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 Highland 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 Clay 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 plants 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)

• Consistent 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 completely different, with Kohler 

having decades of process development investment into proprietary product designs 

and manufacturing operations;

B) Size 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 vitreous sanitaryware

plants are natural minors (area sources), they emit only area source quantities of HAP

emissions; 

C) EPA visited our sanitaryware manufacturing facilities in WI and SC and have verbally 

confirmed with us for several years that a separate sanitaryware subcategory is justified 

and appropriate. 

 

2) South Carolina Tunnel 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 the 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 pool. 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 August 2010 that it operated for emissions testing purposes only per EPA’s ICR. Kohler 

Co. believes these emissions data are 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 the 
existing source floor analysis. These data do not represent real world emissions achieved in 

practice.

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 

design. Of the tunnel kilns 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 MACTs.

For Mercury and Dioxin/Furan emissions from tunnel kilns:

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 grams 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 fired by natural gas or equivalent and limits 

maximum kiln operating temperature to 2800o

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 protective 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 

booths 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. 

This 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 booths 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 work 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 Kohler Co.’s behalf.

• This request is also consistent with CAA section 112 (d)(4). 
Since Kohler Co.’s three vitreous sanitaryware facilities located in the US are all natural area 

sources (emission less than major source thresholds), they emit only area source quantities of 

emissions, which are not the intended target for this rule. As explained above, the ICR testing, 

which used extended sampling times to collect very large sample volumes documented 

extremely low emission rates for many HAPs. It is likely that there 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 treat 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 MACT 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.