Colusa County Air Pollution Control District Program Review

Report of Findings and Recommendations

Prepared by the

California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division

December 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The findings and recommendations contained in this report were developed based on a review of office programs and field inspections. In conducting the program evaluation, Colusa County Air Pollution Control District (District) staff assisted the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff through interviews and file reviews in addition to performing their normal duties. We acknowledge the professionalism and cooperation of the District staff and management. We also express thanks to the management and staff of the facilities we inspected as part of the program evaluation. Staff of all facilities were patient and accommodating during our field inspections. This report covers many program areas and was made possible by the assistance and support of ARB staff from the Enforcement Division, the Planning and Technical Support Division, and the Monitoring and Laboratory Division.

Colusa County Air Pollution Control District Progra m Review

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table of Contents

Introduction ..1 District Information ..1 Attainment Status 2 Overall Findings ...2 Findings and Recommendations by Program Area ...6

A. Compliance Program ...8

B. Permit Program ..28

C. Rule Development Program .38

D. Hot Spots Program ..41

E. Emission Inventory Program ....44 Appendix A: Complaint Program Recommendation Details Appendix B: Breakdown Program Recommendation Details Appendix C: Review of Colusa County APCD NSR Rule

1

Colusa County Air Pollution Control District Progra m Review

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction Air pollution control and air quality management district (district) program reviews are conducted as part of the Air Resources Boards (ARB) oversight role of the districts in California. The reviews are conducted in accordance with section 41500 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC). The purpose of district program reviews is to evaluate the effectiveness of a districts air quality program. Findings and recommendations specific to each program area reviewed are included in the report. From May through August 2005, ARB staff conducted a review of the Colusa County Air Pollution Control Districts (District) air quality program. This is the only comprehensive review ever done by ARB staff of the District. As part of this review, ARB staff evaluated the Districts compliance, permitting, rule development, AB 2588 Hot Spots, and emissions inventory programs. Staff from four ARB divisions participated in this effort. The review activity commenced with an entrance conference held in Chico on May 4, 2005. ARB staff presented an outline of proposed review activities that covered the scope, method and content of the program evaluation, general logistics, and time lines related to this effort. Following the entrance conference, staff initiated a review of the program areas identified above in May 2005, with the major field inspection activity finishing by August 2005. Staff examined files and records, interviewed District staff and management, and conducted inspections of permitted sources. Findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information gathered from this effort.

District Information

The Districts jurisdiction is coincident with the area contained in Colusa County, encompassing approximately 1,150 square miles. Colusa Countys population has grown in recent years, increasing from approximately 16,300 in 1990 to an estimated 20,900 in 2005. In 1990, approximately 531,000 vehicle-miles were traveled each day within the Districts boundaries. In 2005, an estimated 636,000 vehicle-miles were driven daily.1 The District maintains its office in Colusa. The Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) is also Colusa Countys agricultural commissioner and administrates the migrant housing program. As of May 2005, the District was staffed by two full-time positions: a Deputy APCO and an Air Pollution Standards Officer. In 1 The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2006 Edition.

2

addition, two county office staff assist the District on a part-time basis. The District has approximately 245 permitted facilities, including five Title V/major sources. Agricultural and open burning operations constitute an important emissions source in the District. It is our finding that the District has an extensive workload for its relatively small staff. Attainment Status Ozone Colusa County is designated as unclassified/attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, with no recorded days exceeding the federal 8-hour standard in 2005 and 2006. Colusa County is a nonattainment-transitional area for the State ozone standards. State air quality standards are more health protective than the federal standards.2 Colusa County did not have any recorded days that exceeded the State 1-hour ozone standard in 2005 or 2006. Preliminary data indicate that two days exceeded the State 8-hour ozone standard in 2006. Particulate Matter Particulate matter consists of a mixture of fine airborne solid particles and liquid droplets (aerosols). The size of particulate matter can vary from coarse wind blown dust particles to fine particles directly emitted or formed from chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere. Federal and State particulate matter standards focus on PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 comprises particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns, while PM2.5 are particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter. The federal 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments established air quality standards for PM10 that consist of a 24-hour standard and an annual standard. In 2004, U.S. EPA published final designations for the federal PM2.5 standards. Colusa County is designated as a federal unclassified/attainment area for both PM10 and PM2.5. However, Colusa County is designated as a nonattainment area for the State PM10 standards and the State PM2.5 standard. As with ozone, the State air quality standards for particulate matter are more health protective than the federal standards. Overall Findings This section summarizes the main findings of the program review.

2 ARB approved a new State 8-hour ozone standard in April 2005, with special consideration for childrens health. The State 1-hour ozone standard is retained.

3

The District adequately administers its agricultural burning and open (nonagricultural) burning program. However, substantial improvement is needed in all other program areas. An evaluation of the Districts programs showed the need for additional staff resources. At a minimum, one additional staff person is required to ease the workload in program areas such as compliance, permitting, emissions inventory, and rule development. The District can also request assistance from ARB and other Sacramento Valley air districts to accomplish tasks related to inspection backlog, permit processing, rule development, and institution of policies and procedures. The District needs to have written policies and procedures for all program areas. Also, District actions should be documented in the form of activity logs and written reports. Better documentation and tracking is needed to adequately administer the inspection, complaint, and equipment breakdown reporting programs. The Districts lack of documentation made it difficult for ARB staff to review individual program areas. For example, it was not possible to determine if inspection results were followed through, if all air quality complaints were addressed, and if all equipment breakdown reports were evaluated. With respect to its source inspection program, the District is currently unable to inspect all of its permitted sources annually. For example, one major source by the Districts definition (hexane emissions at this source exceed ten tons per year) was not inspected in either 2003 or 2004. Another major source, operating under a Title V permit, was not inspected in 2003. As resources allow, the District should strive for annual inspections at all permitted sources and quarterly inspections of major sources. The District does not always take appropriate enforcement action for violations of District rules or permit conditions. Only two notices of violation (NOV) were issued as the result of stationary source inspections in 2003 and 2004, which is atypical considering that the District has about 245 permitted sources operating in its jurisdiction. We believe that these two NOVs do not accurately reflect the actual noncompliance at permitted sources. For example, the District has not issued NOVs for emission-related violations at Wadham Energy. The source failed an emissions test for SO2 on November 20, 2003. The source then passed a retest on January 9, 2004. Wadham Energy also failed an emissions test for CO on May 20, 2005. The source then passed a retest on June 24, 2005. The District did not issue NOVs for either of these failed tests and no variance was obtained. As another example, Adams Specialty Oils was required by its District permit to submit a Title V application by June 2000. This facility has not complied and no enforcement action has been taken. The District has a practice of not issuing NOVs to gasoline stations. District files contain several examples of inspection reports where Title 17 violations (torn hoses) were noted, but the District did not