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've 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 data 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 emissions 

(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 regarding 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 sample 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 period 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 choices 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 better 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

comments
Some Perspective on What EPA Does in the Agency’s Analysis

EPA’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 estimated 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 Have Facility-Specific Data

With Which to Estimate Emissions for the Non-California 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 how EPA extrapolates from this limited data to the vast majority of the 

industry about which little is known
One Example of an Extrapolation Issue

Odd Alphabetical Pattern in EPA’s Resulting Estimated Emissions

for All Categories of Extrapolated Sources

Facility Name Process Type Simulated As

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 above
Some Sample Issues in EPA’s Analyses Supporting Proposed Chromium Electroplating 

RTR

Confusing or conflicting 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 1150 non-CA 

electroplating facilities (79% of all the to-be-regulated facilities) about which EPA has no 

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

• From data 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 emissions 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 chromium 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 facilities.

• 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 Electroplating 

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 nonCalifornia 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 followed 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 actually 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 estimate 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 has 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 OSHA’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 reason 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 it 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 provide EPA with better information and suggestions 

regarding improved analytical methodologies
Even after last year’s data collection, EPA has insufficient data with which to accurately estimate 

emissions for the great majority of the industry

EPA’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 estimated 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 Have Facility-Specific Data

With Which to Estimate Emissions for the Non-California 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

• 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, EPA 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 concentration, 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 estimate 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 EPA’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 rather 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 facilities1

• 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 facilities.

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 Corporation, 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 is 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 accurately 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 tightened 

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 facility’s 4 stacks each having the imputed industrywide 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 specific 

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 stacks, 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 

(maximum 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 those 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 facilities 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 this 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 find 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 

shows 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 

concentration 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 permittee 

claims the use of fume 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 Perhaps 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 claim 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/yr, 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 As

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

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 Chrome 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 disproportionate 

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 risks, risk reduction, costs, costeffectiveness, etc..