ALASKA     CALIFORNIA     FLORIDA     MID‐PACIFIC    NORTHEAST     NORTHERN ROCKIES    

NORTHWEST     ROCKY MOUNTAIN    WASHINGTON, D.C.   INTERNATIONAL

CALIFORNIA OFFICE       5 0 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 500      SAN FRANCISCO, C A 94111

T : 415.217.2000      F : 415.217.2040      CAOFFICE@EARTHJUSTICE.ORG      WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG

Andrew Steckel (Air‐4)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105‐3901

October 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Dear Mr. Steckel,  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(“EPA”) proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s

(“Valley Air District”) Rule 4901 governing wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Coalition for Clean Air, the Association of

Irritated Residents, Valley Improvement Projects, and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition.

This update to Rule 4901 relaxes regulatory requirements for registered wood burning device

and therefore fails to meet best available control measures (“BACM”) as required. EPA should

disapprove this rule update and require the Valley Air District to revise this rule so that it does

not weaken regulations on registered wood burning devices.  

Regulations on registered wood burning devices in Rule 4901 violate the Clean Air Act  

The updated Rule 4901 will allow the use of wood burning devices when PM2.5 concentrations

are forecast to violate the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). The rule

will allow individuals to operate registered wood burning devices when PM2.5 concentrations

are estimated to be as high as 65 μg/m3. Registered wood burning devices must be EPA certified

to meet certain emission limits or must be pellet‐fueled wood burning heaters, which are

exempt from EPA certification.1 The previous iteration of Rule 4901, amended in 2008, banned

the use of wood burning devices when the forecasted PM2.5 concentration exceeded 30 μg/m3.

The 2006 24‐hour PM2.5 standard is 35 μg/m3, so using wood burning devices when the PM2.5

concentration was forecast to approach the NAAQS value was prohibited under the 2008

version of this rule. If this update to Rule 4901 is approved, registered wood burning devices

will be allowed to burn while the Valley is violating the 2006 24‐hour PM2.5 standard,

weakening regulations on registered wood burning devices.  

                                                     

1 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. September 2014. Rule 4901, Section 5.7.1.
2

Relaxing restrictions on burning for registered wood burning devices violates Section 110(l) of

the Clean Air Act. The Valley Air District predicts a drastic reduction in emissions based on

24% of existing wood burning devices being replaced with registered wood burning devices,

and uses that as the justification for relaxing rules for registered wood burning devices. Under

the Clean Air Act, the Valley Air District cannot revise SIP‐approved measures if those revisions

would interfere with attainment or with meeting any requirements of the Act; the Valley Air

District’s claim that the relaxation is irrelevant because the associated emissions are low is

incorrect.  

The Valley Air District’s assertion that its rule is the most stringent in the nation is untrue as

applied to registered wood burning devices. The South Coast Air Quality Management District

(“SCAQMD”) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

(“SMAQMD”) have stricter requirements for registered devices. SCAQMD limits burning for all

devices, including registered devices, at 30 μg/m3.

2 SMAQMD limits burning for all devices

using a tiered system, with burning of registered devices banned when the PM2.5 concentration

is forecast to meet or exceed 35 μg/m3.

3 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(“BAAQMD”) also bans all burning when the PM2.5 forecast meets or exceeds 35 μg/m3.

4The

Valley Air District cannot justify adopting a weaker rule that is less stringent than those in

South Coast and Sacramento.  

The changes to Rule 4901 do not meet the Act’s requirements for reasonably available control

measures (“RACM”) or BACM for registered wood burning devices. Its regulation of registered

devices will increase the number of days those devices are allowed to operate, and will far

exceed limits set for registered devices in other regions, such as SCAQMD and SMAQMD, as

described above. In the Technical Support Document prepared for the adoption of revisions to

Rule 4901 in 2009, EPA stated that “[t]he revisions to the rule primarily increase the

stringency of the rule with respect to episodic curtailment of wood burning based on PM‐

2.5 thresholds.”5 The same cannot be said of the Valley Air District’s most recent rule

revisions for registered devices, when EPA‐certified devices will be allowed to burn and

emit PM2.5 while the Valley is violating the 2006 24‐hour PM2.5 standard.  

                                                     

2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. August 2015. Technical Support Document for EPA’s

Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP): San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters (“Technical

Support Document”), p. 11.   3 Ibid.   4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 2015. Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible

Emissions, Rule 3: Wood Burning Devices, Section 6‐3‐227. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. May 2009. Technical Support Document for EPA’s

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP): San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, p.

3.
3

Rule 4901 should ban wood burning devices in new construction  

Rule 4901 should include more stringent controls on the installation of wood burning devices in

new developments, as the controls in the revised rule are less stringent than those used by

SCAQMD and BAAQMD. The rule will allow new developments constructed with a density of

up to 2 dwellings per acre to install one new wood burning device in each home. SCAQMD

bans the installation of wood burning devices in new developments unless the new

development lacks access to natural gas service or is 3,000 feet or more above sea level.6

BAAQMD recently became the first air district in the nation to ban the installation of wood

burning devices in any new development.7 Under the Valley Air District rule, developers can

install up to two wood burning heaters per acre, with a limit of one wood burning heater per

dwelling. This rule would allow the installation of numerous new wood burning devices in new

residential developments. Rule 4901 requires those wood burning devices to be registered

devices in areas where housing density is greater than two dwellings per acre, but if housing is

less dense, developers can install an unregistered wood burning fireplace.8 As a result, some of

the newly installed devices could be high emitting unregistered devices. Wood burning devices

are not a necessary feature in new residential developments; banning them, especially

unregistered devices, is an available control measure that the Valley Air District has failed to

adopt.

Financial incentives are sufficient to motivate a switch to registered wood burning devices

Rule 4901 contains an inappropriate incentive of fewer no‐burn days for registered devices,

which unnecessarily adds air pollution to the Valley as it struggles to meet Clean Air Act

standards. Small emission reductions are important in the Valley, which experiences

notoriously poor air quality during the wintertime PM2.5 season. The Valley Air District has

expressed concern about PM2.5 standards being “impossible” to meet.9 Adding any

unnecessary air pollution should not be an option in the Valley, given the fact that the region

needs any and all emission reductions available. Additionally, an incentive to burn even when

the Valley exceeds air quality standards sends the wrong message to Valley residents.

                                                     

6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. September 2014. Final Staff Report for Amendments to

the District’s Residential Wood Burning Program, p. 30.   7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 2015. Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible

Emissions, Rule 3: Wood Burning Devices, Section 6‐3‐306; Dennis Cuff. “Bay Area first: Wood‐burning

heating devices to be banned in new homes.” Contra Costa Times, October 21, 2015. Available at

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking‐news/ci_29002369/ban‐wood‐burning‐heating‐devices‐

considered‐new‐bay?source=rss.    8 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. September 2014. Rule 4910, Section 5.3.2. 9 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. April 2015. 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5

Standard, p. 1‐2.    
4

Even without the additional incentive of fewer no‐burn days, residents will have a financial

incentive for switching to registered wood burning devices. The Valley Air District will increase

its incentive funding to cover half the cost of a new wood burning device, in response to polling

showing that 24% of residents would replace their older devices with new registered devices if

they received a 50% discount.10 The Valley Air District estimated that 24% of owners of older

wood burning devices will switch to newer, registered devices based on this polling. The

financial incentive is what residents said would compel them to upgrade their existing wood

burning devices, so there is no need to offer them the opportunity to pollute their air when the

Valley is violating the PM2.5 standard. The Burn Cleaner Program, which will provide

incentives for Valley residents, is well funded, both from the Valley Air District’s own funds

and from settlements with polluters.11 Given the amount of funding available and the fact that

Valley residents say that the financial incentive is the key driver of their decision to upgrade

their devices, there is no need to allow additional pollution as an incentive to use registered

wood burning devices.  

If the Valley Air District must offer an incentive of fewer no burn days, the limit for registered

devices should be 30μg/m3, not 65μg/m3. Permitting the use of registered devices when PM2.5

concentration forecasts are between 20 and 30 μg/m3 would allow them to burn more often than

unregistered devices, without relaxing regulations for owners of registered devices. This would

allow owners of registered wood burning devices to operate their wood burning devices on 29

to 38 more days than owners of unregistered devices.12 As described above, Valley residents

view the financial incentive, rather than the reduction in no‐burn days, as the main factor for

any switch to a registered device. Still, if the Valley Air District must provide an additional

incentive of fewer no‐burn days relative to unregistered devices, maintaining the existing

standard for registered devices while lowering it for unregistered devices would be a significant

incentive. Owners of registered devices would have an extra month of days in which they could

use their devices.  

The Valley Air District should incorporate EPA recommendations into this version of the

rule  

EPA should require the Valley Air District to incorporate the recommendations included in its

Technical Support Document for this rule. Of particular importance is the distinction between

                                                     

10 Memo from Seyed Sadredin to SJVUAPCD Governing Board. Sept. 18, 2014. Re: Item Number 7: Adopt

Proposed Amendments to the District’s Residential Wood Burning Program, p. 10.   11 Rory Appleton. “Valley air district gets $255,400 to modernize wood burning stoves.” Fresno Bee, Oct. 8,

2015. Available at http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article38283765.html; David Shepardson.

“Michigan‐based Guardian to spend $70M to cut pollution.” The Detroit News, Sept. 29, 2015. Available at

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2015/09/29/michigan‐based‐guardian‐spend‐cut‐

pollution/73034958/.   12 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. September 2014. Final Staff Report for Amendments

to the District’s Residential Wood Burning Program, Appendix C: Economic Analysis, p. C‐4.  
5

subsidizing wood burning heaters and gas fireplaces.13 The Valley Air District should not

subsidize the transition to wood burning heaters, which are generally used more frequently

than gas fireplaces. The Valley Air District also should require retrofits of existing wood

burning heaters during major renovations, as discussed in the Technical Support Document.14

BAAQMD’s recent update to its wood burning rule contains a similar requirement, demanding

that major renovations involving fireplaces or chimneys replace those devices with EPA

certified devices.15 Finally, homes where wood burning devices are the sole heating source are

exempted from no burn days, but the Valley Air District still should require that those devices

meet EPA Phase II emission limits.16 Those devices will run more frequently than any other

wood burning devices in the Valley, so high emissions rates from those devices would

undermine the emission reductions from Rule 4901.

Conclusion  

The Valley Air District recognizes the importance of Rule 4901 in its efforts to attain PM2.5

standards, but the rule does not meet the Act’s requirements for reasonably available and best

available control measures for registered wood burning devices. We urge EPA to disapprove

this rule and require the Valley Air District to maintain its existing ban on operation of

registered devices when forecasted PM2.5 concentrations equal or exceed 30 μg/m3. The rule

should also ban the installation of wood burning devices in new developments, set emission

limits for wood burning devices serving as a home’s sole heat source, ban subsidies for wood

burning heaters, and require retrofits of wood burning devices during major renovations.  

Sincerely,  

Adenike Adeyeye  

Research and Policy Analyst

Earthjustice  

                                                     

13 Technical Support Document, p. 14.   14 Technical Support Document, p. 14.   15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 2015. Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible

Emissions, Rule 3: Wood Burning Devices, Section 6‐3‐307. 16 Technical Support Document, p. 14.