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 P M data from the best controlled sources based on the pounds per ton (lb/ton) of PM . T he proposed lb/ton and concentration limits based on this ranking correctly include the variability of the PM readings in the

test s and represent the upper predictive lim it (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 is sues.

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 a nd 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 w ould be able to comply with the proposed limit. We ask that EPA recalculate t his 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 E PA 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 sho uld 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 car s during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tu nnel 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 temperat ure 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 reache s the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. (could be #10 on Tab le 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 f or 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 AP CD, 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 a ware 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 availa ble 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 n ot 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 emi tted 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 health

protective 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 prese nt 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 n eeded, 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 economic ally 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
contin uation 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 possibili ty 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 st ressed
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 chal lenged. 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 smal l 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 war ranted

. 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 sa me 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? D oes 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 establish ing 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 t hat 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 compl iance with a numeric mercury emissions limitation. Such a finding would support establishing work practice standards under CAA § 112(h).