NASF Comments to EPA: Executive Summary

NASF has raised a number of issues with the rule, including the following concerns:

EPA Has Unjustifiably Reversed Its Earlier Position on the Rule
In this supplemental proposal, EPA concludes that the residual risks associated with the chromium electroplating and anodizing industry are lower that the agency estimated in the October 2010 proposal. EPA, however, inexplicably proposes to impose more stringent surface tension levels and emission limits based on technology and additional controls that it now claims can reduce risks at reasonable costs. This about-face makes no sense, particularly in light of the further information that NASF is providing today.

The Industry Has Already Reduced Emissions by More Than 99.7 Percent
As context, over the past 15 years, the surface finishing industry has dramatically reduced chromium emissions. Since 1995, the industry has reduced nationwide emissions of chromium from 173 tons to at least EPA’s conservative current estimate of 1,140 pounds – a reduction of 99.7 percent.

NASF: The Industry’s Regulatory “Success Story” is Even Better than EPA Claims

Actual Industry Data Show Much Lower Emissions
The actual emissions associated with the industry are significantly lower than EPA emissions estimates. NASF’s newly collected data and our analysis indicates that a more accurate estimate of current emissions is approximately 200 pounds a year, or 80 percent lower that EPA’s estimate – and a 99.9 percent reduction since 1995. Such reductions in emissions and the associated risks represent an environmental policy success story that should be acknowledged and celebrated. Instead, EPA is proposing more stringent new limits on the industry.

Further Emission Reductions are Unnecessary and Newly Added Costs Are Unreasonable
Because actual emissions are so much lower than EPA’s conservative estimate, there is no justification for imposing the stringent limits included in this proposed rule. The risks posed by emissions from chromium electroplating and anodizing operations are miniscule and have been deemed acceptable by EPA, further reduction of emissions is unnecessary and the costs of attempting to achieve additional reductions are unreasonable.

EPA Data Underpinning the Rule Contain Major Errors and Outdated Information
In addition, there are significant quality problems with the data underpinning this rule. While EPA now has more data that it had for the October 2010 proposal, most of this data is still outdated, incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable. In addition, there are numerous inconsistencies in the data. As NASF has continued to review the data, in the limited time available, it continues to identify errors and outdated information. The number and scale of the problems completely undercut the validity of the proposed rule.

NASF: “Over 70% of EPA’s Claimed Emissions are from Closed and Non-Chromium Facilities”

The Majority of Facilities in EPA’s Database are Closed, Do Not Process Chromium or Have Lower Emissions vs. EPA’s Modeled Data
In order to check the reliability of EPA’s data, NASF reached out to its members and requested information on approximately 300 of the highest emissions facilities identified by EPA. Over a third of those facilities have responded to date and these responses indicate that actual emissions are 94 percent lower than EPA’s estimates.

Of the facilities that responded or for which new information was collected, 35 percent were found to be closed, 38 percent no longer, or never did, process chromium, 25 percent provided data that showed emissions lower than EPA’s estimate, and only 2 percent actually confirmed EPA’s emissions estimate.

EPA’s Statistical Analysis is Problematic
The problems do not end with the data. The statistical analyses that EPA conducted with the data it had available also suffer from reliability problems.

In addition, EPA’s emissions and dispersion modeling for hexavalent chromium is systematically biased high compared to actual monitoring data collected by EPA, leading to greatly over-estimating ambient concentrations (and risks) at those sites where higher concentrations are modeled.

EPA Has Committed Procedural Errors and Has Not Allowed Industry to Complete Its Analysis and Provide Meaningful Comment
EPA has committed procedural errors in this rulemaking. Despite the fact that NASF raised significant concerns about the data and other aspects of the proposed rule, EPA denied the NASFs request for an extension of the comment period. This has left NASF and others with insufficient time to fully and meaningfully comment on this proposed rule. In addition, EPA should have, but did not, conduct a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel review of this rule pursuant to its obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

EPA Dramatically Overestimated the Risk from Finishing Operations: NASF Analysis Shows Population Exposures Closer to Zero than EPA’s Estimate of 14 million People

EPA Reversed the Sequence of Proper Analytical Steps under the Clean Air Act
EPA’s regulatory approach in this rulemaking reversed the proper analysis under the Clean Air Act. Had EPA first evaluated the existing standards under 112(f), it should have concluded that those existing standards were appropriately protective, because it reached precisely that conclusion in October 2010, and EPA in this proposal concludes that the risk is even lower than what it believed then. There was no need to conduct a section 112(d)(6) review. Though, in any event, the record does not support a lower standard based on such a review section 112(d)(6), as EPA did not identify practices, processes, or control technologies that warrant stricter standards.

EPA Has Little or No Data to Show that Non-PFOS Fume Suppressants are Equivalent to PFOS Fume Suppressants

Finally, the technology that EPA is proposing to require in these rules, non-PFOS fume suppressants, is still a technology in transition. The new technology is not a simple "drop-in" replacement for PFOS fume suppressants and has not been proven effective in many instances. Even more troubling, EPA has provided no data in the record that non-PFOS fume suppressants can achieve the stricter proposed new surface tension levels. EPA merely assumes that non-PFOS fume suppressants are equivalent in performance to PFOS fume suppressants without presenting any scientific proof or supporting data.

For all of these reasons, and as discussed in more detail in our full comments, EPA must fundamentally reconsider these proposed regulations. NASF welcomes the agency’s approach proposed in the October, 2010 proposal, but believes that the stricter regulations included in this proposal are arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by the record.

For the complete set of NASF comments click here, or contact Jeff Hannapel at

Posted in Government Relations, Law & Regulation | Tagged , ,

The 2012 NASF Washington Forum Welcomes Carol Browner

Tuesday, April 24th | Ritz Carlton – Pentagon City This year’s NASF Washington Forum will deliver top speakers and timely updates on major issues facing the surface technology industry. In addition to commentators Charlie Cook of The Cook Political Report and Andy Friedman, founder of The Washington Update, NASF welcomes Carol Browner to this year’s Washington Forum.

As the longest serving EPA Administrator, Ms. Browner worked closely with the surface finishing industry during the Clinton Administration on the Metal Finishing “Strategic Goals” Program. Ms. Browner most recently served as Assistant to President Obama and director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

Join your colleagues to meet in Washington, and make your voice heard on critical policy issues facing U.S. finishing and manufacturing. Register today for the 2012 Washington Forum or contact Cheryl Clark at

Posted in Events | Tagged , ,