E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 29, 2011

Subject: Summary of the April 19, 2011 Meeting Between the EPA and Industry

Representatives Regarding the Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali NESHAP

From: Nancy Jones, EC/R

Heather Brown, EC/R

To: Nathan Topham, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the April 19, 2011 meeting between 

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry representatives from the

Chlorine Institute (CI). The purpose of the meeting was to obtain clarification of the 

requirements of the March 14, 2011, Supplemental Proposal of National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants.

II. DATE

The meeting took place on April 19, 2011, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at EPA in 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

III. PARTICIPANTS

EPA

Nathan Topham, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Steve Fruh, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Ravi Srivastava, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

EPA Contractor

Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated

Nancy Jones, EC/R Incorporated

Industry

Tim Cobaugh, PPG (Via telephone)

Art Dungan, Chlorine Institute

Rick Hall, Olin

Tom Horan, PPG (Via telephone)

Rick Jackson, ASHTA (Via telephone)

Liz McMeekin, PPG

Jerry Osheka, PPG

John Reese, ASHTA (Via telephone)
2

IV. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

There were five topics discussed during this meeting: 

1. Chronology of events since 2003 MACT promulgation.

2. Questions about how the mercury recovery unit is affected.

3. Questions pertaining to start up, shut down, and malfunction issues.

4. Any insight on what information would be helpful to EPA pertaining to Option 2 as the 

Agency decided which option to select?

5. Questions concerning timing for implementation of changes in work practices regardless 

of which option is selected.

The discussions on these topics are summarized below.

1. Chronology of events since 2003 MACT promulgation.

The first question was a request for a review of what has changed in the March 14, 2011 

proposal from the one of 2008. EPA representatives explained that the original Part 63 

NESHAP was promulgated in December 2003. In 2004 and 2005 the Agency was petitioned by 

environmental advocacy organizations on procedural issues. A lawsuit was also filed that was 

held in abeyance while EPA addressed the petition. Specifically, the rule replaced limits from 

the prior Part 61 NESHAP with enhanced work practices. The petitioners wanted details on 

some of the work practices and an accounting of where fugitive mercury (amounts estimated by 

mass balance) was being released, among other issues. 

During 2005 and 2006 the Agency studied the issues, including a measurement study of 

mercury emissions. This work led to the June 11, 2008, proposed amendments that reinstated 

corrected language from the Part 61 NESHAP and dealt with fugitive emissions. The 2008 

proposal included beyond the floor work practices and improved fugitive emissions estimates. 

Comments were received on the proposal that EPA’s estimate of the cost effectiveness of 

converting mercury cell chlor-alkali plants to newer non-mercury technology was inaccurate and 

new information on the cost to convert was provided. 

The current supplemental proposal includes two options, at the request of the Office of 

Management and Budget. Option 1 is the conversion to a non-mercury technology and Option 2 

is the unchanged enhanced work practices and monitoring and record keeping requirements 

contained in the 2008 proposal. While the comments were considered in making new estimates 

of the cost effectiveness of conversion, other comments from 2008 will be considered together 

with the comments submitted during the current comment period on the supplemental proposal.

Industry questioned whether it was EPA’s intent to require a combination of the two 

options. For example, if a facility chose to convert to a non-mercury technology would they still 

be required to implement the enhanced work practices? The answer was that it was not EPA’s 
3

intention to impose ongoing requirements on a facility that changed their manufacturing process 

to render those requirements irrelevant.

2. How will mercury recovery units be affected?

A facility that has converted to a non-mercury process has discussed with EPA and their 

state permit authority whether they could now not be handled as a mercury chlor-alkali facility. 

Industry believes the proposed rule is unclear on the status of converted units. By the revised 

definition in the proposed amendments, facilities that have previously closed could be brought 

back in as affected units. Under Option 2 it appears that facilities that have converted to a nonmercury technology, but that still operate the thermal mercury recovery units because of 

remaining mercury or their facility would have one year to come into compliance with the 

enhanced work practices including continuous emissions monitoring. Industry stated that there 

are facilities in Louisiana, Wisconsin, Alabama, Delaware, and Texas that have converted to 

non-mercury processes and that could be brought back under the rule because of the revised 

definition in the proposed rule that includes the mercury recovery units. 

Industry stated that once a facility is converted it appears that it will still be subject to 

Title V since the 2003 rule made all mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities subject to Title V. There 

is one facility that is subject to Title V due only to its mercury cell chlor-alkali unit, others are 

also subject to Title V via the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rule. The industry 

representatives said that as long as the mercury level in materials during decommissioning is 

above the limit for land disposal, the mercury recovery unit will continue to operate. 

The industry concern is that they would be required to install continuous emissions 

monitors (CEMs) for the recovery units and the economic analysis of conversion costs did not 

include the cost of installing these CEMs for converting facilities. Another facility had 

previously installed CEMs on their mercury recovery unit because of the high costs of doing 

three times weekly stack testing. However, their vendor was never able to make the system 

operational because they needed to calibrate for two different ranges in order to cover the range 

of air concentrations detected. In fact, industry stated that no facility in this country has been 

able to use mercury CEMs on a mercury recovery unit, yet it remains in the proposed rule as an 

option. EPA noted that if there are technical reasons why an option will not work, it is important 

that the agency receive that information in comments. 

Industry summarized that the proposed rule says that the recovery unit must operate 

without mercury emissions under Option 1 and that even after conversion it takes time before the 

mercury can be removed from the system during decommissioning so that there will no longer be 

emissions. They already control mercury emissions from thermal recovery units; however, it is 

the CEMs with its costs and technical issues that concerns them. 
4

3. Start Up Shut Down and Malfunctions (SSM).

The industry members were familiar with the court decision that required EPA to address 

emissions during SSM in the proposed rule. If the industry has data on emissions levels or 

whether the stack controls can meet the limits during SSM, EPA would like them to provide it 

with their comments. Industry provided the following example of difficulties associated with 

measuring emissions during periods of SSM: an industry member noted that the problem with 

hydrogen is that it is explosive if atmospheric air enters this stream due to a vacuum that could 

be created in an unstable system. The system needs to be stabilized before the hydrogen 

compressor can be turned on. Before the fuel value of hydrogen became economically 

significant, the hydrogen system was simply vented to atmosphere without the use of a 

compressor. There are safety and logistical issues associated with measuring emissions in areas 

with potentially high concentrations of explosive hydrogen during periods of SSM. These 

periods are typically short in duration, lasting less than one hour and frequently less than 30 

minutes.

EPA responded that limits are set considering technical feasibility and economics. If a 

limit cannot be set, then the standard can take the form of work practices. Industry pointed out 

that the feasibility of controlling emissions and in measuring emissions are two different 

problems. A question was asked about the applicability of SSM to extended maintenance 

outages since the rule says they must meet the standard and monitor at all times. Startup and 

shut down deal with transitional periods and not long term downtimes. Monitoring would likely

continue during these periods of extended downtime to ensure fugitive emissions are still 

controlled. However, stack testing for units that are not operating during extended periods of 

shutdown when no emissions are possible was not the agency’s intention.

4. What information would be helpful to EPA pertaining to Option 2 as the Agency decided 

which option to select?

EPA responded that data that would inform the Agency about the accuracy of the costeffectiveness calculations would be helpful in development of the final rulemaking. EPA stated 

that it would be helpful to receive information on a per facility basis to better characterize 

emissions and estimate the cost per ton analysis related to facilities as they shut down or change 

technologies.

5. Timing for implementation of changes in work practices.

If Option 1, the conversion to a non-mercury technology is selected, the facility should 

continue with the work practices that were promulgated in the 2003 rule. There would be no 
5

additional work practices required prior to the facility shutting down or changing to a nonmercury technology. 

The close of the public comment period for the supplemental proposal is May 13, 2011.