1002 PLANNING FOR NEW PROCESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
C NMOC = concentration of NOMOC, ppmv as hexane
(default value= 4,000 ppm)
3.595 10 ^9 = conversion factor(Note: In the absence of site specific data, use the given default
values to determine NMOC emission rate.)
Each landfill of design capacity greater than or equal
to 2,500,000 Mg must determine its NMOC emission rate,
using the above equation. If the NMOC mass emission rate
is less than 50 Mg/yr, the landfill owner would submit this
information to the NYSDEC as part of the Part 360 permit.
No further action regarding control of the landfill emission
would be required. The emission rate will be recalculated
annually, with a report submitted to the Department. This
report must be submitted to the Department within 90 days
of the issuance of a construction or operating permit or ini-
tial acceptance of refuse, whichever is earlier.
If the NMOC mass emission rate is greater than 50 Mg/yr,
the landfill owner must submit a design for, and install a col-
lection and control system at the landfill. This control system
must be designed to reduce, in accordance with 40 CFR 60
Subpart WWW, the emission of NMOCs by 98% by weight.
Wehland and Earl (2004) present the inconsistencies in
legal and enforcement interpretations of the PSD requirement
for NSR major modifications and hence the criteria by which
to determine the need for a PSD permit and the installation
of BACT. There is no need to install equipment if the modifi-
cations are of the routine maintenance, repair or replacement
without increase in unit capacity. For each of the four cases
involving coal fired power plants in which decisions were
reached prior to 2004, the court’s conclusions were different,
and in some cases significantly different. In U.S. vs. Southern
Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (S.D. Ind. 2003), the district court
ruled that the utility had fair warning about EPA’s decision to
review the records of the affected unit, only, in determining if
the maintenance was routine, but deferred its final determina-
tion to the more general NSR applicability. In U.S. vs. Ohio
Edison (S.D. Ohio 2003), the court concluded that fair warning
was given to the utility in the plain language of the CAA.
The court gave weight to establishing the routine nature
of the maintenance by analyzing the all of the factors below
for the projects:(1) budgeting and accounting,
(2) purposes and costs, and the
(3) net emissions increaseIn U.S. vs. Duke Energy (M.D. N.C. 2003), the district court
ruled that EPA’s past practices in other cases require that
industry-wide rather than the individual unit’s past practices
were the criteria to be followed. Also the court favored an
increase in emissions analysis to be on a “Projected actual”,
rather than on a “future potential” basis. They also indicated
that when determining the applicability of a modification,
the NSPS rule of not increasing the maximum hourly emis-
sions rate should be followed.
In the case, Tennessee Valley Authority vs. U.S. (11 th Cir.
2003), the decision by the circuit court side-stepped the pri-
mary differences and ruled against the EPA because of its
use of an administrative procedures that deprived TVA of its
rights to a hearing. In October 2003 the EPA defined a rou-
tine project as one that would cost less than 20% of the total
cost of replacing an emitting unit. The new rules and lack
of enforcement were being challenged as of 2004. An alter-
native to the current regulations offered by the authors, “is
to eliminate the NSR and incorporate plant-wide emission
limits in operating permits.” They also recommend model-
ing and employing maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) when modeling results determine controls are nec-
essary to protect the air quality.REFERENCESHolt, N.A., EPRI Report AP-5467, Feb. (1988).
Quig, R.H., Chem. Eng. Prog., 76, 47–54, March (1980).
Quig, R.H. and Granger, T., Encyc. Of Env. Sci. & Eng. Vol. 1, 103–113
(1983).
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, Air
Guide 41, p. 1–5, March (1996).
USEPA TITLE 40 CFR 52.01–52.2, P. 9–55 US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC: July 1, 2000.
Ibid Title 40 CFR 51.166, p. 167–186
Wehland C. and L. Earl, Clearing the Air, Environ. Protection, p. 20–22, 66,
June 2004. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/ gen/wkshpman.pdfROBERT H. QUIG
THOMAS GRANGER
Ogden Products, Inc.EDWARD N. ZIEGLER
Polytechnic UniversityC016_007_r03.indd 1002C016_007_r03.indd 1002 11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM11/18/2005 11:01:30 AM