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 “traditional” 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. Therefore, we are 

providing 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 monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, they can 

provide the best evaluation of a regulatory requirement. We will continue 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 ton 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 of proper operation. In North Carolina, a facility requested and received permission 

to allow a bypass position indicator to be an alternative. 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 demonstrated 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 operate 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 clearly 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 implied 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 rule 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 

those receptors per manufacturer’s recommendations.