Comment Log Display

The opening paragraph of the SRIA sets forth the purpose for the
rulemaking. It is artfully crafted, but misleads the CARB board and
the people of California. 

It states "The electrolytic processes associated with plating
operations cause mists containing hexavalent chromium to be
released from plating tanks, which are eventually emitted into
outdoor air through building openings and vents. Despite control
systems installed at chrome plating facilities, hexavalent chromium
emissions continue to be released from facilities into the
surrounding environment and communities. Fugitive emissions occur
because the control systems do not capture 100 percent of the
emissions from these facilities. Many of these facilities are
located close to sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, residential
care facilities, and homes where children and elderly reside), and
are also located in disadvantaged communities."

Let's look at how misleading that paragraph is and how it is being
misapplied by CARB.

"The electrolytic processes associated with plating operations
cause mists containing hexavalent chromium to be released from
plating tanks, which are eventually emitted into outdoor air
through building openings and vents". This statement is NOT
factually correct at hard chrome plating facilities with emission
control systems. At hard chrome plating facilities, 100% of hard
chrome plating tank mists are captured by the push pull headers of
the emission control systems and directed into HEPA filters which
at 99.97% efficiency reduce the pollutants to nearly nothing, This
is confirmed by regulatorily required source testing. CARB knows
this and SCAQMD knows this. But the writer needs to setup an
argument about fugitive emissions and they need the reader to
believe that mists are created and flying around in the air. They
also want the reader to believe these emissions are coming from
plating tanks and not from rinse or other associated tanks (for
example, dichromate seal tanks) - which is a VERY important
distinction. It takes a stretch of logic to call a dichromate seal
tank a "plating tank" but that is what the writer does. Let's look
at the next sentence.

"Despite control systems installed at chrome plating facilities,
hexavalent chromium emissions continue to be released from
facilities into the surrounding environment and communities." CARB
may have reasons for being vague with this statement but it is
highly misleading. It is a diplomatic allusion to joint failures of
the regulatory community) and the management practices at unnamed
facilities in Southern California. CARB may not want to be specific
about the facilities but a review of media reports lead to
identification of Anaplex in Paramount and Hixson Metal Finishing
in Newport Beach. If there are others, CARB has not identified them
or the situations to which they allude. So there is no way to
comment on them. For the record, it is very important to recognize
that Anaplex is NOT a hard chrome plater and Hixson Metal Finishing
is NOT a hard chrome plater. Neither of these firms had hard chrome
plating tanks with HEPA emission control systems. The sentence is
constructed artfully. It wants the reader to believe the facilities
had emission controls. The truth? The facilities DID have emission
controls, but certain tanks did not. As a result, there were
releases into surrounding communities. CARB and SCAQMD should
disclose to the public in a straight-forward way that the
regulators did not require emission control systems on those
dichromate seal tanks. CARB may have other data from which they can
support the their contention of fugitive emissions but the lack of
specificity and quantification is notable. 

"Fugitive emissions occur because the control systems do not
capture 100 percent of the emissions from these facilities." This
is an artfully worded, factually true statement that implies
equality between hard chrome plating tanks with HEPA systems
capturing 99.97% of hex chrome, and to un-controlled dichromate
tanks which happen to be located in a facility with controls. There
is no distinction made about the level of fugitive emissions from
the two vastly different facilities. It is used in this purpose
paragraph to justify a sledgehammer approach which will be used to
eliminate all chrome plating.

"Many of these facilities are located close to sensitive receptors
(e.g., schools, residential care facilities, and homes where
children and elderly reside), and are also located in disadvantaged
communities." This is a true statement. The sentence could have
said "Many of these facilities are located close to sensitive
receptors and many are NOT located close to sensitive receptors."
That is also a true statement but it does not serve the writer's
cause to say it that way. The writer continues, "Some...are also
located in disadvantaged communities". True. But, unsaid, some are
NOT located in disadvantaged communities. Our facility is located
in a community that is not scored by CalEnviroScreen because there
is no residential population. Hixson Metal Finishing is located in
a community with a 65th percentile score on CalEnviroScreen. Most
readers will not perceive Newport Beach as a disadvantaged
community. 

The misleading purpose statement contained in the SRIA creates a
decision environment for the CARB board which, in my opinion,
creates a potential legal liability for the CARB and the State of
California. The purpose as stated in the ISOR does not match the
purpose in the SRIA. Further, since the rule would eliminate
infrastructure that supports the largest industries in the state
(Tourism, Agriculture, Automotive, Aerospace) some serious
restructuring of this ATCM must be done. It is obviously unfair to
hard chrome platers who have invested in HEPA systems and are
compliant with the SCAQMD rules. It is unfair to California workers
at impacted facilities and at links in the supply chains which are
supported by hexavalent hard chrome platers. Please reconsider your
approach to this rule-making.