# Kohler

Co.

444 Highland

Drive

Kohler, Wisconsin

53044 920-457-4441

kohler.

com 

# November

23, 2009 VIA EMAIL

AND CERTIFIED

MAIL



# (# 

# 7009

0820

0000

2395 9565) Mr. Scott Jordan Air

and Radiation

Law Office Office

of General

Counsel U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency ARN: MC-2344A 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave.,

N.W. Washington,

DC 20460 RE:

USEP

A's Clay MACT

ICR Data Analysis Dear

Mr. Jordan:



# KOHLER. This

letter follows

up

on our September

9, 2009 telephone conversation

about

how

the Environmental

Protection

Agency

("EPA")

may

use

the emissions

data

that

has been submitted

by Kohler

Co. ("Kohler")

in response

to Information

Collection

Requests ("ICRs")

related

to

a redeveloped

Clay Maximum

Achievable

Control Technology ("MACT')

rule.

As

we discussed,

Kohler

does

not support

EPA's apparent

"MACTon-MACT'

approach

to establishing

the Clay MACT standard.

Kohler's

concerns

are discussed

in greater

detail,

below. Background 

# EPA promulgated

a Clay Ceramics

MACT

rule

(40 CFR

63, Subpart KKKKK)

in May 2003.

See,



# 68 Fed.

Reg. 26,690

(May

16, 2003).

In 2005, Kohler installed

a new sanitaryware

tunnel

kiln

at one

of

its US facilities.

At that time

the facility

was deemed subject

to this Clay MACT

rule

and, accordingly,

a wet scrubber

was installed

on

the new tunnel

kiln

to meet

this

rule.

The facility's

operation

air permit

was revised

and the applicable requirements

from

the Clay MACT

were incorporated

into

that permit. An initial performance

test

for

the new tunnel

kiln

was completed

in February

2007 while utilizing

the

wet scrubber

(the "February

2007 Test").Mr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page2InMarchof2007,theClayMACTrulewasvacatedbytheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbia,withthemandatetovacateissuedinJune2007.1ThoughthefederalClayMACTrulenolongerexisted,thestatewherethisfacilityislocatedhadincorporatedthefederalrule,byreference,intoitsadministrativecode.Thestatebelievedthatitsstate-onlyClayMACTrulestillappliedtothenewtunnelkiln,eventhoughthereferencedfederalrulenolongerexisted.Assuch,thefacilitycontinuedtooperatethewetscrubber.Kohlercontestedthisdecisionwiththestateregulatoryagency,andasexplainedbelow,thestateultimatelyagreedwithKohleronthisissueinJanuary2009.AsaresultoftheClayMACTvacaturandremand,EPAmustredevelopanewClayMACTrulethatwillcorrectthedeficienciesidentifiedinthecourt'sdecision.Althoughthecourtdidnotvacatetherulebecauseofaninadequateorincompletedataset,EPAnonethelessdecidedtoupdateitsdatasetaspartoftheruleredevelopmentprocessandsentoutanewICRtoallpotentiallyaffectedsourcesinJuly2008.KohlercompliedwithEPA'srequestandcompletedtheICRforthesanitarywarefacilityinquestion.KohlersubmitteditsresponsetoEPAinSeptember2008whichincludedtheHAPemissionratesmeasuredaspartintheFebruary2007Testwhilethenewtunnelkilnwasusingawetscrubber(asdictatedbythevacatedClayMACTrule).Thiswetscrubberwasstillbeingoperatedatthattimebecauseofthestate-onlyClayMACTruleprovisions.InJanuary2009,thestateagencyagreedwithKohlerthatthestate-onlyClayMACTrulewasnotlegallyapplicabletothetunnelkiln/wetscrubber.Theairpe1mitwasrevisedinMarch2009toremoveallClayMACTrequirements,andthewetscrubberwasshutdowninMarch2009.InMarch2009,KohlersubmittedanupdatetoitsSeptember2008ICRresponsetodocumentthatthistunnelkilnnolongeroperatedwithascrubber.Nonetheless,EPAnotifiedKohlerinJune2009thattheemissionsdataassociatedwiththeFebruary2007TestwouldbeincludedinthedatasetforthefloorcalculationoftherevisedClayMACTstandard-despitethetunnelkilnnolongeroperatingwiththewetscrubbernorbeingrequiredtooperatethewetscrubber.Discussion1SierraClubv.EPA,479F.3d875(D.C.Cir.2007).Mr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page3Asdiscussedbelow,KohlerdoesnotagreewithEPA'sproposeduseoftheFebruary2007TestdatasubmittedbyKohlerinreestablishingtheClayMACTrule.I.NoemissionlimitationexistsforthetunnelkilnthatwouldrequireuseofawetscrubberandthereforetheFebruary2007TestdatacannotbeusedtoestablishtheClayMACTfloorforexistingsources.TheCleanAirAct("CAA'')requiresthataMACTstandardforexistingfacilitiesbeestablishedbasedonthe"averageemissionlimitationachievedbythebestperforming12percentoftheexistingsources...."(emphasisadded).See42U.S.C.7412(d)(3)(A).Theterm"emissionlimitation"isdefinedinrelevantpartas"...arequirementestablishedbytheStateortheAdministrator...."See42U.S.C.§7602(k).Thereis(andneverwas)an"emissionlimitation"applicabletothetunnelkilnthatrequiresKohlertouseawetscrubber.TheClayMACT"emissionlimitation"previouslyestablishedbytheAdministrator(andadoptedbyreferenceintothestatecode)wasvacatedinMarch2007.2ThatvacaturwassubsequentlyacknowledgedbythestateregulatoryagencyandallClayMACTemissionlimitationswereremovedfromKohler'sTitleVairpermitinMarch2009.Whenanemissionlimitationisvacated,itisasifthatrequirementneveractualexisted.Inshort,the"emissionlimitation"requiringtheuseofawetscrubberonKohler'stunnelkilnneverlegallytookeffect.SincetheCAArequiresthatMACTstandardsforexistingsourcesbeestablishedbasedonan"emissionlimitation"achieved,andnosuch"emissionlimitation"actuallyexistedrequiringuseofawetscrubberonthetunnelkiln,theFebruary2007TestmaynotbeusedinestablishingMACTforexistingclaysources.Instead,EPAmustusedataforthekilnthatdoesnotrelyonascrubberandwhichthereforerepresentstheaverage"emissionlimitation"achievedontheunit.II.Inre-establishingtheClayMACTstandard,EPAmustusedatathatisrepresentativeofcurrentunitoperations(i.e.,operatingthekilnwithoutawetscrubber).Theconfigurationofafacilitycan,andoftendoes,changewithtime.Anemissionunit'scontrolequipmentmaybesupplementedormodifiedtocomplywithever2SierraClubv.EPA,479F.3d875(D.C.Cir.2007).Mr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page4changingfederalandstaterequirements,aswellasmarketandoperationalinfluences.Thatiswhathappenedherewithachangeinfederalrequirements.EPAisobligatedtoestablishaMACTfloorbasedupondatafrom"existingsources"astheyareoperatedbeforepromulgationofastandard.See,42U.S.C.§7412(d)(3).Kohler'stunnelkilnisan"existingsource"asitwasconstructedand/orlastmodifiedprior.topromulgationofthenewClayMACTstandard.Assuch,EPA'sfloorcalculationmustincludedataforKohler'stunnelkilnthatreflectsitscurrentoperatingconfigurationwithoutawetscrubber.III.EPA'suseoftheFebruary2007Testdata(i.e.,utilizingawetscrubber)wouldleadtothecreationofanimpermissible"MACT-on-MACT"standard.EPA'suseoftheFebruary2007Testdata(reflectingtheuseofawetscrubber)wouldresultinthecreationofanimproper"MACT-on-MACT"standard.Inthisregard,theFebruary2007TestdatareflectsKohler'scompliancewiththevacated2003ClayMACTlimitations.EPAisnowattemptingtousethisMACTdataforestablishingthefloorforanewMACTstandard.Thiswillresultinanimpropercompoundingofcontroltechnologies-a"MACT-on-MACT"standard.Thisapproachisimproperforseveralreasons.EPA's"MACT-on-MACT"approachcircumventsthecourt'sordervacatingthe2003MACTstandard.AlthoughtheCourtvacatedthestandardrenderingitunenforceable,EPAisstillseekingtoindirectlyenforcethe2003ClayMACTrequirementsbyincludingtheFebruary2007Testdatainthefloorcalculation.This,ineffect,resultsinEPAperpetuatingtheenforceabilityofthe2003ClayMACTstandardincontraventionofthecourt'sorder.Indeed,thesolepurposeofKohler'swetscrubberinstallationwastocomplywiththeillegal2003ClayMACTrule.Ifthatillegalrulehadneverexisted,thewetscrubberwouldnothavebeeninstalledonthetunnelkilnandtheFebruary2007Testdatawouldnotexist.Thefactthatthecourtinvalidatedthe2003MACTruleanditsassociatedemissioncontrolrequirementsrequiresEPAtoeliminateanydatafromsources,suchasKohler,thatwerecontrolledsolelytocomplywiththisinvalidrule.Further,CongressdidnotintendforEPAtocreate"MACT-on-MACT'limitationsbyestablishingMACTfloorsmultipletimes.42U.S.C.§7412(d)(6).ThiswouldleadtoabsurdresultsinthatthestandardsbecomesostringentovertimethatmanyexistingMr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page5sourceswouldnotbeableachievethem,therebyrenderingmeaninglessthecongressionaldirectiveinCAA§112(d)(2)thatthestandardsbe"achievable."3EPAhasrecognizedthisCongressionaldirectivewhenrevisingMACTemissionstandardsunderCAASection112(d)(6).4Underthissection,EPAmustdetermine,every8years,whetheritisappropriatetoreviseestablishedMACTstandardstakingintoaccountdevelopmentsinpractices,processesandcontroltechnologies.Id.ThisrevisionprocessdoesnotentailreestablishinganewMACTfloorforexistingsourcesusingdatafromsourcesthatarealreadycomplyingwithaMACTstandard(i.e.,the"MACT-on-MACT'approach).Inthecokeovenresidualrisk/technologyreviewrulemaking,EPAaddressedthispoint:TheEPAalsobelievesthatinterpretingsection112(d)(6)asrequmngadditionalfloordetenninationscouldeffectivelyconvertexistingsourcestandardsintonewsourcestandards.After8years,allsourceswouldbeperformingatleastattheMACTlevelsofperformance,sothattheaverageofthe12%ofthosebestperfom1erswouldbeperformingatalowerlevelstill,probablyapproachingthatofnewsources.EPAseesnoindicationthatsection112(d)(6)wasintendedtohavethistypeofinexorabledownwardratchetingeffect.Nat'IEmissionsStdsforCokeOvenBatteries,69Fed.Reg.48,338,48,351(Aug.9,2004).TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuitlaterupheldEPA'sinterpretationof§112(d)(6)inlitigationchallengingthehazardousorganicNESHAPresidualrisk/technologyreviewrule.Inthatcase,thecourtagreedwithEPAthat§112(d)(6)didnotintendforEPAto"startfromscratch"inrecalculatingMACTfloorswhenreviewingandrevisingaMACTstandard:ItisarguedthatEPAwasobligatedtocompletelyrecalculatethemaximumachievablecontroltechnology-inotherwords,justtostartfromscratch.Wedonotthinkthewords"review,andreviseasnecessary"canbeconstruedreasonablyasimposinganysuchobligation.3SeeNationalLimeAssociationv.EPA,233F.3d 625,632(D.C.Cir.2000)(explainingthatEPAmustensurethatemissionstandardsareachievable"underthemostadversecircumstanceswhichcanreasonablybeexpectedtorecur.")4CleanAirAct§ll2(d)(6)requiresthat"theAdministratorreview,andreviseasnecessary(takingintoaccountdevelopmentsinpractices,processes,andcontroltechnologies),emissionstandardspromulgatedunderthissectionnolessoftenthanevery8years."Mr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page6NRDCv.EPA,529F.3d1077,1083-84(D.C.Cir.2008).SinceitwasneverintendedthatMACTfloorsbereestablishedunderCAA§112(d)(6)usinga"MACT-on-MACT"approach,itfollowsthatthisdownwardratchetingeffectinestablishingaMACTfloorwasnotintendedinthecircumstancesatissueherewithavacatedMACTstandard.Inordertoavoidthe"MACT-on-MACT"prohibition,EPAmustexcludetheFebruary2007Testresultsusingawetscrubber.IV.Alternatively,useofinitialperformancetestdata,obtainedbeforeaunitexperiencesnormalwearandtear,isnotrepresentativeofactualunitoperations,andtherefore,shouldnotbeconsideredbyEPAinestablishingaMACTstandard.5Asmentionedabove,thevacatedClayMACTrulerequiredthataninitialperformancetestbeconductedtodemonstratecompliancewiththevacatedemissionslimits.KohlerconductedthisinitialperformancetestinFebruary2007justafterthewetscrubberwasinstalled,andsubmittedtheresultsofthattesttoEPAinitsSeptember2008ICRresponse.EvenifEPAweretoconsidertheFebruary2007TestdatainsettingaMACTfloor,thisdatafromaninitialperformancetestisnotrepresentativeoftrueunitperformancebecauseitdoesnotaccountfornormalwearandtearthatwillbeexperiencedbytheemissionsunit.Inatleastonepreviousrulemakingprocedure,EPArequiredthattestdatafromsourcesconductinginitialperfmmancetestsberemovedfi·omaMACTfloordataset.EPAreasonedthatdatafi·ominitialperformancetestsareoftennotrepresentativeofemissionsunitsthathadexperiencednormalwearandtearandtherefore,thetestedemissionratescouldnotbeexpectedtobeachievedonacontinuousbasis.SeegenerallyNat'/EmissionsStdsforHazardousWasteCombustors,64Fed.Reg.52,828(Sept.30,1999).V.CertificationoftestdatarequiresuseoftheMarch2009dataset.5ThisargumentismerelyofferedasanalternativeintheeventEPAchoosestoincludetheFebruary2007TestresultsinitsMACTfloorcalculation.AsexplainedinSectionI,II,IIIandV,KohlerdoesnotagreethatincludingtheFebruary2007TestdataintheMACTfloorcalculationisappropriate.Mr.ScottJordanU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNovember23,2009Page?Kohlercertifiedthe"truth,accuracyandcompleteness"oftheinformationprovidedinresponsetotheJuly2008ICR.ThedatawasaccurateatthetimeitwassubmittedtoEPA.However,asdiscussedabove,thisdatasetisnolongerrepresentativeoftheactualunitperformanceoroperationalconfigurationofthetunnelkiln.Assuch,itdoesnotrepresenttheappropriatedatatobeusedinredevelopingtheClayMACT.KohlerCo.believesthatthedatasubmittedinSeptember2008isnotanaccurateandcompleterepresentationofthetunnelkilnemissionsastheyexisttoday.ConclusionWeappreciatetheopportunitytoparticipateintherulemakingprocess.Pleasecontactmeattheletterheadaddress(MailStop009),telephonenumber(extension77263),orbye-mail(mike.cassidy@kohler.com)withanyquestions.EHSSpecialistcc:JeffTelander/USEPA-OAQPS(forinclusionintherecord)MJC:jav