Regulation Amendments

040.030 DUST CONTROL

040.033 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS

040.200 DIESEL ENGINE IDLING

Strikeout material is to be deleted

Underlined and bold material is to be added

Version: 11/15/93

Post-workshop
DRAFT

040.030

Version 11/15/93

040.030 DUST CONTROL

A. Prohibitions

1. Any person engaged in:

a. Dismantling or demolition of buildings;

b. Public or private construction;

C. Mining;

d. Processing of sand, gravel, rock or dirt;

e. Operation of machines or equipment;

f. Operation and use of unpaved parking facilities;

g. Agricultural operations;

h. Operation and use of livestock arenas;

i. Operation and use of horse arenas;

j. Operation of feed lots; or

k. Operation and use of raceways for animals or motor vehicles;

shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent the generation of dust. Reasonable

precautions may include, but are not limited to, shall include one or more of the

folIowin~. as required to control fu&tive dust: cessation of operations, clean-up,

sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, and use of

windscreens or snow fences.

2. Except when engaged in commercial agricultural operations, no person may

disturb the topsoil or remove the ground cover on any real property and thereafter

allow the property to remain unoccupied, unused, vacant or undeveloped unless

reasonable precautions are taken to prevent generation of dust. A dust control

plan must be submitted and approved by the Control Officer before topsoil is

disturbed on any project where more than one (1) acre of surface area is to be

altered or where the natural surface area is removed. In the dust control plan,

the Control Officer ~iey shall require use of palliatives, reseeding, or other

means to minimize windblown dust, if determined necessary.
Draft

040.030

ver. 11/15/93

4. Sand and abrasive blasting operations are prohibited unless one of the following control

methods are employed:

a. The use of effective enclosures which prevent release of dust to the atmosphere.

b. The use of water injection in the abrasive stream in amounts sufficient to control the

plume to the Control Officer’s satisfaction.

c. The use of only California Air Resources Board certified abrasives (less than 1 %

passing a US #70 sieve) for blasting.

Unless the object being treated with abrasives is immovable, the object being blasted shall

be positioned at least 24 inches above the ground to prevent reentrainment of dust. In no

case may shall the opacity of the emissions produced by any of these operations exceed

40% or a Ringleman #2.

5. Any vehicle operating on a paved roadway with a load of dirt, sand, or gravel susceptible

to being dropped, spilled, leaked or otherwise escaping therefrom, must take one of the

following control measures:

a. Six (6) inches of freeboard is maintained within the bed of the vehicle. For the

purposes of this regulation, “freeboard” means the vertical distance from the highest

portion of the edge of the load to the lowest part of the rim of the truck bed.

b. Materials contain enough moisture to control dust emissions from the point of origin

to their final destination. Wherever possible, the use of dust suppressants must be

applied in conjunction with the water.

c. In the event that measures A or B are ineffective in preventing materials from

escaping, tarps or other cargo covers shall be employed.
Draft

040.030

ver. 11/15/93

For any proposed division of land, special use permit application or zone change, the Control Officer

~ay shall require the applicant to submit soils data and any other pertinent data for the area in which

the development is proposed. if determined necessary.

If a determination is made that disturbance or development of the site may cause the

generation of dust, the Control Officer +na~ shall require one or more of the following:

a. phased clearing of the land;

b. the use of palliatives;

c. the use of water;

d. the use of snow fencing;

e. the use of wind screens;

f. reseeding

g. controls on single lot development approved as a part of a land division subject to

these regulations.

After commencement of development if the approved elements of the dust control plan

prove ineffective, the Control Officer fiifi~ shall require additional control measures to be

instituted. Phasing will not be required as a control strategy after a project is under

construction.

In the case of subdivisions, condominiums and planned unit developments, a dust control

plan must be submitted as a part of the final map approval process.

If a development, which will involve the disturbance of more than one acre of land~

requires a special use permit, the Control Officer ~shall require the dust control plan

to be submitted and become a condition of the special use permit process.

3. No person may shall cause or permit the handling or storage of any material in a manner

which results, or may result~ in the generation of dust.
Draft

040.030

ver. 11/15/93

This section does not prohibit a public maintenance vehicle from depositing sand on a

paved roadway to enhance traction, or sprinkling water or other substances to clean or

maintain a highway.

6. Paved entry aprons or other effective cleaning techniques (e.g., wheel washers), may sbiiji

be required by the Control Officer, if determined necessary, to prevent tracking Onto

paved roadways. Paved entry aprons may include road sections of coarse aggregate or

steel grate to “knock off” dirt which accumulates on the vehicle and/or vehicle wheels.

Any material which is tracked onto a paved roadway must be removed (swept or washed)

as quickly as safely possible. Exceptions to this provision may be made by the Control

Officer for the construction, maintenance, and/or repair of paved roadways and for the

application of de-icing and traction materials for wintertime driving safety.

B. Correction of Condition

If the Control Officer documents that a person is in noncompliance with any of the provisions

contained in Subsection A of this section, he shall notify the person of that fact and shall issue

a written Notice of Violation warning which will specify a period of time in which the person

must achieve compliance. In no case shall this period of time to achieve compliance exceed

24 hours. If, after the issuance of one written Notice of Violation warnin! per year per

specific project, or three written Notices of Violation warnings per company or person~

each at a different specific project, the Control Officer documents that a person is en!ag~

in operations or activities which are or are continuin! to be in non-compliance with any of

the provisions of Subsection A of this section, he shall notify the person of that fact and

shall issue a written Notice of Violation citation. Operations and activities which have been

duly warned and cited per the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to additional

citations daily upon documentation of continued or further non-compliance. Failure to

comply within that timc with the provisions of Subsections A and B of this section constitutes

grounds for imposition of penalty penalties set forth in Section 020.040 of these regulations.

C. Remedial Action

The Control Officer, after proper notice, may enter upon any real property were dust is being

generated and take such remedial and corrective action as he deems necessary.
Draft

040.030

ver. 11115/93

D. Costs

Any costs incurred in Connection with any remedial or corrective action taken by the Control

Officer, pursuant to this section, shall be assessed against the owner of the property involved.

Failure to pay the full amount of such incurred costs shall result in a lien against the property.

The lien shall remain in fuU force and effect until any and all costs have been fully paid, which

may include, but are not limited to, cost of collection and reasonable attorney fees.
DRAFT

040.033

Version 11/15/93

Post-workshop

040.033 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS

Food establishments operating devices to cook food that emit more than two (2) pounds per day

of air emissions, must obtain a Permit to Operate. Whenever there is a change of ownership,

significant equipment modification, or new construction, establishments with emissions exceeding

ten (10) pounds per day must apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT). All restaurants

exceeding 20 pounds/day must meet the BACT requirement no later than July 1, 1994. BACT

may include, but is not limited to, the use of grooved griddles, exhaust control, mist eliminator

systems, etc. Emissions will be calculated using the latest available emission factors for this

source and all emissions will be considered. including. but not limited to, PMIO. CQ,,

VOCs. and NOx.
DRAFT

040.200

Version 11/15/93

Post-workshop

040.200 DIESEL ENGINE IDLING

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person shall not idle the engine of a diesel

truck or bus for more than 15 consecutive minutes. The provisions of this subsection do not

apply to a diesel truck or a bus:

A.

~A.

€~B.

~c.

E~D.

GTE.

~F.

For whieh the ~istriet Board has issued a varianee from the requirements ef this

subseetien. A varianée is net effeetive during an air pollution emergeney episode stage

declared by• the Health Authority.

Which is an emergency vehicle.

Used for the removal of snow.

Used to repair or maintain other motor vehicles.

Which is traveling on a public right of way from one place to another.

F. The emission from whieh is eentauuu unu treated by a method approved by the Gentrel

Officer.

The engine of which must idle to perform a specific task for which it is designed

such as well drilling, trenching or hoisting. Such a diesel truck or a bus may not

idle for more than 15 consecutive minutes during an air pollution emergency episode

stage declared by the Health Authority.

Which is idling while maintenanee preeedures are being performed at a repair

faci1ity-~ When idlin! is necessary as Dart of a maintenance procedure performed

at a repair facility!
PUBLIC WORKSHOP

The Washoe County District Health Department is conducting a workshop to

discuss amendments to the Washoe County District Board of Health Regulations

Governing Air Pollution Control. The proposed changes to the regulatiorl5 ~ire

being requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are necessary

for the approval of the State Implementation Plan for Parficu)~ates (PM1O) for the

Truckee Meadows Air Basin. The affected sections of the regulations are:

040.030 Dust Control

040.033 Food Establishments

040.200 Diesel Engine Idling

This is a workshop for the discussion of possible amendments to the regulations;

no final action will be taken at this meeting. For further information please

contact the Air Quality Management Division at 328—2491.

DATE: November 10, 1993

TIME: 12:00 Noon

PLACE: District Health Dept.

North Auditorium

1001 E. Ninth Street

Reno, NV ~~‘7~
MEMO

To: Brian L. Jennison, Director

From: Andrew C. Goodrich, Air Pollution Specialist II

Re: Public Workshop - PM10 Regulation Amendments

November 10, 1993

Minutes, Comments, and Discussion

A public workshop was held on November 10, 1993, in the North Auditorium of the Washoe County

District Health Department to discuss possible amendments to Washoe County District Health Department

regulations governing air pollution control, sections 040.030, 040.033, and 040.200.

Andrew Goodrich, Air Pollution Specialist, opened the meeting at approximately l2:lOpm with a

discussion of the PM1O State Implementation Plan for the Truckee Meadows non-attainment area. He

explained that the contents of the plan included ambient monitoring data, WCDHD air pollution

regulations, and air quality projections. Goodrich continued by saying that the plan has not yet been fully

approved by EPA. In order for the EPA to approve the SIP, the regulations contained in the plan must

be federally enforceable. Through the EPA review process, three of the regulations were found to be

deficient, in that they left too much discretion in the enforcement of the regulations to the local Control

Officer. Staff believes that the proposed amendments presented today would correct the deficiencies and

allow for approval of the SIP.

Brian L. Jennison, Director, then reviewed the proposed amendments beginning with 040.033 Food

Establishments. Dr. Jennison explained that EPA was requesting that the regulation specifically list the

pollutants which were to be controlled and that no other change to rule enforcement is proposed. No

comment was received.

Next, Jennsion reviewed 040.200, Diesel Engine Idling. He explained that the proposal was to remove

the variance provision specifically noted in the regulation. Jennison explained that the WCDHD has a

variance procedure for all regulations, so it was unnecessary to include specific reference to a varaince

in this one rule. Also in the proposal was the removal of part “old F’, again because it allowed too much

Control Officer discretion. Jennison noted that it was a small language change.

John Breternitz, Q & D Construction, asked a question about construction equipment that is repaired in

the field - and what is the definition of a repair facility?

Goodrich stated that this regulation only addressed on-road vehicles, and that it is identical to a State

regulation on diesel idling.

No further comments were received on 040.200.
Page Two

Public Workshop - PM1O Regulation Amendments.

Jennison opened the discussion on 040.030, Dust Control, explaining that for the most part, the proposed

amendments were changing the word MAY to SHALL, with the caveat of “if determined necessary”.

Jennison explained that some discretion is needed to realistically enforce the regulations. The biggest

change to the Dust Control section was to “Correction of Condition”, part B. St.aff is proposing this

language amendment based on experience with the enforcement of this section of this regulation.

Previously, the regulation may not have been clear on the authority to issue a citation. The proposed

language incorporates into the regulation language the Board of Health’s policy on how to enforce the

regulation. This new language now clearly defines the authority to enforce this regulation.

Jennison read aloud the new section.

Breternitz asked if a person was given a citation and then applied for a variance and the violation

continued - would the operator continue to receive citations until the Hearing Board granted the variance?

Jennison replied: staff would document continued non-compliance but would withhold citations until we

had heard from the Hearing Board and the District Board of Health. If the variance was not granted then

additional citations could be issued.

Bob Jones, Northern Nevada Builders Assoc., made the statement: issuing the citation to the person

responsible for the infraction, but do you also have to notify the Owner of the property?

Jennison replied: in some instances we would issue more than one citation per incident. We follow the

direction of the federal rules which recognize the concept of strict liability, that is an owner cannot sub

contract his liability. We may in fact later dismiss one of the citations, for example if the contractor says

“yeah, we did it and the owner was not aware of it”. Usually the Hearing Board can sort out this kind

of situation in an equitable manner.

Jones: In a lot of cases, owners are not immediately available and you are requiring 24 hour turn-around -

possibly having a sub-contractor violating a law creating a violation against a owner whom you may not

even be able to contact within the period of time put on the citation.

Goodrich: The owner should have delegated someone who is immediately responsible for the project.

Linda Carpenter, Air Pollution Specialist, stated: On the Dust Control Plan it specifically gives contact

people who are designated as responsible for taking care of that problem - We do attempt to contact all

responsible parties.

Jones: Those NOVs are still accumulative, in other words if a sub-contractor creates the violation, the

owner is in violation by virtue of that action that counts as one of his three possible warnings and

conceivably...
Page Three

Public Workshop - PM1O Regulation Amendments.

Jennison: Not necessarily. The citation must be upheld in order to count.

If your citation is dismissed, then you’re back to square one.

Jones: correct me, if a sub-contractor creates a violation, agrees to fix it and the violatiou ~ ti’

violation still issued...

Jennison: against the sub-contractor.

Jones: not against the owner?

Goodrich: Not if the citation against the owner was dropped. If the sub-contractor assumes all

responsibilities and the District Board accepts that and drops the citation to the owner, if one was issued

to him, then the owner is off the hook.

Chris Ralph, Air Pollution Engineer: I think he is also referring to warnings. There is no appeal process

for warnings. ‘

Jennison: If you get a written warning - we will notice you, warnings will be noticed, we will contact

the owner if a notice of violation warning was issued. Warnings are handled just like citat~ous ~xcep1

that there is no penalty levied.

Additional comments?

Jones: Warnings will be noticed to the owner?

Jennison: absolutely, warnings will be handled just like citations. You’ll notice that it’s the same fonu~

just a different box is checked.

Jones: I have two other areas, where you changed may to shall, but did not include your discjaime! as

determined necessary” on the end. On A in the very beginning, does not have it.

Ralph: It states, as required to control dust.

Jones: I think it is a functional change, because that as required is superseded by shall.

Ralph: We could change the sentence, and add as required to control dust, immediately after shaH.

Jones: I feel more comfortable with that.

Jennison: no problem.

Jones: in the final paragraph - it now says a special use permit shall require a dust control p)a~~

Jennsion: We require a dust control plan on any project larger than one acre.
Page Four

Public Workshop - PMIO Regulation Amendments.

Ralph: Maybe we then need to add the phrase for developments disturbing more than one acre, just to

be consistent with the requirement for a dust control plan.

Jones: agreed, if a special use permit requires a dust control plan, then it’s understood. Just include it.

Breternitz: Timing is a problem. (Discussion continued on the special use permit process.)

Jennison: We could say that if a development is larger than one acre, it requires a special use permit.

That would be a better way of doing it.

No other comments were received.

The workshop was adjourned at approximately 12:45 pm