LEED TSAC PVC Study Database > Comments on Draft Report > View Comment

View Comment

[<] | [>]

Page(s) Lines(s)
 
Author Arthur E. Dungan
Vice President –Safety, Health and Environment
Chlorine Institute
arthurdungan@CL2.com
http://www.chlorineinstitute.org/
 
Comment
The Chlorine Institute is pleased to be able to comment on the USGBC TSAC PVC Draft Report dated December 17, 2004 (released 12/22/04). Questions on these comments should be submitted to Mr. Dungan per the above information.

The Chlorine Institute, Inc., founded in 1924, is a 210-member, not-for-profit trade association of chlor-alkali producers worldwide, as well as packagers, distributors, users, and suppliers. The Institute’s mission is the promotion of safety and the protection of human health and the environment in the manufacture, distribution and use of chlorine, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite, plus the distribution and use of hydrogen chloride. The Institute’s North American Producer members account for more than 98 percent of the total chlorine production capacity of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In the United States, there are nine facilities that produce chlorine using the mercury cell process accounting for approximately 10% of the annual chlorine production. All are members of the Chlorine Institute.

The Chlorine Institute is not commenting on the report as a whole or its conclusions and recommendations as they are outside our area of expertise. We wish to focus our comments on Section 3.5.2 Morbidity - non - cancer Mercury. We strongly object to this entire section as it is written. The section mixes facts with opinions and does not distinguish between them. Many of the statements made appear to have been extracted from documents prepared by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC has sued EPA attempting to require the agency to force industry to abandon this technology. Court disposition of this matter is pending. The Chlorine Institute believes the law suit has no merit. The conclusion “Therefore, the continued use of mercury cell technology for chlorine production represents an unacceptable risk to occupational and human health…” (last sentence of this section on page 90) is one that no regulatory agency in the United States has made, nor does such a conclusion have any basis in fact. The Chlorine Institute strongly disagrees with such a conclusion. We respectfully request that this entire section be re-written. Our specific concerns are listed below per your designated format. As a final specific comment, we respectfully submit our proposed language for the re-write of this entire section.

The Chlorine Institute and the mercury cell producers have a long history of working with regulators in addressing issues associated with the use of mercury in chlor-alkali manufacture. In 1996, the industry, through the Chlorine Institute, was one of the first industries to voluntarily endorse the mercury reduction goals developed as part of the USA and Canada Binational Toxics Strategy (BTS) agreement. In July 2004, we submitted our Seventh Annual Report to the USEPA summarizing the progress we have made since 1996. A copy of that report is attached.

In our Seventh Annual Report, we discuss the following items:

• The decline in the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry over the seven years since the reduction commitment was originally made.

• An explanation of the difference between mercury purchases and mercury use.

• An explanation of why some facilities are adding mercury to their process inventory.

• An explanation of our new commitment to enhanced emissions monitoring of the cell rooms.

• An explanation of our new commitment for full accounting of the mercury we use.

• A summary of the activities undertaken in the past year.

• A summary of our ongoing and new commitments.

We are hopeful that you will review this report.