Rule Analysis: Comparison of 

Stringency of Repealed Clark 

County Sections 30 and 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 Department 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 these 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the Clean Air Act, comparing the repealed rules’ requirements to current requirements in an 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 Therefore, since none of the repealed 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. At 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repealed rules.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 concerns focused on Sections 30 and 60, DAQ focused its 

analysis on those sections as well. 

Section 30: Incinerators. 

The repealed rule had four basic requirements:

1. Units 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/dscf.

2. Units 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 1400oF. 

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 minor 

sources under the current Section 12.1 (“Permit Requirements for Minor Sources”), 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 1,400oF 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 

Standard (NSPS), DAQ would apply the applicable NSPS under Section 14 to any unit 

permitted under any provision of Section 12. 

5/27/15 1 CCDAQ
3. Section 26 remains in effect for any source in Clark County, whether or not it operates 

under a permit. 

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

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

in effect for any applicable source in Clark County, whether or not it operates under a 

permit.

 

Section 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 freeboard 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 VOCs 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 50oF. 

Comparison: 

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 Table 2 compares the requirements for degreasers between the repealed Section 60 and 

the current Section 12. Section 60 work practice standards are still required for 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 60 VOC limit would constitute the 

lowest level, or “floor,” of a control technology determination made pursuant to any of 

the three SIP-approved DAQ NSR rules. Further, an 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 lbs VOC/gal of coating), the NESHAP limit of 1.1 lb

HAP/gal is more stringent than Section 60. Since many VOCs are also HAPs, it is likely 

this NESHAP would apply if a LACL application was filed. In any event, given the 

prevalent use of low-solvent coatings throughout the U.S. and Section 60 being the 

“floor” for control, the NSPS limit of 7.48 lbs VOC/gal would not likely be the controllevel determination of a Section 12 RACT/BACT/LAER analysis. 

5/27/15 2 CCDAQ
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 Department of Transportation or other road-building entities, nor is it 

produced 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 (Sections 12, 13, 14, and 32) in place that are equally or 

more stringent. 

5/27/15 3 CCDAQ
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 C

#114 

04/2009 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 (4/23/8

to 8.32 lbs/yr (<

Active Permit (Also 12, 26, 

40, 43, 55)

Burn only 

natural gas

40 CFR 63, su

CFR 60, subpa

Meets BACT

#389 

10/2013

Craig Rd Pet 

Cemetery

Animal 

crematory

N (current 

permit) N/A AQR §12 See comments Permit conditio1,400°F during 

Active Permit Y (earlier 

permits)

40 CFR 60, su

apply.1

1 EPA determined in the Federal Register (70 FR 74870) that the human body should not be labeled or considered "solid waste." There

tories are not solid waste combustion units, and are not a subcategory of other solid waste incinerators (OSWI) for regulation. The sam

animal crematories under the final OSWI rules (40 CFR 60, subpart EEEE).

5/27/15 4 CCDAQ
TABLE 2. Repeal of SECTION 60 - EVAPORATION & LEAKAGE: Demonstration of Anti-Bac

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 

114 - 4/09 Nellis AFB Degreasers Y Work 

practices

Work 

practices

Lids closed, 

limit hours

Parts washers:

0.01 - 0.13 tpy 

VOC

Unk 29 p

clea

Active Permit Also 12, 26, 

40, 43 & 55

40 CFR 63, 

subpart T

Parts washers:

0.01 - 0.05 tpy 

HAP

Unk 28/2

1/29 

Gun cleaner:

0.08 tpy VOC Unk Gun 

Gun cleaner:

0.05 tpy HAP Unk

473 - 5/13 Creech AFB Degreasers N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Deg

activ

Active Permit 40 CFR 63, 

subpart T

836 - 9/12 LV Valley 

Water District Degreasers N N/A

Good 

operating 

practices

Lids closed, 

clean spills 0.97 ton VOC/yr

2014:

0.91 tons 

VOC/yr

Thro

lbs/g

Active Permit

AQR 

12.1.4.1 

(c) & (f)

40 CFR 63, 

subpart T

837 - 9/13 LV Valley 

Water District Degreaser N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Degactiv

Active Permit 40 CFR 63, 

subpart T

Summary and Conclusion: Two of the above-listed permits show degreasing operations as insignificant activities, and there

conditions. The remaining two permitted sources are subject to work practice and material handling provisions in the permi

throughput limits on solvent use, as well as limitations on VOC content in solvents used. The Nellis permit also has hourly l

degreasing as a permit condition.

The conclusion is that, since permit IDs #114 and #836 contain much more than work practice and material handling requir

is occurring. 

5/27/15 5 CCDAQ