# 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.

I I. 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 w ork practices regardless of which option is selected.

The discussions on these topics are summarized below.

1. Chronology of events since 2003 MACT promulgation.

T he 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 t he original Part 63 NESHAP was promulgated in December 2003. In 2004 and 2005 the Agency was petiti oned 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. Th e 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 measuremen t study of mercury emissions. This work led to the June 11, 2008

, proposed amendment s 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 fu gitive 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 p rovided.

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 reco rd 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 i t was not EPA’s3

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

- alk a li facility

. Industry believes t he proposed rule is unclear on the status of conver ted 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 non

mercury 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 t here
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 state d that once a facility is converted it appears that it will still be subject to

T itle V since the 2003 rule made all mercury cell chlor

- alkali facilities subject to T itle V. There is one facility that is subject to T itle V due only to its mercury cell chl or

- alkali unit, others are also subject to T itle V via the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rule. The industry representatives said that a s 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 n o 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 pr oposed 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 CEM s 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 tha t 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 f ollowing example of difficulties associated with measuring emissions during periods of SSM: a n 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. T he 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. T here 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 l ess 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 a nd monitor at all times. Start up and
shut down deal with transitio nal 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
shutd own w h e n n o e m i s s i o n s a r e p o s s i b l e 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 cost

effectiveness calculatio ns would be helpful in development of the final rulemaking. EPA stated
that i t 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 o r 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 no5

additional work practices required prior to the facility shutting down or changing to a non

mercury technology.

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