October 20, 2009

The Honorable Henry Waxman

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 21st, 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 would 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, and PPG Industries) are prepared to commit to a date certain by which 

they will have moved away from the current technology. However, given the current 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 nonmercury 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 there are a number of amendments that are likely to be offered at tomorrow’s markup, 

including one 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 would have until 2015 to build a new 
October 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 result 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 be 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 short, this amendment would 

require a date certain for replacement or closure of all remaining U.S. mercury cell facilities far in 

advance of Europe’s voluntary closure target of 2020. ASHTA Chemicals, Olin Corporation, and PPG

Industries encourage you to support this amendment, which provides a realistic timeframe.

As a reference point, Europe continues to utilize mercury cell chlor alkali technology through at least 

2020. This includes 37 plants that continue to operate. Some of the conversions completed thus far 

were supported by significant government funding, specifically contributions by the United Kingdom and 

the Netherlands.

Our companies consistently operate in compliance with all state and federal regulations designed to 

protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the chlor alkali industry has reduced 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. We therefore urge you to oppose 

H.R. 2190 as currently written. Two years is simply not enough time. In fact, any timeline 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