# Rule Analysis: Comparison of Stringency of Repealed Clark County Sections 30 a nd 60 with Current Requirements

Clark County Department of Air Quality Las Vegas, Nevada May 2015

### Summary of Rule Stringency Analysis Repeals of Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 of the Clark County Air Quality Regulations

Introduction: In November 2014, the Clark County D epartment of Air Quality (DAQ) submitted a State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) revision proposing the repeal of four Air Quality Regulations (AQRs) to the Region 9 office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

. The SIP revision stated that the se repeals did not constitute backsliding under Section 110(l) of

the Clean Air Act , comparing the repealed rules ’ requirements to current requirements in an effort to determine relative stringency pre- and post- repeal

.

DAQ believes the language of Section 110(l) pertains only to “any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress....” Therefore , s ince none of the repealed

rules have been used for a creditable emission reduction in any SIP designed to attain or maintain a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, DAQ has concluded that Section 110(l) is not applicable. A t EPA’s request, however, the department conducted a more specific comparison to
buttress its conclusion that current rule requirements are not less stringent than those of the repealed rules. Since EPA’s stated concern s focused on Sections 30 and 60, DAQ focused its analysis on those sections as well.

Section 30: Incinerator s.

The repealed rule had four basic requirements:

1. U nits with a charge rate less than or equal to 2.08 tons per hour were limited to emitting no more than 0.1 gr particulate/dsc f.

2. U nits with a charge rate greater than 2.08 tons / hr were required to comply with the applicable New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) listed in AQR Section 14.

3. Units had to comply with the opacity requirements of AQR Section 26.

4. The primary chamber temperature of the incinerator had to be maintained at 1400o F.

Comparison : Table 1 lists the requirements for the two incinerators currently under permit, the Section 30 requirements applicable to those units , and the current permit requirements . Both are mi nor sources under the current Section 12.1 (“Permit Requirements for Minor Source s”), which is part

of DAQ’s New Source Review ( NSR ) rule, also a SIP -approved rule. The comparison:

1. Under Section 12.1, no grain loading limit is specified. However, the requirements to maintain the primary chamber at 1,400 o F and to meet the opacity limits of Section 26

remain in force , and it is unlikely that a unit could comply with those two requirements and exceed the specified grain loading limit of Section 30.

2. If an application was received for an incinerator covered by a New Source Performance

Stand ard (NSPS), DAQ would apply the applicable NSPS under Section 14 to a ny unit permitted under any provision of Section 12.

### 3. Section 26 remains in effect for any source in Clark County, whether or not it operate s under a permit.

4. The 1400 o F limit was carried over explicitly in the permit conditions for both units listed.

Further more
, AQR Section 32 ( “ Reduction of Animal Matter ”) , also a SIP rule, remains

in effect for any app licable source in Clark County, whether or not it operates under a permit.

Sect ion 60: Evaporation and Leakage.

The repealed rule covered three different sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs):

1. Degreasing : The requirement was to limit loss to 10% of solvent used, employing such work practice standards as covered containers, draining times

, and liquid solvent application . High

- solvent operations were required to use internal drainage, water covers,

a free bo ard height ratio of greater than 0.7

, or other systems of equivalent control. No emission limits were specified, so the source could emit whatever it chose as long as it captured 90% of the solvent used.

2. Surface Coatings : Large appliances were limited to 2.8 lbs of VOC s per gallon of coating, achieved by use of a low -solvent coating or secondary control.

3. Cutback (CB) Asphalt : All forms were prohibited except when temperatures were not expected to exceed 50 o F.

Comparison:

1. Table 2 compares the requirement s for degreasers between the repealed Section 60 and

the current Section 12

. Section 6 0 work practice standards are still required f or the two facilities where degreasing is considered a significant activity ; additionally, both degreasers operate under annual emission limits.

2. No large appliance coating operations were ever permitted under Section 60, nor are there

any currently in Clark County. If an application for a large appliance coating line (LACL)

were submitted under the current rules, a Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate ( LAER ) analysis would be required (per Section 12.1, 12.2

, or 12.3

, as applicable)

, and any of the three levels of control would, at a minimum, equal the 2.8 lbs VOC / gal limit imposed by Section 60. In other words, the Section 6 0 VOC limit would constitute the

lowest level

, or “floor

, ” of a control technology determination made p ursuan t to any of

the three SIP

- approved DAQ NSR rules. Further, a n applicable NSPS rule (40 CFR 60, subpart SS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP )

rule (40 CFR Part 63, subpart NNNN) impose additional limits on LACLs . Although the NSPS has a high limit (7.48 lb s VOC/gal of coating), the NESHAP limit of 1 .1 lb

HAP /gal is more stringent than Section 60 . Since many VOC s are also HAPs, it is likely this NESHAP would apply i f a LACL application was filed. In any event, given the

pr evalent use of low

- solvent coatings throughout the U .S. and Section 6 0 being the “floor” for control, the NSPS limit of 7.48 lb s VOC/gal would not likely be the control

level determination of a Section 12 RACT/BACT/LAER analysis.

### 3. In an informal survey of asphalt purveyors in Clark County, staff discovered that CB products have been essentially displaced by water

- based emulsified products. Although there is no rule in place that prohibits the use of CB, it is not in the specification sheets of

the Nevada D epartment of Transportation or other road

- building entities, nor is it produc ed by asphalt manufacturers in Clark County.

Overall Conclusion: In the post

- Section 30/ 60 repeal environment, there are both federal (NSPS/NESHAP) and local (SIP) rules (Sectio ns 12 , 13, 14

, and 32 ) in place that are equally or

more stringent.TABLE 1

. Repeal of SECTION 30 - INCINERATORS: Demonstration of Anti

- Backsliding

Source ID

& Date Source Name Description Subject to §30? §30 Req't Current Rule Applicability Current Requirement Comments

# 114

0 4/2009 Nellis AFB Pathological

waste
incinerator Y 30.3.1 : temp > 1400°F AQR 12.5.2.3 30.3.1 :

> 1,400°F in

1° chamber SIP §30 (4/23/87) calculation limits PM to 8.32 lbs/yr (<0.01 tpy).

Active Permit (Also 12, 26, 40, 43

, 55) Burn only natural gas 40 CFR 63, subp. EEE applies. 40
CFR 60, subpart Ce does not apply.

Meets BACT

# 389
10/ 20 13 Craig Rd Pet Cemetery Animal crematory N (current permit) N/A AQR §12 See comments Permit condition: Maintain temp at > 1,400°F during charging & combustion.

Active Permit Y (earlier permits) 40 CFR 60, subpart EEEE does not apply.1

1 EPA determined in the F ederal R egister ( 70 FR 748 70 ) that the human body should not be labeled or considered "solid waste." Therefore, human crema

tories are not solid waste combustion units, and are not a subcategory of other solid waste incinerators (OSWI ) for regulation. The same FR notice excludes animal crematories under the final OSWI rules (40 CFR 60, subpart EEEE).TABLE 2

. Repeal of SECTION 60 - EVAPORATION & LEAKAGE: Demonstration of Anti

- Backsliding

DEGREASING : Repealed AQR Section 60.2 , “ Degreasing ,” was a material handling and workpractice standard only.

Source ID

No.

- Date Source Name Description Subject to §60? If Y , § 60 Req’t Current Req’t Control Req’t PTE Allowable
Emissions Actual
Emissions Comments

114 - 4/09 Nellis AFB D egreasers Y Work practices Work practices Lids closed,

limit hours Parts washers : 0.01 - 0.13 tpy
VOC Unk 29 parts washers and 1 spray gun

cleaner

.

Active Permit Also 12, 26, 40, 43 & 55 40 CFR 63, subpart T Parts washers : 0.01 - 0.05 tpy

HAP Unk 28/29 washers limited to 208 hrs/yr ; 1/29 washers limited to 416 hrs/yr.

Gun cleaner : 0.08 tpy VOC Unk Gun cleaner limited to 20 gal/12 mos.

Gun cleaner : 0.05 tpy HAP Unk

473 - 5/13 Creech AFB D egreasers N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Degreasing listed as insignificant activty.

Active Permit 40 CFR 63, subpart T

836 - 9/12 LV Valley

Water District D egreasers N N/A Good operating practices Lids closed, clean spills 0.97 ton VOC/yr 2014 : 0.91 ton s VOC/yr Throughput = 290 gallons/yr @ 6.69 lbs/gal.

Active Permit AQR

12.1.4.1 (c) & (f)

40 CFR 63,

subpart T

837 - 9/13 LV Valley

Water Distr ict D egreaser N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Degreasing listed as insignificant activty

- 120 gal/yr.

Active Permit 40 CFR 63, subpart T

Summary and Conclusion: Two of the above

- listed permits show degreasing operations as insignificant activities, and therefore have no permit conditions. The remaining two permitted sources are subject to work practice and material handling provisions in the permit. In additio n, they have throughput limits on solvent use

, as well as limitations on VOC content in solvent s used. The Nellis permit also has hourly limitations for degreasing as a permit condition.

The conclusion is that, since permit ID s # 114 and # 836 contain much more than work practice and material handling requirements, no backsliding is occurring.