1 | P a g e MACT Task Force

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: September 3 , 2013

To: Jeff Telander, EPA/SSPD

From: Susan Miller, Brick Industry Association

BIA MACT Task Force
Subject: Suggested revisions to Brick and Structural Clay MACT Monitoring, Reporting,

and Recordkeeping Requirements for “Traditional” MACT approach

The purpose of this memorandum is to present recommended changes to the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements from those presented in the Brick and Structural Clay Products MACT promulgated in 2003. Please note that these suggestions in no way should be taken as an endorsement of a “ t raditional” approach for the upcoming 2014 Brick MACT. As we have stated on numerous occasions, we continue to believe that the approach best supported by the data for tunnel kilns in this industry is a health

- based approach for threshold pollutants combined with work practice requirements for the particulate HAP, including mercury. However, we recognize that EPA may opt to co

- propose both alternatives. T herefore, we are provid ing these comments.
These comments were obtained by surveying facilities that were required to install and operate air pollution control devices under the 2003 Brick MACT. Since these facilities actually implemented the previous mo nitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements , they can provide the best evaluation of a regulatory requirement

. We will co ntinue to discuss potential changes with our member and non

- member companies and will submit additional information, if warranted. These are listed in no particular order.

 EPA should allow industry to establish a lime/limestone feed rate based on “per to n of fired product” basis. This can ensure compliance while not wasting reagent when a facility is operating well below the tested capacity. This could be established from a single test

- then, if a kiln if operating at less than full capacity , it can use less reagent. The allowance for the use of a continuous emission monitoring system should remain in the MACT as an alternative compliance approach.2 | P a g e

 EPA should change the parameter monitored for a DLA. The pressure drop is not an accurate indicator o f proper operation. In North Carolina, a facility requested and received permission to allow a bypass position indicator to be an altern ative. We believe this requirement, combined with the requirement to ensure that the DLA has adequate limestone would ensure compliance.

 EPA should clarify that a single control device being used for multiple kilns is acceptable. Compliance should be de monstrated based on the combined throughput of all kilns venting through the control. If multiple kilns are subject to different limits, an “effective limit” could be calculated using the relative capacities.

 EPA should clearly specify that only one MACT would apply at any one time to a specific kiln. This would eliminate confusion over possible overlap with other MACTs, such as the Tile MACT or the Refractory MACT.

 All limits and applicability determinations (e.g., size sub

- categories), including health

- based, should be based on yearly averages.

 The requirements for developing a site specific start

- up, shutdown, and malfunction plan should be included in the 2014 Brick MACT as a work practice. The approach of allowing for an “affirmative defense” should not be used as the sole approach for this MACT since work practices are available to demonstrate compliance and the emissions are different during these periods , justifying a separate standard

.

 The allowance for uncontrolled bypass should remain in the 2014 MACT, as all controls currently in operation, including those used to establish MACT floor limits , require maintenance that requires some uncontrolled bypass.

 Since the “capacity” of a brick kiln can change based on factors such as push rate, void space, and kiln loading, EPA should allow kilns to o perate at 10 percent more than tested “capacity” before a retest is required. This is similar to allowances provided in many states.

 If EPA retains any requirements for conducting three hour averages (such as in the wet scrubber provisions), EPA should cl early state that no averaging is required if all readings during the averaging period are within acceptable limits.

 EPA should clarify that the limestone feed rate setting check does not create the need for a continuous monitoring system, as impli ed by paragraph 63.8445.

 If EPA again proposes an alternative based on PM as a surrogate for non

- mercury metal HAPs , the old MACT states that only front half emissions , as measured using Method 5, were used to establish the limit and only front half emissions should be used for demonstrating compliance. However, some states require compliance to be based on both front and back since they define PM to include both . EPA must make it clear in the rul e that the limit is based on only front

- half emissions.3 | P a g e

 Any requirement to verify the presence of adequate limestone thought a “daily visual check” should be revised. This seems to imply (and was previously interpreted to mean) that a person would need to physically climb to the top of a DLA each day. This is an unnecessary requirement and creates an unnecessary worker safety concern. DLAs are generally equipped with high and low loading sensors that can be checked daily, with periodic maintenance of th ose receptors per manufacturer’s recommendations.