# <tontinef\t.F!L~Tiw~~oa<tompanl'

Mr.JeffTelander U.S. EPA Mailcode 0243-02 109 TW Alexander Drive 

### Martinsburg, West Virginia 25405

March 28, 2013

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Dear Mr. Telander: 

### Phone: 304-263-6974 Fax: 304-267-0793

I would like to express my appreciation for thetime and effortyou and the other representatives ofthe EPA tookto meet with those ofus representing small brick manufacturers on Thursday, March 14. The meeting struck me as beingvery helpful and informative for all participating parties. As the representative ofContinental Brick Company, a small, single plant manufacturer ofbrick located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, itwas encouraging to hearfrom Mr. Barrettthat the EPA intendsto consider ways to subcategorize small brick plants which may provide alternative ways forthem to comply with the new Brick MACT rule. The brick manufacturer's group was also pleased to hearthat the EPA is considering including a health based compliance alternative which may continue to protectthe public health without requiring the substantial capital and operating expenditures that we cannot afford. To put it bluntly, the installation ofany type ofemission control system scrubber is beyond the financial capability ofContinental Brick Company. We have endured many years offinancial stress and losses because ofthe economic problems experienced by most ofthe country. The extremely competitive nature ofthe brick industrywould not allowthe company to pass along any increases in financing or operating expenses and would put us out of business. I understand thatthe EPA cannot consider financial or economic issues when establishing a MACT floor, but it is critical to Continental Brick Company that alternative methods of complying with the allowable emission levels is included as part ofthe MACT rule. There are many ways that sub-categorization ofolder and smaller brick plants can bejustified. Among these is the difference in the design, operation, and performance ofolder (typically smaller) plants and more modern plants. I would be happy to provide you with additional information and details aboutthese differences atthe propertime. As we pointed out at the March 14 meeting, the industry representatives are concerned about the compressed schedule contained in the draft ofthe Sierra Club consent decree. The timing, as we currently understand it, requires a draft Brick MACT be written by August 30 ofthis year,followed by afinal MACT rule in July of 2014
. I believe that everyone at the meeting questioned whether sub-categorization and health based compliance alternatives could adequately and fairly be evaluated in thattimeframe

. I would like to mention that Continental Brick Company is not a member ofthe Brick Indus try Association (BIA) which has been very active in representing the interests ofthe industry during the MACT process. While we cannot afford to participate as paid members ofthe BIA, we do recognize, support, and appreciate the effort oftheir management and staff. We will continue to participate and supporttheir efforts in every way a small company like ours can . I am looking forward to continuingto participate with the BIA and EPA as a representative of Continental Brick Company and a Small Entity Representative in the upcomingformal panel meeting

. I would appreciate being informed when the specific date ofthe next meeting has been set. Thank you again for thetime and effortyou and your associates tookto meet with us.

cc: Susan Miller, BIA Sincerely,

Donald B. Suit Vice President