carrie menikoff - bullseye glass · from r.h. wixom dated may 7, 1984 with an attached materials...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PAGE 1

DECLARATION OF CARRIE MENIKOFF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

GRM Law Group

5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330 Lake Oswego, OR 97035

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNT OF MULTNOMAH

SCOTT MEEKER and ERIN MEEKER KELLY GOODWIN, BRUCE ELY and CASE NO. 16CV07002 KRISTI HAUKE, ELIZABETH BORTE and RINO PASINI, CHRISTIAN MINER, JUDY SANSERI and HOWARD BANICH; DECLARATION OF CARRIE individually and on behalf of all others MENIKOFF IN SUPPORT OF similarly situated, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING TO ASSERT Plaintiffs, DAMAGES v. BULLSEYE GLASS CO., an Oregon corporation,

Defendant.

I, Carrie Menikoff, hereby declare:

1. I am a partner in the GRM Law Group located at 5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330,

Lake Oswego, Oregon. I am counsel of record for Bullseye in this matter. I have personal

knowledge of the matters set forth herein.

2. Exhibit A attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of Dan Schwoerer’s

Affidavit dated September 1, 2017.

3. Exhibit B attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of Registration of Air

Contaminant Sources for Bullseye Glass Co. dated July 10, 1984.

4. Exhibit C attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the 1984 Air

Contaminant Discharge Permit for Bullseye Glass Co.

9/1/2017 5:38:03 PM16CV07002

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PAGE 2


GRM Law Group


5. Exhibit D attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of Eric Durrin’s Affidavit

dated September 1, 2017.

6. Exhibit E attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of DEQ’s Compliance

Inspection Memorandum for Bullseye Glass Co. dated August 20, 1999.

7. Exhibit F attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the 2004 Air

Contaminant Discharge Permit and Review Report for Bullseye Glass Co.

8. Exhibit G attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the 2011 Air

Contaminant Discharge Permit and Review Report for Bullseye Glass Co.

9. Exhibit H attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the February 4, 2016

EarthFix news article authored by Cassandra Profita, entitled Portland Heavy Metals Emissions

Linked to Glass Facility, and located online at http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-heavy-

metals-emissions-linked-to-glass-facility/.

10. Exhibit I attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the 1986 Air Contaminant

Discharge Permit for Bullseye Glass Co.

11. Exhibit J attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a DEQ Interoffice Memo

authored by R.H. Wixom regarding a meeting with Daniel Schwoerer of Bullseye Glass Co.

dated March 12, 1986.

12. Exhibit K attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the Addendum to 1986

Air Contaminant Discharge Permit for Bullseye Glass Co.

13. Exhibit L attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the DEQ Interoffice

Memo authored by R.H. Wixom regarding a meeting with Daniel Schwoerer of Bullseye Glass

Co. dated March 9, 1988.

14. Exhibit M attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of 1992 Air Contaminant

Discharge Permit Application Review Report dated September 15, 1992 for Bullseye Glass Co.

15. Exhibit N attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of pages excerpted from the

Eric Durrin Deposition Transcript. The following pages are excerpted: 1 and 50 through 53.

http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-heavy-metals-emissions-linked-to-glass-facility/

http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-heavy-metals-emissions-linked-to-glass-facility/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PAGE 3


GRM Law Group


16. Exhibit O attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a September 25, 2007

email from Kathy Amidon to Eric Durrin.

17. Exhibit P attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the EPA Fact Sheet

entitled: Proposed Air Toxics Standards for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass

Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources.

18. Exhibit Q attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of Letter from Eric Durrin

to Roberto Morales dated October 9, 2007.

19. Exhibit R attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of map identifying the

locations of residences for current and former Bullseye employees.

20. Exhibit S attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a September 25 email

chain between Kathy Amidon and Eric Durrin.

21. Exhibit T attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of an August 23, 2007 DEQ

Pollution Complaint Intake Form with related handwritten notes, including a note dated

September 13, 2007 wherein the author writes, “Complaint could not be verified.”

22. Exhibit U attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a DEQ Interoffice Memo

from R.H. Wixom dated May 7, 1984 with an attached materials list.

23. Exhibit V attached hereto is a true, accurate and complete copy of a Letter from

Daniel Schwoerer of Bullseye Glass Co. to Richard Wixom of DEQ dated March 14, 1984.

24. Exhibit W attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a January 2, 2008 email

from Eric Durrin to Kathy Amidon.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and accurate to

the best of my knowledge.

DATED September 1, 2017. /s/ Carrie Menikoff

Carrie Menikoff

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PAGE 1-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

GRM Law Group 5285 Meadows Rd.

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served the foregoing

DECLARATION OF CARRIE MENIKOFF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING upon the following counsel of record via email.

Matthew J. Preusch [email protected] KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Karl G. Anuta [email protected] LAW OFFICE OF KARL G. ANUTA, P.C. 735 S.W. First Avenue Strowbridge Bldg, Second Floor Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 827-0320


Daniel Mensher [email protected] Amy Williams-Derry [email protected] KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900


DATED: September 1, 2017

GRM LAW GROUP

By: /s/ Carrie Menikoff Carrie Menikoff, OSB No. 036045

Attorney for Defendant Bullseye Glass Co.

EXHIBIT A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

SCOTT MEEKER and ERIN MEEKER, KELLY GOODWIN, BRUCE ELY and KRISTI HAUKE, ELIZABETH BORTE and RINO PASINI, CHRISTIAN Ml"IER, JUDY SANSERI and HOW ARD BANI CH; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

V.

BULLSEYE GLASS CO., an Oregon corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. !6CV07002

AFFIDAVIT OF DAN SCHWOERER

I, Dan Schwoerer, have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein:

Background on Colored Art Glass Manufacturing

1. The art of making colored glass has been around for thousands of years. While

new technology and techniques are constantly being devised, many ancient recipes are still in

use. I learned about glass making during college at the University of Wisconsin. Since then, I

have frequently spoken with academics and scientists about the process.

2. Glass-making involves melting raw materials together. This is very different from

"burning" or "incinerating" materials, which implies that the raw materials are completely

oxidized into vapors that are emitted into the atmosphere with only a small amount of ash

PAGE I AFFIDAVIT OF DAN SCHWOERER GRM Law Group

5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330 lake Oswego, OR 97035

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

remaining. In contrast, the glass-making process involves combining raw materials by changing

their molecular structure so they form a new compound-colored glass. For example, when you

melt cobalt carbonate together with silicon dioxide, the cobalt compound releases carbon

dioxide, leaving it with only one oxygen molecule, which it shares with the silicon dioxide. This

sharing of oxygen binds the cobalt to the silicon forming a blue-colored glass. All the metals in

glass melting are reduced to metallic oxides, releasing nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide in the

process. This process does not in any way involve burning metals. Rather, the melting process

captures the metals into a new compound, or as we commonly refer to it, "glassifies" the metal.

This process releases other matter into the air that can condense into particulate matter. Until

February 2016, I understood that no material quantities of metal were released in the process.

3. My experience working in colored glass reinforced my belief that the melting

process did not produce material quantities of metal emissions. For example, as detailed below,

when Bullseye grappled with the opacity of its emissions, we reduced opacity by adjusting the

amount of borax in the glass mix. Adding or reducing the amount of metals changes the color of

glass, not the quality of the emissions. Even very small adjustments in the percentage of metals

in a glass batch will produce a different color. This is one of the reasons I always believed that

essentially all the metal in a batch was being consumed in the glass-making process.

4. On the other hand, there are other raw materials in the batch that behave very

differently from the metals when heated. Borax and sodium can volatilize or evaporate in the

process, and can be emitted from the furnaces. When those materials condense in the

atmosphere, they can create a visible plume. Of course, I knew Bullseye had emissions, and

PAGE 2-- AFFIDAVIT OF DAN SCHWOERER GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

sometimes visible emissions, but I believed those emissions were the byproduct of other

materials in the batch, not metals.

5. The raw materials mixed together in a glass batch are overwhelmingly non-

hazardous materials such as sand and soda ash. On average, metals make up roughly .5% of the

materials in a Bullseye batch melt. When such a small percentage of metals is combined with

what I understood to be the efficiency of the melting process, I never had a reason to believe

Bullseye was emitting more than an insignificantly small amount of metals.

6. Moreover, as detailed below, my dealings with DEQ never alerted me to the

possibility that Bullseye might be emitting hazardous materials at a level that could cause health

or environmental concerns. Instead, DEQ repeatedly told Bullseye that we were not a big enough

company for them to worry about, and that even if all our hazardous materials were dispersed

into the environment, we would not reach regulatory levels.

7. There are very few manufacturers of colored art glass. When Bullseye opened, it

was the first new colored art glass manufacturer in the United States in over 80 years. There are

much larger companies that make colored glass for beverage bottles and other purposes. In

contrast, the colored art glass industry is very small. Moreover, each manufacturer's glass recipes

are closely guarded trade secrets. Thus, there is no trade or industry group for colored glass

manufacturers nor is there any collaboration among manufacturers about trade or production

practices. Indeed, no one has ever established industry standards or production practices for the

colored art glass industry.

8. Prior to the events in this case, to my knowledge no one had ever studied the

emissions produced by colored art glass manufacturing. Instead, each manufacturer has operated


5285 Meadows Rd .• Suite 330 Lake Oswego, OR 97035

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

independently. Nonetheless, I believe all the colored glass manufacturers shared my belief that

melting raw materials into colored glass did not produce harmful emissions of hazardous

substances. In addition, with the exception of Spectrum Glass (discussed below), no other

colored art glass manufacturer that I am aware of used pollution controls such as a baghouse, and

none outside of Oregon has been required to install such controls, even after the Bullseye

controversy.

9. Plaintiffs seem to imply that ··particulates" are the same as "Hazardous Air

Pollutants'· (often referred to as HAPs). (Plaintiffs' Memo at 5). But this simply is not true. In

fact, particulates are ''pollutants" regulated by the Clean Air Act, irrespective of the nature of the

particulate. "Particulate" can include dust, ash, soot, and smoke, each of which pose their own

pollution concerns, regardless whether those particulates consist of hazardous materials.

Bullseye's DEQ permit sets Plant Site Emission Limits for "pollutants" that Bullseye is allowed

to emit. As of 2011, those limits included 14 tons per year of"Particulate Matter." Separate

sections of the pennit set limits on arsenic emissions and discuss HAPs. 1 Neither DEQ nor

Bullseye equated the term ··particulate" with HAPs.

I 0. Bullseye, its owners, and its employees, have always considered themselves part

of the Southeast Portland community. For six years after founding the company, I lived 10 feet

from the facility, in a dwelling that was removed during expansion of the plant. Over the years,

and continuing to this day, many of our employees live in the neighborhood. This includes our

glass chemist, who knows as well as anyone the raw materials going into our glass and has lived

within a third of a mile from Bullseye for over 30 years.

1A true and c01Tect copy of Bullseye's 2011 Air Contamination Discharge Permit and Review 26 Report is attached as Exhibit G to the MenikoffDeclaration.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

11. Attached as Exhibit R (to the MenikoffDeclaration) is a map showing the current

and past residences of Bullseye employees in the vicinity of the facility. Approximately 33

people have lived within the purported affected area. Any claim that we only cared about the

health of our employees, and not our neighbors, is a non-sequitur. Many of our neighbors are our

employees. The people at Bullseye have always cared about theJacility's impact on the

environment, because we live there, too. Moreover, we open our facility for lectures,

demonstrations, glass-making classes, and school groups, all to enrich the SE Portland

community.

DEO Approved Bullseye's HAPs Use and Did Not Require Us to Test or Control Emissions

12. Throughout Bullseye's existence, the company and I have been completely candid

with DEQ and responsive to any concerns the department has expressed. On May 7, 1984, I met

with a DEQ inspector who visited Bullseye after observing that the facility was emitting visible

plumes. On this occasion and all others, I cooperated with DEQ to address its concerns. I

provided a list of all the materials Bullseye uses in the glass-making process, which included

identification of thirteen hazardous substances. 2 This list included chrome, cadmium, selenium,

and arsenic. The DEQ inspector advised Bullseye it would "need to address" its opacity

violations and "the management of the hazardous materials." (Plaintiffs' Ex. 22.) Bullseye's

ensuing Registration of Air Contaminant Sources, dated July 10, 1984, disclosed that, in a "worst

25 'Plaintiffs Exhibit 22 contains only one page of this two-page document. A true and complete copy of the May 7, 1984 memorandum is attached as Exhibit U to the Menikoff Declaration. The second

26 page shows that Bullseye reported the hazardous substances to DEQ.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

case scenario," Bullseye might have emitted less than .02 ounces per day of Arsenic and less

than .08 ounces per day of Cadmium.3 DEQ expressed no concerns about the information

provided. Equally important, no one at DEQ ever expressed a concern that the use of metals

would present a health problem to the community.

Bullseye Addressed Opacity Issues

13. Between 1985 and 1987, I worked with DEQ to address complaints about the

opacity ofBullseye's emissions. These opacity concerns had nothing to do with hazardous

materials, and at no point in my dealings with DEQ did anyone suggest that these opaque plumes

might contain HAPs. On the contrary, DEQ approved the steps I took to address opacity

concerns, and was satisfied once the opacity problems were resolved. Despite these opacity

issues, DEQ did not ask us to test our emissions nor did it require the sort of emission controls

that Plaintiffs now contend any reasonable person should have implemented. In any event, these

opacity issues were solved to the satisfaction ofDEQ more than 30 years ago.

14. Plaintiffs cite a letter I wrote on March 14, 1986, and correctly state that I was

aware Bullseye was emitting particulate matter.4 But there is nothing in this letter or its two-page

attachment that suggests I thought that particulate contained HAPs. On the contrary, in the letter

and its attachment I stated that: (I) the raw materials causing the opacity were recycled glass and

borax; (2) the glass could be reformulated to drastically reduce use of those raw materials; and

(3) introducing the raw materials into the oven slowly by machine, rather than hand-shoveling,

24 'A true copy of the Registration of Air Contaminant Sources is attached as Exhibit B to the Menikoff Declaration.

25 4Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 contains only the cover page of this correspondence, and omits the two-

page attachment referenced in the text. A true, correct and complete copy of my March 14, 1986 letter is 26 attached as Exhibit V to the Menikoff Declaration.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

would also diminish the plume.

15. In response to this submission, DEQ issued to Bullseye an Air Contaminant

Discharge Pern1it on August 14, 1986. 5 The permit authorized Bullseye to discharge up to one

ton of particulate matter per year. More significantly, it approved and incorporated my plans,

discussed above, for addressing the opacity concerns, and in the process DEQ concluded that

Bullseye need not install pollution controls. This was true even though the Report attached to the

Permit noted that Bullseye was using arsenic, cadmium, and selenium in its uncontrolled

furnaces.

16. Although we at Bullseye worked diligently to resolve the opacity problems, we

encountered problems meeting the agreed-to deadlines. In March 1987, I asked DEQ for

additional time. On March 4, 1987, I wrote a memo (which the Plaintiffs cite), wherein I describe

the "plume" as "inherent in the process of melting recycled glass fluxed with borax'' and explain

the steps Bullseye has taken to achieve compliance. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21.) The following day, I

gave four DEQ representatives a tour of Bullseye and showed them all the steps in our

manufacturing process. I described how I had stopped the plume in about one-third ofmy

problem melts by reducing the borax component. They observed the melt process and the

resulting plume. 6 Owing to Bullseye's diligent efforts to resolve the problem and the company's

transparency, on July 16, 1987, DEQ issued an addendum to its permit, extending the deadlines

by one year. 7 Again, DEQ approved Bullseye·s response to the plant emissions referenced by

5A true, correct and complete copy of Bullseye's 1986 Air Contaminant Discharge Permit is 24 attached as Exhibit I to the Menikoff Declaration.

6A true and correct copy ofDEQ"s March 12, 1987 interoffice memo recording this meeting at 25 Bullseye is attached as Exhibit J to the Menikoff Declaration.

7A true and complete copy of the Addendum to Bullseye's 1986 Air Contaminant Discharge Permit is 26 attached as Exhibit K to the Menikoff Declaration.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

plaintiff, and did not require further monitoring or control of emissions.

17. Approximately one year later, on March I, 1988, two DEQ inspectors visited me

at Bullseye for a compliance demonstration. I have seen an internal DEQ memo of that meeting. 8

I told the inspectors that changing Bullseye's processes had cost more than $500,000, but that we

were stronger for the process. The inspector took opacity readings. He noted that the new

furnaces kept a neutral pressure and, as a result, "operate cleaner because they will not exhaust

out when being charged." (Emphasis added.) Once again, in the course of my dealing with DEQ

on this issue, the department made no mention of HAPs. Rather, in conclusion, the inspector

stated:

llulhtye !)la.u has achieved compllanee thro11gh the method choHn by Daniel (reformulation r~tht,r than control equipment), They are n-0v melting 7000 lbs of material per day, 50 weeks per year. Thdr daily wastt conshU of around 3000 lbs per da:ly vhich is hauled to landfill by AllS Garbage Servictl,

18. DEQ was satisfied that Bullseye's batch melts met the necessary emissions

standards and Bullseye had no reason to believe that the emissions posed a risk to the health and

welfare of the community.

Bullseye Improves Manufacturing Processes

19. Plaintiffs portray Bullseye as operating essentially the same production process

and emitting the same plume of emissions for the past 30 years. That simply is not true. As

discussed above, the manufacturing process changes in the mid- to late-eighties taught us how to

control our emissions. Further, over the ensuing years, we have developed hundreds of new glass

recipes, and at all times we have been cognizant about the need to control emissions. Along the

8 A true and accurate copy of the internal DEQ memorandum that I reviewed, and which 26 summarized our March 1, 1988 meeting, is attached as Exhibit L to the Menikoff Declaration.


5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330 lake Oswego, OR 97035

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

JO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

way, we have greatly expanded our facility, added and rebuilt numerous furnaces, and upgraded

our materials-handling. Environmental and health concerns have always played a part in our

decision-making. A few notable improvements follow:

20. A significant production change occurred in 2005, when Bullseye installed a

system to use liquid oxygen, rather than ambient air, in its furnaces. This produced more

consistent and cleaner fuel burning in the furnaces, and also made it easier to avoid variations in

the melting process that might cause visible emissions. More significantly, as DEQ has

acknowledged, this new process dramatically reduced Bullseye's greenhouse gas emissions,

including a 40% reduction in the emission of nitrous oxide, which was one ofBullseye's stated

objectives in moving to an oxygen-based system. 9 This process, however, had the side-effect of

increasing the build-up of particulate matter on the walls of the stacks, and thus led us to engage

in a routine of stack cleaning, which 1 describe below.

21. Moreover, whenever we became aware of a concern regarding the handling of

hazardous materials we addressed it. For example, we learned over time that dust containing

HAPs could be present in the room where we were mixing batches of raw materials. As a result,

we constructed a baghouse through which the batch room air is circulated and filtered. As

discussed elsewhere, this same baghouse was used to address concerns about ash or glass

particles escaping the facility. We would have installed a baghouse on the furnaces if we had

been aware that we were emitting an)thing more than an insignificant amount of metals.

Description of Stack and Baghouse Cleaning

22. As I explained earlier, I am aware that melting glass causes volatilization of

9This information is contained in Bullseye's 2011 Air Contaminant Discharge Permit and Review 26 Report, which is attached as Exhibit G to the Menikoff Declaration.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

certain parts of the batch mix, such as sodium and borax. Those materials would flow from the

furnace into the stacks. Depending on the moisture content of those materials, and outside factors

such as the dew point, the volatilized sodium and boron can condense into a powdery white

particulate, and collect in the stacks. Decades ago-in the l 980s-I had this particulate tested

and learned that it was made up of sodium borate. Therefore, I continued to believe that any

materials collecting in the stack were made up of the non-hazardous materials that volatilize

during the melt process, and not metals.

23. The 2005 introduction of pure oxygen into the furnaces ( described in paragraph

20, above) changed the volatilization of the batch materials. Instead of producing nitrous oxide,

the process produced water vapor that carries the volatile materials. This made for a stickier

particulate matter. Also, the volume of air passing through the furnace dropped by three-quarters,

greatly reducing the velocity of emissions. These factors caused more particulate to condense in

the stack. Consequently, Bullseye experienced an increased build-up of materials in its furnace

stacks. This build-up, however, in no way indicated the presence of heavy metals in the stacks.

24. Maintenance workers clean the stack build-up as needed. Those workers are

subject to OSHA requirements, and necessarily wear protective gear when cleaning out the

furnace after a melt or when vacuuming dust in the batch room. They wear protective gear

whenever they come into close contact with dust and particulate produced by the cleaning

process. We had no reason to believe that their exposure to particulate matter when coming into

direct contact with furnaces and stacks bore any comparison to ambient air quality in the

neighborhood.

25. The new baghouse constructed in 2016 produces waste material. This material is



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

not, however, representative of previous emissions. First, a baghouse is essentially a large

vacuum cleaner attached to the smoke stacks. It sucks material out of the furnace that would

never have been emitted and most likely affects the volatilization processes. Second, to achieve

greater efficiency, the interior of the baghouse is regularly coated with lime, to protect the filters

from moisture and to improve efficiency. At least two-thirds of the material being captured by

the baghouses consists of this lime.

Purchase of Baghouse in 2005

26. In 2005, I realized the conversion of the ovens to pure oxygen was producing

more water vapor in the emissions, and I became concerned that depending on the outside

temperature and dew point, we could produce water-vapor emissions that were visible and could

potentially violate the opacity limits of our permit. As I had done in the late-l 980s, I began

considering means to control that opacity. I bought two used, stainless steel baghouses online for

$1,000, because (]) they were a great bargain, and (2) I thought they might be useful if the

opacity problem worsened. l was trying to get ahead of the curve: should a problem arise, I

would have a possible solution. But the water-vapor plume problem I had feared never

developed, and it was not necessary to install these baghouses. It should be noted that these

baghouses were not ready-made, ready-fit products. Substantial retrofitting would have been

necessary to install them. Had we been aware of a metals-emissions concern, we would have



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

undertaken that work. We simply did not know there was a problem. These two baghouses bear

little resemblance to the state-of-the-art, $600,000 baghouse Bullseye installed in 2016. 10

Bullseye's Waste Disposal Process

27. Our manufacturing processes produce waste materials at various stages. The batch

room baghouse produces raw material dust. The maintenance crew (in protective gear) collects

material throughout the facility when cleaning. Sometimes, there is a batch of glass that is the

wrong color or otherwise fails quality standards. After a melt, glass and other residue is cleaned

out of the furnace. Historically, all of this waste was treated in the same manner. It was put back

into the furnace and glassified, that is to say, turned into glass. When this glass was not useable,

it was thrown away. Bullseye did not callously discard hazardous materials into the environment.

We threw away colored glass. DEQ was well aware that we reintroduced waste materials into the

melting process, and that we disposed of glass. 11 All such melts of waste materials were

perfonned in exactly the same way as other melts. All the standard processes regarding

temperature and damper settings were used. The statements in Patrick O'Neal's affidavit-that

we turned up the furnaces to the highest possible temperature setting and opened the dampers

beyond normal-are not true. (Plaintiffs' Ex. 41).

Difference between Continuous and Periodic Furnaces

28. All ofBullseye's furnaces are used to melt one batch of raw materials at a time.

After that process is complete, liquid glass is ladled out by hand onto a machine that presses it

flat. Once all the batch has been used, the oven lies idle for some time. These are properly

101n 2016, in response to the newly-identified HAPs emissions issue, Bullseye worked to adapt 25 one of these baghouses as a prototype and temporary fix until a more sophisticated, state of the art

baghouse could be developed. 26 11 See paragraph 17, above.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

described as periodic or batch furnaces. The term ··continuous furnace .. is a term of art in the

glass industry. It describes a huge industrial furnace that continuously receives raw materials,

and produces a continuous flow of glass at the other end. These furnaces are used by the large

volume glass producers like Coming and have a capacity that is several thousand times larger

than Bullseye's batches. The volume of emissions from those furnaces is similarly huge.

29. Comparing the emissions from one ofBullseye's furnaces to a continuous furnace

is like comparing a lawn mower to a diesel locomotive. When EPA created rules for large glass

manufacturers, it made no sense to apply them to our much smaller operation, even though both

processes might emit similar particulate matter. When you start a lawnmower, you may get a

burst of exhaust. But it is nothing compared to what a diesel engine produces as it runs

continuously for days.

30. I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30, a third-party's transcription ofa meeting 1

attended and I firmly believe the author misunderstood and mistakenly recorded what I said.

During this part of the meeting, we were discussing why small colored art manufacturers were

not covered by the EPA glass manufacturing regulations. My point then, as now, was that any

emissions from a batch furnace would be very brief, and would occur at the beginning of the

melt, at the time of charging. 12 This is when we historically had opacity problems. I then

explained that in contrast, continuous furnaces would be constantly charged with raw materials,

and would produce a continuous emission of much greater volume than could possibly be

produced by a small batch furnace. None ofmy comments were directed to HAPs.

31. I am familiar with the operations of Seattle-based Spectrum Glass, a colored art

"The term ··charging•· describes the step in the glass making process when raw materials are 26 introduced into the furnace.

PAGE 13-- A•'FIDA VIT OF DAN SCHWOERER GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

glass manufacturer that has since closed. I was unaware until 2016 that Spectrum had a baghouse

on any of its furnaces. I have heard conflicting versions of whether the baghouse was connected

to a batch or continuous furnace. I am confident that if Spectrum was using a "continuous'"

furnace, it was not on the scale that large glass manufacturers use. 1

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this September I, 20 I?: /; / /

OFFICIAL SEAL AMANDA KATHLEEN FURRE

NOTARY PUBLIC • OREGON COMMISSION NO. 942685

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 9, 2019

// /

{W:::...:::_:-:::--_<Y ____ _ Notary Public

My commission expires:


5285 Meadows Rd .. Suite 330 Lake Oswego. OR 97035

EXHIBITB

·I

,----..,.~

oea-,

'l'C.,.O"'- ATlVE/-1 :;o~{~-.:l«

Department of Environmental Quality

522 SW. FIFTH AVENUE. BOX 1760. PORTLAND. OREGON 97207 PHONE (503) 229-5696

REGISTRA!·ION OF AIR CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Registration required by OAR 340-20-005 Complete and return within thirty (30) days of this date: JUL 1 0 ~s-·34

Plant Site Business Name: Bullseye Glass Co~pany

Address at Plant Site: 3722 S.E. 21st Avenue f . PoiJland, OR

Nature o Business at Plant ite: Manufacturing

Responsible Person to Contact R.T. Lovett at Plant Site of for Pla:-rt:

Legal Owner: Daniel Schwoerer

Phone:

Zip,

Glass

232-8887

97202

Mailing Address: 3722 S.E. 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

Sigr.2d: ---------------------------Tit le, Ope,;-ations Officer

Dat:e, August 8, 1984

Hazardous Emissions see OJI.R 34'J-22-l02 for definition of terms

1983 Data: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

Types .::if Hazardous Materials: A.'nount purchased lbs/yr

Arsenic Trioxide 1200 lbs Cadmium Oxide 50 lbs Cadmium Sulphide 900 lbs Selenium 400 lbs Silver 40 lbs

EstimateG. amount. * exhausted from s~ack

.4 lbs

* 1.8 lbs

• 7 lbs .024 lbs

If emission cor.trol equipment is used, indicate efficiency and explain en attached s!':.eet.

* Estimated from worst case scenerio

* Used only for experimentation - no regular batch to estimate from.

EXHIBIT C

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: D6/01/91 Page 1 of 4 Pages

AIR CXlNTAMINl'NT DIS~AAGE PERMIT

Department of Environmental Quality 522 Southwest Fifth, Portland, OR 97204

Mai 11 ng Address: Box 1760, Portland, OR 97207 Telephone: (503) 229-5696

Issued in accordance with the provisions of ORS 468.310

ISSUED TO:

Bullseye G 1 ass Co. 3722 SE 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

PLl'NT SITE:

3722 SE 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

INFORMATION RB.IED UPON:

Appl f cation No. 11462

Date Received: June 10, 1985

1:/\::~PARTIENT OF ENVIRONIENTAL OUALITT ~ AUG 1't 1966

-----------Fred Hansen, Director Dated

Source(s) Permitted to Discharge Air Contaminants:

Name of A1c Contamjnant source Existing source not listed on Table l for which an air quality probl an is identified liy the Department, medium cost

PecmJtted Actjvjtjes

standard Industry code as Listed 3211

The pennittee is herewith allowed to discharge exhaust gases containing air contaminants only in accordance with the pennit application and the limitations contained in this permit. Until such time as this penn1t expires or 1s modified or revoked, the pennittee 1s herewith allowed to discharge exhaust gases from those processes and activities directly related or associated thereto in accordance with the requiranents, limitations, and conditions of this permit from the air contaminant source(sl listed above.

The specific 11 st1 ng of requi ranents, l 1mitat1ons and conditions contained herein does not rel 1eve the pennittee from comply 1ng with all other rules and standards of the Department, nor does it allow significant levels of aniss1ons of air contaminants not limited in this pennit or contained 1n the pennft appl 1cation.

Performance standards and Emission Limits

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 06/01/91 Page 2 of 4 Pages

l. The perm 1ttee shall at all times mai nta1 n and operate all air contaminant generating processes and all contaminant control equipment at ful 1 efficiency and effectiveness, such that the emissions of air contaminants are kept at the lowest practicable levels.

2. Particulate emissions from any single fuel burning equipment shall not exceed either of the following:

a. 0.1 grains per standard cubic foot calculated to twelve percent (lz:l) carbon dioxide.

b. An opacity equal to or greater than twenty percent (20)g) for a period aggregating more than three (3) minutes 1n any one (l) hour.

PJaot Sjte Emission\ Jmits 3. Annual emissions of particulate on a plant site basis shall not exceed

one ton per year or six pounds per day.

source Emission ReductJon Plan 4. In the event an Air Pollution Alert, Warning, or Emergency Episode

1 s declared 1 n the Portland area by the Department, the permittee shall take actions appropriate to the declared A1r Pollution Episode as listed in Oregon Acillinistrative Rules 340-27 "Air Pollution Emergencies. n

Air Pollution Episodes wfll be declared by the Department and information will be made available through the radio and television media.

5. The permittee shall provide controls for the glass furnaces in accordance with the following schedule:

a. By no later than March 15,-1986, the permittee shall design a prototype test furnace using a screw charger.

b. By no later than June 1, 1986, the permittee shall install the test furnace.

c. By no later than September 13, 1986, the permlttee shall reformulate the glass compos1ti on.

d. By no later than December 15, 1986, the perm1ttee shall modify the remai n1 ng furnaces w 1th screw chargers.

e. By no later than January l, 1987, the perm1ttee shall demonstrate that the glass furnaces are capable of operating in cont1 nuous compliance with Condition 2b.

f. Wfth1 n seven (7) days after each 1tem, b and d above, Is completed the permittee shall inform the Department in writing that the respective item has been accomplished.


Monjtor1ng and Reporting 6. The pennittee shall effectively inspect and monitor the operation

and maintenance of the pl ant and associated air contaminant control fac111t1es. A record of all such data shall be maintained for a period of two years and be avai 1 able at the pl ant site at al 1 ti mes for inspection by the authorized representatives of the Department. At least the follQl1ng parameters shall be monitored and recorded at the indicated interval.

a.

b.

Parameter The amount of glass produced.

The amount of all materials used to produce glass.

Minjmum Moo1tarJog freQuency Monthly

Monthly

8. The pennfttee shall report to the Department by January 15 of each year this penn1t is in effect the follQiing information for the preceding calendar year:

a. Pl ant product! on on an annual bas! s.

b. Quantities and types of fuels used on an annual basis.

c. The amount of all mater! al s used to produce glass on an annual basis.

Fee Schedule 8. The Annual Canpliance Determination Fee for this pennit is due on

May l of each year this pennit is in effect. An Invoice indicating the clllount, as detennined by Department reg.ilations, will be mailed prior to the above date.

P26313 .5

,i

'

General Conditions and Disclaimers


Gl. The permittee shall allow Department of Environmental Quality representatives access to the plant site and pertinent records at all reasonable times for the purposes of making inspections, surveys, collecting samples, obtaining data, reviewing and copying air contaminant emission discharge records and otherwise conducting all necessary functions related to this permit.

G2. The permittee is prohibited from conducting open burning except as may be allowed by OAR Chapter 340, Sections 23-025 through 23-115.

G3. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Notice of Construction• form, or Permit Application Form, and obtain written approval before:

a. Constructing or installing any new source of air contaminant emissions, including air pollution control equipment, or

b. Modifying or altering an existing source that may significantly affect the emission of air contaminants, or

c. Making any physical change which increases emissions, or

d. Changing the method of operation, the process, or the fuel use, or increasing the normal hours of operation to levels above those contained in the permit application and reflected in this permit and which result in increased emissions.

G4. The permittee shall notify the Department at least 24 hours in advance of any planned shutdown of air pollution control equipment for scheduled maintenance that may cause a violation of applicable standards.

GS. The permittee shall notify the Department by telephone or in person within one (1) hour of any malfunction of air pollution control equipment or other upset condition that may cause a violation of the applicable standards or within one (l) hour of the time the permittee knew or reasonably should have known of its occurrence. Such notice shall include the nature and quantity of the increased emissions that have occurred and the expected duration of the breakdown. The Departmental telephone numbers are:

Portland Salem Bend

229-5263 378-8240 388-6146

Medford Pendleton

776-6010 276-4063

G6. The permittee shall at all times conduct dust suppression measures to meet the requirements set forth in "Fugitive Emissions• and "Nuisance Conditions• in OAR Clapter 340, Sections 21-050 through 21-060.

en. Application for a modification of this permit must be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the source modification. A Filing Fee and an Application Processing Fee must be submitted with an application for the permit modification.

GS. Application for renewal of this permit must be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the permit expiration date. A Filing Fee and an Annual Compliance Determination Fee must be sul::mitted with the application for the permit renewal.

G9. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

GlO. This permit is subject to revocation for cause as provided by law.

AQ.GC (4/83)

Permit Number: 26-3135 Appl lcati on No.: 11462

Department of Environmental Quality Afr Quality Control Division

AIR CXlNTAMINANT DISQ-IAAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW REPORT

Bullseye Glass Co. 3722 SE 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

Background 1. Bul 1 seye Gass Company operates a stained glass manufacturing pl ant

located at 3722 Southeast 21st Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97202.

2. The annual production capacity is over 600 tons of stained glass per year.

3. Existing visible and particulate emission sources at the facility consist of the foll owing:

Four glass furnace stacks

4. All emissions at the plant are uncontrolled.

5. The estimated annual rate of particulate al r contaminant emissions is 1 ess th an one ton.

6. The company operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 49 weeks per year.

7. The following hazardous material and a material having possible hazardous by-products are used in the manufacturing process:

Arsenic trioxide Cadmium oxide Sal eni um Cadmium sulfide

8. Estimated annual fuel consumption consists of the foll owing:

a. 300,000 therms natural gas.

EyaJuatJon 9. The facility which was not on permit was inspected on 04/25/85 and

found 1n non,compliance wfth opacity regulations.

10. The emissions from Bullseye Glass are scheduled to be in compliance wfth Department of Environmental Quality emission limitations by January 1, 1987.

Permit Number: 26-3135 Application No.: 11462

11. The proposed permit is a new permit for an existing source.

12, The proposed permit Plant Site Emission Limit (PSEL) is greater than the Baseline Emission Rate (calendar year 1978), The increase in emissions above the baseline is listed below and is less than the Sigificant Emission Rate.

Pollutant

Particulate

Tons increase/year

l

13. Bullseye Glass is currently adhering to the compliance schedule in the permit.

14, It is recommended that the proposed permit be approved for issuance to Bullseye Glass Company.

l¼lW :RP :s P26313 ,SR

EXHIBITD

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



SCOTT MEEKER and ERIN MEEKER, KELLY GOODWIN, BRUCE ELY and KRISTI HAUKE, ELIZABETH BORTE and RINO PASINI, CHRISTIAN MINER, JUDY SANSERI and HOWARD BANICH; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

CASE NO. 16CV07002

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN

11 Plaintiffs,

12 V.

13 BULLSEYE GLASS CO., an Oregon corporation,

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendant.

I, Eric Durrin, have been the controller at Bullseye Glass since 1993. I have personal

knowledge of the matters discussed herein.

Communications with DEO About Bullseve Emissions

I. Since approximately 1993, I have been directly involved in most ofBullseye's

interactions and communications with DEQ. In all of our dealings with DEQ, Bullseye has been

transparent and candid and we have willingly accepted the guidance and direction DEQ

provided. In significant part, my belief that Bullseye was not emitting material quantities of

hazardous air pollutants was supported by my communications with DEQ.

PAGE 1-- AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l l

12

13

14

15

16

17

IS

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2. DEQ permitted Bullseye to emit tons of particulate matter from its uncontrolled

furnaces. DEQ never required Bullseye to measure its actual emissions nor did it ever request

source testing of its emissions. Instead, DEQ employed a formula based on how much glass

Bullseye produced to determine the quantity of particulate emitted.

3. Between 2007 and 20 I 5, applying this formula to its production, Bullseye

routinely emitted only about 16% of its permitted amount. 1 ,i Ex. 15 The only concern DEQ ever

expressed about these emissions was their opacity, i.e., whether they were visible. On a small

number of occasions over the past three decades, Bullseye's emissions were visible. On each

occasion Bullseye, in consultation with DEQ, took whatever steps were necessary to address the

opacity concern.

4. DEQ was aware that Bullseye used arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and other

metals in its glass-making processes. Yet because of the relatively small quantities of these

materials used by Bullseye, DEQ expressed no concerns about this use in an uncontrolled

furnace. In fact, DEQ stated that "[a]ssuming that all of the material was released, the facility

would not have potential to emit single or combined HAP at levels of concern."'2 Further, DEQ

later told Bullseye that it could emit up to 2. 7 tons of arsenic perfurnace without violating

federal guidelines. 3 Yet at the time Bullseye only melted a combined total ofless than a ton of

arsenic. As a result, DEQ concluded that Bullseye met federal guidelines and did not need to test

its emissions to determine actual releases of arsenic-if any-into the environment. [CITE]

'Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15. 22004 Air Contaminant Discharge Permit and Review Report at 4 '1115. A true and correct copy of

Bullseye's 2004 Permit is attached as Exhibit F to the MenikoffDeclaration. 32011 Air Contaminant Discharge Pem1it at 3 '112.l(a) and Review Report at 6 ,16. A true and

correct copy of Bullseye ·s 2011 Permit is attached as Exhibit G to the Menikoff Declaration.

PAGE2-AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

5. In 2000, a Bullseye neighbor had complained that Bullseye was discharging "hot

ash." Notably, this was the only complaint DEQ had received from 1999 through 2004, when

DEQ renewed Bullseye's permit. During the 2004 permit renewal process, DEQ addressed the

"hot ash" complaint and concluded: 'This is unlikely. Water is added to the mixed dry

ingredients as a moistening agent prior to firing in the furnace." [2004 permit report.] Even

though DEQ did not require it, Bullseye responded to this concern by constructing a baghouse to

collect dust from the air in its batch room, where raw materials including HAPs are stored and

mixed.

6. In 2007, DEQ reported that it had received a complaint from the neighboring

cement company about a "constant flow of 'blue-grey' smoke" with fifteen to fifty percent

opacity. DEQ personnel investigated the matter and could not verify the complaint.4

Furthermore, DEQ did not consider this incident significant enough to merit inclusion in its

report of complaints listed in Bullseye's 2011 Permit Review Report. 5

7. I recall a complaint in 2013 about powdered glass collecting on Bullseye's roof.

This situation, however, had nothing to do with emissions from Bullseye's furnaces, nor did it

have anything to do with HAPs. Rather, it involved Bullseye's ventilation system, which had

apparently been drawing glass dust from around a glass crushing machine onto the roof. Bullseye

corrected the problem by connecting its glass crushing equipment to the baghouse discussed in

paragraph 5, above. The crushing equipment has been continuously attached to baghouses ever

since, and there has been no rooftop collection of powered glass since.

25 4This information is contained in handwritten notes attached to DEQ Pollution Complaint Intake form. A true and correct copy of these notes are attached as Exhibit T to

26 5See footnote 3, above, Bullseye's 2011 Penni! Review Report at 4 ~ 9

PAGEJ-A}"FIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

I I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Bullseye's Response to EPA Proposed NESHAP for Large Glass Manufacturers

8. I am aware the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to issue National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, also known as "NESHAPS." Bullseye's 2004 DEQ

permit said there were no NESHAPS applicable to Bullseye. In addition, the permit said that

EPA's Performance Standards for Glass, contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart CC, were not

applicable to Bullseye. 6

9. In August 2007 a DEQ employee, Kathy Amidon, contacted me to alert Bullseye

that EPA was considering a new NESHAP that would be applicable to glass manufacturers. She

told me that the new regulation was aimed at large float and container glass manufacturers. She

said the rule writers may have been completely unaware of the colored art glass industry, and

may have inadvertently written something that could apply to Bullseye.7 Ms. Amidon shared this

information with me during the same time period I was talking with her about the ·'blue smoke''

complaint, described in paragraph 6, above.

l 0. On September 25, 2007, Ms. Amidon forwarded an EPA Fact Sheet concerning

the proposed NESHAP. 8 She mentioned that EPA was only allowing 30 days for comments. 9

After reviewing the Fact Sheet, I wrote back to Ms. Amidon and explained that the Fact Sheet

indicated the new rule would affect approximately 21 existing glass manufacturers and that "no

6See footnote 2, above, Bullseye's 2004 Penni! Review Report at 4 iJ16. 23

7 Although Plaintiffs attached an excerpt of my deposition, at Exhibit 3, they conveniently left out the pages containing my testimony that it was DEQ who alerted me to the new proposed NESHAP. The

24 relevant portions ofmy deposition testimony are attached as Exhibit N to the MenikoffDeclaration. 8A true and correct copy of the EPA Fact Sheet I reviewed in 2007 is attached as Exhibit P to

25 The Menikoff Declaration. 9 A true and correct copy of this September 25, 2007 email from Kathy Amidon to me is attached

26 as Exhibit Oto the Menikoff Declaration.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

small businesses are impacted by the proposed rule." 10 I asked whether the rules would apply to

Bullseye given that it was a small business. Ms. Amidon suggested that I contact EPA with my

question.

11. The Fact Sheet also indicated that the proposed rule was designed to apply to

glass manufacturers because they are "major sources" of pollutants. Because Bullseye used only

a small fraction of the materials necessary to qualify it for "major source" designation, it had not

been designated a "major source" of pollutants. 11

12. I took up Ms. Amidon' s suggestion and contacted both EPA and other colored art

glass manufacturers. As a result, several art glass manufacturers had a conference call with EPA

on October 9, 2007. I submitted written comments to EPA that same day. 12 In my

communications with EPA, I learned that the authors of the proposed EPA rule were wholly

unaware of the small colored art glass industry when they drafted the rule. They were receptive

to our input and comments because the rule had been drafted based on a study oflarge float and

container glass manufacturers who produce thousands of times more glass than Bullseye. As I

pointed out in my letter, the body of the proposed EPA rule suggested that it would only apply to

three furnaces-not the colored art glass manufacturing industry.

I 3. The large glass manufacturers use "continuous furnaces." Continuous furnaces

operate 24 hours per day and are constantly fed raw material and constantly produce a flow of

glass. Furnaces of this type can produce up to 1,000 times more glass that Bullseye. It seemed

10A true and correct copy ofmy September 25, 2007 email to Kathy Amidon is attached as 25 Exhibit S to the Menikoff Declaration.

11 See footnote 8, above, EPA Fact Sheet at 2. 26 12See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 38.

PAGES--AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

obvious to me that regulations designed to address emissions by companies that much larger than

Bullseye could not be intended to apply to Bullseye.

14. In my October 9, 2007 letter to EPA, I suggested several ways to modify the

proposed rule to clarify that it was not intended to apply to colored art glass manufacturers. One

suggestion I offered was that periodic furnaces of the type Bullseye uses could be excluded from

the rule, and thereby distinguished from the continuous furnaces used by the large

manufacturers. 13

15. In addition to my October 9, 2007 correspondence with EPA, I wrote a separate

letter to EPA so that I could provide relevant confidential business information. I stated therein

that Bullseye used only "periodic furnaces (not continuous furnaces)" and detailed the manner in

which Bullseye processed its batch material. 14 In addition, I reported that Bullseye made 2,515

tons of glass during 2006, and that the HAPs included in the proposed rule accounted for about

. 78% of the total raw materials consumed.

16. I have reviewed Plaintiff's Exhibit 39, which purports to record phone and email

communications with me and other colored glass manufacturers. Some of the information is

inaccurate. Specifically, the information attributed to me concerning the amount of HAPs glass

Bullseye was producing and the use of arsenic is inconsistent with the information contained in

years ofregulatory filings with the DEQ and EPA. I have always been candid with DEQ and

EPA about the amount of colored glass Bullseye produces as well as the raw materials used in

the manufacturing process.

25 13See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 38. 14A true and correct copy of my October 9, 2007 letter to EPA is attached as Exhibit Q to the

26 Menikoff Declaration.

PAGE6-AFFIDA VIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

17. I was unaware that during this process an employee of Spectrum, a Seattle-based

colored art glass company, told EPA that Spectrum's continuous furnace produced fewer

emissions than its periodic furnaces. EPA did not tell me about this comment or ask me for a

response. I do not know if the statement contained in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 39, at page 4, is true or

not, but I believe that Spectrum, then one of the largest colored art glass manufacturers, was a

very small-volume producer in comparison to the glass companies the EPA regulations were

aimed at. In any event, even with this information, EPA decided to modify the regulation to

create an exclusion for the "periodic furnaces" used by Bullseye and the colored art glass

industry.

18. On January 2, 2008, I received an email from Kathy Amidon ofDEQ advising me

that the rule had been changed to exempt "pot furnaces and periodic furnaces." I replied that all

ofBullseye's furnaces were periodic and explained that our glass is made in batches. I thanked

the Ms. Amidon and commented, "Your [sic] were the only person in any agency in the US to

notify a manufacturer ofa potential impact of the EPA regulations changes. You helped all of the

colored glass manufacturers." 15

19. When DEQ renewed Bullseye's Air Contaminant Discharge Permit in 2011, the

Report supporting that permit said: "40 C.F.R. 63, Subpart SSSSSS, NESHAP for Glass

Manufacturing Area Sources, is not applicable to this facility because the regulation applies only

to continuous furnaces. Bullseye operates only periodic furnaces."

25 15 A true and correct copy of my January 2, 2008 email to Kathy Amidon is attached as Exhibit W to the Menikoff Declaration.

26

PAGE 7-AFFIDA VIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Bullseye's Compliance with Federal and State Health and Safety Standards

20. In the course of its business, Bullseye is required to interact with numerous

federal and state agencies. As described above, DEQ is the agency responsible for regulating and

permitting Bullseye's external air emissions. The air quality inside the facility, however, is

governed by federal and state OSHA regulations. As with DEQ, Bullseye has always been

candid with OSHA, frequently consulted with OSHA, and rigorously observed all OSHA

requirements.

21. OSHA has an elaborate set of requirements safeguarding employee health. As a

result, Bullseye is required to: (I) train employees on the proper handling of hazardous materials;

(2) monitor employee exposure to hazardous materials; (3) monitor employee medical

conditions, when indicated by exposure testing; and, ( 4) provide protective equipment to

employees working closely with HAPs. Bullseye conscientiously informs its employees that they

are working with potentially hazardous materials, just as it candidly described its use of those

same materials to DEQ.

22. OSHA requires employees to wear protective equipment when they risk exposure

to very high concentrations of HAPs. These are the sort of concentrations only present in the

workplace, when an individual is working in a closed environment with raw HAPs materials in

large quantities. I know from personal observation that events occur within the factory involving

raw materials that could expose workers to concentrations that would never occur outside the

plant. For example, I have seen batch room employees scooping powdered metal compounds out

of containers and into a batch mixer.

PAGE 8-AFFIDA VIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group

5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330 Lake Oswego. OR 97035

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23. Plaintiffs Exhibit 33 sets forth the OSHA concentration levels requiring

employee protection (called Recommended Control Limits). There are two levels of exposure

risk: (I) an "Action·· level, which means that safety gear should be provided to an employee; and

(2) a Personal Exposure Limit (PEL), which requires medical follow-up. Those exposure limits

are thousands of times higher than Oregon's Ambient Air Benchmarks, and thousands of times

higher than the average air concentration monitored near Bullseye in October 2015.

24. Bullseye's concern that these levels might be present in the workplace has nothing

to do with air quality outside the facility. Indeed, protective equipment is not required unless an

employee is exposed to roughly 10,000 times the air concentrations reported by DEQ's October

2015 monitoring:

Concentration Limit Comparison All expressed in Milligrams per Cubic Meter

Oregon Ambient Average Air OSHA Levels Benchmark Monitoring

October 2015

Lead PEL: .05 .0000150 .00000429 Action: .03

Cadmium PEL: .005 .00000006 .00000294 Action: .0025

Arsenic PEL: .01 .00000002 .00000317 Action: .005

Chromium PEL: .05 NIA .00000715

25. Employee air exposure is measured by small devices occasionally worn by

individual employees that collect particles they might be exposed to. These measuring devices

have no practical application to measuring outside emissions. Our experience with these

sampling devices shows that results vary widely over a very small area. Thus, a maintenance



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

worker's device might show a high-level exposure, while a caster working 25 feet away might

not show any elevated exposure at all.

26. OSHA routinely inspects the Bullseye facility. During those visits, OSHA

employs devices that test the air within the facility. Those devices have no application to

measuring outside emissions.

27. Bullseye's maintenance workers routinely wear protective gear because they are

involved in cleaning up raw materials within the plant. Those same employees are responsible

for cleaning out the stacks. These are dirty jobs, bringing employees into close contact not just

with hazardous materials, but also with furnace residue and heavy concentrations of glass and

other dust. Bullseye does not separately test each of these activities to determine whether

maintenance workers are exposed to HAPs. Rather, out of an abundance of caution for the health

and safety of our employees, Bullseye has procedures in place to require maintenance workers to

wear protective gear during most, if not all, of their functions.

Eric Durrin

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on SeptemperJ?20l7. ,,/,,. /"

-

OFFICIAL SEAL AMANDA KATHLEEN FURRE

NOTARY PUBLIC· OREGON COMMISSION NO. 942685

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 9, 2019

~ My commission expires: V;t/2::J!f

PAGE to-AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC DURRIN GRM Law Group 5285 Meadows Rd., Suite 330

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

EXHIBIT E

Memorandum

To: Source File

From: Cory-Ann Chang Lll-C

Date: 08-25-1999

Re: Compliance Inspection - #26-3135 ·

Source: Bullseye Glass Co.

Contact Eric Durrin, Controller

Date: August 20, 1999

Location: 3722 SE 21 61 Avenue, Portland 97202

Phone: 232-8887

Fax: 238-9963

Description of Process: manufacture specialty art glass

Compliance Status: reviewed annual reports. All within PSEL limits and on time. Renewal/modification application currently being processed by region. There is a request for an increase in emissions, by either adding new kilns or expanding existing ones. The increase will remain below the SER. No opacity or odors observed from the kilns. There has been one complaint in the previous permit period, although no problem was ever identified.

The facility is in compliance with all permit conditions at the time of the inspection. The new permit should be issued around September 1999.

Other Issues: EPA nor the Department has rectified the issue of HAPs from Bullseye's glassmaklng process. There are several additives that are used for color, that may be considered hazardous. However, it is unknown how much of the material Is bound within the glass as opposed to being emitted. Until more is known about the process and/or emissions, Bullseye has agreed to monitor all raw materials and continue reporting them as part of the permit conditions.

1

EXHIBIT F

P ·. Number: 26-3135 ,ration Date: 6/1/09

Page 1 of 11

STANDARD

AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PERMIT

Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region

2020 SW 4th Avenue, #400 Portland, Oregon 97201

(503) 229-5554

This permit is being issued in accordance with the provisions of ORS 468A.040 and based on the land use compatibility findings included in the permit record.

ISSUED TO:

Bullseye Glass Co. 3722 SE 21 st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

INFORMATION RELIED UPON:

Application No.: Date Received:

021018 4/19104

PLANT SITE LOCATION:


LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FINDING:

Approving Authority: City of Portland Approval Date: 3/11197

ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ruback,orthwest Region Air Quality Manager Dated AUG O 6 2004

Source(s) Permitted to Discharge Air Contaminants (OAR 340-216-0020):

Table 1 Code Source Description SIC

Part B, 74 Problem for which an air quality concern has been identified Stained (flat) glass manufacturing 3211

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 6/1/09

Page 2 of 11

1.0 GENERAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITS ..................................................... .3

2.0 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION STANDARDS ...................................... .4

3.0 PLANT SITE EMISSION LIMITS .................................................................................... .4

4.0 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION ................................................................................ 5

5.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 5

6.0 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 6

7.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 6

8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 8

9.0 FEES .................................................................................................................................... 9

I 0.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISCLAIMERS ............................................................ 9

11.0 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND DEFINITIONS .............................................. 11

P Number: 26-3135 EA,,iration Date: 6/1/09

Page 3 of 11

1.0 GENERAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITS

1.1. Visible Emissions The permittee must comply with the following visible emission limits, as applicable: ·

a. Emissions from any fuel burning equipment must not equal or exceed 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than 3 minutes in any one hour.

b. Emissions from any air contaminant source other than fuel burning equipment must not equal or exceed 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than 30 seconds in any one hour.

1.2. Particnlate Matter The permittee must comply with the following particulate matter Emissions emission limits, as applicable:

a. Particulate matter emissions from any fuel burning equipment installed on or before June 1, 1970 must not exceed 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot, corrected to 12% CO2 or 50% excess air.

b. Particulate matter emissions from any fuel burning equipment installed, constructed, or modified after June 1, 1970 must not exceed 0.1 grains per standard cubic foot, corrected to 12% CO2 or 50% excess air.

c. Particulate matter emissions from any air contaminant source installed on or before June 1, 1970 other than fuel burning equipment and fugitive emission sources must not exceed 0.2 grains per standard cubic foot.

d. Particulate matter emissions from any air contaminant source installed, constructed, or modified after June 1, 1970 other than fuel burning equipment and fugitive emission sources must not exceed 0.1 grains per standard cubic foot.

1.3. Fugitive Emissions The permittee must take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive dust emissions by:

a. Treating vehicular traffic areas of the plant site under the control of the permittee.

b. Operating all air contaminant-generating processes so that fugitive type dust associated with the operation will be adequately controlled at all times.

c. Storing collected materials from air pollution control equipment in a covered container or other method equally effective in preventing the material from becoming

1.4.

1.5.

Particulate Matter Fallout

Nuisance and Odors


Page 4 of 11

airborne during storage and transfer.

The permittee must not cause or permit the emission of any particulate matter larger than 250 microns in size at sufficient duration or quantity, as to create an observable deposition upon the real property of another person. The Department will verify that the deposition exists and will notify the perrnittee that the deposition must be controlled.

The permittee must not cause or allow air contaminants from any source to cause a nuisance. Nuisance conditions will be verified by Department personnel.

2.0 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION STANDARDS

2.1. Inorganic Arenic Usage

The permittee must comply with the limitations set forth in 40 CFR §61.162(a). ., !(". J ,f

3.0 PLANT SITE EMISSION LIMITS

3.1. Plant Site Emission Limits (PSEL)

3.2. Annual Period

Plant site emissions must not exceed the following:

Pollutant Limit Units

PM 24 tons per year

PM10 14 tons per year

so, 39 tons per year

NOx 45 tons per year

The annual plant site emissions limits apply to any 12-consecutive calendar month period.

( ·: ( . ,,,. '' ,.

P, Number: 26-3135 EAp1ration Date: 6/1/09

Page 5of11

4.0 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION

4.1. PSEL Compliance Monitoring

Compliance with the PSEL is determined for each 12-consecutive calendar month period based on the following calculation for each pollutant:

where,

E

E EF

p

=

=

=

L(EF x P)/2000 lbs

pollutant emissions (ton/yr); pollutant emission factor (see Condition 4.2); process production (glass melted)

4.2. Emission Factors The permittee must use the default emission factors provided below for calculating pollutant emissions, unless alternative emission factors are approved by the Department. The permittee may request or the Department may require using alternative emission factors provided they are based on actual test data or other documentation (e.g., AP-42 compilation of emission factors) that has been reviewed and approved by the Department.

2.0 lb PM/ton glass melted

1. 9 lb PMw/ton glass melted

3 .0 lb SOi/ton glass melted

19.8· lb NOx/ton glass melted II ? ib 1 ,ji:-, >

5.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

5.1. Special conditions The permittee must inform the Department, in writing, within 5 days of receiving a complaint. The report must include the date/time of alleged occurrence, what investigation was conducted, and any corrective actions taken.


Page 6 of 11

6.0 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

6.1. Operation and Maintenance

-----------

The permittee must maintain the following records related to the operation and maintenance of the plant and associated air contaminant control devices:

a. Tons of glass melted, monthly;

b. Calculations required in Condition4.l, monthly;

c. Pounds of arsenic trioxide used, monthly.

6. 2. Excess Emissions The permittee must maintain records of excess emissions as defined in OAR 340-214-0300 through 340-214-0340 (recorded on occurrence). Typically, excess emissions are caused by process upsets, startups, shutdowns, or scheduled maintenance. In many cases, excess emissions are evident when visible emissions are greater than 20% opacity for 3 minutes or more in any 60-minute period. If there is an ongoing excess emission caused by an upset or breakdown, the perrnittee must cease operation of the equipment or facility no later than 48 hours after the beginning of the excess emissions, unless continued operation is approved by the Department in accordance with OAR 340-214-0330(4).

6.3. Complaint Log The permittee must maintain a log of all written complaints and complaints received via telephone that specifically refer to air pollution concerns associated to the permitted facility. The log must include a record of the perrnittee's actions to investigate the validity of each complaint and a record of actions taken for complaint resolution.

6.4. Retention of Unless otherwise specified, all records must be maintained on site Records for a period of two (2) years and made available to th~

Department upon request.

7.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

7.1. Excess Emissions The permittee must notify the Department by telephone or in person of any excess emissions which are of a nature that could endanger public health.

a. Such notice must be provided as soon as possible, but never more than one hour after becoming aware of the problem. Notice must be made to the regional office identified in Condition 8.4.

. 7.2. Annual Report

7.3. Notice of Change of Ownership or Company Name

7.4. Construction or Modification Notices

P Number: 26-313 5 EApiration Date: 6/1/09

Page 7 of 11

b. If the excess emissions occur during non-business hours, the permittee must notify the Department by calling the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS). The current number is 1-800-452-03 ! ! .

c. The permittee must also submit follow-up reports when required by the Department.

For each year this permit is in effect, the permittee must submit to the Department by February 15 two (2) copies of the following information for the previous calendar year:

a. Operating parameters:

1. Tons of glass melted;

11. Pounds of arsenic trioxide used

b. A summary of annual pollutant emissions determined each month in accordance with Condition 4.1.

c. Records of all planned and unplanned excess emissions events.

d. Summary of complaints relating to air quality received by permittee during the year.

e. List permanent changes made in plant process, production levels, and pollution control equipment which affected air contaminant emissions.

f. List major maintenance performed on pollution control equipment.

The permittee must notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Permit Application Form" within 60 days after the following:

a. Legal change of the name of the company as registered with the Corporations Division of the State of Oregon; or

b. Sale or exchange of the activity or facility.

The permittee must notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Notice of Construction Form," or "Permit Application Form," and obtain approval in accordance with OAR 340-210-0205 through 340-210-0250 before:

a. Constructing, installing, or establishing a new stationary source that will cause an increase in any regulated pollutant emissions;

7.5. Where to Send Reports and Notices


Page 8 of l I

b. Making any physical change or change in operation of an existing stationary source that will cause an increase, on an hourly basis at full production, in any regulated pollutant emissions; or

c. Constructing or modifying any air pollution control equipment.

The reports, with the permit number prominently displayed, must be sent to the Permit Coordinator for the region where the source is located as identified in Condition 8.3.

8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

8.1. Permit Renewal Application

8.2. Permit Modifications

8.3. Permit Coordinator Addresses

8.4. Department Contacts

The completed application package for renewal of this permit is due on 4/1/09. Two (2) copies of the application must be submitted to the DEQ Permit Coordinator listed in condition 8.3

Application for a modification of this permit must be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the source modification. A special activity fee must be submitted with an application for the permit modification. The fees and two (2) copies of the application must be submitted to the Business Office of the Department.

All reports, notices, and applications should be directed to the Permit Coordinator for DEQ's Northwest Region office:

Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201-4987 Telephone: (503) 229-5582

Information about air quality permits and the Department's regulations may be obtained from the DEQ web page at www.deg.state.or.us. All inquiries about this permit should be directed to the Department's Northwest Regional offices:

Department of Environmental Quality Portland Office 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201-4987 Telephone: (503) 229-5554

9.0 FEES

9.1. Annual Compliance Fee

9.2. Change of Ownership or Company Name Fee

9.3. Special Activity Fees

9.4. Where to Submit Fees

P Number: 26-3135 LApiration Date: 6/1/09

Page 9 ofl I

The Annual Fee specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 2 for a Standard ACDP is due on December 1 of each year this pennit is in effect. An invoice indicating the amount, as determined by Department regulations, will be mailed prior to the above date.

The non-technical pennit modification fee specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 3(a) is due with an application for changing the ownership or the name of the company.

The special activity fees specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 3 (b through i) are due with an application to modify the pennit.

Fees must be submitted to:

Department of Environmental Quality Business Office 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-1390

10.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISCLAIMERS

10.1. Permitted Activities

This pennit allows the pennittee to discharge air contaminants from processes and activities related to the air contaminant source(s) listed on the first page of this pennit until this pennit expires, is modified, or is revoked.

10.2. Other Regulations In addition to the specific requirements listed in this pennit, the pennittee must comply with all other legal requirements enforceable by the Department.

10.3. Conflicting Conditions

10.4. Masking of Emissions

10.5. Department Access

In any instance in which there is an apparent conflict relative to conditions in this pennit, the most stringent conditions apply.

The pennittee must not cause or pennit the installation of any device or use any means designed to mask the emissions of an air contaminant that causes or is likely to cause detriment to health, safety, or welfare of any person or otherwise violate any other regulation or requirement.

The pennittee must allow the Department's representatives access to the plant site and pertinent records at all reasonable times for the purposes of perfonning inspections, surveys, collecting

•

10.6. Permit Availability

10.7. Open Burning

10.8. Asbestos

10.9. Property Rights

10.10. Termination, Revocation, or Modification


Page 10 of!!

samples, obtaining data, reviewing and copying air contaminant emissions discharge records and conducting all necessary functions related to this permit in accordance with ORS 468-095.

The permittee must have a copy of the permit available at the facility at all times.

The permittee may not conduct any open burning except as allowed by OAR 340 Division 264.

The permittee must comply with the asbestos abatement requirements in OAR 340, Division 248 for all activities involving asbestos-containing materials, including, but not limit to, demolition, renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.

The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

The Department may modify or revoke this permit pursuant to OAR 340-216-0082 and 340-216-0084.

•

P, Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 6/1/09

Page 11 of 11

11.0 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND DEFINITIONS

ACDP Air Contaminant Discharge NSR New Source Review Permit

02 oxygen

ASTM American Society for Testing OAR Oregon Administrative Rules and Materials

Oregon Revised Statutes Air Quality Maintenance Area

ORS AQMA

O&M operation and maintenance calendar The 12-month period

lead year beginning January !st and Pb

ending December 31st PCD pollution control device

CFR Code of Federal Regulations PM particulate matter

co carbon monoxide PM10 particulate matter less than I 0

DEQ Oregon Department of microns in size Envirorunenial Quality ppm part per million

dscf dry standard cubic foot PSD Prevention of Significant

EPA US Environmental Protection Deterioration

Agency PSEL Plant Site Emission Limit

FCAA Federal Clean Air Act PTE Potential to Emit

gal gallon(s) RACT Reasonably Available Control

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic Technology

foot scf standard cubic foot

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant as SER Significant Emission Rate defined by OAR 340-244-

SIC Standard Industrial Code 0040

J&M inspection and maintenance SIP State Implementation Plan

lb pound(s) SO2 sulfur dioxide

MMBtu million British thermal units Special as defined in OAR 340-204-Control 0070

NA not applicable Area

NESHAP National Emissions Standards VE visible emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants

voe volatile organic compound NOx nitrogen oxides

year A period consisting of any 12-NSPS New Source Performance consecutive calendar months

Standard

Source Comp! Test Sched


Air Quality Program

Standard

Permit No.: 26-3135 Application No.: 21018

Page 1 of5

AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PERMIT REVIEW REPORT

Re ort A s Q X

M

Bullseye Glass Company 3722 SE 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

(503) 232-8887

Excess R N NSR FCE RACT

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public NSPS NESHAP Size Notice

ST III

PERMITTING ................................................................................................................................. 2

SOURCE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2

COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................................... .3

SPECIAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... .3

EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 3

MAJOR SOURCE APPLICABILITY ........................................................................................... .4

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................ .4

PUBLIC NOTICE ............................................................................................................................ 5

PERMITTING

PERMITTING ACTION


Page2 of5

I. The permit is a renewal for an existing Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) which was issued on 11/16/99 and was originally scheduled to expire on 6/1/04. The old ACDP is being converted to a Standard ACDP in accordance with the rules adopted in May 2001.

OTHER PERMITS

2. No other permits have been issued or are required by the Department of Environmental Quality for this source.

ATTAINMENT STATUS

3. The source is located in a maintenance area for CO and 0 3 (Ozone). NOx and VOC are precursors to Ozone. The facility is an insignificant source of CO, NOx, and VOC.

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

OVERVIEW

4. The permittee operates a flat stained glass manufacturing plant. The process includes the handling and mixing ofraw materials, moistening with water, then melting in a furnace, forming, and finishing. Equipment that produces air contaminants includes materials handling equipment and furnaces fired on natural gas and propane. The facility was built in 1974.

5. No changes have been made to the facility since the last permit renewal.

6. The company proposes to increase production through higher efficiencies in existing equipment or the installation of additional equipment.

PROCESS AND CONTROL DEVICES

7. Existing air contaminant sources at the facility consist of the following:

a. One baghouse collects PM emissions from the batch room, installed 2000. Collected material is reused in the process.

b. 14 tank furnaces (1-9 and 11-15), natural gas fired with propane back-up; cumulative operating capacity of 885 lb/hr and 2,700 ton/yr, 16,625 ft3 /hr.


Page 3 of 5

c. 2 pot furnaces (IO & 17), natural gas fired with propane back-up; cumulative operating capacity of35 lb/hr and 100 ton/yr, 475 ft3/hr

d. New capacity is expected from the installation of new furnaces (18-20) or expanding the existing capacity of existing equipment. Anticipated cumulative capacity is 115 lb/hr and 350 ton/yr. This equipment will also be fired on natural gas with propane back-up and combust 3,800 ft3/hr.

e. Total fuel usage is estimated at 171 million ft3/yr.

COMPLIANCE

8. The facility was inspected on 9/23/02 and found to be in compliance with permit conditions.

9. During the prior permit period, one complaint was recorded for this facility. The caller alleged that Bullseye was emitting hot ash. This is unlikely. Water is added to the mixed dry ingredients as a moistening agent prior to firing in the furnace.

10. No enforcement actions have been taken against this source since the last permit renewal.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

11. The permittee must provide written notification to the Department within five days of receiving a nuisance complaint.

EMISSIONS

12. Proposed PSEL information:

Netting Basis Plant Site Emission Limits (PSEL)

Baseline Previous Proposed PSEL Emission Previous Proposed PSEL PSEL Increase

Pollutant Rate (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

PM I I I 3 24 21

PM10 I 1 1 3 14 11

so, I 1 1 5 39 34

NO, 6 6 6 40 45 5

co n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a -2

voe n/a n/a n/a I n/a -1


Page 4 of5

a. PSEL calculations for the previous permit double counted emissions from natural gas combustion. The emission factors used in this permit include natural gas combustion contributions. The PSELs for all pollutants have been corrected.

b. CO and VOC emissions are estimated at less than one ton per year so no PSEL is established for these pollutants

c. The PM, PM10, and SO2 PSELs are set at the generic PSEL according to rules adopted in 200 I. The generic PSEL is the significant emission rate minus one ton per year.

d. The NOx PSEL is equal to the netting basis plus the generic PSEL. e. The PSEL is a federally enforceable limit on the potential to emit.

SIGNIFICANT EMISSION RATE ANALYSIS

13. For each pollutant, the proposed Plant Site Emission Limit is less than the Netting Basis plus the significant emission rate, thus no further air quality analysis is required.

MAJOR SOURCE APPLICABILITY

CRlTERlA POLLUTANTS

14. A major source is a facility that has the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of any criteria pollutant. This facility is not a major source of criteria pollutant emissions.

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

15. A major source is a facility that has the potential to emit more than 10 tons/year of any single HAP or 25 tons/year of combined HAPs. This source uses approximately 6,000 pounds of dry materials per year that contain HAP substances. After the dry products are mixed, water is added to moisten the batch before firing. No data on the potential emissions through the furnace stack are available for these chemicals. Assuming that all of the material was released, the facility would not have potential to emit single or combined HAP at levels of concern.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

NSPS APPLICABILITY

I 6. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC, New Source Performance Standards for Glass Manufacturing Plants, is not applicable to the source because the facility was constructed in 1974, prior to the June 15, 1979 subpart promulgation date.

NESHAPS/MACT APPLICABILITY


Page 5 of5

17. There ;ire no sources at this facility for which NESHAPS/MACT standards have been pJ:erilulgated.

18. 40 CFRPart 61, SubpartN (National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing) applies to sources of any size existing prior to August 4, 1986. The limit for an uncontrolled existing source is 2.7 tons of arsenic emissions per year, based on a mass balance. This limit is set in the "Operations and Maintenance" section of the permit.

RACT APPLICABILITY

19. The facility is located in the Portland AQMA, but it is not one of the listed source categories in OAR 340-232-00 I 0, thus the RACT rules do not apply

TACT APPLICABILITY

20. The source is meeting the states TACT/Highest and Best Rules by collecting dry material fugitives in a baghouse and using water to moisten the mixture prior to firing.

PUBLIC NOTICE

21. Pursuant to OAR 340-216-0066(4)(a)(A), renewals of Standard Air Contaminant Discharge Permits require public notice in accordance with OAR 340-209-0030(3)(c). The proposed permit was placed on public notice from June 21, 2004 until July 26, 2004. No comments were received.

kka:ed 8/5/2004

EXHIBITG

STANDARD

Permit Number: 26-3135-ST-Ol Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page I of! I

AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PERMIT


2020 SW 4th Avenue, #400 Portland, Oregon 9720 I

(503) 229-5554 This permit is being issued in accordance with the provisions of ORS 468A.040 and

based on the land use compatibility findings included in the permit record.

ISSUED TO:

Bullseye Glass Co. 3722 SE 21 st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

INFORMATION RELIED UPON:

Application No.: Date Received:

023633 03/18/09

Additional information received through 07 /27 /I 0

PLANT SITE LOCATION:

3722 SE 21 st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FINDING:

Approving Authority: City of Portland Approval Date: 03/11/97

ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Dated

Source(s) Permitted to Discharge Air Contaminants (OAR 340-216-0020):

Table 1 Code Source Description SIC/NAICS

Part B, 83 Problem for which an air quality concern is identified 3211 / 327211 ( stained flat glass manufacture)

C,3 Source electing to maintain Baseline Emission Rate n/a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PermitNumber: 26-3135-ST-0I Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 2 of II

1.0 GENERAL EMISSION ST AND ARDS AND LIMITS ...................................................... .3 2.0 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION STANDARDS ....................................... .3 3 .0 PLANT SITE EMISSION LIMITS ..................................................................................... .4 4.0 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION ................................................................................ .4 5.0 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 5 6.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 5 7.0 PERMIT RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION ................................................................... 7 8.0 DEQ CONTACTS I ADDRESSES ...................................................................................... 7 9.0 FEES ..................................................................................................................................... 8 10.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISCLAIMERS ............................................................. 9 11.0 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND DEFINITIONS ............................................... 11

Permit Number: 26-3135-ST-0l Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 3 of 11

1.0 GENERAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITS

1.1. Visible Emissions The permittee must ensure that emissions from any air contaminant source does not equal or exceed 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than 30 seconds in any one hour.

1.2. Particulate Matter The permittee must ensure that particulate matter emissions from Emissions any air contaminant source other than fugitive emission sources

does not exceed 0.1 grains per standard cubic foot

1.3. Fugitive Emissions The perrnittee must take reasonable precautions to prevent

1.4.

1.5.

Particulate Matter Fallout

Nuisance aud Odors

fugitive dust emissions by:

a. Operating all air contaminant-generating processes so that fugitive type dust associated with the operation will be adequately controlled at all times.

b. Storing collected materials from air pollution control equipment in a covered container or other method equally effective in preventing the material from becoming airborne during storage and transfer.

The permittee must not cause or permit the emission of any particulate matter larger than 250 microns in size at sufficient duration or quantity, as to create an observable deposition upon the real property of another person. The Department will verify that the deposition exists and will notify the permittee that the deposition must be controlled.

The permittee must not cause or allow air contaminants from any source to cause a nuisance. Nuisance conditions will be verified by Department personnel.

2.0 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION STANDARDS

2.1. Inorganic Arsenic Usage

The permittee must ensure that arsenic emissions from each furnace do not exceed: existing ( constructed prior to 8/4/1986) furnace do not exceed 2. 7 tons per year

a. 2. 7 tons per year for furnaces constructed prior to 8/14/1986 (existing furnaces)

b. 0.44. tons per year for furnaces constructed or modified after 8/14/1986 (new furnaces)

c. The perrnittee must operate and maintain each furnace in a marmer consistent with good air pollution control practice to minimize emissions at all times.

PennitNumber: 26-3135-ST-01 Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 4 of 11

d. Semi-annually, perfonn the calculations required in 40 CFR 61.164( c) to estimate uncontrolled plant-wide arsenic emissions.

e. Record the occurrence and duration of all startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of each furnace.

3.0 PLANT SITE EMISSION LIMITS

3.1. Plant Site Emission Limits (PSEL)

3.2. Annual Period

Plant site emissions must not exceed the following:

Pollutant Limit Units

PM10 14 tons per year

SO2 39 tons per year

NOx 39 tons per year

The annual plant site emissions limits apply to any 12-consecutive calendar month period.

4.0 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION

4.1. PSEL Compliance Monitoring

Compliance with the PSEL is detennined for each 12-consecutive calendar month period based on the following calculation for each pollutant:

where,

E = ~(EF x P)/2000 lbs

E EF p

pollutant emissions (ton/yr); pollutant emission factor (Condition 4.2); process production (glass melted)

4.2. Emission Factors The pennittee must use the default emission factors provided in here for calculating pollutant emissions, unless alternative emission fact9rs are approved by the Department. The pennittee may request or the Department may require using alternative emission factors provided they are based on actual test data or other documentation (e.g., AP-42 compilation of emission factors) that has been reviewed and approved by the Department.

1.9 lb PM10/ton glass melted 3.0 lb SO2/ton glass melted 11.9 lb NOx/ton glass melted for oxygen-fed furnaces 19.8 lb NOx/ton glass melted for unconverted furnaces

Permit Number: 26-3135-ST-Ol Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 5 of!!

5.0 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

5.1. Operation and Maintenance

The permittee must maintain the following records related to the operation and maintenance of the plant and associated air contaminant control devices:

a. Tons of glass melted, monthly;

b. Types and quantities of glass containing arsenic, annually;

c. Emissions calculations required in Condition 4.1, monthly;

d. Semi-annual emissions calculation required in Condition 2.1, annually

5.2. Excess Emissions The permittee must maintain records of excess emissions as defined in OAR 340-214-0300 through 340-214-0340 (recorded on occurrence). Typically, excess emissions are caused by process upsets, startups, shutdowns, or scheduled maintenance. In many cases, excess emissions are evident when visible emissions are greater than 20% opacity for 3 minutes or more in any 60-minute period. If there is an ongoing excess emission caused by an upset or breakdown, the permittee must cease operation of the equipment or facility no later than 48 hours after the beginning of the excess emissions, unless continued operation is approved by the Department in accordance with OAR 340-214-0330(4).

5.3. Complaint Log The permittee must maintain a log of all written complaints and complaints received via telephone that specifically refer to air pollution concerns associated to the permitted facility. The log must include a record of the permittee's actions to investigate the validity of each complaint and a record of actions taken for complaint resolution.

5.4. Retention of Unless otherwise specified, all records must be maintained on site Records for a period of two (2) years and made available to the

Department upon request.

6.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

6.1. Excess Emissions The permittee must notify the Department of excess emissions events if the excess emission is of a nature that could endanger public health.

a. Such notice must be provided as soon as possible, but never more than one hour after becoming aware of the

6.2. Annual Report

6.3. Notice of Change of Ownership or Company Name

PennitNumber: 26-3135-ST-0J Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 6 of II

problem. Notice must be made to the regional office identified in Condition 8.3 by e-mail, telephone, facsimile, or in person.

b. If the excess emissions occur during non-business hours, the pennittee must notify the Department by calling the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS). The current number is l-800-452-03 I I.

c. The pennittee must also submit follow-up reports when required by the Department.

For each year this permit is in effect, the permittee must submit to the Department by February 15 two (2) copies of the following information for the previous calendar year:

a. Operating parameters:

i. Tons of glass melted;

ii. Types aod quantities of glass melted that contain arsenic;

iii. Summary of armual pollutant emissions determined each month in accordaoce with Condition 4.1, with annual totals noted;

1v. Results of the calculations required in Condition 2.1.

b. Records of all planned aod unplaoned excess emissions events.

c. Summary of complaints relating to air quality received by permittee during the year.

d. List permaoent chaoges made in plaot process, production levels, aod pollution control equipment which affected air contaminaot emissions.

e. List major maintenaoce performed on pollution control equipment.

The permittee must notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Permit Application Form" within 60 days after the following:

a. Legal chaoge of the name of the compaoy as registered with the Corporations Division of the State of Oregon; or

b. Sale or exchaoge of the activitY, or facility.

6,4. Construction or Modification Notices

PermitNumber: 26-3135-ST-01 Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 7 of 11

The permittee must notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Notice of Construction Form," or "Permit Application Form," and obtain approval in accordance with OAR 340-210-0205 through 340-210-0250 before:

a. Constructing, installing, or establishing a new stationary source that will cause an increase in any regulated pollutant emissions;

b. Making any physical change or change in operation of an existing stationary source that will cause an increase, on an hourly basis at full production, in any regulated pollutant emissions; or

c. Constructing or modifying any air pollution control equipment.

7.0 PERMIT RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION

7.1. Permit Renewal Application

7.2. Permit Modifications

The completed application package for renewal of this permit is due on 4/1/2015. Two (2) copies of the application must be submitted to the DEQ Permit Coordinator listed in Condition 8.2

Application for a modification of this permit must be submitted not Jess than 60 days prior to the source modification. A special activity fee must be submitted with an application for the permit modification. The fees and two (2) copies of the application must be submitted to the Business Office of the Department.

8.0 DEQ CONTACTS/ ADDRESSES

8.1. Business Office The pennittee must submit payments for invoices, applications to modify the permit, and any other payments to DEQ's Business Office:

Department of Environmental Quality Business Office 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-1390

8.2. Permit Coordinator

8.3. Field Office

8.4. Web Site

9.0 FEES

9.1. Annual Compliance Fee

9.2. Change of Ownership or Company Name Fee

9.3. Special Activity Fees

Penni! Number: 26-3135-ST-01 Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 8 of 11

The pennittee must submit all Notices and applications that do not include payment to the Northwest Region's Permit Coordinator:

Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201-4987 Telephone: (503) 229-5582

Unless otherwise notified, the pennittee must submit all reports (annual reports, source test plans and reports, etc.) to field office noted below.

Department of Environmental Quality NWR-ESO/AQ 1550 NW Eastman Pkwy, Suite 290 Gresham, OR 97030 Telephone: (503) 667-8414

Information about air quality permits and the Department's regulations may be obtained from the DEQ web page at www.deq.state.or.us

The Annual Fee specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 2 for a Standard ACDP is due on December 1 of each year this permit is in effect. An invoice indicating the amount, as detennined by Department regulations, will be mailed prior to the above date. Late fees in accordance with Part 4 of the table will be assessed as appropriate.

The non-technical permit modification fee specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 3(a) is due with an application for changing the ownership or the name of the company.

The special activity fees specified in OAR 340-216-0020, Table 2, Part 3 (b through i) are due with an application to modify the permit.

Permit Number: 26-3135-ST-0l Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 9 of!!

10.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DISCLAIMERS

10.1. Permitted Activities

10.2. Other Regulations

10.3. Conflicting Conditions

10.4. Masking of Emissions

10.5. Department Access

10.6. Permit Availability

10.7. Open Burning

10.8. Asbestos

This permit allows the permittee to discharge air contaminants from processes and activities related to the air contaminant source(s) listed on the first page ofthls permit until this permit expires, is modified, or is revoked.

In addition to the specific requirements listed in thls permit, the permittee must comply with all other legal requirements enforceable by the Department.

In any instance in whlch there is an apparent conflict relative to conditions in thls permit, the most stringent conditions apply.

The permittee must not cause or permit the installation of any device or use any means designed to mask the emissions of an air contaminant that causes or is likely to cause detriment to health, safety, or welfare of any person or otherwise violate any other regulation or requirement.

The permittee must allow the Department's representatives access to the plant site and pertinent records at all reasonable times for the purposes of performing inspections, surveys, collecting samples, obtaining data, reviewing and copying air contaminant emissions discharge records and conducting all necessary functions related to this permit in accordance with ORS 468-095.

The permittee must have a copy of the permit available at the facility at all times.

The permittee may not conduct any open burning except as allowed by OAR 340 Division 264.

The permittee must comply with the asbestos abatement requirements in OAR 340, Division 248 for all activities involving asbestos-containing materials, including, but not limit to, demolition, renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.

10.9. Property Rights

Permit Number: 26-3135-ST-01 Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 10 of 11

The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement offederal, state, or local laws or regulations.

10.10. Permit Expiration a. A source may not be operated after the expiration date of the permit, unless any of the following occur prior to the expiration date of the permit:

10.11. Permit Termination, Revocation, or Modification

i. a timely and complete application for renewal or for an Oregon Title V Operating Permit has bee submitted, or

11. another type of permit (ACDP or Oregon Title V Operating Permit) has been issued authorizing operation of the source.

b. For a source operating under an ACDP or Oregon Title V Operating Permit, a requirement established in an earlier ACDP remains in effect notwithstanding expiration of the ACDP, unless the provision expires by its terms or unless the provision is modified or terminated according to the procedures used to establish the requirement initially.

The Department may modify or revoke this permit pursuant to OAR 340-216-0082 and 340-216-0084.

PermitNumber: 26-3135-ST-0l Expiration Date: 6/1/2015

Page 11 of 11

11.0 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND DEFINITIONS

ACDP Air Contaminant Discharge NSR New Source Review Permit

02 oxygen ASTM American Society for Testing OAR Oregon Administrative Rules

and Materials

AQMA Air Quality Maintenance Area ORS Oregon Revised Statutes

calendar The 12-month period O&M operation and maintenance

year beginning January 1 st and Pb lead

ending December 31st PCD pollution control device

CFR Code of Federal Regulations PM particulate matter

co carbon monoxide PM10 particulate matter less than 10

DEQ Oregon Department of microns in size Environmental Quality ppm part per million

dscf dry standard cubic foot PSD Prevention of Significant

EPA US Environmental Protection Deterioration

Agency PSEL Plant Site Emission Limit

FCAA Federal Clean Air Act PIE Potential to Emit

gal gallon(s) RACT Reasonably Available Control

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic Technology

foot scf standard cubic foot

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant as SER Significant Emission Rate defined by OAR 340-244-

SIC Standard Industrial Code 0040

I&M inspection and maintenance SIP State Implementation Plan

lb pound(s) SO2 sulfur dioxide

MMBtu million British thermal units Special as defined in OAR 340-204-Control 0070

NA not applicable Area

NESHAP National Emissions Standards VE visible emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants

voe volatile organic compound NOx nitrogen oxides

year A period consisting of any 12-NSPS New Source Performance consecutive calendar months

Standard

Permit No.: 26-3135-ST-0J Application No.: 023633

Page I of6

Standard AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PERMIT REVIEW REPORT


Source Information: .

I SIC

NAICS

3211

327211

Source Categories B, 83 (Table I Part, code)

Public Notice Category II

C r omni 1ance an dE missions Momtonne: R"" uirements:

FCE Source test [date(s)]

Compliance schedule COMS

Unassigned emissions CEMS

Emission credits Ambient monitoring

Special Conditions

Reoortine: Reouirements

Annual report 15 Feb Monthly report (due date) (due dates)

Quarter! y report Excess emissions report (due dates)

Other (specify)

A' p Ir roe:rams

Synthetic Minor (SM) NSR

SM-80 PSD

NSPS (list subparts) RACT

NESHAP (list subparts) 61, N TACT X

Part 68 Risk Management Other (specify)

CFC

Bullseye Glass 4/15111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PermitNo.: 26-3135-ST-0l Application No.: 023633

Page 2 of6

PERMITTING ................................................................................................................................ .3

SOURCE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. .3

COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................................... .4

EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................................... .4

MAJOR SOURCE APPLICABILITY ..... ." ...................................................................................... 5

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 6

PUBLIC NOTICE ............................................................................................................................ 6

Bullseye Glass 4//5/JJ

PERMITTING

PERMITTING ACTION

Penni! No.: 26-3135-ST-01 Application No.: 023633

Page 3 of6

I. The pennit is for an existing Air Contaminant Discharge Pennit (ACDP) which was issued on 8/6/04 and was originally scheduled to expire on 6/1/09. It is a Standard pennit, as the pennittee has chosen to retain the facility's baseline emission rates.

2. The renewal application was submitted on 3/18/09. In April 2009, Bullseye Glass requested from EPA a detennination of whether the facility is subject to 40 CFR 61, Subpart N, National Emission Standards for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing. EP A's detennination, as contained in a Jetter dated 7/27/2010, was that the Subpart is applicable to the Bulleye facility.

OTHER PERMITS

3. No other pennits have been issued or are required by the Department of Environmental Quality for this source.

ATTAINMENT STATUS

4. The source is located in a maintenance area for CO and Ozone. NOx and VOC are precursors to Ozone. The facility is an insignificant source of CO, NOx and VOC. The area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants.

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

OVERVIEW

5. The pennittee manufactures flat, stained glass. The process includes mixing sand, soda lime, and crushed glass with dry coloring agents, moistening the mixture with water, melting the mixture in a tank furnace, and fanning glass sheets. The sheets are cut to specified sizes. The facility was built inl974.

6. In 2006, the process was changed to allow the infusion of liquid oxygen into the furnaces during the melting process in lieu of ambient air. This change in process lowered NOx emissions by roughly 40% for each retrofitted furnace. The change is made to the various furnaces during scheduled downtime ( once every two years).

Bullseye Glass 41/5/ll

PermitNo.: 26-3135-ST-0l Application No.: 023633

Page 4 of6

PROCESS AND CONTROL DEVICES

7. Existing air contaminant sources at the facility consist of the following:

a. A Torit baghouse collects PM emissions from the silos that feed into the batch room, installed 2000. Collected material is reused in the process.

b. 14 tank furnaces (1-9 and 11-15), natural gas fired with propane back-up; cumulative operating capacity of 885 lb/hr and 2,700 ton/yr, 16,625 ft3 /hr.

c. 2 pot furnaces (IO & 17), natural gas fired with propane back-up; cumulative operating capacity of35 lb/hr and JOO ton/yr, 475 ft3/hr

d. New capacity is expected from the installation of new furnaces (18-20) or expanding the existing capacity of existing equipment. Anticipated cumulative capacity is 115 lb/hr and 350 ton/yr. This equipment will also be fired on natural gas with propane back-up and combust 3,800 ft3/hr.

e. Total fuel usage is estimated at 171 million ft3/yr.

COMPLIANCE

8. The facility was inspected on 9/14/05 and found to be out of compliance with the permit requirement to monitor the use of arsenic trioxide. The company responded to a W aming Letter by instituting procedures to monitor the use of arsenic trioxide monthly. No further action was deemed necessary. The facility was inspected on 8/16/10 and found to be in compliance with permit conditions.

9. During the prior permit period one complaint regarding the issuance of black smoke was recorded for this facility. A site visit on 9/13/07 revealed that the black smoke observed most likely came from a train. Train tracks run one block northwest of the plant. Emission exhaust points at the plant were observed during two batch processes; one for clear glass and one for red glass. No visible emissions were noted.

EMISSIONS

I 0. Proposed PSEL information:

Netting Basis Plant Site Emission Limits (PSEL)

Baseline Previous Proposed PSEL Emission Previous Proposed PSEL PSEL Increase

Pollutant Rate (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

PM10 0 1 0 14 14 0 so, 0 I 0 39 39 0 NO, 6 6 6 45 45 0

Bullseye Glass 4/15111

PennitNo.: 26-3135-ST-0l Application No.: 023633

Page 5 of6

a. The proposed PSELs for all pollutants except NOx are equal to the Generic PSEL in accordance with OAR 340-216-0064(4)(b) and the netting basis is zero in accordance with OAR 340-222-0040(2). This change is a correction to the previous permit/review report. The facility's PTE for PM10 and SO2 are less than the Generic PSEL, thus the netting basis is zero.

b. The PSEL for PM has been removed from the permit. Emissions from natural gas combustion and emissions from dry materials handling treated by a baghouse are

PM10-c. The PSEL for NOx is equal to the netting basis plus the generic PSEL. d. For the 2009 production of2,144 tons of glass melted, emissions of 1.8 tons PM,

1.7 tons PM10, 2.7 tons SO2, and 17.9 tons NOx were reported. e. The PSEL is a federally enforceable limit on the potential to emit.

SIGNIFICANT EMISSION RA TE ANALYSIS

11. For each pollutant, the proposed Plant Site Emission Limit is less than the Netting Basis plus the significant emission rate, thus no further air quality analysis is required.

MAJOR SOURCE APPLICABILITY

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

12. A major source is a facility that has the potential to emit I 00 tons/yr or more per year of any criteria pollutant. This facility is not a major source of criteria pollutant emissions.

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

13. A major source is a facility that has the potential to emit IO tons/yr or more of any single HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of combined HAPs. This facility uses approximately 6,000 pounds of dry materials per year that contain HAP substances. Materials used at the facility may include arsenic trioxide, cadmium, selenium, chromium, and lead as coloring agents or to produce trade-mark characteristics in the glass. After the dry products are mixed, water is added to moisten a batch prior to firing. No data on the potential emissions through the furnace stack from these hydrated mixtures is available. Assuming that all of the material was released as PM, the facility would not have the potential to emit single or combined HAP at or above the major source threshold.

Bullseye Glass 4115111

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

NSPS APPLICABILITY

Permit No.: 26-3135-ST-Ol Application No.: 023633

Page 6 of6

14. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC, New Source Performance Standards for Glass Manufacturing Plants, is not applicable to the source because the facility was constructed in 1974, prior to the June 15, 1979 subpart promulgation date.

NESHAPS/MACT APPLICABILITY

15. 40 CFR 63, Subpart SSSSSS, NESHAP for Glass Manufacturing Area Sources, is not applicable to this facility because the regulation applies only to continuous furnaces. Bullseye operates only periodic furnaces.

16. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N, National Emission Standards for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing, applies to a facility of any size existing prior to August 4, 1986. The limit for an uncontrolled source is 2. 7 tons of arsenic emissions per year, based on mass balance. Bullseye reported the use of 825 pounds of arsenic in calendar year 2009.

RACT APPLICABILITY

17. The facility is located in the Portland AQMA, but it is not one of the listed source categories in OAR 340-232-0010, thus the RACT rules do not apply

TACT APPLICABILITY

18. The source is meeting the states TACT/Highest and Best Rules by collecting dry material fugitives in a baghouse and using water to moisten the mixture prior to firing.

PUBLIC NOTICE

I 9. Pursuant to OAR 340-2!6-0066(4)(a)(A), issuance of Standard Air Contaminant Discharge Permits require public notice in accordance with OAR 340-209-0030(3)(b), which requires that the Department provide notice of the proposed permit action and a minimum of 35 days for interested persons to submit written comments. The public notice was mailed on April 15, 2011 and the comment period ended at 5 p.m., May 20, 2011. No comments were received during the comment period.

ka:ggg 5/24/1 l

Bullseye Glass 4115111

EXHIBITH

• 0 Now Playlng: All Things Considered

• •• :, contal:!).ite (https://give.opb.org/contribute/TestSus/?utm campaign=Aug17Split&utm source=TestSus&utm medium=web) 'j • J (/) - - -

News

Health (/News/Topic/Health/) I Communities (/News/Topic/Communities/) I Air (/News/Topic/Air/) I Environment (/News/Topic/Environment/) I Portland's Toxic Air Problem (/News/Series/Portland-Oregon-Air-Pollution-Glass/)

Portland Heavy Metals Emissions Linked To Glass Facility by Cassandra Profita (/contributor/cassandra-profita/) ( Follow) OPB/EarthFix I Feb. 4, 2016 3:45 p.m. I Updated: March 15, 2016 9:16 a.m. 1 Portland

Aerial view of Bullseye Glass in southeast Portland. State regulators say high levels of cadmium

and arsenic likely came from the factory, which makes colored glass for artists.

Google Earth

A glass facility in Southeast Portland has suspended the use of cadmium and arsenic in its operations after testing found unhealthy levels of those metals in the air nearby.

On Wednesday, state health and environmental officials warned (http://www.opb.org/ news/article/ oregon-health-officials-find-heavymetals-in-southeast-portland-air/) of unhealthy levels of both metals detected in the air around Southeast 22nd and Southeast Powell

Boulevard in Portland. Cadmium and arsenic are used in the production

of colored glass, and DEQ officials say they've determined the elevated concentrations of metals are linked to the glass facility.

The discovery came out of a study Oregon DEQ was conducting with the U.S. Forest Service

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/ nwr/metalsemissions.htm) on the correlation between metals found in the air and metals found in moss. Based on th( results of the moss study, w:- · ~h showed areas with high

earthF1x news fixed on the environment

EarthFix is a public media partnership of Oregon

Public Broadcasting, Idaho Public Television, KCTS9

Seattle, KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio, Northwest

Public Radio and Television, Jefferson Public Radio,

KLCC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS:

DUTDFJIIL DFFICE!!!II H O P P Y P It S N E If .. -,;liiiii;;,;;;;jjij;ijiiiiiiii••

SUMMER SEASONAL 20 1 7

Sign up for OPB's First Look

Stay up to date on the day's top

news headlines and OPB's in

depth reporting on issues affecting

our region-delivered to your

inbox each weekday morning .

Email Subscribe

levels of cadmium and arsenic, officials set up an air monitoring station

near the Bullseye Glass site in Southeast Portland. Results of the study

were first reported by the Portland Mercury

(http:// blogtown.portlandmercury.com/ BlogtownPDX/ archives/ 2016 / 02/ 03/ ars

cadmium-levels-near-two-se-portland-schools-are-alarmingly-high-

state-finds).

In a news release sent Thursday, Bullseye Glass said it is in full

compliance (http:// www.bullseyeglass.com/ news-releases.html) with

its air permit through the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, but has hired an environmental consulting firm to help conduct

further testing and monitoring.

"While the DEQ has not required any action on our part, we decided to

take action on our own," the news release said. "As of yesterday we

suspended the use of cadmium and arsenic. The owners and employees

of Bullseye Glass care about the environment and our neighborhood

and take this matter seriously."

According to Oregon Health Authority toxicologist David Farrer, the

testing detected levels of cadmium that are about 50 times the

concentration that would normally be found in ambient air, and about

150 times the normal levels of arsenic.

"The numbers we saw were concerning," Farrer said. "It is in the range

that increases risk of cancer. The health risks of arsenic and cadmium

depend on how much and how long people are exposed for. We're glad

emissions have stopped."

Exposure to elevated levels of arsenic raises the risk of contracting

bladder, skin and lung cancers, and can also impair brain development

over time, he said. Increased exposure to cadmium can raise the risk of

lung cancer and can damage the kidneys.

The levels detected raise the cancer risk from one cancer case in a

million people to one in 10,000 people, Farrer said.

"Which is still low, but definitely higher than we think is acceptable," he

said.

It's not clear yet how long people were exposed to those levels. The

testing only lasted a month.

"The risk is increased the more you're exposed." he said. "We don't

know whether this 30-day average is representative of what happens all

the time. It could have been high or low com pared to other times of the

year."

THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS

become a sponsor (/support/partners/)

Sarah Armitage, an air toxics specialist with Oregon DEQ, said her agency linked the Bullseye Glass facility to the emissions through the results of the moss study and the follow-up air monitoring. But the company is following all the required procedures for controlling its

emissions, so it's unclear why the facility would be emitting unhealthy levels of heavy metals.

The company is required to use a filtering system called a "baghouse" to

capture small particles and keep them from leaving the facility, Armitage said.

"What we're now trying to understand is why the standard that applied

to them did not address the metals coming out of their heated process," she said.

Armitage said her agency the results of the moss study revealed which parts of the city had higher metals detections in moss. Officials overlaid

those results with the locations of facilities that use metals, and then

selected the Southeast Portland location for additional air testing. The tests were conducted in October, but the results didn't come in until the end of January.

"They were much higher levels than anything we ever got from our air toxics monitors," she said. "Once we got the results, we immediately

teamed up with health, county and state officials. We're all trying to understand what this means for public health."

Armitage said the findings could mean that federal standards for

controlling metals emissions at certain glass facilities aren't working properly. Neither the company nor state environmental regulators knew that Bullseye Glass could be emitting excess metals.

"We didn't know, and they didn't know," she said. "It looks like this is

new information, that people were not aware of these emissions. On one hand, it's bad news because of the potential for harm. On the other hand, it's good news we found out. We were able to track it down, though it did take awhile."

Officials are developing a map of the area exposed to higher metals concentrations

(http: / / www.deq.state.or.us/ nwr/ docs/PreliminaryCadmiumMap.pdt) and investigating whether the one month of air testing is representative

of normal operations at the glass facility. They're also looking at the state cancer registry to see if they can tell whether there is a higher

number of cPrtain cancers than would be statistically expected.

The advocacy group Neighbors for Clean Air has suggested the

emissions are linked to a possible cancer cluster

(http://myemail.constantcontact.com/ Breaking--Heavy-Metals-found

in-air-near-Abernethy-School.html ?soid=1103316066779&aid=cw _ q h

If6IE) in Southeast Portland. Farrer said it is difficult to prove a cancer

cluster in such a small geographic area.

pollution (/tag/pollution/)

More From Portland's Toxic Air Problem (/news/ series/portlandoregon-air-pollution-glass/ )

More News

(/news/article/ cascade-siskiyou-mon ument-shrink-zinke-interior

recommend/)

Report: Zinke Recommends Reducing Cascade-Siskiyou Monument (/news/article/cascade

siskiyou-monument-shrink-zinke-interior-recommend/)

EXHIBIT I

Permit Number: 26-3135 Exp f rat1 on Date: C6/ 01/ 91 Page 1 of 4 Pages

AIR CXlNTAMINPNT DISQIAAGE PERMIT

Department of Environmental Quality 522 Southwest Fifth, Portland, OR 97204

Ma111ng Address: Box 1760, Portland, OR 97207 Telephone: (503 l 229-5696

Issued 1n accordance with the provisions of ORS 468.310

ISSUED TO: INFORMATION Ra.IED UPON:

Application No. 11462 Bu11 seye Glass Co, 3722 SE 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202 Date Received: June 10, 1985

Pl.INT SITE:


~SQ.::;PARn.£NT OF ENVIRONloENTH. QUH.ITT ~ AUri 1-t \966

Fred Hansen, D1 rector ""D,..a"'"te-d-,---------

Source(sl Permitted to Discharge Afr Contaminants:

Name of Ajr Contamjnant source Exi st f ng source not l i sted

standard Industry code as Listed 3211

on Table 1 for which an af r quality problem fs identified by the Department, medf urn cost

Permitted Actjyjtjes The pennfttee is herewith allowed to discharge exhaust gases containing air contaminants only in accordance with the pennft application and the limitations contained in this permit, Until such time as this pennft expires or is modified or revoked, the pennittee is herewith allowed to discharge exhaust gases from those processes and activities directly related or associated thereto in accordance with the requirements, limitations, and conditions of this permit frooi the air contaminant source(s) listed above.

The specific listing of requirements, limitations and conditions contained herein does not relieve the pennfttee frooi complying with all other rules and standards of the Department, nor does ft allow significant levels of emissions of air contaminants not limited fn this permit or contained in the pennft appl !cation.

I

Performance Standards and Emission Limits

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 06/ 01/ 91 Page 2 of 4 Pages

l. The permittee shall at all times maintain and operate all air contaminant generating processes and all contaminant control equipment at ful 1 efficiency and effectiveness, such that the emissions of air contaminants are kept at the lowest practicable levels.

2. Particulate emissions from any single fuel burning equipment shall not exceed either of the following:

a. 0 ,l grains per standard cubic foot calculated to twelve percent (12%) carbon di ox! de,

b. An opacity equal to or greater than twenty percent (20%) for a peri ad aggregat! ng more th an three (3) minutes in any one Cl) hour.

Plant Site Emission Limits 3. Annual emissions of particulate on a plant site basis shall not exceed

one ton per year or six pounds per day,

Source Emission Reduction Plan

4. In the event an Air Pollution Alert, Warning, or Emergency Episode is declared in the Portland area by the Department, the permittee shall take actions appropriate to the declared Air Pollution Episode as listed in Oregon Aaninistrative Rules 340-27 "Air Pollution Emergencies,n

Air Pollution Episodes will be declared by the Department and information will be made available through the radio and television media,

5, The permittee shall provide controls for the glass furnaces in accordance with the following schedule:

a. By no later than March 15,-1986, the permittee shall design a prototype test furnace using a screw charger.

b. By no 1 ater than June l, 1986, the permittee shal 1 instal 1 the test furnace.

c. By no 1 ater than September 13, 1986, the perm 1ttee shal 1 reformulate the glass composition.

d. By no later than December 15, 1986, the perm1ttee shall modify the remai n1ng furnaces with screw chargers.

e. By no later than January l, 1987, the permittee shall demonstrate th at the glass furnaces are capable of operating in continuous compliance w 1th Condi ti on 2b,

f, Within seven (7) days after each item, b and d above, 1s completed the permittee shall inform the Department in writing that the respective item has been accomplished.

Monitoring and Reporting

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 06/ 01/ 91 Page 3 of 4 Pages

6. The permittee shall effectively inspect and monitor the operation and maintenance of the pl ant and associated air contaminant control facilities. A record of all such data shall be maintained for a period of two years and be available at the pl ant site at all times for inspection by the authorized representatives of the Department. At least the follc,,,ing parameters shall be monitored and recorded at the indicated interval.

a.

b.

Parameter The amount of glass produced.

The amount of all materials used to produce glass.

Minimum Monitoring EteQuency Monthly

Monthly

8. The permittee shall report to the Department by January 15 of each year this permit is in effect the follc,,,ing information for the preceding calendar year:

a. Plant production on an annual basis.

b. Quantities and types of fuels used on an annual basis.

c. The amount of all materials used to produce glass on an annual basis.

Fee Schedule 8. The Annual Canpliance Determination Fee for this permit is due on

May l of each year this permit is in effect. An invoice indicating the amount, as determined by Department regulations, will be mailed prior to the above date.

P26313 .s

General Conditions and Disclaimers


Gl. The permittee shall allow Department of Environmental Quality representatives access to the plant site and pertinent records at all reasonable times for the purposes of making inspections, surveys, collecting samples, obtaining data, reviewing and copying air contaminant emission discharge records and otherwise conducting all necessary functions related to this permit,

G2. The permittee is prohibited from conducting open burning except as may be allowed by OAR Chapter 340, Sections 23-025 through 23-U5.

G3. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing using a Departmental "Notice of Construction" form, or Permit Application Form, and obtain written approval before:

a. Constructing or ins:alling any new source of air contaminant emissions, including air pollution control equipment, or

b. Modifying or altering an existing source that may significantly affect the emission of air contaminants, or

c. Making any physical change which increases emissions, or

d. Changing the method of operation, the process, or the fuel use, or increasing the normal hours of operation to levels above those contained in the permit application and reflected in this permit and which result in increased emissions.

G4. The permittee shall notify the Department at least 24 hours in advance of any planned shutdown of air pollution control equi?Jlent for scheduled maintenance that may cause a violation of applicable standards.

GS. The permittee shall notify the Department by telephone or in person within one (l) hour of any malfunction of air pollution control equipment or other upset condition that may cause a violation of the applicable standards or within one (l) hour of the time the permittee knew or reasonably should have known of its occurrence. Such notice shall include the nature and quantity of the increased emissions that have occurred and the expected duration of the breakdown. The Departmental telephone numbers are:

Portland Salem Bend

229-5263 378-8240 388-6146

Medford Pendleton

776-6010 276-4063

G6. The permittee shall at all times conduct dust suppression measures to meet the requirements set forth in "Fugitive Emissions" and "Nuisance Conditionsn in OAR Chapter 340, Sections 21-050 through 21-060.

r;i. Application for a modification of this permit must be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the source modification. A Filing Fee and an Application Processing Fee must be submitted with an application for the permit modification.

GS. Application for renewal of this permit must be submitted not less than 60 days prior to the permit expiration date. A Filing Fee and an Annual Compliance Determination Fee must be submitted with the application for the permit renewal.

G9. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

GlO. This permit is subject to revocation for cause as provided by law.

AQ.GC (4/83)

1

Permit Number: 26-3135 Application No.: 11462

Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Control Division

AIR OONTAMINANT DISOlARGE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW REPORT

Bullseye Glass Co. 3722 SE 21st Avenue Port1 and, OR 97202

Background l. Bu1 l seye Gass Company operates a stained glass manufacturing pl ant

located at 3722 Southeast 21st Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97202.

2. The annua 1 production capacity is over 600 tons of stained glass per year.

3. Existing visible and particulate emission sources at the facility consist of the following:

Four glass furnace stacks

4. All emissions at the pl ant are uncontrolled,

5. The estimated annual rate of particulate air contaminant emissions is 1 ess than one ton,

6. The company operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 49 weeks per year.

7. The following hazardous material and a material having possible hazardous by-products are used in the manufacturing process:

Arsenic trioxide Cadmium oxide Selenium Gadmium sulfide

8. Estimated annual fuel consumption consists of the following:

a. 300,000 therms natural gas.

Evaluation 9. The facility which was not on permit was inspected on 04/25/85 and

found in non,compliance with opacity regulations.

10. The emissions from Bullseye Glass are scheduled to be in compliance with Depart:ment of Environmental Quality emission limitations by January l, 1987.

Perm1t Number: 26-3135 App 11 cat1 on No. : 11462

11, The proposed penn1t is a new penn1t for an ex1st1ng source.

12. The proposed perm1t Plant S1te Emission L1m1t (PSal 1s greater than the Baseline Emission Rate (calendar year 1978). The increase 1n emissions above the baseline is listed belcw and is less than the S1gif1cant Emission Rate.

Pollutant

Part1 cul ate

Tons increase/year

l

13. Bullseye Glass is currently adhering to the compl 1ance schedule in the perm it.

14. It is recommended that the proposed pennit be approved for issuance to Bullseye Glass Company.

RiW :RP:s P263l3 .SR

EXHIBIT J

STATE OP Ol!BGON

DBPAR'l'MBNT OP BNVIR>NMEIITAL QUALITY

TO:

PROM:

GR~trft?n JAGillas pie

RHWixom (JJ,{J

SUBJEC?: AQ-Bullseye Glass Co. 26-3135 Multnomah County

DATE: March 12, 1987

At 2:30 p.m. on March 5, 1987 the Department met with Mr. Daniel Schwerer, President of Bullseye Glass. Those present representing the Department were Lloyd Kostow, Janet Gillaspie, Charles Clinton and R. H. Wixom.

Mr. Schwer er lead a tour through his operation showing us the cullet grinding, formulation and mixing area, furnaces, pouring and rolling, tempering, cooling, sizing and storage of his stained glass manufacturing company.

Daniel believes that he can reformulate his glass to prevent it from giving off a brown plume during the first 45 minutes of melt. He thinks he has stopped the plume in one-third of his problem melts bY the reduction of Borax. There will be evaluation of these plume opacities as soon as it can be arranged. He has hired a glass chemist and is tracking his formulation problems on computer.

He has finished one and started the second of four new melting furnaces. They will have the latest in technology and have the capability of attaching a control device if necessary.

Mr. Schwerer will be requesting a one year extension with the justification that more time is necessary to formulate glass melts because he has to maintain the quality of the opalescent glass with which he built his business.

RHW:y RY4092

EXHIBITK

Permit Number: 26-3135 Expiration Date: 06-01-91 Page l of l Pages

AIR CONTAMINANT DISCHARGE PE~IT

Department of Environmental Quality 811 S. w. Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 229-5696

Issued 1n accordance with the provisions of ORS 468.310

ISSUED TO:

Bullseye Glass Co. 3722 S,W, 21st Avenue Portland, OR 97202

PLANT SITE:

3722 S, E. 21st Avenue Portland, Oregon

REFERENCE INfO~ATION:

Application No.: NA

Date Received: NA

ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

~ ~ JUL 16 1987 Fred Hansen, Di rector Date

ADDENDUM NO. l

In accordance w1th OAR Chapter 340, Section 14-040, Air Contaminant Discharge Permit No. 25-3135, Condition 5 now readS as follows:

~mpJiance Pemonstr~n Schedule 5. By no later than Septanber l, 1988, the penn1ttee shall demonstrate that

the $lass furnaces are capable of operating 1n continuous compliance w1th Condition 2,b,

P263l3 ,SA

EXHIBIT L

• , .

STATE OF QBl'@N

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

TO: ~;,wo

FROM: R.H. Wixom

SUBJECT: AQ - Bullseye Glass Co. Permit Number 26-3135 Multnomah County Annual Inspection and

INTEROffiCE MEMO

DATE: March 9, 1988

Glass Furnace Opacity Compliance Demonstration

FILE REVIEW

On July 16, 1987, the compliance demonstration schedule for Bullseye Glass Co. located at 3722 SW 21st Avenue, Portland, Oregon was extended to September l, 1988.

During September of 1987 a complaint was received from a resident located at 3722 SE 21st Avenue, Portland. She stated that fine glass fiber was falling around her house. I have contacted the lab and they are going to conduct a survey this summer to determine the validity of the complaint. No glass was observed by an on•site observation.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Bullseye Glass has had a history of exceeding the state's opacity standard when their glass melting furnaces are being charged (3 to 7 minutes). This was caused by the use of cullet (recycled bottle glass) and the adding of borax to facilitate the melting process.

PLANT INSPECTION

An inspection was conducted on March l, 1988 between ll a.m. and 1 p.m. by Charles Clinton and R.H. Wixom.

First, an interview was held with the president and owner, Mr. Daniel W. Schwoerer. Daniel stated that the cost to reach compliance had probably cost them $500,000 in the loss of revenue from eight types of glass they could not reformulate and the test batches to achieve duplication of existing product lines which were not saleable.

He stated, however, that his company was stronger from the experience. (They now have a glass chemist. The formulation knowledge gained by the necessity of achieving compliance has enabled Bullseye Glass to develop eight new colors plus additional new types of glass.) The only glass type they still use cullet in is their cathedral line. They have reduced the use of cullet from 15 tons to one ton. Sixty-five percent of the glass colors

•·

Bullseye Glass Compliance Inspection March 8, 1988 Page 2

they were able to recreate. Their business had increased by 28% at the first of the year. It has continued to expand to 33% at this point of time, and is projected to continue to 35% by the end of the year. Ninety-nine percent of their business is out of the state of Oregon. Most of it is around the world centering in Europe and Japan. They will gross two million dollars this year and have increased from 27 to 35 employees.

PLANT INSPECTION

The three new furnaces hold 1800, 1500 and 750 pounds and the three old hold 675, 675 and 1350 pounds respectively. It takes six hours to melt bottle glass and 15 hours to melt from raw material. This represents an increase in melting cost of twelve percent.

OPACITY COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

Two melts were read for opacity. A two barrel melt and a three barrel melt (men shovel the materials out of a common 55 gallon barrel in which the raw materials have been turned for mixing). The three newly engineered furnaces are able to keep a neutral pressure in the furnace and operate cleaner because they will not exhaust out when being charged. The temperature in all the furnaces is around 2265°F during charging. The two barrels were charged into a new furnace and the three went to an old furnace (he has a full-time furnace builder).

Attached are the opacity readings.

Bullseye Glass has achieved compliance through the method chosen by Daniel (reformulation rather than control equipment). They are now melting 7000 lbs of material per day, 50 weeks per year. Their daily waste consists of around 3000 lbs per day which is hauled to landfill by AWS Garbage Service.

Daniel was asked to write a letter to the Northwest Region to update the Department.

R.H. Wixom March 3, 1988 RP1372

EXHIBITM

Fennit Nuni:Jer: 26-3135 AWlicatioo No.: 12768

Page 1 of 5 Pages

PSEL

Department of Environmental Q.Jality Air Q.Jality Divisioo

AIR cx:NI2\MINANl' DISOIARGE P.l!:RilT APPLICATIOO REVl:m REEORl'

aillseye Glass CO. 3722 S.E. 21st Avenie

R:>rtland, Oregon 97202

sana Q,IS AMB COIPL SPEC REKlRI' EXCESS NSPS NSR RID NESHAPS SIZE am, TEST ~ SCiED cnm A Q M R N Al A2

X X X X X X

GffiERAL MGRiWNP INFPfflATICN

RJBI.,

NOR:

X

1. BJJJseye Glass CDlpany operates a stained glass marufacturinJ plant located at 3722 s.E. 21st Avenue in R>rtland, Oregon. 'llll:: pi:cx::es.i includes preparation of the raw naterials, meltinJ in a fUmace, fC>IlllIDJ, and fini.shinJ. 'lhe facility was installe:i in 1974 to 1983.

2. 'lhe annual production capacity is awroxbnately 1,500 tons per year of colored sheet glass.

3. '!he srurce is located in a nonattainment area for ozone, total partirulate (TSP) , and cartion mnaxide (00) and is an insignificant srurce of Volatile organic Canpourrls (VOC), TSP, and 00. 'lhe area is in attainment for all other pollutants.

4. 'lbe source is located within 100 kilaneters (62 miles) of a Class I air quality protection area, the Molmt Hood Wilderness Area.

5. A I.arxi Use Ccitpatibility statement was not required at the tirre of awlication.

6. No other permits have been issued or are required by the Department of Environmental ~lity for this source.

7. 'lbe facility was inspected on 07/29/92 and foorx:l to be rut of ccmpliance with pennit conditions. J\dditional sources of air oontaminant emissions ( one tank furnace and seven pot furnaces) had been added without notification to the Department. A Notice of Nonccnpliance was issued on 08/03/92. 'lbe additional sources are included in this Air o:mtaminant Disdlarge Pennit.

Permit Nuni:>er: 26-3135 Ag>lication No. : 12768

Page 2 of s Pages

8. 'lhe followi.Iq enforcement action has been taken against this soorce since the last permit renewal: tm (JIQ-NWR-92-316) issued on 08/03/92 for failure t.o notify the Department prior t.o installation/construction of air oontaminant souroes.

9. A oarplaint was received abCAlt fine glass fiber fallirg a, a neigtlborirg hoose on 09/28/87. An onsite a:ieervation did not substantiate the oarplaint. An inspection done a, 03/01/88 faun the facility t.o be in oarplian:le with permit ocniltions. 'Die facility ctJtained oarplian:le with q,acity limits by refonwatirg the glass o 111u;;itions t.o reduce emissions.

10. Visible Eaissia, CiJservations:

Test Date Results

F\lrnaoe (#3) F\lrnaoes

04/21/87 03/09/88 07/31/89 08/21/90

In 0:llplian:le In 0:llplian:le In o:aiplian:le In O;nplian:le

11. Existin;J air contaminant sources at the facility oonsist of the followi.Iq:

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

three (3) glass fuma.oes with 800 pain;ls capacity, t\>'O (2) glass furnaces with 1Soo pain;ls capacity, one (1) glass furnace with 2,000 pain;ls capacity, one (1) glass furnace with lfA'O0 pain;ls capacity, t\;o (2) pots with 150 pooros capacity, t\;o (2) pots with 200 pooros capacity, t\>'O (2) pots with 300 pooros capacity, and one (1) pot with soo poooos capacity.

12. '!here are no emission oontrol systems on the furnaces.

13. 'lhe permit is a renewal/mcdification for an existirg Air Contaminant Disdlarge Permit which was issued <Tl 08/14/86 am was originally scheduled t.o expire on 06/01/91. Since the last permit renewal, the followirg dlan;Jes have been made:

a. J\ddendt.nn No. 1 issued 07-16-87 to m::xtify the final date of the ccxrpliance schedule for the glass fu:rnaoes,

b. l\ddendum No. A issued 12-13-90 t.o change the~ of General Conditions G4 and G5 for excess emissions, am

c. addition of one tank furnace and seven pot t'Urnaoes.

PeJ:mit Nuntier: 26-3135 A(:plication No. : 12768

Page 3 of 5 Pages

ORIGINAL PI.ANT SITE EMISSION LIMIT

14. 'lhe operating schedule for the furnaces in the baseline year 1978 was 24 hours/day X 5 daysjweek X 49 weeks/yr 2 5,880 ~/year.

15. Reported annual production for the baseline year 1978 was 607 tons of glass.

16. Reported annual fuel OOl'ISUllpl:ion for the baseline year 1978 was 300,000 thems of natural gas.

17. Emissions in the baseline year 1978 'WleI'e as follows:

Particulate SQi CD OOx voe tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr

(lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) tons/yr tons/yr

(lbs/hr) (lbs/hr)

0.6 (0.2)

0.9 (0.3)

0.03 6.0 (0.01) (2.0)

0.03 (0.01)

Operating parameters, emission factors, ani emissions are shown on the attadled Plate site Emissions Detail Sheets.

HIS'IORY OF aU\NGES 'IO 'IllE PIANT SITE EMISSICN LIMIT

18. 'l.bere have been no Deparbrent awrc,ved PSEL increases or decreases between the baseline year ani this pennit.

aJRRENI' PI.ANT SITE EMISSION LIMIT

19. 'lbe normal operatin;J schedule for the furnaoes is essentially the same as the baseline year.

20. 'Ihe nonra.l annual ani maxim.mt hourly production is different fran the baseline year ani is 1,,500 tons/year ani 510 poomsjhoor.

21. Reported annual fuel coilSl.lll¢ion is different fran the baseline year ani is 1,000,000 thern,s of natural gas.

22. 'Ihe current Plant Site Emission Limit for ncnra.l operaticn is greater than the baseline emission rate ani is shown below. 'lhe increase is due to an increase in the production because of expanded sales in overseas markets which resulted in installation of additional pot fumaces.

source F\Jmaoes & Pots

Particulate ~ tons/yr tons/yr

(lbs/hr) fl hfl/hrj

1.5 (0.5)

2.3 (0.8)

CD tons/yr ()hfl/hr)

Fermit Number: 26-3135 Af.plicatioo No. : 12768

Page 4 of 5 Pages

IDx voe tons/yr torE/yr

/ l 1:§lhrl (] l?§Jhr)

0.08 14.8 (0.03) (5.1)

0.08 (0.03)

~tin;J parameters, emissioo factors, arn emissions are shown oo the attached Plate Site Emissicns Detail Sheets.

SIGNIFIOINT EMISSICN RATE ~

23. 'Ihe pie p.eed Plant Site F.missioo Limit in::reases since the baseline year 1978 are less than the Significant F.missial Rates as defined in CWl 340-20-225 (25) for all pollutants an::1 are shown below. No further air quality analysis is required for those pollutants.

Particulate ~ 0)

IDx voe

AIR 'l'QXICS

B,se] ine

0.6 0.9 0.03 6.0 0.03

o.n:rent PSEL

1.5 2.3 0.08

14.8 0.08

Increase {tons/yr)

0.9 1.4 0.05 8.8 0.05

Significant Emissicri Rate {tons/yr)

25 40

100 40 40

24. Toxic air pollutant emissions fran this source will be reviewed at sud!. time as the cepart:ment fornw.ates its review procedures for existin;J air emission sources.

ADDITIONAL RFµJIRfflENl'S

25. No source testin;J requiranents are contained in the pennit.

26. No cx:intinuws ronitorin;J requirenents are contained in the pennit.

27. No ambient ronitorin;J requirements are contained in the pennit.

28. No catqJliance schedules =ntained in the pennit.

29. No special conditions are cx:intained in the pennit.

30. '.the source is required to subnit reports to the Deparbnent annually.

31. '.!he source is not subject to ilmnediate (within ooe hoor) reportin;J of excess emissions.

Pemit Number: 26-3135 At;plication No.: 12768

Page 5 of 5 Pages

32. 'lhis sa.u:oe is oot subject to federal regulations for New SOllrOe Performaooe stan:lards (NSPS) •

33. 'lhis sa.u:oe is oot subject to federal regulations for New SOllrOe Review.

34. 'Ibis scurce is oot subject to federal regulations for Preventioo of Significant Deterioratioo (PSD) •

35. 'lhis sa.u:oe is oot subject to federal regulations for National Emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) •

36. 'DJ& pLi l.o3Eld Plant Site Dnissian Lim.it is greater than the previous PSEL am is shc:Mn belo;.r. 'lhe .increase npr:smts an actual enissions increase because of an .increase in the product:ioo 'lhe pccpused pennit was placed oo public ootice fran August 12, 1992 to Septattier 11, 1992. No cc:mnents were received fran the public durirq that time.

Pollutant

Particulate SOi CD

OOx voe

JSI:a Septanber 15, 1992 ~\P263135R

Beeline

0.6 0.9 0.03 6.0 0.03

Qlrrvnt In::rease PSEL (tg,s/yr)

1.5 0.9 2.3 1.4 0.08 0.05

14.8 8.8 0.08 0.05

EXHIBITN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON


SCOTT MEEKER and ERIN MEEKER, KELLY GOODWIN, BRUCE ELY and KRISTI) HAUKE, ELIZABETH BORTE and RINO PASINI, CHRISTIAN MINER, and JUDY SANSERI and HOWARD BANICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Page 1

vs. Case No.: 16-CV-07002

BULLSEYE GLASS CO., an Oregon corporation,

Defendants.

11 CONFIDENTIAL 11

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ERIC DURRIN

Taken in behalf of the Plaintiffs

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Oregon Rules of

Civil Procedure, the deposition of ERIC DURRIN was taken

before Victoria A. Guerrero, Oregon Certified Shorthand

Reporter, Registered Merit Reporter, Registered

Professional Reporter, and Certified Realtime Reporter,

on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, commencing at the hour

of 8:07 a.m., in the conference room of the law firm of

Perkins Coie LLP, 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor, in

the City of Portland, County of Multnomah, State of

Oregon.

Electronically signed by Victoria Guerrero (201·225-611-9146) ad371284-dac4-44d8-b75d-aff0026c3afe

09:34:31 1

2

3

4

09:35:11 5

6

7

8

9

09:35:37 10

11

12

13

14

09:35:50 15

16

17

18

19

09:36:08 20

21

22

23

24

09:36:25 25

Page 50

I'm going to ask you about the period in 1997

when EPA was considering proposed new rules for glass

manufacturers.

A I recall 1997.

Q So what do you remember about how you learned

about proposed new rules for glass manufacturers?

A I recall that I was contacted by Kathy Amidon

of the DEQ to inform me that EPA was developing new

rules that might affect our industry.

Q Do you know Kathy from previous interactions

with DEQ?

A I had prior interactions with Kathy regarding

our air discharge permit.

Q How often do you talk to Kathy normally?

A I seldom spoke to Kathy Amidon.

Q Okay. Do you still speak with Kathy Amidon?

Does she still work at DEQ?

A

years.

Q

about

rules?

A

in

I have not spoken with Kathy Amidon in many

I understand that she has retired.

Okay. What do you remember talking to her

2007 when she called you about the proposed

I recall that she informed me that she had been

reviewing potential new rules and that she had read an

economic study saying that the intended rules would not

I I

I I

I

Electronically signed by Victoria Guerrero (201-225-611-9146) ad371284-dac4-44d8-b75d-aff0026c3afe

09:36:32

09:36:48

09:37:11

09:37:34

09:37:40

09:38:01

1

Page 51

affect small businesses, that it was focused on some

2 large float glass factories.

3 However, with the way that the specifications

4 in the rule were written, that they may have been

5 totally unaware of our industry and that they may have

6 accidentally written something that would affect us.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q

A

So what did you do with that information?

I informed Daniel Schwoerer of the issue and I

contacted the EPA to make public comment.

Q Do you remember what Dan's response was, then?

A I believe that he supported the idea of

contacting the EPA to provide public comment.

Q Before you contacted EPA, did you contact other

glass manufacrurers like Bullseye, like Spectrum or

Uroboros?

A Yes.

Q Can you tell me about those conversations?

A Pardon me?

Q Can you tell me about those conversations?

A Yes, I can.

Q Would you, please?

A I contacted other manufacturer -- stained glass

manufacturers that I was aware of to inform them that my

local regulator educated me about a potential new rule

that would af:ect them, and that they may want to

I

I

I

I

Electronically signed by Victoria Guerrero {201-225-611-9146} ad371284-dac4-44d8-b75d-aff0026c3afe

09:38:07 1

2

3

4

09:38:26 5

6

7

8

9

09:38:46 10

11

12

13

14

09:38:56 15

16

17

18

19

09:39:17 20

21

22

23

24

09:39:27 25

Page 52

contact the EPA to provide public comment to improve the

final draft of the new rules.

Q When you say the rule may have affected -- what

was your understanding of what the rule might require of

Bullseye?

A My understanding is that the rule would have

affected any manufacturer that produced more than

used a furnace that produced more than 50 tons of glass

that at some point used HAP materials in that furnace

for the production of HAP glass.

Q When you say affected, what do you mean by

affected?

A The rule would apply to them.

Q Oh, and if the rule applied, what would that

mean to that furnace?

A My understanding is the rule would require

compliance with the need for pollution control devices.

Q Okay. When you went to talk to Dan you didn't

say Dan, this rule is going to shut down our furnaces or

this rule is going to require us to put on the pollution

control devices?

How did you understand it might require you to

change the facility?

MS. CROOKS: Objection. Compound. Compound.

Compound.

I

I

I

I

Electronically signed by Victoria Guerrero {201-225-611-9146) ad3 71284-dac4-44d 8-b 7 Sd-aff0026c3af e

09:39:30 1

2

3

4

09:39:37 5

6

7

8

9

09:39:54 10

11

12

13

14

09:40:08 15

16

17

18

19

09:40:46 20

21

22

23

24

09:41:02 25

Page 53

THE WITNESS: Could you parse your question?

MR. ?REUSCH: Be happy to.

BY MR. PREUSCH:

Q How did you understand how the rule would

require you to change the facility?

A I understood that for furnaces that exceeded

the threshold that there would need to be a baghouse

added to those furnaces.

Q And how many furnaces do you think that would

apply to at Bullseye?

A I don't recall at that point.

Q But it would have been any furnace that

produced over 50 tons of glass using HAPs, right?

A It would have been several furnaces.

Q Okay. We're going to take a stroll down Memory

Lane and look at some old letters which I'm sure you

reviewed recently.

I'm going to hand you what was marked

Exhibit 14 previously for Mr. Barker's deposition.

(Exhibit 14 was referenced.)

BY MR. PREUSCH:

Q Do you remember this letter?

A I recall this letter.

Q Can I ask you to look at the last paragraph on

the second page? You wrote, Colored art glass

I

Electronically signed by Victoria Guerrero {201-225-611-9146) ad371284-dac4-44d8-b75d-aff0026c3afe

EXHIBIT 0

Eric Durrin

From: Sent:

AMIDON Kathy [[email protected]] Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:36 AM

To: Eric Durrin Subject: FW: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

I haven't looked at this yet, but EPA has been allowing only 30 days for comments in their other recent publications.

-----Original Message----From: WIND Cory Ann Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:57 PM To: (NWR] AQ Staff Subject: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

EPA has been very busy this week proposing new area source NESHAPs .. of course, it's because of court-ordered deadlines to have these final by the end of the year. These are significant because they will affect a lot of our sources. Specifically, there are new proposed rules for:

• Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, And Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing • Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities • Iron and Steel Foundries • Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations (which includes autobody refinishers)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html is the link to their new regulation website.

1

EXHIBIT P

FACT SHEET

PROPOSED AIR TOXICS STANDARDS FOR CLAY CERAMICS MANUFACTURING, GLASS MANUFACTURING, AND SECONDARY NONFERROUS METALS

PROCESSING AREA SOURCES

ACTION

• On September 12, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued proposed air toxics standards for smaller-emitting sources, known as area sources, in the clay ceramics manufacturing, glass manufacturing, and secondary nonferrous metals processing industries. Toxic air pollutants from these sources, or air toxics, are known or suspected to cause cancer and other health problems Standards are being proposed for existing and new sources in all three source categories.

• Area sources are commercial and industrial operations that release lesser quantities of toxic pollutants into the air. Area sources have the potential to emit less than IO tons per year of a single air toxic, or less than 25 tons per year of a combination of air toxics. Major sources have the potential to emit IO or more tons per year of any of the listed toxic air pollutants, or 25 or more tons per year of a mixture of air toxics.

PROPOSAL SUMMARIES

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing:

• The proposed clay ceramics manufacturing rule includes equipment standards and management practices for atomized spray glaze operations and kilns that fire glazed ceramic ware.

• Facilities in this industry would also be required to conduct monitoring and recordkeeping activities and submit one-time notifications of applicability and compliance status.

• No testing requirements are being proposed for clay ceramics manufacturing area sources.

• EPA estimates that 51 existing clay ceramics manufacturing facilities would be affected by the proposed rule.

• EPA is proposing to exempt area sources in the clay ceramics manufacturing from operating permit requirements called Title V permitting requirements, except where an affected facility is required to obtain a Title V permit for reasons other than being subject to one of the proposed rules.

• Existing area source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities are currently well-controlled for metal air toxics emissions as a result of state and national standards, permitting requirements, and/or management practices already taken by the industry to reduce air toxics. The

proposed rule would codify existing practices and are not expected to change the level of emissions control already being achieved.

• The proposed clay ceramics manufacturing rule will have little cost impact on existing area sources, averaging less than $1,000 per facility.

• New sources would be subject to the same requirements as existing sources under this proposal.

Glass Manufacturing:

• The proposed glass manufacturing rule includes emission limits for glass manufacturing furnaces.


• Glass manufacturing facilities would also be required to conduct initial performance tests if tests have not been conducted within the past five years of the compliance date for those rules.

• EPA estimates that the proposed rule would affect approximately 21 existing glass manufacturing facilities; these plants operate furnaces processing glass formulations containing metal HAP.

• Glass manufacturers are already subject to Title V requirements because they are major sources of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides. or both. Therefore, we are not exempting glass manufacturers from Title V requirements.

• The proposed glass manufacturing rule is expected to reduce nationwide metal air toxics emissions up to 22 tons per year. EPA estimates that three glass facilities will have to add on air pollution control equipment to meet the emission limits in the proposed rule.

• The annual compliance cost for the proposed glass manufacturing rule is estimated to average about $69.300 per facility.

• No small businesses are impacted by the proposed rule.

• We do not anticipate new glass manufacturing furnaces that would be processing metal HAPs to be built within the next 3 years because the market is currently saturated and capacity at such plants far exceeds the existing production rates. However, if new sources are built, they would be subject to the same requirements as existing sources under this proposal.

Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing:

• The proposed Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing rule would include control equipment and control efficiency requirements for existing crushing and screening operations and furnace melting operations.

• Existing sources would be required to have fabric filter controls achieving 99% efficiency.

• New sources would be required to achieve 99.5% efficiency using fabric filters.


• Secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities would also be required to conduct initial performance tests if tests have not been conducted within the past 5 years of the compliance date for those rules.

• EPA estimates that the proposed rule would affect approximately IO existing secondary nonferrous metals processing facilities.

• EPA is proposing to exempt facilities in the Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing area source categories from reporting requirements in Title V (permitting requirements) except where an affected facility is required to obtain a Title V permit for reasons other than being subject to one of the proposed rules.

• Existing area source Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing facilities are currently wellcontrolled in terms of metal air toxics emissions as a result of state and national standards, permitting requirements, and/or management practices already taken by the industry to reduce air toxics. The proposed rule would codify existing practices are not expected to change the level of emissions control already being achieved.

• The proposed Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing rule will have little cost impact on existing area sources, averaging approximately $1,300 per facility.

• We do not anticipate any new sources in this industry in the next 3 years because the market is saturated and the current capacity at existing plants far exceeds the existing production rates.

BACKGROUND

• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to identify categories of industrial sources that emit one or more of the listed 188 toxic air pollutants. These industrial categories include both major and area sources.

• Area sources are those that do not emit or have the potential to emit more than IO tons per year ofa single toxic air pollutant and more than 25 tons per year of any combination of toxic air pollutants.

• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to identify the toxic air pollutants that pose a health threat in the largest number of urban areas and to regulate sufficient area source categories to ensure that the emissions of these ·'urban" air toxics are reduced. EPA implements these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.

• The clay ceramics manufacturing. glass manufacturing, and secondary nonferrous metals processing source categories included in today's proposed rules are included on the area source category list.

• Air toxics emitted from area sources in the three source categories include arsenic. cadmium. chromium, lead. manganese, and nickel. Exposure to these compounds may cause cancer, central nervous system, respiratory, gastrointestinal. reproductive, and developmental effects; brain, liver, and kidney damage; and acute health disorders such as respiratory and skin irritation.

• For area sources within each source category, the Clean Air Act allows EPA to develop standards or requirements which provide for the use of generally available control technologies (GACT) or management practices rather than the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) required for major sources.

• The proposed air toxics rules are being developed in response to the requirements in section I I 2(k) of the Clean Air Act and are being issued at this time in response to a court order that directs EPA to issue final rules for area sources every 6 months.

HOW TO COMMENT

• EPA will take public comment on the proposed rule for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.

• EPA will hold a public hearing if requested. The Agency is under a court order to finalize the rule by December 15, 2007.

• Comments should be identified by the following Docket ID Numbers: o For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing :EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 o For Glass Manufacturing: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360 o For Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0940

• Comments should be submitted by one of the following methods:

o Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov)

o e-mail ([email protected])

o Mail (EPA Docket Center. Environmental Protection Agency. Mail code 6102T.

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460), or

o Hand delivery (EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue. NW, Washington, DC).

FOR MORE INFORMATION

• To download a copy of the proposed rule, go to EPA's Worldwide Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg .. under Recent Additions

• For further information about the proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing rule. contact Mr. Bill Neufter of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) at (919) 541-5435 or [email protected]. For further information about the proposed Glass Manufacturing or Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing rules, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild ofEPA/OAQPS at (919) 541-5167 or [email protected].

EXHIBITQ

.•

October 9, 2007

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer {C404-02} Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Caro!ina 27711

RE: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0360 {for Glass Manufacturing)

Dear Mr. Morales,

I have submitted the following comment through the www.regulations.gov website:

I would like to provide comments regarding the proposed rule. My comments are based on the operations of Bullseye Glass Company. I belleve that the proposed rule will affect many other businesses that produce colored art glass for artisans. other companies affected include stained glass manufacturers, glass blowers, schools, and artisans.

The proposed rule was written based on analysis of the glass industry that did not consider colored art glass {commonly referred to as "stained glass"} manufacturers. In the body of the fact sheet that was released with the proposed rule, it states that, "No small businesses are impacted by !he proposed rule." The proposed rule, in its current form, would affect many small businesses.

The point that small businesses were not properly considered is further demonstrated within the body of the proposed rule. It is suggested that only three furnaces are expected to be affected by the new regulations. "These estimates are based on the assumption that an ESP would be installed on one pressed and blown glass furnace, and that fabric filters would be installed on two pressed and blown glass furnaces." The proposed rule would affect several of the furnaces at our facility alone.

The economic ·impacts of the rule as written would be severe for colored art glass manufacturers. The calculation of the impact significance was based on large industry. The colored. art glass manufacturers are small businesses.

The proposed rule does not apply well to many of the furnaces used by colored art glass manufacturers. Large glass producers tend to use continuous furnaces to make one fonnula of glass. Colored art glass manufacturers generally use periodic furnaces to

NESHAP Confidential Business lnfonnation - Comment-2007.doc CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATIO

BE00016204

\

make a variety of glass formulas at various time within a given furnace. Colored art glass manufacturers may produce glasses that contain some HAP chemicals for a limited part of the year. The testing and monitoring of furnace activities would need to consider the varied production cycles that are typical in our industry.

I understand the importance of regulating industry and the goal of dealing with HAP chemicals. I suggest that there are several ways to modify the proposed rule that would help achieve the environmental goals for area sources and properly account for the characteristics of the colored art glass manufacturers.

In the current draft of the proposed rule, there is an annual threshold of 50 tons-per-year (tpy) to determine if a furnace (using HAP chemical) should be affected. 50 tpy is a very little amount of glass. This threshold should be increased.

The scale of operation, the types of technology employed, and the generally available control technologies for the colored art glass manufacturers are different than those of the large manufacturers. A general exclusion for small businesses should be added to the proposed rule. Additionally, exclusion of periodic furnaces (versus continuous furnaces) should be added to the proposed rule.

Colored art glass manufacturers use HAP chemicals to-modify the glass characteristics or to impart color to the glass. The total amount of glass produced by colored art glass manufacturers is small. Correspondingly, the total amount of HAP chemicals used by colored art glass manufacturers is small. Individual thresholds (measured in pounds used per year) should be inserted in.to the proposed rule. If any glass manufacturer used less than the threshold of HAP in a furnace, they should be exempt from this new rule.

Colored art glass manufacturers use a variety of management procedures and methods to control the release of HAP chemicals. The proposed rule should recognize the unique character of the colored art glass manufacturers and define the generally available · control technologies that are in place. The new rule should allow colored art glass manufacturers the option of certifying that they conform to the set of generally available control technologies that are in place as a means of compliance.

I would like to provide some confidential business information to assist in the process of editing the proposed rule. Please forward this information to the appropriate parties so they can include ii in their consideration.

NESHAP Confidential Business Information - Comment - 2007 .doc CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

BE00016205

Bullseye Glass Furnace Operations

Our facility has a total of 18 furnaces. Usually, some of the furnaces are inactive. Some furnaces are idle because their capacity is not needed for sales demand and they are intentionally not being used. Other furnaces are not producing

. glass because they have become worn out and are being rebuilt. The following chart lists the furnace inventory and shows the capacity in pounds per production day:

Absolute Current Furnace Melt Melt

Caoacitv Caoacltv T-1 800 800 T-2 800 800 T-3 2,250 2.250 T-4 2,250 2,250 T-5 1,600 1,600 T-6 2,400 2,400 T-7 1,600 1,600 T-8 600 600 T-9 600 600 P-10 300 300 T-11 1 600 1,600 T-12 800 Rebuild T-13 1,600 1,600 T-14 1,600 1,600

TEK-15 5,600 5,600 TEK-16 5600 Down

P-17 300 300 P-18 225 225

TOTAL 30,525 24,125

We do not utilize the "current melt capacity" completely. In that last six months, we have averaged 87% utilization. The reduced utilization is because some glasses are difficult to melt and require that the pool of molten glass be shallow. Also, we reduce utilization because we do not want to spill glass during the melting or casting process. Finally, we do not use all of our capacity due to market conditions (sales volume does not demand more). In 2006, we had a gross production of 2,515 tons of glass.

All of our furnaces are periodic furnaces (not continuous furnaces). Some furnaces are fired with natural gas and combustion air (ambient). Other furnaces are fired with natural gas and oxygen.

We introduce batch material to the furnace in two fashions: 1) via screw charger, and 2) batch material bagged in Kraft paper sacks. Batch material is dampened before charging to reduce the release of dust. Furnaces are set to "low· when the batch material ·is being charged to decrease the turbulence with the furnace.

NESHAP Confidential Business Information - Comment- 2007.ctoc CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

BE00016206

··- ..

Bullseye Glass Formulas Bullseye produced a wide variety of glasses. We have approximately 200 distinct formulas to make different colors. By virtue of mixing colors and extruding different sizes and textures (along with quality grade differences), we manufacture over 10,000 different glass products.

The base for our glass formulation is sand, sodium carbonate, and limestone. Other raw materials are used to affect color, viscosity, and expansion. Our glass formulas are modified on a regular basis. Changes are made to adjust the total amount melted in a batch. Also, the formulas are adjusted to meet quality standards for color, viscosity, and expansion.

Raw materials included in the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) list for the proposed rule account for about 0. 78% of the total raw materials consumed by Bullseye is a year. Some glass formulas call for over 20% of their mass to come from HAP chemicals. Some glass formulas do not use any HAP materials. Most glass formulas have less than 1 % HAP chemicals.

NESHAP Confidential Business Information - Comment - 2007 .doc CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

BE00016207

EXHIBITR

8 S~ 33rd?I

Sf. ~ .lrcl Av,,

!1h Pl l,i r,! § SE Z8,11 Avo:

i S[ 2/ih Avr 0

u

~,.; St :' 6th l.vr

(>"E 1 CJif 17

SE 16th

<!)

'E 0

S[ 9·h A-1c. ] ::,.

S( 8th AWJ tl

$:: ~th A,r,

f_:) SE 33u.J ?I ,(>,

!:;c 32nd A•,e

EXHIBITS

Eric Durrin

From: Sent: To:

AMIDON Kathy [[email protected]] Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:49 PM Eric Durrin

Subject: RE: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

You might try Madonna Narvaez in EPA's Region X. Her number is 206-553-2117.

I haven't had the time to read the proposed rule yet. I find the second statement below confusing. This is an area source standard, meant to deal with small businesses.

I will try to get to this later in the week. I'll put it on my calendar so I remember. -----Original Message---··-From: Eric Durrin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:26 PM To: AMIDON Kathy Subject: RE: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for the information.

I have read through the fact sheet. I noticed two things: 1) it mentions that the new rules would affect approximately 21 existing glass manufacturing facilities, and 2) it states that "no small businesses are impacted by the proposed rule".

Since we are a small business, can I assume that we are not affected by this proposed rule? Do you know where I could look to determine which companies are amongst the 21 existing glass manufacturing facilities?

Eric E. Durrin -- Bullseye Glass Company-- 503.232.8887

From: AMIDON Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:36 AM To: Eric Durrin Subject: FW: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

I haven't looked at this yet, but EPA has been allowing only 30 days for comments in their other recent publications.

-----Original Message----From: WIND Cory Ann Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:57 PM To: [NWR] AQ Staff Subject: Newly Proposed Area Source NESHAPs

EPA has been very busy this week proposing new area source NESHAPs .. of course, it's because of courtordered deadlines to have these final by the end of the year. These are significant because they will affect a lot of our sources. Specifically, there are new proposed rules for:

• Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, And Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing

• Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities • Iron and Steel Foundries • Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations (which includes autobody

refinishers)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html is the link to their new regulation website.

2

EXHIBIT T

State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97201

POLLUTION COMPLAINT Pollution 'fype:

AQ__L_ SW __ WQ __ OD

HW

alt -3/Ss

Time: 1/£9 '

OB SS __ UT __

Source: fie ;J/. '7e, 4/a 14'

,xv~ . Jc ,Jl.i t; &'?

Date and Time Observed: _¢'-"''1'-"'f'1IJ..-----

X , Reported by: Name: ~ ~ d~ a,;,,,,)

Address:

__ Ctty: _________________ Zip: ______ _

3~~ County: _______ Home Phone: Work Phone: -5::t :1- Ste~.;L

Complaint taken by: ~ tlau,/4, Referred to: __________ _

&1/:i 1

~tio/ taken: ~ ou.L (.:md muv.10. (4ano,I/ /~ -au 4?Y ,. Ire ~ l'l.5"1 rce. _aa~ 0.,l t;ook, ,u/lat«J t f:44 <14e:t'e4. 'r'. 4-&p.1e,,... 1114(/L, ~~ v6f""-·

< 1414 kd4 e1 ~ =~ .;;) dr.M 1/2,~1 :t mffA..t:;,-ai_,__, ~ () ; u ..J

o<3', ,,;;:;74~:;;:::::; £ <k I, ~,, //4 M«,

~Lt1 ~ ~ .2. dk, _ uJ/4a,&9.A&n c&4< 11~

A "Zt: ::::;;:;.;z:;::;r 71'l' «/;1;:;.;;;;

Referred to (Agency or Person) ___________ Date: __________ _

Site Visit Yes L No._

Complainant Contacted Yes .£_

Date Resolved 9 - I ~ J O 7 Correspondence Attached Yes

9-13,01 Date

No. ,,/

Source Info Updated Yes No._ Date ________ _

Time Spent ___________ _

To Follow ____________ _

File Under-----------------------------DEQJR0-100 _j__

?l2t /5-N,, ~ @ ~e, •

.:ZJz~~f"$7 · ·

'f_2 2. ..ft I ,f f

EXHIBITU

• . .

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

81-12:5-1387

STATE OF OREGON

RIIW

AQ - Bullseye Glass Company Multnomah County

INTEROFFICE MEMO

DATE: May 7, 1984

The last week of April,driving into town on Barbur Boulevard, I observed an 80% plume across the Willamette River. On May 1, 1984, I saw the plume again. This time I drove to the source, Bullseye Glass Company, 3722 S.E. 21st Avenue (232-8887).

I saw some barrels labeled Cadmium which could cause emission problems if used to color glass (they produce all colors of glass). Therefore, I made an appointment to inspect the plant.

On May 7, 1984, I was shown through the plant by Richard Lovett, the manager. They melt about 3,500 pounds of recycled bottle glass per 24 hour day. They have five gas-fired furnaces which are operated at 2,0000 F. The crushed glass, coloring agents, etc. are placed in 55 gallon drums which have mixing paddles. The ends are then closed and the drum is placed on a mechanical roller that mixes the material. After mixing, the material is shoveled directly into the furnace and melted. {They have no pollution control equipment on the furnace stacks.) The melted glass is ladled onto a flat surface and then sent through a roll press and formed into sheets. After moving through a vented tempering oven, the finished material is sized and stored. The waste is barreled and reused when the same color is run again. Total weight loss in the melting process is 8%.

The attached list of materials was posted in their formulation room. The ones with the asterisk {*) were listed on a separate sheet as hazardous materials.

I gave Mr. Lovett an Air Quality permit informational sheet and asked him to complete it. I told him that the two most important questions we need to address are the opacity violations and the management of the hazardous materials.

Another manufacturer of colored glass is Uroboros Glass Studio, 2139 N. Kerby, Portland (284-4900).

Air Quality may want to study this industry and the hazardous emissions for possible inclusion on table 1.

/emc / cc: AQ

Bullseye Glass Company Memo Page 2 May 7, 1984

Materials List

Silica * Aluminum Fluoride

Dolomite Calcium Fluoride

* Zinc Oxide Tin oxide

* Potassium Nitrate Potassium Carbonate Sodium Carbonate Sodium Nitrate Silver Nitrate Solution Silicon Nitrate Solution Silicon Metal Power

* Copper Carbonate * Cobalt Carbonate * Manganese Dioxide * Chrome oxide

Iron Oxide * Cadmium Sulfide * Selenium Metal * Arsenic (Tri pentocide) (Tri Dioxide) * Potassium Bichromate * Nickel Oxide

Sodium Silica Flue.ride Magnesium Carbonate Gold Neodymium Oxide

* Stannous Chloride

EXHIBITV

Bullseyel.JGJasc; Co. . pR (C-

Mr. Richard Wixom Department of Environmental Quality 522 SW Fifth Avenue Box 1760 Portland, OR 97207

Dear Mr. Wixom:

Re: Description of Process and Related Emissions Problems

Bullseye Glass Company is an Oregon Corporation manufacturing a line of colored

glasses for the stained glass market. It has been located since its start in

1974 at 3722 SE 21st Avenue. The manufacturing process for which it holds a

U. S. patent involves crushing recycled bottle glass, adding various powdered

raw materials, melting these ingredients in small day tank furnaces, and forming

the molten glass into sheets. Approximately 4000 lbs, of crushed bottle glass

and 1200 lbs. of other raw materials are processed in this manner five days

a week. The major powdered raw material is 5 mol borax. The bottle glass

is crushed with a fine mist of water to prevent dusting. This water as well

as the 5 moles of water from \he borax generates sufficient steam during the

melting process to carry fine particulate up the exhaust stacks causing a plume

for 1/2 to 45 minutes after charging.

Through experimenting we have found that by reducing the ratio of bottle glass

to raw materials, we can eliminate the prolonged emissions, and by very careful

3722 South East 21st Avenue Portland. Ore9on 97202

(503) 232-0776

Mr. Richard Wixom March 14, 1986 Page Two

charging of the constituents into the furnaces, the initial plume is also

eliminated. The latter situation can be addressed by installing a mechanical

screw charging system to replace the hand shovelling of the materials into

the hot furnace. However, the reformulating of the glass composition to

eliminate emissions by evolving steam and other gases, greatly affects the

resultant colors. In order to achieve the same colors with a different formu

lation, an adequate size test furnace would have to be put on-line and each

colored glass reformulated until correct color hue is achieved with the new

glass composition.

Summary

The present emissions problem is two fold:

(1) A plume exceeding 20% opacity is emitted during the hand shovelling

of the raw materials into the hot furnace. This «ould be eliminated

by installation of a water-cooled, stainless steel mechanical screw

charger.

(2) Prolonged particulate emission during the initial melt stage caused

by the generation of steam and other volatiles carrying particualte

up the exhaust stacks. This problem would be solved by reformulation

of the glass batch compositions.

-2-

Mr. Richard Wixom March 14, 1986 Page Three

A description of the analytical analyses, necessary equipment and time

frames for installation is attached. I hope you find this satisfactory.

If you have any questions, please contact me at this office.

Sincerely,

President Bullseye Glass Co.

DWS:cjk Attachments

To___,_'R___,_,ffwc..,_·~-----Date 3/ap T

. /;): ~ ~ 1me /

~ called

Message_72,.:::=--;-c:---.~=------/o/7 k 6,Q T~1;

Taken by

FORM CS 51619

-3-

Analytical Evaluation of Emissions Problems

Bullseye has been addressing the emissions problem for over a year. During

this time we have identified the specific raw materials causing the excessive

evolution of vapors in the melting process. In August 1985 a full time

glass chemist was employed. Mr. Barber, with the aid of a computerized empir

ical glass formulating program and a series of experiments, has determined

the corresponding percentage ranges of batch composition of these materials

to eliminate stack emissions.

The problem remains to design a series of theoretical compositions for each

of the 35 colors and set up the corresponding test melts. This is basically

a trial and error procedure to correct for color hue shifts caused by the

formulated changes in the glass composition.

The design of the mechanical screw charger is simply a matter of scaling

down the design of existing apparatus presently used by the large bottle

glass manufacturers such as Owens-Illinois, and adapting it to our specific

situation. A prototype would be constructed and tested for one month to

determine if any design changes are necessary before all three are fabricated.

3722 South East 21st Avenue Portland. Oregon 97202

(503) 232-0776

•

Time Frame for New Equipment

(1) Test Furnace

Design

Order Delivery

Installation

(2) Mechanical Screw Charger

Preliminary Design

Order Delivery

Preliminary Installation

Final Installation

Compliance Dates

Glass Composition Reformulation

Mechanical Screw Chargers

3/14/86

March 15 to April 15

April 1 to l'..ay 15

April 15 to June l

July 1 to August 1

July 15 to September 30

October 15 to November 15

November 15 to December 15

September 15, 1986

December 15, 1986

-2-

EXHIBITW

Final NESHAP rule published Page I of!

_AM_1_o_o_N_Ka_t_hY _________________ ~-'-'-----'----'-=='' ',

. J t?l~-e.. .,,,,..e- ~u:i ~~ cr,t.?. i.s.~ d

From: Eric Durrin [ericdurrin@bullseyeglass,com]

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 200812:01 PM

/Jc.-~ To: AMIDON Kathy

Cc: Dan Schwoerer, Sam Andreakos; Daren Marshall

Subject: RE: Final NESHAP rule published

Hello and Happy New Year,

All of our furnaces are "periodic". We call some furnaces "pots" and others are called ''tanks", depending if the molten glass is in a crucible or merely melts within the furnace wall structure. We use a "day melt'' cycle where the batch is added to the furnace, melted, and cast. The furnace is then made ready for the next cycle to begin.

A group of colored glass manufacturers worked with Susan Fairchild {the technical contact at the EPA) to submit comments on the new regulations. The authors of the document were not aware of our industry subset when the drafted the proposal - they were very receptive to our input. The final document works for us.

_ Again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention - your were the only person in any agency in the US to notify a manufacturer of a potential impact of the EPA regulation changes. You helped all of the colored glass manufacturers.

Eric E. Durrin - Bullseye Glass Company - 503,232,8887

From: AMIDON Kathy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:49 AM To: Eric Durrin subject: Final NESHAP rule published

The final NESHAP for glass manufacturing was published in the Federal Register on 12/26/07.

It exempts pot furnaces and periodic furnaces according to section Ill, 8.1 (Summary of Changes Since Proposal). Do you have any continuous furnaces?

1/2/2008

carrie menikoff - bullseye glass · from r.h. wixom dated may 7, 1984 with an attached materials...

Documents