These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word ‘planetwide.’ Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Your indirect costs are those that continue no matter how much or how little you manufacture. These include things like plantwide meaning rent or mortgage payments, insurance, equipment leases, and plant maintenance. Look at such bills for your manufacturing plant and total them up. This figure is your plant-wide indirect cost that you must pay just to be in business. All of your manufacturing activities depend on the services you are paying for throughout your plant.

«The new provision allows States with nonattainment areas to pursue one of two options. First, the State may proceed under EPA’s present ‘tradeoff’ or ‘offset’ ruling. The Administrator is authorized, moreover, to modify or amend that ruling in accordance with the intent and purposes of this section. Some products are cheaper to ship than others, but total your shipping costs on a plant-wide basis. Do not include wages for shipping personnel because you already included these in your direct costs for the entire plant.

A key topic is the control of species inventory, which can be achieved either by feedback or by relying on self-regulation. The applicability of these alternatives is discussed by means of case studies of increasing complexity, for which detailed design, control and dynamic simulation results are provided. The non-linear behaviour of Reactor–Separation–Recycle systems is also discussed. The subject gives the opportunity of reviewing basic concepts of process control. To find your overhead cost, add up all your subtotals of expenses, direct and indirect.

  1. Respondents do not defend the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeals.7 Nevertheless, since this Court reviews judgments, not opinions,8 we must determine whether the Court of Appeals’ legal error resulted in an erroneous judgment on the validity of the regulations.
  2. The meaning of the term «proposed source» in § 173(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7503(2), is not at issue.
  3. Thus, according to respondents, the plantwide definition allows what the statute explicitly prohibits—the waiver of the LAER requirement for the newly constructed units.
  4. This definition is applicable only to the NSPS program by the express terms of the statute; the text of the statute does not make this definition applicable to the permit program.
  5. Although a State may submit a revised SIP that provides for the waiver of another requirement the «offset condition»—the SIP may not provide for a waiver of the LAER condition for any proposed source.
  6. In other words, § 173 of the statute merely deals with the consequences of the definition of the term «source» and does not define the term.

You probably produce different numbers of units for each product. Some small products may require large quantities, while complex projects may take longer to produce and therefore result in fewer units during any given period. Add up the total number of units you produce in a month regardless of which product it is.

Total Number Of Units

In these conditions, the interaction between units is so strong that controllability of parts (unit operations) does not guarantee the controllability of the whole (the entire plant). The book by Luyben et al. (1999) emphasizes that ‘How a process is designed fundamentally determines its inherent controllability. In an ideal project, dynamic and control strategies would be considered during the process synthesis and design activities’. «5. States will remain subject to the requirement that for all nonattainment areas they demonstrate attainment of NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and show reasonable further progress toward such attainment. Thus, the proposed change in the mandatory scope of nonattainment new source review should not interfere with the fundamental purpose of Part D of the Act. We hold that the EPA’s definition of the term «source» is a permissible construction of the statute which seeks to accommodate progress in reducing air pollution with economic growth.

Divide your total expenses for the plant by the total number of units you produce. Using the plantwide overhead rate formula, if expenses come to $10,000 for instance and you produce 2,500 units, $10,000 divided by 2,500 equals four. You are paying, on average, $4 per unit in overhead on a plant-wide basis. «(B) the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more stringent. «In no event shall the application of this term permit a proposed new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under applicable new source standards of performance.» Our review of the EPA’s varying interpretations of the word «source»—both before and after the 1977 Amendments—convinces us that the agency primarily responsible for administering this important legislation has consistently interpreted it flexibly—not in a sterile textual vacuum, but in the context of implementing policy decisions in a technical and complex arena. The fact that the agency has from time to time changed its interpretation of the term «source» does not, as respondents argue, lead us to conclude that no deference should be accorded the agency’s interpretation of the statute.

Economic Evaluation of Projects

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 impose certain requirements on States that have not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to earlier legislation, including the requirement that such «nonattainment» States establish a permit program regulating «new or modified major stationary sources» of air pollution. Generally, a permit may not be issued for such sources unless stringent conditions are met. 685, Congress enacted certain requirements applicable to States that had not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to earlier legislation. The amended Clean Air Act required these «nonattainment» States to establish a permit program regulating «new or modified major stationary sources» of air pollution. The question presented by these cases is whether EPA’s decision to allow States to treat all of the pollution-emitting devices within the same industrial grouping as though they were encased within a single «bubble» is based on a reasonable construction of the statutory term «stationary source.»

Finally, the agency explained that additional requirements that remained in place would accomplish the fundamental purposes of achieving attainment with NAAQS’s as expeditiously as possible.30 These conclusions were expressed in a proposed rulemaking in August 1981 that was formally promulgated in October. The argument based on the text of § 173, which defines the permit requirements for nonattainment areas, is a classic example of circular reasoning. One of the permit requirements is that «the proposed source is required to comply with the lowest achievable emission rate» (LAER). Although a State may submit a revised SIP that provides for the waiver of another requirement the «offset condition»—the SIP may not provide for a waiver of the LAER condition for any proposed source. Respondents argue that the plantwide definition of the term «source» makes it unnecessary for newly constructed units within the plant to satisfy the LAER requirement if their emissions are offset by the reductions achieved by the retirement of older equipment. Thus, according to respondents, the plantwide definition allows what the statute explicitly prohibits—the waiver of the LAER requirement for the newly constructed units.

In light of these well-settled principles it is clear that the Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of its role in reviewing the regulations at issue. Based on the examination of the legislation and its history which follows, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress did not have a specific intention on the applicability of the bubble concept in these cases, and conclude that the EPA’s use of that concept here is a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make. Specifically, the controversy in these cases involves the meaning of the term «major stationary sources» in § 172(b)(6) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b)(6). The meaning of the term «proposed source» in § 173(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7503(2), is not at issue. «(2) For the offset ruling, restrictions on construction, and incomplete Part D SIPs, review would apply to both plants and individual pieces of process equipment, causing the plant-wide bubble not to apply for new and modified major pieces of equipment.

Plantwide control

In response to this situation, manufacturers will use departmental overhead rates and perhaps activity based costing. Chapter 7 presented the hierarchical synthesis of process systems. In this approach, which proved successful in a large number of applications, the designer addresses one fundamental problem at each level, by applying appropriate analysis and synthesis techniques. This chapter considers another important issue, namely the control of the chemical plant. This is a significant topic because the recycling of raw materials, energy integration and reduced size of buffer vessels are characteristics of modern plants.

We note that the EPA in fact adopted the language of that definition in its regulations under the permit program. «Moreover, Alabama Power and ASARCO taken together suggest that there is a distinction between Clean Air Act programs designed to enhance air quality and those designed only to maintain air quality. . . . The second «main purpose» of the provision—allowing the States «greater flexibility» than the EPA’s interpretative Ruling as well as the reference to the EPA’s authority to amend its Ruling in accordance with the intent of the section, is entirely consistent with the view that Congress did not intend to freeze the definition of «source» contained in the existing regulation into a rigid statutory requirement. Primary standards were defined as those whose attainment and maintenance were necessary to protect the public health, and secondary standards were intended to specify a level of air quality that would protect the public welfare.

Definitions for plantwideplantwide

This rate is less accurate than departmental rates if a company manufactures a diverse group of products. «What EPA may not do, however, is define all four terms to mean only plants. In the 1980 PSD rules, EPA did just that. EPA compounded the mistake in the 1981 rules here under review, in which it abandoned the dual definition.» Brief for Respondents 29, n. «The dual definition also is consistent with Alabama Power and ASARCO. Alabama Power held that EPA had broad discretion to define the constituent terms of ‘source’ so as best to effectuate the purposes of the statute. Different definitions of ‘source’ can therefore be used for different sections of the statute. . . . We are not persuaded that parsing of general terms in the text of the statute will reveal an actual intent of Congress.34 We know full well that this language is not dispositive; the terms are overlapping and the language is not precisely directed to the question of the applicability of a given term in the context of a larger operation. To the extent any congressional «intent» can be discerned from this language, it would appear that the listing of overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than to confine, the scope of the agency’s power to regulate particular sources in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.

The basic legal error of the Court of Appeals was to adopt a static judicial definition of the term «stationary source» when it had decided that Congress itself had not commanded that definition. Respondents do not defend the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeals.7 Nevertheless, since this Court reviews judgments, not opinions,8 we must determine whether the Court of Appeals’ legal error resulted in an erroneous judgment on the validity of the regulations. «We regret, of course, that Congress did not advert specifically to the bubble concept’s application to various Clean Air Act programs, and note that https://business-accounting.net/ a further clarifying statutory directive would facilitate the work of the agency and of the court in their endeavors to serve the legislators’ will.» 222 U.S.App.D.C., at 276, n. To provide an answer to this challenge, we take a systemic approach. We consider that a process plant consists of several sub-systems interconnected through material and energy streams (Figure 15.1). The sub-systems will be called basic flowsheet structures (BFSs), defined as parts of the plant for which (local) control objectives are assigned and can be achieved using only manipulated variables that are local to the BFSs.

An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Moreover, the fact that the agency has adopted different definitions in different contexts adds force to the argument that the definition itself is flexible, particularly since Congress has never indicated any disapproval of a flexible reading of the statute. As previously noted, prior to the 1977 Amendments, the EPA had adhered to a plantwide definition of the term «source» under a NSPS program. After adoption of the 1977 Amendments, proposals for a plantwide definition were considered in at least three formal proceedings. A single overhead rate for assigning all of the manufacturing production and service department costs to products.