Pamplin Media Group – Oregon Health Authority gives Bullseye Glass a passing grade

After years of bewilderment and annoyance over possible pollution issues at Brooklyn’s ‘Bullseye Glass’, it turns out they’re fine

On Tuesday evening, April 5, the Oregon Health Authority’s Environmental Health Assessment Program hosted an online public community meeting to discuss a Brooklyn neighborhood business’ draft public health assessment report. , Bullseye Glass.

The meeting, which was scheduled to start at 6 p.m., was delayed by 25 minutes due to technical problems. Afterwards, Gabriela Goldfarb, head of the environmental public health section of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), served as the moderator for the meeting, which brought together 35 participants on the ZOOM platform. First there was a presentation of the summary of the report, followed by a question and answer period.

“You’ve waited a long time to get to this stage of the public health process; it’s taken longer than expected,” Goldfarb admitted to attendees.

OHA program manager Julie Sifuentes then commented on “how stressful it has been for so many neighbors, leaving them feeling unsafe [when] breathe the air at home in and in their neighborhood.” She added that the wish for herself and her OHA colleagues was to help “bring together” those who live and work in the Brooklyn neighborhood.

Sifuentes recalled how the investigation began in 2011 and continued until 2016 “when the media made it more widely known”.

If you want to read the Bullseye Glass Public Health Assessment Report for yourself, you can download it at this web address – bit.ly/3EgYhzh

Next, the report’s author, OHA public health toxicologist David Farrer, thanked those who served on a review committee from May 2016 to present, attending a total of eight meetings.

Farrer then went through the “Bullseye Glass Company’s Public Health Assessment Fact Sheet,” page by page, beginning with the manufacturer’s location and proximity to parks and schools.

According to the summary fact sheet:

There is not enough information about the conditions before the Bullseyes emissions cut

· (February 2016) answering questions from the community about whether past long-term exposure to the air around Bullseye Glass could or could have harmed people’s health

The levels of metals measured in the air around Bullseye Glass in October 2015 were NOT high enough to harm the health of people who only breathed during that month

If emissions from Bullseye Glass had not been reduced and metal levels measured in October 2015 had persisted, long-term exposure to this air could have adversely affected the health of those who breathe it

· Based on air monitoring data from October 2015, the contaminants that posed the greatest risk around Bullseye Glass were cadmium and arsenic

Exposure to soil, garden produce and air, since February 2016, around Bullseye Glass will NOT be harmful to health

Interventions to reduce Bullseye Glass emissions reduced current and future cancer risk by more than 50 times and non-cancer risk by more than 100 times

Complementary analysis

· Urine tests have given uncertain results. The urine cadmium test results reported to the OHA have too many uncertainties and scientific limitations to draw any conclusions about health in this assessment.

No elevated rates of key cancers are associated with Bullseye-related metal exposure

The OHA found that lung and bladder cancer rates in the three census tracts around Bullseye Glass, from 1999 to 2013, were no higher than expected

· Eating local products is OK. Products harvested around Bullseye Glass are unlikely to harm the health of adults or children

No further action is needed to reduce exposure to emissions from Bullseye Glass

DAVID F. ASHTON - A worker pours molten glass onto a worktable where it will become prized Bullseye art glass. During the Q&A session, John Karabaic, who identified with the neighborhood association Brooklyn Action Corps, asked about the sensors.

“We had an air quality sensor installed in our public garden southeast of Franklin [Street] and McLaughlin [Boulevard], which I didn’t see on your sensor map. Is it because it was part of a different detection effort, or is it something that was omitted from [the report]? asked Karabaic.

Farrer replied, “I’m aware of that data. I don’t know if DEQ is willing to talk about it. From what I’ve seen and been described by people in the lab, the metal levels measured on these monitors are similar to what we found in the 2016 monitor.”

Another question posed by a participant was, “Did Bullseye know they were being watched; and had there been a change in operations or could they have changes in operations if they were aware of it? ”

Jim Jones, President of Bullseye Glass, replied: “We were informed by DEQ that the monitor was going to be installed in October 2015. And no, we did not change our operations at that time.”

Others have questioned the study’s methodology and how long-term health risk projections were made.

After the meeting, we asked what Bullseye Glass President Jim Jones and company owners thought of the report.

“The OHA Public Health Assessment verifies that Bullseye Glass operations do not pose a public health concern and confirms that the emissions control systems installed in 2016 are effective,” he replied. “We agree with the OHA that the air quality data collected near Bullseye Glass in 2015 was flawed and inadequate to assess potential health risks.

A

“We continue to be alert to any concerns neighbors or DEQ may have. Ongoing monitoring confirms that our operations remain safe.”


You rely on us to stay informed and we rely on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Comments are closed.