**~**MUTUALMATERIALS' March 28, 2013 Mr. Jeff Telander U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington,

DC 20460 Mr. Telander

Trusted Since 1900 Included with this letter are our written comments and questions relative to the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP of March 14, 2013. Possibly additional information, comments and questions will be submitted
on our behalf by Susan Miller, ofthe Brick Industry Association. We have been working,
to a small extent, with her office, and we have communicated most of the information contained with these documents. Should you receive further comments

or additional information, presented
by BIA, on our behalf please add it to, and consider

it along with the enclosed documents. Also enclosed with our written comments and question

is an attachment detailing the major and significant differences between large and small tunnel kilns. This issue was raised during the pre-panel meeting and, in response
to an EPA request; the attachment was forwarded

to Susan Miller on March 20, 2013. That document may also have been submitted
by BIA on our behalf.

If so, please consider the sum of both documents

as description

of the various differences between large and small kilns. If there are any questions
or concerns with the submittals
on your part or with EPA please let us know. Sincere regards, **~~** President Mutual Materials Company www.mutualmaterials

.com PO Box 2009 Bellevue, WA 98009 605 !19th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 425

.452.2300 office 425

.454

.7732 fax**~**M UTUALMATERIALS' March 28, 2013 Mr. Nathaniel Jutras U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington,

DC 20460

Trusted Since1900 Re: Written Comments pertaining
toPre-Panel Outreach Meeting for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP Mr. Jutras, Regarding the above referenced matterMutual Materials Company would have the following comments and questions along three general lines of concern relating to development

of the newrule. The first general line of concernrelates to categories
or sub-categories within the rule.In the previous version of the rule, vacated

in 2007, subcategories werecreated to separatekilns smaller or larger than 10tons perhour fired capacity. Subcategories wereincluded
to distinguish between periodic fired kilns orbatch kilns and tunnel orcontinuous fired kilns. EPA mentioned that categories
or sub-categories mustbe based ondifferences

in operating procedures, methods
orconditions.
To address that concern, wehave included anattachment
wethink clearly outlines the differences between large and small tunnel kilns. These differences mayhave
a significant effect onactual emissions and operating performance

of various control devices.

It seemsunreasonable

tomandate

acontrol device for all tunnel kilns based onmeasured performance

of that device applied toakiln of a specific style, design, size, and firing properties. Categorizing tunnel kilns by size, ageorsomecombination would seem appropriate. The differences between periodic and tunnel kilns
is significant and should allow categorizations

oralternate standards
by work practice
ataminimum. The samestandards should not be applied totunnel and periodic kilns. A second areaof concernand causefor comment

is about health risk based standard setting. The conceptof health risk based standards

is clearly offered
asanalternative

tohard numerical limits within the language and scopeof the Clean Air Act. The conceptof ahealth risk based standard

is well founded and veryvalidif it canbe demonstrated

toEPA that all emissions sourceswithin anindustrial category for which the NESHAP rule promulgation process

is underway can proveand comply with
ahealth risk based formula, devised byEPA. When such data, acrossanentire industry, canbe demonstrated

to presentno significant health risks tothe general population
orthe environment, health risk based standards are appropriate and acceptable. The Brick Industry Association (BIA} has compiled

a complete data setfor all known brick tunnel kilnsin the subset of coveragethis NESHAP processwill cover.That www.mutualmaterials

.com POBox2009 Bellevue,WA98009 605119thAvenueNE Bellevue,WA98005 425.452.2300office 425.454.7732
faxdata clearly shows that all tunnel kilns tobe covered by the standard will be well below the index value of 1.0that EPA has devised and deemed acceptable for ahealth risk based standard. Further evaluation of the data will show that all the tunnel kilns currently subject tothe proposed standard have anindex value far below the acceptable value of 1.0, even
if the total aggregatesumof all acid gasemissions

is considered.

ByBIA data calculations using absolute worstcasenumbers the highest index value
is Jess than 0.5. Less than half the allowable
or acceptable index value of 1.0.We believe thatif EPA takes the time toreview and fairly evaluate the data provided
by BIA, that EPA will conclude

in this case (Brick NESHAP), that
ahealth risk based standard

is an appropriate, acceptable, and defensible approach
to meeting all requirements

of the Clean Air Act. Further wewould add that reasonscited byEPA for not setting health risk based standards for other industries (Portland Cement, Boilers, Utilities) arenot relevant to, repeated within, orexistent tothe brick industry. BIA has modeled
all major sourcesfor consideration

of the health based standard, notaselected subset. BIA considered

all related HAP emissions (HF, HCI, Cl2) unlike other industries.

In previous attempts
toconsider health risk based standards, the industry involved did notconsider other emission sources
atthe facility, where the brick industry has noother sourcesthan thekiln from which HAP emissions occur. The final general areaof concernrelates tothe methodology EPA plans tousefor calculating the numerical limits should they notdecide to adopt

ahealth risk based standard. Data from
a very selective processEPA used toobtain samples from kilns recently installing control devices,

if used, would notbe appropriate

in termsof standard
or previously used methods. This selective testing creates

abiased subset from which EPA would then proposetosetastandard. Using the averageof the best 12%of atotal population

is the appropriate and usual process. Using an averageof the best 12%of a veryselective subset ofthat population

is notthe usual or prescribed method. Assuming the total population canachieve the emissions levels of the best 12%of the verybest subset within an industry

is aflawed assumption. Raw material input
is verydifferent within the total population due to typeand mineralogical composition. This can vary significantly

by geographic region. The standard should notbe based ondata which

is skewed by creation
of aselect subset that by good fortune has rawmaterials low in potential emissions. Within the industry weusewhat wehave asfeed stock material and toassume everyoneshould meetsomeideal or superMACT standard created by such
aselection process, distorted
by someerrantmathematical process

is wrong. To summarize,
webelieve that EPA has many options that should be given fair evaluation, and that morethan sufficient and complete data has been presented
to supportthose options. Categorization within the standard

is appropriate, consistent with the actand defensible.

It would allow the actto fairly regulate various kiln sizes and operating parameters.Health risk based standards,

in the brickindustry, areallowable, consistent with the act,and defensible, given the specific details of how the brick industry

is different from industries where

ahealth risk based standard wasnot acceptable. The time constraint EPA is operating under today

is somewhat self inflicted and the brick industry should not suffer from
aforced decision process.All due process

is mandated

by the Clean Air Act toensurethat MACT standards arefair, equitable, and reasonable, but most importantly achievable. We would ask that EPA notrush into another unwise oruntenable rule simply to satisfy somecourt imposed deadline. There

is nosubstitute for doing the right thing. Please take all necessarytime toconsider ourconcerns, review the health risk based data BIA has provided, and develop the newstandard, with all possible correctness. d:!Bowen President Mutual Materials CompanyAttachment: large Tunnel Kilns vs. Small Tunnel Kilns New Kilns vs

.Old Kilns 1) Kiln profile. a. Older smaller kilns are typically narrow

8 or 10 brick wide with
a taller hack or stack pattern on the car possibly 14 to 16 brick high. Tall and narrow. b. Newer larger kilns are typically much wider at 20 to 30 or more brick wide with
a shorter hack pattern possibly only 10 brick high. Wide and low. 2) Kiln top design. a. Older smaller kilns tend to have been built with arched tops or crowns that have
a significant volume of excess space above the topmost brick on the car. b. Newer larger kilns typically were built with
a suspended flat roof or crown, greatly reducing the amount or space overhead relative to the top brick on the car. 3) Vestibule

I Inner door a. Older smaller kilns typically do not have an inner door to operate
as a vestibule when charging the kiln with
a new car b. Newer larger kilns tend to have such an inner door and vestibule arrangement

to isolate kiln environment during the charge process. 4) Kiln Construction. a. Older smaller kilns were typically built with massive amounts
of heavy refractory brick, thicker walls and wider hearths

in the high temperature firing zones. b. Newer larger kilns have usually been constructed with more efficient refractory materials. Fiber linings, insulating brick, etc. have allowed for tighter sidewalls and smaller hearths. 5) Burner location a. Older smaller kilns are generally bottom fired with less efficient burners firing under the car deck.
A significant amount of the heat input
is absorbed
by the car deck which acts as a hot plate b. Newer larger kilns more often have high efficiency top burners

in the roof or crown which fire down into the load. less heat input
is absorbed
by the car refractory. These general differences between older and smaller kilns compared
to larger and newer kilns, in combination,
are what produce differences

in operating behavior
or characteristics

of the sub-categories

of kilns. These categorical differences contribute significantly

to fuel efficiency (Btu/pound), volumes
of exhaust gas generated per pound or ton of product, consistency

of flow volumes and temperatures across

a given time frame, and emissions quantities per unit volume of exhaust over time. The differences outlined are significant also in terms of how the kilns are actually operated. Most notably among the differences

is the variability
of kiln atmosphere during the charge process of kilns without inner doors compared
to those with inner doors or vestibules.
An inner door isolates the kiln atmosphere and exhaust flow while the outer door
is opened to charge

a new car into the kiln. With such
a process the flow volumes and emissions characteristics stay fairly constant. Without that inner door the exhaust flow volume and emissions characteristics change drastically due to the sudden inflow of ambient air while the outer door
is open to charge

a new car. The flow volume and emission stream

is then shifted significantly toward the other extreme when the outer door
is closed. The kiln then catches up with the exhaust build up that occurred with the door open and the temporary overload
of ambient air. Older smaller kilns typically operate without much
if any automated control, requiring more operator attention and activity. Newer larger kilns often have more automation and control.