From: Cassidy Mike < MICHAEL.CASSIDY@kohler.com > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:23 PM To: 'nfrey@omb.eop.gov'; Telander, Jeff Cc: Plass Jeff Subject: RE: RIN 2060

- AP69: NESHAP for Clay Manufacturing

Nathan and Jeff,

Thank you for your time this afternoon. Attached is a summary of the talking points Jeff Plass and I discussed with you this afternoon. Please contact me with any questions.

Mike

Michael J. Cassidy EHS Specialist Kohler Co. 444 Hig hland Drive Mail Stop 009 Kohler, WI 53044
p. (920) 457

- 4441, x 77263 f. (920) 459

- 1682 mike.cassidy@kohler.com

Save money. Save water. Support Habitat for Humanity. Visit www.SaveWaterAmerica.com

<< OIRA Conference Call Talking Points Nov 2014.pdf >>OIRA Conference Call Agenda

11/14/2014

Background : Kohler Co. operates the only vitreous sanitaryware manufacturing plants that will be impacted by a C lay MACT rule. This impact is due to co

- location of the vitreous plants with other major

source operations at the plant site that are totally separate and distinct from the vitreous sanitaryware
operations . All three of Kohler Co.’s vitreous plant s are natural area sources (potential to emit < major HAP source thresholds) , and so each emits HAPs in area source quantities only.

1) Include a Separate Sanitaryware Subcategory in Clay MACT : This request is:

• Consistent with the congressional letters submitted to EPA and OMB in 2011 and 2013
on Kohler Co.’s behalf

• Consistent with CAA section 112 (d)

• Consis tent with the precedent EPA has set for subcategorization in many other MACTs.

Basis for subcategory request : A ) Sanitaryware products are completely different from tile and brick products in form and function, and so manufacturing technologies are comp letely different, with Kohler having decades of process development investment into proprietary product designs and manufacturing operations;

B ) S ize and shape differences mean sanitaryware kilns are lightly loaded compared to
tile & brick kilns

– resulting in significantly lower material throughput rates and so significantly lower emission rates; this is the reason our three vit reous sanitaryware plants are natural minors (area sources), they emit only area source quantities of HAP emissions; C) EPA visite d our sanitaryware m anufacturing f acilities in WI and SC and have verbally
confirmed with us for several years that a separate sanitaryware subcategory is justified
and appropriate.

2) S outh Carolina T unnel Kiln Wet Scrubber Emissions Data Should be Excluded from the Existing Source floor analysis : To fulfill the 2010 ICR, EPA made us restart a control device on a tunnel kiln that had been idle for 17 months and was not listed on any air permit or authorization , just for ICR emissions testing, so th e data could be included for existing sources. This is not the same as EPA making us restart an idled piece of equipment or process that’s identified in a permit and has been idled
for business conditions , but was authorized to operate at any time

. What EPA equivalently did
was force us to install a new control device just for emissions testing.

More importantly at this point is that the emissions data are not representative of any existing source and should not be included in the existing source data po ol. The control device on this kiln was shutdown in March 2009, and has been idle for the last 6 years, except for the one week in Aug ust 2010 that it operated for emissions testing purposes only per EPA’s ICR. Kohler
Co. believes these emissions data a re not representative of emissions achieved in practice by an existing and on

- going operation, over time, and it is not appropriate to include the data in theexisting source floor analysis. These data do not represent real world emissions achieved in

pra ctice.

3) Any Emission limits should only apply to Tunnel Kiln POC stacks : Any emission limitations proposed for tunnel kilns should apply at the POC (products of combustion) stack only. POC stacks are the primary kiln exhaust point based on tunnel kiln
d esign. Of the tunnel kiln s we tested per the ICR, some were sampled from the POC stack only and some included sampling from cooling and exit stacks. The test data show that cooling and
exit stacks emit <5% of total kiln HAP and there is little reason for these stacks to be tested or to have emission limits applied. Excluding cooling and exhaust stacks from emissions testing requirements is both cost effective and protective of health and the environment.

4) Work Practices should be Applied Where Practical: EPA has the authority under CAA section 112(h) to establish work practice standards in lieu of emission limitations and doing so in a Clay MACT rule is consistent with the precedent EPA has set for work practice requirements in many other MACT s.

For Mercury and D ioxin /F uran emissions from tunnel kiln s: The ICR testing, which used extended sampling times to collect very large sample volumes for

mercury and D/F had several sampling runs that were below detection limits. Where emissions

were detected, emission rates were < 0.1 g mercury /ton ware and <0.2mg D&F/ton ware, which is equivalent to <5 lbs mercury /yr/kiln and <5 g rams D&F/yr/kiln. There are no control devices that can effectively reduce emissions below these already low rates. If EPA proposes emission limits for these HAP, EPA should demonstrate that control technologies exist that can treat these extremely low concentrations proposed to be regulated. The Clay GACT rule ( Subpart 6R) published in 2007 requires kilns to only be fir ed by natural gas or equivalent and limits maximum kiln operating temperature to 2800 o F. These may be appropriate work practices for sanitaryware kilns given they only emit area source quantities of emissions. This option can be both cost effective and pr otective of health and the environment.

For Metal HAP Emissions from Glaze Spray Operations: The Clay GACT rule ( Subpart 6R) published in 2007 requires spray booths to be equipped with dry filters or water wash systems for overspray control and to complete regular inspections and monitoring of performance. These may be appropriate work practices for sanitaryware spray booth s given they only emit area source quantities of emissions. Subpart 6R also exempts spray operations that apply glaze that is HAP free (<0.1% by weight HAP) from the work practices.
Th i s may be an appropriate work practice consideration for sanitaryware operations as well. For instance, approximately 98% (by weight) of the glazes Kohler Co. applies are HAP free. Many of
these spray booth s applying glaze are restricted to spraying only HAP

- free glazes and they should not be subject to HAP limitations (emission limitation or work practice standards)

. These types of w ork practice options are both cost effective and protective of health and the

environment for these types of operations

.

5) A Health

- based compliance option should be included in Clay MACT :

• This request is consistent with the congressional letters submitted to EPA and OMB in
2011 and 2013 on K ohler Co.’s behalf.

• This request is also consistent with CAA section 112 (d)(4).Since Kohler Co.’s three vit reous sanitaryware facilities located in the US are all natural area sources ( emission less than major source thresholds ), they emit only area so urce quantities of emissions, which are not the intended target for this rule. As explained above, t he ICR testing, which used extended sampling times to collect very large sample volumes documented extremely low emission rates for many HAPs

. It is likel y that t here are no control devices that can effectively reduce emissions below these already low rates. If EPA proposes emission limits
for some of these HAP like mercury and dioxin/furan , EPA should demonstrate that control technologies exist that can t reat these extremely low concentrations proposed to be regulated.
This health

- based option is both cost effective and protective of health and the environment for our facilities, which emit HAP at very low levels (area source quantities of HAP)

.

Summary: Kohler Co. believes EPA needs to cast a broad net in this proposal to include as many compliance options and flexibilities as possible in the new Clay MACT rule. As the only US manufacturer of vitreous sanitaryware to be affected by this Clay MAC T rule, Kohler Co. believes the rule has large potential to put Kohler Co. at a significant competitive disadvantage in the US marketplace with no corresponding benefit to health and the environment as a result.