ODOR EMISSIONS

1. (a) Limitations are as follows:

   1. (1) If control of malodorous air contaminants is required under subsection (b), emissions shall be incinerated at a minimum of 1200°F for at least 0.3 second prior to their emission into the outdoor atmosphere.
   2. (2) Techniques other than incineration may be used to control malodorous air contaminants if such techniques are equivalent to or better than the required incineration in terms of control of the odor emissions and are approved in writing by the Department.
2. (b) A person may not permit the emission into the outdoor atmosphere of any malodorous air contaminants from any source, in such a manner that the malodors are detectable outside the property of the person on whose land the source is being operated.
3. (c) The prohibition in subsection (b) does not apply to odor emissions arising from the production of agricultural commodities in their unmanufactured state on the premises of the farm operation.

Source

The provisions of this § 123.31 adopted September 10, 1971, effective September 11, 1971, 1 Pa.B. 1804; amended March 3, 1972, effective March 20, 1972, 2 Pa.B. 383; amended August 12, 1977, effective August 29, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 2251; amended August 12, 1983, effective August 13, 1983, 13 Pa.B. 2478. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (75541).

Notes of Decisions

Compliance

The Department of Environmental Resources was required to deny an application for reactivation of beehive coke ovens, regardless of economic consequences, when the application did not provide any information which would show that the ovens would meet the limitations applicable to fugitive emissions and constitutional rights were not violated even though there was no known method to operate beehive coke ovens in compliance with this title. Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 334 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).

Review

On appeal from the Department of Environmental Resources’ refusal to grant an applicant permission to reactivate certain coke ovens, where the appellant did not show that the oven would meet the limitations in this title, but showed only the ‘‘dire need’’ for the coke to be produced, the scope of review was limited to whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law committed or any necessary finding of fact not supported by the evidence. Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 334 A.2d. 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).

Cross References

This section cited in 25 Pa. Code § 271.902 (relating to permits and direct enforceability).