Daimler Trucks North America LLC Bran Burton General Counsel Legal Department ‘August 31, 2018 Mr. Ali Mirzakhalil (Al, Mirzakballi@state.or.us) ‘Ar Quality Division Administrator (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah St; Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Re: Request to Negotiate a Best Work Practices Agreement Dear Mr. Mirzakhall Daimler Trucks North America (*DINA") received by email your letter dated August 15, 2018 in which you requested that DTNA indicate our wilingness to discuss complementary measures to further reduce our potential for odor within 20 days ofthe date of the letter. Ths letter constitutes DTHA's timely written response In your letter, you indicate thatthe Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ("DEO") has ‘determined that DTNA may be creating a suspected nuisance as the result of operations at our ‘Swan Island facility, DEQ has a formal methodology for issuing such suspected nuisance ‘determinations that was developed after public notice and comment. We understand itis not an optional methodology. Section 3.3.2 ofthat methodology mandates that DEQ's Nuisance Odor Panel wil [Consider the information inthe request for review and evaluate ‘whether it contains sufficient evidence to support a suspected nuisance determination under OAR 340-208-0310. The Panel will ‘make its evaluation within three weeks of receiving the request for, review, and DEQ will inform the source of its anticipated next steps within one week ofthat decision. DINA is not aware ofthe DEQ Nuisance Odor Pane! (-Pane!") being convened earlier this month ‘and requests a copy ofthe final determination by the Panel and its formal direction to DEQ to issue a notice of suspected nuisance. If the Panel has not reached a formal conclusion, then we. request that DEQ withdraw its letter until such time thatthe agency's established procedure has been followed.Mr, Ali Mirzaknali August 31, 2018 Page 2 Upon receipt ofthe Panel's findings that DTNA is a suspected nuisance, DTNA is wiling to enter into negotiations to arrive at a Best Work Practices Agreement. However, we continue to be perplexed by the DEQ's postion because DINA has yet to see any scientific evidence that it poses a nuisance. In 2016, DEQ released a report based upon a year-iong study that concluded that DTNA is not causing a nuisance odor under the criteria set forth in OAR 340-208-03 10(1).” In March 2018, DEQ released a supplemental report concluding that “Daimler was operating on the majority of days when paint related odors were observed during this supplemental odor Survey and paint-elated odors were detected on the majority of days that Daimler was ‘perating.” However, the March 2018 report also notes thatthe area where DINA is located is, Rome to many industrial facilites...” DTNA operates during the same days and hours that are typical of most if not al, ofthe industrial facilites surrounding it. It is quite a stretch to attempt to link DTWA to odors based on the fact that the odors occurred on days DTNA is operating when ‘most, if not al, Businesses were operating on the same schedule. There is no basis given inthis report for concluding that OTNA is the source of the odors identified by DEQ and no assessment performed as how those odors compare to the riteria set forth in OAR 340-208-03 10(1), ‘Absent such an analysis, we do not see any rational scientific basis for concluding that DTNA is @ ‘suspected nuisance. The one comprehensive assessment, performed in 2018/2015 (when our ‘emissions were even higher than they were when the DEQ conducted its one month supplemental testing) concluded that DTNA was not a suspected nuisance. That is stil the only Comprehensive agency assessment or conclusion that we have been shown DINA\s reluctant to conclude that because odors were detected during normal work hours, and because we work normal work haurs, we are therefore a suspected nuisance. This reluctance stems in part due to the significant eforts DTNA has made to reduce the potential fr odor from fur operations since DEQ concluded in 2016 that we are nota suspected nuisance. For example, last year DINA completed the conversion of alo its topcoat guns to reduced pressure technology to increase transfer efficiency and decrease emissions, In the past two years we have decreased VOC consumption by approximately 40 percent on a lb/truck basis and until very recently our truck production had deereased by about 20 percent. Less VOC consumed per tuck and fewer trucks produced means less potential for odor. Even with our recent increased production, the odor producing potential is still reduced significantly because the VOC emissions fare 30 much lower. DTNA warks hard to reduce its emissions and puts great efforts into implementing al reasonably available practices. Any discussions and resulting Best Work Practices Agreement would need to recognize these efforts. In any case, as previously stated in my letter of January 12, 2018 to Mr. Michael Orman, DTNA is wiling to explore whether there ‘are other reasonable complementary measures that would further reduce our odor potential. Such measures are agreed ta in principal in negotiations between the DEQ and DTNA, we will ‘submit a formal proposal memorializing those commitments,Mr. Ali Mirzakali ‘August 31, 2018 Page 3 In order to commence the Best Work Practices Agreement negotiations, we fist request that ‘you submit to DTNA as soon as possible the Pane!’ forma findings that were the basis for your letter. Upon receipt of these materials, we propose that we schedule a face-to-face meeting to discuss reasonable complementary measures. Please let me know your technical lead who | should have DTNA's technical team contact to schedule this meeting, ec: Richard Fortner Sandra Carter Tom Wood