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

H azardous 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 F ruh, 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 up coming EPA supplemental pr oposed 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, Ju ne 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 analys is, along with supporting data that caused EPA to revise the analysis. In addition, EPA learned that several mercury cell p lants have indeed converted in the last year. Th us, EPA developed an alternative to the 2008 proposal2 which considers conversion as an option. Mr. Fruh pointed out that the upcoming supplemental proposal would present this mercury prohibition option alon gsi de the 2008 proposed

amendments. Comments would be request ed on both approaches.

Mr. Jackson cited some specific concerns he had with the revised impacts analysis. Mr. Fruh encouraged Mr. Jackson to submit detailed co mments on the proposal along wit h 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.

M s. Nizich and Mr. F ruh 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 c all

before requesting a separate call.3