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?

Have the school district pay the $1000, ignore this completely, and move on with your life.

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.

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?

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.

Bit harsh the way they slap a 1000 dollar fine for a first violation?
No warning or time to make it right??

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.

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

Dave, thanks for the tip.

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....

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.

Can we make a movie out of this? Can't wait to read the next chapter. No secrets!

Ooh, this one DOES sound like fun...

Subscribing...

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.

The pre tester and the tester may be related.....

Wife checked, different companies did the tests. The Settlement Officer is out today.