Comment Log Display

Here is the comment you selected to display.

Comment 75 for Proposed Amendments to the ATCM for Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations (chromeatcm2023) - 45 Day.

First NameJim
Last NameMeyer
SubjectLocal vs Statewide
According to the health risk data published with this rule
proposal, proximity is a major factor in risk. The EJ's say there
are local problems in some Southern California communities. They
are asking for solutions. CARB's proposal completely misses the
local nature of the stated problems and imposes a non-local
statewide rule and a statewide ban. Make the whole class stay in
for recess when Jeff doesn't get his homework done. This is
completely opposite the intent of AB 617 which asks CARB to place
emphasis on the needs of local communities. I don't get it.

There is no relief from the ban granted to platers in communities
with no residents. There is no relief granted to platers who are
not near schools. It is especially curious that there is no
provision to allow new permits in areas away from EJ communities
and residents so that the platers the EJ community wants out, would
have an in-state alternative place to go. A win-win. CARB is not
providing a reasonable method for well-intentioned, law-abiding
businesses to exist. Why?

Original File Name
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted 2023-01-17 19:35:24

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.

Board Comments Home