Comment Log Display

I have stated in public comment that CARB did not use the HEPA
source test data I provided them regarding our 2019 Source Test
which was a non-detect for hex chrome emissions. 

CARB responded to my comment by claiming our data could not be
verified (See Response 203 and also the Master Responses 11 and
13).

It is very important for the reader to understand that industry had
a reasonable expectation that source test information we were
required by law to turn over to the air districts was available to
CARB.  So, why would industry turn source test data over to CARB?
We thought they had it. The question that should be asked, and I
will ask it now is: Why didn't CARB tell industry that they needed
our Source Test Information? CARB never revealed the lack of source
test data to industry until publication of the FSOR. So, when CARB
states in Master Response 13 that industry "was not forthcoming in
providing source test data", this is beyond the bounds of what
reasonable people would consider as an appropriate response in a
public record. CARB should apologize to the public and to industry
for this statement. Or, maybe CARB should reveal how and when they
did inform industry of their lack of source test data. I was not
informed of CARB's lack of data until the FSOR. CARB, in my
opinion, was not interested in seeing data that would lead to a
different conclusion than they had already reached. This was not an
unbiased process. 

But wait, there is more, CARB reports in the rulemaking materials
that they did meet with Mr. Hugh Brown. Mr. Brown is a leading
authority on source testing and CARB met with him because he is a
highly respected expert on the topic. CARB should provide the
record of discussion in that meeting. Did CARB inquire about my
source test? Did CARB ask about HEPA efficiencies Hugh Brown had
observed? If asked, Mr. Brown could have easily verified our source
test result with CARB because he wrote our source test protocol and
personally performed our source test. He is a credible verification
source, a third party, and the individual who signed the report
submitted to AQMD. So, CARB's statement that my submittal was not
verifiable is incorrect for two reasons; they could have verified
with AQMD and they could have verified with the man who performed
the test, both of whom they met and communicated with. At the
conclusion of our source test, Mr. Brown informed me that we had
achieved a non-detect for hex chrome in our test and our source
test result memorialized that outcome. I hereby grant CARB
permission to view my source test result on hand with SC AQMD for
the purpose of verifying a non-detect and an emission rate of
0.000023. I also give permission to SC AQMD to show the test to
CARB. Please let me know if anything else stands in your way.

Lastly, I wonder how many other members of industry and of the
public were faced with the additional barrier to comment that was
imposed on me and which is documented in Response 203. CARB states:


"The commentor did submit a document that summarized a number of
source test runs from 2009 and 2019. However, this data was
presented in a one-page summary created by the commentor. The
commentor did not provide the source test reports from the source
testing companies that conducted the tests. As such, CARB staff
could not confirm the validity of this data. For that reason, the
unsubstantiated data was not used. CARB staff made no changes to
the Proposed Amendments based on the received comments." 

Setting aside CARBs failure to alert me to any problem with my
input, how many other members of industry and the public were held
to this standard? Inputs should not be "created by the commenter",
"the commenter did not provide the source test reports", "CARB
staff could not confirm the validity of the data". Why did my
inputs to CARB require third party verification to be considered?
Is that fair? Were comments from the public alluding to bad smells
near some facilities thrown out for lack of third party
verifiability?

This is not a comment about the most recent change to the proposed
rule. This comment is the first available opportunity to respond
publicly to the low blow CARB dished out in the FSOR response
highlighted above.  I hope CARB will see a reason to keep this
comment in the record and respond to this comment in a revised
FSOR. We do want the public record about this rule to be accurate
don't