From: Szabo, Aaron < Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov > 

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:14 PM 

To: Barnett, Keith; Nizich, Sharon 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: NESHAP for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing (RIN 2060-AP69) 

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the 

draft final rule and Regulatory Impact Analysis for the EPA draft final rule entitled, NESHAP for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. 

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov

<< Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866_13563 EPA Brick&Clay_2060-....docx >> 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Final Rule 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; 

and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

RIN 2060-AP69 

General Comments 

1. Reviewer recommends considering modifying the small kiln threshold above 10 tph or 

developing a medium sub-category between small and large. 

2. Reviewer recommends considering a performance-based HBEL for acid gases that takes 

into account the location of the nearest population for each source instead of setting a 

single standard for all major sources. For example, EPA could set a defined limit 

allowable at the location of the population and provide guidance that includes how a 

major source would calculate that limit to ensure compliance. 

3. Reviewer recommends providing a work practice standard for malfunctions, such as 

developing a malfunction plan that if a source meets that monitoring plan the source 

would not be in violation. If establishing a quantitative measure, reviewer recommends 

taking into consideration the emissions from malfunction when developing the MACT 

floor. 

4. Reviewer recommends clarifying the basis of the assumption that all small kilns can meet 

non-Hg HAP metals limit if they cannot meet the PM concentration limit. 

5. Reviewer recommends considering the publication of a NODA or supplemental proposal 

for Hg and PM as there are a number of aspects of the rule that may provide logical 

outgrowth concerns. If EPA decides not to publish a supplemental proposal, the reviewer 

suggests that EPA be prepared to accept as expeditiously as possible a petition for 

reconsideration and a delay of the effective date. 

Calculation of Average of Best 12 Percent: 

1. Reviewer recommends considering evaluating the data in relation to 12% of the industry 

instead of the data available to EPA. To the extent that a determination is made, more 

information should be provided within the preamble to clearly explain why the EPA has 

decided to finalize the methodology. 

2. Reviewer recommends removing synthetic area sources from the determination of the top 

12% of the data available. 

3. Reviewer recommends evaluating the relationship between pollutants and sources to 

determine whether the best 12% of overall sources in relation to both pollutants instead of 

for each pollutant. To the extent that EPA is evaluating the best 12% of each pollutant, 

the EPA should provide at least some non-synthetic area (i.e., major) current existing 

sources that will be able to meet the standards. 

1. Reviewer recommends providing at least 5 sources for each category being used to 

determine the average of the best 12% of sources. Specifically, §112(d)(3) establishes 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2 

the criteria for determining what sources must be used for considering the MACT floor 

for new and existing sources. Section 112(d)(3)(B) states that “the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or 

could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory for 

categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.” This appears to provide the 

intent that the minimum number of sources that should be considered within the MACT 

floor would be 5 sources. However, since EPA is only counting sources in which it has 

data (and take a percentage of that), there are categories that have over 30 sources, but 

that 12% of the sources with data leads to a situation where there are less than 5 sources 

used for establishing the MACT floor. 

Mercury (Hg) 

1. Reviewer recommends delaying establishing a Hg MACT floor until EPA can 

demonstrate that any emissions reductions is achievable via control technology or work 

practices. If EPA does set a Hg MACT floor, reviewer recommends considering 

subcategorizing the entire industry by feedstock source. EPA recognizes that there are no 

controls in the Brick industry that reduce Hg in emissions (e.g., Table 2 footnote in the 

Impacts memo). The BIA has provided information, and EPA appears to agree, that the 

source of Hg emission levels is the feedstock. It appears that EPA provides no argument 

that there is any control technology demonstrated in this industry to be effective in 

removing Hg from the emissions. The effectiveness of ACI is assumed, but the 

assumption may be incorrect if emitted Hg is not the correct species. BIA also points out 

that without more information, EPA should not assume the effectiveness of Hg control 

based on the experiences of other industries, particularly those in which the source of Hg 

is combustion rather than feedstock. It appears that the only way to control Hg in the 

emissions is to continuously test and reformulate the feedstock. 

2. Reviewer recommends clarifying how the differences in Hg from Oklahoma and Ohio 

were used within the analysis and whether sub-categorization is appropriate. 

Specifically, EPA should provide additional context on page 75 on how the Hg variability 

affected the final outcome and why there are not sub-categories based on the quarry 

locations. Reviewer also recommends clarifying why EPA averaged the Oklahoma and 

Ohio information instead of just taking the higher emissions limit of the two. Given that 

EPA has had difficulty with considering variability of sources not considered best 

performing, will use of the Oklahoma and Ohio mercury data to estimate a nationwide 

Hg variability factor create a similar issue that would need resolution during 

reconsideration? 

3. Reviewer also recommends clarifying EPA’s basis that all small kilns can meet the Hg 

MACT floor. 

a. Does EPA have data to support extrapolating a ratio of Hg emissions to feedstock 

Hg content for one kiln to the rest of the industry? As Belden #8 has a SD/ESP, it 

seems that would impact the concentration. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3 

b. In Table 6 of the Impacts memo, are the three sources referenced in the footnote 

the three sources in the cost spreadsheet with a capital costs greater than $4 

million? 

c. Which one is the small entity? 

d. Which of these sources would retrofit with a DIFF in the final analysis? 

Typographical Comments 

1. Reviewer recommends revising §63.8425(b)(9) and §63.8575(b)(9) to replace “should” 

from the sentence “[t]he program of corrective action should be included in the plan 

required under §63.8(d)(2).” If the program of corrective action is required within the 

§63.8(d)(2) plan, then “must” or “shall” should be used. If the program of corrective 

action is not required within the §63.8(d)(2) plan, then “may” should be used. 

2. Reviewer recommends revising §63.8485(c)(3)(iii) and § 63.8635(c)(4)(iii) as follows: 

a. A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in 

your approved routine control device maintenance exemption developed as 

specified in §63.8420(d). If the control device maintenance was included in your 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must report the 

information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

1. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for why Option 1 and Option 2 

are so close in costs. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion as to the 

regulatory differences (i.e., requirements) between Option 1 and Option 2. 

Quantitatively, Option 2 costs $350 – 400K more per facility and $200K per kiln; without 

knowing the regulatory differences, it is difficult to properly consider the qualitative 

differences between the options. 

2. Reviewer recommends providing an option that does not include synthetic area sources 

within the calculation of the MACT floor.