The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality formally notified Bullseye Glass Co. and Uroboros Glass yesterday (April 13, 2016) that their furnaces are “continuous furnaces” as that term is interpreted by the USEPA and therefore require Clean Air Act Title V permits to operate. Download a copy of ODEQ’s letters to Bullseye and Uroboros here. It is unclear at this writing whether the Department will withdraw from consideration by the Environmental Quality Commission the temporary rules that it proposed for these facilities last month. As I stated in my previous blog, those proposed rules are seriously flawed. Now that it is clear that these facilities are not exempt from permitting under the federal rules, adoption of the proposed State rules would likely imperil Oregon’s authorization to implement the federal regulations because the proposed State rules are largely inconsistent (and less restrictive) than the federal rules.
In its press release the ODEQ stated that at Governor Brown’s direction the Department and the Oregon Health Authority would be “launching development of a human health risk-based regulatory reform”. This is absolutely necessary given that the federal rules retain the outdated “command and control” model of environmental protection. Specifically, pursuant to the federal rules promulgated at 40 CFR 63.11451 and the related Table 1, emissions of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, manganese, lead, or nickel are limited to 0.01 gram per kilogram of glass produced on a 3-hour block average. What does that mean in terms of human health risk to the surrounding community? Hard to say, without the appropriate emissions modeling and ambient air testing, something that would be included in Oregon’s “risk-based regulatory reform”. Notably, the federal rules set a standard for particulate matter emissions (0.1 gram per kilogram of glass produced) that is separate from the limit on heavy metals (“Hazardous Air Pollutant” , or HAP) emissions. (See my previous discussion in Field Notes regarding the inadequacy of using a particulate control device, a “baghouse”, to control emissions of volatilized metals.)
Now we wait to see whether Bullseye and Uroboros will challenge USEPA’s (and now ODEQ’s) interpretation of “continuous” in court. Will Bullseye and Uroboros argue that “continuous” logically applies to the actual manufacture of glass, not to heating of the furnaces, and therefore does not apply to a “batch” operation like theirs (the argument originally swallowed by ODEQ staff)? Presumably, both facilities will be put under an Administrative Order allowing them to operate pending facility upgrades and permit issuance. After all, this hit them “like a ton of bricks”, and they shouldn’t be shut down “just because the rules have changed”. The surrounding community, though, should be wary of an AO that allows the facilities to go back into full production before appropriate emissions controls devices (including wet scrubbers) are installed. Keep an eye on these Field Notes as this saga continues.
