Red land Br i ck I nc

. 157 1 8 Cl e a r Sp ri ng R oad P.O. Box 160 May 7, 2 010 Williamsport. Mary l and 21795 (301) 223-770 0

M

r. JeffTe land er US EPA Mai l Code D24 3 -0 2 I 09 TW Alexander Driv e RTP , NC 27709 (301) 223-6675 Fax



### BRICK Dear Mr. Teland e r: A n 15090 0 1 Reg i stered Qu al ity System

Li s ted b e l ow are m y answe rs to th e qu estions yo u posed. I have a nswe r ed th ese q uest io ns to the b est of m

y ability ba se d on m y interpre tati on a nd und e rs tand in g. I ha ve attended r ece nt m ee tin gs w ith BIA and EPA at Research Tr ian g l e Park and in Wa s hin gton. I a l so atte nded a mee tin g at R esea rc h Tri a ng l e Park (RTP) wh e n th e last MAC T was in process. I do not prete nd to know a ll of the detail s of h ea lth ba se d s tandard s but I lik e th e co ncept !fit can be proven that the le ve l of o ur emiss ions is har min g the env iro nm e nt and /or th e public it i s re as onable for u s to have to address the pro bl e m . Apparentl y, the y have go tten good resu lt s so far in N01th Caro lin a so we be \\ eNe th\s s ho uld be pur s u ed further. T hi s m ay be an o pp o r tunity for the CAA to be addressed w i tho ut adversely aff ec tin g th e bri c k manuf acturers th at are s m a ll bu s in e ss es. T h e s m al l bu s in esses wo uld be affec t ed th e m os t by anot her cos tl y MACT impl ementat i o n . Questions for Potential Sma ll E nti ty Representat i ves (SERs) Comp li anc e : 1. Do yo u use an y m o ni tors (e.g., e mi ss ions m o nit o r s o r p rocess par a meter m o nit o rs) to e ns ure t hat yo ur ki In s are ope ratin g prope rl y? If yes , wh at types o f m o nitors and how man y? O ur brick ki In s are o p e r

ated to produ ce produ ct th at h as the appropriate s tru ct ural in teg ri ty, s i ze , texture , and th e correc t co l o r . We mu s t ha ve th e capa bilit y of r e pea tabili ty o n a ll of th ese items from run to run . Pl ease k ee p in mind th at we se ll bri ck primaril y on appearance- co l or and textu re. C han ges in kiln o p eration s h ave a s i g nifi ca nt ef f ec t o n bri c k co l o r and matc hin g run to run. O ur kiln s a re a ll com puter co ntro ll ed. Co mputer sett in gs s u c h a s high and l ow temperatur e se tp o int s for t h e various burners , kiln pu s hrat e, ex hau st a ir flow , fres h ai r fl ow , pressure monitor s, and g a s press ure are s ome of the mo nito rs we emp l oy in th e o p erat i o n of o ur kiln s . T he s e contro l s are strictly for the kiln ope rati o n _ We a l so h ave co nt ro l s o n o ur DLA sc rubb e rs t hat control o ur e mi ss i ons. At o ne l ocatio n we vo lun tari l y in sta ll ed co ntinu o us e mi s s i o n m on i tor ing (CEM) to operate o ur DI FF scrubber. The D!F F scrubbe r was se lec ted to co ntro l S02 and wa s in operatio n fo r abo ut 6 yea rs prior to the in stall at ion ofthe CEM

. Th e CEM read s t h

e e mi s s i o n l eve l s and adju s t s the flow of fresh lim e to t h e DIF F as our l eve l s ofS02 , HF , or HC I va r y. T h e CEM ge ner a ll y on l y has to reac t to th e S0 2 c h an ges as th e e mi ss ion redu c ti o ns o fi

-I F and H C I ge ner a ll y occ ur w ith mini ma l f res h lim e fl ow_ W

e are o ne of o nl y two co mpanies in th e U nite d S tates th at h ave CEM's in sta ll ed o n bri c k scr ubb ers. 2

. Are the se monitor s in pl ace f o r e n v iro nm e ntal reg ul ato r y reaso ns? In s ur ance reaso ns? O r both ?

Manufactu rer of qua l i ty brick prod u c

t s Cushwa 

### KF Harmar Rocky RidgeSee# I above. Our kiln monitor s are in s talled to monitor the kiln ope rati o n. Our CEM was installed to o pe rat e our DIFF sc rubber. At that plant location we ha ve widel y varying amounts ofS02 emissions. We in stalled the DIFF primaril y to control S02 although HF and HCI are also reduced

. The loca l regulatory agency does not require us to calibrate our CEM for HF or HCI s ince tanks of HF and HCI , needed for calibration , are highly to x ic and dangerous to ha ve o n s ite. We perform p e ri odic RATA te st in g to show that our CEM is recording the emissions prop e rl y and h ave passed th ose tests giv ing the County justification to allow us to avoid the HF and HCl calibration. 3. What are the costs to the facilit y ofthese monitor s? What percentage of overa ll facility costs do these r e pre se nt? Th e cost to in s tall a CEM i s about $250 , 000- 300,000 plu s the co st s o f training and ca libration gasses. 4. If you operate any periodic kiln s , do yo u currently conduct any wo rk or o perat ing practi ces that would hav e an impact on HAP emissions from the se kilns? lfyes , plea se explain. We do not operate periodic kiln s at thi s time. 5. If your tunnel kiln s were subject to emission limit s , are there test in g port s avai lable for conducting compliance te s ts? If no t, what do you estimate th e costs to be of modifying the stack fo r te sting ? Do you foresee any other probl e ms with cond ucting stack te sts on your tunnel kilns? If so, plea se explain. Th e stacks of all of our kilns have been tested in th e recent past. We in sta lled test ports when we installed th e stack s becau se our operating permits r e quired periodi c stack testing. Three of our four plants have been shutdown since the fir st of December and have opened back up in the la st month. Our fourth plant has b ee n operating continuously during that sa me peri od (although it was shutdown for two extended period s la st yea r). This plant ha s remained open on ly because we make man y special s haped brick at this location, so mething m ost other bri ck manufacturers ca nn ot s uppl y . All of ou r plants are operating at about 35% of capacity. Repre se ntativ e testing i s usually required to be performed at 95% of capacity. Since we have had so man y s hutdown s in the last t hree years, we have lost man y employees due to attrition. In order to test at 95% of capacity , we would have to hire a seco nd s hift of employees at each location , train th e m for their j obs , ramp up to speed in production , run the test, a nd then permanently lay off all of tho se n ew l y hired employees. Note that we have about 50 0 % turn ov er on new employees due to the phy s ical nature of the work. Since we have about 75 milli o n brick in inventory on the ground at thi s time , we would have to expect EPA to purchase the su rplu s of brick made during thi s entire period as we have no buyer for it. Failure to mo ve thi s extra brick would threaten shutdowns at each location f o r the shifts of employees currently working as we ha ve no ad ditional s pace available for additional inventory. Te st ing at 95% o f capacity i s n ot an option for us this year or, until the eco nomy impro ves s ignifi ca ntly and we a re able to se ll off our existing in ventory. 6. What d o you estimate the costs to be of conducting stack tests for HAP 

### emissions f rom 

### y o ur tunnel kiln s? Under normal circumstances, s tack testing for HF and HCl o nl y wou ld cost approximately $15,000- 20,000. The m os t significant costs f o r us to test during thi s time are for labor to hire an d train additional employees, increa se our production s pe ed , and manufacture product fo r which we have no market. In o rd er to ensure a representative test , we estimate the amount of add itional brick we would manufactureduring this time would be over 6 , 000 , 000 w ith a carry in g cost and investm ent in inventory of over $2,000,000. 7. If your tunnel kilns were subject to emissio n limit s, are there a lternatives to monitoring emiss ions or stac k testing that wou ld be l ess cost l y to demon s trate comp lian ce? If so, please explain the alternatives and estimate how much it would cost to conduct t hem. In o ur circumstances , this ha s not been an optio n to us in the pa st. I f yo u have a material analy s is taken at the time of a s tack test to determine the fluorine and c hl orine content in the raw mater ial , yo u can compa r e relative production and future material an a l

yses with g i ve n s tack test results to predict future e mi ss ion s. The state or loc al regulatory agency would need to bu y in to thi s id ea as stack testing is spec ifi ca ll y li s ted as a requir e ment in our operat in g penn its

. 8. Do you ha ve any kilns that are controlled w ith a dry lim e s tone adsorbe r (DLA)? If so, please explain the feasibility and estimate the co s t s of r ep l ac in g th e DLA with a dry inj ection fab ri c filter (DIFF) o r other type of contro l device that might be more effect iv e in co ntr o llin g emissions of HAP. We ow n a DLA in CT and one in MD. The CT DLA was in stal l ed in order to sat i sfy CT regulations for HAP ' s when constructing a new kil n and plant a lmost 20 years ago. The MD unit was installed as a resu\t of the vacated MACT. As a result, both plants are now min or sources (area so urces) of HAP ' s. In both cases we were informed of the HAP em iss ion s we would ha ve to contro l and the l eve ls that we wo uld have to co ntr o l to. We purchased turnkey ope rati ons with writte n gua rantees on performance. These units h ave performed we ll and the sc rubb ers have helped us to maintain compliance with our permit cond iti ons. Cos t of a DLA i s $ 1 , 000 , 000+. Cost of a DIFF is $2 , 000 ,000+. Cost to remove a DLA wou ld like l y be $200 , 000-$500 , 000. So replacement cost s are $2 ,2 00 , 000- 2,5 00 , 000 + . At o ur CT plant a s ignificant expense such as thi s wou ld like l y mean plant c lo s ure. Our MD sc rubber is l ess th an five years o ld and ha s many more years of good use. Thro u gho ut o ur discussions with EPA, it appea r s that EPA is not in favor of th e DLA. We s uspect EPA is mi s inform ed. This scrubb er i s u se d throughout Europe for HF a nd HC I control. It is a l so used in E

urope for PM contro l. It is re lat i ve l y s imple to ope rate. It h a s few breakdow ns . I t ha s a proven track record in Europe and now in the United States. Wet scr ubb ers may be cheaper to install but what do yo u do with the p articulate that is created ? What do yo u do with the water? At two of our plants we do n ot even hav e sewer capab ility as the plants are in the country and utili ze conventiona l sept i c systems. The only US brick p lant s that purcha se d a sc rubber other than a DLA have addit ional non-HAP related i ss ue s. Generally , these plant s h ave large amou nt s of su lfur emi ss ion s and must use a DIFF to address that. The DIFF costs twice to purchase , twice to ope rate , and h a s many m ov in g parts a ll which eventu a ll y mu st get replaced. The potential downtime is sig nifi cant. Wh e n th e DIFF goes dow n, the scrubber goes into bypass a nd there is no em ission reduct i on. When the DLA goes down , the gas can s till be ducted through the lim estone be d and the em i ss io ns can co ntinu e to be c l eane d for a s ignificant period of time and until repairs can be made. I believe con s id erin g this a l o ne , th e DLA doe s a better job of HAP emission reductions ove r time so the DLA s h o uld be th e preferr ed e mission control. 9. Are there any s ub catego ri es that you wo uld r eco mm e nd fo r yo ur indu stry? If so, please identify them and document the basis for yo ur recommendation.The categories that EPA determined were rea so n ab l e in the now vacate d MACT a re , at a minimum , the s ubcategorie s that s hould be included in this MACT. P eriodi c kiln s and tunnel kilns s hould be sepa rate

. EPA should also continue to distinguish sma ll and large tunnel kilns , . The smaller kilns tend to be o lder , more open (i.e. more places for a ir to enter the kiln) , and more expensive (per brick) to operate. We defer further su bcatego rizati on is s u es to Susan Miller , YP ofBIA , w ho wou ld be better qualified to answer and we agree with whatever he r re sponse is. Permitting/Inspections: I. Are your kilns required to be permitted by the state? If so , what i s th e cost for pennitting ? If not , w

ha t would you estimate the burden to be in te rm s of costs and hour s if the kiln s are required to be permitted? What is the m agn itude of the se co sts compared to the costs of kiln operatio n and the facility as a whole? Are yo ur permitting activitie s don e by in-h ouse staff or by o uts ide contractors? We are permitt ed by the state at ou r three location s in MD and CT and are permitted by Allegheny County in PA. We do whateve r permitting work we can in-house but must use consulting help for the complicated iss u es like Title Y and MACT. We app li ed for Titl e Y permit s in MD and C T to address MACT. Our MD Title Y permit was never issued , MD briefl y lo st the aut h ority to issue Title Y and we had to apply for a federally issued Title Y permit before th e origin a l applicat i o n was i ss u ed. We recently applied for and received a state only permit now that the MACT "neve r happened". In CT we applied for Title Y which was never issued because CT DEP co uld n ot get an e x planation from EPA how to address the vacated MACT. We have n ow applied again for a state on l y operatin g permit and expect to receive it in the coming days. I would estimate that we have already spent $50,0 00- I00,000 for consulting wo rk for permits that were never i ssued to sat isfy the MACT and the re l ated va catur. In addition, it is difficul t to determine the cost for the amount of hours that I s pent working on the se permits or the t r ave l expenses that Redland encountered as a r esu lt of my trips to MOE and flight s to CT to meet wit h the DEP. 2. Are your kilns required to be in spected for safety or insurance rea so ns? If so, how ofte n is thi s performed ? What is the cost of these in spect ion s? What i s the magnitude of these costs compared to the cost of kiln operation and the facility a s a who l e? Our plant s and quarries are in s pected by OSHA , MOSH , MSHA , MOE , C T DEP , PA DEP , ACHD, the local counties , an d the Township. In spect ion s are comprehen s ive. Eac h locale ha s i ts own rules for inspecti o n frequency. In my career, the brick indu stry ha s been under s iege by the various regulatory agencies and new rules , each with the potential to be econom ica ll y disastrous for us. Some examples are MACT , Greenhouse Gas, MACT aga in , s ilica , MSHA training regs , zo ning c la ss ification s , wet land regulation s, and more on the horizon. If all ofthe se proposed regulation s were promulgated at one time there would be no more sma ll bu s inesses within the brick indu stry. Capital Availability/ Regu latory Impact: Questions of this nature must be reviewed and answers approved by exec utiv e management. We request more details about these questions , why they are being asked , and what EPA plans to do w i th the answers before we will provide any answers. The brick indu st 1 y has already provided sig nificant inf or mati on regarding finances. In addition , in 2006 there were 9.6 billion bri ck prod u ced in the United States. Last year there were 2.3 billion brick produced. Based on o rd ers through today, indi cat ion s are that th is year will be worse than last year. Virtually every brick plant in the United States has been crippled by theecono my and poor ho u s in g market. Many, p arti c ul ar l y the s maller ones, may not s urvive , particularl y if air pollution contro l devices are mandated , eve n whe re they are not war ranted. I hope the inf or m at io n I ha ve provided w ill he lp u s to come to an acceptab le conc lu s io n in th e development of this MACT standa rd

. I a l so h ope EPA wi ll co n s ider my comments. Please co nta ct me if yo u have further question s. Sincere l y,



# ~IJ!:lL Manager- Safety, En v ironm e nt al, and Q uality

cc. Susan Miller , BIA