The Melting Pot - Where All Glass Addicts Melt Together - Powered by vBulletin

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 187

Thread: Bullseye pollution problems

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Exactly.
    ~Misha

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    260
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Bullseye statement on their planned projects to minimize emissions, in addition to the baghouse air filter to be installed in early April:
    http://www.bullseyeglass.com/news/bu...-controls.html

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    This is a message from Bullseye Glass. If you are able to help in any of the manners listed, please do. Sending an email might not sound like it can have any effect, but anything done in great numbers can have a huge effect. This will have serious reprecussions for all glass companies here in the U.S. Bullseye has done everything that has ever been asked of them, ie, following all the DEQ's regulations. Here is the message from BE:

    To Portland friends,
    Bullseye Glass Co. needs your help.

    Tomorrow, DEQ is proposing a set of sweeping “temporary” regulations that will severely curtail our production, without clear supporting evidence or an understanding of how we make our glass.
    See the agenda and proposed temporary rules here: http://www.oregon.gov/…/…/Documents/...6eqcAgenda.pdf
    The primary issue is our use of trivalent chromium Cr(III). Both DEQ and EPA have acknowledged there is no clear evidence of acute or chronic health risks based on Bullseye’s use of Cr(III), which is a harmless and naturally occurring compound. The limitations proposed are based on politics and anchored in speculation that some of these compounds might possibly change into a more toxic form of Chromium in our furnaces.
    Scientific evidence clearly indicates our furnaces cannot turn Chromium III into Chromium VI. If they did, our glass would be ruined. For more information on this, see this explanation by Dr. LaCourse of Alfred University: http://www.bullseyeglass.com/…/dr-la...omium-stateme…

    Bullseye understands the public interest and supports stronger environmental standards for our industry. To that effect, the company has already began the process of installing 99% efficient baghouses on furnaces that melt Chromium. We’ve agreed to test these filtration devices once they’re installed and in operation.

    As many of you know, Chromium III is essential to us producing the glass you rely on. Scientific evidence shows our use of the compound is not harmful. Nevertheless, DEQ wants to restrict Bullseye from using Cr(III) for an extended period of time. They are essentially basing these rules off an assumption of guilt without any supporting evidence.

    Neither DEQ or EPA have required any other US producer, of green glass, to entirely and arbitrarily stop their production without notice and perform the kind of extensive testing and modeling that DEQ is asking for. A typical green bottle manufacturer uses 1,000 times more Cr(III) per year than Bullseye Glass. A bottle producer, with emission controls, would melt more Cr(III) each day than Bullseye uses in a year.

    These newly proposed regulations are based on politics and fear, not science. They come right after DEQ’s executive director was forced to resign and its lead air monitor left the agency. These regulations could be forced upon us in the next 24 hours via a temporary rule making procedure by DEQ.

    If we are not allowed to use Cr (III), we can no longer make green glass. On top of our voluntary suspension of cadmium glass production until our baghouse is in place, this new limitation would eliminate 50% of our product line. It would result in employee layoffs, huge economic impacts to Bullseye and our worldwide customers, and could even drive us out of business.

    We need your immediate help. Will you let us know if you can support us with any of these actions?
    1) Attendance at tomorrow’s DEQ meeting at 2 pm tomorrow, March 15, downtown. (We are sorry for the short notice. We found out about the DEQ meeting on Friday.)
    2) Make a statement at tomorrow’s DEQ meeting, March 15, downtown. 811 SW 6th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97204. Our opponents plan to swamp the hearing. Arrive early (before 1pm) to sign up on the list to make a statement.
    3) Send a short email text or phone message in support of Bullseye to regulators and legislators. Contact information is listed below.
    Example of a message of support (or feel free to use your own words).
    Bullseye glass has a long history of responsible operation. I stand with Bullseye Glass in its efforts to continue operations as a responsible citizen of the social and business community of Portland, Oregon.

    Regulatory decisions must be based on science, not political issues. A leading scientist, Dr. LaCourse, has said Bullseye’s furnaces do not produce toxic chromium. We urge DEQ to rely on science and fact, and not to rush to impose these poorly written and misdirected rules.
    We sincerely appreciate any support you can provide right now.

    (To contact us on this subject, please send email to our Environmental Information email at questions@bullseyeglass.com.)

    Warm regards,
    Dan Schwoerer and Lani McGregor
    And the people of Bullseye Glass Co.

    Suggested contacts:
    Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
    Joni Hammond (Interim Director)
    email: hammond.joni@deq.state.or.us

    Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
    Lynne Saxton
    phone: 503-947-2340
    Email: lynne.saxton@state.or.us

    State Representatives
    Governor Kate Brown
    phone: (503) 378-4582
    email: https://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/contact.aspx

    Representative Rob Nosse
    phone: (971) 217-8037
    email: Rep.RobNosse@state.or.us

    Representative Jessica Vega Pederson
    phone: (503) 986-1447
    email: Rep.JessicaVegaPederson@state.or.us
    U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer
    phone: (503) 231-2300
    email: https://forms.house.gov/blume…/webfo...subscribe.html

    Oregon’s Natural Resource Office
    Gabriela Goldfarb
    phone: (503) 378-5232
    email: Gabriela.GOLDFARB@oregon.gov

    U.S. Senators
    Jeff Merkley
    phone: (503) 326-3386
    email: http://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact

    Ron Wyden
    phone: (503) 326-7525
    email: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/contact

    County Representatives
    Deborah Kafoury
    phone: (503) 988-3308
    email: mult.chair@multco.us

    Portland Representatives
    Mayor Charlie Hales
    phone: (503) 823-4120
    email: mayorcharliehales@portlandoregon.gov

    Dan Saltzman
    phone: (503) 823-4151
    email: dan@portlandoregon.gov

    Nick Fish
    phone: (503) 823-3589
    email: nick@portlandoregon.gov

    Amanda Fritz
    phone: 503-823-3008
    email: Amanda@portlandoregon.gov

    Steve Novick
    phone: (503) 823-4682
    email: novick@portlandoregon.gov
    ~Misha

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Detailed account by Bob Heath


    Today I attended the hearing where the DEQ presented a proposed set of temporary rules to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission for consideration. These proposed rules were narrowly focused at limiting toxic emissions from five Portland area colored art glass manufacturers (which they referred to as CAGMs). In reality the rules were specifically aimed at the two largest of that group; Bullseye and Uroboros.

    The meeting was held on the 10th floor of a building in downtown Portland which was, to say the least, less than ideal. There was a huge pillar in the middle of the room blocking the view of at least half of the commission speakers, no matter where you sat and they had a PA system with sound quality so poor that it would have been rejected by a Greyhound bus station, making it difficult for everyone to hear and be heard. In addition to three commissioners and one more attending via speaker phone, their legal counsel and about 6 or 7 DEQ representatives, there were in excess of 100 members of the public that showed up to listen. 50 of those public members also signed up to offer a public comment to the commission on the proposed DEQ rules.

    The meeting got under way at 2:00pm and the first hour was devoted to a power-point presentation by DEQ about their proposed temporary rules. The commissioners asked a number of questions during this presentation, but the audience members were only there to listen. The temporary rules proposed by the DEQ were narrowly focused on just glass manufacturers in the Portland area, and specifically, four hazardous materials potentially emitted by those manufacturers: Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium and Nickel. DEQ presented what little evidence they had concerning the levels of these toxins detected in moss samples taken by the US Forest Service, soil samples collected by DEQ and a limited amount of air monitoring done by DEQ.

    The commission vice-chair (the chair person was not there, so the vice-chair presided) explained to us that temporary rules like the ones being considered today were normally only used in emergency situations where failure to act immediately would “prejudice the public safety”. As such, a public comment period was normally not allowed for temporary rules, but because of the intense public interest in this subject, they decided to make an exception. The commissioners, as well as the companies affected apparently received only 23 hours notice of the proposed rules they would be asked to consider. Those rules, if adopted, would go into effect the following day and would stay in effect for a maximum of 180 days unless made permanent.

    Of particular interest, one of the proposed rules would limit the use of Chromium III in any uncontrolled furnace because of its potential to be converted to Chromium VI which is hazardous. The DEQ experts didn’t really seem very sure about whether or not the conversion of Cr III to Cr VI would really occur, or if it did, under what circumstances, but they thought it might so they decided to write a rule prohibiting its use. Subsequent statements by audience members who really were experts made it quite clear that this conversion would not occur under the conditions (reductive, oxygen starved) in which glass furnaces operate. The DEQ representatives didn’t really explain why they thought the need for these proposed rules constituted an emergency and justified the short notice and temporary rule procedure, especially given that both Bullseye and Uroboros have already voluntarily stopped using Cadmium and Arsenic. On questioning from the commissioners, they did say that they only had a formal agreement with one of the companies (they didn’t specify which one) so I guess they felt that the rules were necessary to keep the other company from cheating.

    Bullseye and presumably other glass manufacturers use Chromium III in the production of green glasses, so the loss of the ability to use that material would significantly reduce their production capacity beyond what they have already done by voluntarily eliminating the use of Cadmium and Arsenic. This was the key rule that really concerned Bullseye and members of the glass community in general.

    After the DEQ presentation, members of the audience that had signed up were each given the opportunity to address the commission. Because of the large number of people that wanted to offer a statement, we were asked to limit our comments to 2 minutes each, but considerable leeway was given and nobody was really cut short. Three people either left before their turn or declined to speak when their name was called. As you might imagine if you’ve been following this story in the news, there were essentially two camps of people in the audience. One camp I’ll call the glass community had shown up to speak in support of Bullseye and Uroboros and the other camp I’ll call the neighborhood members had shown up to speak in favor of some sort of DEQ action on air pollution. Many members of the audience either brought with them, or were provided with Red and Green sheets of paper that they could hold up to indicate disagreement or agreement with whatever was being said at the moment. This helped us to avoid clapping or booing while still making our opinion known to the commissioners.

    I had anticipated that with these two groups in the same room, there would be some raised voices and tense moments. I was very pleasantly surprised however that that didn’t occur. There were a few comments from the neighborhood group about not appreciating being characterized as being hysterical and one remark about all of the Bullseye employees being given the day off to come testify, but really the two groups seemed respectful of one another. If there was an enemy in the room, it was the DEQ. Both camps (and the commissioners too I think) seemed somewhat shocked and appalled about how little real information the DEQ had to back up their rule proposal.

    The camps did differ somewhat on what they thought should be done about the rule proposal. The glass community camp would have been happy to see it rejected outright, although they did generally indicate their support for better regulation of the glass manufacturing industry. They just didn’t think that this specific regulation made sense. The neighborhood members generally seemed to think that the proposed rule was too narrowly focused and should be expanded to include all types of industries, wood stoves, diesel trucks etc. , should include more like 160 known hazardous materials and not just the four identified in this proposal and should be made to cover the whole state, not just Portland. Both sides though were very much in agreement that the 23 hours that we had been given to review the proposed rules was entirely inadequate and asked the commission to allow at least two more weeks before making a decision to adopt or reject the rules. Both sides also seemed to agree that the proposed rules as written were vague and subject to different interpretations.

    There were a few outlier statements from audience members in the neighborhood group that were dismissive of the glass group and their concern about the potential impact of the proposed rules on the art glass manufacturers. They basically said, clean air and good health trumps jobs and art and any regulation is better than no regulation. I think there were only about 3 of those types of statements that urged the commission to adopt the proposed rules immediately.

    There were a lot of emotional statements from both camps. The glass community expressing fear of loss of jobs and the possible loss of the art glass industry itself, and neighborhood members expressing fear for their health and that of their children. Both sides made good points. I came away pretty hopeful that a real common sense solution can be found that will address the concerns of both camps. The neighborhood members, for the most part, are not demanding rules that would destroy glass manufacturers. They just want rules that will allow them to trust that the air they breathe isn’t killing them. The glass manufacturers seem quite willing to submit to rules and filtration systems that will enable them to continue doing what they do without causing any harm. I see no reason (except maybe the class action lawsuits being pursued by the neighborhood groups) why these two camps can’t work together.

    In the end, as you might imagine, the commissioners voted unanimously to allow an additional two weeks for everyone to digest the proposed rules and for members of the public to make written comments to the DEQ. After that two week period, the DEQ will presumably take the written comments into consideration and either make an alternate proposal or collect additional evidence to support their original proposal. Whatever they come up with will then be considered for approval at the next regular meeting of the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, 3 weeks later in April. There will be no additional public comment period at that meeting, so the public will not get to weigh in on whatever the DEQ proposes. Our only opportunity for input is between now and March 30th.

    The one overriding impression that I’m left with after attending this meeting is that the DEQ is doing more harm than good. I consider myself to be a tree-hugging environmentalist, so it feels strange for me to be speaking against the DEQ, but what I saw of them today was really embarrassing. With the information they have in hand, and more importantly, the information they didn’t have, they had no business proposing the rules that they did. I doubt that they are really as incompetent as they appeared today and suspect that there is a political agenda driving their actions. Someone is applying pressure to “do something” and so they did. While the commissioners were polite about it, I’d say the DEQ got shot down in flames.
    ~Misha

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    ~Misha

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    From the DIRT!
    Posts
    5,498
    Rep Power
    63

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    I could only read so much before I had to stop.

    Oregon live is pulling the classic media tactic of drawing flames to the fire and investigating and bringing other company's around the country under fire .

    Oh Kokomo is exempt and they produce more than bullseye .

    Wtf

    Kokomo does not use a continuous batch .

    But fanning the flames across the whole us will cause them to change if politicians find its a plaform to stand upon .

    Then all our curcible batch color company's and every re-melter pulling tube at shop may be under the gun in due time .



    By Northstar and GA voluntarily stopping productions until adding new safety will give them a leg up on the cascade of political and environmental issues .


    I always wondered how the earthy environmentalists could be glassblowers . Every thing we use is either toxic or created toxic gas when made or used . Then the carbon footprint .

    But that's off topic .

    It's not just cads and Arsnic . Read up . If the Oregon evironment chief retired and it proves this is a good platform for polititions to make a name and soap box to stand on .

    We a screwed . And things will be turned upside down when the full butterfly effect .
    Lampworking the road that never ends, Until your out of gas!

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,136
    Rep Power
    25

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    imagine....if you had to go back showing your skill through craft and technique, instead of using premade tubes and sparkles . (:
    @B.RY_glass

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    From the DIRT!
    Posts
    5,498
    Rep Power
    63

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    it would crush some people .

    But I am not talking about the art/craft itself .

    More so how this will affect current production of artisanal batch stuff .

    Or blends.


    And when will backyard hobby glass blower be required to add a scrubber on the box fan to be legal .


    On a lighter note if they did , I could see guys posting pictures of box fans with furnace filters duct taped on .

    Ready to go scrubber and all
    Last edited by jr23; 03-20-2016 at 08:05 AM. Reason: Taking out a word
    Lampworking the road that never ends, Until your out of gas!

  9. #89
    brads's Avatar
    brads is offline Intelligence has its limits. Stupidity is infinite. Higher Learning Member0-1 years in glass!1-6 years in glass!7-12 years in glass!13-18 years in glass!19-25 years in glass!25-49 years in glass!Ninja Badge
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Zombieland, Georgia
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems




    Or not...

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    ~Misha

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    I wish I had remembered to post this earlier, as they are no longer taking statements. Hopefully enough of our people said compelling things that they rethink this crazytalk.

    Proposed rule
    http://www.oregon.gov/deq/RulesandRe...s2016temp.aspx

    Comments
    http://www.oregon.gov/deq/RulesandRe...s2016temp.aspx


    Comment by TAG

    March 30, 2016
    By US Mail and Email
    Jill Inahara
    Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
    811 SW 6th Ave
    Portland, OR *97204
    Re: Comments on Temporary Art Glass Manufacturer Rulemaking Proposal
    Dear Ms. Inahara:

    Trautman Art Glass (TAG) is a small formulator of borosilicate glass located in Wilsonville. *We have reviewed the temporary rulemaking proposed by DEQ and are deeply troubled that the rule appears to extend to our glassmaking operations without any apparent understanding of the profound differences between the process employed by TAG and the process employed by Uroboros and Bullseye. *Uroboros and Bullseye use entirely different types of equipment to make an entirely different type of glass. *Nobody from the Department of Environmental Quality even had contact with our company to inquire about what we make, and how we do, it until well after the temporary rule was drafted. *TAG has no opinion as to the regulations imposed on Uroboros and Bullseye; because of the profound differences between the two types of glass operations it would be irresponsible for us to make statements about that industry sector. *However, for the same reasons DEQ has not shown any basis for imposing a rule on our borosilicate glassmaking facility that could well put us out of business. *For the reasons stated in more detail below, we urge DEQ to clarify the temporary rule to ensure that it is clear that it applies to soda-lime glass manufacturers such as Uroboros and Bullseye, and not borosilicate glass formulators such as ourselves.

    NOTE: I should note that unlike the soda-lime glass manufacturers, we do not use and never have used cadmium or arsenic in our process.















    Borosilicate Glass Formulating Process

    In order to understand why the temporary rule should not apply to TAG, it is important to understand our process and how it is fundamentally different from the Uroboros and Bullseye manufacturing processes. *Uroboros and Bullseye are manufacturers of soda ash glass (referred to as “soft-glass”). *They bring in raw materials (e.g., sand, soda ash) and heat them with large amounts of natural gas until the materials melt and glass is created. *In the course of performing this natural gas-fired melt, various additives are placed into the furnace with some remaining in the glass and some being entrained in the combustion exhaust and emitted to the atmosphere. *They perform this process at a large scale with glass batches ranging from 500 lbs. to 2000 lbs. at a time. *

    TAG is, by contrast, does not manufacture glass. *TAG purchases cullet (i.e., glass that has already been made by someone else), and remelts it. *The cullet that we buy is borosilicate glass. *We do not handle any soft-glass. *We take the borosilicate cullet and remelt it in small batches of 20 lbs. to 40 lbs. at a time. *This remelting occurs in electric furnaces--we do not have any fuel combustion associated with our process. *We add proprietary materials to the melted cullet (never cadmium or arsenic) and then form the molten glass into final product. *In the world of glass manufacturing, TAG and the other Oregon borosilicate glass formulators are tiny operations. *We recognize that size alone is not necessarily a reason to treat us differently from Uroboros and Bullseye. *However, the numerous process differences between the borosilicate glass formulators, and the soft-glass manufacturers, mean that we have far less potential to emit.

    All of our major elements of production differ from Uroboros and Bullseye. *A major source of potential emissions is the melting of raw materials to produce glass. *As noted, TAG does not melt raw materials. *We exclusively use cullet as the basis for our glass thus avoiding the potential to emit associated with that process. *When we remelt the purchased cullet, we do so exclusively in very small electric furnaces. The containers that the glass is melted in are only 12” X 8” in most cases. Electric furnaces do not produce hot combustion gases which create a carrier medium for other small raw-material particles to exit the furnaces and be emitted. *EPA has repeatedly recognized the inherently lower emissions of electric glass furnaces of all sizes. *This is a critical distinction between the soft-glass manufacturers and what we do at the borosilicate glass formulators. *The type of glass we handle is also inherently low emitting. *Borosilicate glass and soft-glass have very different viscosities at any particular temperature. Metal emissions are directly related to viscosity; the more viscous the glass the higher the emissions potential. While soft-glass at temperatures of 2000+ is extremely runny like honey on a hot day, borosilicate glass at 2000 is barely pliable like tire rubber. *

    These process differences cannot be ignored is considering a temporary rule. *Fundamentally, borosilicate glass formulating is nowhere near the same scale as soft-glass manufacturing in terms of process emissions. *Our industry is not in the business of manufacturing glass. *We are in the business of taking small amounts of borosilicate cullet, remelting that cullet and adjusting the formulation such that the borosilicate glass has visual attributes that our customers’ desire. *As such, we are glass formulators as opposed to glass manufacturers.

    Rulemaking

    As you can see, TAG’s borosilicate glass formulation process differs in important ways from the soft-glass manufacturing processes assessed in developing the temporary rule. *The Department did not study borosilicate glass formulation in developing the temporary rule and has identified no issues associated with this type of operation. *Therefore, as a legal matter we do not believe that DEQ has satisfied the requirements for temporary rulemaking in relation to borosilicate glass formulating. *

    In order to avoid creating a legal defect with the temporary rule, we request that DEQ revise OAR 340-244-9000 to clarify that “art glass manufacturers” are those entities that employ raw materials (as already defined in the rule) to produce soda ash glass using combustion processes and establish the applicability threshold based on the amount of raw material consumed. The current language in the temporary rule lacks a specific definition of “art glass manufacturer.” *As a result, we are guessing that our operations would be included within the rule, but cannot be sure. *We recommend that this rule be revised to clarify the affected facilities. *First, we recommend that applicability turn on the amount of raw material processed as opposed to the amount of colored glass output. *Loss on ignition (i.e., the material volatilized when the raw materials are melted) is a significant component of emissions from the glass manufacturing industry and should be a key element of the rule’s applicability section. *By contrast, the amount of glass product generated is not. *The term “manufactured” also needs to be defined. *As noted above, TAG does not manufacture glass it just remelts and formulates glass (a practice that can be achieved in the inherently low emitting electric furnaces. *The rule should clarify that facilities engaged exclusively in glass formulating in electric furnaces are not considered “manufacturers.” *These edits would guarantee that the rule would address those types of facilities assessed in preparing the justification of need for the temporary rule, while not picking up facilities with low risk of emissions and that were not considered by DEQ in justifying the need for a temporary rule. *We note that there are many parts of the rule which would not make sense and would be unworkable were the scope determined to include borosilicate glass formulators working with electric furnaces. *For example, there are multiple references to combustion which are simply not relevant to our operations. *













    Limiting the scope of the temporary rule to those facilities and processes that were actually assessed by the Department is both legally and technically correct. *TAG would be happy to work with you as you develop the permanent rule to further clarify the distinctions between the soft-glass manufacturing industry and the small borosilicate glass formulation operations such as ourselves. *In the interim, there is no practical or legal basis for imposing a temporary rule that would risk shuttering small employers, such as TAG, engaged in low-emitting remelting activities.

    Thank you for your consideration of these comments. *Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,

    Paul Trautman



    Paul Trautman
    Founder & President
    Trautman Art Glass

    Statement by GA
    After a review of the literature and the epa study I find the response by both the public and the legislature to be hysterical. Certainly we want to protect the publics health and keep cadimum and other heavy metals out of the environment but theses rules probably do neither. First, the glass companies have general been good neighbors providing jobs, spending money with other local companies and supporting various non profits. They have all keep emissions within legal limits. If you elect to change those limits it should be across all industries not just 5 or 6 glassmakers, some of whom are very small. Second, the rules need to have a phase in which has been the historical norm, not a do it now or close. Finally, there needs to be a rational for demanding these extraordinary expenses, it can't be because some neighbors are on a crusade. One glass plant, located only in an arsenic hot spot actually uses no arsenic but is located next fodoor to a Styrofoam melting facility and across the street from an asphalt recycling plant, the most probable source. To close them down or require them to invest $500,000 won't make an iota of difference for the health of the neighborhood but would eliminate 20 good jobs. Now's not a good time to use a hammer even if it would get a few members of the public of your back.
    First NameHenryLast NameGrimmett
    OrganizationGH Analytical LabsStateOR
    ~Misha

  12. #92
    brads's Avatar
    brads is offline Intelligence has its limits. Stupidity is infinite. Higher Learning Member0-1 years in glass!1-6 years in glass!7-12 years in glass!13-18 years in glass!19-25 years in glass!25-49 years in glass!Ninja Badge
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Zombieland, Georgia
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    I can understand why PT wants to differentiate between soft glass and boro melters, but that particular distinction is bullshit. There is nothing about melting soft glass that is inherently more hazardous than boro. In fact, due to the lower temperatures used it is probably less hazardous.

    With that said, I can absolutely understand why he's pissed that this hype-fest has spilled over to potentially have an adverse effect on TAG's operations. And the distinctions he makes between gas furnaces and electric, melting batch vs. cullet, and size of the particular operations are perfectly valid points. But trying to make melting soda-lime glass vs. boro out to be the equivalent of hazardous vs. safe doesn't do anyone any good.


    ADD: Having now read some (but by no means all) of the proposed rules, TAG is either producing a lot more glass than I thought, or one of us has missed something. According to "Attachment A" of the proposed rules, they only apply to facilities that "Manufacture 10 tons per year or more of colored glass using raw materials that contain metal compounds."
    Last edited by brads; 03-30-2016 at 06:06 PM. Reason: Added the "ADD".

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eugene
    Posts
    38,825
    Rep Power
    214

    Default Bullseye pollution problems

    Northstar's statement



    I, Abe Fleischman, am the president of Northstar Glassworks, Inc., a small manufacturer of borosilicate colored glass which is sold to artists. Borosilicate glass as denoted by its name-is comprised mainly of silica (approx 80%) and boron (approx 13%). We produce over 100 colors of this type of glass which is prized by artists all over the world.

    •Northstar Glassworks is an environmentally conscious firm. We absolutely need to address the issue of tainted air and safeguard public health in the Portland area, and we need to do it in a way that allows for thoughtful public participation.
    •A group of ten legislators sent a letter yesterday encouraging DEQ to take the time necessary to have a meaningful public participation as we address this situation. Their message was essentially this: “don’t act so quickly that we prevent community members from participating in crafting a solution that works.”
    •Public participation includes both residents of affected areas who concerned about the health of their families and manufacturers who want to do the right thing and still have the ability to operate a viable business. It would be unfortunate if in our effort to address this problem we created restrictions that unnecessarily cost our community good manufacturing jobs.
    B. Northstar is already installing pollution control systems in its SE Portland facility. The cost of this system will be $200,000 and will be installed within the next 8 to 12 weeks. Northstar did this independently on their own without pressure from any governmental agency or in contemplation of the proposed regulation.
    C. Northstar uses very small amounts of cadmium and chromium in its processes for extruded artist glass (less than 250 pounds per year). We do not use arsenic in our process. Our usage is not comparable to the tons of cadmium and chromium used by other types of colored glass manufacturers for use in stained glass that have been cited in the Oregonian articles.
    D. Northstar has not had an opportunity to review in detail the proposed regulations which were issued yesterday. It urges the commission to give 15 days for comment by the public..
    E. Northstar would suggest that the Environmental Quality Commission should regulate the amount of offending materials used rather than the tons of glass produced.
    F. Regulating the tons of glass produced sweeps all manufacturers of glass into an expensive regulatory and compliance system even if they use small amounts of the materials that is proposed to be regulated.
    G. An extensive and expensive regulatory system that is based solely on the amounts of glass produced will have a detrimental effect on small artisan glass manufacturers and could force relocation of the artisan glass manufacturers outside of the Portland area.
    H. If the emergency regulation is to be adopted it should be statewide and not limited to the Portland area so that there is level playing field for the costs of compliance..
    I. The Commission should also look at other small industrial sources of toxic materials and not just glass manufacturers.

    Portland needs good employers and good manufacturing jobs. There is certainly a way to have both: we need both healthful air and a vibrant manufacturing sector. I hope we can set a pace for this rulemaking process that enables neighbors, workers, employers, and regulators to come together and have the conversations we need to create appropriate rules. Northstar wants to work with the Commission to develop rules that regulate the toxic materials, provide a level playing field for all glass manufacturers statewide, preserve the artisan glass industry and eliminate the smaller pollution sources. We are asking for 15 days to provide our comments to the commission. I look forward to participating in t his process.

    Thank you

    Abe Fleishman, President
    Northstar Glassworks, Inc.
    8228 SE 26th Place, Portland, OR 97202
    PO Box 230488, Portland OR 97281
    ~Misha

  14. #94
    brads's Avatar
    brads is offline Intelligence has its limits. Stupidity is infinite. Higher Learning Member0-1 years in glass!1-6 years in glass!7-12 years in glass!13-18 years in glass!19-25 years in glass!25-49 years in glass!Ninja Badge
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Zombieland, Georgia
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    ^^ Now THAT'S what I would describe as a very well written and reasoned response.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Carrboro, NC
    Posts
    485
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Quote Originally Posted by brads View Post
    ^^ Now THAT'S what I would describe as a very well written and reasoned response.
    +1
    "But my dear man, reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know."

    Instagram_______Etsy_____

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    13,878
    Rep Power
    203

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Quote Originally Posted by PyroChixRock View Post
    Statement by GA...
    That's a statement from GH Analytical, Henry's new testing company, not GA. It may seem a minor difference, but given that he's no longer involved in the day-to-day operations of GA I don't think he's speaking for them here.

    fwiw, I agree 100% with him.
    Doug Harroun
    Greymatter Glass
    Albuquerque, NM
    (505) 884-0318

    A̿̐͒ͥ̏̅͋ͤͮ́́̒͢͏̨͙̩̦͔̫̠̲̤ͅ ̑ͨ̎͆͐̉̍̐ͤͮͨ͐̇ͩͦ̏ͣ̚͏̷̶̭̝̠͓̞̱̭̫͙̜̮̫͔̤̱͕͢b̓̓ͭ̿̓ͥ̐̒͂͂ͧ ̡̓͋̐ͥ҉̧̹͎̺̳̩̬̘̯̮̜̼̻͝ͅē̵̹̯̦̟͔͊̓̔͗͊̀͆͗̀ͭͭ̀̇͋͋ͩ̓̓͞͞͞ ̘̰̘͈a̧̹͙͇̫̲̻̳̦̦͛͑͂̌̊́̌̂̅ͤ̿͠ͅų̷̶̡̺̤̳͐̂ͣ̋̀ͅͅt̍̀͋̽͗̚ ̶͎͎̳̤͈̘̞͕̣̲̣̼͙͎̬̪̜͎̯ͤ̃̈́ͬͧ͒͟͞͝͡iͪ̋̌̄̎ͪ́̚҉̶̰͎̣̥͉̙̘̬͝ ͍͈̻̻f̡̟̤̥̝̞̈̋ͧͮ̂ͣͬͨ͆͊̌̇ͨ̚͠͞u̵ͥͦ̑ͧ̆͂͐̊̏̍̋̓͗ͭͫ͆́̃͊͘̕ ̛̱̳͓̠͖̕ḹ̢̧̦̬̲̟̳̉ͯͫ̊̏ͪͫ͝ͅ ̵̺̫͙̗̦̠̯̞̫̪̩͐ͭͮ̏̓͒̏͊͋̚̚͘ͅḧ̨̛̭̼̘ͤͥ̿ͫ̊ͦͧͮͮ̀̓̔͌̉̓̀̀͡ ̺͚e̷̦̤̘̯͎̜͇͚͔̱̙͖ͪ͛ͤͮͬ͆͆̾̾͂̑͆̓͜ȧ̴̋ͨ͂ͣͬ̓̆͐̾̿̐̃̒͊͌́͝ ̷͇̮̙̗͉͍r̵̜̰̣̫͙̦̻̖͕͎̘̲̗̘ͦ̋̑̀̌̎̓ͭ̚͞tͨ̅̇͛ͫͫ̆ͪ̌͋ͩ̉ͯ͊͌̌ ̴̨̢̭͚̳̦͖̻̮̬̣̮̟͓͉̪͈̍ ̷̷̫̬͈͓̞͈̞̬̹̟̯͚̹͇̩̏͋ͬ̍͛̎̑̄̽ͦ̆̔̈́̀͆ͩ̓


    .

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    13,878
    Rep Power
    203

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Paul certainly manufactures >10 tons of glass per year. Not ALL of it is sold as first quality rod through retail distribution. I would suspect they're melting closer to 3-5 tons a month.
    Doug Harroun
    Greymatter Glass
    Albuquerque, NM
    (505) 884-0318

    A̿̐͒ͥ̏̅͋ͤͮ́́̒͢͏̨͙̩̦͔̫̠̲̤ͅ ̑ͨ̎͆͐̉̍̐ͤͮͨ͐̇ͩͦ̏ͣ̚͏̷̶̭̝̠͓̞̱̭̫͙̜̮̫͔̤̱͕͢b̓̓ͭ̿̓ͥ̐̒͂͂ͧ ̡̓͋̐ͥ҉̧̹͎̺̳̩̬̘̯̮̜̼̻͝ͅē̵̹̯̦̟͔͊̓̔͗͊̀͆͗̀ͭͭ̀̇͋͋ͩ̓̓͞͞͞ ̘̰̘͈a̧̹͙͇̫̲̻̳̦̦͛͑͂̌̊́̌̂̅ͤ̿͠ͅų̷̶̡̺̤̳͐̂ͣ̋̀ͅͅt̍̀͋̽͗̚ ̶͎͎̳̤͈̘̞͕̣̲̣̼͙͎̬̪̜͎̯ͤ̃̈́ͬͧ͒͟͞͝͡iͪ̋̌̄̎ͪ́̚҉̶̰͎̣̥͉̙̘̬͝ ͍͈̻̻f̡̟̤̥̝̞̈̋ͧͮ̂ͣͬͨ͆͊̌̇ͨ̚͠͞u̵ͥͦ̑ͧ̆͂͐̊̏̍̋̓͗ͭͫ͆́̃͊͘̕ ̛̱̳͓̠͖̕ḹ̢̧̦̬̲̟̳̉ͯͫ̊̏ͪͫ͝ͅ ̵̺̫͙̗̦̠̯̞̫̪̩͐ͭͮ̏̓͒̏͊͋̚̚͘ͅḧ̨̛̭̼̘ͤͥ̿ͫ̊ͦͧͮͮ̀̓̔͌̉̓̀̀͡ ̺͚e̷̦̤̘̯͎̜͇͚͔̱̙͖ͪ͛ͤͮͬ͆͆̾̾͂̑͆̓͜ȧ̴̋ͨ͂ͣͬ̓̆͐̾̿̐̃̒͊͌́͝ ̷͇̮̙̗͉͍r̵̜̰̣̫͙̦̻̖͕͎̘̲̗̘ͦ̋̑̀̌̎̓ͭ̚͞tͨ̅̇͛ͫͫ̆ͪ̌͋ͩ̉ͯ͊͌̌ ̴̨̢̭͚̳̦͖̻̮̬̣̮̟͓͉̪͈̍ ̷̷̫̬͈͓̞͈̞̬̹̟̯͚̹͇̩̏͋ͬ̍͛̎̑̄̽ͦ̆̔̈́̀͆ͩ̓


    .

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    13,878
    Rep Power
    203

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Quote Originally Posted by brads View Post
    I can understand why PT wants to differentiate between soft glass and boro melters, but that particular distinction is bullshit. There is nothing about melting soft glass that is inherently more hazardous than boro. In fact, due to the lower temperatures used it is probably less hazardous.
    Well.. sort of. He outlines it in terms of metal volatility at certain temperatures. Soda-lime glass, for any given temperature, is much less viscous than borosilicate glass. Because of this is is less resistant to the escape of gasses produced by metals. In practical terms, we get boro hotter to achieve the lower viscosity needed to work with it, which also has the issue of heating up those metals and making them more volatile. I'm sure someone at some point has done some research on it, btu I haven't seen it...

    Point is, he's probably right in the technical sense, but it's likely an issue of very minimal comparison in the practical sense, and certainly within the context of these issues.... Process (batching vs. melting) and volumes of production (pounds vs. tons) are a much bigger issue here than minutiae of what type of glass it is.
    Doug Harroun
    Greymatter Glass
    Albuquerque, NM
    (505) 884-0318

    A̿̐͒ͥ̏̅͋ͤͮ́́̒͢͏̨͙̩̦͔̫̠̲̤ͅ ̑ͨ̎͆͐̉̍̐ͤͮͨ͐̇ͩͦ̏ͣ̚͏̷̶̭̝̠͓̞̱̭̫͙̜̮̫͔̤̱͕͢b̓̓ͭ̿̓ͥ̐̒͂͂ͧ ̡̓͋̐ͥ҉̧̹͎̺̳̩̬̘̯̮̜̼̻͝ͅē̵̹̯̦̟͔͊̓̔͗͊̀͆͗̀ͭͭ̀̇͋͋ͩ̓̓͞͞͞ ̘̰̘͈a̧̹͙͇̫̲̻̳̦̦͛͑͂̌̊́̌̂̅ͤ̿͠ͅų̷̶̡̺̤̳͐̂ͣ̋̀ͅͅt̍̀͋̽͗̚ ̶͎͎̳̤͈̘̞͕̣̲̣̼͙͎̬̪̜͎̯ͤ̃̈́ͬͧ͒͟͞͝͡iͪ̋̌̄̎ͪ́̚҉̶̰͎̣̥͉̙̘̬͝ ͍͈̻̻f̡̟̤̥̝̞̈̋ͧͮ̂ͣͬͨ͆͊̌̇ͨ̚͠͞u̵ͥͦ̑ͧ̆͂͐̊̏̍̋̓͗ͭͫ͆́̃͊͘̕ ̛̱̳͓̠͖̕ḹ̢̧̦̬̲̟̳̉ͯͫ̊̏ͪͫ͝ͅ ̵̺̫͙̗̦̠̯̞̫̪̩͐ͭͮ̏̓͒̏͊͋̚̚͘ͅḧ̨̛̭̼̘ͤͥ̿ͫ̊ͦͧͮͮ̀̓̔͌̉̓̀̀͡ ̺͚e̷̦̤̘̯͎̜͇͚͔̱̙͖ͪ͛ͤͮͬ͆͆̾̾͂̑͆̓͜ȧ̴̋ͨ͂ͣͬ̓̆͐̾̿̐̃̒͊͌́͝ ̷͇̮̙̗͉͍r̵̜̰̣̫͙̦̻̖͕͎̘̲̗̘ͦ̋̑̀̌̎̓ͭ̚͞tͨ̅̇͛ͫͫ̆ͪ̌͋ͩ̉ͯ͊͌̌ ̴̨̢̭͚̳̦͖̻̮̬̣̮̟͓͉̪͈̍ ̷̷̫̬͈͓̞͈̞̬̹̟̯͚̹͇̩̏͋ͬ̍͛̎̑̄̽ͦ̆̔̈́̀͆ͩ̓


    .

  19. #99
    brads's Avatar
    brads is offline Intelligence has its limits. Stupidity is infinite. Higher Learning Member0-1 years in glass!1-6 years in glass!7-12 years in glass!13-18 years in glass!19-25 years in glass!25-49 years in glass!Ninja Badge
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Zombieland, Georgia
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Quote Originally Posted by Greymatter Glass View Post
    Paul certainly manufactures >10 tons of glass per year. Not ALL of it is sold as first quality rod through retail distribution. I would suspect they're melting closer to 3-5 tons a month.
    Well color me impressed. 3-5 tons a month is a helluva lot of glass to be melting "20 lbs. to 40 lbs. at a time."

  20. #100
    brads's Avatar
    brads is offline Intelligence has its limits. Stupidity is infinite. Higher Learning Member0-1 years in glass!1-6 years in glass!7-12 years in glass!13-18 years in glass!19-25 years in glass!25-49 years in glass!Ninja Badge
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Zombieland, Georgia
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Bullseye pollution problems

    Quote Originally Posted by Greymatter Glass View Post
    Well.. sort of. He outlines it in terms of metal volatility at certain temperatures. Soda-lime glass, for any given temperature, is much less viscous than borosilicate glass. Because of this is is less resistant to the escape of gasses produced by metals. In practical terms, we get boro hotter to achieve the lower viscosity needed to work with it, which also has the issue of heating up those metals and making them more volatile. I'm sure someone at some point has done some research on it, btu I haven't seen it...

    Point is, he's probably right in the technical sense, but it's likely an issue of very minimal comparison in the practical sense, and certainly within the context of these issues.... Process (batching vs. melting) and volumes of production (pounds vs. tons) are a much bigger issue here than minutiae of what type of glass it is.
    You and I definitely see the soft glass vs. boro aspect of his letter differently, Doug. But I'm not going to spend much of my time arguing about it. I'll just say that PT himself states,
    "While soft-glass at temperatures of 2000+ is extremely runny like honey on a hot day, borosilicate glass at 2000 is barely pliable like tire rubber." <= Which is why you don't work or melt boro and soft glass at the same temperatures, making the crux of the argument about different viscosities fairly specious.

    As you yourself said, "In practical terms, we get boro hotter to achieve the lower viscosity needed to work with it, which also has the issue of heating up those metals and making them more volatile." And that was pretty much my point about soft glass not being inherently any more hazardous than boro to melt or process. Bullseye and Uroboros may have had issues due to the volumes they melt, the particular colors and chemicals used, melting batch vs. cullet, as well as using gas furnaces that naturally send more pollutants up the stack than an electric furnace (considering that electric furnaces don't even need a stack in the conventional sense). But while all his other points were valid, trying to make part of the argument soft glass vs. boro is grossly misleading, and may ultimately drag others into this mess if the same hysterical bozos who hyped this whole thing in the first place see that as another avenue they can pursue. How many small soft glass hotshops are in the Portland area? I assume there are some, since there are certainly plenty of them to the north, in and around Seattle. I doubt that potentially vilifying them to help distance TAG from Bullseye and Uroboros is very wise. It is definitely not warranted.

Similar Threads

  1. Want to Trade: Who works bullseye? Looking for bullseye lampworkers, rods, frit.
    By BurntHands in forum Member's Glassifieds
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-22-2014, 10:56 PM
  2. Bullseye Fusing Frit
    By majorpowell in forum Member's Glassifieds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2009, 08:40 AM
  3. Color problems, Might be clear problems
    By Ashes & Glass in forum Glass Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-31-2007, 12:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Featured Member's Spotlight!
Pogo Blackfire Glassworks Wesley Fleming Whipkey Glass Bullet Proof Glass No Coast Glass
Donate to our forum!