Entek International released results on April 24 of air quality monitoring, specifically for trichloroethylene, around its manufacturing facility in Lebanon.
TCE is a solvent that, at ele-vated levels, has been linked to various cancers, possible effects on fetal development and other health conditions.
“All residential and sensitive receptors are below the risk thresholds,” according to the report.
Entek contracted with CH2M Hill to monitor air quality via five stations located around Entek’s 28.44-acre campus.
They used the EPA-recommended AERMOD dispersion modeling system, according to the report.
“The model combines simple and complex terrain algorithms, and includes the PRIME algorithms to account for building downwash and cavity zone impacts,” the report states.
The DEQ requested Entek “submit additional information to conduct a review of the ENTEK facility in conjunction with the Cleaner Air Oregon rule-making currently in the pre-proposal stage” on Feb. 8, the report said.
“Specifically, ODEQ requested that ENTEK update dispersion modeling of TCE emissions that had previously been initiated (but not completed), provide the meteorological data used in the ambient air monitoring study completed in 1988 and 1989, and share test results and reports assessing TCE levels in finished battery separator.”
The DEQ established a deadline of April 24, 2017.
The results were released by the deadline, but the discussion of the process went public after state agencies prepared to communicate potential risks to the public and employees starting April 7.
Entek was granted a temporary restraining order on April 7 by Linn County Circuit Court Judge Tom McHill regarding that DEQ communication plan.
On April 10 and 12, Circuit Court Judge Carol Bispham heard arguments from both sides regarding whether a longer stay should be imposed.
She said that Entek has “worked well in the community” for 30 years, and that from what she can see has been attempting to work with the agency to come up with communication, not control.
Bispham reiterated her concern about misinformation.
“The rest of it, the law is here,” Bispham said. “I need to read it. I need to apply these facts to it and I’ll give you my decisions.”
She added that both sides have good arguments.
“There’s statutes that need to be looked at, but just as a concern. I think most people would have is, are we getting the information that we need and is it accurate.”
As of press time, Bispham had not ruled on the case.