1. Permanent Rules should apply to all of ODEQ’s jurisdiction, not just Portland.
2. Should apply to all manufactures using raw metal HAPS, not just art glass.
3. DEQ has an obligation to craft clear rule language, and be capable of educating businesses and guiding them on coming into compliance with reasonable timelines and offering their support and expertise. No one benefits from shutting down businesses.

As a lifelong Portlander, I have a stake in the quality of our air. I also highly value art and all the positives the local glass community has brought to our city. That puts me in the middle of the current polarization between clean air advocates and glass supporters. There does NOT need to be sides. Urban pollution is complex, every man made product and convenience creates it. We need to first and foremost recognize we each contribute to the pollution problem and we each and every one of us need to work together toward reducing our environmental impact. Should CAGM’s take steps to reduce their emissions? Absolutely. And they are. And it’s up to DEQ and everyone who wants cleaner air to support those efforts – reduction of emissions from all sources. 

If DEQ has determined the use of raw materials (Metal HAPS in their raw, non-vitrified state) used in glass making in an unfiltered furnace is a risk to public health – then it logically follows that risk is not geographically unique. If the rules are necessary, based on science, and fairly written. Then they should no doubt apply to all of ODEQ’s jurisdiction equally, not just Portland and not just art glass.

As for the threshold of tonnage produced, previously the two larger manufactures of art glass in Portland did not fall under EPA NESHAP since they use less raw metals than those rules limit as emissions. Simply, they were too small to matter. Apparently now, that was not sufficient and there is concern.  DEQ is now proposing just creating a different bar, with exceptions again. In another decade will we be back where we are now with insufficient rules? If making permanent rules, carefully consider the long term.

Also, what is a “glass manufacturer”? There is a significant and clear difference between mixing raw materials in a furnace until they vitrify – to create glass - and the many studios and artisans that re-melt and form glass (sheet, cullet etc.) to create finished goods. Failure to define this difference could be more damaging than the question of the threshold amount. With that in mind, it seems any size manufacture (combining raw materials sand, soda, metal oxides etc., to create glass) that handles metal HAPS in their raw form should be regulated to some extent as to the safe handling of those materials and reducing potential furnace emissions.

DEQ needs to carefully and clearly craft its rule making language – much of the controversy in the initial rulemaking was due to the EPA’s failure to properly define a co-opted industry term, which to some created a “loophole” in the 2005 NESHAP rules. The terms “continuous” and “periodic” in the industry deal with the type of furnace and its ability to continuously output glass, the EPA has now recently redefined their use of the term to refer to the continuous firing of the fuel source, not the furnace construction or production. This poor use of regulation language has caused confusion and contention for all sides. For a simplistic explanation of the difference between continuous and periodic furnaces refer to this, page 6: http://www.lehigh.edu/imi/teched/GlassProcess/Lectures/Lecture03_Hubert_industglassmeltfurnaces.pdf

According to DEQ’s own PATS findings the metal air emissions in question that these temporary rules are supposedly addressing, are primarily emitted by other sources such as Diesel and mobile combustion, wood smoke, metal manufacture, and for some metals they are just naturally high in our area. Yet, a significant amount of DEQ resources is being squandered to address small glass manufactures, the two largest of which have already begun the process of installing filtration and will be soon brought under the EPA NESHAP Title V standards. In the interest of public health, why is DEQ using a majority of resources addressing a small fraction of the air quality problem? Again, the filtration currently being installed by CAGMs is absolutely necessary and important, but the continual focus on ‘just’ glassmakers is not addressing the big picture. Why not tackle limiting metal emissions from ALL sources in the permanent rules? Stop pointing fingers and get the job done. Collect data, perform scientific analysis, write protective rules and regulations based on your factual findings, and remember - DEQ is also responsible for supporting businesses with successfully coming into compliance. Failed businesses are a reflection of failed regulation. DEQ should be the experts; they should be sharing that expertise with businesses and guiding them. It benefits everyone for industry to improve their production practices and reduce emissions while at the same time contributing to the local economy. We all need to work on these problems – together.