October 20 , 2009

The Honorable Henry Wa xman Chairman, Committee on Energy and
Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Joe Barton Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and
Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Bobby L. Rush Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable George Radanovich Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 21 st , the full Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to markup

H.R. 2190, a bill introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D

- IL)

, that would require any chlor alkali facility using mercury cell technology to cease production and shut down within two years of the bill’s
enactment into law. Passage of this bill would force the closure of four chlor alkali plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio , and West Virginia

— and would result in over a thousand manufacturing workers losing their jobs, along with increased costs to customers and consumers. In addition, it wou ld cost the communities in which these plants operate millions of dollars in annual economic impact.

The three companies currently operating the four mercury cell facilities in the United States ( ASHTA
Chemicals

, Olin Corporation, an d PPG Industries ) are prepared to commit to a date certain by which they will have moved away from the current technology. However, given the cu rrent economic
downturn and large capital investment in excess of $100 million necessary to convert each of the remaining facilities, all three companies would need a more reasonable period to build new non

mercury chlor alkali facilities than the two years provided by the current legislation. Foremost, the industry needs time for the economy to improve significantly and for the chlor alkali market to recover before it could realistically consider investing the resources necessary to replace and keep these plants

open.

We understand t here are a number of amendments that are likely to be offered at tomorrow’s markup, including o ne that would require all mercury cell facilities to decide by 2012 whether or not they will replace existing plants with new non

- mercury facilities. If not, the facility would be required to close by
the end of 2013. If the decision is to convert, the company w ould have until 201 5 to build a newOctober 20, 2009

Page 2

facility. Although this amendment would appear to be an improvement over the two year shut down mandated in the current bill, the reality is that the time line provided by this amendment is simply too
short. The likely end re sult would be exactly the same as enactment of the original bill. In this economy, given the tremendous cost of a quick transition time, the companies would still b e forced to close their plants.

Several Committee Members are expected to offer amendments providing a more reasonable amount
of time for the economy to improve so companies could have a fighting chance to make the large investment necessary to replace these facilities with new technology. The most reasonable of these
amendments would require all mercury cell facilities to decide by 2015 whether or not they will invest in new technology. If not, the facility would be required to close by the end of 2016. If the decision is to replace, the company would have until 2018 to build a new facility. In s hort, this amendment would require a date certain for replacement or closure of all remaining U.S. mercury cell f acilities far in advance of Europe’s voluntary closure target of 2020. ASHTA Chemicals, Olin Corporation , and PPG
Industries encourage y ou to support this amendment, which provides a re alistic timeframe

.

As a reference point, Europe continues to utilize mercury cell chlor alkali technology through at least 2020. This includes 37 plants that con tinue to operate. Some of the conversions c ompleted thus far were supported by significant government funding, s pecific ally contributions by the United Kingdom and
the Netherlands.

Our companies consistently operate in compliance with all state and federal regulations designed to protect public he alth and the environment . A dditionally, the chlor alkali industry has reduce d its use of mercury by over 97 % in the last 10 years and mercury emissions more than 75% since 2003. Hence,
H.R. 2190 will have essentially zero environmental impact, but will put over 1,000 Americans out of work at the height of the worst recession since the Great Depression. W e therefore urge you to oppose
H.R. 2190 as currently written. Two years is simply not enough time. In fact, any timel ine that requires
conversion to a non

- mercury technology before December 31, 2018 will result in the loss of hundreds of quality jobs

. Thank you for your consideration. We will be happy to visit with you further about our

concerns as the House Energy and Commerce Committee considers this important issue.

Regards,

Bradley J. Westfall President ASHTA Chemicals John McIntosh President, Olin Chlor Alkali Products & Vice President, Olin Corporation Michael H. McGarry Senior Vice President, Commodity Chemicals PPG Industries, Inc.

cc: House Energy and Commerce Committee Members