To the CARB board members,
CARB states in the Initial Statement of Reasons for the
ATCM (ISOR, Page 8, second paragraph of 2. Environmental Impacts
and Benefits), and I quote,
“An additional co-benefit of the proposed phase out
is the elimination of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS/PFOS) contained in the fume suppressants used in chrome
The quoted statement contains the following
False Statement 1 - “…contained in the fume
suppressants used in chrome plating”. The reason this is
false is because according to the CARB website here https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/fume-suppressant-information,
the use of PFAS/PFOS fume suppressants has been banned in
California since 2016. CARB maintains a list of approved
and unapproved fume suppressants here https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/chrome-plating-approved-fume-suppressant-list.
You can verify that the footnotes show the PFAS/PFOS fume
suppressants are not allowed.
False Statement 2 - “An additional co-benefit of the
proposed phase out is the elimination of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)”. The reason this is false
is that a benefit can only exist when change occurs as a result. In
this case, there is no change. Fume Suppressants are not being used
by California chrome platers. So, no co-benefit is achieved by
eliminating something already eliminated.
I provided this comment to the staff previously in one of
the recorded working meetings. I am disappointed that it remains in
the documents that are now being presented to the Board for
decision. The inclusion of PFAS/PFOS as a co-benefit is a dog
whistle that un-necessarily attracts attention to this rule-making
and increases pressure upon the board to make decisions which are
not based on current facts and data. If the board truly believes
that PFAS/PFOS are still being used by chrome platers in California
then it is an enforcement failure which would shine the light
directly upon the CARB.
As an individual decision maker on the CARB board, you
should ask yourself these questions.
1) Why is staff adding this element to
the decision I am being asked to make?
2) Are the other benefits of the
proposed ATCM so weak that these falsehoods and this appeal to
emotion were necessary?
3) Does CARB staff respect the
independent decision-making authority of the board or is the board
a rubber stamp?
Thank you for your service on the CARB board.