by September 1st	general rulemaking	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		general rulemaking Comment: September 1st DEQ should apply the new rules by September 1st 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.
20	56	Wait for Cleaner Air Oregon	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.	general rulemaking	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.	NW Pulp and Paper Association		draft		general rulemaking Comment: Wait for Cleaner Air Oregon 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. 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.
21	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.	health	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		health Comment: 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. 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.
22	11	Health-based	This rule's requirements are technology-based, but the rule restrictions should be health-based	health	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		health Comment: Health-based This rule's requirements are technology-based, but the rule restrictions should be health-based 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.
23	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	health	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		health Comment: Cumulative health effects Rule should take into account cumulative/interactive effects instead of pretending that people are exposed to a single pollutant in isolation 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.
24	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.	health	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		health Comment: Precautionary principle Where health impacts are uncertain, DEQ should err on the side of being more protective of health. Limits should reflect sensitive populations. 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.
25	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.	health	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.			draft		health Comment: Facility limits vs furnace limits Rule should set per-facility emission limits so that cumulative impact of multiple furnaces does not exceed health benchmarks. 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.
26	47	Cumulative effects of multiple facilities	The rule should account for the additive effects of emissions from multiple facilities affecting the same geographic area.	health	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		health Comment: Cumulative effects of multiple facilities The rule should account for the additive effects of emissions from multiple facilities affecting the same geographic area. 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.
27	48	Ambient monitoring	DEQ should continue long term ambient air monitoring near glass factories.	health	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		health Comment: Ambient monitoring DEQ should continue long term ambient air monitoring near glass factories. 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.
28	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.	other air pollution sources	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.			draft		other air pollution sources Comment: 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. 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.
29	41	Ambient concentrations	Ambient concentrations didn't decrease after the temp rule was put in place, so the pollution must be coming from other sources.	other air pollution 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.			draft		other air pollution sources Comment: Ambient concentrations Ambient concentrations didn't decrease after the temp rule was put in place, so the pollution must be coming from other sources. 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.
30	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.	permitting	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		permitting Comment: 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. 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.
31	52	Permit fees	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.	permitting	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.	Northstar		draft		permitting Comment: Permit fees 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. 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.
32	20	Baghouse leak detection systems	DEQ should require triboelectric baghouse leak detection systems.	pollution control devices	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.	EPA		draft		pollution control devices Comment: Baghouse leak detection systems DEQ should require triboelectric baghouse leak detection systems. 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.
33	24	No metals in uncontrolled furnaces	CAGMs should not be allowed to use any metals in uncontrolled furnaces.	pollution control devices	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.			draft		pollution control devices Comment: No metals in uncontrolled furnaces CAGMs should not be allowed to use any metals in uncontrolled furnaces. 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.
34	25	Thermal oxidizers	CAGMs should be required to use better control devices such as thermal oxidizers.	pollution control devices	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		pollution control devices Comment: Thermal oxidizers CAGMs should be required to use better control devices such as thermal oxidizers. 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.
35	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.	pollution control devices	The temporary rules, adopted in April, 2016, required a test to determine how much trivalent chromium was converted to the more toxic hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) form. 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 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. However, the test result does not support the assumption that the removal efficiency of chromium VI is the same as the removal efficiency for PM; therefore, DEQ has therefore taken a different approach in the proposed permanent rules. 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.			draft		pollution control devices Comment: 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. Response The temporary rules, adopted in April, 2016, required a test to determine how much trivalent chromium was converted to the more toxic hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) form. 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 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. However, the test result does not support the assumption that the removal efficiency of chromium VI is the same as the removal efficiency for PM; therefore, DEQ has therefore taken a different approach in the proposed permanent rules. 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.
36	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.	pollution control devices	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		pollution control devices Comment: 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. 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.
37	50	Allow uncontrolled furnaces if under grain loading standard	Facilities should be able to operate without control devices if their emissions are below the grain loading standard listed in the rule.	pollution control devices	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		pollution control devices Comment: Allow uncontrolled furnaces if under grain loading standard Facilities should be able to operate without control devices if their emissions are below the grain loading standard listed in the rule. 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.
38	53	Cadmium	CAGMs shouldn't be able to use cadmium in an uncontrolled furnace.	pollution control devices	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.	Abe Fleishman		draft		pollution control devices Comment: Cadmium CAGMs shouldn't be able to use cadmium in an uncontrolled furnace. 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.
39	12	Translation	DEQ should provide translation for non-English speakers and specific outreach to communities of color and low-income communities.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: Translation DEQ should provide translation for non-English speakers and specific outreach to communities of color and low-income communities. 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.
40	13	Air permits on website	DEQ should make air emissions permits publicly available through its database.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: Air permits on website DEQ should make air emissions permits publicly available through its database. 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.
41	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.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: 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. 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.
42	40	Video	DEQ should get modern video recording equipment and broadcast and post all public meetings.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: Video DEQ should get modern video recording equipment and broadcast and post all public meetings. 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.
43	44	No rules without public comment	DEQ should never propose rules without going through public comment.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: No rules without public comment DEQ should never propose rules without going through public comment. 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.
44	45	Public notice for permitting actions	The public should be notified about any proposed permits.	public outreach	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		public outreach Comment: Public notice for permitting actions The public should be notified about any proposed permits. 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.
45	1	Flexibility	DEQ should give more compliance time and flexibility to CAGMs.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Flexibility DEQ should give more compliance time and flexibility to CAGMs. 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.
46	2	Don't shut down	DEQ should consider the economic effect on glass artists. DEQ should not shut down the glass industry.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Don't shut down DEQ should consider the economic effect on glass artists. DEQ should not shut down the glass industry. 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.
47	3	Don't increase glass prices	If compliance with the rule is expensive, glass will be too expensive for glass artists to buy.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Don't increase glass prices If compliance with the rule is expensive, glass will be too expensive for glass artists to buy. 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.
48	26	No chromium	CAGMs should not be allowed to use chromium in any form, because it transforms to hexavalent chromium.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: No chromium CAGMs should not be allowed to use chromium in any form, because it transforms to hexavalent chromium. 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.
49	27	Emissions monitoring	DEQ should require monitoring of emissions rather than monitoring of the control devices.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Emissions monitoring DEQ should require monitoring of emissions rather than monitoring of the control devices. 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
50	35	Hexavalent chromium conversion	Rule should assume that all trivalent chromium converts to the more dangerous hexavalent form during glass production.	rule requirements	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 hexavalent 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		rule requirements Comment: Hexavalent chromium conversion Rule should assume that all trivalent chromium converts to the more dangerous hexavalent form during glass production. 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 hexavalent 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.
51	37	Cold shops	Rule should regulate dust and wastewater from cutting and cold processing of glass.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Cold shops Rule should regulate dust and wastewater from cutting and cold processing of glass. 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.

52	38	NESHAP	DEQ should not rely on the NESHAP to protect neighbors.	rule requirements	This rule is in addition to and more stringent than the federal NESHAP Subpart SSSSSS.			draft		rule requirements Comment: NESHAP DEQ should not rely on the NESHAP to protect neighbors. Response This rule is in addition to and more stringent than the federal NESHAP Subpart SSSSSS.
53	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.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: 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. 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.
54	43	Visible emissions	Are CAGMs subject to a limit on visible emissions?	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Visible emissions Are CAGMs subject to a limit on visible emissions? 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.
55	46	Fugitive emissions	The rule should monitor and restrict fugitive emissions.	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Fugitive emissions The rule should monitor and restrict fugitive emissions. 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
56	49	Recordkeeping	The rule should require CAGMs to maintain a list of all hazardous materials kept on site and used in glass furnaces	rule requirements	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		rule requirements Comment: Recordkeeping The rule should require CAGMs to maintain a list of all hazardous materials kept on site and used in glass furnaces 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.
57	57	How does DEQ interpret 340-244-9090?	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?	rule requirements	DEQ acknowledges that this rule is not intended to presuppose the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking. However, OAR 340-244-9090 is an appropriate safety net because of the potential risks posed by CAGM emissions. 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.			draft		rule requirements Comment: How does DEQ interpret 340-244-9090? 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? Response DEQ acknowledges that this rule is not intended to presuppose the Cleaner Air Oregon rulemaking. However, OAR 340-244-9090 is an appropriate safety net because of the potential risks posed by CAGM emissions. 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.
58	60	Measure actual emissions	Facilities should be required to measure and report actual emissions.	rule requirements	Requirements to report emissions are included in permits issued to regulated facilities, and DEQ anticipates that for permitting purposes, emissions will be determined or estimated and reporting will be required. However, permitting, emission limits and reporting requirements are based on other rules, and with the exception of requiring Tier 1 and Tier 2 CAGMs to apply for a permit, DEQ has not included those requirements in this rule.	Cecilia Youngs	George's preferred response	draft		rule requirements Comment: Measure actual emissions Facilities should be required to measure and report actual emissions. Response Requirements to report emissions are included in permits issued to regulated facilities, and DEQ anticipates that for permitting purposes, emissions will be determined or estimated and reporting will be required. However, permitting, emission limits and reporting requirements are based on other rules, and with the exception of requiring Tier 1 and Tier 2 CAGMs to apply for a permit, DEQ has not included those requirements in this rule.
59	8	99.9% baghouse capture efficiency	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%.	source testing	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		source testing Comment: 99.9% baghouse capture efficiency 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%. 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.
60	21	Grain loading	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.	source testing	DEQ is recommending this change.	EPA		draft		source testing Comment: Grain loading 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. Response DEQ is recommending this change.
61	22	EPA 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 or measuring at the baghouse inlet and estimating the outlet emissions based on capture efficiency.	source testing	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, EPA		draft		source testing Comment: EPA 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 or measuring at the baghouse inlet and estimating the outlet emissions based on capture efficiency. 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.
62	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.	source testing	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.	Bullseye		draft		source testing Comment: 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. 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.
63	54	EPA Method 5	The source test requirement at OAR 340-244-9070(2)(h) should require EPA Method 5, not DEQ Method 5.	source testing	The requirement to test using DEQ Method 5 is deliberate. Although the baghouse test is based on EPA Method 5, DEQ sets Plant Site Emission Limits (PSELs) for particulate matter based on DEQ Method 5 and this method was specified to provide information that can be used to set PM PSELs.	Stoel Rives		draft		source testing Comment: EPA Method 5 The source test requirement at OAR 340-244-9070(2)(h) should require EPA Method 5, not DEQ Method 5. Response The requirement to test using DEQ Method 5 is deliberate. Although the baghouse test is based on EPA Method 5, DEQ sets Plant Site Emission Limits (PSELs) for particulate matter based on DEQ Method 5 and this method was specified to provide information that can be used to set PM PSELs.
64	55	99% - limit run length	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.	source testing	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.			draft		source testing Comment: 99% - limit run length 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. 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.