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	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

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-categor y between small and large. 2. Reviewer recommends considering a performa nce-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 prac tice standard for malfunctions, such as developing a malfunction plan that if a sour ce meets that monitoring plan the source would not be in violation. If establishing a quantitative measure, reviewer recommends taking into consideration the emissions fr om malfunction when developing the MACT floor. 4. Reviewer recommends clarifying the basis of th e 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 public ation of a NODA or supplemental proposal for Hg and PM as there are a number of asp ects 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 dela y of the effective date. Calculation of Average of Best 12 Percent:

1. Reviewer recommends considering evaluating th e data in relation to 12% of the industry instead of the data available to EPA. To th e extent that a determination is made, more information should be provided within the pr eamble to clearly explain why the EPA has decided to finalize the methodology. 2. Reviewer recommends removing sy nthetic area sources from the determination of the top 12% of the data available. 3. Reviewer recommends evaluating the relatio nship between pollutants and sources to determine whether the best 12% of overall sour ces 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-s ynthetic area (i.e., majo r) 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. Spec ifically, §112(d)(3) establishes

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

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 informati on) 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 establis hing a Hg MACT floor until EPA can demonstrate that any emissions reductions is achievable vi a control technology or work practices. If EPA does set a Hg MACT floor, reviewer recommends considering subcategorizing the entire industry by feedst ock 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 inform ation, and EPA appears to agree, that the source of Hg emission levels is the feedstoc k. It appears that EPA provides no argument that there is any control tec hnology demonstrated in this i ndustry 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, pa rticularly those in which the source of Hg is combustion rather than feedstock. It appe ars that the only way to control Hg in the emissions is to continuously test and reformulate the feedstock. 2. Reviewer recommends clarifying how the diffe rences in Hg from Oklahoma and Ohio were used within the analysis and whet her 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-categorie s based on the quarry locations. Reviewer also recommends cl arifying 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 vari ability 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 s upport 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	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

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 pr ogram 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” shoul d 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)(i ii) 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 de vice maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintena nce exemption, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(i ii)(A) through (C) of this section.

Regulatory Impact Analysis 1. Reviewer recommends providing additional cl arification for why Option 1 and Option 2 are so close in costs. Reviewer recomme nds 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 differen ces, it is difficult to properl y 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.