Date: January 29, 2008 

Subject: Minutes of the January 24, 2008 Meeting 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 was 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 (BSCP) manufacturing industry in light of the Court’s 

vacature of the original NESHAP. This memorandum 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 meeting included determination of the MACT floor, 

variability, non-technology factors, “no control” floors, work practice standards, and EPA data 

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

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

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

survey, and updates to the BSCP industry inventory. 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 testing 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 Clay 

Products NESHAP

U.S. EPA Meeting with Brick 

Industry Association

January 24, 2008

Attachment 1
Background

 Final rule published in Federal Register on May 16,  Petition for judicial review filed by Sierra Club; Cou

vacating Brick rule on March 13, 2007; Mandate iss18, 2007.

 Notice of Intent to Sue filed by Sierra Club/Jim Pew 

2007; 60-day notice period has passed, and lawsuifiled at any time.

 Working to re-develop MACT floors to reflect princip

in Court decision. Rulemaking will go through re-ppublic comment, and promulgation.
Determination Of MACT F

 At promulgation, EPA excluded non-DLA technology 

ranking of best-performing kilns and set the floor folarge tunnel kilns based on DLAs.

 This was done based on the argument that kilns we

retrofit with wet scrubbers because of a lack of sewtreat scrubber wastewater, or with DIFF or DLS/FF affecting production.

 As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to set M

based on what is achieved in practice based on avaemissions data. EPA will include data from all bestsources in re-developing the MACT floor, including tnon-DLA technology.
Determination Of MACT Fcont’d

 EPA plans to use updated inventory to re-develop M

however, our current inventory update is incompletpermits are available online for only about 50% of 

 Would like industry input to complete updates to in

as changes in: company/facility (new company namfacility), kilns (new kilns, shutdowns), emission conmaximum production rate (size), and major source 

 Inventory of large tunnel kilns also has emissions d

Plan to gather more emissions data (for HF, HCl, anWould like industry assistance to obtain full compliareports for large tunnel kilns. (See Tables 1 and 2.) 
Determination Of MACT Fcont’d

Table 1. Emission Controls at Large Tunnel Kilns

Existing sources

Emission 

controls In place Retrofit

New 

sources Tota

DLA 11 15 2 28DIFF 4 74 15

DLS/FF 4 12

7

SC 2 21

5

BH 2 00

2

None 59 0 0 59Total 82 25 9 116Notes:

1. "In place" = emission controls in place at promulgation.2. "Retrofit" = emission controls retrofitted since promulgation.

3. "New sources" = new sources as defined under original promulgati

will be considered existing sources under re-proposal.
Determination Of MACT Fcont’d

Table 2. Availability of Emissions Data for Large TunKilns with Emission Controls

Emission 

controls

No. in 

inventory

No. with HF 

data

No. with HCl 

data

No. w

d

DL

A 28 12 4 

DIFF 15 3 1 DLS/FF 7 4 3 SC 5 2 0 BH 2 0 0 None 59 10 4 Total 116 31 12 Note: Some of these emissions data are prior to installation of emissi

control; emissions could either be adjusted based on assumed controefficiency for the emission control or replaced with more recent controdata.
Variability

 At promulgation, EPA used the highest emission lev

with the best performers (i.e., all DLA-controlled kilemission limits that reflect the performance that thcontrolled sources continually achieve considering v

 As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to cons

variability (e.g., run-to-run, test-to-test variability) eby the best-performing sources.

 Would like industry assistance to obtain individual t

and also any available repeat test reports.
Non-Technology Factors

 At promulgation, EPA stated it did not have the dat

determine precisely how much of an effect non-tecfactors (e.g., substitution of fuels and clays with lowcontent) had on emissions and believed that they wviable MACT floor control options. Consequently, Ebased only on emission control technology.

 As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to exam

relevant factors to set MACT floors—raw materials chloride content), kiln fuel type (e.g., coal, natural 

 Would like industry assistance to obtain data on an

technology factors that could impact emissions.
“No Control” Floors

 At promulgation, EPA set “no emissions reductions” 

existing small tunnel kilns because the 94th percenno air emission control technology and because chatechnology factors were not “appropriate” or “viablset “no emissions reductions” floors for periodic briexplaining that they also used no emission control 

 As a result of the Court decision, EPA plans to esta

standards for each HAP emitted by the Brick source including those not controlled with technology (e.gtunnel kilns and periodic brick kilns).

 Would like industry assistance to obtain full emissio

reports (for HF, HCl, and PM) for small tunnel kilns, especially on those small kilns with emission controTables 3 and 4.) Considering work practice standarperiodic brick kilns.
“No Control” Floors, cont

Table 3. Emission Controls at Small Tunnel Kilns

Existing sources

Emission 

controls In place Retrofit

New 

sources Tota

DLA 3 40

7

DIFF 0 21

3

DLS/FF 0 00

0

SC 0 30

3

BH 2 00

2

None 162 0 2 164Total 167 9 3 179Notes:

1. "In place" = emission controls in place at promulgation.2. "Retrofit" = emission controls retrofitted since promulgation.3. "New sources" = new sources as defined under original promulgatiwill be considered existing sources under re-proposal.
“No Control” Floors, cont

Table 4. Availability of Emissions Data for Small Tunne

Kilns with Emission Controls

Emission 

controls

No. in 

inventory

No. with HF 

data

No. with HCl 

data

No. w

d

DLA 7 0 0 DIFF 3 0 0 DLS/FF 0 0 0 SC 3 0 0 BH 2 0 0 None 164 16 3 1Total 179 16 3 1Note: The emissions data are prior to installation of emission control;

emissions could be either adjusted based on assumed control efficiencfor the emission control or replaced with more recent controlled data.
Work Practice Standards

 At promulgation for Clay Ceramics, EPA adopted the wor

standard of using clean-burning fuels, pointing out that clike periodic brick kilns, use no emission control devices afeasibly substitute clays. EPA argued that setting a more based on the emissions levels achieved by using clean-buwas not feasible due to the lack of data needed to calculfloor.

 As a result of the Court decision on Clay Ceramics kilns, 

examine the feasibility of testing periodic brick kilns. If imay set work practice standards (if any) consistent with requirements of CAA 

§112(h), which provides that:  “if it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to pre

an emission standard..., the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard.” “N“the application of measurement methodology to a particular cnot practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”
Work Practice Standards, cont’d

 Would like input from industry on whether it is tech

and/or economically feasible to test emission sourcperiodic kilns and what types of work practice standbe applicable for such sources. It has to be technoeconomically infeasible before work practices can b
EPA Data and InformatioNeeds

 Input to help us complete updates to the Brick and 

Clay Products tunnel kiln inventory (large and smalkilns), such as changes in: company/facility (new cname, new facility), kilns (new kilns, shutdowns), econtrols, kiln maximum production rate (size), and status.

 Assistance obtaining full compliance test reports fo

kilns, including individual test run data and any avatest reports. Requesting emissions data for HF, HC

 Assistance obtaining data on any non-technology fa

as raw materials (e.g., clay chloride content) and k(e.g., coal, natural gas), that could impact emission
EPA Data and InformatioNeeds, cont’d

 Assistance obtaining full emissions test reports for 

kilns, especially for those small tunnel kilns with emcontrols. Requesting emissions data for HF, HCl, an

 Input regarding technical and economic feasibility o

emission sources such as periodic kilns. If testing iwhat types of work practice standards would be apsuch sources?