air pollution control (“APC”) equipment.

what factors should be involved in deciding how great an effort a company should make to control the air pollutants it releases to the local and regional environment?  Should cost be taken into account? For example, if the cost  is above a certain threshold, then the facility does not have to spend that much for controls, likely raising the level of toxic compounds in the air surrounding the facility. Or should protection of public health be the dominant concern and the facility should install the most effective APC to reduce emissions to totally protect public health, even if it is very expensive? Even at the risk of the company getting up and moving elsewhere? What might the secondary effects be of having flexible cost requirements or of having inflexible ones?

Let’s use a make-believe facility (call it the NYMC Widget Company) with its VOC and PM emissions from last week’s example. Does the size or status of the parent company matter? Should we give NYMC Widget a break in requiring APC equipment if it is a small or struggling company? Should the quantity of emissions be the main factor in determining the need to reduce emissions or their potential health impact? How important might location issues be, such as how close the facility is to critical “receptors” of emissions , such as schools, hospitals, or nursing homes? What if NYMC Widget says it can’t afford the required APC equipment and threatens to shut down and leave the area, leaving many workers unemployed? Should local or state government be receptive or be obligated to helping?