Date: February 15, 2013 

Subject: Minutes of the January 28, 2013 Meeting with Representatives of the Brick 

Manufacturing Industry 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and NESHAP for 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; EPA Work Assignment No. 1-04 

RTI Project No. 0213199.001.004 

From: Kristin Sroka, Thomas Holloway, Gabrielle Raymond 

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 28, 2013. 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 vacatur of the original NESHAP. This memorandum summarizes the major topics discussed 

during the meeting. 

II. Attendees and Affiliations 

Susan Miller, The Brick Industry Association (BIA) 

Irene Kuo, BIA 

Paul Regina, BIA 

Terry Schimmel, Boral Bricks Inc./BIA 

John E. Miller, Whitacre Greer Co. 

Garth Tayler, Acme Brick Company 

Jeffrey Telander, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

Keith Barnett, U.S. EPA, OAQPS 

Ted Palma, U.S. EPA, OAQPS 

Steve Fruh, U.S. EPA, OAQPS 

Marguerite McLamb, U.S. EPA, OAQPS 

Kristin Sroka, RTI International 

Thomas Holloway, RTI International 

Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International 
2 

III. Discussion 

Prior to the meeting, industry representatives provided the EPA with a list of topics they 

wanted to discuss during the meeting (see Attachment 1). At the start of the meeting, the EPA 

representatives noted that the draft schedule for redevelopment of the BSCP NESHAP had been 

set by a proposed settlement agreement, with a draft proposal date of August 30. Industry 

representatives indicated that they had submitted comments on the proposed agreement 

recommending that the schedule be extended to include more time to ensure that the rule is wellwritten and as flexible as possible, and that full consideration can be given to small business 

concerns. The EPA representatives stated that they hoped to schedule a meeting with potential 

small entity representatives (SERs) in February. Industry representatives noted that they had 

conducted a case study to determine the potential impacts of a rule consisting solely of maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) limits on a small business model facility, and they 

provided a handout showing the results of that study (see Attachment 2). 

In addition to a compliance option based solely on MACT limits, another option under 

consideration is a health-based compliance option for the acid gases hydrogen fluoride (HF), 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), and chlorine (Cl2) that would be supported by the results of risk 

modeling of those pollutants. The EPA representatives explained how the normalized inputs for 

the modeling were developed (including incorporating data previously provided by industry 

representatives) and how the models were run to obtain chronic and acute risk results. For acute 

risk, the biggest source of uncertainty is the distance from the stack to the facility fenceline. 

Although satellite and aerial images can be used to assign and confirm the coordinates of stacks, 

those images do not definitively show the property boundary, so the EPA used assumed 

distances in many cases. Industry representatives stated they would look into providing actual 

distances to the fenceline. The EPA representatives also stated that, based on the information in 

hand about kiln operations (e.g., continuous operation), a variability factor of 2 was used in the 

analysis. (In many industries, the default factor is 10, partially to account for non-continuous 

operation.) The EPA representatives agreed to provide a description of the considerations used 

when selecting variability factors so that industry could provide any additional information that 

might support a different factor. 

Prior to the meeting, the EPA provided industry representatives with a description of the 

methodology used to calculate MACT floors and a copy of the BSCP tunnel kiln test data set 

(see Attachments 3 and 4, respectively). Industry representatives noted that they are working to 

collect more data on mercury emissions from BSCP kilns, including the source of the mercury, 

control options, and ideas for alternative methods of compliance. Industry representatives also 

noted that the EPA’s methodology indicates that the MACT floor is based on the average of the 

top 12 percent of the available data, and they asked the EPA to consider basing the MACT floor 

on the average of the top 12 percent of all the kilns in the category, based on the contention that 

the EPA had already obtained data for the top 12 percent of kilns. As part of this analysis, they 

also asked the EPA to consider assigning test data for one kiln to a similar kiln at the same 

facility which would increase the number of kilns with data. The EPA representatives indicated 

that they are considering work practice standards for periodic kilns and dryers as well as for 

dioxin/furan emissions from tunnel kilns. 
3 

Industry representatives stated they have considered pursuing the process of getting the 

source category delisted. They indicated that they don’t have enough information to make a 

decision yet and asked the EPA for general information on the process. The EPA representatives 

stated that the industry would have to petition to have the source category delisted in accordance 

with section 112(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act, and the petition would need to include sufficient 

information to show that all of the facilities in the category are below the applicable thresholds 

for cancer and non-cancer risk. 

The EPA representatives noted that it would be helpful for industry to provide data to 

support the answers to technical questions that may arise going forward. Industry representatives 

also indicated that they plan to provide suggestions for revisions to the BSCP NESHAP to 

improve the clarity and enforceability of provisions originally included in the vacated rule. 
Attachment 1 

General Topics for Discussion 

Provided by Susan Miller, BIA, via Email on January 23, 2013 

 Database/Data 

 MACT Approach – Update and Questions 

o MACT floor approach/“Traditional” approach 

o Health-based alternative standard 

o Delisting 

 Small Business Panel meeting – schedule 

 Schedule and timing for input on applicability/definition of category, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
Attachment 2 

“Case Study – Why Health-Based Is So Critical” 

Handout Provided by BIA during January 28, 2013, Meeting 
Case Study- Why Health-8ased is so Critical

Facility: A 100- year old family owned brick manufacturing facility. The facility has been in

the same location for since the company opened. They currently have two natural

gas-fired kilns firing pressed brick/pavers:

• 6.8 ton per hour (tph) kiln constructed in 1954, uncontrolled

• 11.9 tph kiln constructed in 1964, uncontrolled

Health-based compliance approach.

• Used site-specific stack parameters for both kilns; Stack test data from one

kiln test applied to both

• used emissions model as directed by EPA, combined HQs for HF, HCI and CI2

in to a single HI.

• Total HI for plant: 0.059

"Traditional Approach."

Assumptions:

Total capital investment: $ 4,600,000

Total annualized investment (A): $835,082

Total operating costs (B): $857,835

Total annualized costs (A + B): $1,692,917

Emissions and estimated reductions:

•

•

Results:

•

•

•

•

•

• Based on last discussions with EPA, we are assuming that both kilns would

be required to install a dry-injection/fabric filter (DIFF) system to control HF,

HCI, CI2 and PM as a surrogate for metal HAPs

Using EPA's cost algorithms provided in 2008 dollars for small and large

kilns.

Assuming 99 percent reduction for conservative calculation of cost

effectiveness.

Pollutant Emission

lib/ton)

Percent

Reduction

Total emission

reduction for

18.7 tph

HF .13 99 10.7

HCI .0096 99 0.78

PM-HAP (1% of

PM)

CI2

TOTAL

.0081 99 .66

0.03

12.17

• Annualized cost per ton of emission reduction: $139.100/ton

Costs not included: Any control requirements for mercury, dioxin, SSM requirements, etc....
Attachment 3 

Procedure for Calculating MACT Floors 

Provided to BIA by Jeff Telander, EPA, via Email on January 22, 2013 

When calculating MACT floors, here is a summary of the approach we follow: 

 Step 1. Run by run stack test data from the BSCP data set were used to calculate an 

average emission factor (pound per ton brick [lb/ton]) for each tunnel kiln per pollutant. 

 Step 2. Ranked all of the BSCP tunnel kilns by their average emission factor per 

pollutant (lowest to highest). 

 Step 3. From this ranking, a MACT floor pool of sources was identified. For existingsource MACT floors took 12% of sources for which we had data ( ≥30 tunnel kilns 

nationwide) and rounded up to nearest whole number. For the new-source MACT floors, 

the best-controlled similar source was identified for which there were individual source 

test run data in the BSCP data set. 

 Step 4. Each MACT floor pool data set (for each pollutant) was evaluated for Kurtosis 

and skewness to determine if the data set for the best performing source(s) was normally 

distributed. If these tests indicated the data set was normally distributed, the data set was 

treated as normally distributed in subsequent upper predictive limit (UPL) calculations. If 

either of these tests indicated the data set was not normally distributed, the data set was 

log transformed, and the log transformed data set was evaluated for Kurtosis and 

skewness. If these tests indicated the data set was log-normally distributed, the data set 

was treated as log-normally distributed in subsequent UPL calculations. If either of these 

tests indicated the log transformed data set was not log-normally distributed, the data set 

was treated as non-normally/non-lognormally distributed in subsequent UPL calculations. 

For data sets consisting of only three values (n=3), a subsequent UPL calculation was 

used for data sets with n=3. 

 Step 5. After completing the determination of the type of data distribution for the best 

performing source’s data set, the data set was input to the series of calculations necessary 

to calculate the UPL. 

 Step 6a. For data sets that contained any data that were Below Detection Level (BDL) or 

Detection Level Limited (DLL), there was an additional step taken after the UPL was 

calculated. Individual BDL or DDL values were used as is within the data set. The UPL 

was calculated with the appropriate equation for the data distribution. Then, the results of 

the UPL calculation were compared to the emission limit value determined to be 

equivalent to 3 times the representative detection limit (3xRDL) of the relevant 

performance test method(s). 
The 3xRDL values given in guidance document were given in units of concentration 

(μg/dscm). The emission limits for this rule are in units of lb/ton of brick. In order to be 

able to compare the calculated UPL to 3xRDL, the 3xRDL value was converted to units 

of lb/ton using a ratio. The ratio was developed from the available concentration and 

lb/ton data for each dataset. Calculated the ratio of the emission factor to the 

concentration value for each run with both values by taking the lb/ton value and dividing 

it by the concentration value. Calculated the average of all the ratio values. Identified 

the typical sample size for the dataset. Identified the appropriate 3xRDL concentration 

value to use from the guidance document according to pollutant and typical sample size. 

Multiplied the appropriate 3xRDL concentration value by the average ratio to convert the 

3xRDL value into lb/ton units. 

 Step 6b. Compare the 3xRDL value to the calculated UPL. If the calculated UPL value 

was less than the emission limit value determined to be equivalent to 3xRDL value, the 

3xRDL value was used as the basis for the standard because the 3xRDL value provides 

the lowest emission rate that can be measured using the performance test method while 

maintaining a relative method precision on the order of 10 to 20 percent of the measured 

value. If the UPL value was equal to or greater than the 3xRDL value, then the UPL 

value was used as the basis for the standard. 
Attachment 4 

BSCP Tunnel Kiln Test Data Set (Run-by-Run) 

Provided to BIA by Jeff Telander, EPA, via Email on January 22, 2013