JAMES M. INHOFE, OKLAHOMA, CHAIRMAN 

DAVID VITTER, LOUISIANA 

JOHN BARRASSO, WYOMING 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, WEST VIRGINIA 

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, NEW YORK 

CORY A. BOOKER, NEW JERSEY 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, MASSACHUSETTS 

RYAN JACKSON, MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR 

BETTINA POIRIER, DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR 

Hon. Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

CJ.anitcd ~tatcs ~cnatc COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 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 of mercury from this industry until a 

reasonable amount of data can be collected that demonstrate that the control of mercury 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 of the potential 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) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The low potential of emission 

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 a brick plant for 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 Association highlighted 

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 brick plant to 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 

support establishing work practices standards under Section 112(h) ofthe CAA. 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
Should 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 countless jobs. 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 of the technology's 

effectiveness, combined with the cost of the technology itself, it is concerning that the EPA plans 

to consider this method so readily. 

This is not the only opportunity EPA will have to consider regulation of these sources, as 

reviews of MACT rules are required every 8 years. EPA can establish work practices that ensure 

data is collected to allow a full evaluation of mercury and appropriate action, if necessary. Any 

subsequent decision by EPA would be based on more comprehensive data and a better and 

thorough understanding of the issues. 

The brick industry is one of the country's oldest manufacturing industries, creating thousands of 

jobs across the country for hardworking Americans, and it provides a product that can be 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 of the critical points shared in this letter. 

Sincerely, 

::(~~Vttt: David Vitter 

ba' n an United States Senator 

Co .mittee on Environment and Public Works 

~~ United States Senator