### From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 08/10/2010 09:57 AM Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Interagency Discussion about the redline of comments on the RIA pertaining to NESHAP: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor

‐ Alkali Plants 2060

‐ AN99

Hi Sharon,

Attached is the redline of comments on the RIA with interagency comments. Additionally, on the call today can we talk about the benefits approach?

I've gotten the following general question from the reviewers on the benefits approach:

1. The target of this rule is mercury emissions, but the benefits estimation is entirely based on reduced particulate (PM) emissions (and therefore mostly from the resulting reduced adult mortality) from the
energy savings due to the alternative, mercury

‐ free process.

‐ Can EPA provide other examples where they've quantified electricity benefits or disbenefits, and that

was the only benefit/disbenefit quantified?

‐ Is this approach precedent setting? For example, what happens if there is a rule to reduce a hazardous air pollutant, where the alternative production process uses more energy that would fail this cost ‐ benefit analysis?

‐ When we do cost

‐ benefit analyses, where the alternative process uses more energy, do we count the external costs of the extra PM? Can EPA provide examples?

2. We have in place regulations for PM, and PM from the power sector. Should every other regulation
count the benefits of reduced PM emissions, or is that double

‐ counting?

3. Although EPA has not modeled mercury exposure or costs, can EPA back out the number of people who would have to be exposed and the cost per person that would justify the regulation?

(See attached file: Mercury_Chlor_Alkali_RIA_08102010_Redline.doc)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

EO12866_Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plants 2060

- AN99 NPRM RIA_20100810 

## July 2010



# Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali Plants

Draft Report

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Standards (OAQPS) Air Benefit and Cost Group

(MD

- C439

- 02) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 1

1.1 Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

- 1

1.2 Organization of this Report

................................ ................................ .................. 1

- 4

2 Industry Profile

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 1

2.1 Supply Side

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 1
2.1.1 Chlorine Production Process

................................ ................................ .... 2

- 1
2.1.2 Product Types

................................ ................................ .......................... 2

- 3
2.1.3 Materials and Costs of Production

................................ ........................... 2

- 3
2.1.4 Chlor

- alkali Transportation

................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 5

2.2 The Demand Side

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 6
2.2.1 Who Uses Chlor ine, Caustic Soda, and Caustic Potash?

......................... 2

- 6
2.2.2 What Factors Influence Demand?

................................ .......................... 2

- 10

2.3 Market Characteristics

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 11
2.3.1 Geography

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 11
2.3.2 Product Differentiation

................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 11
2.3.3 Entry

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2

- 12
2.3.4 Concentration

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 12

2.4 Overview of Businesses Affected by the Rule

................................ .................. 2

- 12
2.4.1 Mercu ry Cell Plants

................................ ................................ ............... 2

- 12
2.4.2 Ultimate Parent Companies

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 14

3 Engineering Cost Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................ 3

- 1
3 .1 Capital C osts

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 2
3 .2 Annual Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 6
3 .2 .1 Capital Recovery Costs

................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 6
3 .2 .2 Annual Costs Associated with Storage of Unused Mercury

.................... 3

- 8***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 2 3 .2 .3 Costs Savings Associated with the Elimination of Mercury

- Related Environmental Compliance Costs

................................ .......................... 3

- 10
3 .2 .3 Energy Savings and Costs

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 13
3 .2 .3 Overall Annual Costs

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 16
3

. 3 Uncertainty Analysis

................................ ................................ .......................... 3

- 17
3

. 4 Summary of Results

................................ ................................ ........................... 3

- 19

4 Economic Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ........................... 4

- 1

4 .1 Conversion Versus Plant Closure

................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 1

4 .2 Market Concentration and Pricing Behavior

................................ ....................... 4

- 3

4 .3 Adjustment and Transition Costs in Local Labor Markets

................................ .. 4

- 4
4 .3.1 Annual Payroll Statistics 2007 Economic Census 4

- Error! Bookmark not defined.
4 .3.1 Direct and Indirect Job Effects

.............. 4

- Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 .4 Tr ansportation Issues Associated with Plant Closure

................................ .......... 4

- 6

4 .5 Small Entity Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ............... 4

- 6
4 .5.1 Identify Affected Small Entities

................................ .............................. 4

- 7
4 .5.2 Sales Test Analysis

................................ ................................ .................. 4

- 7
4 .5.3 Profit Test Analysis

................................ ................................ .................. 4

- 8

4 .6 Conc lusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 8

4

. 7 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4

- 8

5 Benefits of Emissions Reductions

................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 1

5 .1 Synopsis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 1

5

. 2 Mercury Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 1

5

. 3 Energy Co

- Benefits

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 4

5.3.1 PM 2.5 

### Co

- B enefits

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 4

5.3.2 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Co

- b enefits

...................... 5

- 13

5.2.3 Total Monetized Co

- Benefits of Energy Savings

................................ .. 5

- 12

5

. 4 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits

............... 5

- 17***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 3 5

. 5 Comparison of Co

- Benefits and Cost s

................................ ............................... 5

- 21

5

. 6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 24

Appendix A: Mercury Emissions Memo

................................ ................................ .............. A

- 1

Appendix B: Reduc ed Electricity Consumption for M ercury C ell C hlor

- alkali P lants

......... B

- 1***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 4 LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2

- 1. Industry

- wide Uses of Chlorine by Industry

................................ ................................ ..... 7 2

- 2. Use of Caustic Soda by Industry

................................ ................................ ....................... 8 2

- 3. Use of Caustic Potash by Industry

................................ ................................ .................... 9 2

- 4. Income (or Loss) as Net a Percentage of Sales, Basic Chemicals, Resins, and Syn thetics (NAICS 3251 and 3252): 2000

– 2005

................................ ........................... 15

3

- 1. Capital Cost Factor ($/ton Cl 2 

### produced) vs. Capacity

................................ ................. 3

- 5

4

- 1. Price Trends: Alkalis and Chlorine Manufacturing: 2000 to 2009

............................... 4

- 2 4

- 2. Unemployme nt Rates by County: 2000

– 2008

................................ .............................. 4

- 5 4

- 3. Unemployment Rate Differences from National Average: May 2009 and Historical Average: 2000

– 2008

................................ ................................ .................... 4

- 6 4

- 4. Historical ECU Cash Margins

................................ ................................ ...................... 4

- 9 4

- 5. Profit Tests: ECU Cash Margin Reductions Associated with Conversion Costs

...... 4

- 10

5

- 1 Breakdown of Monetized PM 2.5 

### Health Co

- Benefits using Mortality Function from Pope et al. (2002)

................................ ................................ ............................... 5

- 10 5

- 2

. Total Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 13 5

- 3

. Breakdown of Monetized Co

- Benefits by Pollutant at 3% discount rate

................... 5

- 17 5

- 4

. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure (pre

- and post

policy)

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 5

- 19 5

- 5

. Cum ulative Distribution of Adult Population at Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### levels (pre

and post

- policy)

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 20 5

- 6

. Net Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP at 3% Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 23 5

- 7

. Net Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP at 7% Di scount Rate

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 24***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 5 LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

1

- 1

. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 200 7 $)

...................... 1

- 1

2

- 1. Comparison of the Processes

................................ ................................ ........................ 2

- 2 2

- 2. Approximate Energy Requirements of Different Cell Types

................................ ....... 2

- 4 2

- 3. Olin Corporation Products and Services and Major End Uses: 2008

........................... 2

- 9 2

- 4. 2002 Economic Census S ales and Employment by Establishment Size

.................... 2

- 13 2

- 5. Estimated Plant

- Level Sales and Employment: 2008

................................ ................. 2

- 13 2

- 6. Ultimate Parent Company Sales and Employment: 2008

................................ ........... 2

- 14

3

- 1. Cost Factors for Conversion of Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Facilities to Membrane Cell Technology ($/ton Cl2 produced

................................ ........................ 3

- 4 3

- 2. Estimated Capital Costs for Existing Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Facilities

................. 3

- 6 3

- 3. Estimated Capital Recovery Costs for Vary ing Finance Periods (Using 7 percent interest rate)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 9 3

- 4. Estimate of Annual Mercury Storage Costs

................................ ................................ 3

- 10 3

- 5. Environmental Compliance Cost Savings Factors from Elimination of the Mercury Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 12 3

- 6. Annual Cost Savings from Elimination of the Me rcury Processes, by Facility

........ 3

- 14 3

- 7. Energy Savings Associated with Conversion from the Mercury Cell to the Membrane Cell Process

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 15 3

- 8. Ranges of Individual Annual Cost/Savings Elements for the Conversion of Mercury Cells to Membrane Cells

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 1 6 3

- 9

. EPA Estimates of the Annual Costs of Conversion of Mercury Cells to Membrane Cells

................................ ........................ 3

- 1 Error! Bookmark not defined. 3

- 10. Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation Compared to the EPA Estimates

................. 3

- 18

4

- 1. May 2009 County Employment Data (Not Seasonally Ad justed)

................................ 4

- 5 4

- 2. Average Weekly Wages by County and Industry: 2008 4

- Error! Bookmark not defined. 4

- 3. Estimated Job Losses Resulting from Plant Closures

. 4

- Error! Bookmark not defined. 4

- 4. Estimated Earnings Losses Resu lting from Plant Closures 4

- Error! Bookmark not defined.

5

- 1. Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM 2.5


### ................................ ................................ 5

- 5 5

- 2. Summary of Monetized Co

- Benefits Estimates for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 200 7 $)

................................ ............................. 5

- 11 5

- 3. Summary of R eductions in Health Incidences from PM 2.5 Co

- 

### Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013

................................ .................... 5

- 11 5

- 4

. All Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits from PM 2.5 

### Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013

................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 12***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 6 5

- 5

. Social Cost of Carbon (S CC) Estimates (per tonne of CO 2 

### ) for 2013

........................ 5

- 16 5

- 6

. Monetized Co

- benefits of CO 2 

### Emission Decreases in 2013

................................ ..... 5

- 16 5

- 7

. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 200 7 $)

.................... 5

- 22***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 1 SECTION 1:

INTRODUCTION AND EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for mercury emissions from mercury cell chlor

- alkali pla nts. On June 11, 2008, EPA proposed NESHAP amendments in response to a petition for reconsideration filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); this action supplements the June 11, 2008, proposal. The proposed rule would amend the NESHAP to proh ibit emissions of mercury from the mercury cell process within 2 years from promulgation of the final rule and cease operation of mercury recovery units 3 years from promulgation of the final rule.

In 2003, when the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) was promulgated, there were 12 mercury cell plants. EPA believes that by 2010 there will only be four plants still using the mercury cell process. The four plants using the mercury cell process are currently owned by three ultimate parent companies:

 

### ASHTA Chemicals, Inc.: one plant (Ohio)

 

### Olin Corporation: two plants (Georgia and Tennessee)

 

### PPG Industries, Inc.: one plant (West Virginia)

ASHTA Chemicals is a small company with approximately 100 employees. Olin Corporation operates 10 North American ch lor

- alkali plants; its other line of business is
Winchester Ammunition . Currently, Olin employs over 3,600 people within both business segments. PPG’s commodity chemicals segment operates two chlor

- alkali plants but operates over 100 coatings and glass man ufacturing facilities and employees over 40,000 people

company

- wide.

As part of the regulatory process of preparing these amendments, EPA is required to develop a regulatory impact analysis ( R IA) . This report documents the R IA methods and results.

1.1 Executi ve Summary
The key results of the RIA are as follows:

 

### Engineering Cost Analysis : The engineering cost analysis estimates the total annual conversion costs to be $ 28 13 million annualized over 20 years ; individual plant

- level conversion cost estimates range from $ 3

– 15 800 thousand to $ 6.7 million***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 2 per year. All estimates are in 200 7 $

. The annual cost to store mercury is approximately $250,000 per year. The annual energy savings due to conversion may range from $1 million to $2.5 million depending on the en ergy consumption reduction level assumed.

 

### Plant Closure : EPA does not have sufficient data to predict whether individual companies would choose to convert or close directly affected plants

. In some cases, if a plant were to close, the closure may affect ot her closely related manufacturing operations. For example, ASHTA uses potassium hydroxide made from the mercury cell process to make potassium carbonate. If the Ashta plant were to choose not to convert and close the mercury cell process, i t is unclear whe ther existing technology and economics would allow the company to consider an alternative source of potassium hydroxide to continue making potassium carbonate

. The economics of making potassium carbonate could influence Ashta’s decision on how to respond to this rulemaking.

 

### Local Job Effects : Because EPA is unable to estimate plant closures, job loses associated with any closures are not estimated nor are any changes in employment associated with conversion.

 

### Market Analysis : Of the three major chlor

- alkal i products, the market for potassium hydroxide is the most highly concentrated. As of 2005, there were only four producers of potassium hydroxide (KOH) in the United States and approximately 50% is produced using mercury cells. As a result, closure of one or more mercury cell plants could raise concerns about competitiveness and subsequent pricing behavior in the potassium hydroxide market. In highly concentrated markets, non

- mercury cell producers could have more scope to influence market prices above comp etitive levels by altering production decisions. EPA’s review of publicly available sources also suggests that closures would have similar market concentration consequences for a downstream commodity: potassium carbonate. Competitive issues have also been raised in other regulatory contexts; the Federal Trade Commission set conditions on a proposed asset purchase that reduced the number of competitors in the potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate markets.

 

### Small Business Analysis : EPA performed a n impa ct analysis that compares annual conversion costs to sales. EPA estimates that the one small entity’s cost

- to

sales ratio (CSR) would range from 1 to 2 %, which suggests a significant economic impact. The other three plants are owned by large ultimate paren t companies with significant company

- wide sales. As a result, the CSRs for the large ultimate parent companies are below 1%. In contrast, when plant

- only sales are considered, the CSRs for plants owned by large ultimate parent companies range from 4 to 10% . EPA also considered industry profitability effects by comparing annual conversion costs to reported industry margins for a representative electrochemical unit (ECU). The analysis confirms the results of the sales tests; plant conversion costs will likely have an economically significant effect. In a typical year, conversion costs could reduce the margins by 10 to 20 %. However, as explained in section 3, we do not consider this to be a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 3 Benefi ts Analysis: In the year of full implementation (2013), EPA estimates the monetized energy co

- benefits of the proposed NESHAP are $87 million to $200 million and $73 million to $180 million, at 3% and 7% discount rates, respectively. All estimates are in 2007$ for the year 2013. Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 

### and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these estimates.

 

### Net Benefits: The ne t benefits for the NESHAP are $ 74 million to $1 9 0 million and $ 60 million to $ 170 million, at 3% and 7% discount rates, respectively (Table 1

- 1). All estimates are in 200 7 $ for the year 201 3

.
Table 1

- 1. Summary of the Monetized Co

- Benefits, Social Costs, a nd Net benefits for

the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2007$) 1

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Total Monetized Benefits 2 $87 to $200 $73 to $180

Total Social Costs 3 $13 $13

Net Benefits $74 to $190 $60 to $170

Non

- monet ized Benefits 656 pounds of mercury (including energy co

- benefits)

Health effects from NO 2 and SO 2 exposure Ecosystem effects
Visibility impairment

1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures.
2 The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health co

- benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precursors such as NOx and VOC. It is important to note that the monetized co

benefits include many but not all h ealth effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These mo dels assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type.

3 The annual compliances costs serve as a proxy for the annual social costs of this rule given the lack of difference between the two.



### 1.2 Organization of this Report
The remainder of this report supports and details the methodology and the results of t he
R IA:

 

### Section 2 presents a profile of the affected industry and focuses on plants affected

by the proposed rule. Although extensive individual plant information would help assess the economic impacts of the rule, in most cases, detailed information is no t publicly available. As a result, we frequently rely on parent company information Comment [A1]: Further discussion***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 1

- 4 provided in company annual reports (e.g., form 10

- K), local press and industry trade publications, and company Web sites.

 

### Section 3 describes the engineering cost analysis

.

 

### Section 4 describes the economic impact analysis and small business impact analysis.

 

### Section 5 presents the benefits estimates.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 1 SECTION 2:

INDUSTRY PROFILE

There are four mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants currently operating in the United States in
20 10 that have the combined capacities to produce approximately 500,000 tons of chlorine per year. These plants are Olin Corporation in Augusta, Georgia (Olin GA); Olin Corporation in Charleston, Tennessee (Olin TN); PPG Industries in New Martinsville, West Virginia (PPG); and ASHTA Chemicals in Ashtabula, Ohio (ASHTA).

EPA has developed an industry profile to provide the reader a general understanding of the technical and economic aspects of the industry. We outline processes and costs of getting
chlorine products to market; identify key uses, consumers, and market characteristics; and provide economic data for the plants and owning companies affected by the proposed rule. Although we prefer to have extensive individual plant information, in most cases this information is not publicly available. As a result, we frequently rely on parent company information provided in company annual reports (e.g., form 10

- K), local press and industry trade publications, and company websites.

2.1 Supply Side

2.1.1 Chlorine Pr oduction Process
Although chlorine can be generated as a by

- product in a variety of chemical reactions, brine electrolysis accounts for 95% of total world chlorine production (World Chlorine Council,
2002 ). Through a ch emical reaction catalyzed by an electric current in a series of electrolytic cells, a salt

- based solution containing either sodium or potassium chloride yields elemental chlorine gas, a caustic solution, and hydrogen gas in fixed proportions (―Special Focu s on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ). The electrolysis occurs when electric current flows between the negatively charged cathodes and the anodes, which are the positive electrodes from which the chlorine is collected (World Chl orine Council, 2002 ).

Three types of electrolytic cells can host this reaction: the diaphragm cell, the membrane cell, or the mercury cell. Although the three cell types share the basic chemical production formula, they are differentiated by the way in which the chlorine is kept separate from the co

products generated in the cathode in the chemical process (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ). The predominant manufacturing proce ss in North America involves diaphragm cell technology, which is characterized by the asbestos

- based diaphragm structure that keeps the cathodes separate from the anodes. The membrane cell is structurally similar, though it uses an ion

-***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 2 exchange membrane to separate the anodes and chlorine gas from the caustic product. Mercury cell technology uses two distinct cells and functions through a sodium

- mercury stream that forms an amalgam and serves as the cathode (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ).

Of the three electrolytic processes, the diaphragm and membrane processes are the most similar (Table 2

- 1). Both share the advantage of lower electricity consumption, but the unique

Table 2

- 1. Comparison of the Processes

Ce ll Type
Diaphragm Mercury Membrane
Separation Technique Asbestos

- based diaphragm Sodium

- mercury amalgam Ion

- exchange membrane
Caustic Capabilities Sodium hydroxide Sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide Sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide
Advantages • Use of well brine (no solid salt needed)

• Low electricity requirements

• Simplest brine system • High purity caustic, chlorine, hydrogen

• Simple purification of brine • Low energy consumption

• Low capital investment

• Easily operable cells

• High purity caustic

• Immune from variations in cell load and shutdown
Disadvantages • Asbestos use

• High steam requirements for caustic concentration • Mercury emissions and related environmental and regulatory costs

• Solid salt requirement

• Expensive cell operations

• Large physical floor

s pace requirement • Solid salt requirement

• High purity brine requirements

• Expensive membrane

• High oxygen contamination in chlorine product



### Source: ― Special Focus on Chlorine. ‖ October 2007. Chemical Business

. pp. 27

- 40. Accessed July 29, 2009, from Business Source Corporate database

.

ion

- exchange structure enables membrane cells to produce a purer caustic product than the
asbestos

- based diaphragm. Another disadvantage of the diaphragm cell is the caustic limitations; although mercury and membrane cells can use sodium or potassium chloride for brine solution, diaphragm cells require sodium chloride. Mercury cells p roduce a high

- quality caustic solution and chlorine gas, but emit harmful mercury pollutants into the environment. New plant construction has favored membrane cell construction because of low capital investment and***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 3 operating costs relative to diaphragm and mercury processes (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖
2007 ).

2.1.2 Product Types

2.1.2.1 Chlorine
Chlorine takes form in a greenish

- yellow poisonous gas at STP . It has a pungent odor and
is 2.48 times denser than air . When liquefied, it becomes a yellow mobile fluid with low electrical conductivity. As a solid, chlorine retains the yellow color in the form of rhombic crystals. Chlorine is soluble in cold water and in salt solutions, although the solubility decreases

w ith salt strength and temperature. Chlorine is stored and transported as a liquefied gas (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ).

2.1.2.2 Caustic Products: Sodium Hydroxide and Potassium Hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide, c ommonly referred to as caustic soda, is produced as a co

- product with chlorine and usually sold in the form of a 50% solution. All three cell types can use sodium chloride brine in the electrolysis process to derive sodium hydroxide, but the variations bet ween the cell structures require different degrees of evaporation and purification to reach the 50% concentration. Only mercury cells generate the 50% liquid caustic solution directly; diaphragm cells yield a solution of 12% that is processed through filte rs and evaporators to reach the acceptable grade, while membrane cells produce a 30% liquid that is evaporated to the 50% level ( Occidental Chemical Corporation , 2008b ).

While most chlor

- alkali production inv olves sodium chloride brine, potassium hydroxide or caustic potash is the caustic solution produced when potassium chloride is used as a feedstock in the brine electrolysis process (Sim, 2005 ). Membrane and mercury cell electrolysis can

p roduce a caustic potash solution that is evaporated to 45% or 50% concentration for sale. The solution can also be concentrated to dry form and sold as flakes or crystals ( Occidental Chemical Corporation, 2008a ).

2.1.3 Materials and Costs of Production
Energy, salt brine, and raw materials represent the majority of the production costs in the
chlor

- alkali industry. The recent U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census provides industry

- level expenditures on production inputs for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325181 (Alkalis and Chlorine Manufacturers). The cost of materials (including electricity and purchased fuels) was 62.7% of the tota l production costs and nearly half of the industry’s total value of shipments. Electricity and fuels made up over 31% of total Comment [A2]: After converting to t he membrane technology, are firms able to produce the same products in the same quantities?***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 4 production costs. Labor expenses account for around 12.5% of the total reported costs in the industry.

Although the census data provide insight into the chlor

- alkali industry cost structure on the aggregate level, there is variation between companies in the industry because of size, structure, and technology. Olin Corporation, (2008 ) operates a number of chlor

- alkali facilities across the country and cites electricity and salt as the largest share of raw material expenditures, which represent 55% of total production costs for the company. Other principle materials include potassium chloride, sulfur dio xide, and hydrogen (Olin Corporation, 2008 ).

Although energy costs are important for all producers, each cell type requires a different combination of energy inputs. For example, membrane cell technology uses 25% less electricity
than m ercury cells but requires steam to concentrate the caustic product that mercury cells do not (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ). Table 2

- 2 illustrates the approximate energy requirements of the different cell ty pes as well as the average electricity prices for the states in which the relevant plants are located.

Table 2

- 2. Approximate Energy Requirements of Different Cell Types

Cell Type
Diaphragm Mercury Membrane
Electricity (kWh) 2,800

– 3,000 3,200

– 3,600 2,6 00

– 2,800
Steam equivalent (kWh) 800

– 1,000 0 100

– 200

Total kWh 3,600

– 4,000 3,200

– 3,600 2,700

– 3,000
Relative energy 100 92 75
Average Electricity Price for Industrial Sector (2007 cents/kWh)
Georgia (Olin GA) 5.53
Ohio (ASHTA) 5.76
Tennessee (Olin TN ) 5.19
West Virginia (PPG) 3.95

Sources: ―Special Focus on Chlorine.‖ October 2007. Chemical Business . pp. 27

- 40. Accessed July 29, 2009, from Business Source Corporate database

. Energy Information Administration. 2009. ―Electric Power Annual 2007: State Data Tables.‖ http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html. Accessed July 31, 2009

.


### Individual facility capital costs are also contingent on the specific req uirements of the electrolytic cells used in the production process. For example, the complex mercury cell has a***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 5 higher current density than the diaphragm or membrane and demands a relatively higher capital investment. The variations in purification require ments impose the highest brine costs for membrane cell plants, whereas the relatively simple brine system accounts for only 3 to 4% of a diaphragm cell facility’s capital costs (―Special Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ) . A mid

- sized mercury cell plant not only bears the additional costs of the mercury itself, but also spends 10 to 15% of the total capital investment on equipment to prevent the hazardous emissions and to remove the mercury from the finished products (―Spe cial Focus on Chlorine,‖ 2007 ).

2.1.4 Chlor

- alkali Transportation
A critical element in any production industry is the successful transfer of final products from the facility to the client. However, the hazardous nature of chemical products requires
chlor

- alkali companies to devote extra resources to developing a geographic network of facilities and shipping points that integrates both cost considerations and safety concerns. Industry experts are acutely aware of the risks associated with chemical production and strive to maintain security of their products, the safety of their employees and consumers, and the well

- being of local
communities.

In addition to complying with carefully developed industry standards and stewardship practices, chlor

- alkali facilities are also subject to federal regulations regarding the proper handling of dangerous chemicals. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulates t he transportation of chlorine and its derivatives under the Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR 171

- 180) (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009a and 2009b ). The PHMSA and other federal regulat ory agencies control the movement of hazardous materials by all applicable modes of transportation. Chlorine and its derivatives are shipped via rail, highway, water vessel, and pipeline. According to the American Chemistry Council, rail hosts the majority of bulk chlorine shipments in the United States (30,000 tank car/yr) and is the safest mode of chlorine transportation (American Chemistry Council, 2009 ). Although accidents are rare, a 2005 Norfolk Southern freigh t train collision in South Carolina that killed or injured over 200 people illustrates real risks that chlorine transportation poses to civilians and communities (Environmental News Service, 2005 ). Even though industry experts work in conjunction with transportation authorities to ensure that procedures and policies are carefully executed, the risk of an accident can never be completely
eliminated.

One way to mitigate the risk of an accident is to minimize the distance from the producer
to the end

- user, which effectively curtails the potential for unexpected events or hazardous leaks***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 6 during transit. Cutting down on travel distance and time is not only cost

- effective for producers, but it also prevents unnecessar y exposure of civilian communities to the dangers associated with a collision. Familiarity with travel routes and transportation contractors may also aid chlorine producers in reducing the potential for unforeseen circumstances that could threaten the secu rity of the cargo.

In light of these issues, companies in the chlor

- alkali industry have selected existing facility locations based on the financial, logistic, and safety concerns involved with shipping their products. Plants, warehouses, and distribution centers are deliberately constructed in specific locations to serve customers safely and efficiently. ASHTA’s production facility is located adjacent to the titanium dioxide plant to which it sells 100% of its chlorine (U.S. House of Representatives Commit tee on Commerce and Energy, 2009 ). The company also has warehouses, liquid distribution points, and sales headquarters placed strategically across the
United States to cater to na tionwide potassium hydroxide demand (ASHTA, 2009a ). PPG pioneered 1,100

- ton capacity barges as a safe mode of chlorine transport from the Natrium plant, which is ideally situated on the Ohio River easily accessible by the CSX rail line (PPG, 2009a ). Olin Corporation’s Charleston plant produces potassium hydroxide and uses rail, barge and trucks to ship the product to customers and the terminal facility located in nearby Chattanooga (Olin Corporation, 2009c ).

2.2 The Demand Side
A variety of applications use chlor

- alkali products to make other goods. As a result, the
demand for chlor

- alkali products indirectly depends on conditions in downstream end

- use markets. The organic chemicals ind ustry uses chlorine to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the construction industry subsequently uses PVC materials. The pulp and paper industry uses caustic soda during manufacturing processes that create paper and other products. Electronic products (e.g ., televisions and computer monitors) requiring glass cathode ray tubes use potassium carbonate made from caustic potash. As a result of these links, growth or downturns in
end

- use markets ultimately influence the demand for chlor

- alkali products.

2.2.1 Wh o Uses Chlorine, Caustic Soda, and Caustic Potash?

Plant

- specific information regarding end

- users and other within/between plant relationships is not generally available or is limited. According to company annual reports (Olin Corporation, 2009a ), industry

- wide data show that the organic chemical industry uses over 60% of chlorine (Figure 2

- 1). Vinyl chemical producers are industrial consumers (37%), and other organic chemical producers use an additional 28%. For caustic soda (Figure 2

- 2 ), organic***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 7 chemicals, pulp and paper, and inorganic chemicals are significant end users; each industry accounts for more than 20% of caustic soda demand. For caustic potash (Figure 2

- 3), potassium carbonate (28%), other potassium chemicals (15%), and potas sium phosphates (10%) are the most significant end uses (The Innovation Group [TIG], 2009 ). The remaining applications are
diverse and all account for less than 10% of the market.

Figure 2

- 1. Industry

- wide Uses of Chlorine by Industry
Source: Olin Corporation, 2009a

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 8 Figure 2

- 2. Use of Caustic Soda by Industry
Source: Olin Corporation, 2009a

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 9 Figure 2

- 3. Use of Caustic Potash by Industry

Source: T he Innovation Group (TIG). 2009. ―Caustic Potash Chemical Profile.‖ http://www.the

- innovation

group.com/welcome.htm. Accessed July 2009

.


### Olin Corporation (2008 ) also reports details regarding company

- specific end uses and
customers for their chlor

- alkali products in the company’s annual reports (Table 2

- 3). This information applies to al l 10 North American chlor

- alkali plants and may not necessarily be representative of the end

- users associated with the mercury cell plant. However, it is the best publicly available information EPA was able to identify. Olin sells a majority of its chlor

- a lkali products to third parties; in 2008, no single customer bought more than 8% of total sales (Olin Corporation, 2008 ). Chlorine is also sold to a relatively small number of industrial customers; In contrast, caustic soda is sold to a large number of users or distributors (Olin Corporation, 2008 ).

Trade publications report that ASHTA supplies chlorine to a nearby titanium dioxide facility originally owned by Lyondell Chemicals (Sim, 1995 ) ; the plant is now owned by Cristal’s Millennium Inorganic Chemicals business and continues to produce titanium dioxide (Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, 2009 ). AHSTA reports that all of its chlorine is sold to ― a company located adjacent to ASHTA’s facility‖ (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce and Energy, 2009 ). Some of ASHTA’s other alkali products are used within the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 10 Table 2

- 3. Olin Corporation Products and Services and Major End Uses: 2008

Products and Services Major End Uses Location
Chlorine/sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) Pulp and paper processing, chemical manufacturing, water purification, manufacture of vinyl c hloride, bleach, swimming pool chemicals, and urethane chemicals Augusta, GA a Becancour, Quebec Charleston, TN a Henderson, NV McIntosh, AL Niagara Falls, NY St. Gabriel, LA
Potassium hydroxide (caustic potash) Fertilizer manufacturing, soaps, dete rgents and cleaners, battery manufacturing, food processing chemicals, and deicers Charleston, TN a

a Denotes plant using mercury technology.



### company to produce other chemicals. For example, liquid potassium hydroxide is used to make potassium carbonate. ASHTA (2009a) also reports that it is a manufacturer and marketer in the following chemical markets:

 

### 45% and 50% liquid potassium hydroxide

 

### anhydrous potassium carbonate K 2 

### CO 3

 

### anhydrous potassium carbonate flake

 

### chlorine

 

### 47% liquid pota ssium carbonate

 

### anhydrous potassium hydroxide walnut (briquette)

 

### potassium hydroxide

 

### chloropicrin

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Demand?

The chlor

- alkali industry is considered a procyclical industry where demand for product depends on trends in overall econ omic activity. For example, Olin Corporation (2008 ) notes:

The business of most of our customers, particularly our vinyl, urethanes, and pulp and paper customers are, to varying degrees, cyclical and have historically experienced periodi c downturns. These economic and industry downturns have been characterized by diminished product demand, excess manufacturing capacity and, in some cases, lower average selling prices. Therefore, any significant downturn in our customers’ businesses or in global economic conditions could***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 11 result in a reduction in demand for our products and could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. (p. 8)

Recent research has also suggested that environmental regulations affecting chlorine end

u se markets have reduced the demand for chlorine and help explain the exit of selected chlorine plants (Snyder, Miller, and Stavins, 2003 ). Chlorine plants that were co

- located with pulp and paper mills and plants a ffected by the Montreal Protocol were more likely to shutdown (11 to 15% higher than the average chlorine plant) (Snyder, Miller, and Stavins, 2003 ).

In addition to overall demand conditions, selected chlor

- alkali product markets are very sensitive to price changes of close substitute products. For example, when the price of caustic soda rises, soda ash can be substituted for caustic soda in certain uses (e.g., pulp and paper, water treatment, and certain chemical s ectors) (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2009 ).

2.3 Market Characteristics
A review and description of market characteristics (i.e., geography, product differentiation, entry barriers, and degree of concentration) can enhance our understanding of
how chlor

- alkali markets operate. These characteristics provide indicators of a firm’s ability to influence market prices by varying the quantity of product it sells. For example, in markets with large numbers of sellers a nd identical products, firms are unlikely to be able to influence market prices via their production decisions (i.e., they are ―price takers‖). However, in markets with few firms, significant barriers to entry (e.g., licenses, legal restrictions, or high f ixed costs), or products that are similar but can be differentiated, a firm may have some degree of market power (i.e., set or significantly influence market prices).

2.3.1 Geography
Most chlorine is not sold on the market and is consumed internally by the manufacturer. However, marketed chlorine and potassium hydroxide compete in a North American market; imports are limited by transportation costs and customer requirements for service and product availability (Olin Corporation, 2008 ; U.S . Federal Trade Commission [FTC], 2005 ). In contrast, caustic soda producers sell their product in a worldwide market (Olin Corporation, 2008 ).

2.3.2 Product Differentiation

Product diffe rentiation can occur both from differences in product attributes and quality and from brand name recognition of products. For a given end use, industrial consumers are likely to view chlor

- alkali products produced by different firms as very good substitute s. As a result, the products are likely to be sold primarily on a price basis (Olin Corporation, 2008 ). In***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 12 addition, a close substitute for caustic soda exists (soda ash) and limits the ability of caustic soda producers to significantly influence caustic soda prices by varying the quantities produced (USGS, 2009 ).

2.3.3 Entry

Short

- term entry into the chlor

- alkali market is difficult because new plants require significant capital expenditures and take time to build. Fo r example, the FTC concluded that new entry in the potassium hydroxide market would not be ―timely, likely, or sufficient‖ in response to significant price increases (FTC, 2005, p. 5 ). Historically, imports have only played a major
compet itive role in the caustic soda markets only.

2.3.4 Concentration

Of the three chlor

- alkali products, the market for potassium hydroxide is the most highly concentrated. As of 2005, there were only four producers of potassium hydroxide in the United
States (FTC, 2005b ). Approximately 50% is produced using mercury cells; ASHTA Chemicals reports a market share of approximately 15% (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce and Energy, 2009 ). The FTC (2005a, b ) has also assessed competitive effects of proposed company acquisitions in this sector in some detail. Given these characteristics and conclusions of the FTC study, significant c hanges in production levels at a single company using mercury cells are likely to influence market prices, particularly over short periods.

2.4 Overview of Businesses Affected by the Rule
The proposed rule affects four mercury cell plants operating in the United States. We provide basic economic statistics for each plant and the ultimate parent companies that own each plant. These data are subsequently used for the economic impact analysis described in Section 3.

2.4.1 Mercury Cell Plants
The four mercury cell plants are located in four different states: Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Annual plant sales ranges were estimated using economic data from the 2002 Economic Census (Table 2

- 4) and employment data. Given the uncertainties with
sales da ta, we report a low and high range estimate for each plant. Lower

- bound sales were obtained by multiplying the average value of shipments per employee by the number of employees. The upper

- bound sales represent the average establishment value of shipments for the appropriate establishment size. In cases where census data were not disclosed, we used the industry average. As shown, annual plant sales estimates range from $30 to $130 million (Table
2

- 5).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 13 Table 2

- 4. 2002 Economic Census Sales and Employment by Establishment Size

Plant Establishments Employees Value of Shipments ($Million) $ per

Employee $ per

Establishment ($ Million)

All establishments 40 6,022 $2,702 $448,679 $68
1 to 4 employees 7 19 $8 $411,842 $1
5 to 9 employees 2
10 to 19 employe es 4 52 $19 $358,231 $5
20 to 49 employees 7 246 $105 $428,415 $15
50 to 99 employees 1
100 to 249 employees 12 1,901 $980 $515,679 $82
250 to 499 employees 5 1,571 $662 $421,701 $132

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; usi ng American FactFinder; ―Sector 31: Manufacturing: Industry Series: Industry Statistics by Employment Size: 2002.‖ <http://factfinder.census.gov>; accessed July, 2009

.


### Table 2

- 5. Estimated Plant

- Level Sales and Employment: 2008

Plant State Owned by Small Entity Sales Ran ge

($ million) Employment Employment Source

ASHTA OH Yes $40

– $70 ~100 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce and Energy, 2009

Olin GA No $40

– $70 85 Pavey, 2008

Olin TN No $120

– $130 280 Cleveland/Bradley Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council, 2009

PPG WV No $30

– $70 540 a West Virginia Development Office, 2009

a Ward (2007) suggests that 60 employees are associated with mercury cell operations.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 14 2.4.2 Ultimate Parent Companies
EPA has reviewed industry information and publicly available sal es and employment databases to identify the chain of ownership by accounting for subsidiaries, divisions, and joint ventures to appropriately group companies by size. Table 2

- 6 provides sales and employment data for three ultimate parent companies operatin g mercury plants. EPA classified each parent company as a small or large entity using Small Business Administration (SBA) general size standard definitions for NAICS codes. These size standards are presented either by number of employees or by annual recei pt levels, depending on the NAICS code. The chlor

- alkali companies are covered by NAICS code 325181 and are categorized as small if the total number of employees at the ultimate parent company is fewer than 500; otherwise, the ultimate parent company is cl assified as large. As shown in Table 2

- 6 ASHTA Inc. is considered a small
business.

Table 2

- 6. Ultimate Parent Company Sales and Employment: 2008

Plant State Parent Company Owned by Small Entity Sales Employment

ASHTA OH ASHTA Chemicals Inc. Yes <$75 mill ion <100

Olin GA, TN Olin Corporation No $1.8 billion 3,600

PPG WV PPG Industries Inc. No $15.8 billion 44,900

Sources: Olin Corporation. December 31, 2008. Form 10

- K. Filed February 25, 2009. http://b2i.api.edgar

online.com/EFX_dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFi lingConvPDF1?SessionID=DOVFWfuqOuZBE

- 9&ID=6436012. Accessed July 2009

. PPG Industries, Inc. December 31, 2008. Form 10

- K. Filed February 19, 2009. http://corporateportal.ppg.com/ NR/rdonlyres/EAC49DFC

- DB9C

- 4320

- B9A3

- 421E40162220/0/10KYREND2008.pdf. Accessed July 2009

.


### 2.4.2.1 Company Profitability Measures
Company profitability trends significantly influ ence the ability and desire to take on large

- scale capital projects. Although data on profits for individual companies are limited, historical government statistics about industry groups and publicly traded companies provide accounting measures of profit i n annual reports. In Figure 2

- 4, we present information from the U.S. Census Quarterly Manufacturing Reports about the Basic Chemicals, Resins, and Synthetics (NAICS 3251 and 3252) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

– 2006 ). This is the finest level of detail reported by the Census and includes other chemical industries in addition to the chlor

- alkali industry. As shown, there is substantial variation in the profitability rates for the industry; before

tax profits as a percentage of net sales range from 1 to 10% during this period, with an average of
5% and a standard deviation of 3%.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 2

- 15 Figure 2

- 4. Income (or Loss) as Net a Percentage of Sales, Basic Chemicals, Resins, and

Synthetics (NAICS 3251 and 3252): 2000

– 2005

Source: U.S. Ce nsus Bureau. 2001

– 2006. Quarterly Financial Report for Manufacturing, Mining, and Trade Corporations, 1st Quarter reports. http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/qfr

- mm.html. Accessed July 2009

.


### Census data also show that smaller companies (defined by Census as companies with less the $25 million in assets) h ave profit rates that are smaller than industry averages. For example, in a representative year during this period (2000), before

- tax profit s as a percentage of net sales for small companies were less than 1% compared to approximately 6% for the industry a s a whole.

To assess how representative the census data were for individual companies, EPA examined annual reports for Olin Corporation and PPG Industries and found before

- tax profit rates were comparable with quarterly financial report (QFR) 2000 industry averages. Olin reported a rate of approximately 8% and PPG reported a rate of 11% (Olin Corporation, 2001 ; PPG, 2001 ). These values are based on income statements and include all operations in addition
to the chlor

- alk ali segment. Olin reported similar profit rates for its chlor

- alkali segment (~7%), but PPG did not report separate profitability information for their chemical commodity segment.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 1 SECTION 3:

ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

In order to estimate the capital and annual costs associated with a conversion from mercury cell chlor

- alkali technology to membrane cell technology, information was used from the following resources:

EPA’s Mercury Report to Congress 1


### Recent news reports regarding plants converting or conside ring converting 2

, 3

, 4

, 5

, 6
, 7
, 8


### EPA waste minimization study 9


### Fact sheet from the conversion of a Canadian facility 10



### General chlor

- alkali reference 11


### European Best Available Techniques Document 12



### Information from Oceana Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. and the Chlorine industry Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark no t defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not

1 U.S. EPA. Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VIII: An Evalu ation of Mercury Control Technologies and Costs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1997.

2 Bradbury, D. Portrait of a Polluter . Portland Press Herald. 1997.

3 Market s

- News Release. Houston Chronicle. January 30, 2007.

4 McCoy, M. PPG to Convert Chlorine Cells . Chemical and Engineering News. August 8, 2005.

5 Wise, A. Port Edwards sells School Forest Land to ERCO Worldwide; Nekoosa Considers Similar Deal. Wis consin Rapids Tribune. January 13, 2009. Available on the Internet at: www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com

. 6 Westlake Chemical Corporation (2003, December 31). Form 10

- K, United States Securities and Exc hange Commission. Available on the Internet at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262823/000095012904001565/h13929e10vk.htm

7 Chlorine/Chlorate Newsletter . ―Tessenderlo Upgrades Chlorine; Expands VCM, PVC.‖ March 2002. p. 10

- 11. Available on the Internet at: http://www.eltechsystems.com/newsletter/ELTECH%20Newslett er%20March%202002.pdf . Accessed 3/2/2007.

8 Hydrocarbon Processing (2007, November 19). "Uhde Opens New Electrolysis Plant."

9 Drabkin, M. and Rissmann, E. Project Summary Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of Minimization of Mercury Beari ng Wastes at a Mercury Cell Chlor

- alkali Plant . EPA/600/S2

- 88/011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. March 1988.

10 Fact Sheet No. 12. PPG Canada . St Lawrence Vision 2000, Beauhamois, Quebec, Canada. 1996.

11 Modern Chlor

- Alkali Technology, Volume 2. Jackson, C., Editor. Society of Chemical Industry, London, England. 1983.

12 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Chlor

- Alkali Manufacturing Industry. European Integra ted Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Bureau, Seville, Spain. December 2001. Available on the Internet at http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/cak.html

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 2 defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined.
In addition to reviewing the Oceana correspondence, all directly relevant references cited by Oceana in their comments were obtained, reviewed, and considered. These references are compiled and available in the docket as one docket entry. 13



### 3.1 Capital Costs

Initially, to determine capital costs of conversion to non

- mercury technology, EPA collected capital cost data for mercury cell conversion projects that occurred between 1992 and
2008 from the search of th e resources listed above. Error! Bookmark not defined. In their September 15, 2009 memorandum, Error! Bookmark not de fined. Oceana pointed out that several of the capital cost data points were not appropriate because ei ther the costs were from unsubstantiated estimates or they were developed from conversions that were done so long ago that they did not apply to membrane cell technologies currently being used.

Initially, Oceana identified seven capital cost data points for conversion to non

- mercury technology that were derived from estimates rather than actual conversions. These were:

One 1997 estimate published by a HoltraChem facility where the conversion did not in actuality occur; One 1988 estimate for a facility i n the U.S. that could not be identified; One 1992 estimate for a ―model plant‖ representing a mid

- range facility size, with no documentation included; and Four European estimates for conversions to non

- mercury technology, Error!

Bookmark not defined. 

### which did not include information on plant production capacities.

In addition, Oceana stated that conversion project costs prior to 1995 are not applicable to

current

- day conversion costs. According to Oceana, newer membrane

- cell technolog y uses bipolar electrolyzers, which were not commercially available until around 1997. Error!
Bookmark not defined. The conversions prior to 1995 would have used the older monopolar electrolyzers. Therefore, we agree with Oceana’s posit ion that for this analysis it is not

13 Memorandum from Brown, H.P., EC/R Incorporate d, Chapel Hill, NC, to Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0017. Capital and Annual Costs References Cited By Oceana in Their Comments on EPA’s Cost Analysis of the Conversion of Mercury Cells to Membrane Cells. (Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0017). March 15, 2010. Comment [A3]: Who are they?***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 3 appropriate to include the data points derived from conversions that took place prior to 1995; thus these data points were not used in our current analysis.

We developed capital cost factors for conversion to membrane cell technology in units of dollars per ton ($/ton) of chlorine (Cl 2 

### ) production using data from conversions anywhere in the world that took place after 1995, excluding the cost data described above. These costs and cost
factors are shown in Table 3

- 1. The cost factors ranged from $267 to $941/ton Cl 2 

### produced and averaged $535/ton Cl 2 

### . In addition, Table 3

- 1 shows the average of the cost factors from only the most recent US conversions (since 2000), which is $596/ton Cl 2


### .

Since membrane cells are small er than mercury cells, in some conversions the companies have elected to use the extra available space to install additional membrane cells, thus increasing the chlorine and caustic production capacity of the facility. Therefore, for some conversion proje cts included in Table 3

- 1, an increase in production capacity was also included. Oceana
indicated in their comments Error! Bookmark not defined. that a conversion cost analysis should either exclude the costs attributed to expanding capa city or include the cost saving benefits derived from expanding capacity. We do not believe that it is appropriate to make an assumption about savings because any benefits derived from additional sales due to increased capacity assumes that product demand would simultaneously increase. We do not disagree that the additional incremental costs of the expanded capacity should be excluded. However, the available information does not provide a breakdown of the costs associated with conversion
versus the costs associated with the increased capacity. Therefore, the capital costs for some conversions may include expansion costs. This could result in the capital costs based on these data being biased high.

When providing comments on the June 2009 memorandum, AS HTA stated that differences in size, the new or expanded infrastructure required, and the end products desired (e.g., vapor or liquid chlorine, dilute or merchant concentration of caustic) all impact the actual
cost of conversion. Error! Bookmark not defined. ASHTA suggested that, minimally, conversion cost estimates should take into account economies of scale. However, Oceana expressed concern with the use of an equation that relates increasing size to lower conversion
costs to estimate the cost of conversion for the four remaining facilities, since extrapolation of the costs to very small or very large capacities produces illogical conclusions. But we do believe
that there could be some economies of scale. An equation we developed usi ng the limited data***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 4 set of the recent U.S. conversions showed a good correlation (correlation coefficient (R 2 

### ), 14 

### = 0.9981) Error! Bookmark not defined. of costs to facility size/capacity. However, when the entire data set (in Table 3

- 1) was plotted, a similar correlation was not observed.

Figure 3

- 1 presents these cost factors versus plant chlorine capacity for all the facilities.
As shown in Figure 3

- 1, there is little correlation between cost factor and plant chlorine capacity (R 2 

### = 0.0102) for all global conversions with documented data. Therefore, we agree with Oceana that it is most appropriate to use a single cost factor to estimate the capital costs of
conversion.

Table 3

- 1. Cost Factors for Conversion of Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Facilities to

Membrane Cell Technology ($/ton Cl 2 

### produced)

Year of

Estimate Location of

Conversion Capital Cost

(as provided) Capacity

(ton Cl 2 /yr) Capital Cost Factor

($/ton Cl 2 produced/yr) Reference
Base Year 2007 a

1997 Europe $104,946 ,640 173,063 $606 $824 12

1997 Europe $32,856,014 110,231 $298 $405 12

1998 Europe $16,334,213 66,139 $247 $333 12

1998 Europe $13,094,369 66,139 $198 $267 12

1998 Europe $29,923,557 44,092 $679 $915 12

1998 US (OxyTech) a $57,327,236 135,033 $425 $573 12

1998 Asia $39,775,832 182,983 $217 $293 12

1999 Europe $131,159,254 330,693 $397 $533 12

1999 Europe $31,026,058 82,673 $375 $505 12

2002 US (Westlake,

KY) $86,100,000 205,000 $420 $497 6

2004 Belgium $171,032,583 363,762 $470 $556 7

2005 c US (PPG, LA) $90,000,000 275,000 $327 $367 4

2007 c US (Pioneer,

LA) $117,000,000 c 197,000 $594 $594 3

2007 c Germany $109,678,733 250,000 $439 $439 8

2008 c US (ERCO, WI) $107,112,676 b 118,000 $908 $908 5

Average $535

14 T he correlation coefficient is a measure of how accurately a regression predicts a value. The regression is most accurate when R 2 is equal to one (1). Comment [A4]: Provide citation for this work.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 5 Average of Recent US Conversions b $596

N/A = Not Available

a The conversion to 2007 dollars was estimated using t he Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index Economic Indicators. Base year costs were adjusted to 2007 dollars using the ratio of the 2007 economic indicator and the base year economic indicator. See Reference 15

.
b Refers to conversions that occurred in th e United States after 2000.

c Used in this analysis to develop an average factor for near future U.S. conversions. 

### In order to develop capital cost factors for the current four mercury cell facilities, the chlorine production capacities from the 1997 Dir ectories of Chemical Producers 16 

### were obtained
and are shown in Table 3

- 2. The capital costs of converting to membrane cell technology for the four facilities in current operation were then estimated using these capacities. As shown in Table
3

- 2, capital costs were estimated using both the average capital cost factor for the entire data set ($535/ton Cl 2 

### ) in Table 3

- 1, and then also using the average of only the four most recent U.S. conversions ($596/ton Cl 2 

### ) since 2000.

Because of several known factors , including environmental regulations and process safety management, we do not believe the broad range of data represented by all the facilities
shown in Table 3

- 1 to be as accurate as the recent conversions that have occurred since 2000 in
the U.S. to use to estimate the potential capital costs of conversion for the four remaining U.S. facilities. We believe that the average cost factor from the four recent U.S. conversions results in the best estimate of the capital costs that would occur for all four me rcury cell chlor

- alkali plants

15 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index . Chemical Engineering. February 2009. Available on the Intern et at www.che.com

. 16 1997 Directory of Chemical Producers

- United States of America. Stanford Research Institute International. Menlo Park, CA. 1997.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 6 Figure 3

- 1. Capital Cost Factor ($/ton Cl 2 

### produced) vs. Capacity***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 7 Table 3

- 2. Estimated Capital Costs for Existing Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Facilities

Facility Cl 2 Production Capacity
(ton/yr) a Capital Costs ($)

Based on Entire Data

Set b Based on Recent

U.S. Conversions c,d

ASHTA 47,421 25,375,938 28,246,460

Olin GA 119,031 63,695,899 70,901,169

Olin TN 262,451 140,442,954 156,329,838

PPG 72,848 38,982,173 43,391,830

Totals 268,496,964 298,869,297

a From Reference 16

. b Calculated using average capital cost factor of $535/ton Cl 2 for entire data set.

c Calculated using average capital cost factor of $596/ton Cl 2 for re cent (i.e., after 2000) U.S. Conversions.

d Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions.



### to convert to membrane cells. The total estimated capital cost of conversion for all four facilities, therefore, is approximately $300 mil lion, which is also shown in Table 3

- 2.

3.2 Annual Costs

The annual costs associated with the conversion of mercury cells to membrane cells include costs related to capital recovery, unused mercury storage costs, and energy costs due to
the need for increa sed steam required to further concentrate caustic. However, some of these additional annual costs will be offset by savings realized due to the elimination of mercury, e.g.,

mercury

- related environmental compliance costs and the reduced energy needs for t he membrane cell process. Each of these costs and savings are described below.

3.2.1 Capital Recovery Cost

Annualization of the capital costs involves establishing an annual ―payment‖ sufficient to finance the investment over the expected lifetime of the equipment or loan period. This payment is typically referred to as the ―capital recovery cost.‖ The three key inputs into the capital recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the finance period. The estimates for capital costs were discussed above; the remainder of this discussion is focused on the interest rate and the finance period.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 8 As pointed out by Olin in their February 2, 2010, correspondence Error! Bookmark not
defined. ―access to capital and available inte rest rates are a function of many things, including the overall financial environment, the financial condition of the prospective borrower (including its debt load), and the amount and length of the loan.‖ In their June 25, 2009 correspondence, Error! Bookmark not defined. Olin also stated that ―a 7 percent interest rate is simply not available to industry in this economy.‖ They suggested replacing the 7 percent rate with a 10 percent, or even a 14 percent rate. In their February 2010 c orrespondence, Olin provided an example to support the use of an interest rate higher than 7 percent. Olin reported that they sold $150 million in Senior Notes, and that these notes had an interest rate of 8.875 percent and a maturity date of August 2019. According to Olin, the effective interest rate was over 9 percent considering the costs and discount.

The interest rate can result in significant differences in total annualized costs. For example, for a finance period of 15 years, the difference in ca pital recovery costs is approximately 20 percent higher for a 10 percent interest rate than for a 7 percent interest rate.
This difference is even more profound for longer finance periods.

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards always provide s an interest rate of
7 percent for cost analysis

. While we do not disagree with Olin’s information, we feel that it is important to maintain uniformity to allow decision

- makers to consider consistent information across various regulatory decisions. Ther efore, in this present analysis, an interest rate of 7 percent was used in the development of the capital recovery cost. In previous versions of this analysis, a finance period of 15 years was used. Oceana commented that this underestimates the
useful li fe of the equipment and overestimates the annualized costs. Error! Bookmark not
defined. Oceana suggested that a 30

- year finance period was more appropriate, and cited a previous analysis for the mercury cell industry where EPA used a 30

- year period to estimate the capital recovery costs. 17 

### However, it is important to note that the use of a 30

- year finance period in the analysis cited by Oceana was for a stationary building and not an operating industrial process. Therefore, we do not ag ree that this example establishes a precedent that is pertinent to our analysis.

To illustrate the importance of the choice of finance period, consider the fact that the capital recovery costs for a 30

- year finance period at 7

- percent interest rate would be approximately 30 percent lower than those for a 15 year finance period. Table 3

- 3 shows the

17 Memorandum from Brown , H.P., EC/R Incorporated, Chapel Hill, NC, to D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Documentation of Building Replacement Cost Estimates. June 5. 2008.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 9 annual capital recovery costs for both a 15

- year and 30

- year period, using the capital cost estimates based on the cost factor from the average of recent U.S. c onversions shown in Table 3

- 2 of the previous section. While we recognize that a 15

- year finance period may understate the lifetime of the membrane cell process equipment, we believe that the use of a 30

- year period will
bias the annualized costs unreason ably low. Therefore, we chose to base our capital recovery
cost estimates on a 20

- year finance period which is higher than our previous estimate of 15 percent. This results in total annualized costs for the four U.S. facilities of approximately $30 milli on/yr, which we believe represent the best estimate of the capital recovery costs, as
shown in Table 3

- 3.

3.2.2 Annual Costs Associated with Storage of Unused Mercury

According to the Chlorine Institute, there were 1,376 tons of mercury available at the five mercury cell plants operating in 2008. 18 

### These plants operated a total of 264 mercury cells, which equates to 5.2 tons of mercury per cell (ton Hg/cell) on the average. To estimate the amount of mercury available at each of the four currently operati ng facilities, that would need to be stored if they converted to membrane cells, this average factor was multiplied by the number
of cells in each of the facilities. As shown in Table 3

- 4, this results in an estimated total of 1,272 tons of mercury to be stored, ranging from 125 tons at ASHTA to over 550 tons at Olin TN.

There were two sources of information identified that provided estimates of mercury storage costs. EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and the EPA Office of Solid
Waste and E mergency Response 19 

### has estimated future mercury storage costs at a private facility would be between $0.081 and $0.186 per year per pound of mercury stored, with an average of $0.134 per year per pound. The Defense National Stockpile Center also has prese nted information indicating that the cost associated with the federal mercury storage is $0.0561/yr/lb Hg. 20



### Table 3

- 4 shows the estimated storage costs using both the average factor from EPA ($0.134/yr/lb) and the factor from the Department of Defense ($0 .0561/yr/lb). While there is a

18 The Chlorine Institute, Inc. ―Chlor

- Alkali Industry 2008. Mercury Use and Emissions in the United St ates (Twelfth Annual Report).‖ August 2009.

19 Mercury Storage Cost Estimates

– Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. November 6, 2 007. Page 28, Exhibit 15. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/stocks/Storage_Cost_Draft_Updated_11

- 6

- final.pdf

20 Lynch, Dennis, Environmental Pr otection Specialist. Presentation made at the Asia Mercury Storage Project Inception Workshop on March 4, 2009 at the Defense National Stockpile Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 10 considerable difference in these estimates, the sources of the information are reliable. Use of either factor could bias the annual cost estimates high or low. Therefore, we assumed that these two points represent the uppe r and lower bounds of the storage costs, and that the midpoint of the range of storage costs represents the best estimate of the mercury storage costs that would be incurred. These midpoint costs, which are also shown in Table 3

- 4, total just over $240,00 0 per year for all four plants.

Table 3

- 3. Estimated Capital Recovery Costs for Varying Finance Periods (Using 7 percent

interest rate)

Plant Best Estimate of

Capital Cost ($) a Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr)

15 years

(CRF b = 0.1098) 30 years

(CRF b = 0. 0806) 20 years c

(CRF b = 0.0944)

ASHTA $28,246,460 $3,101,309 $2,276,281 $2,666,266

Olin GA $70,901,169 $7,784,567 $5,713,670 $6,692,569

Olin TN $156,329,838 $17,164,176 $12,598,059 $14,756,431

PPG $43,391,830 $4,764,190 $3,496,792 $4,095,882

Totals $3 2,814,242 $24,084,802 $28,211,147

a Using the average cost factor from recent U.S. Conversions (See Table 3

- 2).

b CRF = Capital Recovery Factor.

c Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions. Comment [A5]: Insert language on DOE storage facility***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 11 Table 3

- 4. Estimate of Annual M ercury Storage Costs

Facility Number

Cells a Available

Mercury

(ton) b Mercury Storage Costs ($/yr)

Using EPA

Factor ($0.134/yr/lb) Using DOD

Factor ($0.0561/yr/lb) Midpoint of EPA

and DOD Factors c

ASHTA 24 125 $33,399 $14,035 $23,717

Olin GA 60 313 $83,498 $35,088 $59,293

Olin TN 106 552 $147,513 $61,989 $104,751

PPG 54 281 $75,148 $31,579 $53,364

Totals 244 1,271 $339,558 $142 ,691 $241,125

a Reference 16

. b Total amount of available mercury (5.28 tons/cell) distributed by number of mercury cells (see Reference 18 ).

c Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions.



### 3.2.3 Costs Savings Associated with the Elimination of Mercury

- Related Environmental Compliance Costs

There are some expected costs savings related to the conve rsion from a mercury

containing process to the membrane cell process due to the elimination of compliance costs associated with the use of mercury. These savings can be categorized into three environmental elements: air, waste, and water. Air

- related env ironmental compliance cost savings are realized when the facility no longer has to comply with mercury

- related air regulations, as well as labor due to the elimination of mercury

- related air monitoring, reporting, abatement measures, and occupational expos ure monitoring. Waste

- related environmental compliance cost savings are realized when a facility no longer incurs costs due to recycling, retorting, transporting, storing and/or disposing of mercury wastes. Water

- related environmental compliance cost sav ings are realized when the facility no longer is required to operate mercury wastewater treatment

programs. Comment [A6]: Further discussion***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 12 We used information from the literature 21 

### (with costs converted from Euros to U.S. dollars using the average 2004 exchange rate 22 

### of 1.2439) and co st information presented to the State of Ohio by ASHTA as a part of their consent order 23 

### to estimate the cost savings. Information related to annual compliance costs associated with reducing mercury air emissions from the hydrogen and end box vent streams , presented to the Ohio EPA by ASHTA under the consent order, indicated that ASHTA would spend approximately $228,000 annually on air compliance. This value was converted to a $/ton Cl 2 

### value based on ASHTA’s capacity of 47,421 ton Cl 2 

### /yr, 16 

### resulting in a cost factor of $4.81/ton Cl 2 

### capacity. Since these costs would no longer be incurred after conversion, this factor represents a savings. In contrast, European information indicates that a savings of approxi mately $2.20/ton Cl 2 

### in expenditures related to air compliance could be realized from the elimination of mercury. 21



### In addition to the air

- related compliance costs described above, ASHTA presented to the
Ohi o EPA that they would be spending approximately $256,500 annually on fugitive mercury
emission

- related activities (including the implementation of leak detection and repair standards). Upon conversion to membrane cells, this would represent a savings. The se costs and savings are not relevant for the other three facilities because ASHTA is the only facility that did not install a cell room instrumental monitoring program and, therefore, is required to perform a leak program.

ASHTA also presented informatio n to the Ohio EPA related to costs for their water treatment system. According to ASHTA, they spend approximately $98,000 annually on their storm water recovery system. This converts to a cost/savings factor of $2.07/ton Cl 2 

### capacity for
elimination of w ater

- related compliance costs due to mercury use. The European information indicates that a cost savings of approximately $1.92/ton Cl 2 

### could be realized by the eliminations of a mercury wastewater treatment system. 21



### Waste

- related environmental compliance cost savings are realized by facilities no longer being required to recycle, retort, transport, store and/or dispose of mercury

- containing wastes. The only information available was the European data that in dicated that facilities could expect a cost savings of $6,470/ton waste, at an average mercury waste production rate of 4.2x10
- 5 

### ton

21 Maxon, Peter, Director. Concorde East/West Sprl. Status Report: Mercury Cell Ch lor

- Alkali Plants in Europe. Prepared for European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium. October 2006.

22 Historic Exchange Rates. Prepared by GOCurrency.com. Available on the Internet at www.gocurrency.com

. A ccessed April 1, 2009 and April 30, 2009.

23 ASHTA Chemicals. Early MACT Compliance. Consent Agreement. Exhibits B and C. (Docket No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2002

- 0017). August 2004.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 13 waste per ton Cl 2


### . 21 

### This results in a waste

- related cost savings of $0.27/t on Cl 2 

### capacity for
elimination of waste

- related compliance costs due to mercury use.

Table 3

- 5 presents the cost savings factors for each environmental compliance element discussed above from both the information from ASHTA as well as the European litera ture. A total environmental compliance cost savings factor was obtained from the sum of all the individual elements in each data set. Since ASHTA did not provide data related to annual cost of handling mercury

- related wastes, the value from the literatur e was used to obtain a total from all media. With this approach, a value of $7.15/ton Cl 2 

### shown in Table 3

- 5, was developed from data mostly from ASHTA, and a value of $4.63/ton Cl 2 

### was developed from the European
literature.

Table 3

- 5. Environmental Co mpliance Cost Savings Factors from Elimination of the

Mercury Process

Environmental Element Cost Saving Factors from Elimination of Mercury ($/ton Cl 2 )

ASHTA Factor a Literature Factor b

Air 4.81 2.20

Water 2.07 2.16

Waste 0.27 c 0.27

Totals 7.15 c,d 4.63

a See Reference 23

. b See Reference 21

.

c Since ASHTA did not provide data related to annual cost of compliance for mercury

- rel ated wastes, the value from the literature was used for this element.

d Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions.



### Table 3

- 6 presents the estimated annual cost savings from the elimination of mercury

related compliance costs for each of the four U.S. facilities using both total environmental compliance saving cost factors from Table 3

- 5. Since the cost data found in the literature were based on facilities in Europe and not from actual U.S. facilities, we believe that the annu al cost savings from the elimination of mercury that is based mostly on the ASHTA cost factors represent the best estimate of the cost savings for the remaining U.S. facilities.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 14 3. 2 .4 Energy Savings and Costs

The membrane cell process requires less ene rgy than the mercury cell process. Therefore, there are reduced energy requirements with membrane cells as compared to mercury cells. Energy savings were estimated using information from literature and average State energy prices. 12 

### Although there could be variations in local energy costs, according to the information in the literature, the energy used by the membrane cell technology is approximately 2,500 kilowatt hours per ton chlorine produced (kWh/ton Cl 2 

### ), which is about 700 kWh/ton Cl 2 

### less than that used by the mercury cell process (3,230 kWh/ton Cl 2 

### ). 12 

### This equates to an approximately 22 percent reduction in energy requirements. Oceana provided informati on that indicated that a 37.5 percent reduction was possible. Error! Bookmark not defined. Applying a 37.5 percent reduction to the mercury cell process energy usage estimate of 3,230 kWhr/ton Cl 2 

### would yield a reduction in energy usage of approximately 1,211 kWhr/ton Cl 2


### .
These energy savings are slightly offset by an increase in energy required to concentrate
the caustic co

- product generated in the membrane cell process. Mercury cells produce caustic at
the market concentration of 50 percent, and membrane cells produce caustic at a 33 percent concentration. Therefore, there is an increase in energy use (in the form of steam) due to the need to further concentrate the caustic produced with the membrane cell technology. Error!
Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not
define d. , 

### Error! Bookmark not defined.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 15 Table 3

- 6. Annual Cost Savings from Elimination of the Mercury Processes, by Fa cility

Facility Chlorine Capacity (tpy) Savings from Hg Elimination ($/yr)

ASHTA Factor a Literature Factor b

ASHTA c 47,421 595,386 595,386

Olin GA 119,031 850,634 550,600

Olin TN 262,451 1,875,561 1,214,017

PPG 72,848 520,592 336,970

Totals 3,842,173 d 2,696,973

a Using the ASHTA factor of 7.15 $/ton Cl2 presented in Table 3

- 5.

b Using the literature factor of 4.63 $/ton Cl2 presented in Table 3

- 5.

c As discussed above, the ASHTA compliance costs savings include $2 56,500/yr related to their fugitive emissions compliance costs (that includes a leak detection and repair element, as well as the installation of a temporary canopy for the cell room); whereas, the other facilities do not include these costs because ASHTA was the only facility that did not install an instrumental monitoring program to comply with the NESHAP.

d Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions.



### The energy requirement (in the form of steam) to concentrate the caustic to 50 percent
was estimated to be 601 kWh/ton Cl 2 

### ($13.6/ton Cl 2 

### ), as obtained from the average of estimates provided for three U.S. facilities. Error! Bookmark not defined. , 

### Error! Bookmark not
defined. This cost was d educted from the energy savings described above to develop an estimate of overall energy cost savings with membrane cell technology due to reduced energy needs. The energy cost savings are shown in Table 3

- 7.

Further evaluation of Oceana’s claim of a 37 .5 percent energy reduction 24 

### shows that although the estimate is for an actual facility, it is not clear whether steam costs are included. In addition, Oceana also indicated in their September 16, 2009, letter Error! Bookmark not
defined. that a 25 percent reduction was commonplace. Therefore, we believe that the total energy cost savings based on the 22 percent energy reduction represents the best cost estimate

In their September 29, 2009, letter, Error! Bookmark not defined. Oceana stated that the steam cost was an overestimate of the required energy needs to concentrate the caustic. Oceana

24 Government of India Bureau of Energy Efficiency. 2006. ―The Travancore

- Cochin Chemicals Limited.‖ December 14. http://www.bee

india.nic.in/sidelinks/EC%20Award/eca06/Award2006_CD/06ChlorAlkali/TheTravancore

CochinChemicalsLimited.pdf .***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 16 argued that even though additional energy is required to generate steam, the steam could be obtained without additional expense. According to Oceana, facilities could use byproduct hydrogen as fuel to generate the necessary steam. Error! Bookmark not defined. While it may be possible to assume that byproduct hydrogen could be used to generate the steam required to concentrate caustic from a membrane cell, we agree with industry’s claim that increases in the demand for and the value of high purity chemical hydrogen make this use of byproduct hydrogen economically impractical. Therefore, we have not made adjustmen ts to the energy usage costs (in the form of steam) based on the use of byproduct hydrogen as fuel.

Table 3

- 7. Energy Savings Associated with Conversion from the Mercury Cell to the

Membrane Cell Process

Facility Chlorine

Capacity
(tpy) Average

Industrial

Retail
Electricity

Cost
(cents/kWh) a Steam

Cost
($/yr) b Annual Energy Savings

($/yr) Total Energy Cost Savings ($/yr) f

22%
Energy

Reduction c,d 37.5%

Energy

Reduction e 22%

Energy

Reduction c,d 37.5%

Energy

Reduction e

ASHTA 47,421 5.77 644,788 1,911,26 8 3,313,692 1,266,480 2,668,904

Olin GA 119,031 5.48 1,618,476 4,556,346 7,899,639 2,937,870 6,281,163

Olin TN 262,451 5.40 3,568,575 9,901,023 17,166,059 6,332,448 13,597,484

PPG 72,848 3.90 990,515 1,986,964 3,444,931 996,449 2,454,416

Totals 11,533,247 25,001,967

a Average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end

- use sector, by state (Reference 25 ).

b Steam cost associated with concentrating caustic produced by membrane cells from 33 percent to 50 perce nt at an average cost of $13.60/ton Cl 2 (Reference 12 ).

c Calculated using a 22 percent energy savings associated with the conversion, at 699 kWh/ton Cl 2 . (Reference 12 ).

d Used in this analysis to develop costs for near future U.S. conversions.

e Calculated using a 37.5 percent energy savings associated with the conversion, at 1,211 kWh/ton Cl 2 . (Reference 

### Error! Bookmark not defined. ).

f Energy Cost Savings = Energy Savings ($/yr)

– Steam Cost ($/yr).

25 U.S. Department of Energy. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by E nd

- Use Sector, by State for 2006 . Available on the Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneal/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

. Accessed February 24, 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 17 Table 3

- 8. Ranges of Individual Annual Cost/Savings Elements for the Conversion of Mercury Cells to Membrane Cells

Facility Capital Recovery Costs

($/yr) a Mercury Storage

Costs ($/yr) b Environmen tal

Compliance Savings ($/yr) Energy Savings ($/yr)

7% and

30 years 7% and

15 years EPA

Factor DOD

Factor ASHTA

Factors c Literature

Factors 22% Energy

Reduction c 37.5%

Energy

Reduction

ASHTA $2,276,281 $3,101,309 $33,399 $14,035 ($595,386) ($595,386) ($1,266,480) ($2,668,904)

Olin GA $5,713,670 $7,784,567 $83,498 $35,088 ($850,634) ($550,600) ($2,937,870) ($6,281,163)

Olin TN $12,598,059 $17,164,176 $147,513 $61,989 ($1,875,561) ($1,214,017) ($6,332,448) ($13,597,484)

PPG $3,496,792 $4,764,190 $75,1 48 $31,579 ($520,592) ($336,970) ($996,449) ($2,454,416)

Totals $24,084,802 $32,814,242 $339,558 $142,691 ($3,842,173) ($2,696,973) ($11,533,247) ($25,001,967)

a A recovery period of 20 years and 7% was use in the final analysis.

b The mi dpoint of the EPA and DOD factor range was used in the final analysis.

c These data were used in the final analysis.



### 3. 2.5 Overall Annual Costs

For each of the costs and savings elements discussed in the previous sections, there is credible information that would result in different estimated levels of costs/savings. For each element, this resulted in a high

- and low

- end estimate. These values are shown in Table 3

- 8.

For each element, we chose the method of estimation that we b elieve is the best estimate of the cost or savings, as follows:

For capital recovery costs and mercury storage costs, we concluded that neither the high

- end nor the low

- end of the ranges represented the best estimate of the costs that would be incurred. I nstead, we concluded that using a 20

- year finance period provided the best estimate. (See Table 3

- 3 above.)

For the mercury storage costs, we determined that the midpoint of the range of data from two sources (list) was the best estimate. (See Table 3

- 4 above.)

For the environmental compliance savings element, we chose the higher estimated savings, using the cost factors developed mostly from ASHTA data to provide the best estimate for these U.S. facilities. (See Table 3

- 6 above.)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 18 For the energy savings, we believe that the lower savings level based on a 22 percent energy reduction provides the best estimate. (See Table 3

- 7 above.)

Table 3

- 9 shows the estimates for each facility for each individual cost element that incorporate the choices described a bove, and also shows the total annual costs calculated using these estimates for each facility for conversion to non

- mercury technology. The values in Table
3

- 9 represent our best estimate of the annual costs that would be incurred due to the conversion

o f the four currently operating mercury cell facilities to membrane cells. These annual costs range from less than $1 million per year for ASHTA to almost $7 million per year for Olin TN, and a total estimate of $13 million for all four facilities.

3.3 Unc ertainty Analysis

While we selected the values that we believe provide the best estimates of the costs that would be incurred and savings that would be realized in the conversion from mercury cells to membrane cells at these four facilities, there is some uncertainty associated with the estimates. While most of the information obtained and provided by commenters appears to be credible and representative of actual conversions that have occurred, there is a high amount of variability. This is most likely d ue to the fact that the conditions associated with the potential conversion of each mercury cell plant are different, resulting in potentially significant differences in the costs and savings.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 19 Table 3

- 9. EPA Estimates of the Annual Costs of Conversion of Mercury Cells to

Membrane Cells

Facility Capital

Recovery Costs ($/yr) a Annual Costs

Total

Annual Costs
($/yr) Mercury Storage Costs ($/yr) b Environmental

Compliance Savings ($/yr) c Energy Savings ($/yr) d

ASHTA $2,666,266 $23,717 ($595,386) ($1, 266,480) $828,117

Olin GA $6,692,569 $59,293 ($850,634) ($2,937,870) $2,963,358

Olin TN $14,756,431 $104,751 ($1,875,561) ($6,332,448) $6,653,17 3

PPG $4,095,882 $53,364 ($520,592) ($996,449) $2,632,205

Totals $28,211,147 $25,325,589 ($3,842,173) ($11 ,533,247) $13,076,853

a Using 20 year finance period with a resulting CRF of 0.0944

b Using midpoint of EPA and DOD factors.

c Using ASHTA factors for air and water compliance costs and a literature value for waste compliance costs not provided in ASHTA data.

d Using an estimate of 22 percent energy reduction with membrane process.



### Table 3

- 10. Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation Compared to the EPA Estimates

Facility EPA Estimate

Total Annual Costs
($/yr) Mo nte Carlo Simulation Mean

Total Annual Costs
($/yr)

ASHTA $828,117 $736,743

Olin GA $2,963,358 $2,821,114

Olin TN $6,653,173 $6,349,942

PPG $2,632,205 $2,608,708

Totals $13,076,853 $12,516,508***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 3

- 20 In order to consider the uncertainties, we conducted a simple Monte Carlo simulation. 26 

### For this simulation, we assumed a normal distribution for each variable. We set the peak of the distribution at our best estimate. For the elements where we believe one end of the range provides the best estimate (i.e., the environmental compliance savings and the energy savings), we truncated the distribution so that the peak of the distribution curve was at the best estimate. We ran the simulation with 100,000 calculations to create distributions of the individual plan t
annual costs over all annual costs. The results are shown in Table 3

- 10. As can be seen, the results of this analysis are very close to our best estimated costs. This shows that collectively, considering the ranges of each parameter/input to the annua l costs, a mean value is obtained from the simulation that is only slightly lower (4 percent) than our estimate. Attachment 1 contains the report of this simulation.

3.4 Summary of Results

This memorandum provided estimated costs for the conversion of t he four currently operating mercury cell chlor

- alkali facilities to membrane cells. The EPA estimate of the total capital cost for this conversion is slightly under $300 million, with the EPA estimate of total annual costs at approximately $13 million. P er facility estimated costs range from a low of $828,117 (ASHTA) to $6,653,173 (Olin TN).

26 Monte Carlo simulation i s a computerized mathematical technique that is used to account for uncertainty in quantitative analyses and is often used in decision making and risk analysis. The simulation technique builds models of possible results by substituting a range of values

– often a probability distribution

— for any factor that has inherent uncertainty, and then recalculates the results numerous times, each time using a different set of random values from the probability functions. The results of Monte Carlo analyses are distr ibutions of possible outcome values.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 1 SECTION 4:

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA)

EPA prepares an EIA to provide information about a new environmental policy’s unfavorable effects (i.e., social costs) and how these costs are distributed among stakeholders (EPA, 2000 ). Although several tools are available to estimate the economic costs of direct performance standards, the proposed regulation is unique in that it bans emissions of mercu ry from the mercury cell process within 2 years from final promulgation and bans operation of mercury recovery units 3 years from final promulgation. EPA’s Guidelines note that this type of regulation can be more difficult to assess when compared with trad itional direct performance standards because it is hard to predict how stakeholders will respond (EPA, 2000 ). Bans may lead to shutdowns that will involve adjustment costs for people working at the affected plants. Affected plants ma y also have strong links with other firms or downstream markets; as a result, secondary consequences of the regulation become more important to consider.

4 .1 Conversion Versus Plant Closure
The facilities currently in operation that do not already have pla ns to convert or close
would have to convert to one of the non

- mercury technologies, such as membrane cells. As a result, the owners of a plant have to make an investment decision that compares the costs of
conversion with future benefits of the conversion . Although there is historical evidence that owners have converted from mercury technologies in Europe and United States, other mercury plant owners have, to date, concluded the investment decision was currently not in their company’s interest given their assessment of future economic conditions (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce and Energy, 2009 ; PPG, 2009 ). The extremely concentrated markets ( few suppliers) for some chlor

- alkali products may provide manufacturers with an ability to pass on cost increases. ASHTA is one of only three producers of liquid potcarb and domestic entry is very difficult.

Although EPA does not have quantitative data to evaluate investment decisions (e.g., using capital budgeting techniques), the economics literature has emphasized three characteristics that influence the owner’s best investment decision (Dixit and Pyndick, 2004 ):

 

### Uncertain ty : the future rewards of an investment are unknown

 

### Irreversibility : the resources used to make the investment typically cannot be undone***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 2  

### Timing : owners who delay investment get more information that they value; as a result, there is an ―opportunity cost‖ associated with making an investment decision now versus later

Supply and demand conditions in the chlor

- alkali product markets are highly variable;
chlor

- alkali product prices regularly spike and fall during short periods (see Figure 4

- 1). Olin Corporatio n reports that the average product price for chlorine

- caustic soda co product (electrochemical unit or ECU) dropped from approximately $1,300 per short ton to just under $600 per short ton in the first 6 months of 2009 (Olin Corporation, 2009 ). Figure 4.1 (below) shows that the long term price trend for chlor alkali products shows that prices have more than doubled since 2004, even when considering the recent price decreases.

Figure 4

- 1. Price Trends: Alkalis and Chlorine Manufactur ing: 2000 to 2009
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009a. Producer Price Index Industry Data, Series ID = PCU PCU325181325181. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=pc. Accessed August 18, 2009

.


### The sharp price changes highlight the risks associated with chlor

- alkali capital investments. For example, OxyChem completed an announced $60 million investment at its
membrane chlor

- alkali plant in Taft, Louisiana, to produce KOH instead of caustic potash (Access Intelligence, LLC, 2008 ). Almost a year later, an announcement sug gests the plant has idled because of unstable market conditions (Access Intelligence, LLC, 2009 ).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 3 Given the current market conditions, the benefits of delaying investment and waiting for new information are likely lar g e if plants can delay conversion decisions. However, if plants delay, they risk other manufacturers entering the market before them and losing profits and market share. If for example, there are industrial consumers of chlorine nearby, it is unlikely th at
chlorine manufacturers will not meet that demand. And it appears to be cost

- effective to produce chlor alkali products close to large industrial consumers. Firms would like to require rates of return that exceed the cost of capital to make new capit al investments now. As reported above, prices for large industrial consumers of these facilities’ products could be sufficient to justify the investment in conversion

To our knowledge, the only existing economics literature that examines regulation

induc ed plant closures in the chlor

- alkali industry is a study by Snyder and colleagues (2003 ). Environmental regulations affecting chlorine end

- use markets have reduced the demand for chlorine and help explain the exit of se lected chlorine plants (Snyder, Miller, and Stavins, 2003 ). For example, chlorine plants that were co

- located with pulp and paper mills and plants affected by the Montreal Protocol were more likely to shutdown (11 to 15% higher than the average chlorine plant) (Snyder, Miller, and Stavins, 2003 ). In our case, the demand for chlorine and other products is not changing with the regulation. In contrast, regulatory factors did not appear to influence the decision to adopt membrane technologies at existing plants. EPA does not have sufficient data to predict whether individual companies would choose to convert or close, historical responses suggest that plant closure may be an o ption considered by some of these
facilities.

4 .2 Market Concentration and Pricing Behavior
Of the three major chlor

- alkali products discussed in Section 2, the market for potassium hydroxide is the most highly concentrated. As of 2005, there were only fou r producers of potassium hydroxide in the United States (FTC, 2005b ). Approximately 50% is produced using mercury cells; ASHTA Chemicals, Inc. reports a market share of approximately 15% (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commer ce and Energy, 2009 ). Producers of potassium hydroxide may have more ability to pass on costs of conversion than producers of other chlor

alkali products. Any closure of one or m ore mercury cell plants could raise concerns about competitiveness and subsequent firm pricing behavior in the KOH market; the remaining companies could have more scope to influence market prices by altering production levels.
Given the small number of rem aining KOH producers, removing an extra ton of KOH from the market may raise the market price and increase the profits on all the other KOH sold. If the price effect is large enough, the remaining companies may find it is more profitable to reduce***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 4 producti on levels below the levels that they would be choose in a market with a large number of competitors.

EPA’s review of publicly available sources also suggests that any closure would have similar market concentration consequences for a downstream commodity: potassium carbonate. ASHTA is one of only three producers of liquid potcarb and domestic entry is very difficult because it is very expensive; foreign entry (i.e., imports) has historically been limited (FTC,
2009b ). In the absence of o ther market condition changes if ASHTA’s were to close, it would likely reduce competition and lead to higher prices in the liquid potcarb market. Although EPA does not have data to quantify the effect of higher potassium carbonate prices, we recognize tha t end users of potassium carbonate (e.g., specialty glasses including television tubes and the ceramics industry [Armond Products Company, 2009 ; ERCO Worldwide, 2009 ]) and the
consumers of these goods could indirectly be affected by a price increase. 27 

### Industry sources already suggest that high energy costs and reduced domestic demand in the video glass industry has contributed potassium carbonate industry decline although there is some evide nce that other
―niche‖ end use r s are emerging (Hoffmann, 2004 ).

4 .3 Impact on Employment

EPA does not have enough information to estimate whether individual plants will convert
or close and therefore no estimate of changes in emp loyment are provided. In the following section we provide information on each plant s ’ job contributions relative to the size of local
labor markets and current and historical conditions

. In Table 4

- 1, we use the latest monthly statistics about county lab or forces and show the relative contributions of each plant in the context of current labor market conditions. In Figure 4

- 2, we compare the historical unemployment rates in the United States with unemployment rates for the counties where mercury cells are located. As shown in Figure 4

- 3, annual unemployment rates for three counties (Ashtabula, Richmond, and Wetzel) diverge and become higher than the national average beginning in 2004. Recent data for the month of May 2009 also suggest the relative differen ce between Ashtabula County and the United States is higher than historical differences.

27 Companies using potassium products may also be concern ed about other events that tend to increase the cost of potassium products (e.g., recent increases in th e input costs of potash used to make potassium hydroxide)

. For example, Superior Plus (2008 ) notes that a current contract to purchase potash on favorable terms expired in 2009

, and production costs are likely to rise once potash is purchased at current (higher) market prices. Superior plus owns ERCO Worldwide, one of the four companies that compete in the U.S. potassium hydroxide market. Comment [A7]: Ask for comment in the preamble***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 5 Table 4

- 1. May 2009 County Employment Data (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

Plant Location Plant Employees County Persons

Employed Plant Share of

Persons Employed County Pers ons

Unemployed

ASHTA Ashtabula County, OH 100 42,481 0.2% 6,526

Olin Richmond County, GA 85 82,416 0.1% 8,634

Olin Bradley County, TN 280 42,132 0.7% 4,397

PPG Wetzel County, WV 540 5,663 9.5% 731

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009b. LAU Lo cal Area Unemployment Statistics Series Id: LAUPS39011004, LAUPS39011005, LAUPA47035004, LAUPA47035005, LAUCN13245004, LAUCN13245005, LAUCN54103004, LAUCN54103005. Accessed August 2009

.



### Figure 4

- 2. Unemployment Rates by County: 2000

– 2008

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor St atistics. 2009c. LAU Local Area Unemployment Statistics Series Id: LAUPS39011006, LAUPA47035006, LAUCN13245006, and LAUCN54103006. Accessed August 2009

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009d. Current Employment Statistics

— CES (National) Series Id: LNU04000000. Accessed August 2009

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 6 Figure 4

- 3. Unemployment Rate Differences from National Average: May 2009 and

Historical Average: 2000

– 2008

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009c. LA U Local Area Unemployment Statistics Series Id: LAUPS39011006, LAUPA47035006, LAUCN13245006, and LAUCN54103006. Accessed August 2009

.


### 4 .4 Transportation Issues Associated with Plant Closure
If one or more mercury cell plants were to close, customers with existing arrangements with the plants will have to identify another outsi de supply source to maintain chemical production. For example, ASHTA’s production facility sells 100% of its chlorine to an adjacent titanium dioxide plant (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce and Energy,
2009 ). Although other chlorine supply sources may be available, transportation will likely be more expensive because of increased shipping distances between the supply source and its destination. Depending on the m ode of transportation selected, this may also indirectly increase the volume of existing shipments passing through certain urban areas.

4 .5 Small Entity Impact Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulato ry flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 7 certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial num ber of small entities (SISNOSE). The first step in this assessment was to determine whether the rule will have SISNOSE. To make this determination, EPA used a n impact analysis to indicate whether EPA can certify the rule as not having a SISNOSE. The elemen ts of this analysis
included

 

### identifying affected small entities,

 

### selecting and describing the measures and economic impact thresholds used in the analysis, and

 

### completing the assessment and determining the SISNOSE certification category.

4 .5.1 Identify Af

fected Small Entities
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; according to these si ze standards, ultimate parent companies owning mercury cell chlor

- alkali facilities are categorized as small if the total number of employees at the ultimate parent company is fewer than 500; otherwise, the ultimate parent company is classified as large. A s discussed in the previous section, ASHTA, Inc. is the sole entity that meets these qualifications.

4 .5.2 Sales Test Analysis
EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate parent companies by comparing annual convers ion costs to total sales (i.e., a ―sales‖ test). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company’s total annualized compliance costs by its reported

revenue:

( 4 .1)

where

CSR = cost

- to

- sales ratio

TACC = total annualized compliance costs

TR j 

### = total sales from all operations of ultimate parent company j or annual government revenue***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 8 This method assumes the affected entity cannot shift pollution control costs to consumers (in the form of higher market prices). Instead, the owning entit y experiences a one

- for

- one reduction in profits. EPA estimates that ASHTA’s CSR would range from 1 to 2 %, which suggests a significant economic impact. The other three plants are owned by large ultimate parent companies with significant company

- wide sales . As a result, the CSRs for the large companies are below 1%. However, when plant

- only sales are considered, the CSRs for plants owned by large ultimate parent companies range from 4 to 9 %.

4 .5.3 Profit Test Analysis

Economic models assume that a chlor

- alk ali company acts in the best interest of its shareholders and tries to make the company’s profit (total revenue minus total costs) as large as possible. To measure of chlor

- alkali profits, EPA used trade publication data for a representative
ECU called the ―cash margin‖ (CMAI, 2008). The measure approximates the average profit per
metric ton of chlor

- alkali product made. As shown in Figure 4

- 4, historical data suggest that cash margins can fluctuate over time. Assuming the market prices for chlor

- alkali pro ducts do not change as a result of the proposed rule, the annual conversion costs ($/metric ton) associated with the proposed rule will reduce the average profit for chlor

- alkali products. To assess the size of this effect, EPA compared the conversion cost s with economic data for a typical year (using historical industry ECU margins and capacity utilization rates from 1991 to 2005) 28



### . As shown,
conversion cost s could reduce the margins by 10 to 20 % (Figure 4

- 5). EPA also considered data in weak and strong margin years; as shown, margin reductions range from 5 to 100% for these

years. As a result, the analysis confirms the results associated with the sales test; plant conversion costs will likely have an economically significant effect.

4 .6 Conclusions

The EIA suggests these requirements are likely to have significant economic costs. Plants
will either convert or close. Predicting whether, no plant, one plant, two plants, three plants, or all four plants will close or convert is not possible with the availa ble data.

28 For a typical year, we used the observed average industry ECU cash margin (2008 dollars) and average industry utilization rate between 1991 and 2005. For weak and strong years, we considered cash margins and industry utilization rates one standard deviation (lower and higher) from the average.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 9 Figure 4

- 4. Historical ECU Cash Margins
Source: EPA estimates using data from CMAI (2008).



### Closure of one or more mercury cell process plants also raises concerns about competitiveness and subsequent pricing behavior in the potassium hydroxid e and potassium carbonate markets. In highly concentrated markets with few producers, nonmercury cell producers may be able to influence market prices above competitive levels by altering production decisions. Similar competitive issues have also been rais ed in other regulatory

contexts.

The small business impact analysis shows that one of the four plants is owned by a small business. A sales test suggests this small company will be significantly affected (CSR would range from 1 to 2 %). EPA also considered profitability effects by comparing annual conversion costs to reported industry margins for a representative ECU. Even in optimistic scenarios where ECU margins are higher than historical averages, conversion costs could significantly reduce the margins. Comment [A8]: Ask for comment in th e preamble.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 10 Figure 4

- 5. Profit Tests: ECU Cash Margin Reductions Associated with Conversion Costs***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 11 4.7 REFERENCES
Access Intelligence, LLC. 2008. ―Oxychem Completes Taft, LA KOH Conversion.‖ ChemWeek’s Business Daily , April 29, 2008.

Access Intelligence, LLC. June 16, 2009. Chlor

- alkali Market Wire.
American Chemistry Council. 2000. ―Chlorine: Ensuring Rail Transportation Safety.‖ http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_ar ticle_acc.asp?CID=1695&DID=10018

. Accessed August 19, 2009.
Armand Products Company. 2009. ―Potassium Carbonate Handbook.‖ http://www.armandproducts.com/pdfs/k2so3P1_12.pdf . Accessed August 2 009.

ASHTA Chemicals Inc. 2009a. About ASHTA. http://www.ashtachemicals.com/aboutfs.htm. Accessed August 2009.

ASHTA Chemicals, Inc. 2009b. Potassium Hydroxide, Liquid. http://www.ashtachemical s.com/products/lkohfs.htm . Accessed August 2009.

Cleveland/Bradley Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council. 2009. 2009 Industrial Directory. http://clevelandchamber.com/images/stories/pdf/2009inddir.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2009.

Dixit, A.K., and R.S. Pindyck. 1994. Investment under Uncertainty . Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Energy Information Administration. 2009. ―Electric Power Annual 2007: State Data Tables.‖ http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html. Accessed July 31, 2009.
Environmental News Service. January 10, 2005. ―Chlorine Gas from South Carolina Train Crash Kills Nine.‖ http://www.ens

- newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005

- 01

- 10

- 04.asp . Acce ssed 18, 2009.
ERCO Worldwide. 2009. ―Potassium Hydroxide.‖ http://www.ercoworldwide.com/ products_potassiumhydroxide.asp. Accessed August 2009.

Fullerton, D. 2008. Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy: An Introduction

. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hoffmann, J. April 19, 2004. ―Potassium Carbonate Faces Pressures from the Video Glass.‖ Chemical Market Reporte r, p. 15.
Millennium Inorganic Chemicals. 2009. ―Site Fact Sheet Ashtabula Complex.‖ http://www.millenniu mchem.com/NR/rdonlyres/6AE8BF59

- D7CD

- 4768

- 951F

37AE6F1C7321/0/SiteFactSheetAshtabula.pdf. Accessed August 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 12 Occidental Chemical Corporation. 2008a. ―OxyChem Caustic Potash Handbook.‖ http://www.oxy.com/Our_Businesses/chemicals/Pages/chem_products_basic _alkali.aspx #alk_koh. Accessed July 28, 2009.
Occidental Chemical Corporation. 2008b. ―OxyChem Caustic Soda Handbook.‖ http://www.oxy.com/Our_Businesses/chemicals/Documents/caustic_soda/caustic.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2009.

Olin Corporation. December 31, 2 001. Form 10

- K405. Filed March 4, 2002. http://b2i.api.edgar

online.com/EFX_dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingConvPDF1?SessionID=n9ZFWjsyBGA3E

- 9&ID=1782286. Accessed August 2009.

Olin Corporation. December 31, 2008. Form 10

- K. Filed February 25, 2009. http://b2i .api.edgar

online.com/EFX_dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingConvPDF1?SessionID=DOVFWfuqOuZB E

- 9&ID=6436012. Accessed July 2009.

Olin Corporation

. April 1, 2009a. ― BB&T Capital Markets Presentation Manufacturing and Materials Conference .‖ http://www.olin.com/ . Accessed July 31, 2009.
Olin Corporation. 2009b. ―Olin Transportation of KOH.‖ http://koh.olinchloralkali.com/Facilities/chas/ChasLogistics.aspx . Accessed August 2009.
Pavey, R. 2008. ―Bill Would End Mercury Use at Chlorine Plants.‖ http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/031308/met_190792.shtml. Accessed August 7, 2009.

PPG Industries, Inc. December 31, 2001. Form 10

- K. Filed February 22, 2002. htt p://www.secinfo.com/dV5Ff.32Wq.7.htm#25thPage. Accessed August 2009.

PPG Industries, Inc. December 31, 2008. Form 10

- K. Filed February 19, 2009. http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NR/rdonlyres/EAC49DFC

- DB9C

- 4320

- B9A3

- 421E40162220/0/10KYREND2008.pdf. Accessed July 2009.

PPG Industries. 2009a. ―Chlorine Product Bulletin.‖ http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/Chemicals/CAD/ProductInformation/Bull /English/EN. Accessed August 19, 2009.

PPG Industries

. August 11, 2009b . ―PPG Reaches Agreement with State of Maryland.‖ PPG News Release. http://corporateportal.ppg.com/PPG/Newsroom/News/20090811.htm

. Accessed August 2009.
Sim, P.W. January 19, 2005. ―ASHTA to Build Chlorine

- KOH Plant in Arkansas.‖ Chemical Week p. 13.
Snyder, L.D., N.H. Miller, and R.N. Stavins. 2003. ―The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing.‖ American Economic Review 93(2):431

- 435.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 13 ―Special Focus on Chlorine.‖ October 200 7. Chemical Business . pp. 27

- 40. Business Source Corporate database. Accessed July 29, 2009.

Superior Plus. 2009. Annual Report 2008. http://www.olin.com/ . Accessed August 2009.
The Innovation Group (TIG). 2009. ―Caustic Potash Chemical Profile.‖ http://www.the

innovation

- group.com/welcome.htm. Accessed July 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009a. Current Employment Statistics

— CES (National) Series Id: LNU04000000. Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic s. 2009b. LAU Local Area Unemployment Statistics Series Id: LAUPS39011004, LAUPS39011005, LAUPA47035004, LAUPA47035005, LAUCN13245004, LAUCN13245005, LAUCN54103004, LAUCN54103005. Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009c. LAU Local Area Unemployment Statistics Series Id: LAUPS39011006, LAUPA47035006, LAUCN13245006, and LAUCN54103006. Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009d. Producer Price Index Industry Data, Series ID = PCU PCU325181325181. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/o utside.jsp?survey=pc. Accessed August 18, 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009e. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001

– 2006. Quarterly Financial Report for Manufacturing, Mining, and Trade Corporati ons, 1st Quarter reports. http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/qfr

mm.html. Accessed July 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. Economic Census. 2007. Sector 31: EC0731I1: Manufacturing: Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United States: 2007. NAICS code 325181. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ECN&_tabId=E CN1&_submenuId=datasets_4&_lang=en&_ts=24636668839. Accessed July 23, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; ―Secto r 31: Manufacturing: Industry Series: Industry Statistics by Employment Size: 2002.‖ http://factfinder.census.go v. Accessed July 2009.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2009a. ― Part 172

— Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, And Security Plans .‖ http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=1dbcd9fcab84b206ffd37360976a4c4f&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr17 2_main_02.tpl . Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Department of Transportat ion. 2009b. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations . Accessed August 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 4

- 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 2000. Guidelines for P reparing Economic Analyses . EPA 240

- R

- 00

- 003. Washington, DC: EPA. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2005. ―With Conditions, FTC Clears Occidental Chemical’s Purchase of Vulcan’s Chemical Assets.‖ http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/vulcan.shtm. Accessed August 7, 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Soda Ash. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ commodity/soda_ash/mcs

- 2009

- sodaa.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2009.

U.S. House of Representativ es Committee on Commerce and Energy, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection; Pertaining to the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act of 2009 (H. R. 2190), Testimony of Richard Jackson, Executive Vice President of Operations, ASHTA Chemicals Inc ., May 12, 2009. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090512/testimony_jackson.pdf. Accessed August 2009.
Ward, K. Jr. 2007. ―Report Cites PPG Savings on Mercury Process Could Boost Efficiency, Phase Out Toxic Discharge at Marshall Plant.‖ http://www.wvrivers.org/news2007/CharlestonGazette

- Oceana.pdf . Accessed August, 2009.

West Virginia Development Office. 2009. PPG Industries Invests Nearly $6 million in Marshall County Pl ant.‖ http://www.wvopenforbusiness.com/OFB_0609/index.aspx#PPG. Accessed August 7, 2009.
World Chlorine Council. April 2002. ―Chlor

- Alkali Manufacturing Processes.‖ The World Chlorine Council. http://www.worldchlorine.com/publications/pdf/mfg_processes.pdf

. Accessed July 27, 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 1 SECTION 5

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFIT S OF EMISSIONS REDUC TIONS

5.1 Synopsis
In this section, we provide analysis of the benefits associated with the proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP. The primary benefit of this regulation is the re duction of mercury
emissions from these sources. Due to data, time

, and resource limitations, we were unable to model mercury dispersion, deposition, methylation, bioaccumulation in fish tissue, and human consumption of mercury

- contaminated fish that woul d be needed in order to estimate the human health benefits from reducing mercury emissions. In addition, this regulation would reduce electricity demand at these sources. Using benefit

- per

- ton estimates, we estimate the monetized
human health co

- benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to particulate matter (PM) associated with the decreased electricity usage. Using the social cost of carbon (SCC), we estimate the monetized benefits associated with
reduced C O 2 

### emissions. At a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized co

- benefits of the proposed NESHAP to be $87 million to $200 million in the implementation year (2013). At a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized co

- benefits of the propose d NESHAP to be $73 million to $180 million in 2013. All estimates are in 2007$. These estimates reflect EPA’s most current interpretation of the scientific literature. Higher or lower estimates of benefits are possible using other assumptions; examples of this are provided in Figure 5

- 2. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the co

- benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. It is i mportant to emphasize that these monetized co

- benefits do not include the benefits associated with reducing mercury emissions.

5.2 Mercury Benefits

Mercury is a highly neurotoxic contaminant that enters the food web as a methylated compound, methylmercury . The contaminant is concentrated in higher trophic levels, including fish eaten by humans. Mercury is emitted to the air from various man

- made and natural sources. These emissions transport through the atmosphere and eventually deposit to land or water bo dies. This deposition can occur locally, regionally, or globally, depending on the form of mercury emitted and other factors such as the weather. The form of mercury emitted from these sources is estimated to be about 98 percent elemental and two percent d ivalent mercury. Gaseous elemental mercury can be transported very long distances, even globally, to regions far from the emissions source (becoming part of the global ―pool‖) before deposition occurs. Inorganic ionic (divalent)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 2 has a shorter atmospheric lifetime and can deposit to land or water bodies closer to the emissions source. Furthermore, elemental mercury in the atmosphere can undergo transformation into ionic mercury, providing a significant pathway for deposition of emitted elemental mercury.

Th is source category emitted about 640 pounds of mercury in the air in 2008 in the U.S. Based on the EPA’s National Emission Inventory, about 103 tons of mercury were emitted from all anthropogenic sources in the U.S. in 2005. Moreover, the United Nations ha s estimated that about 2,100 tons of mercury were emitted worldwide by anthropogenic sources in 2005. We believe that total mercury emissions in the U.S. and globally in 2008 were about the same magnitude in 2005. Therefore, we estimate that in 2008, these sources emitted about 0. 3 % of the total anthropogenic mercury emissions in the U.S. and about 0.02% of the global emissions. Overall, this rule would directly reduce mercury emissions by about 640 pounds per year from
current levels as well as an estimate d 16 pounds per year indirectly through reduced electricity consumption, and therefore, contribute to reductions in mercury exposures and health effects.
Due to data, time

, and resource limitations, we were unable to model mercury dispersion, deposition, m ethylation, bioaccumulation in fish tissue, and human consumption of mercury

contaminated fish that would be needed in order to estimate the human health benefits from reducing mercury emissions.

Potential exposure routes to mercury emissions include both direct inhalation and consumption of fish containing methylmercury. In the U.S., the primary route of human exposure to mercury emissions from industrial sources is generally indirectly through the consumption of fish containing methylmercury. As describe d above, mercury that has been emitted to the air eventually settles into water bodies or onto land where it can either move directly or be leached into waterbodies. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic fo rm that builds up in fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish. Consumption of fish and shellfish are the main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. Methylmercury builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than in others. The levels of methy lmercury in fish and shellfish vary widely depending on what they eat, how long they live, and how high they are in the food chain. Most fish, including ocean species and local freshwater fish, contain some methylmercury. For example, in recent studies by EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of fish tissues, every fish sample contained some methylmercury.

The majority of fish consumed in the U.S. are ocean species. The methylmercury concentrations in ocean fish species are primarily influenced by the g lobal mercury pool. However, the methylmercury found in local fish can be due, at least partly, to mercury emissions from local sources. Research shows that most people’s fish consumption does not cause a***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 3 mercury

- related health concern. However, certain pe ople may be at higher risk because of their routinely high consumption of fish (e.g., tribal and other subsistence fishers and their families who rely heavily on fish for a substantial part of their diet). It has been demonstrated that high levels of methy lmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn. Moreover, mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of people of all ages.

Several studies suggest that the methylmercury content of fish may reduce these cardio

protective effects of fish consumption. Some of these studies also suggest that methylmercury may cause adverse effects to the cardiovascular syste m. For example, the NRC (2000) review of the literature concerning methylmercury health effects took note of two epidemiological studies that found an association between dietary exposure to methylmercury and adverse cardiovascular
effects. 29 

### Moreover, in a study of 1,833 males in Finland aged 42 to 60 years, Solonen et al. (1995) observed a relationship between methylmercury exposure via fish consumption and acute myocardial infarction (AMI or heart attacks), coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and
all

- cause mortality. 30 

### The NRC also noted a study of 917 seven year old children in the Faroe Islands, whose initial exposure to methylmercury was in utero although post natal exposures may have occurred as well. At seven years of age, these children ex hibited an increase in blood pressure and a decrease in heart rate variability. 31 

### Based on these and other studies, NRC concluded in 2000 that, while ―the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologi c effects) the cardiovascular system appears to be a target for methylmercury toxicity.‖ 32



### Since publication of the NRC report there have been some 30 published papers presenting the findings of studies that have examined the possible cardiovascular effect s of methylmercury exposure. These studies include epidemiological, toxicological, and toxicokinetic investigations. Over a dozen review papers have also been published. If there is a causal

29 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Committee on the Toxicologic al Effects of Methylmercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. pp. 168

- 173.

30 Salonen, J.T., Seppanen, K. Nyyssonen et al. 1995. ―Intake of mercury from fish lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardi al infarction and coronary, cardiovascular and any death in Eastern Finnish men.‖ Circulation, 91 (3):645

- 655.

31 Sorensen, N, K. Murata, E. Budtz

- Jorgensen, P. Weihe, and Grandjean, P., 1999. ―Prenatal Methylmercury Exposure As A Cardiovascular Risk Factor At Seven Years of Age‖, Epidemiology, pp370

- 375.

32 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. National Academies Pres s. Washington, DC. p. 229.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 4 relationship between methylmercury exposure and adverse cardiovas cular effects, then reducing exposure to methylmercury would result in public health benefits from reduced cardiovascular
effects.

In early 2010, EPA sponsored a workshop in which a group of experts were asked to assess the plausibility of a causal relatio nship between methylmercury exposure and
cardiovascular health effects and to advise EPA on methodologies for estimating population level cardiovascular health impacts of reduced methylmercury exposure. The report from that workshop is in preparation.

5.3 Energy Savings Co

- benefits

Because the membrane cell process requires less energy than the mercury cell process

, this rule is anticipated to reduce electricity consumption at these facilities by over 375 million kilowatt hours. Assuming a 22% energy reduc tion, the emission reductions associated with reduced electricity consumption are estimated to be 480 tpy of NO x 

### , 1,600 tpy of SO 2 

### , 68 tpy of
PM 2.5 

### , 5 tpy of VOC, 0.1 tpy of NH 3 

### , 0.008 tpy of mercury, and 287,000 tpy of CO 2 

### . The methodology for calculatin g these emission reductions is provided in Appendix B of this RIA.

5.3.1 PM

2.5 

### Co

- benefits

The energy savings anticipated from this rule would decrease emissions of PM, NOx,
SO 2, 

### and VOCs. Because NOx, SO 2, 

### and VOCs are also precursors to PM 2.5, 

### decreas ing these
emissions would also decrease PM 2.5 

### formation, human exposure, and the incidence of PM 2.5 

### - related health effects. Due to time and resource limitations, it was not possible to provide a comprehensive estimate of the PM 2.5 

### - related co

- benefits. In stead, we used the ―benefit

- per

- ton‖ approach to estimate these co

- benefits based on the methodology described in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). These PM 2.5 

### benefit

- per

- ton estimates provide the total monetized human health

co

- benefits (the sum of prem ature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of
PM 2.5 

### from a specified source. EPA has used the benefit per

- ton technique in several previous RIAs, including the recent proposed Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a). For this analysis, we
use th e benefit

- per

- ton estimates associated with the EGU sector. Table 5

- 1 shows the quantified and unquantified co

- benefits captured in those benefit

- per

- ton estimates.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 5 Table 5

- 1. Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM 2.5

Pollutant / Effect Quantified and M onetized in Primary Estimates Unquantified Effects Changes in:

PM 2.5 Adult premature mortality

Bronchitis: chronic and acute Hospital admissions: respiratory and cardiovascular Emergency room visits for asthma Nonfatal heart attacks (myocardial infarctio n) Lower and upper respiratory illness
Minor restricted

- activity days Work loss days Asthma exacerbations (asthmatic population) Infant mortality Subchronic bronchitis cases Low birth weight Pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chroni c bronchitis

Non

- asthma respiratory emergency room visits Visibility Household soiling



### Consistent with the Portland Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a), the PM 2.5 

### co

- benefits
estimates utilize the concentration

- response functions as reported in the epidemiolo gy literature, as well as the 12 functions obtained in EPA’s expert elicitation study as a sensitivity analysis.

 

### One estimate is based on the concentration

- response (C

- R) function developed from the extended analysis of American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort , as reported in Pope et al. (2002) , a study that EPA has previously used to generate its primary benefits estimate. When calculating the estimate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as reported in the study without an adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 μg/m 3 

### as was done in recent (2006

- 2009) Office of Air and Radiation RIAs.

 

### One estimate is based on the C

- R function developed from the extended analysis of the Harvard Six Cities cohort, as reported by Laden et al. (2006). This study, published after the completion of the Staff Paper for the 2006 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS, has been used as an alternative estimate in the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS RIA and PM 2.5 

### benefits estimates in RIAs completed since the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. When calculating the

es timate, EPA applied the effect coefficient as reported in the study without an adjustment for assumed concentration threshold of 10 μg/m 3 

### as was done in recent (2006

- 2009) RIAs.

 

### Twelve estimates are based on the C

- R functions from EPA’s expert elicitation study (IEc, 2006; Roman et al., 2008) on the PM 2.5 

### - mortality relationship and interpreted for benefits analysis in EPA’s final RIA for the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS. For that study, twelve experts (labeled A through L) provided independent estimates of the PM 2.5 

### - mor tality concentration

- response function. EPA practice has been to develop independent estimates of PM 2.5 

### - mortality estimates corresponding to the concentration

- response function provided by each of the twelve experts, to better characterize the degree of variability in the expert responses.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 6 The effect coefficients are drawn from epidemiology studies examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Pope et al., 2002) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Laden et al., 2006). 33 

### These a re logical choices for anchor points in our presentation because, while both studies are well designed and peer reviewed, there are strengths and weaknesses inherent in each, which we believe argues for using both studies to generate co

benefits estimates. Previously, EPA had calculated co

- benefits based on these two empirical studies, but derived the range of co

- benefits, including the minimum and maximum results, from an expert elicitation of the relationship between exposure to PM 2.5 

### and premature mortal ity (Roman et al., 2008). 34 

### Within this assessment, we include the co

- benefits estimates derived
from the concentration

- response function provided by each of the twelve experts to better characterize the uncertainty in the concentration

- response function fo r mortality and the degree of variability in the expert responses. Because the experts used these cohort studies to inform
their concentration

- response functions, co

- benefits estimates using these functions generally fall between results using these epidem iology studies (see Figure 6

- 2). In general, the expert elicitation results support the conclusion that the co

- benefits of PM 2.5 

### control are very likely to be
substantial.

Readers interested in reviewing the methodology for creating the benefit

- per

- ton

est imates used in this analysis should consult Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). As described in the documentation for the benefit per

- ton estimates cited above, national per

- ton estimates are developed for selected pollutant/source category combinations. Th e per

- ton values calculated therefore apply only to tons reduced from those specific pollutant/source combinations (e.g.,
NOx emitted from electric generating units; NO 2 

### emitted from mobile sources). Our estimate of
PM 2.5 

### control co

- benefits is therefore b ased on the total PM 2.5 

### emissions controlled by sector and multiplied by this per

- ton value.

The benefit

- per

- ton coefficients in this analysis were derived using modified versions of the health impact functions used in the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analys is. Specifically, this analysis uses the benefit

- per

- ton method first applied in the Portland Cement NESHAP RIA (U.S. EPA, 2009a), which incorporated three updates: a new population dataset, an expanded geographic scope of the benefit

- per

- ton calculation, and the functions directly from the epidemiology studies without an adjustment for an assumed threshold. 35 

### Removing the threshold

33 These two studies specify multi

- pollutant models that control for NOX, among other pollutants.

34 Please see the Section 5.2 of the Portland Cement proposal RIA in Appendix 5A for more information regarding the change in the pre sentation of co

- benefits estimates.

35 The benefit

- per

- ton estimates have also been updated since the Cement RIA to incorporate a revised VSL, as discussed on the next page.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 7 assumption is a key difference between the method used in this analysis of PM co

- benefits and the methods used in RIAs prior to Portland Cement, and we now calculate incremental co

benefits down to the lowest modeled PM 2.5 

### air quality levels.

EPA strives to use the best available science to support our benefits analyses, and we recognize that interpretation of the science regardin g air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. Based on our review of the current body of scientific literature, EPA now estimates
PM

- related mortality without applying an assumed concentration threshold. EPA’s Integrated
Science Assessment for Parti culate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009b), which was recently reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2009a; U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2009b), concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no

- threshold log

- linear
model most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- response relationship while recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration

- response function. Since then, the Health Effects Subcommittee (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2010) of EPA’s Council concluded, ―The HES fully supports EPA’s decision to use a no

- threshold model to estimate mortality reductions. This decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Analyses of cohorts u sing data from more recent years, during which time PM concentrations have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality. Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF.‖ In conjunction with the underlying scientific li terature, this document provided a basis for reconsidering the application of thresholds in PM 2.5 

### concentration

- response functions used in EPA’s RIAs. For a summary of these scientific review statements and the panel members commenting on thresholds since 2002, please consult the Technical Support Document (TSD) Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold (U.S. EPA, 2010c).

Consistent with this finding, we have conformed the previous threshold sensitivity analysis to the current state of the PM science by incorporating a new ―Lowest Measured Level‖ (LML) assessment . This information allows readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML of each study; in general, our
confidence in the est imated PM mortality decreases as we consider air quality levels further below the LML in major cohort studies that estimate PM

- related mortality. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality
bene fits, EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM

- related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM 2.5 

### - related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies, which is 5.8 μg/m 3 

### . J ust because we have greater confidence in the***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 8 benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we have no confidence that benefits occur
below the LML.

For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM 2.5 

### level. However, we believe
that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM 2.5 

### level using the most recent modeling available f rom the recently proposed Transport Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010e). It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, which we are unable to qua ntify for rules without air quality modeling, is the shift in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment. For
more information on the data and conclusions in the LML assessment for ru les without policy

specific air quality modeling, please consult the LML TSD (U.S. EPA, 2010d). The results of this analysis are provided in Section 5.4.

As is the nature of Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), the assumptions and methods
used to estimate a ir quality co

- benefits evolve over time to reflect the Agency’s most current interpretation of the scientific and economic literature. For a period of time (2004

- 2008), the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) valued mortality risk reductions using a value of statistical life (VSL) estimate derived from a limited analysis of some of the available studies. OAR arrived at a VSL using a range of $1 million to $10 million (2000$) consistent with two meta

- analyses of the wage

- risk literature. The $1 million value r epresented the lower end of the interquartile range from the Mrozek and Taylor (2002) meta

- analysis of 33 studies. The $10 million value represented the upper end of the interquartile range from the Viscusi and Aldy (2003) meta

analysis of 43 studies. The mean estimate of $5.5 million (2000$) 36 

### was also consistent with the mean VSL of $5.4 million estimated in the Kochi et al. (2006) meta

- analysis. However, the Agency neither changed its official guidance on the use of VSL in rule

- makings nor subjected
the i nterim estimate to a scientific peer

- review process through the Science Advisory Board (SAB) or other peer

- review group.

36 . After adjusting the VSL for a different currency year (200 7 $) and to account f or income growth to 2015 to the $5.5 million value, the VSL is $ 8.0 million.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 9 During this time, the Agency continued work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, including commissioning a repo rt from meta

- analytic experts to evaluate methodological questions raised by EPA and the SAB on combining estimates from the various data sources. In addition, the Agency consulted several times with the Science Advisory Board
Environmental Economics Advis ory Committee (SAB

- EEAC) on the issue. With input from the

meta

- analytic experts, the SAB

- EEAC advised the Agency to update its guidance using specific, appropriate meta

- analytic techniques to combine estimates from unique data sources and
different studie s, including those using different methodologies (i.e., wage

- risk and stated preference) (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2007).

Until updated guidance is available, the Agency determined that a single, peer

- reviewed estimate applied consistently best reflects the SAB

- EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, the Agency has decided to apply the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) 37 

### while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this iss ue. This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). 38 

### The Agency is committed to using scien tifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SAB

- EEAC’s specific recommendations.

Figure 5

- 1 illustrates the relative breakdown of the monetized PM 2.5 

### health c o

- benefits by health endpoint.

37 In the (draft) update of the Economic Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2008), EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality risk va luation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. Therefore, this report does not represent final agency policy.

38 In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account for a different currency year (200 7 $) and to account for income growth to 2015. After applying these adjustments to the $6.3 million value, the VSL is $9.1 million.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 10 Figure 7 5

- 1. Breakdown of Monetized PM 2.5 

### Health Co

- Benefits using Mortality Function

from Pope et al. (2002) a

a This pie chart breakdown is illustrative, using the results based on Pope et al. (2002) as an example. Using t he Laden et al. (2006) function for premature mortality, the percentage of total monetized co

- benefits due to adult mortality would be 97%. This chart shows the breakdown using a 3% discount rate, and the results would be similar if a 7% discount rate was used.



### Table 5

- 2 provides a general summary of the monetized co

- benefits results by pollutant, including the emission reductions and benefits

- per

- ton estimates at discount rates of 3% and
7%. 39 

### Table 5

- 3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incide nces anticipated as a result of the pollution reductions. In Table 5

- 4, we provide the monetized co

- benefits using our anchor points of Pope et al. and Laden et al. as well as the results from the expert elicitation on PM mortality. Figure 5

- 2 provides a v isual representation of the range of monetized co

- benefits estimates and the pollutant breakdown of the monetized co

- benefits of the proposed option.

39 To comply with Circular A

- 4, EPA provides monetized co

- benefits using discount rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). These co

- benefits are estimated for a specific analysis year (i .e., 2013), and most of the PM co

- benefits occur within that year with two exceptions: acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) and premature mortality. For AMIs, we assume 5 years of follow

- up medical costs and lost wages. For premature mortality, we assume th at there is a ―cessation‖ lag between PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although the structure of the lag is uncertain, EPA follows the advice of the SAB

- HES to assume a segmented lag structure characterized by 30% of mor tality reductions in the first year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 20 after the reduction in PM 2.5 (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2004). Changes in the lag assumptions do not change the total number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those d eaths. Therefore, discounting only affects the AMI costs after the analysis year and the valuation of premature mortalities that occur after the analysis year. As such, the monetized co

- benefits using a 7% discount rate are only approximately 10% less than the monetized

co

- benefits using a 3% discount rate.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 11 Table 5

- 2. Summary of Monetized Energy Co

- benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor

Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (2 007$)

Pollutant Emissions

Reductions (tons) Benefit

per ton (Pope, 3%) Benefit

per ton (Laden, 3%) Benefit

per ton (Pope, 7%) Benefit

per ton (Laden, 7%) Monetized PM 2.5

Co

- benefits (millions, 3%) Monetized PM 2.5

Co

- benefits (millions, 7%)

Direct PM 2.5 68 $220,000 $540,000 $200,000 $490,000 $15 to $37 $14 to $33

PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 1,568 $40,000 $97,000 $36,000 $88,000 $62 to $150 $56 to $140

NO X 483 $7,200 $18,000 $6,500 $16,000 $3.5 to $8.5 $3.1 to $7.7

VOC 5 $1,200 $2,900 $1,100 $2,60 0 $.01 to $.01 $.01 to $.01

Total $81 to $200 $73 to $180

a All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalen t health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM 2.5 . The monetized co

- benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence i ntervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

- per

- ton methodology.



### Table 5

- 3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits for the

Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 a

Avoided Premature Mortality
Pope et al. 9

Laden et al. 24 Avoided Morbidity

Chronic Bronchitis 6 Acute Myocardial Infarction 15 Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 2 Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 5 Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory 9

Acute Bronchitis 15 Work Loss Days 1,200

Ast hma Exacerbation 160 Acute Respiratory Symptoms 7,200 Lower Respiratory Symptoms 170 Upper Respiratory Symptoms 130

a All estimates are for the analysis year (2013) and are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. All fine particles are a ssumed to have equivalent health effects, but each PM 2.5 precursor pollutant has a different propensity to form PM 2.5 . Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

- per

- ton methodology.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 12 Table 5

- 4

. All Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- B enefits Estimates for the Proposed Mercury Chlor

Alkali NESHAP at discount rates of 3% and 7% in 2013 (in millions of 2007$) a

3% 7%

Benefit

- per - ton Coefficients derived from Epidemiology Literature Pope et al. $81 $73

Laden et al. $200 $180

Benefit

- p er - ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation Expert A $210 $190
Expert B $160 $150
Expert C $160 $140
Expert D $110 $100
Expert E $260 $230
Expert F $150 $130
Expert G $95 $87
Expert H $120 $110
Expert I $160 $140
Expert J $130 $120
Exper t K $31 $29
Expert L $120 $110

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they were derived through the benefit

- per

- ton technique described above. The co

- benefits estimates from the Exper t Elicitation are provided as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated with the concentration

- response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

- per

- ton methodology

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 13 Figure 5

- 2. Total Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali

NESHAP in 2013

a This graph shows the estimated co

- benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the Pope et al. study and the Laden et al. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration

- respon se function provided in those studies.



### 5.3.2 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Co

- benefits

EPA has assigned a dollar value to reductions in carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions using recent estimates of the ―social cost of carbon‖ (SCC). The SCC is an es timate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood ri sk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change. The SCC estimates used in this analysis were developed through an interagency process that included EPA and other executive branch entities, and concluded in February 2010. EPA
first used the se SCC estimates in the co

- benefits analysis for the final joint EPA/DOT Rulemaking to establish Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; see the rule’s preamble for discussion about application of***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 14 SCC (75 FR 25324; 5/7/10). The SCC Technical Support Document (SCC TSD) provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these SCC estimates. 40



### The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses, which we have appl ied in this analysis: $5, $21, $35, and $65 per metric ton of CO 2 

### emissions 41 

### in 2010, in 2007 dollars. The first three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent, respectively. SCCs at several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SCC is quite sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an intergenerational context. The fourth valu e is the 95th percentile of the SCC from all three models at a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent higher

- than

- expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. Low probability, high impact events are incorporated into all of the SCC values through explicit consideration of their effects in two of the three models as well as the use of a probability density function for equilibrium climate sensitivity. Treating climate sensitivity probabilistically results in more high temperature outcomes, which in turn lead to higher projections of damages.

The SCC increases over time because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as physical and economic systems become more stressed i n response to greater climatic change. Note that the interagency group estimated the growth rate of the SCC directly using the three integrated assessment models rather than assuming a constant annual growth rate. This helps to ensure that the estimates a re internally consistent with other modeling assumptions. The SCC estimates for the analysis years of 2013, in 2007 dollars are provided in
Table 5

- 5.

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst fac es a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Academies of Science (NRC, 2008) points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) the

40 Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0472

- 114577, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury (February 2010). Also available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cli mate/regulations.htm
41 The interagency group decided that these estimates apply only to CO 2 emissions. Given that warming profiles and impacts other than temperature change (e.g. ocean acidification) vary across GHGs, the group concluded ―transforming ga ses into CO 2 - equivalents using GWP, and then multiplying the carbon

- equivalents by the SCC, would not result in accurate estimates of the social costs of non

- CO 2 gases‖ (SCC TSD, pg 13).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 15 effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.

The interagency group noted a number of limitations to the SCC analysis, including the incomplete w ay in which the integrated assessment models capture catastrophic and non

catastrophic impacts, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and assumptions regarding r isk aversion. The limited amount of research linking climate impacts to economic damages makes the interagency modeling exercise even more difficult. The interagency group hopes that over time researchers and modelers will work to fill these gaps and tha t the SCC estimates used for regulatory analysis by the Federal government will continue to evolve with improvements in modeling. Additional details on these limitations are discussed in the SCC TSD.

In light of these limitations, the interagency group has committed to updating the current estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within two years or at such time as substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in this area.

Applying the global SCC estimates to the estimated decreases in CO 2 

### emissions for the range of policy scenarios, we estimate the doll ar value of the climate

- related co

- benefits captured by the models for each analysis year. For internal consistency, the annual co

- benefits are discounted back to NPV terms using the same discount rate as each SCC estimate (i.e. 5%, 3%, and 2.5%) rather t han 3% and 7%. 42 

### These estimates are provided in Table 5

- 6.

42 It is possible that other co

- benefits or costs of proposed regula tions unrelated to CO 2 emissions will be discounted at rates that differ from those used to develop the S CC estimates.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 16 Table 5

- 5. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) Estimates (per tonne of CO 2 

### ) for 2013 a

Discount Rate and Statistic SCC estimate (2007$)
5% Average $ 5.3 3% Average $2 2.8 2.5% Average $ 37.0

3% 95%ile $ 69.6

a The SCC values are dollar

- year and emissions

- year specific. SCC values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.



### Table 5

- 6. Monetized Co

- benefits of CO 2 

### Emission Decreases in 2013 a

Discount Rate and Statistic SCC

- d erived benefits (millions of 2007$)
5% Average $1. 5 3% Average $6. 5 2.5% Average $1 1

3% 95%ile $2 0

a The SCC values are dollar

- year and emissions

- year specific. SCC values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.



### 5.3.3 To tal Monetized Co

- benefits of Energy Savings

The energy savings would decrease emissions of several pollutants. In this analysis, we
were able to monetize the co

- benefits associated with the decreased emissions of PM, NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , VOCs, and CO 2 

### , but we were u nable to monetize the co

- benefits associated with the decreased
emissions of NH 3 

### . We estimate that the total monetized co

- benefits are $8 7 to $2 0 0 million and $73 to $180 million, at discount rates of 3% and 7% respectively. Figure 5

- 3 shows the
breakdo wn of the monetized co

- benefits by pollutant.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 17 Figure 5

- 3. Breakdown of Monetized Co

- benefits by Pollutant at 3% discount rate

5.4 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits
In any complex analysis, there are likely to be many s ources of uncertainty. Many inputs
are used to derive the estimate of monetized co

- benefits, including emission inventories, air quality models (with their associated parameters and inputs), epidemiological estimates of
concentration

- response (C

- R) functio ns, estimates of values, population estimates, income estimates, and estimates of the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human behavior). For some parameters or inputs it may be possible to provide a statistical representation
of the underlying uncertainty distribution. For other parameters or inputs, the necessary
information is not available. Because we used the benefit

- per

- ton approach for this analysis,
confidence intervals are unavailable.

The annual benefit estimates pres ented in this analysis are also inherently variable due to the processes that govern pollutant emissions and ambient air quality in a given year. Factors such as hours of equipment use and weather are constantly variable, regardless of our ability to

measu re them accurately. As discussed in the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS RIA (Table 5.5) (U.S. EPA,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 18 2006a), there are a variety of uncertainties associated with these PM co

- benefits. Therefore, the
estimates of annual co

- benefits should be viewed as representative of the magni tude of co

benefits expected, rather than the actual co

- benefits that would occur every year.

It is important to note that the monetized benefit

- per

- ton estimates used here reflect specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quali ty and co

- benefits modeling assumptions. For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors. Use of these $/ton values to estimate co

- benefits associated with different emission control programs (e.g., for reducing emissions from large stationary sources like EGUs) may lead to higher or
lower benefit estimates than if co

- benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling.
Great care sh ould be taken in applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national or broad regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent average co

- benefits

- per

- ton over the entire United States. The

co

- benefits

- per

- ton for emission reductions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here.

PM 2.5 

### mortality benefits are the largest benefit category that we monetized in this analysis. To better characterize t he uncertainty associated with mortality impacts that are
estimated to occur in areas with low baseline levels of PM 2.5 

### , we included the LML assessment. Without policy

- specific air quality modeling, we are unable to quantify the shift in exposure
associat ed with this specific rule. For this rule, as a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM 2.5 

### level using the most recent modeling available from the recently proposed Transport Rule (U.S. EPA, 2 010e). A very large proportion of the population is exposed at or above the lowest LML of the cohort studies (Figures 5

- 4 and 5

- 5), increasing our confidence in the PM mortality analysis. Figure 5

- 4 shows a bar chart of the p ercentage of the population ex posed to various air quality levels in the pre

and post

- policy policy. Figure 5

- 5 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. As the policy shifts the
distribution of ai r quality levels, fewer people are exposed to PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML. Under baseline conditions, about 96 percent of the population is exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 

### levels of at least 5.8 μg/m 3 

### , which is the lowest air quality level considered in the most recent study of the American Cancer Society cohort by Krewski et al. (2009). Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, the 85% of the population is exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m 3 

### . Using the Laden et al. (2006) study, 40% of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m 3



### . As we model mortality impacts among populations exposed to levels of PM 2.5 

### that are successively***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 19 lower than the LML of the lowest cohort study, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, the analysis above confi rms that the great majority of the impacts occur at or above the lowest cohort study’s LML. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence in PM 2.5 

### - related effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies, which is 5.8 μg/m 3



### . Just
bec ause we have greater confidence in the benefits above the LML, this does not mean that we
have no confidence that benefits occur below the LML.

Figure 5

- 4. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure (pre

- and

post

- policy policy)***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 20 F igure 5

- 5. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population at Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### levels (pre

and post

- policy policy)

Above we present the estimates of the total monetized co

- benefits, based on our interpretation of the best available scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB

HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002). The co

- benefits estimates are subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties. For example, for key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality, which typically account for at least 90% of the total monetized co

- benefits, we were able to quantify include the following:

1. PM 2.5 

### co

- benefits were derived through benefit per

- ton estimates, which do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, base line health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over

- estimate or under

estimate of the actual co

- benefits of controlling directly emitted fine particulates.

2. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical compos ition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, because PM 2.5 

### produced via transported precursors emitted from EGUs may differ significantly from direct PM 2.5 

### released from diesel engines and other industrial

sour ces, but no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects estimates by particle type.

3. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear down to the lowest air quality levels modeled in this analysis. Thus, the e stimates include health

co

- benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM 2.5, 

### including both regions that are in attainment with fine particle standard and those that do not meet the standard down to the lowest modeled conc entrations.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 21 4. To characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between PM 2.5 

### and premature mortality (which typically accounts for 85% to 95% of total monetized co

- benefits), we include a set of twelve estimates based on results of the expert elicitati on study in addition to our core estimates. Even these multiple characterizations omit the uncertainty in air quality estimates, baseline incidence rates, populations exposed and transferability of the effect estimate to diverse locations. As a result, the reported confidence intervals and range of estimates give an incomplete picture about the overall uncertainty in the PM 2.5 

### estimates. This information should be interpreted within the context of the larger uncertainty surrounding the entire analysis. For more information on the uncertainties associated with PM 2.5 

### co

- benefits, please consult the PM 2.5 

### NAAQS RIA (Table 5

- 5).

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA because we lack the necessary air quali ty input and monitoring data to run the co

benefits model. Moreover, it was not possible to develop benefit

- per

- ton metrics and associated estimates of uncertainty using the co

- benefits estimates from the PM RIA because of the significant differences betwe en the sources affected in that rule and those regulated here. However, the results of the Monte Carlo analyses of the health and welfare co

- benefits presented in Chapter 5 of the PM NAAQS RIA can provide some evidence of the uncertainty surrounding
the co

- benefits results presented in this analysis.

5.5 Comparison of Co

- Benefits and Costs
Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized co

- benefits of the proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP to be $87 million to $200 million in the implementation year (2013). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized co

- benefits of this rule to be $73 million to $180 million. The annualized social costs of the proposed NESHAP are $13
million at a 7% interest rate. 43 

### Thus, the net benefits are $73 mi llion to $190 million at a 3% discount rate and $60 million to $170 million at a 7% discount rate. All estimates are in 2007$ for the year 2013.

Table 5

- 7 shows a summary of the monetized co

- benefits, social costs, and net benefits for the proposed Mercur y Chlor Alkali NESHAP, respectively. Figures 5

- 5 and 5

- 6 show the full range of net benefits estimates (i.e., annual co

- benefits minus annualized costs) utilizing the 14
different PM 2.5 

### mortality functions at discount rates of 3% and 7%. It is important to emphasize
that these monetized co

- benefits do not include the benefits associated with reducing mercury
emissions. EPA believes that the co

- benefits are likely to exceed the costs under this rulemaking even when taking into account uncertainties in the co st and benefit estimates.

43 For more information on the annualized social costs, please refer to Section 5 of this RIA.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 22 Table 5

- 7. Summary of the Monetized Co

- Benefits, Social Costs, and Net benefits for

the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP in 2013 (millions of 2007$) 1

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Total Monetized Benefits 2 $87 to $200 $ 73 to $180

Total Social Costs 3 $13 $13

Net Benefits $74 to $190 $60 to $170

Non

- monetized Benefits 656 pounds of mercury (including energy co

- benefits)

Health effects from NO 2 and SO 2 exposure Ecosystem effects
Visibility impairment

1 All esti mates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures.
2 The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health co

- benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precursors such as NOx and VOC. It is important to note that the monetized co

benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposu re. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type.

3 The annual compliances costs serve as a proxy for the annual social costs of this rule given the lack of difference between the two.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 23 Figure 5

- 6. Net Bene fits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP at 3%

Discount Rate a

a Net Benefits are quantified in terms of PM 2.5 co

- benefits for implementation year (2013). This graph shows 14 benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. All combinations are treated as independent and equally probable. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM 2.5 . The monetized co

- benefi ts incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 24 Figure 5

- 7. Net Benefits for the Proposed Mercury Chlor Alkali NESHAP at 7%

Discount Rate a

a Net benefits are quantified in terms of PM 2.5 co

- benefits for implementation year (2013). This graph shows 14 co

benefits estimates combined with the cost estimate. All combinations are treated as independent and equally probable. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates va ry because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM 2.5 . The monetized co

- benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles.



### 5.6 References

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The inf luence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health 2:169

- 176.
Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. ―An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining Estimates of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis.‖ Environmental and Resource Economics 34:385

- 406.
Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. ―Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.‖ American Journal o f Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 173:667

- 672.
Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. 2002. ―What Determines the Value of Life? A Meta

- Analysis.‖ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21( 2):253

- 270.

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 25 National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Co

- benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. Nationa l Academies Press. Washington, DC.

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ―Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long

- term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.‖ Journal of the Amer ican Medical Association 287:1132

- 1141.

Roman, H.A., K.D. Walker, T.L. Walsh, L. Conner, H.M. Richmond, .J. Hubbell, and P.L. Kinney. 2008. ―Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.‖ Envir on. Sci. Technol . 42(7):2268

- 2274.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000 . Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240

- R

- 00

- 003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available at

< http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf >.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 200 6a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter , Chapter 5. Available at

< http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%20 5

-- Benefits.pdf >.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008

. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground

- level Ozone, Chapter 6. Available at

< http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6

- ozoneriachapter6. pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses: External Review Draft. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. Available at <http://yo semite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE

- 0516

- 01.pdf/$File/EE

- 0516

- 01.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturin g Industry . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. April. Available at

< http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4

- 2 0

- 09.pdf >.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa .gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the NO 2 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research T riangle Park, NC. January. Available at < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf >.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### 5

- 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Summ ary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration

- Response Function for PM 2.5 

### - related Mortality: Technical Support Document . Compiled by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010d. Lowest Measured Level (LML) Assessment for Rules without Policy

- Specific Air Quality Data Available: Technical Support Document . Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2004. Advisory on Plans for Health Effects Analysis in the Analytical Plan for EPA’s Second Prospective Analysis

– Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990

- 2020. Advisory by the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis. EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- ADV

- 04

- 002. March. Available at at <http://yos emite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/08E1155AD24F871C85256E540 0433D5D/$File/council_adv_04002.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2007. SAB Advisory on EPA’s Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reductio n. EPA

- SAB

- 0 8

- 001. October. Available at

< http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$F ile/sab

- 08

- 001.pdf >.

U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009a. Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft, December 2008). EPA

- COUNCIL

- 09

- 008. May. Available at

< http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 09

- 0 08

- unsigned.pdf

>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009b. Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment . EPA

- COUNC IL

- 09

- 009. May. Available at at

< http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256e ad006be86 e/723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 09

- 009

- unsigned.pdf >.
Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. ―The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World.‖ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1):5

- 76

.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 1 APPENDIX A:

MERCURY EMISSION S MEMO***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 2 MEMORANDUM

TO: Donna Lee Jones, PhD, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

FROM: Phil Norwood, EC/R Incorporated

DATE: March 15 , 2010

SUBJECT: Mercury Emission Reductions and Other Mercury Waste Impacts

– Conv ersion

from Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali to Membrane Cell Chlor Alkali Technology

The purpose of this memorandum is present the mercury air emission and other mercury waste impacts that would result from the conversion of the four mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants currently operating in the U.S. to non

- mercury (membrane cell) technology. These plants are ASHTA Chemicals in Ashtabula, Ohio (ASHTA), Olin Corporation in Augusta, Georgia (OLIN

GA), Olin Corporation in Charleston, Tennessee (OLIN

- TN), and PPG in New Martinsville, West Virginia (PPG). The first two sections address the baseline mercury air emissions and mercury releases to other media. In the event of conversion, these routine releases would be eliminated. This is followed by a discussion of th e mercury releases and mercury

- contaminated wastes that would be generated during the cleanup and decommissioning of the mercury cell plants. The final section summarizes these air and other media impacts.

BASELINE MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS

Table 1 shows the mercury air releases reported in EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for 2007 and 2008 for each of the currently operating mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants.

In addition to the TRI information available online, the companies operating these four facilities provided emission estimates (which matched the totals in Table 1 reported to TRI) in correspondence in the summer of 2009. 44

, 45

, 46 

### Later in 2009, EPA requested documentation of

44 Letter. Jackson, R.L., ASHTA Chemicals Inc., to Jones, D.L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RE: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0017

– National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plants

– ASHTA Chemicals Inc. Comments and Rebutt al on Recent EC/R Study . June 30, 2009.
45 Letter. Hall, R.K., Olin Chlor Alkali Products, to Jones, D.L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 25, 2009.
46 Letter. Smith, T.P., PPG Industries, Inc., to Jones, D.L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0017

– National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plants

– Memo: ―Updated Cost Impacts Associated with the Conversion from Chlorine Production Utiliz ing Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Technology to Membrane Cell Technology,‖ from Heather P. Brown, P.E. (EC/R Inc.) to Donna Lee Jones, PhD (USEPA), dated June 5, 2009.‖ July 13, 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 3 these emission estimates using their authority under section 114 of the Clean A ir Act. In February of 2010, this documentation was submitted to the EPA. 47

, 48

, 49 

### This information, which
is available in Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0017, was carefully reviewed. More discussion on the conclusions of this review is provided below.

Table 1. Me rcury Air Releases Reported in TRI for 2007 and 2008

Plant TRI Mercury Air Releases (pounds/yr)

2007 2008
Fugitive Stack Total Fugitive Stack Total

ASHTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

OLIN

- GA 119 5 124 77 9 86

OLIN

- TN 353 67 420 241 43 285

PPG 145 55 2 00 149 58 207



### Summary of Reported Facility Emissions and Supporting Information

ASHTA

As shown in Table 1, ASHTA reported no mercury releases to the air in 2007 and
0.2 pounds in 2008. In the June 30, 2009 correspondence, ASHTA submitted emission estim ates for 2007 and 2008. The estimates for 2008 were consistent with those in the 2008 TRI. For 2007, ASTA reported 0.12 pounds of point source emissions. Consistent with the TRI, they reported ―0 (Trace) lbs./yr‖ fugitive emissions for both 2007 and 200 8.

The EPA section 114 requested documentation for the point source emissions reported in the June 30, 2009 correspondence. It also questioned the report that the fugitive emissions are zero and requested that ASHTA provide a ―precise, substantiated, fu gitive emissions estimate.‖

47 Letter. Jackson, R.L., ASHTA Chemicals Inc., to Jones, D.L., U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. RE: Docket Response to USEPA Questions. February 15, 2010.
48 Letter. Hall, R.K., Olin Chlor Alkali Products, to Jones, D.L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Information requested pursuant to section 114 of the Cle an Air Act. February 2, 2010.
49 Letter. Smith, T.P., PPG Industries, Inc., to Jones, D.L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Response to Request for Information under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, dated December 4, 2009, with regards to the Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali MACT and background data to support the estimates provided to USEPA by PPG in a letter dated July 13, 2009.‖ February 18, 2010.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 4 In their February 15, 2010 response ASHTA provided details of the calculation of the point source (i.e., stack) emissions. ASHTA conducted emissions tests on their hydrogen and cell end box air emission streams in March 2006, and they provided a copy of the report for this testing. ASHTA using the periodic testing alternative to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitation for by

- product hydrogen streams and end

- box ventilation systems, which means that they perform tes ts three times per week. They use alternative methods for this testing which have been approved by EPA. Results for each of the tests conducted in 2007 and 2008 were provided, along with the 52

- week rolling average calculations.

The calculations show po int source mercury emissions of 0.09 pounds in 2007 and
0.11 pounds in 2008. These estimates are lower than previously reported because the earlier estimates included emissions from a noncontact cooling tower and not from the mercury cell

process.

ASHTA did not provide any fugitive emission estimates in response to EPA’s request. They indicated that, since EPA does not have an approved method for estimating fugitive mercury emissions from a mercury cell chlor

- alkali plant, they cannot provide emission

es timates. ASHTA indicated that the zero emissions levels reported were determined from the annual mercury balance, the low floor level mercury levels, and the operation of mercury control systems. They said that they are ―confident that the fugitive emiss ions collection system installed on the cell room removes large amounts of off

- process mercury emissions‖ but they are ―unable to provide the level of conclusion with any direct measurements.‖ The EPA estimate of
these emissions is discussed at the end of this section.

OLIN

The mercury emission estimates provided in Olin’s June 25, 2009 correspondence for 2007 and 2008 were consistent with those reported in the TRI for both their Augusta, Georgia, and Charleson, Tennessee facilities. In their February 2, 2010 correspondence, they provided
documentation for these estimates.

At both facilities, Olin utilizes continuous mercury emission monitoring systems. These units were produced by Mercury Instruments GmbH Analytical Technologies of Germany, and

are equ ipped with factory supplied calibration gas generators. Zero calibrations are performed every hour the units are in operation as well as span checks at least once per day. These units measure and record the mercury concentrations for both the point sourc es and throughout the cell***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 5 rooms. Stack velocity/flow rates are monitored for the point sources, and cell room flow rates are estimates using engineering equations.

For the point sources, Olin provided daily emission results for each point source, along
with detailed ten

- minute readings for representative days to illustrate how the daily emissions were determined. For the fugitive emissions, Olin provided daily measured concentrations, estimated flow rates, and emissions. They also provided detailed cal culation sheets illustrating
how the emissions were calculated.

PPG

In their July 13, 2009 correspondence, PPG indicated that the mercury stack air releases in the TRI include 50 pounds/yr from coal

- fired boilers at the site. Therefore, they indicated th at the 2007 stack emissions from the mercury cell chlor

- alkali plant should be 5 pounds for 2007 and 8 pounds for 2008. The fugitive emission estimates reported in this correspondence were consistent with those reported to TRI for 2007 (145 pounds) and 20 08 (149 pounds). Therefore, PPG’s mercury emissions from mercury cell operations total 150 pounds in 2007 and 157 pounds
in 2008.

For their three point sources (Hydrogen De

- gas inlet box ventilation system, Chlorine
De

- gas end box ventilation system, and Hydrogen Purification system), PPG operates continuous mercury emission monitors to measure the mercury concentration and flow meters to monitor the flow rate. In their February 28, 2010 correspondence PPG provided daily average measured concentrations, flow rates, and emission rates for 2007 and 2008. They also provided equations illustrating the calculations performed.

PPG also utilizes a continuous mercury monitoring system to measure mercury concentration throughout the cell room, and estimates the flow rate from the building based on the number of roof exhaust fans operating. They provided average cell room concentrations, flow rates, and emission rates for each day in 2007 and 2008. They also provided equations illustrating the calculations perfo rmed.

PPG has entered into an agreement with the Attorney General of Maryland regarding their West Virginia facility. As part of this agreement, PPG will limit mercury emissions to no more than 150 pounds/yr in 2011 and 2012, and no more than 145 pounds/ yr in 2013 and beyond. Therefore, in 2011 and 2012 there will be around a 2 percent decrease from the average 2007/2008 levels and around a 6 percent decrease in 2013 and beyond.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 6 Estimating Fugitive Emissions for ASHTA

Because ASHTA did not provide data documenting and substantiating their claim of zero fugitive emission estimates, we estimated their fugitive emissions since it is not reasonable to assume there are no emissions. The approach we used was to develop a fugitive emissions factor
based on the amount of mercury contained in their cells. Since a previous analysis found little correlation between chlorine production and fugitive mercury emissions, 50 

### this other approach
was not considered viable.

We developed the emissions factor for fugitive merc ury emissions based on the estimated amount of mercury in the cells for the other three facilities and used this factor to estimate ASHTA’s fugitive mercury emissions. These data are shown in Table 2. The data used to calculate the average factor, at app roximately 0.5 pounds of fugitive mercury emissions per year per ton of mercury in the cells, shows reasonable agreement between the factors developed for the three other mercury cell facilities.

At ASHTA, there are 24 mercury cells. 51 

### Multiplying this num ber of cells by the average factor shown in Table 2 results in an estimated fugitive mercury emission estimate of 62 pounds per year for ASHTA. For purposes of estimating the emissions for the whole industry, this value
was used for both the 2007 and 2008 in this analysis.

Summary of Baseline Air Emissions

Table 3 summarizes the mercury emissions from the four currently operating mercury
cell chlor

- alkali plants for 2007 and 2008.

BASELINE NONAIR MERCURY RELEASES

Table 4 shows the nonair mercury release s reported to the TRI for 2007 and 2008. These releases include the total amount of mercury released to water or land on or at a facility’s site and the amount that is transferred from a facility site to another site and then released to the
environment v ia water or land. Attachment 1 includes a detailed analysis of TRI mercury release
data for these four facilities

.

50 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and St andards, Research Triangle Park, NC. ― Summary of 2005 Cell Room Mercury Emissions Data for Occidental Chemical Company Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plants: Delaware City, Delaware and Muscle Shoals, Alabama .‖ March 2008.

51 Reference 8.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 7 WASTE GENERATION FROM CLEANUP/DECOMMISSIONING

In addition to the elimination of the routine mercury releases discussed above, there
would b e one

- time environmental impacts associated with the clean

- up and decommissioning of the mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants. The discussion and quantification of these impacts are
discussed below.

Table 2. Development of Fugitive Mercury Emissions Factor B ased on Mercury in Cells

Plant Number

of Cells a Mercury in

Cells b (tons) Fugitive Mercury Emissions (lb/yr) Fugitive
Emissions

- to

- Cell Mercury Factor (lb/yr emissions per ton mercury in cells) 2007 2008 Avg

OLIN

– GA 60 298 124 86 105 0.33576

OLI N

– TN 106 527 420 284 352 0.63712

PPG

- WV 54 268 145 149 147 0.52229
Average 0.49839

a From 1997 Directory of Chemical Producers (Reference 52 ).

b Using a factor of 5.2 tons of mercury per cell, which is the amount of mercury in the Chlorine Institut e’s 2008 process inventory (1,376 tons) divided by the number of operating cells in 2008 (264) (Reference 53 ).



### Table 3. Baseline Mercury Emission Levels

Plant Mercury Emissions (pounds per year)

2007 2008 Average 2007

– 2008

Point Fugitive Total Po int Fugitive Total Point Fugitive Total

ASHTA 0.09 62 62 0.11 62 62 0.10 62 62

OLIN

– GA 5 124 129 9 86 95 7 105 112

OLIN

– TN 67 420 487 43 284 327 55 352 407

PPG 5 145 150* 8 149 157* 7 147 154

Total 77 751 828 60 581 641 69 666 735


### Note : PPG’s em issions is limited by a court settlement to 150 pounds per year in 2001 and 2012

, and 145 pounds per year in 2013 and thereafter.

52 1997 Directory of Chemical Producers

– United States of America. Stanford Research Institute International. Menlo Park, CA. 1997.
53 The Chlorine Institute, Inc. ―Chlor

- Alkali Industry 2008. Mercury Use and Emissions in the United States (Twelfth Annual Report).‖ Au gust 2009.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 8 Table 4 . Total Nonair Mercury Releases Reported in the TRI

Plant Total Nonair Mercury Releases (pounds/year)

2007 2008 Ave rage
ASHTA 202 179 190

OLIN

- GA 82 105 93

OLIN

- TN 414 197 306

PPG 1,408 751 1,080

Total 2,106 1,232 1,669



### When cell rooms are closed and decommissioned, there will be some loss of mercury to
the environment. The extent of the loss will be influenc ed by cell room design and geographic location. However, once the cells are shut down, the cell room temperature will decrease, and the evaporation rate of any exposed mercury is reduced. 54 

### Therefore, we estimated that there would not be measured mercury air emissions during cleanup/decommissioning.

There is little quantitative information available to estimate the amount of mercury

containing waste that would need to be disposed of during cleanup/decommissioning. When the Borregaard mercury cell chlor

- a lkali plant in Norway was decommissioned, a large number of samples were taken to determine the quantity of mercury

- contaminated wastes. The total quantity of contaminated waste material was estimated at 1,750 cubic meters, of which around 55 percent was contaminated process equipment such as steel and rubber

- lined steel. 55 

### Assuming this level of waste is representative, this would mean approximately 7,000 cubic meters of waste could be generated during the conversion/closure of the four currently operati on U.S. plants.

However, information available for the Borregaard plant provided no estimate of the mass amount of mercury in the wastes. In order to obtain an estimate of the potential mass, the
release information in the TRI was examined for closed o r converted facilities. There are six former mercury chlor

- alkali plants in the TRI that have at least five years worth of release data to analyze. For each of these facilities, the average air releases during the years prior to the last year for which r elease data were reported in the TRI was compared to the air releases in the last year. If those air releases in the last year were less than 50 percent of the average air releases for the previous years for which TRI releases were reported, it was assume d that the mercury cell

54 European Commission. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Chlor

- Alkali Manufacturing Industry. December 2001. p. 96
55 Reference 11, pp. 93, 97.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 9 plant had ceased operations during that year and was in the process of cleanup/decommissioning. For those situations, the ratio of the offsite transfers during that year was calculated to represent
an estimate of the amount that of fsite transfers could increase during cleanup/decommissioning.
This information is summarized in Table 5.

In order to estimate the mercury contaminated wastes that would be generated during cleanup/decommissioning and transferred offsite for the four cu rrently operating mercury cell
chlor

- alkali plants, the average level of nonair releases for reported for all years of operation are multiplied by 253 percent. These estimates are shown in Table 6.

Therefore, it is estimated that the closure/conversion o f the four currently operating mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants in the U.S. could result in the generation of around 7,000 cubic meters of hazardous wastes containing over 6 tons of mercury. Given the unique aspects of each mercury cell plants, the extrem e paucity of specific data on the wastes generated during mercury cell closures/conversions, and the major assumptions in this analysis, there is significant uncertainty in these estimates.

Table 5 . Summary of TRI Information Used to Estimate Mercury

Clea nup/Decommissioning Wastes

Plant Last

Yr Air Mercury Releases

(pounds/yr) Offsite Mercury Transfers (pounds/yr)

Avg a Last

Yr Last Year ÷

Avg Avg a Last Yr Last Year ÷ Avg

WESTLAKE CALVERT CITY, KY 2002 983 6 1% 10,108 27,777 275%

OCCIDENTAL
MUSCLE SHOA LS, AL 2008 667 322 48% 4,405 12,806 291%

OCCIDENTAL NEW CASTLE, DE 2008 649 0.4 0% 3,166 16,520 522%

HOLTRACHEM ORRINGTON, ME 1999 660 116 18% 2,103 1,612 77%

HOLTRACHEM REIGELWOOD, NC 1999 1,17 6 328 28% 171 176 103%

PPG WESTLAKE, LA 2005 997 1,211 12 1% b b b

Average 253%

a 

### A vg = average of all years for which data were reported except for the last year.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 10 b 

### Since the air releases in the last reporting year were greater than 50 percent of the average for the previous years, it was assumed that the pl ant was operating during this year and the offsite transfers did not represent cleanup/decommissioning activities.

Table 6 . Estimated Cleanup/Decommissioning Wastes for Mercury Cell Plants

Plant Average Reported Nonair Releases Over All Years (pounds/y r) Estimated Cleanup/ Decommissioning Wastes (pounds/yr)

ASHTA 620 1,571

OLIN

- GA 1,264 3,203

OLIN

– TN 1,364 3,457

PPG 1,651 4,185

TOTAL 12,416



### SUMMARY

If the four currently operating mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants converted to membrane

process es, the result would be the elimination of mercury emissions, the elimination of mercury releases to the water and other media, and the termination of the creation of mercury

contaminated wastes from the routine operation of the mercury cells. As discusse d above, the
estimated levels of these routine releases are:

Mercury air emissions of between 600 and 800 pounds per year.

Nonair mercury releases of between 1,200 and 2,000 pounds per year.

During the cleanup and decommissioning, there will be mercury

- con taminated wastes that will be created and that will need to be treated. A rough estimate is approximately 7,000 cubic meters of waste created during this process that contains over six tons (12,000 lb) of mercury.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 11 ATTACHMENT 1

Detailed Analysis o f T oxic Release Inventory (T RI ) D ata

# E C 

# / R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 25 0  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 2751 4 Telep hone: (919) 484

- 0222  Fax: (919) 484

- 0122 

### MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 5, 2010

SUBJECT: Summary of Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plant Mercury Releases Reported in the

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)

FROM: Phil Norwood, EC/R

TO: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

The purpose of this memo is to present mercury release information from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ( http://www.epa.gov/tri/ ) from the four currently operating mer cury cell
chlor

- alkali plants in the U.S.. These plants are ASHTA Chemicals in Ashtabula, Ohio (ASHTA), Olin Corporation in Augusta, Georgia (OLIN

- GA), Olin Corporation in Charleston, Tennessee (OLIN

- TN), and PPG in New Martinsville, West Virginia (PPG). In addition to presenting historical release information, the final section presents what are estimated to be ―typical‖ annual levels of Nonair mercury releases that would be eliminated in the event that these facilities ceased to operate.

TRI MERCURY REL EASE INFORMATION

These four mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants have been operating since the 1970s. The TRI contains mercury release data beginning in 1988. Attachment 1 contains annual release information for each of the four plants for the 21 years from 1988 to 2008. Table 1 shows the sum of the average annual releases from these four plants for the entire 21

- year period, the most recent ten years (1999

– 2008), and the most recent two years (1997 and 1998), and Figure 1 shows the 21 year trends for tot al mercury releases for each of the four plants. Table 2 provides more detailed plant

- specific averages. As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, Figure 1, and Attachment A, mercury releases from these four mercury cell chlor

- alkali plants have steadily
decreas ed in the 21 year period from 1988 to 2008.

There appears to be an anomaly in the offsite releases for the PPG facility in 2001 (see Figure 1 and Attachment A). In 2001, PPG reported almost 17,000 pounds released offsite (While not shown in the table, th e specific release reported was attributed to ―Offsite Landfill/Surface Impoundment). This value is over 12 times higher than the next highest level of offsite mercury release for any year in the 10

- year period. We believe it is reasonable to assume***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 13 the activities in 2001 that resulted in this large release represent a unique and nonroutine event. Therefore, the PPG average release for the period 1999

– 2008 was calculated excluding the 2001 values, and a separate total of the plant

- specific averages cal culated. This was shown in
Table 2. Therefore, both the 10

- year total and the 2007

- 2008 total Nonair releases were just under 2,000 pounds per year.

Table 1. Total Average Mercury Releases from Mercury Cell Chlor

- Alkali Plants

Period Sum of Average Me rcury Releases (pounds/yr)

Total Releases Total Air Releases Total Nonair Releases

1988

- 2008 9,410 4,510 4,900

1999

- 2008 6,839 3,459 3,380

2007

- 2008 2,331 661 1,669



### Note : These plants are ASHTA Chemicals in Ashtabula, Ohio (ASHTA), Olin Corpor ation in Augusta, Georgia (OLIN

- GA), Olin Corporation in Charleston, Tennessee (OLIN

- TN), and PPG in New Martinsville, West Virginia (PPG).***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 14 Table 2. Average Mercury Release Values

Average Mercury Releases (pounds/yr) Total (On & Off Site) Total Nonair

(On & Off Site) Onsite Air Onsite Nonair Onsite Water Offsite
21

- Year Average (1988

- 2008)
ASHTA 1,875 620 1,255 102 2 518
OLIN

– GA 2,263 1,264 1,000 10 10 1,254
OLIN

– TN 2,583 1,364 1,218 1,333 21 31
PPG 2,689 1,651 1,037 60 59 1,591

Total of Averages 9,410 4,900 4,510 1,505 92 3,394 Total of Averages (excluding PPG 2001) 8,646 4,148 4,498 1,507 94 2,641
10

- Year Average (1999

- 2008)
ASHTA 1,096 212 885 0 0 212
OLIN

– GA 761 106 655 10 10 96
OLIN

– TN 1,716 648 1,068 584 11 6 4
PPG 3,265 2,414 852 27 25 2,387

Total of Averages 6,839 3,380 3,459 621 46 2,759 Total of Averages (excluding PPG 2001) 5,207 1,794 3,413 621 46 1,173
2007

– 2008 Average
ASHTA 191 190 0 0 0 190
OLIN

- GA 199 93 105 11 11 82
OLIN

- TN 658 306 352 305 7 1
PPG 1,283 1,080 204 23 23 1,057
Total 2,331 1,669 661 340 41 1,329***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 15 ATTACHMENT A. Annual Mercury Release Data from TRI 1988

– 2008

Facility Year Mercury Releases Reported in TRI (pounds/yr)

Onsite Releases

Off Site Releases Total

Rele ases (On & Off Site) Total

Nonair Releases (On & Off Site) Total Onsite Releases Fugitive

Air Stack Air Total Air Onsite Nonair Water Land

ASHTA 1988 1,569 1,046 516 1,562 7 6 1 1,877 3,446 1,884

ASHTA 1989 1,303 1,046 250 1,296 7 6 1 2,215 3,518 2,222

ASHTA 1990 1,804 1,046 750 1,796 8 6 2 0 1,804 8

ASHTA 1991 1,306 1,046 250 1,296 10 5 5 978 2,284 988

ASHTA 1992 1,653 1,046 595 1,641 12 7 5 792 2,445 804

ASHTA 1993 1,652 1,046 596 1,642 10 5 5 551 2,203 561

ASHTA 1994 2,871 1,046 614 1,660 1 ,211 6 1,205 1,177 4,048 2,388

ASHTA 1995 2,530 1,046 608 1,654 876 5 871 0 2,530 876

ASHTA 1996 1,658 1,046 607 1,653 5 5 0 524 2,182 529

ASHTA 1997 1,654 1,046 607 1,653 1 1 0 347 2,001 348

ASHTA 1998 1,653 1,046 607 1,653 0 0 0 297 1,950 297

ASHTA 1999 1,653 1,046 607 1,653 0 0 0 242 1,895 242

ASHTA 2000 1,390 1,046 344 1,390 0 0 0 219 1,609 219

ASHTA 2001 1,396 1,046 350 1,396 0 0 0 100 1,496 100

ASHTA 2002 1,395 1,046 349 1,395 0 0 0 173 1,568 173

ASHTA 2003 1,383 1,046 337 1,383 0 0 0 128 1,5 11 128

ASHTA 2004 813 464 349 813 0 0 0 134 947 134

ASHTA 2005 813 464 349 813 0 0 0 434 1,247 434

ASHTA 2006 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 306 308 306***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 16 ATTACHMENT A. Annual Mercury Release Data from TRI 1988

– 2008

Facility Year Mercury Releases Reported in TRI (pounds/yr)

Onsite Releases

Off Site Releases Total

Rele ases (On & Off Site) Total

Nonair Releases (On & Off Site) Total Onsite Releases Fugitive

Air Stack Air Total Air Onsite Nonair Water Land

ASHTA 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 202 202

ASHTA 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 179 179

OLIN

- GA 1988 1,329 1,048 271 1,319 10 10 0 6,014 7,343 6,024

OLIN

- GA 1989 1,327 1,046 271 1,317 10 10 0 2,129 3,456 2,139

OLIN

- GA 1990 1,331 1,046 271 1,317 14 14 0 4,730 6,061 4,744

OLIN

- GA 1991 1,285 1,000 270 1,270 15 15 0 5,740 7,025 5,755

OLIN

- GA 1992 1,329 1,046 271 1,317 12 12 0 5,933 7,262 5,945

OLIN

- GA 1993 1,324 1,046 271 1,317 7 7 0 712 2,036 719

OLIN

- GA 1994 1,328 1,046 271 1,317 11 10 1 23 1,351 34

OLIN

- GA 1995 1,325 1,046 271 1,317 8 8 0 23 1,348 31

OLIN

- GA 1996 1,324 1,046 271 1,317 7 7 0 8 1,332 15

OLIN

- GA 1997 1,323 1,04 6 271 1,317 6 6 0 5 1,328 11

OLIN

- GA 1998 1,326 1,046 271 1,317 9 9 0 50 1,376 59

OLIN

- GA 1999 1,245 1,046 189 1,235 10 10 0 23 1,268 33

OLIN

- GA 2000 730 562 157 719 11 11 0 21 751 32

OLIN

- GA 2001 773 608 158 766 7 7 0 39 812 46

OLIN

- GA 2002 746 585 1 54 739 7 7 0 282 1,028 289

OLIN

- GA 2003 742 563 169 732 10 10 0 114 856 124

OLIN

- GA 2004 753 563 182 745 8 8 0 36 789 44***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 17 ATTACHMENT A. Annual Mercury Release Data from TRI 1988

– 2008

Facility Year Mercury Releases Reported in TRI (pounds/yr)

Onsite Releases

Off Site Releases Total

Rele ases (On & Off Site) Total

Nonair Releases (On & Off Site) Total Onsite Releases Fugitive

Air Stack Air Total Air Onsite Nonair Water Land

OLIN

- GA 2005 835 563 261 824 11 11 0 136 971 147

OLIN

- GA 2006 591 493 86 578 13 13 0 149 740 162

OLIN

- GA 2007 138 119 5 124 14 14 0 68 206 82

OLIN

- GA 2008 96 77 9 87 9 9 0 96 192 105

OLIN

- TN 1988 4,421 1,046 282 1,328 3,093 26 3,067 0 4,421 3,093

OLIN

- TN 1989 5,750 1,045 249 1,294 4,456 25 4,431 0 5,750 4,456

OLIN

- TN 1990 5,236 1,045 240 1,285 3,951 25 3,926 5 5,241 3,956

OLIN

- T N 1991 3,780 1,045 378 1,423 2,357 22 2,335 12 3,792 2,369

OLIN

- TN 1992 4,353 1,045 180 1,225 3,128 17 3,111 3 4,356 3,131

OLIN

- TN 1993 2,777 1,045 192 1,237 1,540 26 1,514 0 2,777 1,540

OLIN

- TN 1994 1,704 1,045 464 1,509 195 53 142 0 1,704 195

OLIN

- TN 1995 1,719 1,045 488 1,533 186 43 143 0 1,719 186

OLIN

- TN 1996 1,868 1,045 249 1,294 574 40 534 0 1,868 574

OLIN

- TN 1997 2,165 1,045 428 1,473 692 31 661 0 2,165 692

OLIN

- TN 1998 3,279 1,045 255 1,300 1,979 15 1,964 0 3,279 1,979

OLIN

- TN 1999 2,640 1, 045 584 1,629 1,011 13 998 0 2,640 1,011

OLIN

- TN 2000 2,185 1,045 369 1,414 771 7 764 1 2,186 772

OLIN

- TN 2001 2,126 1,045 85 1,130 996 8 988 0 2,126 996

OLIN

- TN 2002 2,137 1,045 85 1,130 1,007 14 993 375 2,512 1,382***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 18 ATTACHMENT A. Annual Mercury Release Data from TRI 1988

– 2008

Facility Year Mercury Releases Reported in TRI (pounds/yr)

Onsite Releases

Off Site Releases Total

Rele ases (On & Off Site) Total

Nonair Releases (On & Off Site) Total Onsite Releases Fugitive

Air Stack Air Total Air Onsite Nonair Water Land

OLIN

- TN 2003 1,711 1,046 85 1,131 5 80 18 562 26 1,737 606

OLIN

- TN 2004 1,455 1,049 105 1,154 301 14 287 30 1,485 331

OLIN

- TN 2005 1,517 1,046 204 1,250 267 12 255 5 1,522 272

OLIN

- TN 2006 1,440 1,032 109 1,141 299 13 286 198 1,638 497

OLIN

- TN 2007 834 353 67 420 414 8 406 0 834 414

OLI N

- TN 2008 481 241 43 285 196 6 191 1 482 197

PPG 1988 1,500 1,000 250 1,250 250 250 0 4,300 5,800 4,550

PPG 1989 1,500 1,000 250 1,250 250 250 0 750 2,250 1,000

PPG 1990 1,500 1,000 250 1,250 250 250 0 250 1,750 500

PPG 1991 1,145 1,000 85 1,085 60 60 0 1,800 2,945 1,860

PPG 1992 1,163 1,045 85 1,130 33 33 0 250 1,413 283

PPG 1993 1,152 1,045 85 1,130 22 22 0 1,340 2,492 1,362

PPG 1994 1,256 1,045 193 1,238 18 18 0 230 1,486 248

PPG 1995 1,266 1,045 192 1,237 29 29 0 250 1,516 279

PPG 1996 1,275 1, 045 190 1,235 40 40 0 191 1,466 231

PPG 1997 1,254 1,045 188 1,233 21 21 0 102 1,356 123

PPG 1998 1,258 1,045 189 1,234 24 24 0 80 1,338 104

PPG 1999 1,254 1,045 187 1,232 22 22 0 62 1,316 84

PPG 2000 1,239 1,045 182 1,227 12 12 0 93 1,332 105***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### A

- 19 ATTACHMENT A. Annual Mercury Release Data from TRI 1988

– 2008

Facility Year Mercury Releases Reported in TRI (pounds/yr)

Onsite Releases

Off Site Releases Total

Rele ases (On & Off Site) Total

Nonair Releases (On & Off Site) Total Onsite Releases Fugitive

Air Stack Air Total Air Onsite Nonair Water Land

PPG 200 1 1,301 1,045 227 1,272 29 29 0 16,658 17,959 16,687

PPG 2002 1,267 1,045 188 1,233 34 34 0 900 2,167 934

PPG 2003 1,238 1,045 177 1,222 16 16 0 1,130 2,368 1,146

PPG 2004 1,248 1,045 171 1,216 32 32 0 1,145 2,393 1,177

PPG 2005 425 169 231 400 25 25 0 657 1,082 682

PPG 2006 356 172 134 306 50 34 0 1,115 1,471 1,165

PPG 2007 230 145 55 200 30 30 0 1,378 1,608 1,408

PPG 2008 223 149 58 207 16 16 0 735 958 751***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### B

- 1 APPENDIX B:



## REDUCED ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION FOR MERC URY

CELL CHLOR

- ALKALI PLANTS

RTI est imated electricity consumption for four chlorine plants: OLIN Corporation (facilities in Augusta, GA and Charleston, TN), PPG Industries (New Martinsville, VA), and ASHTA Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH). EPA provided capacity and kWh requirements per ton of
ch lorine. RTI assumes 10% of power is lost during transmission (friction/heat, electromagnetic fields etc.). As a result, the power plant needs to generate approximately 10% more energy (and emissions) than are directly indicated by the reduction in ener gy consumption at the production plant. To account for this, we divided the kWh reductions by 0.9 (electricity generated = electricity consumed / (1

- fraction transmission loss)).

Table B

- 1. Estimated Changes in Electricity Consumption

Change in Elect ricity Consumption

(kWh)

Chlorine Plant Assumed Electricity Provider Capacity 22 % reduction a 37.5 % reduction b

OLIN Corp. (Augusta, GA) Southern Company 47,421 36,883,000 63,807,590 OLIN Corp. (Charleston, TN) TVA 119,031 92,579,667 160,162,823

PPG Industries (New Martinsville, VA) American Electric Power 262,451 189,839,557 c 328,422,433 c

ASHTA Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH) First Energy 72,848 56,659,556 98,021,031

Total 375,961,779 650,413,877

a Electricity Consumption = Capacity (tpy) × 700 (kwh /ton) / (0.9).

b Electricity Consumption = Capacity (tpy) × 1,211 (kwh/ton) / (0.9).

c PPG produces 70 percent of its electricity requirements. The remainder is purchased from Wheeling Electric Co., a subsidiary of American Electric Power.



### For all but one plant, electricity is provided by local electric utility companies (see Table
B

- 1). PPG Industries generates 70% of their electricity demand, while remaining 30% are provided by local utility company. Table B

- 2 presents the 2010 energy portfolios for utility companies that provided electricity to chlorine plants. RTI collected this information from electricity provider annual reports.***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### B

- 2 Table B

- 2. Utility Company Energy Portfolios: 2010

Assumed Electricity Provider Coal Gas Nuclear Hydro Purchased

S outhern Company 57% 23% 16% 4% NA

TVA 46% 2% 23% 7% 13%

American Electric Power 88% 6% 5% 1% NA First Energy 54% 12% 29% 3% NA



### EPA’s eGrid database provided emission factors for NO X 

### , SO 2 

### , CO 2 

### , and Hg (see attached XL spreadsheet). RTI calculated emiss ion factors for pollutants for which EPA’s eGrid
data was unavailable. The Co

- Benefits Risk Assessment model (COBRA) provided total emissions estimates by fuel type and by pollutant for 2010. The COBRA model was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) to be used as a screening tool that enables
users to obtain a first

- order approximation of benefits due to different air pollution mitigation policies. U.S. electricity production estimates by fuel type were obtained from EIA’s Annual
Ener gy Outlook. RTI calculated emission factors by fuel type by dividing COBRA emissions estimates by EIA’s electricity production estimates. Emission estimates were calculated by multiplying electricity consumption estimates (Table B

- 1) by percentage produc tion by fuel type from utility company energy portfolios (Table B

- 2) and by the emission factors (see XL spreadsheet). Emission reduction estimates equaling 22% are presented in Table B

- 3, while emission reduction estimates equaling 37% are presented in Ta ble B

- 4.

Table B

- 3. Emission Reductions by Plant (22 percent reduction)

Emission Sources (Short Tons)
Chlorine Plant PM 2.5 NH 3 VOC NO X SO 2 CO 2 Hg

OLIN Corp. (Augusta, GA) 5.2 0.02 0.4 30.2 135.0 25,508 0.001 OLIN Corp. (Charleston, TN) 10.5 0.01 0.8 80 .7 191.4 46,400 0.001
PPG Industries (New Martinsville, VA) 45.1 0.04 3.2 320.5 1

, 045.0 179,882 0.005
ASHTA Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH) 7.6 0.02 0.6 51.3 196.4 35,207 0.001

Total 68.4 0.10 5.0 482.6 1 , 567.8 286,997 0.008***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***



### B

- 3 Table B

- 4. Emission Estimates by Plant (37 percent reduction)

Emission Sources (Short Tons)

Chlorine Plant PM 2.5 NH 3 VOC NO X SO 2 CO 2 Hg
OLIN Corp. (Augusta, GA) 9.1 0.04 0.7 52.2 233.5 44,129 0.001 OLIN Corp. (Charleston, TN) 18.2 0.02 1.3 139.6 331.2 80,272 0.002
PPG Industries ( New Martinsville, VA) 78.0 0.07 5.6 554.4 1

, 807.8 311,195 0.009
ASHTA Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH) 13.1 0.03 1.0 88.8 339.7 60,907 0.002

Total 118.3 0.17 8.7 835.0 2 , 712.3 496,504 0.014