![]() |
|
|
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
Question for Joe Bob, and others on an Air Pollution Ticket
Joe Bob used to do this kind of work, as did I.
My wife works for a school district in Ventura, CA. They were notified of an upcoming NOx, CO source test on their natural gas fired boiler. They used their boiler tuneup contractor to "pre-test" and it apparently passed. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) came and tested and said they failed, the limit is 400 PPM CO on a 15 minute test, the boiler blew a 646 PPM at 3% Oxygen. They cited them under Rule 74.15.B.1 which is for boilers over 5mm BTU/hour. Wrong rule, they should have cited them under Rule 74.15.1.B.1 which is for boilers of 1-5 mm BTU/hour. Same limit, 400 PPM, but wrong rule. The VCAPCD wants to settle for $1,,000. I'm taking this on as sport and gratis. Apparently the pre-test contractor plays poker with the VCAPCD inspector who did the source test. I've asked for a copy of the permit, a copy of the pre-test, VCAPCD source test and the recalibration source test from the contractor. Here is how I see this playing out. 1. Tell VCAPCD they issued the citation under the wrong rule, and they should dismiss, (not likely). 2. Tell them if they won't cancel the citation, to reissue it with the correct Rule violation, which will give me another 30 days to nit-pick the source test protocol and results, they had 30 days to agree to settle and that is next week (wifey just told me about it today when I got back from a trip). 3. Threaten to go to the Hearing Board and say I can produce a witness who says the independent tester contractor and the VCAPCD inspector are poker buddies. And this may be a conflict of interest thing. 4. Maybe all of the above and offer to compromise with a fine of say $100 instead of $1,000. 5. Tell the contractor who did the pre-test who said they passed, that if his post citation re-test also shows above the limits, that they should pay the fine. I used to do air pollution work for a living, now I'm just trying to help the wife out as the new Business Manager of this small school district. Any other strategies?
__________________
Hugh |
||
![]() |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 18,162
|
Have the school district pay the $1000, ignore this completely, and move on with your life.
|
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
This is a really, really small school district. Yes, they could afford to pay it. As I said, I'm doing this for sport, to help my wife. The $1,000 fine for this District may well be 50-100 text books. Not that it matters, but its a mostly Hispanic farming community school district. School districts like LA Unified have hundreds of stake bed trucks, this school district has one, with over 200,000 miles on the clock. The cost of buying one new stake bed is a big capital expense for this district. What is stupid is that since it is considered their "fleet" it has to meet California Air Resources Board emissions standards for fleets, so they can't just go to the local Ford dealer and buy a stake bed, it will cost them about 30% more to buy a fleet-compliant stake bed truck.
__________________
Hugh Last edited by Hugh R; 03-10-2012 at 09:14 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
RETIRED
|
I'd rake the contractor over the coals, submit the test results and dispute the NOV. They did what they had to do under the rules and assumed compliance.
If VAPCD continues to push it, tell them to pound sand, go to Mutual Settlement. If they continue to insist non-compliance and penalties, go to court. Be advised, it MAY cost more to fight than settle.....depends on whether the school district wants to have an NOV on the record or to clear their name. Another thought....there may be an issue with the supplied gas. Check with the supplier and ask for a sample. I'd also look at their sampling protocoal, calibration gasses, record keeping, testing devices, etc. You know the drill. I assume that the District brought in a 3rd party contractor or did they use their own equipment?
__________________
1983/3.6, backdate to long hood 2012 ML350 3.0 Turbo Diesel Last edited by Joe Bob; 03-11-2012 at 08:47 AM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
3rd party contractor for the pre-test. Looking at the gas may be worthwhile, but doubtful. Its political and they may want to settle, but I'm going to try and get it tossed on a technicality first.
__________________
Hugh |
||
![]() |
|
Gon fix it with me hammer
|
Bit harsh the way they slap a 1000 dollar fine for a first violation?
No warning or time to make it right??
__________________
Stijn Vandamme EX911STARGA73EX92477EX94484EX944S8890MPHPINBALLMACHINEAKAEX987C2007 BIMDIESELBMW116D2019 |
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
I've requested the Agency source test report, actually I don't know if they used a contractor or not as of now. They have to respond by March 15, so based on them citing the wrong rule, and me traveling again, I'm going for a 30 day extension, after they re-issue the citation referencing the correct rule.
They reportedly never use the boiler, and have it inspected and tuned twice a year per the rule. My wife just joined the school district (Santa Paula Unified High School District) and has no info today on the history of tests, I think this is their first citation.
__________________
Hugh |
||
![]() |
|
Gallatin, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gallatin,TN
Posts: 654
|
Southern Cal Gas company will come out for free and do the test and make any small adjustment needed to get it to pass. Give them a call. They will do it twice a year no charge.
I used them at the company I used to work for and they were real good guys and we kept our boilers in good shape. Dave |
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
Dave, thanks for the tip.
__________________
Hugh |
||
![]() |
|
RETIRED
|
Oi....talked to Hugh....some funny, interesting complications involved. I also personally know the people involved with the inspection and subsequent letter asking for civil penalties.
The issue is totally indefensible from the gubmint side....Hugh will prevail...trust me, I used to work for the gubmint....
__________________
1983/3.6, backdate to long hood 2012 ML350 3.0 Turbo Diesel |
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
This is going to get delicious. I have to verify tomorrow, but lots of conflict of interesting stuff going on between the Agency and the air pollution source testing contractor. Thanks Joe Bob for your insight. I love hanging governmental agencies with there own dirt.
__________________
Hugh |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,612
|
Can we make a movie out of this? Can't wait to read the next chapter. No secrets!
__________________
Neil '73 911S targa |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Dog-faced pony soldier
|
Ooh, this one DOES sound like fun...
Subscribing...
__________________
A car, a 911, a motorbike and a few surfboards Black Cars Matter |
||
![]() |
|
What?!?!
|
Very interesting events.
I, too, wondered about the fuel supply. Having the pre-test results is a great thing. The poker factor makes it juicy. Can't wait to see if that becomes relevant. I think having the wrong rule cited will be the difference maker. My guess is it either gets dismissed or re-cited under correct rule with a just a "fix it ticket". Now, the pretest results are still out there. If VCAPCD recognizes them, then I would imagine a retest is warranted.
__________________
running shoes, couple tools, fishing pole 1996 Subaru Legacy Outback AWD, 5speed 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX, 5speed 2014 Tundra SR5, 4x4 1964 Land Rover SII A 109 - sold this albatross |
||
![]() |
|
RETIRED
|
The pre tester and the tester may be related.....
__________________
1983/3.6, backdate to long hood 2012 ML350 3.0 Turbo Diesel |
||
![]() |
|
Detached Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: southern California
Posts: 26,964
|
Wife checked, different companies did the tests. The Settlement Officer is out today.
Last edited by Hugh R; 03-21-2012 at 02:55 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|