United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule 4103, Open Burning

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel

June 20 11- 2

- San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Rule Previously Approved into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)

• Rule 4103

- Open Burning Amended on May 17, 2007 Submitted on April 6, 2009

SIP

- approved on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907)

Subject of this Technical Support Document (TSD)

• Rule 4103

- Open Burning

Amended on April 15, 2010

Amendments e ffective June 1, 2010

Submitted on April 5, 2011

• Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

– Table 9

- 1

A dopted on May 20

, 201 0

Submitted on April 5, 2011

EPA determined this submittal was complete on May 6, 2011.

Background and Summary of Rule 4103 and Rule Amendments

Rule 4103 is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from op en burning of agricultural waste and other materials within SJVUAPCD . The rule restricts the type of materials that may be burned and establishes other conditions and procedures for open burning in conjunction with SJVUAPCD’s Smoke Management System (SMS). 1 Under the SMS, SJVUAPCD analyzes the daily impact of open burning on air quality in 103 zones in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and allocates daily b urning allowances based on local meteorology, air quality conditions, atmospheric holding capacity, burn ing already approved in an area
, impacts on downwind populations and

other factors

. Permi tted burns must comply with Rule 4 103 provisions regarding, for example, moisture (e.g., Section 5.5.4 and 5.5. 9 ), time of day (Sections 5.5.11 and 5.5.12)

and permits (Section 6.1)

.

SJVUAPCD revised Rule 4103 in 2010 largely to implement portions of California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) sections 41855.5 and 41855.6

. CH&SC section

41855.5 require s SJVUAPCD to prohibit specific crop categories from open burning according to a schedule , the final phase of which began on June 1, 2010. CH&SC section

41855.6 authorize s SJVUAPCD to postpone the burn prohibition for specific crop categories if all of the following conditions are met:

• The SJVUAPCD determines that there is no economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste;

1 SJVUAPCD also refers to its SMS as a “Smoke Management Program” (see “ San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Proposed Smoke Management Program: Rules, Policies, and Procedures to Comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning ” (a dopted June 20, 2002)).- 3

- • The SJVUAPCD determines that there is no long

- term federal or state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or development of alternatives to burning;

• The SJVUAPCD determines that the continued issuance of permit s for that specific category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to, a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard; and

• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) concurs with the SJVUAPCD’s

determinations

.

The primary impact of the 2010 amendments was to extend the prohibition on open burning to several new crop categories . Specific revisions to the previous version of the

rule include :

• New or revised d efinitions are provided in Section 3.0 for the following terms: A ir Pollution Control Officer, Board, E nvironmental Protection Agency, Field Crops, Orchard Removals, Other Materials, Other Weeds and Maintenance, Prunings, Surface Harvested Prunings, Vineyard R emoval Materials, Vineyard Materials

and Weed Abatement

.

• Section 5.5.1 was amended to include a ll agricultural crops and materials listed in CH&SC Section 41855.5, there by proh ibiting the open burning of all materials not subject to a postponement under Section 5.5.2.

• Section 5.5.2 was revised to include criteria that SJVUAPCD must satisfy to
postpone a burn pro hibition under CH&SC Section 41855.6

.

• New Section 6.3 requires the SJVUAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)

to prepare and present to the Board for review and approval a “Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning” for any Board determination under

section 5.5.2. The APCO must also update this Report at least every five years.

On May 20 , 2010, the Board app roved and incorporated by reference a “Staff Rep o r t and

Recommenda tions on Agricultural Burning ” prepared pursuant to section 6.3 of the rule. 2

The Staff R eport recommend ed complete or partial postponemen t of the June 1, 2010 burn prohibition for the following crop categories: grape and kiwi vineyard removal materials, small orchards including fig crops, citrus orchard removals, apple, pear and quince crops, ponding and levee banks, diseased bee hives, rice stubble, raisin trays, and almond, walnut and pecan prunings. These recommendations are summarized in Table 9

- 1 of the Staff R eport and w e refer below to the recommendations, as adopted by the

2 Governing Board of SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 10

- 05

- 22 (In the Matter of: Approve Agricultural Burning Report and Proposed Findings and Recommendations) (May 20, 2010).- 4

- Board, as “Table 9

- 1 .” 3 In approving the Staff R eport, the Board made the each of the determinations req uired by section 5.5.2 of the rule with respect to the recommended

postponements.

On May 27, 2010, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) concurred with the District’s determinations regarding the burn prohibition postponements set forth in Table

9

- 1. 4 The postponements listed in Table 9

- 1 therefore became effective along with the

revisions to the rule on June 1, 2010. However, CARB limited its concurrence to a period of two years

.

Rule Evaluation Criteria EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 4103 and Table 9

- 1 :

1. Enforceability

– Clean Air Act ( CAA ) § 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally

enforceable.

2. SIP Revisions

- We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA §110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP

approved control requi rement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA §193).

3. Rule Stringency

– CAA §172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM)

, including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable . The San Joaquin V alley is designated as an extreme 1

- hr ozone nonattainment area

and an extreme 8

- hr ozone nonattainment area, and is also designated

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual and 24

- hour fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) standards (40 C.F.R. Part 81)

. O pen burning of crop residue emit s direct PM 2.5 , as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ), which are precursors to PM 2.5 and ozone. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must implement RACM for open burning if those measures

will advance attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 or o zone
, when considered collectively with other

reasonable measures

. A dditional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are

3 Following the Board’s approval of the Staff Report on May 20 , 2010, SJCUAPCD staff revised the cost estimates for vineyard removal and modified the Staff Report accordingly on July 21, 2010. These revisions did not result in any changes to the postponements set forth in Table 9

- 1. References to Table 9

- 1

below are to the version of Table 9

- 1 formally adopted by the Board on May 20, 2010. All other references to the Staff Report are to version revised on July 21, 2010.

4 California Air Resources Board Resolution 10

- 24.- 5

- reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available

measures will advance attainment in the area when considered collectively.

SJV U APCD is currently designated attainment for PM 10 (40 CFR § 81.305). Accordingly, SJV U APCD is not subject to the requirement to implement Best Available Control Measures ( BACM ) for PM 10 and PM 10 precursors in CAA § 189(b) and (e). Therefore, we are not evaluating Rule 4103 for compliance with BACM requirements.

Rule Evaluation

1. Enforceability

– With the exception of the issue discussed in the subsequent paragraph, t he 2010 versions of Rule 4103 and Table 9

- 1 specify clear and unambiguous requirements for open burning and the prohibition s for burning specific crop categories and agricultural materials.

Table 9

- 1 provides the APCO with discretion to allow individual operators to

burn additional acres of almond, walnut a nd pecan prunings under specific

circumstances

. EPA generally discourages SIP provisions that allow APCO discretion to independently interpret the SIP , but acknowledges that such

“director’s discretion” may be appropriat e if explicit and replicable procedures within the rule tightly define how the discretion will be exercised (see, e.g., the Little Bluebook and 52 FR 45109, 11/24/87 ). Rule 4103 and Table 9

- 1 provide a specific procedure for operators to seek permission t o burn additional acres of prunings. Under this procedure, the APCO can allow an operator to burn

additional acres of prunings based on a determination that (1) adequate shredding services are not available in time for the operator to proceed with established postpruning cultural practices, or (2) that the cost of such shredding services would represent an unreasonable financial impact to the operator

. We believe that

t hese standards constitute appropriate limitations on the APCO’s discretion, given the limited history of this type of burning prohibition. In addition, the burning of

these additional acres is still subject to S JVUAPCD ’s SMS , thereby minimizing impacts of added smoke emissions. Nonetheless, this discretion should be further limited in the future as SJVUAPCD gains more implementation experience

.

2. SIP Revisions

– SJVUAPCD estimates that the new or expanded open burning prohibitions in the 2010 revisions to Rule 4103 and Table 9

- 1 reduce total annual emissions by 39.2 tons/year NO

x , 123.1 t/y PM 2.5 , and 105. 2 t/y VOC. These more stringent prohibitions address removal of fig orchards and other small

orchards less than 20 acres, and prunings from fig, almond, pecan and walnut

orchards. 5

However, the requirement in Section 5. 5.2.3 of SIP

- a pproved Rule 4103 to redu ce the amount of rice stubble burning by June 1, 2010 to 50% has been deleted in

5 Staff Report, Table 5

- 5.- 6

- this ru le revision. This allow s growers to continue burn ing up to 70% of their rice

s tubble and represents a relaxation of the SIP

- approved requirement to only burn

50% between 2010 and 2015. SJVUAPCD conservatively estimates the

associated emission reductions postponed until 2015 are 22 ton/year NO

x , 25 t/y

PM 2.5 , and 21 t/y VOC

. 6 Actual impacts should be smaller because these

estimates are based on the total number of acres (14,566) of rice farmed in 2005, 7

while the reported annual average rice acreage burne d from 2007

- 2009 is much smaller ( 3

, 0 73)

. 8

As a result, any rice stubble emission reductions postponed should be more than offset by the overall emission reductions achieved by the n ew prohibitions from burning other crop categories (e.g., 39.2 t/y compared to 22 t/y NO

x )

. Therefore,

we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with

CAA § 110(l), because the proposed S IP revision would not interfere with the on

going process for ensuring that requirements f or RFP and attainment are met and the submitted SIP revision is at least as stringent as , if not more stringent than, the rule previously approved into the SIP. CAA § 193 does not apply to this action

because the submitted SIP revision does not weaken any SIP control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990.

3. Rule Stringency

– EPA reviewed the previous version of Rule 4103 just two years ago, and approved it as meeting requirements for RACM and BACM for

PM 10 at that time (74 FR 30485; 74 FR 57907 ) . Our rationale for these conclusions included the following:

• EPA has not established specific control standards for open burning activities

.

• SJVUAPCD, SCAQMD, and the other large California nonattainment agencies generally have among the most stringent stationary source requirements nationwide, and we are not aware of other reasonably available technological or operational controls likely to significantly reduce emissions from this activity. 9

We believe that the current version of Rule 4103 requires a ll control measures for open burning activities in the San Joaquin Valley that are “reasonably available” considering technological and economic feasibility, for the reasons cited above as

well as the following reasons :

• The 2010 version is more stringent that the version we approved as establishing RACM

- and BACM

- level controls in 2009.

• SJVUAPCD conducted a detailed technical and economic analysis of alternatives to open burning for each crop category and determined that for

6 See Attachment 1, CAA 110(l) Analysis for Rice Stubble, for a summary of the emissions data and

calculations.

7 Final Staff Report for Rule 4103 [2007 Revisions], Appendix B

- Emission Reductions Analysis for Proposed Amendments to Rule 4103, Tables 5 & 6, SJVUAPCD (May 17, 2007).

8 Staff Report, Table 5

- 1.

9 EPA Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, May 28, 2009.- 7

- each of the crop categories a llowed some burning in Table 9

- 1 there is no economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste

.

• SJVUAPCD determined that there is no long

- term federal or state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San

J oaquin Valley or development of alternatives to burning

.

• SJVUAPCD determined that the continued issuance of permits for that specific category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to, a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard. 10

• EPA previously identified implementation of a smoke management program (without the additional burning restrictions in Rule 4103) as RACM

- level

controls for PM 10

. 11

• We have compared the control requirements in Rule 4103 with analogous

rules in ot her local districts and states and believe that Rule 4103 is as stringent as or more stringent than those other rules. 12

In separate rulemakings, EPA will take action on the State ’ s RACM demonstration for

PM 2.5 and o zone based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the San Joaquin Valley. See 40 CFR §§ 51.1010, 51.912(d).

Rule Deficiencies

N o deficiencies with Rule 4103 were identified that would be sufficient for EPA to propose less than full approval.

EPA Action We propose to determine that Rule 4103 fulfills the applicable CAA § 110 and title I, part D requirements. Therefore, u nder section 110(k) of the CAA

, EPA staff recommend s full approval o f (1) SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, Open Burning, amended on April 15, 2010 ; and ( 2 ) Table 9

- 1, adopted on May 20, 2010. 13 These materials were submitted on April 5,

2011 for incorporation into the California SIP to replace the version of Rule 4103 as amended on May 17, 2007

.

EPA Recommendations The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended as improvements the next time the rule and/or Table 9

- 1 are revised.

10 See, e.g., Staff Report

, Chapter 9.

11 See, e.g., 57 13498 at 13540 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 Appendix C3 at 18072 (April 28, 1992).

12 See, e.g. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173

– 425 (Open Burning) (Nov. 10, 2010) ; Idaho Administrative Procedures Act § § 58.01.01.600

- 623 (Rules for Control of Open Burning) ( May 8, 2009) ; Bay Area AQMD Regulation 5 ( Open Burning ) (July 8, 2008) ; South Coast AMQD Rule 444 ( Open Burning )(Nov. 7, 2008); and Sacrame nto Metropolitan AQMD Rule 501( Agricultural Burning )(Apr. 3, 1997)

. 13 SJVUAPCD h as requested that EPA approve Rule 4103 and only Table 9

- 1 of the Staff Report, rather than the Staff Report in its entirety, as the recommendations in Table 9

- 1 together with Rule 4103 provide the basis for the District’s open burning program. See email dated June 15, 2011 , from George Heinen (SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA).- 8

- 1. We recommend that SJVUAPCD reevaluate the technical and economic need for postponements listed in Table 9

- 1. For example:

a. F urther analyze the economic feasibility of grinding and sending citrus orchard

removal materials to a b iomass plant ( including the issue of available capacity and acceptance of citrus materials by biomass facilities )

. 14 SJVUAPCD recently

informed EPA that it will no longer permit open burning citrus orchard removals

“ when case

- by

- cas e analysis indicates sufficient biomass plant capacity and the availability of economically feasible chipping services. ” 15 SJVUAPCD has also

noted that “economies

- of

- scale and the high current levels of biomass fuel

demand at biomass

- to

- energy plants are cri tical for both growers and chippers to carry out the non

- burning alternative in a sustainable, cost effective manner.” 16

EPA encourages SJVUAPCD to continue closely monitor ing the economic feasibility of sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass an d to remove the current postponements for any sub

- categories of citrus removals for which

there is a feasible alternative. For example, further analyze whether the alternative of sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass facilities may

be economi cally feasible for farm s above 100 acres

. 17

b. We recommend that SJVUAPCD reevaluate the availability of contractors to shred almond, walnut and pecan prunings based on updated data. Additional

contractor shredding capacity may become available as large growers purchase shredders to comply with the rule. 18

Although we are proposing to conclude that R ule 4103 currently requires all

“ reasonably available ” control measures for open burning in the San Joaquin Valley,

we note that RACM/RACT can become more st ringent over time as new control measures develop and/or the costs of existing control measures decrease, and we

encourage C ARB and SJVUAPCD to reevaluate the rule, including the postponements adopted in Table 9

- 1, at the earliest opportunity to ensure tha t the State adopts all RACM for open burning activities as expeditiously as practicable. We note that SJVUAPCD is obligated to reevaluate the adopted postponements by 2015, and that CARB has committed to reconsider its concurrence with the postponements by 2012 ( CARB Resolution 10

- 24).

2. To improve clarity, SJVUAPCD should incorporate the postponements found in

Table 9

- 1 directly into R ule 4103. While these provisions are enforceable as

14 Section 3.2.3 of the Staff Report describes technical concerns with prohibiting open burning of citrus material, but suggests these issues have been addressed and also indicates that the biomass facilities are now more willing and able to accept this mate rial. Nonetheless, EPA acknowledges that biomass facilities generally consider citrus material to be the least desirable of all fuel types and must blend it with other fuel types. (Staff Report at 7

- 37). SJVUAPCD has also noted that, since urban waste i s typically less expensive than agricultural waste, urban waste (particularly construction debris) may displace some of the current capacity for agricultural waste, as the economy improves and construction activity increases. Therefore, SJVUAPCD believes t hat significant uncertainty remains over the economic feasibility of sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass. (Staff Report at 7

- 49).

15 See letter dated June 27, 2011, from Seyed Sadredin (SJVUAPCD) to Deborah Jordan (EPA).

16 Id.

17 See, e.g., Staff Report Table 3

- 4.

18 See Section 3.2.7 of the Staff Report

.- 9

- currently written, relying on sections of the S taff R eport to implement the rule is unnecessarily confusin g and could lead to compliance issues. Among other sections, this would require revisions to Rule 4103 sections 5.5.2 and 6.3.

References Regulatory

, guidance and other documents used in the evaluation of Rule 4103 and Table

9

- 1 include the following : 1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA (May 25, 1988). [The Bluebook]

2. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies , EPA Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook].

3. 40 CFR § 51.1010.

4. Preamble, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007).

5. Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard

— Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 ( Nov. 29, 2005).

6. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).

7. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Supplement, 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

8. Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 ( amended April 15, 201 0 )

. 9. SIP

- Approved SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 ( amended May 17, 2007 )

. 10. SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning, (revised May 20, 2010 )

. 11. SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burnin g ( revised July 21, 2010 )

. 12. S JVUAPCD Staff Report Rule 4103 ( April 15, 2010 )

. 13. California Health and Safety Code, Sections 43855.5 and 43855.6 (2004).

14. Governing Board of SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 10

- 05

- 22 (In the Matter of: Approve Agricultural Burning Report and Proposed Findings a nd Recommendations) (May 20, 2010)

. 15. California Air Resources Board Resolution 10

- 24 ( May 2 7 , 2010)

. 16. EPA Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 ( May 28, 2009 )

. 17. SJVUAPCD Proposed Smoke Management Program: Rules, Policies, and Procedures to Comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agri cultural and Prescribed Burning (adopted June 20, 2002).

18. Washington Administrative Code Chapt er 173

– 425 (Open Burning) (Nov. 10, 2010)

. 19. Idaho Administrative Procedures Act § § 58.01.01.600

- 623 (Rules for Control of Open Burning) (May 8, 2009).

20. Bay Area AQMD Regulation 5 (Open Burning) (July 8, 2008)

. 21. South Coast AMQD Rule 444 (Open Burning ) (Nov. 7, 2008)

. 22. Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 501(Agricultural Burning) (Apr. 3, 1997)

.

Attachment 1

- EPA CA A 110(l) Analysis Rice Stubble ( June 17, 2011 )

.- 10

-- 11

- Attachment 1

Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Analysis Rice Stubble (Straw) Burning

SJVUAPCD Rule 4103

Emissions Data & Calculations

The estimated emissions from rice burning were calculated in the Final Draft Staff Report , May 17, 2007,

Appendix B, Tables 5 and 6. The relevant data is summarized below.

Total acres of rice farmed (20 05 data): 14,566 acres

NO

x Emissions :

100% Burn Allowance = 115 tons/year

70% Burn Allowance = 80 tons/year (reduction = 35 tons/y ea r)

50% Burn Allowance = 58 tons/year (reduction = 57 tons/y ea r)

Emission Reduction Loss = 22 tons/year

PM 10 Emissions

100% Burn Allowance = 138 tons/year

70% Burn Allowance = 96 tons/year (reduction = 42 tons/y ea r)

50% Burn Allowance

- 69 tons/year (reduction = 69 tons/y ea r)

Emission Reduction Loss = 27 tons/year (Equivalent to 25 tons/yea r PM 2.5 )

VOC Emissions

100% Burn Allowance = 103 tons/year

70% Burn Allowance = 72 tons/year (reduction = 31 tons/y ea r)

50% Burn Allowance

- 51 tons/year (reduction = 52 tons/y ea r)

Emission Reduction Loss = 21 tons/year

Total Annual Emissi on Reductions from All New Open Burning Prohibitions

– Rule 4103 from Table 5

- 5

in the Final Staff Report and Recommendations for Agricultural Burning, dated May 20, 2010 are:

NO

x : 39 tons/ year

PM 2.5 : 123 tons/ year

VOC: 105 tons/ year

Notes: 1. Removing the June 1, 2010 requirement to lower the burn allowance from 70% to

50% and keeping the burn allowance at 70% results in loss or rollback of emission

reductions, for example : 22 tons/y ea r NO

x = 80.0 tons/year (70%)

– 58.0 tons/y ea r

(50%)

2. The emission factor for PM 2.5 is 5.9 lbs per ton compared with PM 10 which is 6.3 per

ton. (San Joaquin Emission Inventory Methodology 670

- Agricultural Burning)

.

3. Data rounded to the nearest ton/year.

June 17, 2011

– EPA Region 9