Date: April 28, 2010 

Subject: Minutes of the April 20, 2010 SBREFA Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting for the Brick 

and Structural Clay Products Industry 

Standards Development for Brick, Structural Clay, and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing 

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-7 

RTI Project No. 0210426.004.007 

From: Richard Marinshaw 

Thomas Holloway 

To: Jeffrey Telander 

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

I. Introduction 

A Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) pre-panel outreach 

meeting with potential small entity representatives (SERs) of the brick and structural clay products 

(BSCP) industry was held at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), East Building, in 

Washington, DC, on April 20, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to get initial feedback from 

potential small entity representatives (SERs) on the impacts that the national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the BSCP industry may have on small entities. This 

memorandum summarizes the major topics discussed during the meeting. 

II. Attendees 

Alexander Cristofaro, SBAR Chair 

Jeff Telander, Workgroup Chair 

Scott Jordan, OGC 

Joan Rogers, OSBP 

Charley Maresca, SBA 

Joseph Johnson, SBA 

Keith Holman, SBA 

Paula Vanlare, OPEI 

Tom Walton, OAQPS (on phone) 

Cortney_Higgins, OMB (on phone) 

Thomas Holloway, RTI International (by telephone) 

Richard Marinshaw, RTI International (by telephone) 
2 

Susan Miller, Brick Industry Association 

Barry Miller, Redland Brick 

John Miller, Lee Brick and Tile 

John Burns, Whitacre Greer 

Terry Schimmel, Boral Bricks, Inc. (helper SER to Lee Brick) 

Davis Henry, Henry Brick 

Butch “Creighton” McAvoy, McAvoy Co. 

Harold Newman, Pine Hall Brick Co. Inc. 

Don Sult, Continental Brick 

Lance Jackson, Mutual Materials (on phone) 

Victor Shive, Statesville Brick (on phone) 

Don Belcher, Elgin Butler Company (on phone) 

Steven Gerhart, Sioux City Brick and Tile Company (on phone) 

Richard Cunningham, Cunningham Brick Co, inc. (on phone) 

Carol Conley, Cherokee Brick and Tile (on phone) 

Brian Sims, Jenkins Brick (on phone) 

Ed Thebaud, Columbus Brick (on phone) 

Bob Harstock, Commercial Brick Corp. (on phone) 

III. Discussion 

Following introductions, Mr. Cristofaro, the meeting chair, started the meeting by noting 

that, under SBREFA, EPA is required by Congress to convene a panel of representatives from the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), EPA, and 

SERs from the regulated industry if a rulemaking has the potential to have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. Based on the findings by the panel, the EPA is directed to 

take whatever measures are appropriate to minimize the burden on small entities. Mr. Cristofaro 

also noted that the invitees to this informal meeting from the BSCP industry were potential SERs 

and all of them may not be selected for participation on the SBREFA panel. However, even if not 

selected for the SBREFA panel, the attendees can all provide input by submitting public 

comments on the rule once it has been proposed. 

Mr. Telander gave a presentation on the background and regulatory history of the BSCP 

NESHAP, number of small entities likely to be affected by the rule, current status of the 

rulemaking, and possible regulatory flexibility options for small entities. The presentation slides 

are included as Attachment 1. Following Mr. Telander’s presentation, the floor was opened up for 

discussion. The main issues discussed are described in the following paragraphs. 

To open the discussion, Ms. Miller, a representative of the Brick Industry Association 

(BIA), made the following points: 

 The industry disagrees with the inclusion of synthetic area sources in the calculation of 

the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floors. She pointed out that, by 

definition, area sources are not included in the category and, therefore, cannot be 
3 

considered when determining MACT floors. Including emissions data for synthetic 

area sources in the floor calculation would result in an emissions limit that is much 

more stringent than would be the case if synthetic area sources were excluded from the 

MACT floor determination. 

 According to the information provided by EPA, the NESHAP would cost an estimated 

$188 million per year. However, the BSCP industry’s revenues in 2009 were only 

$750 million; even in a good year, total revenues for the industry are only $2.2 billion. 

 There is concern over EPA’s practice of setting MACT floors for each hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) individually, rather than a floor for combined HAP (e.g., a floor for 

acid gases, rather than separate floors for hydrogen fluoride [HF] and hydrochloric acid 

[HCl]). 

 When the vacated NESHAP was promulgated, only about 5.9 percent of the 

approximately 300 tunnel kilns in the BSPC industry were controlled. However, as a 

result of the NESHAP, about 33 percent of tunnel kilns are currently controlled. 

Basing the MACT floor on current kiln controls would essentially constitute MACTon-MACT and would result in a much more stringent standard than would have been 

set based on the kilns that were controlled when the NESHAP was first proposed. 

 There is a need to subcategorize by kiln size because a much lower percentage of small 

kilns are controlled. However, the 10 ton per hour (tph) cutoff used in the original 

NESHAP may not be the appropriate size cutoff. 

 Following Ms. Miller’s presentation, representatives of individual BSCP companies that 

are small businesses described the situation for their companies and their concerns about the 

impact that the NESHAP would have. The first industry representative noted that one of his plants 

has only 30 to 35 employees and said that the NESHAP would have far greater impacts on such 

small plants. The cost to retrofit a dry injection fabric filter (DIFF) would be $1.1 to $1.5 million, 

but annual revenues for the plant are only about $10 million. The NESHAP could force the 

company to shut down the plant. Some of the employees have worked for 30 to 40 years, have 

only high school educations, no other marketable skills, and are older. As a result, it would be 

very difficult for them to find other employment. He also pointed out that the environmental 

benefits of regulating small kilns would be marginal compared to the costs; he suggested that 

small kilns be exempt from the rule. 

 The EPA clarified that exempting kilns is not an option because the courts have ruled that 

EPA must set numerical emission limits for all sources within the source category. However, a 

separate emissions limit could be established for small kilns if there is a technical basis for 

subcategorizing by kiln size. 

 A second industry representative described the situation with his company, which is a 

family-owned business with a total of about 70 positions (jobs). The plant operates two small 

tunnel kilns, one of which is operating at about 60 percent capacity, and the other is currently shut 

down. Most employees are not working full time because of the downturn in the economy. He 

pointed out that, even in good times, the company could not afford to install a new control device 

on the kilns. As an indication of the current situation with the industry, he pointed out that in the 

area around Sanford, North Carolina, there were 15 brick tunnel kilns in operation 5 years ago, but 

currently there are only 7 kilns operating in the Sanford area. 
4 

 A third industry representative discussed the operation of dry limestone adsorbers (DLAs) 

and the feasibility of retrofitting DLAs with DIFFs. He said that retrofitting a DIFF would force 

at least one of his company’s plants to close. Because of the economy, they currently have one 

plant open, with the other four just restarting. He noted that a DLA costs about $1 million, 

whereas a DIFF costs about $2 million. He had no idea what it would cost to retrofit a DIFF on a 

kiln because he never thought he would have to do that. Furthermore, his company does not have 

the resources to pay for a retrofit. Most of his company’s employees have recently had to take pay 

cuts in order to keep their jobs. Regarding DLA operation, he pointed out that DLAs are very 

effective in controlling emissions and require much less maintenance than do DIFFs. Contrary to 

what EPA has indicated, DLAs control particulate matter (PM) emissions. He also noted that 

DLAs are used extensively in Europe to control PM and other pollutants. DLAs are the preferred 

control device for reducing emissions of HF and HCl; DIFFs are designed primarily for 

controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other sulfur compounds. 

The EPA clarified that the NESHAP would not prescribe which control device to use. The 

rule would establish numerical emission limits. Although EPA has used DIFFs as the basis for 

estimating the costs of the rule, companies could use whatever control method they choose to meet 

the emission limits. 

Ms. Miller pointed out that HCl is the weakness of the DLA; that is, DLAs do not achieve 

good control of HCl emissions. However, when evaluating emission controls, EPA should 

consider overall performance on a long-term basis. She noted that DIFFs achieve very good 

instantaneous control, but have considerably more downtime than do DLAs. Therefore, on an 

overall annual basis, DIFFs and DLAs are equivalent. She also noted that the incremental cost of 

a DIFF over a DLA would be about $100,000 per ton of HAP removed. 

Ms. Miller also pointed out that if EPA were to establish a standard for combined HAP 

(HF and HCl), more plants with DLAs could meet the limit with their current controls. She noted 

that gaseous HAP account for more than 99 percent of total HAP emitted from a brick kiln. She 

pointed out that many coatings NESHAP have established emission limits for combined HAP. 

The EPA noted that establishing a standard for combined HAP would be appropriate if it 

can be assumed that all HAPs are equally important. However, that may not be the case for the 

BSCP industry. 

One industry representative stated that his company installed two DLAs to comply with the 

now vacated NESHAP. He stated that they tried to play by the rules and do the right thing. He 

believes that DLAs are good controls, and he hopes that his company will be allowed to continue 

using them to meet the emission limits. 

A question was asked about the typical lifetime of a DLA. One industry representative 

responded that they installed one 15 years ago, and it is still in operation. He added that DLAs 

cost much less to operate than do DIFFs, which require more energy and have higher reagent 

costs. 
5 

One member of the panel challenged the potential SERs to identify options for 

subcategorization that could reduce the impact on small entities. However, any such options 

would have to conform with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. The EPA clarified that there 

would need to be a technological basis for any subcategories; EPA could not subcategorize based 

simply upon the estimated economic impacts of the rule. 

There was a brief discussion about the health effects of emissions from BSCP plants and 

the possibility of EPA considering section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act, which allows EPA to 

establish standards based on health threshold levels. One industry representative stated that he 

saw no evidence that emissions from BSCP plants harm the environment. He noted that the areas 

around his plants are pristine. 

To close the meeting, the chair explained that the next step would be to make a decision on 

the SERs, then schedule the first formal meeting of the panel, which would likely occur in 

September or October of this year. A member of the panel stated that, in the interim, pertinent 

materials from other rules (e.g., Portland Cement) could be sent out to the industry representatives 

for their review. One industry representative suggested that the panel have another informal 

meeting before the start of the formal SBREFA panel meetings. The EPA noted that additional 

emissions data and other information are needed before there could be any detailed discussion of 

subcategorization or other options for reducing the impacts on small entities. 

IV. Action Items 

At the close of the meeting, the following action items were discussed: 

 The SERs would review the list of plants indicated in the presentation by EPA and 

inform EPA of any changes needed. 

 Representatives from the SBA, OMB, and EPA would confer about the need for 

another informal meeting and would notify the SERs accordingly. 

 Representatives from EPA would provide pertinent materials from other rules 

(e.g., Portland Cement) at the request of industry representatives.