CHEROKEE 

KATHERINE SAMS RUSSELL 

GENERAL COUNSEL I 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code: 0243-02 

109 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Attention: JeffTelander 

BRICK & TILE COMPANY 

March 27, 2013 

WATERVILLE ROAD 

P.O. BOX 4567 

MACON, GEORGIA 31208 

TELEPHONE 478-781-6800 

FAX 478-781-8964 

Re: Brick and Structural Clay NESHAPs - March 14, 2013 SER Meeting Follow-up 

Comments 

Dear Mr. Telander: 

My name is Kate Russell. I am a fifth generation owner of Cherokee Brick & Tile 

Company in Macon, Georgia. I have recently come in to work for the Cherokee as General 

Counsel and had the opportunity to sit in (via telephone) on the SER meeting that was held on 

March 14. While 1 have been following this process closely, 1 have remained in the background 

until now; however, I wanted to take the time to introduce myself and share a few of my thoughts 

and concerns--both as a business owner and attorney. 

Like many of the other family brick businesses, to say that I am a "stakeholder" in this 

process would be an understatement. Cherokee Brick has been in my family for over 1 13 years 

and I am honored to be a 5th generation family member with the opportunity to carry the business 

into future generations. Obviously the last five or so years have been excruciating for both 

Cherokee and the industry as a whole. Every dollar we spend is carefully contemplated with the 

ultimate goal of"just getting through this recession." While I certainly hope we are coming out of 

this crisis, it wili take years, if not decades to recover. As a result, the decisions you make 

regarding the new MACT have the potential to destroy not only my family's business but also 

many of the others you will likely hear from during this process. 

Cherokee, in good faith, spent over 1.5 million dollars to put in controls as prescribed by 

the previous MACT (and the accompanying Georgia regulations). For a company our size, that 

was a tremendous expense even in a good economy. A conservative estimate of our annual costs 

to maintain these controls are around $150,000 per year. The mere thought of being required to 

remove these controls-which are effectively doing their jol:r-is incomprehensible. We simply 

cannot absorb the expense. 

Cherokee Brick is extremely concerned by what appears to be the direction in the eventual reproposal and re-promulgation of a new (second) MACT standard for the Brick Industry for many 

reasons, a few of which are listed below: 

I. EPA should not set the MACT floor based on emission levels that come from already 

controlled units. 
a. The Clean Air Act neither prescribes nor provides justification for the EPA to set 

the MACT floor based on emission levels that come from currently controlled 

units. Both Cherokee and the Industry ethically and in good faith installed 

emission control units under 2003 Brick MACT. The 2003 standard was 

subsequently vacated at no fault of the Brick Industry. Unfortunately, the 

Industry has been prejudiced by spending money to comply with a standard that 

was subsequently made obsolete by the courts. It would be unreasonable for the 

EPA to punish the Industry by using a controlled un it to set the new and even 

tougher standard in a second attempt to promulgate a new MACT. The units 

tested have already installed controls for MACT compliance. 

2. Using source data from facilities that are not a part of the applicable source category (i.e. 

Synthetic Minor HAP Sources) as part of a floor calculus would be irrational and 

inconsistent with Section 112(d)(3)(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

a. How can it be reasonable to use source data from facilities that are not part of the 

applicable source category to set the basis from which applicable sources will be 

regulated? 

3. Why has EPA chosen to regulate emission levels of Mercury and Dioxins when there is 

no real clarity on whether source units in our industry even include detectable levels of 

either? 

a. There is virtually no evidence to suggest the brick industry emits detectible levels 

of Mercury and Dioxin. Moreover, the limited data we do have on these 

pollutants show at most de minimis emission levels of Mercury and nondetectable Dioxin levels. We are not even aware of Method 23 testing being part 

of EPA's Section 1 14 request. Furthermore, how is it justifiable to regulate 

negligible emissions levels when the control costs for these particular emissions 

would cost hundreds of thousands per ton reduced? Unless there is actually 

objective evidence to prove this is a problem why does the EPA appear to be 

looking for it? Requiring small businesses to spend at minimum, hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to control this made-up problem is reprehensible. 

4. Any requirement that businesses must remove functioning and effective controls that 

were put on in good faith from the last MACT punishes those who have complied with 

the intent of the Clean Air Act. 

a. EPA suggesting that future controls under a "new" MACT standard may likely 

require the removal of existing viable controls installed in good faith and with 

strong commitment to the required compliance regime under the previous 

MACT. Additional removal costs will run hundreds of thousands per ton of 

pollutant potentially reduced. We feel this is unconscionable after the Brick 

Industry spent in good faith hundreds of millions of dollars complying with the 

previous MACT standard. 

As an attorney, I respect the task that you individually, and as an agency, have been 

instructed with. We certainly don't expect a superficial rule that has been watered-down to be 

meaningless in effect. Instead, I believe both the industry and the EPA can compromise to come 

up with a well-crafted and effective rule that does not annihilate an entire industry. 
Cherokee Brick and Tile genuinely appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to 

EPA on this critically important issue and will look forward to further communication as the 

process evolves. 

Sincerely, 

Kate Russell