Opinion ID: 314135
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dragon Cement Plant tests[72]

Text: Two kilns were tested by the EPA contractor at the Dragon Cement Plant. [73] A test of a dry-process kiln controlled with a baghouse is used for support of the standard since testing showed particulate emissions of 0.20 pound per ton of feed, which is below the proposed standard. [74] This particular plant was selected for testing on the basis that it was reportedly one of the 12 best controlled plants in the United States. The first point raised by petitioner, and included in the comments by cement manufacturers presented to the agency on its proposed standard, [75] was that a single test offered a weak basis for inferring that all new cement plants would be able to meet the proposed standards. As we stated in International Harvester, supra, at 428 of 155 U.S.App.D.C., at 632 of 478 F.2d, It would . . . seem incumbent on the Administrator to estimate the possible degree of error [inherent] in his prediction. The significance of the lack of any indication of statistical reliability was underscored by T. E. Kreichelt, the author of the HEW study relied upon by the Administrator, in a letter, by way of comment, on the proposed standard. [76] He stated that the emission limit was based on one (1) test, i. e. the fabric filter test. . . . I do not believe that the emission limits should be selected on only four tests, much less one test. Mr. Kreichelt raised a second and related point addressed to the reliability of a prediction based on a successful dry-process plant, for a prediction that wet-process plants would be able to also meet the standard. He stated in this regard: [77] Another outcome of basing emission limits on insufficient data is that the limit may represent only part of a given industrial classification. For example, is 0.30 lb/ton of feed attainable only for dry-process kilns? Or is it also attainable for wet-process kilns? Probably both, but there is not even one test to substantiate the limit for wet-process kilns. For each variation of each process of each source classification, the number of tests required sould be sufficient (say, three tests within the limit) to result in statistically sound limits. We are not here considering a regulation that was issued in the contemplation that all new cement plants will be dry-process, and controlled by baghouses on the theory that this is the best system of emission control. Possibly such an approach would be feasible, but in any event it would require underlying reasons, by EPA, to terminate the process which the HEW had identified as major now and in future projection. [78] A second objection is to the techniques used by the EPA to measure emissions from the Dragon plant. These sampling techniques assume particular importance if they deviate from procedures, outlined by regulation, for ascertaining compliance with prescribed standards. Although this difference could be eliminated  as the Administrator attempted to do in International Harvester  by rewriting sampling techniques, rather than lowering standards, a significant difference between techniques used by the agency in arriving at standards, and requirements presently prescribed for determining compliance with standards, raises serious questions about the validity of the standard. [79] The cement manufacturers point, in this regard, to the absence of continuous sampling in the EPA data, since the longest elapsed time of any sampling episode was 30 minutes, [80] whereas under the regulations promulgated, conformity is to be measured on the basis of maximum 2-hour averages. [81] It is incumbent on the Administrator to explain the discrepancy. The second point raises the question, on the basis of a handwritten note made by the EPA contractor, as to whether the tested plant was operating at maximum performance during testing. The contractor had noted, Baghouse is undersize and production is held back due to this. [82] Compliance tests under the regulation require, however, that All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected facility is operating at or above the maximum production rate. . . . [83] Thirdly, petitioner contends that mistakes made in the measurement process prevented the test from using observed, measured values. As previously noted, encrusted solids can collect in the bag, and must be constantly cleaned out if the baghouses are to operate with efficiency. In one of the runs conducted, the presence of the solids in a duct leading to the stack were thought to cause a high reading so lower readings from other test runs were substituted. On another run, the liquid, which was to be the basis for a measurement of particulate concentration, was erroneously poured into a beaker from a previous run. [84] However, deviations from prescribed measurement techniques are not necessarily significant as to testing results, and if petitioners press this point on remand they must establish that such test deviations bear significant consequences. Finally, engineer Striker claims significant errors of measurement were made in determining the measurement of the cubic feet of stack gas per minute, and a resulting understatement of the true volume of calcining carbon dioxide included in total stack gas. He states that commonly 35% (plus or minus 1%) of raw feed is converted into carbon dioxide in the burning process. [85] He then notes that an accurate measure of raw feed is the volume of calcining carbon dioxide [86] appearing in stack gas, which in turn depends on an accurate measurement of the volume of stack gas. His own calculations, based on EPA data showing a stack flow rate of 51,187 cubic feet per minute of dry gas, indicate that there were 2153 cubic feet per hour of stack gas in the test attributable to calcining carbon dioxide coming from the raw feed and that as a matter of basic chemistry 2153 cubic feet of calcining carbon dioxide comes only from 22.11 tons of raw feed. [87] This was at variance from the kiln rate of 44.03 tons of raw feed per hour reported in the test. He concludes that the error lay not in the measurement of the raw feed, but in the test data reported on the stack gas volume  flow rate of 51,187  which in his judgment requires more sophisticated equipment for recording than does the raw feed which is easily measureable. Having corrected the stack gas figure, he states his opinion that the EPA assumption of emissions satisfying its ultimate 0.30 standard was in error. [88] He concluded: It is my personal opinion that the particulate matter emissions of .202 pounds in test 1 per ton of kiln feed reported . . . is grossly erroneous and that the correct emission of particulate matter is in the neighborhood of .404 pounds per ton of kiln feed. We are not competent to decide if Mr. Striker's methodology and conclusions are correct. We can note, however, that he claims that as a matter of basic chemistry two test values, for feed and gas volume, cannot co-exist. This is certainly the type of criticism EPA should be required to discuss on remand.