Open Letter About Bullseye Glass

Jacqueline Dingfelder and Claudia Power

Co-Chairs Cleaner Air Oregon, Rulemaking Advisory Committee

Dear Co-Chairs Dingfelder and Power,

Citizens rely on the DEQ to put people over short-term profits.  For the public good, I implore the DEQ to go beyond the draft rules of Cleaner Air Oregon:

• Monitor mobile sources of air toxics such as diesel particulate in the cumulative risk assessments.
• Regulate existing sources with the same stringency as new sources.
• Hire more toxicologists and err on the side of caution where scientific uncertainty or a lack of research applies.

I’m staggered by the audacity of Bullseye Glass suing Governor Kate Brown and Director of the Oregon DEQPatrick Allen, saying the two officials conspired and violated their civil rights.[1] From May 20 to June 6, 2016, the Bullseye Glass factory was subject to a cease-and-desist order after a monitor, located at the Children's Creative Learning Center daycare, measured lead levels at more than four times the Oregon 24-hour screening level. The cease-and-desist was the appropriate (not “arbitrary, capricious, and irrational”) action, for the DEQ.

Indeed, public outrage led to Bullseye Glass’s corrective actions[2] and Cleaner Air Oregon’s intense work drafting rules to regulate air toxics based on health risks. If the company’s profits are down for the short-term, they have only to blame themselves. Instead, they should be reassuring the public that they will continue to make high quality glass products while keeping our air quality safe.

I do agree with Bullseye Glass‘s complaint that Portland’s air is “a toxic soup of auto and truck exhaust, wood smoke, diesel exhaust, and industrial pollutants.”[3] Oregon should monitor mobile sources of air toxics such as diesel particulate in the cumulative risk assessments. And the legislature should pass a law that would require heavy-duty diesel emissions testing, similar to Washington State.[4]

While it is true that Oregon has historically done nothing to regulate pollution by small and medium sized companies, or even to determine what emissions are occurring, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start. Cleaner Air Oregon sets health-based Risk Action Levels and permitting procedures for 215 air toxics and clear procedures for compliance. An "area cap" will be based on cumulating health risks from multiple sources within a geographic area.

I was unable to extract current information from the Air Quality Monitoring and Facility Locations Map[5] for my Southwest Portland Home, but a 2011 map[6] shows all sources 81-120 times above benchmark. The current permitting process does not take into account health risks; it just gives industries a lawful permit to pollute.

As a retired internist and endocrinologist living in Washington County, I am angry that corporations here avoid penalties for emitting known pollutants as well as they hide their wealth offshore.

Take Nike. Their “just do it” attitude earned international media attention with investigations into the Paradise papers. Greenpeace investigates the use of toxic chemicals in textiles and clothing and asks companies to commit to 'Detoxing' their supply chain of hazardous chemicals by 2020. While Nike made this commitment, they have made no progress implementing their plan and they are not transparent in requiring suppliers report their hazardous chemical discharge data.[7]

Nike invested $40.5 million at their headquarters in Washington County, expanding their airbag factory that manufactures the tiny air pillows built into the soles of its athletic shoes.[8] Nike’s numerous patents[9] related to these innovations are a chemical stew.  Are they releasing poisons in the air nearby? Barnes Elementary (a very low income school) and Meadow Park Middle School are within a half-mile of the headquarters.

What about Intel? Historically, the permitting process[10] has been their means to spew toxins into the environment without regards for health. It’s shameful that they would benefit from these proposed rules, permitting much higher risk action levels because they are an existing source. Numerous schools are within a two-mile radius of Intel.

By allowing Intel to emit toxic air pollutants that could cause up to 500 excess cancer risks per million, the DEQ could be shortening the life span of our children. That is simply wrong!

If only 80 of the highest risk businesses will be regulated by Cleaner Air Oregon, Nike and Intel should be included and with new source guidelines to apply.

To conclude, I hope the DEQ values public input and implements a strong framework to ensure Oregonians breathe safe air.

Sincerely,

Kris Alman MD

Member Physicians for Social Responsibility