1

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 30, 2010

Subject: Summary of EPA Conference Call with Industry Representatives to Discuss 

Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali NESHAP Supplemental Proposal

From: Phil Norwood, EC/R Incorporated

To: Sharon Nizich, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the conference call held on 

September 28, 2010, between representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and industry representatives. The topic of this call was the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for mercury emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali

plants (40 CFR 63, subpart IIIII).

PARTICIPANTS 

Patrick Atagi, American Chemistry Council

Art Dungan, Chlorine Institute

Amy Duvall, American Chemistry Council

Steve Fruh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Richard Jackson, ASHTA Chemical

Sharon Nizich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phil Norwood, EC/R Incorporated

SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION

The purpose of the call was to discuss the upcoming EPA supplemental proposed 

amendments for the mercury cell chlor-alkali NESHAP. The industry representatives were made 

aware of this upcoming action through information posted on the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website 

(www.reginfo.gov/public). A copy of the OMB post is attached.

Ms. Nizich and Mr. Fruh confirmed the information in the OMB post and that the 

package is currently undergoing interagency review. It is expected to be cleared by OMB 

relatively soon, and could appear in the Federal Register sometime this fall. As indicated in the 

post, this supplemental proposal would include an option to prohibit mercury emissions from 

existing plants. In 2008 (73 FR 33258, June 11, 2008), EPA proposed amendments to the 

mercury cell chlor-alkali plant NESHAP. At that time, EPA also discussed the results of an 

analysis of the impacts of requiring the conversion of the mercury cell plants to non-mercury 

technology. EPA rejected the option to require such conversions due to the high cost impacts. 

Mr. Fruh explained that comments were received on that analysis, along with supporting data 

that caused EPA to revise the analysis. In addition, EPA learned that several mercury cell plants 

have indeed converted in the last year. Thus, EPA developed an alternative to the 2008 proposal 
2

which considers conversion as an option. Mr. Fruh pointed out that the upcoming supplemental 

proposal would present this mercury prohibition option alongside the 2008 proposed 

amendments. Comments would be requested on both approaches.

Mr. Jackson cited some specific concerns he had with the revised impacts analysis. Mr. 

Fruh encouraged Mr. Jackson to submit detailed comments on the proposal along with 

supporting information. He encouraged Mr. Jackson, the Chlorine Institute, or any other 

industry representatives to submit comments on any technical issues associated with the impacts 

analyses, or any other aspect of the proposal.

Ms. Nizich and Mr. Fruh stated that the supplemental proposal would also include 

amendments related to the requirements that apply during startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

events. This is in response to recent court decisions.

Mr. Dungan asked if it would be worthwhile to hold a meeting with EPA representatives 

prior to the publication of the proposal, and whether EPA would be willing to have a call with 

the other companies that currently operate mercury cell plants in the U.S. Mr. Fruh said that 

EPA would not be able to share any information in a meeting that was not already included in the 

OMB post or discussed during this call. He added that EPA would have another call with the 

other mercury cell companies, but encouraged Mr. Dungan to share the discussions from this call 

before requesting a separate call.
3