From: "Christian Richter" <crichter@thepolicygroup.com>

To: Phil Mulrine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve 

Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve 

Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com>

Date: 05/02/2012 09:42 AM

Subject: Follow Up to Your Request - Additional Chromium Electroplating Information on Facility Data

Steve, Chuck, Phil:

Per our earlier discussions with Janet and your team on our extension request and your request for additional data 

and information, we’ve attached summary, brief analysis and facility references showing further closures and/or 

the absence of hexavalent chromium processes at EPA-modeled facilities.

Two points in particular are relevant:

• New data confirm the trend we’ve discussed – New NASF data collected from 52 “lower emission 

facilities” that you requested confirm the same trend we demonstrated for “higher emission facilities” –

significant closures and significant percentage of facilities permanently switching from hexavalent 

chromium; and

• EPA 2005 NEI Cr6 air emission estimates are confirmed by industry data – the total NASF data package 

more closely reflects the 2005 NEI emission estimate for Cr6 electroplating of approximately 259 pounds 

per year (or 0.35 percent of total hexavalent chromium emissions from all U.S. industry sources). 

The reduction in emissions from the NASF data correction exercise far exceeds the emission reduction achieved 

per the revised emission limits in the agency’s proposed rulemaking.

We would like to follow up and discuss further as it would be useful to briefly review these and related items.

While this has been an exceedingly short timeframe to address data issues, we appreciate the opportunity to 

provide further information to inform the agency’s review. Please feel free to reach me per my contact 

information below or Jeff Hannapel at (202) 257-3756.

Best regards,

Christian Richter

The Policy Group

700 12th Street NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 257-0250 direct

crichter@thepolicygroup.com

(See attached file: NASF Comments on Chrome MACT Supplemental Proposal (Additional Information) May 

2012.pdf)(See attached file: NASF Chrome MACT Summary of Emissions Corrections -- Low Emissions 

Facilities.xlsx)
May 1, 2012

Additional Information on the Supplemental Proposal for National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard 

and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks 

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600

In response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) February 8, 2012 

supplemental proposal for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. (77 Fed. Reg. 

6628 (2012)), the National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF) had requested an extension 

of the comment period in this rulemaking. Due to its own time constraints and rulemaking 

schedule, EPA denied the NASFs request for an extension of the comment period. EPA, did, 

however, agree to consider additional information on the potential impacts these issues may have 

on the technical basis and conclusions reached by EPA in this rule, provided that NASF submits 

within a reasonable time period after the close of the comment period. 

The discussion provided below includes the response to specific requests from EPA for 

additional information as well as clarifications on information submitted in the NASF March 26, 

2012 comments. NASF would welcome the opportunity to discuss with EPA officials this 

information, its comments and other issues related to this rulemaking.
2

Additional Industry Survey of Lower Emissions Facilities

After reviewing the data submitted by NASF on the number of chromium electroplating facilities 

in EPA’s database that are closed, no longer have hexavalent chromium processes, submitted 

revised emissions estimates or confirmed EPA’s estimate, EPA officials asked NASF to survey 

some additional facilities with lower estimated emissions. NASF was able to get responses from 

an additional 52 facilities, including: 17 facility closures (33%), 19 facilities that no longer have 

hexavalent chromium processes or any plating processes (36%), 32 facilities with revised 

emissions estimates (21%), and 5 facilities that confirmed EPA’s estimates (10%). The sum of 

EPA’s estimated emissions for these 52 facilities was 28.346 pounds that was reduced to 4.160 

pounds for a reduction of 85 percent. The results of this additional survey are provided in the 

attachment to this document.

The results from this additional survey of facilities with lower emissions estimates are very 

similar to the results from the survey of facilities with higher emissions estimates that are 

summarized in the NASF comments. The combined information from the surveys of the 

facilities with higher emissions estimates and facilities with lower emissions estimates produce a 

consistent result. Of the 182 facility responses NASF had the following results: 62 facility 

closures (34%), 69 facilities that no longer have hexavalent chromium processes or any plating 

processes (38%), 43 facilities with revised emissions estimates (24%), and 8 facilities that 

confirmed EPA’s estimates (4%). The sum of EPA’s estimated emissions for these 182 facilities 

was 353.939 pounds that was reduced to 23.360 pounds for a reduction of 93 percent.

Based on these results, the trends of facility closures, the number of facilities that no longer have 

hexavalent chromium processes and facilities with lower revised emissions are consistent among 

facilities with higher emissions estimates and facilities with lower emissions estimates. 

Accordingly, EPA should revise its emissions estimates consistent with these results.
3

Documentation of Industry Data from Survey

EPA officials have asked NASF for additional documentation for the results of its survey. As 

described in the NASF comments, NASF asked local affiliates of the association across the 

nation to review the data provided by EPA regarding hexavalent chromium emissions estimates 

from facilities. The information collected was provided by facilities directly, persons 

knowledgeable about the facility (such as chemical suppliers), phone conversations, research of 

public records, and physical site visits to confirm the information. NASF has specifically 

identified those facilities that are closed or no longer have hexavalent chromium processes

(which included approximately 70 percent of the responses), so EPA should be able to verify this 

information easily. The revised emissions estimates were provided based on a variety of sources 

including stack tests, production data, emissions factors, pollution control efficiencies, and 

chemical sales. Because this information is based on real-world data, the results would appear to 

be more reliable than the emissions estimates that EPA produced based on limited data and 

questionable models for predicting emissions estimates. NASF would be happy to discuss these 

results in more detail with EPA officials as appropriate.

EPA’s 2005 NEI Data for Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Surface Finishing

Supports NASF’s Emissions Estimate

In its comments, NASF estimated that national emissions of hexavalent chromium from 

chromium electroplating operations were approximately 200 to 300 pounds per year. This 

conclusion was based primarily on the revised emissions estimate analysis discussed above. The 

estimate provided by NASF appears to be consistent with the estimate based on data from the 

2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) that was included in Attachment 2 of the NASF 

comments. Specifically, the NEI provides data on all sources of hexavalent chromium 

emissions, and estimates that total hexavalent chromium emissions from a wide range of sectors 

and activities are nearly 37 tons per year. Based on this data the contribution of hexavalent 

chromium emissions from the surface finishing industry is 0.129376 tons per year, or 

approximately 259 pounds per year. This represents only 0.35 percent of the total hexavalent 

chromium emissions from all sources in the U.S. 
4

EPA’s own data provided in the 2005 NEI data appear to support the emissions estimate 

provided by NASF. Furthermore, based on past experience and documented in NASF’s 

comments on the October 2010 proposal, the NEI data have tended to over-estimate emissions 

from chromium electroplating operations. When corrected, the emissions estimate may be even 

lower. As a result, EPA needs to revise its emissions estimates and risk assessment for this rule 

consistent with the information provided by NASF and the 2005 NEI data.

EPA Still Has No Data to Support the Use of Non-PFOS Fume Suppressants to Meet 

Proposed Emissions Limits

NASF continues to assert that EPA has not provided any data to support the use of non-PFOS 

fume suppressants to meet the proposed emissions limits. In addition, EPA has not identified 

any new technology or work practices supported by documentation or data to demonstrate that 

the proposed emissions limits are warranted or can be achieved. These deficiencies are fatal 

flaws in EPA’s proposed rulemaking, including the new emission limits, risk analysis, cost 

effectiveness, economic impact, and other supporting information. EPA must revise its 

proposed rule consistent with the Clean Air Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the 

information provided in the administrative record for this rulemaking.

Review of Legal Arguments

EPA Is Not Required to Recalculate the MACT Floor as Part of Its Technology Review

Commenters have argued that EPA must go back and recalculate from scratch the MACT floor 

as part of its CAA 112(d)(6) technology review. This argument is the underpinning justification 

for many of the claims made regarding EPA’s technology review, including the claim that EPA 

must use the California data to calculate new MACT floors.

NASF has addressed this argument in its comments, noting that EPA has already rejected the 

argument that Section 112(d)(6) is not intended to create an one way ratchet for MACT 
5

standards. In addition, the D.C. Circuit has already rejected the argument that section 112(d)(6) 

requires EPA to “completely recalculate the maximum achievable control technology — in other 

words, to start from scratch.” NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

The setting of a MACT floor under section 112(d) is a one-time requirement. While section 

112(d)(3) explains the process and requirements for “promulgation” of a standard, section 

112(d)(6), speaks only of “revision” of standards that have already been promulgated. Section 

112(d)(6) establishes its own parameters for such revisions—they must be “necessary” and must 

“tak[e] into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.” Thus, 

section 112(d)(6) does not require EPA to redo its section 112(d)(3) calculations every eight 

years. 

EPA’s legal position on the interpretation of section 112(d)(6) should be strongly opposed to the 

argument to constantly recalculate MACT floors. If the Agency had to re-set every MACT rule 

every eight years (creating serious “MACT-on-MACT” problems), EPA would be basing 

standards on the top 1.44 percent of original performers for the first eight year review (the top 12

percent of the original top 12 percent) and then at the top 0.17 percent for the second eight year 

review (the top 12 percent of the top 12 percent of the original top 12 percent). Such an 

approach is technologically infeasible and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

As a reconfirmation of its position, EPA again rebuffed this argument in the oil and gas 

NSPS/NESHAPs rule that was signed recently. Specifically, EPA stated that one commenter 

argues that EPA has not satisfied sections 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA, because the MACT 

standards set in the 1999 rule have not been re-calculated using current data. To the extent the 

commenter is arguing that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires that the EPA recalculate the MACT 

standards set in 1999, based on current emissions test data, the commenter is incorrect. In NRDC 

v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the District of Columbia Circuit held that it “[did] 

not think the words ‘review, and revise as necessary’ can be construed reasonably as imposing 

any such obligation” to recalculate the MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 
6

EPA further noted in this case that the commenter views CAA section 112(d)(6) differently. It 

appears to argue that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires that the EPA recalculate the MACT based 

on current data and technology. The same argument was posed to the District of Columbia 

Circuit, and the Court “[did] not think that the words ‘review, and revise as necessary’ can be 

construed reasonably as imposing any such obligation.” NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, EPA is not required pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act section 112(d)(6) to re-calculate the floors it set in 1999.

Based on this analysis, both EPA and the courts agree that the Agency is not required to recalculate MACT floors as part of its technology review.

The Use of Surface Tension as an Alternative Limit

Commenters argued that the Agency cannot set surface tension levels as alternative limits for this 

MACT standard. The use of surface tension levels as an option to demonstrate compliance with 

the chromium electroplating NESHAP has been a critical part of this rule since it was first 

promulgated. Without this surface tension level provision, the small businesses subject to the 

rule would not have an economically feasible option to comply with the standard. 

Regardless of the fact that the argument lacks legal merit, the time to bring such a challenge has 

clearly passed. The Agency has included alternative surface tension limits in its MACT standard 

for the industry since 1995. As the DC Circuit has repeatedly made clear, including in the recent 

HMIWI MACT case, the Clean Air Act requires that any challenge to an action must be brought 

within sixty days from publication in the Federal Register. In the HMIWI case, the court refused 

to hear the challenge to the pollutant-by-pollutant methodology because the same approach had 

been used to set the 1997 standards for that industry. Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 

420, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Similarly, a belated challenge to EPA’s use of alternative surface 

tension limits cannot be brought 17 years after the Agency first promulgated such standards.
7

Conclusion

On behalf of the National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF), we appreciate the 

opportunity to submit this additional information on EPA’s February 8, 2012 supplemental 

proposal for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. If you have any 

questions, would like additional information, or would like to discuss these comments, please 

contact Christian Richter (crichter@thepolicygroup.com) or Jeff Hannapel 

(jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) of The Policy Group on behalf of the NASF.
Summary of Hexavalent Chromium Emissions -- Low Emissions Facilities

Company Location Process

EPA Emissions 

Estimate 

(lbs/yr)

Corrected 

Emissions 

(lbs/yr)

Percentage 

Difference Reason for Correction

A-1 Chrome & 

Polishing Corp. Newington, CT Hard 0.34 ? ? Facility is very small and buys only a small amount of chromium

Acitronics, Inc. Branford, CT Hard 0.34 ? ? Very small roto-gravure shop

Aerospace Support Agawam, MA Hard 0.35 0 100% Facility has a very small plating operation with a closed 

loop system with no emissions

AK Steel 

Corporation Rockport, IN Hard 0.68 0 100% Facility has no hard chromium plating process

Allied Signal South Bend, IN Hard 0.63 0 100% Facility no longer has any plating processes

Amcast (Elkhart) Elkhart, IN Hard 0.81 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Antonelli Plating 

Co. Providence, RI Hard 0.27 0 100% Facility is closed

Associated Plating 

Company New Britain, CT Hard 0.28 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Astro Inds. Inc. Green Bay, WI Hard 0.28 0.28 0% Facility estimate is confirmed

B & E Metal 

Finishing, Inc. Woonsocket, RI Hard 0.37 0 100% Facility is closed
Bales Mold Service 

Inc. Downers Grove, IL Hard 0.18 0.6 0% Facility provided revised estimate

Bass Plating Co. Bloomfield, CT Hard 0.044 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Big R Plating & 

Polishing, Inc. Indianapolis, IN Hard 0.31 ? ?

Facility has no hard chromium plating process, a very 

small decorative chromium process for local restoration 

work

Bouffard Metal 

Goods Watertown, CT Hard 0.38 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

BTS Rotary Die Arlington Heights, IL Hard 0.38 0 100% Facility is closed

C & R Barrel 

plating Corp. Columbia City, IN Hard 0.33 0 100% Facility has no hard chromium plating process

F.M. Callahan & 

Son Malden, MA Hard 0.4 ? ? Facility has EN and sulfuric anodizing processes, and only a small amount of chromic acid anodizing

Cambridge Plating 

Co. Belmont, MA Hard 0.38 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Cannon & Brown, 

Inc. Providence, RI Hard 0.42 0 100% Facility is closed

Capitol Chrome 

Corp. Indianapolis, IN Hard 0.057 0 100% Facility is closed

Caval Tool Division Newington, CT Hard 0.39 0 100% Facility is closed

Centra-Met, Inc. Elwood, IN Hard 0.063 0 100% Facility is closed
M S Chambers & 

Son Baltic, CT Hard 0.86 0 100% Facility is closed

Chrome Craft 

Corp. Highland Park, MI Decorative 3.00 0 100% Facility is closed

Chrometech of 

Wisconsin Franklin, WI Hard 0.58 0.58 0% Facility estimate is confirmed

Cro-Mat Co. Lincolnwood, IL Hard 0.44 0.20 55% Facility provided revised estimate

CWS Plating Camden, NJ Hard 2.40 0 100% Facility is closed

Eagle Plating 

Company Providence, RI Hard 0.089 0 100% Facility is closed

Elkhart Products Geneva, IN Hard 0.36 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Forestville 

Industrial Plating Southington, CT Hard 0.55 0 100% Facility is closed

Fountain Plating 

Co., Inc. West Springfield, MA Hard 0.56 0.18 67% Facility has small tank and only buys a small amount of chromium

Franke Plating 

Works Fort Wayne, IN Hard 0.31 0 100% Facility has no hard chromium plating process

G & A Plating 

Company Providence, RI Hard 0.11 0 100% Facility is closed

General Dynamics Burlington, VT Hard 0.57 0 100% Facility no longer has any plating processes
Guide Corporation Anderson, IN Hard 0.83 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

International 

Chromium Plating Providence, RI Hard 0.64 0.21 67% Facility has a small hexavalent chromium plating process and buys only a small amount of chromium

J & E Specialty Inc. Dover, NH Hard 0.63 0.21 67% Facility has very small tank and only buys a small amount 

of chromium

Kem Kote, Inc. Manchester, NH Hard 0.16 0 100% Facility is closed

La Rosee & Sons, 

Inc. Hudson, MA Hard 0.17 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Lasalle Steel Co. 

Fluid Power Ops. Griffith, IN Hard 0.52 0.00 100% Facility has no hard chromium plating process

Lawson Mardon 

Wheaton, Inc. Millville, NJ Hard 0.85 0.00 100% Facility no longer has any plating processes

National 

Chromium Co., Inc. Putnam, CT Hard 0.85 0.85 0% Facility estimate appears reasonable

National Metal 

Finishing Corp. Springfield, MA Hard 0.88 0.29 67% Facility is now owned by Abnar and has only a small chromium plating process

Olin Corp East Alton, IL Hard 0.93 0 100% Facility no longer has any plating processes

Osram Sylvania Watertown, CT Hard 0.94 0 100% Facility has no hexavalent chromium plating

Plainville Plating 

Co., Inc Plainville, CT Hard 0.98 0.32 67% Facility has no hard chrome plating, only small chromic acid anodizing process
Plating Engineering 

Co. Milwaukee, WI Hard 0.22 0 100% Facility is closed

Sanitary-Dash 

Manufacturing N. Grosvernordal, CT Hard 0.26 0 100% Facility is closed

Scot Inds. Muscoda, WI Hard 0.13 0.13 0% Facility estimate is confirmed

SL Surface Techs 

Inc. Camden, NJ Hard 1.50 0 100% Facility is closed

Syndicate Store 

Fixtures, Inc. Middlebury, IN Hard 0.28 0 100% Facility no longer has any plating processes

U.S. Chrome Corp. 

of Wisconsin Fond du Lac, WI Hard 0.31 0.31 0% Facility estimate is confirmed

TOTALS 28.593 4.160

85% 

(24.433 lbs.)