To: Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: crichter@thepolicygroup.com

Date: 03/14/2012 11:59AM
Cc: "Christian Richter" < crichter@thepolicygroup.com >, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck
French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Follow up on Our Discussions / Significant New Data Concerns Warranting Comment

Period Extension

Hello Janet:

As promised, wanted to follow up with you after additional constructive discussions with Steve Fruh and team at RTP. Steve suggested it may be time to reconnect upstairs on several matters.

Since we last spoke, we'v e done further evaluation of EPA emissions data for the chromium plating sector. We've confirmed this past week, to even our own surprise, new and extensive systematic

overestimation of emissions from this small business sector.

To allow us to finish or d ata evaluation, we had requested recently an extension in the comment period from OAQPS. I understand you and Gina are not inclined in general to approve an industry request for extension at this time. However, in this case, the agency has overestimated in the supplemental proposal even the now vastly smaller national emission profile of the industry (siginificantly lower than EPA's estimate of 1100 pounds/year). We believe emissions could be as low as 150 pounds nationwide. I will follow up shortly with a formal letter requesting a 30

- day extension to allow us to work through this major new development with OAR.

To illustrate the point, we have confirmed in the field that in the case of approx. 100 out of the 300 small companies in the EPA database with a risk of 1 or above, that 40 percent of the companies are closed, 30 percent no longer use Cr6 and 30 percent have emissions below EPA estimates or

modeled data.

As a consequence, instead of the group of these 100 plants emitting over 200 pounds of emissi ons (per EPA's database), in actuality they represent approx. 10

- 15 pounds of emissions per year. This is a dramatic database error that entirely misrepresents the industry's environmental performance.

I would add this is only one element of several regar ding the database that is problematic, and persists after OAR noted in the supplemental proposal that its data collection effort from states provided the agency with improved data for the proposed rule.

Also, the data corrections we've made to just this s ample of plants in the database results in a reduction of emissions from the industry even further than EPA claims is achieved by the new rule.

Might we connect and set up a discussion? It would be warranted in this case. I will follow up with

a comment p eriod extension request.

Best regards,

Christian

The Policy Group

700 12th Street NW

Washington, DC

(202) 257

- 0250 direct crichter@thepolicygroup.com Sent via BlackBerry from T

- Mobile

(See attached file : Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Proposed MACT Rule

- USEPA OAR March 21 2012 PPT.ppt)(See attached file: 3 overview slides re analysis.doc)(See attached file: Some issues in EPA's analysis

-- 3

- 21

- 12.doc)Tracing the Details of EPA’s Analysis So As to Provide Helpful Comments

Issues we are concerned with:

1

. How exactly has EPA done its analyses in estimating current emissions, risks, risk reduction, costs, etc.?

2

. What are the implications of EPA’s choi ces of data and methodology?

3

. What can we provide in comments in terms of better data and suggesting better methodology?

A “leave behind” paper is attached for EPA staff showing some examples of our concerns

We need an extended comment period to b etter understand and work on these issues

• More time for interaction with EPA staff on these issues

• More time for us to gather data and do analysis so we can provide more helpful

commentsSome Perspective on What EPA Does in the Agency’s Analysis

E PA’s Estimates for Entire Industry

Geographic Location of Facility # of Facilities % of Facilities

Not in CA (will be affected by NESHAP) 1,319 91%

In California (will not be affected) 135 9%

Total 1,454

• Non

- CA facilities account for 91% of all est imated facilities, >91% of all estimated emissions, and virtually all estimated costs of the rule. In effect, the proposed rule affects only non

- CA facilities.

Does EPA Ha ve Facility

- Specific Data

With Which to Estimate Emissions for the Non

- C alifornia Facilities ?

# of Non

- CA Facilities

EPA claims to have all the facility

- specific data needed 113

EPA claims to have some of the needed data (+ need some default assumptions) 57

EPA has none of needed data (facility emissions estimate relies completely on default assumptions) 1,284

1,454

* Source: EPA. Simulation of Actual and Allowable Emissions for Cr Electroplating Facilities . Table 1

• It is important how EPA uses the State/local data to estimate emissions for some facilities

• It is important ho w EPA extrapolates from this limited data to the vast majority of the industry about which little is knownOne Example of an Extrapolation Issue

Odd Alphabetical Pattern in EPA’s Resulting Estimated Emissions for All Categories of Extrapolated Source s

Facility Name Process Type Simulated A s Estimated Emissions (lbs/yr) Ratio of Emissions: High vs. Low Cr anodizing Cr anodizing Advanced Coating Techniques 0.0075

to to Valley Plating, Inc. 0.297 39.6

Decorative Cr Decorative Cr

A&A Bumper Plating 0.00028

to to Xtreme Metal Finishing 0.213 761
Hard Cr, unknown Hard Cr, large

\ AH \ “Metal Fabricators” 1.82

to to Youngstown Hard Chrome Plating 14.65 8.0
Hard Cr, unknown Hard Cr, small

3

- M 0.334

to to

Worldcolor Richmond 5.64 16.9

• Same sort of pattern for the other categories of sources also

• How has EPA’s methodology produced this odd pattern?

• What are its implications?

• Can/should it be improved?

# Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Proposed MACT Rule

National Association for Surface Finishing Meeting with

USEPA Office of Air & Radiation
March 21, 2012

Christian Richter crichter@thepolicygroup.com

202

- 257

- 0250

Jeff Hannapel jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com

202

- 257

- 3756

Stu Sessions
sessions@environomics.com

301

- 657

- 7762

## With data corrections, estimated risk is likely

near zero.

# Chromium Electroplating & Anodizing NESHAP RTR: EPA Risk Analysis for U.S. Facilities

Major data revisions (March 2012) eliminate 95% of facility emissions with MIR of 1 or above and change MIR profile dramatically



## MIR of 1 or aboveSome Sample Issues in EPA’s Analyses Supporting Proposed Chromium Electroplating

RTR

Conf using or conf licting documentation on key analytical steps, making it difficult to know how EPA did the analysis and difficult to comment in a helpful way

Example: How did EPA estimate annual emissions for each of the roughly 11 50 non

- CA electroplating facilities (79% of all the to

- be

- regulated facilities) about which EPA has no

emission s information and does not know size and/or plating processes conducted?

• From d ata profile document (1/6/12)(page 4):

Data on “ average emissions for the non

- California plants were not used in any of the analyses, other than as a basis of comparison to the simulated annual emissions for the

non

- California plants. The average emissio ns for the California plants were used as default values in the risk assessment for those plants for which actual emissions were unknown or for which the process type was unknown. In the latter case, it was assumed that any unknown plant was a hard chromiu m electroplating facility. ”

This appears to suggest a procedure like that for the 2010 proposal, in which emissions for facilities of unknown size/process are estimated using default values, in this case

, average emissions from California hard chromium f acilities.

• From document on simulation of actual and allowable emissions (1/5/12) (page 6):

Because emissions were to be simulated according to process type, it was necessary to assign a process type to each of these "unknown" plants.

... a distinction was made between chromium electroplating plants located in California and plants located

elsewhere

... The reason for this is that plants in California are subject to emission limits that are more stringent than the emission limits specified in the Chromium Ele ctroplating NESHAP, and annual emissions from chromium electroplating plants located in California are significantly lower

... than emissions from non

- California plants. Therefore, emissions from California plants are not representative of emissions from non

California plants.

... Based on the total numbers of plants

..., plant types were randomly assigned to each of the unknown plants, while ensuring that the total numbers of each type of plant nationwide were preserved.

This appears to suggest that EPA follo wed an entirely different procedure . The non

- CA unknown plants are randomly assigned to different plant types in proportions reflecting

the national totals. Emissions for the unknown non

- CA plants are estimated in some

manner that reflects emissions from the relatively few non

- CA plants for which EPA has developed emissions estimates. Emissions from CA plants are not used in any way in estimating emissions from unknown non

- CA plants.

• Which of these two procedures, or which other procedure, did EPA actua lly follow in developing emissions estimates for these 79% of all facilities?For very few of the facilities that will be affected by the proposed rule (facilities not in California) does EPA have site

- specific information with which to reasonably estima te the facility’s annual emissions

• Accurate emission estimates are key to analyzing risks, risk reduction, environmental justice issues, costs, benefits, and economic impacts

• Despite last year’s data collection effort from State and local agencies

, EPA h as very little of the needed information. EPA also appears to misuse much of the limited information the Agency has

• Most of the information that EPA has on this industry is at least five years old and misses the important impacts of:

o Compliance with OSH A’s tighter PEL

o Shift from use of hexavalent chromium to trivalent to avoid toxicity issues

o The recession

• We believe EPA would lose if a data quality challenge were filed regarding the information on which this regulation is based

• We believe the major re ason why EPA has insufficient information is the Agency’s failure to conduct a recent Information Collection Request or industry survey

o For most of the recent RTRs where EPA has sought to significantly tighten the NESHAP, the Agency has appeared to find i t advisable to develop a good information basis for the regulation via a recent ICR or joint survey with industry. Why not here also?

• We need an extended comment period in order to better understand EPA’s analysis and its implications, and then to provid e EPA with better information and suggestions regarding improved analytical methodologiesEven after last year’s data collection, EPA has insufficient data with which to accurately estimate

emissions f o r the great majority of the industry

EPA’s Estimat es for Entire Industry

Geographic Location of Facility # of Facilities % of Facilities

Not in CA (will be affected by NESHAP) 1,319 91%

In California (will not be affected) 135 9%

Total 1,454

• Non

- CA facilities account for 91% of all estimated facil ities, >91% of all estimated emissions, and virtually all estimated costs of the rule. In effect, the proposed rule affects only non

- CA facilities.

Does EPA Ha ve Facility

- Specific Data

With Which to Estimate Emissions for the Non

- C alifornia Facilities ?

# of Non

- CA Facilities

EPA claims to have all the facility

- specific data needed 113

EPA claims to have some of the needed data (+ need some default assumptions) 57

EPA has none of needed data (facility emissions estimate relies completely on default a ssumptions) 1,284

1,454

* Source: EPA. Simulation of Actual and Allowable Emissions for Cr Electroplating Facilities . Table 1

• EPA claims to have adequate data to estimate emissions for only about 8% of these

facilities

-- and we think EPA’s estimates are inaccurate for many of these facilities

• EPA claims to have partial data with which to estimate emissions for an additional 4% of

these facilities

-- and we think EPA is inaccurate about many of these facilities also

• For 88% of these facilities, EP A is left with extrapolating in order to estimate emissions.

o For about half of these facilities EPA knows only what plating process the facility conducts (hard chrome, decorative, anodizing) but knows nothing about the facility’s size, emissions concentra tion, stack gas flow rate, operating hours, etc.

o For about half of these facilities EPA knows nothing at all except that they supposedly run an electroplating operation• We have been checking the accuracy of EPA’s emissions estimates for these facilities, and want to report on what we’ve found thus far. We need an extended comment period to do more of this checking and to provide our results in comments

When EPA claims to have facility

- specific information from State and local agencies with which

to es timate a facility’s emissions, the data that EPA uses often appear either inaccurate or not

traceable to the claimed State/local source

We have spot

- checked on a random basis various aspects of EPA’s data.

1. Data on operating hours. We checked EPA’s estimates regarding the number of hours during a year that an electroplating plant energizes its tanks. This is an important data element in estimating emissions. For many plants, EPA estimates emissions as:

Annual emissions = Cr6 concentration in stack gas x stack gas flow rate x electroplating hours/yr

In our view, it is difficult for the Agency to obtain accurate information on annual operating hours without conducting a survey and asking the facilities directly, which EPA has not done.

We checked E PA’s data on operating hours for the anodizing and decorative chrome facilities for which EPA claims to have used information on operating hours in estimating a facility’s actual emissions (see Table 1 of EPA’s Simulation of Actual and Allowable Emissions document). There are 21 facilities in this Table for which EPA claims to have developed site

- specific information on a facility’s operating hours from data provided by State and local agencies. But among these 21 facilities:

• Information is imputed rathe r than actual for 8 facilities (shaded cells in the table)

• Information shown in the table appears to be incorrect (different from that shown in

Table 19 of EPA’s Profile document

-- the supposed source document for the operating hours data in Table 1) for 2 more facilities 1

• Information shown in the table is clearly incorrect because it doesn’t incorporate the assumption that the facility energizes its electroplating tanks for only 60% of the hours that the facility operates (decorative chrome) for 6 more fa cilities.

The result is that for only 5 of the 21 facilities is the operating hours data really as advertised by EPA. For 16 of the 21 facilities, the operating hours data that EPA uses in estimating emissions is either not specific to the facility that is being represented or not developed appropriately and accurately from the information provided by State and local agencies.

1 For Co

- Operative Plating Co.

, the number shown for operating hours in Table 1 appears to be the number for flowrate which is incorrectly transcribed into the operating hours column . For Delphi Corpo ration, the number shown for operating hours in Table 1 is not shown in the source document, Table 19. In fact, Delphi Corporation does not appear at all in Table 19, and there is no indication where EPA might have obtained the estimate of 5,880 operating hours/yr for Delphi Corporation that appears in Table 1.2. Use of information obtained from State and local agencies. We checked several of the data submittals provided by State and local agencies to see whether EPA appeared to be using this information correctly. We checked the source materials from which EPA developed emissions estimates for four facilities appearing in Table 1 of EPA’s Simulation of Actual and

Allowable Emissions document. This is what we found:

• Chrome Crankshaft Co. of Illinois, Chicago IL (hard chrome, small). In Table 1, EPA shows this facility as having stack flow of 44,360 dscfm (actual data; cell is not shaded), operating hours/yr of 2,080 (imputed; cell i s shaded; presumably the average for small hard chrome), and average emissions concentration of 0.0086 mg/dscm. EPA received from Illinois a copy of a test report from July, 2001 for this facility.

o A first question is whether a stack test in 2001 accurat ely reflects a facility’s current emissions. Many facilities have changed their plating processes and equipment during the past 11 years, and many have improved their capture and/or control equipment for chromic acid mists, particularly due to OSHA’s tigh tened worker exposure standard for hexavalent chromium.

o The test report provided by Illinois does not indicate the facility’s stack flow. In fact, the figure of 44,360 that EPA characterizes as actual facility data is instead imputed, representing the fac ility’s 4 stacks each having the imputed industry

wide average estimated stack flow of 11,090 dscfm.

o The test report does not indicate the facility’s actual operating hours. EPA accurately characterizes the figure shown of 2,080 as imputed rather than spe cific to the facility

o We see how EPA could interpret the information in the test report to suggest an average emissions concentration of 0.0086. In fact, though, this figure represents a simple average across the test results for the facility’s four stack s, whereas the appropriate figure would be the flow

- weighted average across the four stacks. More importantly, though, the test report provides a statement to the effect that under the test conditions the tanks were run at maximum rectifier settings (maxi mum current) and thus generated a maximum emissions concentration (emissions are a linear function of current applied). The tanks are typically run at less than maximum amperage. The concentrations observed during these stack tests thus likely exceed tho se that would prevail on average over all operating hours during the year, and it is this lower average emissions concentration that should be used in estimating this plant’s actual annual emissions. This is likely an issue in all of the many instances in which EPA has used stack test emissions concentration information in estimating a plant’s actual annual emissions. Most

stack tests are run as “stress tests” to see whether emission limitations are met under worst case operating conditions. Most facilit ies will emit at average levels significantly below their emission concentrations observed during stack tests.

• Jobsite, Inc. of Grand Junction, CO (hard chrome, large). In Table 1, EPA shows this facility as having an emission rate of 2.7 lbs/yr, with th is estimate having been provided directly instead of being built up from information on concentration, flowrate and operating hours.o We searched the information provided by Colorado to EPA and searched the docket more generally, but in neither could we fi nd any information with respect to Jobsite, Inc. There appears to be no information in the record to support EPA’s estimate of 2.7 lbs/yr emissions for this facility.

• Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc. of Chicago, IL (hard chrome, large). In Table 1, EPA

sho ws this facility as having an emission rate of 4.76 lbs/yr, with this estimate having been provided directly instead of being built up from information on concentration, flowrate and operating hours.

o We found the spreadsheet provided by Kevin Mattison of Illinois EPA to the U.S. EPA with information about numerous electroplating sources of hexavalent chromium emissions in Illinois, including Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc.. Nowhere in the spreadsheet is there any mention of the emission rate or

concentratio n for Dover Industrial Chrome. The data provided in the spreadsheet for this facility includes only: a) information to the effect that the facility has six hard chrome plating tanks; and b) information to the effect that the p ermittee

claims the use of fu me suppressant to lower the chrome plating solution surface

tension to 20

- 30 dynes/cm reduces chromic acid vapor emissions by 97 to 99%.

o There appears to be no information in the record to support EPA’s estimate of 2.7 lbs/yr emissions for this facility.

o P erhaps EPA has somehow imputed an estimate of annual emissions for this facility by assuming some typical average uncontrolled rate of emissions for six hard chrome plating tanks and then reducing this figure by 97 to 99%. If so, the Agency should not cla im this to be a facility

- specific estimate of annual emissions provided by a State or local agency.

• Starrett Company

- Evans Rule Division of Charleston, SC (decorative chrome). In Table 1, EPA shows this facility as having an emission rate of 4.00 lbs/y r, with this estimate having been provided directly instead of being built up from information on concentration, flowrate and operating hours.

o We looked for information provided by State or local agencies in South Carolina to EPA in the Agency’s document on Information on Chromium Electroplating Facilities Collected from State and Local Agencies . We found that South Carolina had neither been asked to provide information, nor had they provided

any.

o We searched the docket more generally, but could not find any information with respect to Starrett Company

- Evans Rule Division.

o There appears to be no information in the record to support EPA’s estimate of 4.0 lbs/yr emissions for this facility.

In sum, for none of the four facilities that we investigated did we find that EPA had accurately used facility

- specific information from State or local agencies to develop the Agency’s estimates

of annual emissions for these facilities.For the 1,284 facilities for which EPA has not been able to estimate emissions (88% of all facilities outside of California), EPA makes an unusual and (we think) unjustified assumption to the effect that emissions range from low to high according to alphabetical order among the

facilities.

This table summarizes EPA’s emissions estimates for the 1,284 facilities for which EPA does not

have site

- specific data.

Facility Name Process Type Simulated A s Estimated Emissions (lbs/yr) Ratio of Emissions: High vs. Low Cr anodizing Cr anodizing Advanced Coating Techniques 0.0075

to to Valley Plating, Inc. 0.297 39.6

Decorative Cr Decorative Cr A&A Bumper Plating 0.00028

to to Xtreme Metal Finishing 0.213 761
Hard Cr, unknown Hard Cr, large

\ AH \ “Metal Fabricators” 1.82

to to Youngstown Hard Chrome Pla ting 14.65 8.0
Hard Cr, unknown Hard Cr, small

3

- M 0.334

to to

Worldcolor Richmond 5.64 16.9 Unknown process Cr anodizing

A

- 1 Plating Co., Inc. 0.305

to to Yellowstone Hydraulics 2.73 9.0 Unknown process Decorative Cr Acadia Polishing and Plating 0.215

to to Xerox Joseph C Wilson Center 8.25 38.4 Unknown process Hard Cr, large AAA Hydraulic Cylinder Services 0.349

to to

Wearmaster 1.796 5.15 Unknown process Hard Cr, small

ABC Custom Chr ome 0.0276

to to Worthington Steel Co. 0.331 12.0

• For each category of facility, EPA’s estimated emissions increase with facility names in alphabetical order. The last facility in the alphabet in each category has emissions estimated by EPA to be somewhere between 5 and 761 times the emissions of the first facility in the alphabet.• This pattern is puzzling and does not seem to be justified. The impact of EPA choosing to assign this pattern is that facilities at the end of the alphabet have a d isproportionate impact on the risk estimates for the regulation. Facilities at the beginning of the alphabet have sufficiently small estimated emissions that they have virtually no impact on any of the quantities that EPA attempts to analyze: baseline ris ks, risk reduction, costs, cost

effectiveness, etc..