From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:02 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon; Barnett, Keith

Cc: Garth Tayler; Schimmel, Terry (Bricks - Phenix 

City); Warren.Paschal@generalshale.com; Paul Regina; JOHN P SANDERS

Subject: Additional documents

Sharon,

Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. Attached are the documents we 

discussed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything else.

Sus

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama

<< BIA Metals and Hourly Emissions White Paper-v4.docx>>

<< startup and shutdown-final.docx>>

<< Proposed changes to tables fo SS requirements-final.docx>>

<< BIA Mercury White Paper-final.docx>>
- 1 -

Needed Revisions to PM/non-Hg Limits in Brick MACT

Background: While the amount of data available for particulate matter (PM) emissions is more robust

than mercury data, the available data for the actual HAPs, non-mercury metals, is 

extremely limited. Most of the available data come from the small number of kilns that 

vent to state-of-the-art air pollution control devices (APCD) installed to control 

pollutants targeted by the 2003 Brick MACT, including PM. 

In the proposed rule, the EPA ranked the PM data from the best controlled sources 

based on the pounds per ton (lb/ton) of PM. The proposed lb/ton and concentration 

limits based on this ranking correctly include the variability of the PM readings in the 

tests and represent the upper predictive limit (UPL) of the best controlled sources. The 

proposed pound per hour (lb/hr) of non-Hg HAP metals limit was then calculated using 

the determined lb/ton PM limit and two factors (per the preamble):

1. The average metal content, expressed as a percent, in all acceptable test runs where 

both PM and metals were available.

2. The average product throughput rate during the stack test of the tested kilns.

This paper addresses our further concerns with those two factors and presents 

recommended resolutions for these issues.

Average metal content: The average metal content does not account for the potential variability in the 

metal content as a percentage of PM. While the variability of PM has been considered, the 

added variability of the metal content within a test and between tests has not. This 

variability is clearly demonstrated by the range from 1 to 7 percent in metal percent from 

the Acme tests alone. We recommend that EPA conduct a UPL determination on the 

percent metal content in all of the acceptable tests and use that percentage rather than the 

straight average content.

Average capacity: The use of an average of tested run rates is not reasonable in this analysis. As 

evidenced by EPA’s own data, the throughput of each of the kilns during their stack test is 

well below their full capacity. If EPA follows this approach, particularly without considering 

the potential for variability of metal content, the very sources that were used as the basis 

for the floor determination would not be able to increase above the tested capacity and 

meet the lb/hr limit. Since these tests were conducted during one of the worst years for our 

industry, it is possible that NONE of the MACT floor kilns would be able to comply with the 

proposed limit. We ask that EPA recalculate this factor using the design capacities of the 

tested kilns, not the tested throughputs.

Please note: the use of capacity of the MACT floor kilns instead of test throughput during the test 

is also required to make the mercury hourly rate appropriate, if EPA were to continue with a 

numeric limit for mercury. For reasons discussed in a separate document, we continue to assert 

that a work practice is most appropriate for mercury at this time.
What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

The EPA's position on SSM events is discussed in section __ of this preamble. Standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup 

and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be 

required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD, if one is required, at all times the 

temperature of the exhaust from the kiln is at or above a temperature that ensures the long-term

integrity of the APCD and before full production begins in the kiln. This minimum inlet 

temperature for the APCD could range from 290 to >400 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), depending on 

the design and vintage of the kiln and would need to be established on a case-by-case basis 

during the preparation of the initial compliance report. In addition, during the startup period, the 

kiln cars should be introduced into the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate the 

development of the kilns firing temperature profile, according to standard practice. However, the 

start-up push rate would not be allowed to be exceeded until the kiln is vented to the APCD. 

This start-up push rate is required to ensure that the kiln preheats as efficiently as possible, 

minimizing overall emissions. This would need to be established on a case-by-case basis. 

For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln 

through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature 

for the APCD. In addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln 

cools. No additional loaded kiln cars should be introduced into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 

temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is 

being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.

We are proposing the same work practice standards for introducing and ceasing introduction of 

loaded kiln cars during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD 

as well. However, rather than being triggered by the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD, 

the start-up push rate should not be exceeded until the kiln reaches the product-specific kiln 

temperature profile. These kiln temperature profiles would be maintained at the site. 
3. Existing, new or 

reconstructed tunnel 

kiln during periods of 

startup 

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions. 

i. After initial 

charging of kiln with 

loaded kiln cars, 

remain at or below 

start-up push rate for 

kiln until the kiln 

exhaust reaches minimum 

inlet temperature for 

APCD for a kiln with an 

APCD or until kiln 

temperature profile is 

attained for a kiln 

with no APCD; and 

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from the kiln 

through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches the 

minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 

(could be #10 on Table 5)

iii. The start-up push rate (i.e., push rate required to bring kiln to 

proper operating temperature during start-up) and minimum inlet 

temperature for each APCD must be established for each kiln or APCD and 

reported in initial compliance report. 

4. Existing, new or 

reconstructed tunnel 

kiln during periods of 

shutdown 

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions. 

i. Do not push loaded 

kiln cars into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust 

temperature falls below 

the minimum inlet 

temperature for APCD if 

the kiln is controlled 

by an APCD or when the 

kiln temperature 

profile is no longer 

maintained for an 

uncontrolled kiln; and 

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln 

through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the 

minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. 
- 1 -

Talking Points

• We are aware that EPA has received White Paper from the Brick Industry Association presenting 

a possible approach to regulating mercury

Based on extremely low amount of mercury emitted and potentially controlled with EPA’s 

proposed rule, even by EPA’s own estimates (only 118 pounds per year), the modeled 

minimal health benefits of mercury control (less than .01 percent of standard
- 2 -

•

Brick Industry Association White Paper

Approach to Mercury Regulation for Brick Plants

Issue: The available data for mercury emissions from brick plants are extremely limited. Most of 

the available data come from the small number of kilns that vent to state-of-the-art air 

pollution control devices (APCD) installed to control other pollutants. The data do not 

speciate the forms of mercury and were also collected with a test method that was not 

originally intended for the low levels found at brick plants. Consequently, the available data 

give no insight into actual mercury emissions from other sources in the industry and reveal 

nothing about whether, if required by the rule, mercury emissions can effectively be 

controlled from these other sources.

At the same time, the available emissions data and clay mercury content data show that the 

amount of mercury emitted by a typical plant and, indeed, by the industry as a whole is 

exceedingly small – just a few pounds per year for a typical plant and a couple hundred 

pounds per year industry-wide (versus the national emissions inventory of roughly 50 tons 

per year). BIA modeling demonstrates that the amount of mercury emitted by brick plants 

results in human exposure to mercury at levels that is just a small fraction of EPA healthprotective exposure guidelines.

Thus, imposing a numeric mercury emissions limitation for mercury in the final Brick MACT 

rule would be unwarranted because: (1) EPA and industry have no idea how many affected 

sources would need to implement control measures to meet the standard; (2) EPA and 

industry do not know what control measures would be effective in controlling mercury; 

(3) the potentially available control measures are inordinately costly (e.g., ACI and 

baghouse) or impracticable (e.g., changing clay supply); and (4) mercury emissions from the 

brick industry already are low and present no significant risk to health or the environment.

Solution: The two most reasonable alternatives:

1. Defer any regulation of mercury until sufficient data are available to reasonably characterize 

mercury emissions from the industry as a whole and, if needed, determine how best to establish 

numeric emissions limitations. During the deferral, the EPA and the brick industry could embark 

on a voluntary data gathering program to obtain both stack test data and raw material content 

information and to aid in the determination of the best approach for regulation.

2. Establish work practices for mercury emissions rather than a numeric emissions limitation. 

There is ample evidence that measuring mercury emissions from brick plants is neither 
- 3 -

technically or economically practicable. Structure the work practices to ensure that the data are 

gathered to allow for a thorough analysis when the Brick MACT is reviewed 8 years after 

promulgation, as required by the CAA, at which time the EPA can determine whether the 

continuation of work practice standards or whether numeric emission limits are justified.

Rationale for Alternative 1:

Because EPA lacks the data and information needed to make a fully informed decision as to how 

to regulate mercury emissions from brick plants, EPA would be fully justified in deferring a 

decision to set mercury standards until the time that adequate information is available. EPA 

was faced with similar circumstances in its last review of the NSPS for cement plants. EPA 

considered the possibility of setting emissions standards for greenhouse gases in that rule, but 

ultimately decided not to do so because “we do not yet have adequate information about GHG 

emissions sufficient to set a standard.” 75 Fed. Reg. 54970, 54996 (Sept. 9, 2010). EPA stressed 

that “this is not the end of the matter.” Id. Rather, the Agency explained that it “is working 

towards a proposal for GHG standards from Portland cement facilities” but that “[w]e are not, 

however, proposing such standards at this time because in order to develop proposed standards 

we need additional information on site specific factors that affect performance of these 

controls, where they are currently applied, and control costs.” Id. at 54997. EPA’s decision to 

defer regulation of GHGs was challenged. EPA’s deferral decision was upheld by the D.C. Circuit. 

See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 193-194 (D.C. Cir. 2011). EPA would be wholly 

justified in taking the same approach here.

Rationale for Alternative 2:

1. Anticipated annual emission reductions of these pollutants from this industry are very small, i.e. 

118 pounds of mercury.

2. Impacts of mercury emissions can be modeled using RfD data

a. Mercury has an RfD value that can be used to assess quantity of impact

b. BIA modeled all plants. As with RfC modeling for acid gases, worst case conditions (i.e. 

full capacity) modeled for every hour of year.

c. All values were below 0.01 of RfD when summed for entire plantsite 

3. This information shows that the impact from these small emissions of mercury is not a danger 

to health or the environment and does not warrant a regulatory approach that could cripple 

the industry and drive numerous facilities/companies to close their doors. Taking time to do 

this right is acceptable and warranted.

4. Several questions remain unanswered for mercury and metal emissions:

a. What are the levels? Are they actually measurable or do the data have fatal problems 

and new data are needed? 

b. Can a facility obtain accurate and repeatable information from a commercial lab with 

the current test method? Would a facility have to have the ability/skilled labor to 
- 4 -

“correct” the information from the lab as EPA had to do on virtually every test report

used for the proposed limits?

c. What is the species of mercury that is emitted and how does this impact the ability to 

control the mercury, as well as the cost of this control?

d. Is there reason to regulate these at all? Will work practices accomplish the same impact 

without needlessly threatening the livelihood of the industry?

5. If air pollution control devices ARE warranted

a. Are there opportunities for subcategorization? Based on raw material or geographic 

information?

b. What is the form of mercury emitted? Does it change form as it cools? Can it be 

controlled with activated carbon systems (ACS) or other controls? 

c. When is the right time in the process to control for mercury? Can you co-mingle 

activated carbon and lime? Or do you need to stage it? Can you use a single baghouse? 

d. Is there an explosion concern? A disposal concern?

6. Under these circumstances, the policy case for establishing work practices instead of numeric 

emissions limitations is compelling. Moreover, the legal justification for establishing work 

practices is solid. As described in BIA’s technical comments on the Brick MACT proposal, there 

are significant technological limitations that would prevent the proper application of EPA 

Method 29 to emissions from brick plants, such as the fact that Method 29 was developed for 

gas streams with significantly more mercury than typically exists in brick plant emissions. In 

addition, the economic limitations are obvious. Testing for mercury emissions is extremely 

costly, particularly in relation to the marginal profitability of most brick plants. Thus, there is 

ample justification for EPA to conclude that, in light of these technical and economic limitations, 

it is not feasible under these circumstances for a typical brick plant to demonstrate compliance 

with a numeric mercury emissions limitation. Such a finding would support establishing work 

practice standards under CAA § 112(h).