MACT Task Force
MEMORANDUM

October 22 , 2014

To: Jeff Telander, US EPA

From: Terry Schimmel and Susan Miller, Brick Industry Association

RE: Potential Mercury Emissions from Clay Brick Kilns

The purpose of this memorandum is to present available information on potential mercury emissions from clay brick manufacturing. Since there has been no interaction with the EPA program personnel in the last year or so regarding potential mercury emission limits, this memorandum is based on the limited informa tion about potential regulations provided during the small business panel meetings held in mid

- 2013.

While our industry in total would emit far less than one ton of mercury if we were ever to return to near full operating capacity at all of our facilities
, it is our understanding that the EPA continues to consider the potential of setting a numerical limit. Since mercury has never been regulated in our industry previously, the only stack test data we have is limited to EPA’s section 114 required testing in 2010. In addition, all of these tests were conducted on d ry injection fabric filter (DIF F) systems. Therefore, the data are not adequate to characterize mercury emissions from this industry and set a numeric standard that would in any way be representative of the better performing sources in the source category. What we do know, however, is that a numeric mercury standard would impose substantial costs on the industry with no reasonable expectation that any actual reduction in mercury would be achieved. As we have explained in several prior submittals to EPA, no emissions controls have demonstrated to be effective in controlling mercury emissions from the brick industry.

In short, EPA does not have sufficient information on mercury emissions from the brick industry to set a standard under § 112(d). Accordingly, EPA should not attempt to set a mercury standard in the upcoming Brick MACT rulemaking and, instead, should defer proposing a mercury standard until adequate data are available.

If the Agency neverth eless decides to go forward with a mercury standard in the current rulemaking, we believe there is ample authority and justification to set a work practice standard rather than a numeric standard. Although inadequate, the available data indicate that merc ury emissions levels from typical brick manufacturing plants are exceedingly low. As a result, EPA has no basis to conclude that measuring mercury emissions from brick plants is technically or economically practicable. Under these circumstances, a work p ractice standard can be easily justified under § 112(h).We note that EPA acknowledged at the small business panel with our industry that the control of mercury could potentially drive the need for add

- on control devices in our industry, particularly if EPA considers a health

- based approach for the acid gases. In any economy, a requirement to control trace amounts of mercury emissions for millions of dollars would need strong justification. As our industry is recovering from one of the worst economic situ ations in history, spending any money with no benefit could needlessly close facilities that otherwise could remain viable businesses in our economy. This cannot be justified.

The Case for a Work Practice Standard

Earlier in this rulemaking, BIA made a st rong case for mercury work practices as opposed to numerical limits due to limited low quantity data, extremely low concentrations and numerous test non

- detects. EPA apparently conducted an extensive review of the limited test data for mercury to demonstra te that many of the tester delineated non

- detects could potentially be used as valid data points in the development of a numerical emission limit. We still take issue with this approach and insist that this need for a second, cost intensive review demonstr ates the high potential for problems when dealing with such small numbers. Staff at most brick plants would not be able to conduct such a review. This demonstrates both the technical and the economic infeasibility of using these data and these test methods for such small quantities. Use of these “corrected” data would lead to numbers that would not be achievable even with mercury controls, nor could compliance be demonstrated via the current test methods and expertise of the many testing firms out there. To this end we are still strongly suggesting that a work practice consideration for mercury be included in the proposed rule language.

A Mass Balance Approach Can Help Characterize Emissions

Because of the lack of data and the extreme impact that unwarranted mercury regulations could have on our industry, the brick industry is currently conducting additional but still limited research in an attempt to understand the implications of what could be in a promulgated MACT rule. In this research, we are attempting to quantify what the true mercury emission rates could be from this industry. At this point, we believe EPA has no data to predict the potential level of compliance with any mercury limit it may establish, except possibly for kilns already controlled wi th a DIFF, the only scenario evaluated by
EPA.

As is well known, stack testing for mercury is both expensive as well as problematic at the mercury emission concentrations from a brick kiln. In a scenario with a controlled kiln, the issue becomes even

mor e costly if concurrent inlet and outlet testing is desired to re ally understand what is occurring . The economic condition our industry has been in has precluded these testing options. To this end, we have evaluated whether we can measure the mercury content present in our raw materials and develop a mass balance relationship , thus enabling a prediction of emissions. Given the extremely limited resources in our industry, this was our only viable option. As a quick summary that could be further discussed with EPA post proposal we have found the following:1. The mercury content in brick making clays and shales in PPB was found to be very similar although maybe slightly lower on average than the numbers provided to us by EPA for similar materials tested as part o f the Portland Cement MACT development.
2. In most cases, fired brick showed almost no measurable retained mercury. As such it is assumed that essentially all mercury present in the raw material evolves as a mercury
emission.
3. Testing of fresh reagents reveale d that the reagent does bring some, however small, amount of mercury into play in a mass balance calculation when control is present.
4. Testing of spent reagents and the application mass balance scenarios revealed that the capture of mercury in existing, ins talled controls is negligible in most cases.

Assuming that all the input mercury content will show up as a stack emission, a mass balance calculation was developed to compare predicted levels to actual levels from the previously determined Method 29 stack testing that is included in the EPA brick testing spreadsheet of sources. What was found was a reasonably close correlation (within an order of magnitude) of concentrations and total quantities released. It should be noted that the extremely limited amoun t of stack tests clearly limited this assessment. What was however interesting is that the mass balance predictions was almost always lower that the stack tested levels meaning that more was released than what went in

-- which is clearly not possible. One explanation is that the quantity of natural gas used in the process may bring some mercury into the equation. A more likely explanation is that the stack testing accuracy at these detection levels and the use of non detect scenarios simply overstates what is really there. Again it has to be questioned if anything other than a work practice scenario is warranted or if future compliance to a number can be achieved.

The Mass Balance Helps Illustrate That Numeric Standards Would Be Unworkable

The result of the raw material testing and mass balance predictions means that the industry is now better equipped to analyze and predict the implications of what EPA may put in the proposed rule regarding mercury. At this point having received no signaling from EPA as to w hat may be in the proposed rule all we can do is speculate as to what may be there and the impact such may have on both small and large entities. What we can predict and comment on are the following:

1. Were numerical limits proposed most locations of both sm all and large entities could not make the numbers nor could testers demonstrate compliance? This is based on our assessment of what a potential mercury emission limit would be using EPA’s standard approach used in other rulemakings (i.e., pollutant specif ic MACT

- floor).
2. There is no demonstration of mercury control scenarios in our industry and arguably other industries with similar emission profiles that can achieve what could be numerical limits, if those limits were not met as a result of the naturally o ccurring mercury content in the raw material.3. Subcategorization of large and small kilns (as used in the 2003 MACT ) could result in a more achievable controlled scenario for smaller kilns; however, many entities that have both large and small kilns could still face unachievable control requirements a nd costs that would make the viability of their businesses doubtful.
4. Subcategorization by large and small kilns would only marginally benefit small businesses, as small entities in the industry have both small and large kilns.
5. The EPA database for mercur y (as we know it to be populated ) contains only controlled sources and would obviously understate the impact the proposed rule may have. Most of the small and large entities that are omitted from the more recent version BIA has of the database are in f act those that were below 10 TPH, which were not required to be controlled in the now

- vacated 2003 rule. These kilns would now be subject to control in the new rulemaking.
6. In general the use of incomplete industry data and questionable assumptions will re sult in an understatement of cost impact and an overstatement of benefits.

Conclusion

In summary we ask that the proposed rule be as broad in nature as possible such that all possibilities and options can be explored during the period between proposal and promulgation. We strongly urge EPA to defer setting any standard for mercury at this time. Alternatively, if the Agency decides to address mercury in the current rulemaking, a work

- practice standard is all that can be justified and is all that should be proposed.

The bottom line for our industry is that we have no experience and know of no experience in any other industry of mercury control being effective at our concentrations and with our other exhaust parameters. Therefore, if EPA were to propose a numerical limit, the ability to meet the standard would likely completely come down to the random chance of the trace level mercury content in the mined material we use for our product. Those above the limit, based again on only data from controlled

sourc es, would be forced to either shut down operations or engage in a costly, speculative process of installing a multimillion dollar control device that has never been demonstrated to work on emission streams such as ours. Any potential benefit of possibly r emoving minute amounts of mercury would be negligible and certainly would not offset the devastating impact a numeric mercury standard would have on the viability of a US company producing a strong, sustainable product.

BIA is looking forward to a meaningf ul dialog and data analysis with EPA, now or post proposal, in an effort to develop an environmental responsible rule with justifiable cost benefit reasonableness as well

as achievable for both small and large entities.