JAMES M. INHOFE, OKLAHOMA, CHAIRMAN
DAVID VITTER, LOUISIANA JOHN BARRASSO, WYOMING SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, WESTVIRGINIA MIKE CRAPO, IDAHO JOHNBOOZMAN, AAKANSAS JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA ROGER WICKER, MISSISSIPPI DEB FISCHER, NEBRASKA MIKE ROUNDS, SOUTH DAKOTA DAN SULLIVAN, ALASKA BARBARA BOXER, CALIFORNIA THOMAS A CARPER, DELAWARE BENJAMIN L CARDIN, MARYLAND BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND JEFF MERKLEY, OREGON KIRSTEN GILLIBRANO, NEWYORK CORY A. BOOKER, NEW JERSEY EDWARD J

. MARKEY, MASSACHUSETTS

RYAN JACKSON, MAJORITYSTAFFDIRECTOR BETTINA POIRIER, DEMOCRATICSTAFFDIRECTOR

Hon. Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenueNW Washington, DC 20460
Dear AdministratorMcCarthy: 

# CJ.anitcd

**~tatcs ~cnatc**  COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAND PUBLIC WORKS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
July 2, 2015

As you enter into your final deliberation on the Brick MACT, we request you give full consideration to the proposals on regulating mercury and particulate metal emissions from brick plants provided by the regulated industry. The proposals include either establishing a work practice for mercury emissions or delaying the regulation ofmercury from this industry until a reasonable amount ofdata can be collected that demonstrate that the control ofmercury is truly worth the costs that will be incurred. Standards resulting in costly and anticipated control technology must demonstrate that any costs create commensurate benefits. That does not appear to be the case here. Instead, EPA's Brick MACT regulations may shutter numerous brick manufacturing facilities.
EPA's own estimates ofthepotential mercury reductions from this industry are small

- only 118 pounds annually. Data provided to you using Agency models demonstrate that these minimal emissions of mercury are well below EPA's established reference dose. While we are not suggesting that EPA use a full health-based approach to setting the mercury standard for brick plants, we do request that your Agency acknowledge the low impacts in its decision-making, as is allowed under Section 112(d)(4) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). The low potential ofemission reduction and EPA's own models show that the benefit from regulation is extremely minor, while each control device will cost approximately $2 million

- controls that have never before been used on abrickplantfor mercury. There is a compelling case and legal justification for establishing work practices instead of numeric emission limits. In their technical comments, the Brick Industry Associationhighlighted significant limitations that would prevent EPA Method 29 from working on a brick plant, as it was designed for plants that have significantly higher mercury emissions. As it is also a very expensive test, the economic feasibility for a small brickplantto comply with these conditions is uncertain. There is ample justification for EPA to conclude that, in light of technical and economic limitations, it is not feasible under these circumstances for a typical brick plant to demonstrate compliance with a numeric mercury emissions limitation. Such a finding would supportestablishing workpractices standards under Section 112(h) ofthe CAA.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERShould the EPA continue to ignore alternative methods and rely on their proposal with minimal data, roughly one-third of the small businesses

.that comprise the brick industry could go bankrupt or be forced to consolidate operations, costing countlessjobs. Further, the technology required to control mercury emissions is not proven, requiring brick operators to seek financing for a control that may quickly become inefficient. Given the uncertainty ofthe technology's effectiveness, combined withthe cost ofthe technology itself, it is concerningthatthe EPAplans to considerthis method so readily.
This is not the only opportunity EPA will have to consider regulation of these sources, as reviews ofMACTrules are required every 8years. EPA canestablish workpracticesthat ensure data is collected to allow a full evaluation ofmercury and appropriate action, ifnecessary. Any subsequent decision by EPA would be based on more comprehensive data and a better and thoroughunderstanding ofthe issues.
The brick industry is one ofthe country's oldest manufacturing industries, creating thousands of jobs across the country for hardworking Americans, and itprovides aproductthat canbe seen in virtually every community

. A rule that can have such tremendous impact .on the brick industry, possibly requiring many brick operators to cease operations, deserves the appropriate time and consideration for all available options, and we implore the EPA to take its due diligence and carefully consider all ofthe criticalpoints shared in this letter.
Sincerely,



# ::(~~Vttt: DavidVitter ba' nan United States Senator Co

.mittee onEnvironment and Public Works



# ~~ United States Senator