Opinion ID: 314135
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oregon Portland Cement Plant tests[89]

Text: The Oregon plant was wet-process controlled by a baghouse. Three tests were made on the kiln operation. The brief of petitioner Portland refers to the test results of the EPA contractor, and points out that these show that in test 1 and 2, particulate emissions were .535 and .361 pounds per ton of kiln feed. Only in the third test was there a result of .291 pounds. Petitioners argue that when only one out of the three tests meet the EPA standards (0.3 percent), the data undercut the validity of the standard. EPA's brief did not address itself to this point, relying instead on its general expertise. If our study of the matter is accurate, it appears that petitioners failed to take into account that the standard, as promulgated, eliminated one of the sampling techniques required by the standard as proposed. This undercuts petitioner's contention. [90] A more serious matter is presented by intervenor Northwestern, which points to the fact that the EPA contractor's report indicates that sampling was not conducted when process operation was interrupted and that sampling was only conducted during the periods of normal operation. The report states: Several conditions contributing to these interruptions were: (1) excessive pressure drop across bag house, (2) visible emissions from leaking bags, and (3) breakdown of dust removal equipment. (C.R. Tab V (h) at 9). The concern of the manufacturers is that start-up and upset conditions, due to plant or emission device malfunction, is an inescapable aspect of industrial life, and that allowance must be made for such factors in the standards that are promulgated. On August 18, 1972, some eight months after the issuance of the standards under review, and prior to our October, 1972 remand, the EPA proposed a new regulation to take startup, shutdown and malfunction problems into effect. [91] The proposed regulation, which as yet has not been adopted, sets up a procedure by which emissions due to malfunction will not be the basis of an enforcement action. It requires reports from manufacturers in cases where emissions exceed standards, recording the violation and indicating what measures will be taken to correct or minimize the excess emission levels. The proposed regulation provides: [92] (f) Nothing in this section shall relieve a source from compliance with the standards set forth in this part unless the Administrator determines that (1) the occurrence in question did not result from the failure by the owner or operator of the source to operate and maintain properly the affected facility, (2) all reasonable steps were taken to correct, as expeditiously as practicable, the condition causing the emissions to exceed the standards, including the use of off-shift labor and overtime if necessary, and (3) all reasonable steps were taken to minimize the emissions resulting from the occurrence. The proposed regulation, if adopted, may have consequences which go beyond mere provision for malfunctions. In some sense it imparts a construction of reasonableness to the standards as a whole and adopts a more flexible system of regulation than can be had by a system devoid of give. As we noted in International Harvester, supra , a regulatory system which allows flexibility, and a lessening of firm proscriptions in a proper case, can lend strength to the system as a whole. The limited safety valve permits a more rigorous adherence to an effective regulation. At 437 of 155 U.S.App.D.C., at 641 of 478 F.2d quoting from WAIT Radio v. FCC, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 323, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159. If the EPA adopts, or intends to adopt, this proposed regulation, it may take the attendant flexibility into account, on remand, as pertinent to the manufacturers' objections, even though the new regulation has been proposed in a proceeding with a different docket number and caption.