# Date: January 29, 2008

Subject: Minutes of the January 24, 2008 Mee ting with Representatives of the Brick

Manufacturing Industry

Standards Development for Brick, Structural Clay, and Clay Ceramics

Manufacturing

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 1-28

RTI Project No. 0210426.001.028

From: Thomas Holloway

To: Jeffrey Telander

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

I. Introduction

A meeting with representatives of the brick manufacturing industry wa s held at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 24, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to

discuss steps for redeveloping national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

for the brick and structural clay products (BSC P) manufacturing industry in light of the Court’s

vacature of the original NESHAP. This memo randum summarizes the major topics discussed

during the meeting.

II. Attendees

Joseph Casper, The Brick Industry Association (BIA)

David Evans, Reed Smith LLP

J. David McKeown, Hanson Building Products America

Dave McNees, General Shale Brick, Inc.

Terry Schimmel, Boral Bricks Inc.

Steve Fruh, U.S. EPA, OAQPS

Scott Jordan, U.S. EPA, OGC

Brian Shrager, U.S. EPA, OAQPS

Jeffrey Telander, U.S. EPA, OAQPS

Katie Hanks, RTI International

Thomas Holloway, RTI International

# 2 III. Discussion

The major topics discussed during the meeti ng included determination of the MACT floor,

variability, non-tec hnology factors, “no control” floors, wo rk practice standards, and EPA data

and information needs. Attachment 1 presents th e meeting notes which cover these major topics.

Other related topics that were covered duri ng the meeting included NESHAP timelines, MACT

floor methodologies, BSCP area sources, industr y subcategories, emission controls, industry

survey, and updates to the BSCP industry invent ory. A draft inventory of BSCP facilities and

associated kilns will be sent to the BIA for their review and update. Once a final updated

inventory has been developed, further steps to obtain data and information on kiln emissions,

non-technology factors, and feasibility of tes ting periodic kilns will be addressed. Regular

meetings with the BSCP industry (e.g., quarterly ) were proposed as a means of maintaining an

ongoing dialogue.Brick and Structural ClayProducts NESHAPU.S. EPA Meeting with BrickIndustry AssociationJanuary 24, 2008Attachment 12BackgroundFinal rule published in Federal Register on May 16, 2003.Petition for judicial review filed by Sierra Club; Court decisionvacating Brick rule on March 13, 2007; Mandate issued on June18, 2007.Notice of Intent to Sue filed by Sierra Club/Jim Pew in July2007; 60-day notice period has passed, and lawsuit could befiled at any time.Working to re-develop MACT floors to reflect principles definedin Court decision. Rulemaking will go through re-proposal,public comment, and promulgation.3Determination Of MACT FloorAt promulgation, EPA excluded non-DLA technology from itsranking of best-performing kilns and set the floor for existinglarge tunnel kilns based on DLAs.This was done based on the argument that kilns were unable toretrofit with wet scrubbers because of a lack of sewer access totreat scrubber wastewater, or with DIFF or DLS/FF withoutaffecting production.As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to set MACT floorsbased on what is achieved in practice based on availableemissions data. EPA will include data from all best-performingsources in re-developing the MACT floor, including those usingnon-DLA technology.4Determination Of MACT Floor,cont’dEPA plans to use updated inventory to re-develop MACT floor;however, our current inventory update is incomplete (newpermits are available online for only about 50% of kilns).Would like industry input to complete updates to inventory, suchas changes in: company/facility (new company name, newfacility), kilns (new kilns, shutdowns), emission controls, kilnmaximum production rate (size), and major source status.Inventory of large tunnel kilns also has emissions data gaps.Plan to gather more emissions data (for HF, HCl, and PM).Would like industry assistance to obtain full compliance testreports for large tunnel kilns. (See Tables 1 and 2.)5Determination Of MACT Floor,cont’dTable 1. Emission Controls at Large Tunnel KilnsExisting sourcesEmissioncontrols In place RetrofitNewsources TotalDLA 11 15 228DIFF4 7415DLS/FF4 127SC2 215BH2 002None59 0 059Total82 25 9 116Notes:1. "In place" = emission controls in place at promulgation.2. "Retrofit" = emission controls retrofitted since promulgation.3. "New sources" = new sources asdefined under original promulgation;will be consideredexisting sourcesunder re-proposal.6Determination Of MACT Floor,cont’dTable 2. Availability ofEmissions Data for Large TunnelKilns with Emission ControlsEmissioncontrolsNo. ininventoryNo. with HFdataNo. with HCldataNo. with PMdataDLA28 12 4 9DIFF 15 3 1 2DLS/FF 7 4 3 4SC 5 2 0 2BH 2 0 0 1None 59 10 4 7Total 116 31 12 25Note: Some of these emissions data are prior to installation of emissioncontrol; emissions could eitherbe adjusted based on assumed controlefficiency for the emission control orreplaced with more recent controlleddata.7VariabilityAt promulgation, EPA used the highest emission level associatedwith the best performers (i.e., all DLA-controlled kilns) to setemission limits that reflect the performance that the bestcontrolled sources continually achieve considering variability.As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to consider thevariability (e.g., run-to-run, test-to-test variability) experiencedby the best-performing sources.Would like industry assistance to obtain individual test run dataand also any available repeat test reports.8Non-Technology FactorsAt promulgation, EPA stated it did not have the data todetermine precisely how much of an effect non-technologyfactors (e.g., substitution of fuels and clays with lower HAPcontent) had on emissions and believed that they were notviable MACT floor control options. Consequently, EPA set floorsbased only on emission control technology.As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to examine allrelevant factors to set MACT floors—raw materials (e.g., claychloride content), kiln fuel type (e.g., coal, natural gas), etc.Would like industry assistance to obtain data on any nontechnology factors that could impact emissions.9“No Control” FloorsAt promulgation, EPA set “no emissions reductions” floors forexisting small tunnel kilns because the 94th percentile kiln usedno air emission control technology and because changes in nontechnology factors were not “appropriate” or “viable.” EPA alsoset “no emissions reductions” floors for periodic brick kilns,explaining that they also used no emission control technology.As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to establish emissionstandards for each HAP emitted by the Brick source category,including those not controlled with technology (e.g., smalltunnel kilns and periodic brick kilns).Would like industry assistance to obtain full emissions testreports (for HF, HCl, and PM) for small tunnel kilns, focusingespecially on those small kilnswith emission controls. (SeeTables 3 and 4.) Considering work practice standards forperiodic brick kilns.10“No Control” Floors, cont’dTable 3. Emission Controls at Small Tunnel KilnsExisting sourcesEmissioncontrols In place RetrofitNewsources TotalDLA3 407DIFF0 213DLS/FF0 000SC0 303BH2 002None 162 0 2164Total167 9 3 179Notes:1. "In place" = emission controls in place at promulgation.2. "Retrofit" = emission controls retrofitted since promulgation.3. "New sources" = new sources asdefined under original promulgation;will be considered existing sources under re-proposal.11“No Control” Floors, cont’dTable 4. Availability of Emissions Datafor Small TunnelKilns with Emission ControlsEmissioncontrolsNo. ininventoryNo. with HFdataNo. with HCldataNo. with PMdataDLA 7 0 0 0DIFF 3 0 0 1DLS/FF 0 0 0 0SC 3 0 0 0BH 2 0 0 0None 164 16 3 11Total 179 16 3 12Note: The emissions data are prior toinstallation of emission control;emissions could be either adjusted based on assumed control efficiencyfor the emission control or replacedwith more recent controlled data.12Work Practice StandardsAt promulgation for Clay Ceramics, EPA adopted the work practicestandard of using clean-burning fuels, pointing out that ceramics kilns,like periodic brick kilns, use no emission control devices and cannotfeasibly substitute clays. EPA argued that setting a more precise floorbased on the emissions levels achieved by using clean-burning fuelswas not feasible due to the lack of data needed to calculate the MACTfloor.As a result of the Court decision on Clay Ceramics kilns, EPA plans toexamine the feasibility of testing periodic brick kilns. If infeasible, EPAmay set work practice standards (if any) consistent with therequirements of CAA§112(h), which provides that:“if it is not feasible in the judgment ofthe Administrator to prescribe or enforcean emission standard..., the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate adesign, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.” “Not feasible” means“the application of measurement methodologyto a particular class of sources isnot practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”13Work Practice Standards,cont’dWould like input from industry on whether it is technologicallyand/or economically feasible to test emission sources such asperiodic kilns and what types of work practice standards wouldbe applicable for such sources. It has to be technologically andeconomically infeasible before work practices can be allowed.14EPA Data and InformationNeedsInput to help us complete updates to the Brick and StructuralClay Products tunnel kiln inventory (large and small tunnelkilns), such as changes in: company/facility (new companyname, new facility), kilns (new kilns, shutdowns), emissioncontrols, kiln maximum production rate (size), and major sourcestatus.Assistance obtaining full compliance test reports for large tunnelkilns, including individual test run data and any available repeattest reports. Requesting emissions data for HF, HCl, and PM.Assistance obtaining data on any non-technology factors, suchas raw materials (e.g., clay chloride content) and kiln fuel type(e.g., coal, natural gas), that could impact emissions.15EPA Data and InformationNeeds, cont’dAssistance obtaining full emissions test reports for small tunnelkilns, especially for those small tunnel kilns with emissioncontrols. Requesting emissions data for HF, HCl, and PM.Input regarding technical and economic feasibility of testingemission sources such as periodic kilns. If testing is infeasible,what types of work practice standards would be applicable forsuch sources?