STAFF REPORT RE: Proposed Modifications

to the Open Burning Regulation Date of Release: March

1, 2004 Schedule
of Meetings •Date of Public Workshop: 3:00 p.m.on January 15, 2004, Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Conference Room, 142 Garden Highway, Yuba City, CA, 95991 •Date of Public Workshop: 3:00 p.m.on October 17, 2003, Yuba County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Conference Room, 938 14th Street, Marysville, CA 95901 • Scheduled Date of Public Hearing: 4:00 p.m.onMarch

1, 2004, Feather River Air Quality Management District, 938 14th Street, Marysville, CA, 95901Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation STAFF REPORT Open Burning Regulation Date of Release: March

1, 2004 Scheduled Date of Adoption: 4:00p.m. March

1, 2004 Feather River Air Quality Management District, 938 14111 Street, Marysville, CA, 95901 Contents

Page Executive Summary ................................................................

...
.......................

.............

3 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................

4 2. Background ..............................................................................................................

4 3. Cost and Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................

6 4. Environmental Impacts
....

.......
......

....................

.............

...........................................

8 5. Public Comment .......................................................................................................

9 6. Required Findings .....................................................................................................

9 7. References ...............................................................................................................

11 Attachment

A Workshop Minutes Attachment

B Table of Effects onthe District's Existing Rules
& Regulations 2Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation STAFF REPORT Executive Summary To protect community health, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted anAirborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Residential Burning

in Februwy, 2003, toreduce air emissions of dioxins and other toxics from outdoor residential waste burning statewide. Beginning January

1, 2004, nohousehold trash or garbage including paperand cardboard can be burned outdoors
at residences

in burn barrels. Dry, natural vegetation, grownonthe property, canstill be burned outdoors

in open piles in accordance with local fire and air quality controls

. The Feather River Air Quality Management District (District)

is required

to adopt asstrict or stricter regulations

to enforce the CARE's ATCM As part of this obligation

,the District was required
to openthe Open Burning Regulation for modification. The District was formed
in 1991 asahi-county jurisdictional special district

,with jurisdiction overYuba and Sutter counties

.At that time, there existed twodistinct open burning regulations. The District needs tocombine the regulations into one equitably enforceable regulation. Some areas of the agricultural burn programwere modified

to accomplish this unification of the two regulations

.In addition, mino1• modifications have been made toensurethe new regulation

is readable, understandable, enforceable, and consistent with State and Federal laws and the Sacramento Valley Smoke Management Program

. The following Staff Report was developed

to provide information regarding the specific changes and additions

tothe Open Burning Regulation and to provide the justification for the necessary modifications.

3Staff Report, FRAQMD Op e n Burnin

g Re g ulation 1.0 INTRODUCTION The District
is proposing

to modify Regulation

II to add provisions that make the regulation compliant with the California ATCM for Residential Burning.
In addition, the District

is proposing

to unify the two Open Burning regulations into one consistent and enforceable regulation

.To accomplish this, it was necessary for the District
to modify some elements
in the open burning programs. The purpose of the regulation

is to ensure open burning
in the District
is conducted

in a manner that minimizes emissions and smoke and is managed consistent with state and federal law. This regulation

is applicable

to any person or land manager conducting

or allowing any open burning within Yuba and Sutter counties including agricultural burning, non-agricultural burning, and residential burning. 2.0 BACKGROUND: Regulation

II ,Open Burning sets conditions, requirements, and prohibitions
for all open burning programs regulated by the District conducted within Yuba and Sutter Counties, including agricultural burning, non-agricultural burning, and residential burning. The modifications
the District

is proposing affect all or part of each open burning program. Residential Burning The most significant modifications
are in the residential open burning category. Residential waste burning

is the practice of outdoor burning of household wastes associated with one- and two-unit family homes. These household wastes include materials such as paper, cardboard, and vegetative material grown at the residence. Typically, 55-gallon metal drums known
as burn barrels are used for this burning. According

to a study conducted
by the CARB

,residential waste burning generates

a number of toxic air contaminants, including polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans (collectively referred
to as dioxins), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(P AHs

) ,and polychlorinated biphenyls. These toxic air contaminants may result in substantial health impacts including cancer and immune system damage. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has identified dioxins and P AHs as two of the initial five toxic air contaminants that may cause infants and children
to be especially susceptible

to illness. Other air pollutants found in smoke produced from residential waste burning include particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen

.Most of the particulate matter emitted from residential waste burning

is small enough
to be inhaled and can be especially harmful
to people with existing respiratory illness, the aged, and the very young

.Exposure

to such particles may worsen existing disease conditions and can produce symptoms ranging from breathing difficulties

to increased respiratory infection and even death. According

to the California Health
& Safety Code Section 39666 (d), the District has 120 days to implement and enforce the ATCM or propose regulations equally stringent
to the ATCM. The 4Staff Report, FRAQMD Op e n Burning Regulation District proposed

to adopt equally stringent regulations

to implement the provisions
of the ATCM. The District Board opposed the State's adoption of the A TCM, wrote letters opposing the A TCM, requested the CARB conduct

a local workshop

to allow citizens the opportunity

to oppose the A TCM, and attended the Hearing
to adopt the A TCM to voice opposition

to the ATCM.
In addition, District staff worked diligently

to apply the exemptions

or reduce the requirements that allow for exemptions

.Although the ATCM was amended in its final form to require only the low population census exemption, the District believes that because of the minimal distance
to a transfer station and availability
of waste service that the allowing of any

. exemptions would create an inequitable and unfair situation. The California Air Resources Board adopted the ATCM despite the objections raised. In addition
to the provisions
of the ATCM

,the District has provided additional restrictions

to allow for better enforceability
for the Regulation. These include minimum distance requirements, smoke minimization requirements,
and burn day and hour requirements. Agricultural Burning Including Wildland, Forest Management, and Prescribed Burning Some modifications

to Regulation

II were deemed necessary by the District
to develop one consistent regulation and to update that regulation

to comply with provisions
of the Sacramento Valley Smoke Management Program. These changes are listed below

. 1. Language change "set or authorize"

to "conduct, allow

,or use" in accordance with CA H&S Code section 41800. (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 2 .Added "Land Manager" definition and responsibility

in accordance with the Sacramento Valley Smoke Management Program. (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 3. Removed "No Burn" day exemptions other than "inm1inent and substantial economic loss or preventing the loss of lives or property." (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 4. Sets burn hours for orchard prunings

at 9:00a.m.

to 4:00p.m

.(Yuba County Affected) 5 .Sets burn hours for field crops at 10

: 00 a.m. to 3
: 00 or 4:00 p.m

.,depending
on the season. (Yuba County Affected) 6. Removes the elevation exemption for agricultural permitting. (Yuba & Sutter Count

i es Affected) 7. Clarifies the pesticide sack open burning. (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 8. Removes the list of designated agencies. (Sutter County Affected) 9 .Removes the language allowing the use of' burning

a tire for producing smoke cohmm during pesticide applications. (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 10. Added definition
of "Incinerator"

.(Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) 11

.Removes the language prohibiting burning within the city limits of Live Oak, Marysville, Wheatland

,and Yuba City. (Yuba & Sutter Counties Affected) Non-Agricultural Burning Including Public Officer, Fire Training, and other Burning Some modifications

to Regulation

II were deemed necessary
by the District
to simplify requirements
for public officer and other forms of non-agricultural burning,

to allow for District involvement

in the decision-making process for these types of burns, and to incorporate best management practices
of the indirect source, plmming, and construction and development industries. These changes are listed below.

5Staff Report, FRAQMD Op e n Burnin

g Regulation 1 .Added permitting requirements
for fire training field burns greater then 20 acres. 2. Added written requirements
for other burning conducted
by a public officer

. 3 .Added permitting and NESHAP requirements
for Industrial site frre training. 4. Prohibits the use of burning
to clear property for commercial, industrial and residential development. Allows for the use of burning for clearing

a single residence development. 5. Prohibits the use of burning
at a solid waste disposal site. 3.0 COST AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS: Section 40728.5(c)
of the California Health and Safety Code exempts districts with
a population of less than 500,000 persons from performing

a socioeconomic impact analysis. However, the District chose to voluntarily provide the following information

. The District does not expect cost impacts for the modifications

to the agricultural and nonagricultural programs

.Cost impacts are expected due to the modifications

to the residential burning program. The State Board conducted
an economic impact analysis
as required by law and they fulfilled all legal requirements

.They determined that the ATCM was not a major regulation, meaning the potential costs to California businesses did not exceed ten million dollars in any single year. Below
is a summary of the study as it affects Yuba and Sutter counties and discusses the impacts that the A TCM may have on consumers

as well as costs to businesses and local

,state, and federal agencies. Consumer Costs The State determined that waste service providers
in the 27 air districts that currently allow some form of residential waste other than natural vegetation

to be burned could be affected by the ATCM. They estimated that there are more than 100 waste service providers statewide that serve these air districts. Private recycling centers and waste disposal facilities could also be affected. The District cunently prohibits the burning of garbage. The only aspects relative
to the cost impacts are the additional paper and cardboard that can be recycled.
In Yuba and Sutter Counties, there is not an area where waste disposal pick-up

is not available. Consumers who are currently burning their paper and cardboard have the option of receiving

a blue toter from YubaSutter Disposal
to recycle these materials. They also have the option to self-haul their garbage and recyclable material
to the landfill or transfer station. In some areas, new waste service routes may need to be developed.

In other areas, new customers may be added to existing routes

.The increased cost will vary depending upon the costs associated with increasing waste management service in their area. The District expects consumer costs for monthly curbside waste pickup generally range from $8 to $25. This is typically

1 pickup per week for one gray household garbage container, one green waste container, and one blue recyclable container.

It can be assumed that consumers are already using some form of alternative waste disposal, whether

it is curbside pickup or selfhauling. These consumers may have some additional waste that was previously burned. It is also possible that the expansion
of existing routes could result in enhanced economies
of scale and some incremental reduction

in costs to all consumers already receiving service. 6Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation Establishing service for a remote area not previously served however, could necessitate service fees which are two to three times higher than the typical fees described above

. For those consumers electing
to self-haul their waste to landfills and transfer stations. Typical tipping fees for landfills and transfer stations generally range from $25 to $85 per ton of compacted waste disposed
or $3 to $20 per cubic yard ohm-compacted waste. Households that self-haul could also incur additional fuel costs to transport the material
to the landfill
or transfer station. This cost would be less for households that previously transported some of their waste materials, and only increase the frequency
of trips as a result of the proposed regulation

. Employment, Business Creation, Elimination

or Expansion The regulation

is not expected
to have

a noticeable impact on the status of California businesses. The primary businesses affected would be waste service providers

as well as operators
of private recycling centers and waste disposal facilities

.The regulation may actually create some business opportunities and employment
for California waste service providers

in areas where either additional households opt into service where service had been voluntary, or where service areas are expanded. New or expanded opportunities could also be created for recycling facilities

. Business Competitiveness The regulation would have no impact on the ability of California waste service providers
to compete with similar businesses
in other states

.Waste service contracts are determined
on a local jurisdictional basis. The requirements

of the regulation would affect all waste service providers competing for a contract, regardless
of where they originate from. Costs to the District Although there are no specific mandates
in the A TCM, there are still some small, but unquantifiable, economic impacts on the District. Health and Safety Code section 39666 requires that after the adoption of the proposed ATCM by the Board, the District must enforce the ATCM or adopt and enforce an equal or more stringent regulation. During our normal course of business, we are responsible
for enforcement activities and responding

to complaints. The A TCM does not contain any specific requirements
for enforcement

or inspection.

In addition, because the District already has rules and regulations

in place that necessitate enforcement
for currently prohibited materials, the enforcement efforts required for the proposed regulation would build upon these existing efforts. The District also needs to carry out a public education and outreach campaign

to enhance compliance with the ATCM and to alert the public
to available options for waste disposal. However, ARB has developed public education and outreach materials that have been provided
to us. Local Waste Management Agencies The ATCM could result in non-mandatory costs to local agencies responsible
for waste management services
to the extent they choose
to provide expanded waste disposal services and to address waste diversion impacts.
In the Yuba-Sutter area, waste service
is already available throughout the area, although
in many cases it is not mandatory. Additional households who might opt into service due to the ATCM would not have an impact on the local agency. The expansion
of waste service
to areas which were previously unserved however could result in increased costs to local agencies to develop new waste hauling contracts and for continued management and oversight. However, the costs of additional waste service could be recovered 7Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation through waste collection service fees. Local agencies could experience increased costs if they decide to expand the hours of operation

at a landfill or transfer station to meet consumer demand or need. Additional costs could also be incurred
if a waste agency needed to go tlu·ough

a permit amendment process
to expand the allowable capacity of a landfill.

It is also possible that
a local jurjsdiction could elect to build new transfer stations
to address increased demand or better serve outlying residents. Infrastructure costs to establish

a small, unattended transfer station are approximately $10,000. Additional costs of approximately $20,000 would be incurred for permitting, and costs would be higher for larger, attended facilities. However, discussions with several waste management agencies indicate that many factors would influence the decision
to establish additional transfer stations; therefore the potential for this impact cannot be quantified. Finally, local waste management agencies could develop new baseline waste disposal levels to better address the addition of materials that were previously burned
to the waste stream and more accurately calculate diversion rates. Development

of a new baseline could cost approximately $50,000 for surveys
at selected waste disposal facilities. However, not all local waste management agencies may choose
to develop new baseline years. State and Federal Land Management Agencies Although there are no specific mandates, the A TCM could have limited economic impacts on State and federal land management agencies

.The main impact would be on public education, issuance
or permits, and enforcement

of complaints that could arise from burning that occurred on State and federal responsibility area lands. As discussed above, the CARB will provide the needed public education and outreach materials. The number of permits

is not expected
to increase
as a result of the proposed regulation, and may decrease due to the decrease
in the number of households allowed
to burn residential waste materials.

In terms of enforcement, while these fire agencies have primary responsibility
for fire safety, they often are the first ones to respond
to complaints about burning, which often are not about fire safety, but the burning of prohibited materials. Some jurisdictions have addressed this problem through

a memorandum

of understanding between the local fire protection agencies and the air district to allow the fire protection agency to recoup its costs for enforcement through

a pass-through

of fines assessed by the air district. This has worked especially well in Placer County. Similar efforts in other jurisdictions could minimize the economic impact of enforcement effmis for these State and federal land management agencies. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS: The intent of the ATCM
is to improve air quality and protect the public health by reducing the public's exposure
to potentially harmful emissions
of dioxins, other T ACs, and particulate matter produced during the burning of residential waste materials. The CARB conducted
an environmental impact analysis of additional areas of the environment. They evaluated the potential impacts that the ATCM may have on waste diversion rates, landfill capacities, illegal dumping, illegal waste storage, increased vehicle miles traveled due to expanded waste pickup service, and fire safety

.Based on available information, the CARB determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts should occur. The District evaluated the rule adoption and determined that p"i.ll'suant
to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15061(b)(2) and 15308 the rule adoption

is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class

8 action taken by a regulatory agency to 8Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement,
and protection
of the environment and application
of the exemption

is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2. 5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT A public workshop was held on January 15, 2004, to provide

a forum for public comment. The minutes from the workshop are attached
as Attachment

B. All agricultural burn permit holders were notified via mail, and
a public notice of the workshop and hearing was published

in the Appeal Democrat
on December 15,2003. No significant changes
to the rule were completed based on the comments and questions received during the workshop. The public hearing for adoption will be held on March

1, 2004 to consider adoption of Regulation

II . 6.0 REQUIRED FINDINGS Findings required by Division 26 of the California Health and Safety Code requires local districts to comply with

a rule adoption protocol
as set forth in Section 40727 of the Code. This section has been revised through legislative mandate

to contain six findings that the District governing board must make before adopting, amending,

or repealing

a rule or regulation. These findings and their definitions are included
in Table

1 . In addition, Section 40727.2 of the Code requires preparation
of a written analysis by the District to identify all existing federal air pollution control requirements, any of the District's existing
or proposed rules and regulations that apply to the san1e equipment

or source type, and all air pollution control requirements and guidelines informed
to the District
in response
to the annual published list of proposed regulatory action by the District. There are no known existing federal control requirements
for open burning. Control requirements typically are contained
in the Code of Federal Regulations under various programs like National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), New Source Review standards (NSR), Prevention
of Significant Deteriorization (PSD), and the State Implementation Program (SIP). District rules and regulations that apply to the same source type are Regulation !-General Provisions, Regulation

II (Yuba
& Sutter)-Open Burning, Regulation III-Stationary Sources, Regulation

IV -Permitting, Regulation VII-Fees, Regulation X-New Source Review, and Regulation XI-Air Taxies. Attachment

B provides

a summary
of the affected rules, the differences between these rules and the proposed amendments, and the District's recommended changes
to the affected rules. The District recommends
the changes be completed

as soon as possible
to assure the regulations

of the District are consistent. The District received no notification informing

us of additional
air pollution requirements
and guidelines

as a response
to our published list of proposed regulatory actions. 9StaffReport,FRAQMDOpenBurningRegulationSTATEMANDATEDFINDINGAuthorityNecessityClarityConsistencyNonDuplicationReferenceTable1FindingsDEFINITIONAprovisionoflaworofastateorfederalregulationpermitsorrequirestheregionalagencytoadopt,amend,orrepealtheregulation.TheDistricthasdemonstratedthataneedfortherule,orforruleamendmentorrepeal.Theruleiswrittenordisplayedsothatitsmeaningcanbeeasilyunderstoodbythepersonsdirectly affectedbyit.Thisruleisinharmonywith,andnotinconflictwithorcontradictoryto,existingstatutes,courtdecisions,orStateorfederalregulations.TheruledoesnotimposethesamerequirementsasanexistingState.orfederalregulation,unlesstheDistrictfindsthattherequirementsarenecessaryandpropertoexecutethepowersanddutiesgrantedto,andimposedupon,theDistrict.Anystatute,courtdecision,orotherprovlSlonoflawthattheDistrictimplements,interprets,ormakesspecificbyadopting,amending,orrepealingaregulation.10DISTRICTRECOMMENDEDFINDINGCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,Sections39666,40000,40001,40702,and41865areprovisionsoflawthatprovideairdistrictswiththeauthoritytoadopttheseproposedrulesandregulations.Itisnecessaryfordistrictstoadopttheseamendmentstocomplywithstatelawandtoensureconsistencywithneighboringairdistricts.Thereisnoindication,atthistime,thattheproposedrulesarewritteninsuchamannerthatpersonsaffectedbytherulecannoteasilyunderstandit.Theserulesareconsistentwithapplicablestatutoryrequirements.AnyduplicationwithexistingstateorfederalregulationsISnecessaryorpropertoexecutethepowersanddutiesoftheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrict.TheproposedrulehasbeendevelopedtomeettherequirementsofSection39666oftheCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode.Staff Report, FRAQMD Open Burning Regulation REFERENCES: California Air Resources Board, Initial Statement
of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure
to Reduce Emissions
of Toxic Air Contaminants from Outdoor Residential Waste Burning (ARB, January
4, 2002) California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order: Airborne Toxic Control Measure
to Reduce Emissions
of Toxic Air Contamipants from Outdoor Residential Waste Burning (ARB, December
18, 2002) The Sacramento Valley Basinwide Air Pollution Control Council and Technical Advisory Committee, Sacramento Valley Air Basin Smoke Management Program (July 29, 2003) 11