First Name | Zain |
---|---|
Last Name | Yahya |
Email Address | zainyahya@gmail.com |
Affiliation | |
Subject | ATCM for hex chrome |
Comment | I am still trying to understand the basis for this ruling. If the goal is protect the public health then why are we instituting a ban on this process as opposed to regulating it. The industry accounts for less than 1% of hex chrome emissions in the state. Why not target a larger chunk of the pie. Also, when the industry welcomes regulation and says we can get that number down even further. Why would CARB choose a ban rather than working with industry and helping to reduce those emissions. Businesses will be forced to close, thousands of jobs will be lost, supply chains and consumers will have to find sources outside of the State of California(this impact cannot be overstated). Other States that do not have the regulations and controls that California shops have in place. The three finishes of Decorative, Functional Chrome Metal Finishing and Chromic Acid Anodizing represent less than 1% of total ChromeVI Emissions for the entire State of California. Why does this warrant a ban? Fun Fact: Based on the reported annual emissions CARB provided (2018-2019) all of the decorative chrome platers in the state emitted less hexavalent chromium at .00856 lbs per year than the popular theme park resort in Anaheim at 0.106 lbs per year. Please reconsider this draconian rule that continues to be illogical given the stated goals of CARB. |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2023-01-11 13:13:07 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.