SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

1 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT

October 16, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters)

Prepared by: Jessica Hafer, S enior Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Scott Nester, Director of Planning Errol Villegas, Planning Manager George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer

I. SUMMARY

Rule 4901, Wood Burning Fireplaces and W ood Burning Heaters, has significantly reduced particulate matter (PM) concentrati ons since the rule was last amended in 2003. When the San Joaquin Valley Air Ba sin (SJVAB, or Valley) reached PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) attainm ent ahead of schedule, it was

clear that Rule 4901 had been successful in raising awareness and achieving cost effective air quality improvements. Str engthening Rule 4901 is an important step towards meeting the challenges of PM2.5 (particulate ma tter 2.5 microns or less in diameter) attainment in the Valley. Lowering the thres hold for episodic wood burning

curtailment to a level consistent with t he federal, 2006 PM2.5 standards will result in more wood burning prohibitions, and this in turn will have a significant public health

benefit.

The reductions from this rule are necessary to allow expeditious attainment of the federal PM2.5 standard, (CAA Section 172 (c )(1)). The proposed amendments to the rule are considered by staff to be technologic ally feasible and economically reasonable.

A. Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation

This control measure is a commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , which was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dis trict (District) Governing Board on April
30, 2008. This rule amendment will, in conjunction with enhanced outreach efforts and additional grant funding:

• Decrease direct PM2.5 and PM10 emi ssions from wood burning devices,

• Result in significant public health benefits,SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

2 • Contribute to continued attainment of t he National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10, and

• Help the Valley make significant progr ess towards attainment of the PM2.5 standard as part of th e strategy of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

.

Particulate matter (PM) is any finely divided so lid or liquid material (except pure water). PM can include a wide range of chemical compounds, and the type of compound will affect the type and severity of the health im pacts from the particles. In the Valley, PM2.5 concentrations tend to be highest in win ter months and overnight, due to weather conditions and source activity. For weather conditions, temperature inversions in the atmosphere act as a lid on the Valley and keep pollution near the ground level. The majority of wood burning device use occurs in the evenings and contributes a significant

amount of PM2.5 and its precursors. By prohibiting the use of wood burning devices on poor air quality days, Rule 4901 will play a key role in lowering daily average PM2.5

concentrations.

B. Public Health Issues

Health Impacts of Particulate Matter

Wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heat ers emit particulates as a result of incomplete combustion. Smaller particles c an have larger health impacts. PM2.5 is not filtered out of the body by t he nose or upper respiratory syst em. It can be inhaled and deposited in the alveoli, the gas exchange zone deep in the lungs, and can result in airway inflammation. Once in the alveoli, PM2.5 can be absorbed into the bloodstream or can remain embedded in the lungs for long periods of time with out the ability to be exhaled (ALA 2002). PM2.5 may carry toxic and biological materials to other parts of the body through the bloodstream.

Numerous studies link PM to a variety of health effects (EPA 2008 and ARB 2004), including:

• Aggravated asthma

• Increased respiratory symptoms (irritati on of the airways, coughing, difficulty breathing)

• Decreased lung function in children

• Development of chronic bronchitis

• Irregular heartbeat

• Nonfatal heart attacks

• Increased respiratory and cardio vascular hospitalizations

• Lung cancer

• Premature death in people wi th heart or lung diseaseSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

3 New studies recently published by the Calif ornia Air Resources Board show that exposure to fine particulates is more dangerous to human health than previously thought. Children, older adults, and individual s with heart or lung diseases are the most likely to be affected by PM. The health impacts carry economic costs as well. The Hall Study (Hall et al., 2006) esti mated that the health impacts due to not attaining the 1997 federal PM2.5 standards in the Valley carry an economic cost of about $3.2 billion per year, nearly $1,000 per pers on per year Valley-wide.

Health Impacts of Wood smoke

In addition to the concerns surrounding PM, health concerns can be specific to wood smoke that is emitted from wood burning fi replace and wood burning h eater use. Wood smoke contains PM2.5, carbon monoxide, forma ldehyde, sulfur dioxide, irritant gases, and known and suspected carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The toxic air pollutants in wood smoke can cause coughs, headaches, and eye and throat irritation. People can be expose d to wood smoke when they use their wood burning devices. Additionally, people can be exposed to wood smoke when people in their neighborhoods use their wood burning devices; windows and doors cannot keep the particles in wood smoke out of people’s homes (EHHI).

Studies show that prolonged in halation of wood smoke contributes to chronic interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertens ion, and cor pulmonale, which can eventually lead to heart failure, in adults (Sandoval, 19 93). Wood smoke has also been linked to detrimental mutagenic and system ic effects such as oxi dative stress and coagulation, which can ultimately result in cell damage and possibly lead to cancer (Danielsen et al., 2008; Barregard et al., 2006; Sapkota et al., 2008). Children with the highest exposure to wood smoke had a significant decrease in lung function (Heumann et al., 1991).

Studies also found that wood smoke was tw elve times more carcinogenic than an equal concentration of cigarette smoke (Lewtas et al., 1991). More information on the studies

of wood smoke health effects is available in A ppendix A.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Current District Rule 4901

Current Rule 4901, as amended on July 17, 2003, placed restrictions on wood burning devices and fuels in the Valley. These restrictions affected:

• Sale of Wood Burning Heaters: On ly EPA Phase II Certified heaters can be advertised and sold, and all retailers must supply public awareness information with each sale of a wood burning heater.

• Sale or Transfer of Real Property: Sale or transfer of any real property containing a wood burning heater must be done with assurance that each wood burning heater on the property is EPA Phase II Certified, a pellet fueled wood burning heater, permanently rend ered inoperable, or removed.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

4 • Installation of new Wood Burning Fi replaces/Heaters in New Residential Developments: Wood burning fireplac es cannot be installed in new developments with more than two dwelling units per acre (only one wood burning fireplace/heater per acre can be installed in developm ents with density equal to or less than two dwelling units per ac re). No more than two EPA Phase II Certified wood burning heaters per acre can be installed in new developments.

• Advertising Requirements for Sale of Wood: “Seasoned wood” must refer to

wood with a moisture content of 20% or less by weight.

• Prohibited Fuel Types: The following are not to be burned in a wood burning fireplace/heater: garbage, treated wood, plastic products, rubber products, paints, paint solvents, coal, or any mate rial not intended by a manufacturer for use as fuel in a solid fuel burning device.

The July 2003 amendment to Rule 4901 also required episodic wood burning curtailments whenever an Air Quality Index (AQI) of 150 or greater, cu rrently equivalent to a 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration of greater than 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), was predicted. During curtailments under Rule 4901 as amended in 2003, a wood burning fireplace or wood burning heat er is not to be used unless it is at an elevation of 3,000 feet or more, it is in a location where natural gas service is not available, or it is the sole source of heat in a residence. Since November 2003, the

District has declared mandator y curtailments by county and has made notices of curtailments through the news media, reco rded telephone messages, fax, email, and

the District’s website. Tabl e 1 shows the number of mandat ory curtailment days in each county since the 2003-2004 (November – February) wood burning season.

Table 1 Number of Mandatory Cu rtailment Days per County, 2003-2008 (Wood burning seasons are from November through February)

Wood Burning

SeasonFresnoKernKingsMaderaMercedSan JoaquinStanislausTulare

2003-2004 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-2005 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

2005-2006 11 16 13 2 2 1 3 9

2006-2007 12 8 2 2 2 1 9 3

2007-2008 6 12 4 3 0 0 1 4

The Central Valley Health Policy Institut e of California State University, Fresno evaluated the impact of mandat ory wood burning curtailments on PM2.5 concentrations. Through numerous statistical evaluations, re searchers concluded that Rule 4901 hasSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

5 been effective in lowering PM2.5 concentrati ons. Their statistical model estimates

between 26% to 36% reduction in PM2.5 conc entrations in the evening (9 pm – 1 am)

and between 18% to 28% reducti on in 24-hour average PM2.5 levels from November 1 to February 28. Researchers also note t hat the District should strengthen Rule 4901 for the Valley to attain EPA’s newest PM2.5 N AAQS, which lowered the allowable 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3.

B. Compliance

The District enforces Rule 4901 wood burning prohibitions through inspector surveillance and by responding to citizen complaints made via the District’s 1-800 number. Notices of violations (NOVs) are issued to those who are found to be in violation of a wood burning prohibition. Va lley-wide, 87 NOVs were issued for Rule 4901 during the 2007-2008 wood burni ng season, and 203 NOVs were issued for Rule 4901 during the 2006-2007 wood burning season. Fo r first offenses, the fine is $50, but the fine can be waived with “Compliance Sc hool” attendance. Subsequent violations result in increased penalties.

C. Burn Cleaner Fireplace and Woodstove Change-out

The District has partnered with Operation Clean Air to offer financial incentives for residents to replace wood-burning fireplaces , stoves, and inserts with new, cleaner gas devices. Interested parties applied to the District, and eligible applicants were issued a voucher for a discount on the purchase and inst allation of a new device. The program required old units to be removed and destroyed. In 2008, the voucher program ran Feb. 1 through April 30 and vouchers gave a discount of $350 toward the purchase of a gasfueled device. About 600 units were replaced at a total cost of $16 8,000. The program was funded through a grant EPA awar ded to Operation Clean Air.

D. Wood Burning Rules in ot her California Air Districts

Since the District amended Rule 4901 in 2003, other air distri cts in California have also adopted or strengthened rules to limit the sale, installati on, and use of wood burning

devices:

• Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Distr ict adopted Rule 2.4 on December 8,

2004. While it does not include mandator y wood burning curta ilments, it limits the sale of wood burning heaters to cert ified or approved devic es and limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices, effective in

December 2004.

• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District adopted Rules 417 and 421 on October 26, 2006 and October 25, 2007, respecti vely. Under Rule 421, mandatory curtailment is declared wh en the 24-hour average PM2.5 level is

forecast to be at or abov e 35 μg/m3, starting in 2007. Rule 417 limits the saleSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

6 and installation of wood bur ning heaters to certifi ed or approved devices and limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices.

• South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 445 on March 7, 2008. Mandatory curtailment is declar ed when the 24-hour average PM2.5 level is forecast to be at or above 35 μg/m3, st arting in 2011. The rule also limits the sale and installation of wood burning heater s to certified or approved devices and limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices. No wood burning devices may be installed in any new development.

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3 on July 9, 2008. Mandatory curtailment is declared when the 24-hour average PM2.5 level is forecast to be at or above 35 μg/m3 , starting in 2008. The rule limits the sale and installation of wood burning heater s to certified or approved devices and limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices.

III. RULE DEVELOPME NT PROCESS

The District held nine evening workshops on Rule 4901, with at least one workshop in every county in the San Joaquin Valley, to allow as much opportunity for public involvement as possible. The first wor kshop was held on August 4, 2008, and the last workshop was held on August 21, 2008. During these workshops, District staff presented the proposed amendment s to the public and allowed time for public questions and comments. In total, approximately 115 people attended the workshops. Written comments were accepted until August 28, 2008. Comments received during workshops and during the written comment period are summarized with District responses in Appendix D of this Draft Staff Report. A 30-day public comment is being held on the revised rule from Septem ber 5 – October 6, 2008.

The notice of the public hearing for the pr oposed rule amendments was published in a general circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joa quin Valley counties. The public notice was also mailed to affected sour ces and interested parties. The notice of public hearing solicits written comments, and identifies t he name and telephone number of District staff who can answer questions and respond to comments.

IV. THE DISTRICT’S RULE 4901 AMENDMENTS

District Rule 4901 includes the following amendments:

A. Lowering the mandatory curtailment level

Current Rule 4901 set the mandatory curtailment level at 150 AQI, which is currently equivalent to a 24-hour average PM2.5 concent ration of 65 μg/m3. EPA’s 1997 24-hour average PM2.5 standard was also 65 μg/m3, but in 2006, EPA lowered the 24-hour average PM2.5 standard to 35 μg/m3 to be more health protective than the 1997SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

7 standard. Lowering t he mandatory curtailment level is necessary for the Valley to progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 standards. Setting the mandatory curtailment level at a 24-hour average PM2. 5 level of 30 μg/m3, rather than 35 μg/m3, provides a margin of safety to allow fo r the uncertainties involved in air quality forecasting. Also, during stagnation events, particulates can accumulate over several days. Wood burning prohibitions issued duri ng a stagnation event can help limit the build up of particulates that can lead to unheal thy air quality. For example, prohibiting wood burning when the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration is greater than or equal to 30 μg/m3 can help the Valley avoid ai r quality that exceeds the 35 μg/m3 PM2.5

standard.

The proposed amendments to Rule 4901 are lin ked to PM2.5 concentration instead of AQI because AQI levels change according to EPA guidelines. The current AQI equivalent for 30 μg/m3 is 80, but EPA is expe cted to revise the PM2.5 AQI scale. Using concentration levels rat her than AQI avoids any conf licts between the current and
revised AQI scales.

However, linking wood burning prohibitions to AQI accounts for both PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations. Linking wood burning prohibiti ons to just PM2.5 concentrations could

miss situations in which PM10 concentrati ons are high but PM2. 5 concentrations are not. While this is rare, it could occur dur ing a wind blown dust event. To ensure that Rule 4901 is not weakened for PM10, the rule indicates that wood burning will also be prohibited when PM10 concentrations are forecast to be at or above 135 μg/m3. This is slightly lower than current Rule 4901 to prov ide a margin of safety to allow for the uncertainties involved in air quality forecast ing. The federal, 24-hour PM10 standard is 150 μg/m3.

Lowering the mandatory curtailm ent level will result in mo re wood burning prohibition days each year. To estimate the impact this could potentially have on Valley residents, the table below shows a predicted the number of wood burning prohibitions in each county. These numbers are for a w ood burning season of about 120 days, from November 1 through the end of February. T hese estimates are based on the air quality that the San Joaquin Valley experienc ed during the 2006-2007 wood burning season. These numbers are not quotas; the actual number of No Burn days will depend on the air quality the Valley actually experiences.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

8 Table 2 Number of Wood Bu rning Prohibitions per County (Number of days)

County Rule 4901 as amended in 2003: 150 AQI (24-hour

PM2.5 concentration of 65 μg/m3) (Actual prohibitions

in 2006-2007 based on air quality forecasts) Draft 2008 Amendments

to Rule 4901: 24-hour

PM2.5 concentration of 30 μg/m3 (Expected prohibitions, based on 2006-2007 air quality)
Fresno 12 48

Kern 8 43 Kings 2 13

Madera 2 12

Merced 2 12 San Joaquin 1 9

Stanislaus 9 12

Tulare 3 11

B. Outdoor Wood Burning Devices

The rule will be clarified to include Outdoor Wood Burning Devices, such as chimineas and outdoor fireplaces, in mandatory curtailm ents. These devices were not discussed

in the current version of the rule. When air quality warrants a wood burning prohibition,

residents would be asked to refrain from all wood burning, inside or outside, unless they quality for an exemption, such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service. Furthermore, outdoor fireplaces and chimineas are almost exclusively aesthetic combustion and do not provide residential heat for human comfort and protection of property.

C. Elevation Exemption

The 3,000 foot elevation exempt ion will be removed so that re sidences at all elevations would be subject to mandatory curtailments unless they qualif y for another exemption, such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service. Since most areas at elevations above 3,000 feet do not have natural gas service, removing the elevation exemption will not affect many residents. Members of the public have commented that air quality has worsened in t he Valley’s foothill areas when residents in communities with relatively high population d ensities use their fireplaces (Hearing for

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , April 30, 2008). The District plans to increase air quality monitoring in some of these areas over t he next couple of year s to better assess how fireplace use affects air qua lity at higher elevations.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

9 D. Contingency Measure

Proposed Rule 4901 contains a contingenc y provision to lower the mandatory

curtailment level to a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 20 μg/m3. This provision would be effective if the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards by April 2015. This component of Draft Rule 4901 was mandated by ARB upon their approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008. The contingency measure would be implemented 60 days after the effectiv e date of EPA’s published finding of nonattainment for PM2.5. Beginning in 2012 , the District will report to the Governing Board on the Valley’s progress towards a ttainment of EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standard and

the likelihood of attainment. If needed, the District will explor e any other legally feasible corrective actions that may be suitable and amend the SIP if appropriate before the Rule 4901 contingency measure takes effect (see Item 7 in the Resolution for Amended 4901).

Because the Valley’s air is expected to be significantly cleaner by 2015, it would be speculative to estimate the number of “No Burn” days this would result in. If, as expected, the Valley reaches the PM2.5 standard by the deadl ine, then this contingency measure would not be used, and the “No Burn ” action level would stay at 30 μg/m3 of

PM2.5.

V. EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATE

District staff has estimated the potential emissions reduction to be achieved from implementing the amendments to Rule 4901. Please refer to Appendix B of this staff report for the analysis and detail on t he emissions reduction estimate.

VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The District’s independent cont ractor compiled the draft so cioeconomic analysis report, which can be found in Appendix C of this Draft Staff Report. Proposed Rule 4901 does not apply to sources identified for the Distric t’s ozone strategy and, therefore, is not subject to the California Clean Air requi rement for cost effectiveness analysis.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to the California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA), District staff conducted an Initial Study to identify any potential environment impacts. District staff concluded that there are no adverse environmental impacts, so a Notice of Exemption will be filed.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

10 VIII. RULE CONSIS TENCY ANALYSIS

Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, an air dist rict must identify and evaluate any existing federal rules or rules within that air distri ct that apply to the same source category (California Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2). Adoption of Rule 4901 would not conflict with any exis ting federal or District requirements.

IX. REFERENCES

American Lung Association (ALA) (2002). ALA Fa ct Sheet Particulate Matter Air Pollution. <www.lungusa.org/air/ pm_factsheet99.html>.

ARB (2004). Recent Research: Health Effects of Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Pollution, January 2004, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/PM-03fs.pdf.

Barregard, L.; Allsten, G.S.; Gustafson, P.; Johansson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Ba su, S.; Stigendal, L. Experimental Exposure to Wood-Smoke Particles in Healthy Humans: E ffects on Markers of Inflammation, Coagulation, and Lipid Peroxidation (2006) Inhalation Toxicology 18:845–853

Danielsen, P.H.; Bräuner, E.V.; Barregard, L.; Sällsten, G.; Wallin, M.; Olinski, R .; Rozalski, R.; Møller, P.; Loft, S. Oxidatively damaged DNA and its repair after experiment al exposure to wood smoke in healthy humans. (2008) Mutat Res. 642(1-2):37-42

EHHI (Environment & Human Health, Inc). The Health Effects of Wood Smoke. http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmo ke/health_effects.shtml

EPA (2008). Particulate Matter: Health and Environm ent, www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html

Hall, Jane V; Brajer, Victor; and Lurmann, Frederick W. (Marc h 2006). “The Health and Related Economic Benefits of Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley.” Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies.

Heumann, M.; Foster, L.R.; Johnson, L; Kelly, L. Woodsmoke Air Pollution and Changes in Pulmonary Function Among Elementary School Children (1991) Air & Waste Mana gement Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia

Lewtas, J.; Zweidinger, R.B.; Cupitt, L.; Mutagenicity, Tumo rigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles. (1991) Air and Waste Management Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sandoval, J.; Slas, J.; Martinez-Guerra, M.L.; Gomez, A.; Martinez, C.; Portal es, A.; Palomar, A.; Villegas, M.; and Barrios, R. Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulm onale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation. (1993) Chest 103:12-20

Sapkota, A.; Gajalakshmi, V.; Jetly, D.H.; Roychowdhury, S.; Dikshit, R.P.; Brennan, P .; Hashibe, M.; Boffetta, P. Indoor air pollution from solid fuels and risk of hypopharyngeal /laryngeal and lung cancers: a multicentric case-control study from India. (2008) Int J Epidemiol. 37(2):321-8SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

A-1 APPENDIX A

Summary of Health Impacts from Wood SmokeSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts from Wood Smoke A-2 Numerous scientific studies report potentia lly serious adverse health effects from breathing smoke emitted by residential wood combustion. Smoke contains fine particles, which can affect both the lungs an d the heart. Epidemio logical studies have shown an increased risk of pulmonary diseas e and other concerns. With regard to adults, studies show that prolonged inhalatio n of wood smoke contributed to chronic interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension and cor pulmonale.

In addition, wood smoke has been linked to detrimental mutagenic and systemic effects such as oxidative stress and coagulation. Thes e effects can ultimately result in cell damage and possibly lead to cancer. For example, mutagenicity testing of air containing smoke emitted fr om wood heaters found that wood smoke was twelve times more carcinogenic than an equal concentration of cigarette smoke. Exposure to wood smoke can affect inflammation, coagulation, and lipid peroxidation resulting in DNA and cellular damage.

Worsened respiratory functions have been corre lated to inhalation of wood smoke as well. This occurs especially in children and sensitive groups. Moderate to severe respiratory symptoms have been found to be notably greater in those children in homes where wood burning was prevalent. Si gnificant correlation was found between woodstove use and frequency of wheeze, se verity of wheeze, frequency of cough and waking up at night with cough in children. Children with the highest exposure to wood smoke had a significant decrease in lung func tion. In addition, scientific studies have

shown that wood smoke can cause an increas ed incidence of inflammatory responses, such as bronchitis, and decreased lung function.

The health effects from wood smoke are summarized in the following tables with

references to relevant studies. The t ables are followed by a health glossary summarizing the medical terms used in the tables and in this discussion.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-3Health Effects of Wood SmokeIncreased Risk of Pulmonary Issues such as arterial hypertension, cor pulmonale, COPDAuthor Journal FactoidSandoval, J. 1993 Chest With regard to adults, studiesshow that prolonged inhalation of wood smokecontributed to chronic interstitiallung disease, pulmonary arterialhypertension and cor pulmonale.Dennis, R.J. et al.1996ChestAmong elderly women of low socioeconomic status, wood smoke exposurewas associated with the developmentof Obstructive Airways Disease.Montaño, M. et al.2004Chest Wood smoke increases matrix metalloproteinases activity and expressionthat might produce lung damage similar to that observed in COPD associatedwith tobacco smoke.Detrimental Mutagenic and Systemic Effects such asOxidative Stress, Coagulation, Lipid PeroxidationAuthor Journal FactoidLewtas et al.1991Air and WasteManagementAssociationMutagenicity testing of air containingsmoke emitted fromwoodheaters foundthat wood smoke was 12 times more carcinogenic than an equalconcentration of cigarette smoke.Danielsen, P.H. etal. 2008Mutation Research Particulatematter from wood smoke was found to cause health effectsthrough generation of systemic effectsand oxidative stress with resultingcellular damage.Barregard, L. et al.2006InhalationToxicologyExposure to wood smoke seems to affectinflammation, coagulation, and lipidperoxidation resulting in DNA and cellular damage.Barregard, L. et al.2008Journal of Occupat.& Environ.MedicineWood smoke caused an inflammatory response and signs of increasedoxidative stress in the respiratory tract, especiallyin the lower airways.Sapkota, A. et al.2008InternationalJournal ofEpidemiologyIncreasing level of smokiness fromwood burning inside the home wasassociated with an increasing risk ofhypopharyngeal and lung cancer.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-4Worsened Respiratory Functions such as Asthma, Wheezing, Coughing, Phlegm Production, etc.Author Journal FactoidMorten A. et al.2004Exposure Anal. andEnviron. Epidem.The prevalence of all the symptoms ofasthma was higher in children fromhouseholds that used open fires compared to improved stoves withchimneys.Lipsett et al.1991Air WasteManagementAssociationPresence of woodstove or fireplacein the home was associated withshortness of breath in females and both shortness ofbreath and moderate orsevere cough in males.Honicky, R.E. et al.1985Pediatrics Moderate to severe respiratory symptoms, such as wheezing and cough atnight, were notably greater in those children in homes where wood stove usewas prevalent.Steerenberg, P.A.2006InhalationToxicologyExposure to wood smoke lead to an increase in response to the respiratoryallergy model and health effect markers for pulmonary irritation and acutetoxicity.Butterfield, et al.1989Journal ofEnvironmentalHealthSignificant correlation was found between woodstove use and frequency ofwheeze, severity of wheeze, frequencyof cough and waking up at night withcough in children.Morris et al.1990American Journalof Diseases ofChildrenThe use of a wood burning stove was associated with a 4 times higher risk oflower respiratory tract infection.Increased Inflammatory Response like BronchitisAuthor Journal FactoidRajpandey, M.1984Thorax Prolonged exposure to wood smoke lead to chronic bronchitis in adults.Lal et al.1993Indian J. of Exper.BiologyRats exposed to wood smoke suffered bronchiolitis, hyperplasia andhypertrophy, congestion, oedema, and mild emphysema.Pérez-Padilla, J.R.et al. 1999Gaceta Medica deMexicoWomen exposed to wood smoke had a five-fold risk of chronic bronchitis andchronic airflow obstruction, as compared to the non-exposed.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-5Enhanced Allergic Sensitization and Decreased Lung FunctionAuthor Journal FactoidAllsten, G.S. et al.2006InhalationToxicologyA mild increase in eye irritation and a slight increase in nose symptoms withexposure to wood smoke.Heumann et al.1991Air & WasteManagementAssoc.Children with the highest exposure to wood smoke had a significant decreasein lung function.Tesfaigzi Y. et al.2002Journal ofToxicology SciencePulmonary function was affected in a high-exposure to wood burning group.Mild chronic inflammation and squamousmetaplasia were observed in thelarynx of all of the exposed groups.ReferencesAllsten, G.S.; Gustafson, P.; Johansson,L.; Johannesson, S.; Moln ́ar, P.; Strandberg,B.; Tullin, C.; Barregard, L. (2006) Experimental WoodSmoke Exposure in Humans. Inhalation Toxicology 18:855–864Barregard, L.; Allsten, G.S.; Gustafson,P.; Johansson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Basu, S.; Stigendal, L. Experimental Exposure to Wood-SmokeParticles in Healthy Humans: Effects on Markers of Inflammation, Coagulation, and Lipid Peroxidation (2006) Inhalation Toxicology 18:845–853Barregard, L.; Sällsten, G.; Andersson, L.;Almstrand, A.C.; Gustafson, P.; Andersson,M.; Olin, A.C. Experimental exposure towood smoke: effectson airway inflammation and oxidative stress. (2008) Occup Environ Med. 65(5):319-24Butterfield, P.; LaCava, G.; Edumunston E.; Penner, J. Woodstovesand indoor air: the effects on preschooler’s upper respiratory symptoms. (1989)Journal of Environmental Health 52:172-73Danielsen, P.H.; Bräuner, E.V.; Barregard,L.; Sällsten, G.; Wallin, M.; Olinski, R.;Rozalski, R.; Møller, P.; Loft, S. Oxidatively damaged DNA and itsrepair after experimental exposure to wood smoke in healthy humans. (2008) Mutat Res. 642(1-2):37-42Dennis, R.J.; Maldonado, D.; Norman, S.; Baena, E.; Castano, H.; Martinez, G.; Velez, J.R. Wood smoke exposure and risk for obstructive airwaysdisease among women. (1996) Chest. 109(3):55-57Heumann, M.; Foster, L.R.; Johnson, L; Kelly, L. Woodsmoke Air Pollution and Changes in Pulmonary Function Among Elementary School Children(1991) Air & Waste Management Association 84th AnnualMeeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British ColumbiaSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-6Honicky R.E.; Osborne J.S.; Akpom C.A.; Symptoms of respiratory illness in young children and the use of wood-burning stoves for indoor heating(1985) Pediatrics 75(3):587-593Lal, K.; Dutta, K.K; Vachhrajani, K.D.; Gupta, G.S.; Srivastava,A.K. Histomorphological changes in lung of rats following exposure to wood smoke(1993) Indian J Exp Biol 31(9):761-764Lewtas, J.; Zweidinger, R.B.; Cupitt, L.; Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation ofCancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol and Source Emissionsfrom Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles. (1991) Air and Waste ManagementAssociation 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.Lipsett, M.; Ostro, B.; Mann, J.; Wiener,M.; Selner, J.; Effects ofexposures to indoor combustion sources on asthmatic symptoms. (1991) Proc 84thAnnu. Meet. Air Waste Management Association, Vancouver, BC.Montaño, M.; Beccerril, C.; Ruiz, V.; Ramos,C.; Sansores, R.H.; González-Avila, G. Matrix Metalloproteinases Activity in COPDAssociated WithWood Smoke. (2004) CHEST 125 (2):466-472Morris, K.; Morgenlander, M.; Coulehan, J.L.; Gahagen, S.; Arena,V.C. Wood-burning stoves and lower respiratory tract infection in AmericanIndian children (1990) Amer J Dis Child 144(1):105-108Morten A.; Schei, J.O.; Hessen, K.R.; Smith,N.B.; McCracken, J.; Lopez, V. Childhoodasthma and indoor woodsmoke from cookingin Guatemala.(2004) Journal of Exposure Analysis andEnvironmental Epidemiology 14:S110–S117Pérez-Padilla, J.R.; Regalado-Pineda, J.; Morán-Mendoza, A.O. The domestic inhalation of the smoke from firewood and of other biologicalmaterials. A risk for the development of respiratory diseases (1999) Gac Med Mex. 135(1):19-29Rajpandey, M. Domestic Smoke Pollution and Chronic Bronchitis in aRural Community of the Hill Region of Nepal. (1984) Thorax 39:337-339Sandoval, J.; Slas, J.; Martinez-Guerra, M.L.; Gomez, A.; Martinez, C.; Portales, A.; Palomar, A.; Villegas, M.; and Barrios, R. Pulmonary ArterialHypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation. (1993) Chest 103:12-20Sapkota, A.; Gajalakshmi, V.; Jetly, D.H.; Roychowdhury, S.; Dikshit, R.P.; Brennan,P.; Hashibe, M.; Boffetta, P. Indoor air pollution from solid fuelsand risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal and lung cancers: a multicentriccase-control study from India. (2008) Int J Epidemiol. 37(2):321-8Steerenberg, P.A.; Amelsvoort, L.; Lovik, M.; Hetland, R.B.; Alberg, T.; Halatek, T.;. Bloemen, H.J.T.; Rydzynski, K.; Swaen, G.; Schwarze, P.;Dybing, E.; Cassee, F.R. Relation BetweenSources of Particulate Air Pollution and Biological Effect Parameters in Samples fromFour EuropeanCities: An Exploratory Study (2006) Inhalation Toxicology 18:333–346SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-7Tesfaigzi, Y.; Singh, S.P.; Foster, J.E; Kubatko, J.; Barr, E.B.; Fine, P.M.; McDonald, J.D.; Hahn, F.F.; Mauderly, J.L. Healtheffects of subchronicexposure to low levels of wood smoke in rats. (2002) Toxicol Sci. 65(1):115-25Medical Terms GlossaryAcute Toxicity:Illness resulting from a single dose or exposure toa toxic substance, such as wood smoke and itscomponents. (Cancer Web)Asthma:A chronic disease that can cause your airways to become sore and swollen. When your airways are irritated, theyget narrower and your lungs get less air, causing wheezing,coughing, chest tightness, and trouble breathing. (MedLinePlus)Bronchiolitis:An infection of the tiny airways, called the bronchioles, which lead to the lungs. As these airways becomeinflamed, they swell and fill with mucus, making breathing difficult. (Mayo Clinic)Chronic Bronchitis:A condition where the inner walls that line the main air passageways of your lungs becomechronically infected and inflamed. Smoking and exposure tosmoke are also risk factorsfor bronchitis. (Mayo Clinic)Chronic Interstitial Lung Disease:Numerous conditions make up the group of disorders called interstitial lung disease.Most cause progressive scarring of lung tissue that eventuallyaffects your ability to breathe and get enough oxygen intoyour bloodstream, but beyond this, thedisorders vary greatly. (Mayo Clinic)Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, COPD:(aka chronic obstructive airways disease) A group of chronic lungconditions that block the tubes and air sacs that make up yourlungs, hindering your ability to exhale. This results in airgetting trapped in your lungs and makes it difficultfor you to breathe in normally. (Mayo Clinic)Coagulation:The process of clot formation. (Cancer Web)Congestion:A condition when the tissues lining the nose becomeswollen due to inflamed blood vessels. (MedLine Plus)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-8Cor Pulmonale:The failure of the right side of the heart caused by prolonged high blood pressure in the pulmonary arteryand right ventricle of the heart. (MedLine Plus)DNA Damage:Incidences that introduce deviations from its DNA’s normal double-helical conformation. If the damage isminor, it can often be repaired butif damage is extensive, it can induce cell death. (Cancer Web)Emphysema:A progressive lung disease that results in shortness ofbreath and reduces your capacity for physical activitydue to damage to the small air sacs and smallairways in your lungs. (Mayo Clinic)Hyperplasia:The abnormal multiplication or increase in the number of normal cells innormal arrangement in a tissuewhich can cause enlargement of organsand other effects. (Cancer Web)Hypertrophy:The enlargement or overgrowth of anorgan or part due to an increase in size of its constituent cells fromhyperplasia. (Cancer Web)Hypopharyngeal Cancer:A disease in which malignant (cancerous) cellsform in the tissues of the hypopharynx, thebottom part of the throat. (MedLine Plus)Inflammation:A localized protective response which serves to destroy, dilute, or sequester both the injurious agent andthe injured tissue. It is characterized inthe acute form by the classical signs ofpain, heat, redness, swelling and loss offunction. (Cancer Web)Lipid Peroxidation:Oxidative degradation of lipids which causes damage to cell membranes causing them to possibly bemutagenic or carcinogenic. (Cancer Web)Lung Cancer:A cancerous cell growth in the lung tissue. (Cancer Web)Oedema:The presence of abnormally large amountsof fluid in the intercellular tissue spaces of the body. Oedema is asign of venous or lymphatic obstruction, increased vascular permeability, heart failure or renal disease. (Cancer Web)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTFinal Staff Report: Rule 4901October 16, 2008Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts fromWood SmokeA-9Oxidative Stress:A highly oxidized environment withincells that is thought to promoteHIV replication because cells areforced into a highly activated state due to loss of control of their regulatorysystems. (Cancer Web)Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension:High blood pressure affecting the arteries inthe lungs and the right side of your heart.(Mayo Clinic)Respiratory Tract Infection:Respiratory tract infections affect the nose, throat, and airways causing congestion,coughing, sneezing, facial pressure, running nose and sore throat. (MedLine Plus)Squamous Metaplasia:Refers to benign (non-cancerous) transformations inthe epithelial linings of airways. (CancerWeb)Glossary references:The Mayo Clinic(http://www.mayoclinic.com/)The National Institutes of Health MedLine Plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/)The Centre for Cancer Education at the Universityof Newcastle’s Online Medical Dictionary: CancerWeb(http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=&action=Home)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix A: Summary of Health Impacts from Wood Smoke A-10 This page intentionally blank.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis B-1 APPENDIX B

Emission Reduction AnalysisSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis B-2 The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contained an emissions inventor y for Residential Wood Burning, based on the ARB emissions inventory (CEFS v1.06). Tabulating the 2010 emissions by county, the PM2.5 emissions are summarized in Table B-1 as a total of 17.4 tons per day (tpd) for an average winter (October th rough March) day. District staff has assumed that 2.6% of Valley residents are ex empt from the rule. Table B-2 shows the remaining 16.9 tons/day emissions from re sidents who are subjec t to the Rule 4901.

Table B-1 2010 direct PM2.5 (tons per day, or tpd)

County PM2.5

Fresno 4.5 Kern (Valley portion) 3.0 Kings 0.4

Madera 1.4

Merced 1.1 San Joaquin 2.8

Stanislaus 2.5

Tulare 1.8

TOTAL 17.4

Table B-2 Direct PM2.5 Emissions from Valley Residents Subject to Rule 4901 (tons per day, or tpd)

County PM2.5

Fresno 4.3 Kern (Valley portion) 2.9 Kings 0.4

Madera 1.3

Merced 1.0 San Joaquin 2.7

Stanislaus 2.4

Tulare 1.7

TOTAL 16.9

Table B-3 shows the number of expected “N o Burn” days by county (over a 182-day emissions inventory period) , based on 2006-2007 air quality.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis B-3 Table B-3 Number of “No Bu rn” Days Expected per County

County “No Burn” days

Fresno 48 Kern (Valley portion) 43 Kings 13

Madera 12

Merced 12 San Joaquin 9

Stanislaus 12

Tulare 11

On “No Burn” days, there should be zero tons of emissions from those subject to the rule. In other words, there is a 97% reducti on in emissions in a particular county when there is a “No Burn” night for that county. Table B-4 shows the emissions that are being eliminated by the rule.

Table B-4 PM2.5 emissions that are being eliminated due to “No Burn” days

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

County “No Burn” days,

Number of days (Table B-3) Direct PM2.5

emissions subject to the Rule, tons/day (Table B-2) PM2.5

emissions prevented,

tons (Column 2 x

Column 3)

Fresno 48 4.3 206.4 Kern (Valley portion) 43 2.9 124.7 Kings 13 0.4 5.2

Madera 12 1.3 15.6

Merced 12 1.0 12 San Joaquin 9 2.7 24.3

Stanislaus 12 2.4 28.8

Tulare 11 1.7 18.7

Total tons of direct PM2.5 prevented in 2010 435.7 tonsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis B-4 The total tons reduced by Rule 4901 can be converted into tons per day of PM2.5 reduced for an average winter day. To start, the total PM2.5 residential wood burning

emissions over the entire win ter (October – March) emissi ons inventory season is the average tons per day (17.4 tons per day) multiplied by the total number of days in the season (182 days): 17.4 tons per day x 182 days = 3166.8 tons

The total emissions prevented by wood burning prohibitions over an entire wood burning season is shown in Table B-4 to be 435.7 tons. The remaining emissions are:

3166.8 tons – 435.7 tons = 2731.1 tons

These remaining emissions are converted into an average tons per day by dividing the total tons emitted by the total number of days: 2731.1 tons ÷ 182 days = 15.0 tons per day

This is subtracted from the starting emission s inventory (17.4 tons per day) to determine the tons per day reduced: 17.4 tons per day – 15.0 tons per day = 2.4 tons per day reduced

For residential wood burning, which occurs dur ing the winter months , a winter emissions inventory reduction of 2.4 t pd is equivalent to an annual average emissions inventory reduction of 1.2 tpd. It is important to note that this is an average reduction. A Valleywide No Burn Day would remove 16.9 tons of PM2.5 (1 7.4 tpd x 97%).

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan projected that Rule 4901 would achi eve 0.76 tpd reductions in the winter and 0.39 tpd of reductions as an annual average in 2010. The emissions reductions calculated in this staff report are higher than thos e projected in the 2008

PM2.5 Plan for two reasons. First, the calculation here assumes that the rule will be fully implemented by 2010, whereas the 2008 PM2.5 Plan assumed full implementation by 2011. Second, the emissions reductions calculated for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were based on a Wood Burning Prohibition level of 35 μg/m3 of PM2.5, whereas the draft amended Rule 4901 is based on a Wood Burning Prohibition level of 30 μg/m3. The

added reductions that will be achieved by the proposed amendments to Rule 4901 will potentially help the Valley achieve the PM2.5 standards ahead of schedule.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Analysis C-1 APPENDIX C

Socioeconomic AnalysisSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Analysis C-2 This page intentionally blank.

## SOCIOECONOMIC

ANALYSIS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

RULE 4901 (WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND WOOD BURNING HEATERS)

DRAFT

August 26, 2008

Prepared for

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Prepared by

Applied Development Economics

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560  Walnut Creek, California 94596  (925) 934-8712
2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 150  Sacramento, California 95833  (916) 923-1562

www.adeusa.com

## CONTENTS

1. Description of the Proposed Amendments 1 2. Impact of Proposed Rule Amendments 3 Methodology................................................................................................3 Regional Demographic Trends ....................................................................4 Regional Economic Trends..........................................................................4 Description of Affected H ouseholds and Industries ....................................6 Household Trends and Impacts....................................................................6 Impact on Small Business..........................................................................12

Appendix A 13 Appendix B 14Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1 

## 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Heaters) limits the amount of emissions released during the burning of wood in fireplaces, stoves, and pellet-fueled heaters, all generally called “wood burning devices.” Currently Rule 49 01, as amended in 2003, restricts wood burning devices and fuels in the Valley in the following ways:

Sale of Wood Burning heaters: Only EPA Phase II Certified heaters can be advertised and sold, and all retailers must supply public awareness in formation with each sale of a wood burning

heater

Sale or Transfer of Real Property: Sale or tr ansfer of any real property containing a wood burning heater must be done with assurance that each wood burning heater on the property is EPA Phase II Certified, a pellet fueled wood burning heater, permanently rendered inoperable,

or removed.

Installation of new Wood Burning Fireplaces/Heaters in New Residential Developments: Wood burning fireplaces cannot be installed in new de velopments with more than two dwelling units per acre (only one wood burning fireplace/heater per acre can be installed in developments with density equal to or less than two dwelling unit s per acre). No more than two EPA Phase II Certified wood burning heaters per acre can be installed in new developments.

Advertising Requirements for Sale of Wood: “S easoned wood” must refer to wood with a moisture content of 20 percent or less by weight.

Prohibited Fuel Types: The following are not to be burned in a wood burning fireplace/heater: garbage, treated wood, plastic products, rubber products, paints, paint solvents, coal, or any material not intended by a manufacturer for use as fuel in a solid fuel burning device.

The District seeks to strengthen Rule 4901 as an important step toward meeting the challenges of PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in di ameter) attainment in the Valley. Lowering the threshold for episodic wood burning curtailment to a level consistent with the federal, 2006 PM2.5 standards will result in more wood burning prohibi tions, and this in turn will have a significant public health benefit. The District seeks to amend Rule 4901 in the following ways:

The mandatory curtailment level will be lowered to a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 30 μ g/m3.

The rule will be clarified to include Outdoor Wood Burning Devices, such as chimneys, in mandatory curtailments. The elevation exemption will be removed so that residences above 3,00 0 feet will be subject to mandatory curtailments unless they qualify for another exemption, such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service.

The rule will contain a contingency measure to lower the mandatory curtailment level to a 24- hour average PM2.5 level of 20 μ g/m3. This provision would be e ffective on and after sixty daysApplied Development Economics, Inc. 2 following the effective date of EPA final rulema king that the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the applicable

deadline.Applied Development Economics, Inc. 3 

## 2. IMPACT OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS

This section of the socioeconomic analysis describes demographic and economic trends in the San Joaquin Valley region. Following an overview of the methodology for the socioeconomic analysis, the first part of this section compares the Centra l Valley against California and provides a context for understanding demographic and economic changes that have occurred within the region

between 1997 and 2007. After an overview of ind ustries in the region, we focus on households and industries impacted by the proposed amendments to Rule 4901.



### METHODOLOGY

The socioeconomic analysis of the proposed wood -burning devices rule involves the use of information provided directly by the District, as well as secondary data used to describe the industries affected by the proposed rule amendmen ts. In addition, the report supplemented District data on wood burning patterns with data from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which recently amended its own wood burning rule for the San Francisco Bay Area region.

Based on information provided by District staff, ADE determined that the impacts would affect households and businesses in a narrow set of industries. With this information we began to prepare economic descriptions of impacted industry groups , as well as to analyze data on the number of jobs, sales levels, the typical profit ratios, and other economic indicators for the San Joaquin Valley region businesses. In addition, we collected demogra phic information of typical households living in various housing settings, from owner-occupied sing le-family homes to renter s living in multifamily

units.

With the annual reports and data from the US Economic Census and other sources such as US IRS, ADE was able to estimate revenues and profit rati os for many of the sites impacted by the proposed rule amendments. In calculating aggregate revenu es generated by San Joaquin Valley businesses in
affected industries, ADE first estimated annual revenue based upon available data. Using annual reports and publicly available data, ADE calculated ratios of profit per dollar of sales for the businesses on which the analysis focused. ADE al so utilized data from California’s Board of Equalization. ADE also adjusted impacted retaile rs’ Board of Equalization data to account for nontaxable transactions.

The result of the socioeconomic analysis shows what proportion of profit the compliance costs represent. Based on a given threshold of signif icance, ADE discusses in the report whether the affected sites are likely to reduce jobs as a means of recouping the cost of compliance or as a result of reducing business operations. ADE also examines whether affected industries can pass costs to consumers. To the extent that such job losses appear likely, the indirect multiplier effects of the job losses area estimated using a regional IMPLAN input-output model.Applied Development Economics, Inc. 4 

### REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

The San Joaquin Valley Region experienced sign ificant growth from 1997 to 2007. Between 1997 and 2002, the eight county region increased by 1. 8 percent annually, from 3.1 million in 1997 to

almost 3.5 million in 2002. From 2002 to 2007, the population grew to 3.9 million for an annual increase of approximately 2.5 percent. Over the same period, California grew at a slower rate of 1.4 percent per year. Kern County, Madera, Merced, an d San Joaquin Counties grew at rates faster than the regional average between 2002-2007.

TABLE 1
POPULATION TRENDS: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION AND CALIFORNIA, 1997-2007

------------------- Year -------------- ------- Change ------- - Annual % Change -

1997 2002 2007 97-02 02-07 97-02 02-07

California 32,670,019 35, 088,671 37,662,518 2, 418,652 2,573,847 1. 4% 1.4%

Region 3,147,776 3, 445,018 3,900,965 297,242 455, 947 1.8% 2.5%

Fresno 774,208 827,310 917,515 53,102 90,205 1.3% 2.1%

Kern 629,227 688,875 801,648 59, 648 112,773 1.8% 3.1% Kings 116,727 133,553 151,381 16, 826 17,828 2.7% 2.5%
Madera 111,892 130,373 148,721 18,481 18,348 3.1% 2.7%
Merced 200,169 219,554 251,510 19,385 31,956 1.9% 2.8% San Joaquin 537,669 596,907 679, 687 59,238 82,780 2.1% 2.6%
Stanislaus 421,946 469,969 521, 497 48,023 51,528 2.2% 2.1%

Tulare 355,938 378,477 429,006 22,539 50,529 1.2% 2.5% Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Department of Finance



### REGIONAL ECONOMIC TRENDS

Economic development practitioners and planners have traditionally divided economies into two broad industrial categories—the economic base and local support industries. Economic base industries are the drivers of local and regional economies in that these industries draw income into a local economy by selling products outside of the lo cal economy, much like the export industries of a national economy. Accrued earnings then circulate throughout the local area in the form of wages and salaries; investments; purchase s of fixed assets, goods, and services; and generation of more jobs

and wealth.

The economic base is typically comprised of indust ries within the manufacturing, minerals-resource extraction, and agricultural sectors. There are also the “local support industries” such as retail or service sectors, the progress of which is a functi on of the economic base and demographic changes,

and more so the latter than the former. As population increases in a given area, demand for
services–such as realtors, teachers, and healthcare –increases, as does demand for basic retail items like groceries, gas for commuting, or clothing at the local apparel shops.

Agriculture is the economic base of the San Joaqui n Valley region by virtue of the amount of goods this sector produces and exports throughout the na tion and the globe. Twelve percent of all workers in the region are employed by industries within agriculture, as Table 2 shows. However, in 1997 slightly almost 16 percent of all workers worked in agriculture. By 2002, this ratio stood at 13 percent. In fact, over the five-year period between 2002 and 2007, employment in agriculture barely increased, growing by 0.2 percent per year.Applied Development Economics, Inc. 5 Between 2002 and 2007, local support industries gained in prominence within the San Joaquin Valley region. Service-rendering industries empl oyed the most workers as a proportion of total employment in the region. As Table 2 shows, servi ce-rendering industries comprise 62 percent of all jobs, including public sector positions. In other word s, 955,079 jobs out of a total of 1,530,284 jobs are in service-rendering industries. Excluding the public sector, service-rendering jobs account for 45 percent of all jobs in 2007. In 2002, service- rendering industries (excluding the public sector) represented 44 percent of all jobs, indicating that the transition toward a services economy was in place as early as the mid to late 1990s with the si gnificant increase in the number of people during

that time.

Increases in employment in service-rendering industries are consistent with regional population growth. In the region, local support industries of construction, education and health, and financial activities increased annually by 3.9 percent, 3. 2 percent, and 1.5 percent respectively between 2002

and 2007.

Close examination of Table 2 shows that the region experienced respectable growth in manufacturing, as employment in this sector grew annually by 1.2 percent between 2002 and 2007. In comparison, manufacturing jobs declined annually by 0.7 percent between 1997 and 2002. Another regional bright spot was transportation\utilit ies, as jobs increased by a healthy clip of 3.2 percent per year between 2002 and 2007.Applied Development Economics, Inc. 6 TABLE 2
EMPLOYMENT PROFILE OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, 1997-2007

Industry 1997 2002 2007 % of Total

Private & Public Employment in

2007: Region % of Total

Private & Public Employment in

2007: California Annual

Percent Chg,

97-02 Annual

Percent Chg,

02-07 Total, all private industries 1,121,188 1,159,334 1,273,164 0.7% 1.9% Goods-Producing 581,277 540,028 575,205 -1.5% 1.3% Agriculture 207,186 181,777 183,335 12.0% 2. 0% -2.6% 0.2%

Natural Resources and Mi ning 217,333 184,435 197,798 12.9% 2.6% -3.2% 1.4%
Construction 43, 999 64,992 78,704 5.1% 5. 7% 8.1% 3.9% Manufacturing 112, 759 108,824 115,368 7.5% 9. 3% -0.7% 1.2% Service-Providing 539,911 619,306 697,959 2.8% 2.4% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 189,894 209,335 237,788 2.0% 2.6%
Retail 116, 765 131,458 145,700 9.5% 10. 8% 2.4% 2.1%

Wholesale 33,993 37,443 44,832 2.9% 4.6% 2.0% 3.7% Transport\Warehouse\ Utilities 39,136 40,434 47,256 3. 1% 3.1% 0.7% 3.2%
Information 14,485 14,682 15,225 1.0% 3. 0% 0.3% 0.7%

Financial Activities 40,287 45,345 48,778 3.2% 5.8% 2.4% 1.5%

Professional and Business Se rvices 81,314 98,203 108,007 7. 1% 14.4% 3.8% 1.9%

Education and Health Serv ices 96,624 115,521 135,197 8.8% 10.4% 3.6% 3.2% Leisure and Hospitalit y 79,462 89,736 101,415 6.6% 9.9% 2.5% 2.5%
Other Services 37, 845 46,484 51,549 3.4% 4. 9% 4.2% 2.1%

Federal Government 26,013 29,186 27,784 1.8% 1.6% 2.3% -1.0%
State Government 23,886 29,000 30, 945 2.0% 2.9% 4.0% 1.3%
Local Government 155,836 185,774 198, 391 13.0% 11.0% 3.6% 1.3%
Total, all public and private
industries 1,326,923 1,403,294 1,530,284 100.0% 102.0% 1.1% 1.7% Source: ADE, Inc. from data supplied by the Labor Market Informa tion Division of the California Employment Development Departme nt



### DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS AND INDUSTRIES

Proposed amendments to Rule 4901 potentially affects retailers and households in the San Joaquin Valley region. The discussion below first examines ho usehold trends in the region, particularly with an eye toward estimating the number of households th at may be subject to this rule. In this regard, the analysis used data from both the SJVUAPCD an d BAAQMD to estimate number of log burned during the wood-burning season by households in the region.

Household Trends and Impacts
As Table 3 shows, there are 1,197,554 households in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region. Of these households, 715,746 live in owner-occupi ed housing, with 481,808 households living as

renters. The table also includes estimates on the nu mber of wood burning units, the vast majority of which are single-family units (including dupl exes) according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which recently adopted it s own wood burning regulation in early summer 2008. Of the 666,803 owner-occupied single-family units, 480,276 are wood burning units. And, of the 237,002 owner-occupied single-family units, 118, 501 are wood burning units. In total, there are 598,777 wood burning units in the Central Valley.Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7 TABLE 3
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, 2007: OCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS, INCLUDING WOODBURNING UNITS

Total Housing

Units Woodburning Units Total Housing Units 1,197,554 598,777 Owner occupied: 715,746 480,276
1, detached or attached 666,830 480,276

2 to 4 4,399

5 to 9 2,702

10 or more 39,644

Mobile home and all ot her types of units 2,171 Renter occupied: 481,808 118,501
1, detached or attached 237,002 118,501

2 to 4 103,902

5 to 9 117,644

10 or more 23,008 Mobile home and all other types of units 251 Source: ADE, Inc., based on California DOF, BAAQMD & SJVUAPCD

If amendments to Rule 4901 are adopted, the nu mber of curtailment days in each county will increase. For example, curtailment days in Fresno County are expected to increase from 12 to 48, and in smaller counties such as Madera and Merced, from two to 12. Similar to Fresno County, the number of Kern County’s curtailment days is expected to increase significantly, from 8 to 43. For Kings County, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties, curtailment days are expected to go from 2 to 13, 1 to 9, 9 to 12, and 3 to 11 days respectively. Currently, there are on average 78 wood burning curtailment days during the wood burnin g season stretching from November 1 to the end of February. If the proposed amendments are adopted , the number of curtailment days in the region should rise to 320 days, for an increase of 242 days. Thus, to estimate impacts of the amendments, the analysis first needs to quantify the number of wood burning housing units by county (as demonstrated in Table 4 below), estimate average number of logs burned per day during the wood burning season on county-by-county bases, and then multiply these averages against incremental number of curtailment days stemming from Rule 4901 as amended.

[“This area intenti onally left blank’]Applied Development Economics, Inc. 8 TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION OF WOOD-BURNING SINGLE-FAMILY

UNITS BY COUNTY

Total Single-Family Housing Units 598,777 Owner-occupied Region 480,276

1, detached or attached Fresno 106,486

Kern 99,392 Kings 15,680
Madera 17,135
Merced 26,958 San Joaquin 92,255
Stanislaus 72,092
Tulare 50,277 Renter-occupied Region 118,501

1, detached or attached Fresno 25,197

Kern 21,815 Kings 5,300
Madera 5,020
Merced 10,414 San Joaquin 20,501
Stanislaus 16,081
Tulare 14,173 Source: ADE, Inc., based on CA DOF

Table 5 below summarizes the impacts of the Rule 4901 amendments on households that burn logs in fireplaces and woodstoves in the region. Appendix A and Appendix B show in greater detail how Table 5 findings were arrived at. The 598,777 w ood burning households burn 169,930 logs in fireplaces every day during the wood burning seas on, as well as 32,512 logs per day in woodstoves.
The table below assumes that, over time, households will reduce their log purchases in a fashion that correlates to the incremental change in number of curtailment day. The more curtailment days, the less number of logs purchased. Based on number of households on a county-by-county basis and their respective wood burning characteristics, Table 5 below places the reduction in number of fireplace logs during the wood burning season at 3,261,112, with woodstove logs reduced by 510,434. In the worst case scenario, all logs are pu rchased at an average pri ce of $3.03 per log. Thus, retailers selling logs will lose $11.8 million in sales during the wood burning season as a result of the

Rule 4901 as amended.

[“This area intenti onally left blank’]Applied Development Economics, Inc. 9 TABLE 5

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO WOODBURNING RULE

Total OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied Wood-Burning SF Units 598,777 480,276 118,501 Average Aggregate Daily Fireplace Logs Burned: Woodburning Season 169,930 136,300 33,630 Average Aggregate Daily Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburning Season 32,512 26,078 6,434 Current Woodburning Prohibition Days 78 39 39 Woodburning Prohibition Da ys: Rule Change 320 160 160

Increment 242 121 121 Aggregate Logs NOT Burned As A Result of Rule : Woodburning Season: Fire places 3,261, 112 2,634,237 626,876 Aggregate Logs NOT Burned As A Result of Ru le: Woodburning Season: Woodstoves 510,434 503,999 6,434
Fireplace Impacts $9,508,855 $7,981, 737 $1,527,118 Woodstove Impacts $2,262,846 $1, 899,434 $363,412 Total Impacts $11,771,701 $9,881,171 $1,890,530 Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACD

In some cases, retailers can pass costs to consumer s as a way to re-coup losses. Table 6 below shows that right now retailers generate an estimated $74. 2 million in sales during the wood burning season to households purchasing logs for their respective fire places and wood stoves. Households in the region purchase 20,561,500 fireplace logs and 3,933,900 woodstove logs. With the increase in curtailment days, fireplace log purchases will be an estimated 17,300,400, for a 3,261,100 decline in fireplace logs. Likewise, woodstove logs will go from 3,933,900 to 3,310, 000 as a result of the proposed amendments, for a 623,900 decline in wood stove logs. As a result of the decline in the number of logs purchased during the wood burning season, retailers’ sales could decline by $11.8 million, going from $74.2 million to $62.4 million. To recover their losses, retailers would need to increase the price of a log sold during the wood burning season by $0.58, from $3.03 to $3.61 on average. This change represents a significant increa se of 19 percent, which suggests that retailers will not be able to pass costs to consumers in full. If retailers increase the price of the remaining logs (i.e. 17,300,400 fireplace logs and 3,310,000 woodstove logs not impacted by the proposed amendments), consumers might reduce the purchase of these logs, resulting in lost sales on top of losses stemming from the proposed amendments.

TABLE 6

PER UNIT PRICE INCREASES NEEDED TO RE-COUP LOST REVENUES STEMMING FROM ADOPTION OF

WOODBURNING RULE

Total OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied Wood-Burning SF Units 598,777 480,276 118,501 Aggregate Fireplace Logs Burn ed: Woodburning Season: Pre Ru le Change 20,561, 523 16,492,290 4,069,233 Aggregate Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburnin g Season: Pre Rule Ch ange 3,933,965 3,155,413 778,552 Aggregate Fireplace Logs Burned : Woodburning Season: Post Rule Adoption 17,300, 411 13,858,054 3,442,357 Aggregate Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburning Season: Post Rule Adop tion 3,310,028 2,651,413 658,614 Original Woodburning Season Revenues $74,221,329 $59,532,540 $14,688,789 Original Price Per Log $3.03 $3.03 $3.03 Price Per Log To Return To Origin al Aggregate Revenues $3.61 $3.61 $3.61

Increment $0.58 $0.58 $0.58
Potential Percent Change In Price 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% Source: ADE (Note: “Price Per Log To Return To Original Aggreg ate Revenues” analysis conducted on a county-by-county basis)Applied Development Economics, Inc. 10 Table 7 below compares annual cost im pacts against revenues and net profits generated by retailers that sell logs. Approximat ely 41 percent of firewood is sold in food stores such as grocery stores, with almost 30 percent sold in general merchandise stores. The remaining firewood is sold in lumber\building material stores, hardware stores, and drug stores. Table 7 distributes t he $11.8 million cost impact by retail store types and, across the board, th is table shows that retail store type compliance cost-toretail store type net profit ra tios are below the level used to gauge whether impacts are significant or not. For example, of the $11.8 million in impacts , food stores in the region will bear an estimated $4.8 million in cost s, which, when compared against estimated net profits of $76.8 mi llion, amounts to a ratio of 6.3 percent, which is below the tenpercent threshold level. Similarly, almost 30 percent of all logs are sold in general merchandise stores, which suggest that these stores will bear $3.4 million of the $11.8 million in impacts, which translates to a less t han significant cost-to- profit ratio of 2.2 percent. Thus, impacted retailers can absorb t he cost of the rule as impacts across the board are less than significant; they can also mitigate impacts by somewhat increasing the per unit price of remaining logs, although not as high as 19 percent. It is also important to note t hat there may be no im pacts on retailers whatsoever. Households deciding to forgo purchasing $4.8 million or $3.4 million in logs from food stores or general merchandise stores may, instead, use that $4.8 million or $3.4 million to purchase a range of other goods in the same store types.Applied Development Economics, Inc.11TABLE 7MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION RETAILERS SELLING FIREWOODTotalGeneral MerchandiseStores Drug Stores Food StoresLumber\BldgMaterials HardwareActual Sales $15,350,333,094$5,732,547,320 $1,399,601,783 $5,226,780,303 $2,533,384,999 $458,018,690Net Profit Rates 2.92% 2.73%2.68% 1.47% 6.70% 1.76%Est. Net Profits $448,639,464 $156,498,542$37,509,328 $76,833,670$169,736,795 $8,061,129Distribution of firewood sales by retail store types 100.0% 29.2% 9.6% 41.0% 14.3% 5.8%Firewood Impacts By Retail Store Types $11,771,701 $3,440,706 $1,132,878 $4,826,399 $1,687,630 $684,090Recycled Retail SpendingThat Otherwise Would'veGone for logs $11,771,704 $3,440,706 $1,132,878 $4,826,399 $1,687,630 $684,090Minimum Potential Cost as Percent of NetProfit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Maximum Potential Cost as Percent of NetProfit 2.6% 2.2% 3.0% 6.3% 1.0% 8.5%Significant less than sig. less than sig. less than sig. less than sig. less than sig. less than sig.Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Board of Equalization, US IRS, and DuraflameApplied Development Economics, Inc. 12 

### IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS

D EFINITION OF 

### S MALL 

### B USINESS 

### P ER 

### C ALIFORNIA 

### S TATUTE For purposes of qualifying small businesses for bid preferences on state contracts and other benefits,

the State of California defines small businesses in the following manner:

 Must be independently owned and operated;

 Cannot be dominant in its field of operation;

 Must have its principal office located in California

 Must have its owners (or officers in the case of a corporation) domiciled in California; and,

 Together with its affiliates, be either:

− A business with 100 or fewer employees, and an average gross receipts of $10 million or less
over the previous tax years, or

− A manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees



### S MALL 

### B USINESS 

### I MPACT 

### A NALYSIS The analysis above shows that impacts stemming from the proposed amendments are less than significant across the board, particularly from the va ntage point of the retailers that sell logs. As a result, small businesses, particularly retail and se rvices, are not disproportionately impacted by the

rule.Applied Development Economics, Inc.13APPENDIX ATABLE A-1AMOUNT OF LOG USED BY HOUSEHOLDS USING WOOD-BURNING DEVICES SUBJECT TO RULE BY COUNTYAnnual Average #logs perDay per Wood-burningHouseholdHousehold Adjustment Factor: Annual Aggregate #logs perWood-Burning Household byWood-burning Device**Aggregate #logs per Day perYear per Wood-BurningHouseholdAnnual Aggregate #logsper Wood-BurningHouseholdEstimatedNumber ofWoodBurningHouseholdsin SFU ByCountiesfireplaces(BAAQMD)woodstoves(BAAQMD)fireplaces(BAAQMD:adjustedforSJVUAPCDby 60/50factor)woodstoves(BAAQMD:adjustedforSJVUAPCDby 60/50factor)fireplaces(.84) woodstoves (.16)fireplaces(useBAAQMDannualdaily use.14factor)woodstoves(useBAAQMDannualdaily use.15 factor)DaysintheYear fireplaces woodstoves598,777 70,416 14,371 25,701,904 5,245,287Owner-occupied REGION 480,276 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 56,480 11,527 365 20,615,363 4,207,2171, detached orattached Fresno 106,486 0.14 0.15 0.170.18 0.84 0.16 12,5232,556 365 4,570,804 932,817Kern 99,392 0.14 0.150.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 11,689 2,385 365 4,266,324 870,678Kings 15,680 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,844376 365 673,063 137,360Madera 17,135 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,015411 365 735,508 150,104Merced 26,958 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 3,170647 365 1,157,133 236,150San Joaquin 92,255 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 10,849 2,214 365 3,959,963 808,156Stanislaus 72,092 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 8,478 1,730 365 3,094,464 631,523Tulare 50,277 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 5,913 1,207 365 2,158,105 440,430365Renter-occupied REGION 118,501 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 13,9362,844 365 5,086,541 1,038,0701, detached orattached Fresno 25,197 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,963 605 365 1,081,548 220,724Kern 21,815 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.162,565 524 365 936,405 191,103Kings 5,300 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 623 127 365 227,507 46,430Madera 5,020 0.14 0.15 0.170.18 0.84 0.16 590120 365 215,491 43,978Merced 10,414 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,225250 365 447,025 91,230San Joaquin 20,501 0.14 0.15 0.170.18 0.84 0.16 2,411 492 365 879,977 179,587Stanislaus 16,081 0.14 0.15 0.170.18 0.84 0.16 1,891 386 365 690,244 140,866Tulare 14,173 0.140.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,667 340 365 608,345 124,152Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACDApplied Development Economics, Inc.14APPENDIX BTABLE B-1ESTIMATING AMOUNT OF LOGS BURNED DURING WOODBURNING SEASONAnnual Aggregate #logs per WoodBurning HouseholdAnnual Aggregate #logs per Wood-Burning Household:WOODBURNING SEASON: November through FebruaryAverage Aggregate Daily#logs perWood-Burning Household:WOODBURNING SEASON: FOURNOVEMBER-FebruaryEstimatedNumber ofWood-BurningHouseholds inSFU By Counties fireplaces woodstovesfireplaces(80%)woodstoves(75%)Number ofDays:November -Februaryfireplaces(Assume 80%Occurs in WBseason[BAAQMD])woodstoves(Assume 75%occurs in WBseason[BAAQMD])598,777 25,701,9045,245,287 20,561,523 3,933,965 169,930 32,512Owner-occupied REGION 480,276 20,615,363 4,207,217 16,492,290 3,155,413 121 136,300 26,0781, detached or attached Fresno106,486 4,570,804 932,817 3,656,643 699,613121 30,220 5,782Kern 99,392 4,266,324 870,678 3,413,059653,009 121 28,207 5,397Kings 15,680 673,063 137,360 538,450 103,020 121 4,450 851Madera 17,135 735,508 150,104 588,407 112,578 121 4,863 930Merced 26,958 1,157,133 236,150 925,706 177,112 121 7,650 1,464San Joaquin 92,255 3,959,963808,156 3,167,970 606,117 121 26,182 5,009Stanislaus 72,092 3,094,464631,523 2,475,571 473,642 121 20,459 3,914Tulare 50,277 2,158,105 440,430 1,726,484 330,322121 14,268 2,730Renter-occupied REGION 118,501 5,086,541 1,038,0704,069,233 778,552121 33,630 6,4341, detached or attached Fresno25,197 1,081,548 220,724 865,239 165,543 121 7,151 1,368Kern 21,815 936,405 191,103749,124 143,327 121 6,191 1,185Kings 5,300 227,507 46,430 182,006 34,822 121 1,504 288Madera 5,020 215,491 43,978 172,393 32,983 121 1,425 273Merced 10,414 447,025 91,230 357,620 68,422 121 2,956 565San Joaquin 20,501 879,977179,587 703,981 134,690121 5,818 1,113Stanislaus 16,081 690,244140,866 552,195 105,650 121 4,564 873Tulare 14,173 608,345 124,152 486,676 93,114 121 4,022 770Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACDSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-1 APPENDIX D

Public CommentsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-2 August 4, 6:30pm Bakersfield Workshop

4 people in attendance

1. Comment: Does the public or elected officials vo te for the final draft of the rule? Response: A governing board of 15 members (2 people appointed by the

Governor and 13 elected officials: 8 county supervisors and 5 city council members) votes on the final draft a fter public comments have been recorded and presented.

2. Comment: Why is the AQI threshold for “No Burn” days decreased so much at once instead of gradually between now and 2015 deadline? Response: In the interest of public health, the "No Burn" level should be

lowered to a level consistent with EPA’s health protective standards as soon as possible.

3. Comment: Will forest fires and population increase be taken into account? Response: Population and forest fires are bo th considered in the air quality planning process, but not when the Distr ict determines whether a particular day is a “No Burn” day. Even if high pollution levels are dominated by forest fires on a particular day, it would not be good fo r public health for more PM2.5 to be emitted from fireplaces.

4. Comment: Why is Rule 4901 affecting Kern County and not other areas that are polluting the air that travels down thr ough Kern County, such as the Bay Area? Response: The proposed rule is expected to mo st significantly affect Fresno County. The rule applies to all Valle y counties, and other air districts are implementing similar fireplace rules.

5. Comment: Why does it seem like open burning is not regulated in Kern County

but it is in other areas? Response: The Air District regulates open bur ning in all eight Valley counties, including Kern County. Permits are r equired for all open burning, and air quality forecasting determines how much burni ng is allowed on a particular day.

6. Comment: What are the regulations for Shaver area if there is no propane or natural gas heating? Does burning at hi gh elevations still affect the Valley?SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-3 Response: Wood burning is not prohibited if it is the sole source of heat for a home and a permit is not needed to burn. W ood burning at high elevations does not generally affect the Va lley floor, but wind conditions and other factors can change that.

7. Comment: How many days after the Governing Board meeting until the rule is

effective? Response: Due to the significant health effect s of wood burning, the rule will be implemented as soon as possible.

8. Comment: How will the rule be enforced? Response: The rule will be enforced through the Compliance Department in each area. Inspectors will look for violat ors and respond to citizen complaints. A $50 fee or compliance school is required for a first time Notice of Violation. Fees

will increase with each violation.

9. Comment: How many days in advance will the public be notified before the rule is proposed to the Governing Board? Response: A public notice will be given at least 30 days in advance before the Governing Board hearing. Public comments will still be allowed during that time.

10. Comment: The cost of electricit y and natural gas is too high and the increased regulations proposed by this rule will hav e a significant impact economically. The government does not need to address t he health effects and regulate wood burning. Response: The San Joaquin Valley Air District is a public health agency charged with ensuring that t he Valley reaches EPA’s health -based air quality standards. Wood burning contains PM2.5 and other compounds that can impact public health, and the health affects carry economic costs as well.

11. Comment: Have there been any legal objecti ons or some kind of appeal to previous rules? Response: There are not usually appeals. In t he past, if there is absolutely no avenue to comply with a rule, a variance ca n be made specific to the situation.

12. Comment: Will there be an opportunity to amend the rule before the Governing Board hearing?SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-4 Response: Public comments are accepted and wil l be taken into account for the final draft of the rule before August 28. Af ter the draft is fina lized, a public notice will be given 30 days before the Governing Board heari ng to allow for further public comments and questions t hat will not be incorporated into the rule but will instead be presented to the Governing Board at the hearing.

13. Comment: Is there a specific nu mber to call during the day to gain permission for the burning of tumble weeds? Response: The Air District issues annual open burning permits for a fee.

Allowance to burn takes into account m any factors and therefore requires that each individual calls each day to gain pe rmission to burn for that specific day.

14. Comment: I continue to burn constantly to avoid the additional pollution during the start of a fire. Am I supposed to ju st stop burning during a “No Burn” day and then increase pollution by starting again? Response: On a “No Burn” day, it is important for residents to refrain from wood burning (unless they qualify for an exemptio n) so that the Valley’s air quality stays within EPA’s health-based air qualit y standards. It would be better to restart a fire on a day that does not have poor air quality.

August 5, 6:30pm Hanford Workshop

2 people in attendance

15. Comment: Is the current “No Burn” level of 150 AQI (Air Quality Index) the worst air quality level? Response: No, the AQI continues to increase up to 300 for worse air quality. The AQI range of 100-150 is unhealthy for sensitive groups.

16. Comment: Are those above 3,000 feet elevation with natural gas service using a certified EPA woodstove still subject to “No Burn” days? Response: Under the current proposed rule, any resident who has natural gas

service would be asked to refrain from wood burning on a “No Burn” day regardless of the type of woodstove they have. On days that are not “No Burn” days, the District encourages residents to bur n as cleanly as possible (if at all), and using a certified EPA woodstove is one way to try to burn more cleanly.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-5 17. Comment: Why is the "No Burn" level being se t lower than that of South Coast Air Quality Management District, at 30 μg/m 3 instead of 35 μg/m 3 ? Response: When PM2.5 levels reach 35 μg/m 3 , the air quality is already unhealthy. Setting the "No Burn" level at 30 μg/ m3 allows for a margin of safety in air quality forecasting and helps prevent t he accumulation of PM2.5 over several days that can lead to an air quality exceedance.

18. Comment: Are there going to be any recomm endations given to those who live at higher elevations to be more aware of possible fuels surrounding their houses to prevent forest fires? Response: There are two measures in t he PM2.5 plan that address that situation, including t he feasibility study and prescribed burning.

August 7, 6:30pm Visalia Workshop

2 people in attendance

19. Comment: Is there a definite wa y to determine the amount of PM2.5 produced by wood smoke alone? Response: Surveys are conducted to estimate the amount of PM from various sources, including wood sm oke, when the emissions inventory is compiled. Chemical speciation analysis is also perfo rmed on air filters from the various air monitoring sites throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

20. Comment: Does the rule apply to restaurants that use wood stoves for cooking? Response: Cook stoves are exempt from Rule 4901. The District has a separate rule for charbroiling that is currently undergoing revisions.

21. Comment: How many “No Burn” days are estima ted for the contingency plan? Response: PM2.5 levels are expected to im prove significantly by 2015, the earliest the contingency plan would be impl emented, as compared to recent air quality. As such, it would not be accurate to use recent air qua lity to estimate the potential impacts of t he contingency plan.

22. Comment: The estimation of “No Burn” days after the rule goes into effect will discourage residents from purchasing wood burning devices in the future, even though they may be EPA certified. This will lead to people burning with less cleanSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-6 devices when they do burn than if they would have purchased an EPA certified wood burning device. Why are EPA certif ied wood burning devices prohibited? Response: When PM2.5 air quality is nearing 35 μg/m3, air quality is about to exceed EPA’s health-based standards. Adding emissions will add to the severity

of the exceedance. EPA certified devices are not exempt from “No Burn” days because they are still emitting particulate s. However, as more people use cleaner devices, it is likely that overall air quality will improv e and there will be fewer “No Burn” nights Valley-wide.

23. Comment: Children should not be used for publ ic advertisement of “No Burn” days and bad air quality. Also, children should not be involved through colored flags at schools representing the daily AQI. Advertisements describing poor air quality in general should not only refer to wood burning but also the other major sources of air pollutants. Response: Comment noted.

24. Comment: The public tends to think burning is banned altogether by the way “No Burn” days are illustrated through the media. Many residents in Tulare also do

not burn if Fresno has called a “No Bu rn” day even though they may not be

affected. Tulare tends to have relative ly good air quality and a lesser amount of “No Burn” days overall, so there shoul d be better outreach with more accurate information depicting that. Response: Comment noted. As this ru le is amended, the District will be undergoing more public outreach.

25. Comment: Other sources of PM2.5 are not po rtrayed as important as wood burning devices although they may contribut e to more pollution. Why aren’t other sources prohibited when the ai r quality is poor as well? Response: The District has many rules and pr ograms that reduce pollution from many sources. Through implementation of the 2007 Ozone Plan , the District will be investigating the economic and technica l feasibility of in stituting regionallyfocused episodic controls on stationary, area, and mobile sources. Legally, however, the District would not be able to implement episodic controls that disrupt interstate commerce.

26. Comment: Working for a chimney sweep com pany, business has decreased so much since this rule has regulated burning. The Air District is not taking the

economic effects of businesses into cons ideration. People are burning without cleaning their fireplaces and chimneys because they have the impression thatSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-7 they may be penalized for burning at all. This results in less clean burning and overall making air pollution worse. Response: If people are mistaken about how oft en they are allowed to burn or about the importance of cl ean burning, the commenter can encourage them to

contact the District for more information.

27. Comment: There should be better outreach for workshops and information about proposed regulations that will affect so many people. Response: The District’s outreach effort for these workshops was above and beyond what is normally done for rule workshops. Because this rule will affect so many people, the District scheduled workshops in each county and scheduled these workshops in the evening (usually, rule workshops are during the day and just in District offices in Bakersfiel d, Fresno, and Modesto ). The District published the workshop notice in eight Valley papers, posted the notice on the District website (with information on the homepage), and sent the notice to individuals on our mailing list and to those who signed up for our email list for residential wood burning. The notice was sent to media outlets on our press release list. District staff participated in a few media interviews and responded to several phone calls from members of the public.

August 12, 6:30pm Oakhurst Workshop

80 people in attendance

28. Comment: Many attendees expressed concern about changes that are going to come after this rule change, concerned that in the future there will be many more wood burning restrictions that will affect them since the 3,000 foot exemption is being removed. For example, will the rule eventually apply to people who have propane? Removing the 3,000 foot elevation exemption is not necessary, so this part of the rule shou ld just be left alone. Response: District staff cannot speak to possible changes to this rule in the

future. There are no further rule amendments or feasibilit y studies for residential wood burning in our most recent PM2.5 plan, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The District can only speak to the current rule amendment. Removing the 3,000 foot elevation exemption is not expected to have a large impact because most

residents at or above an elev ation of 3,000 feet qualif y for another exemption, such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service or those for whom wood burning is the sole source of heat.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-8 29. Comment: Does this rule affect Mari posa County? If not, why not? Response: This rule does not affect Mariposa County because it is not part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, so it is not within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District’s jurisdiction. Emi ssions from Mariposa County do not generally impact the San Joaquin Valley because Ma riposa is on the other side of the

mountains that define the S an Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

30. Comment: If this rule does not affect the people of Oakhurst, there was no need for the workshop. Response: Because the proposed rule remo ves the 3,000 foot elevation exemption, the District wanted to hold at least one workshop in a foothill community. However, the commenter is correct that the changes are not expected to impact Oakhurst residents because most Oakhurst residents will qualify for one of the other exemptions.

31. Comment: Which is correct: “No Burn” days or “No Burn” nights? Response: While the terms have been used interchangeably, “No Burn” day is

more accurate because “No Burn” declarati ons cover a twenty-four hour period.

32. Comment: What action would be taken if a nei ghbor was just calling to report his neighbor when nothing was wrong but the neighbor wanted to be mean and just had a grudge against them. Response: The District follows up on complaints related to District rules, and

the District issues Notices of Violation if the District’ s rules are not followed. Issues between neighbors are beyond the authority of the District, but such issues are generally taken up by civil lawyers in court.

33. Comment: Several commenters said there is a lot more pollution coming from cars than from wood burning, so the Dis trict should be focusing on cleaning up

vehicle exhaust. Response: The District has many rules to target the many sources of air pollutant emissions in the Valley. Ever y source of pollution in the Valley is evaluated for potential reductions. Howe ver, the District does not have legal authority over vehicles. The state agency, the California Air Resources Board, regulates vehicles. However, the Distr ict works to decrease vehicle emissions through incentives and through voluntary programs like Healthy Air Living. The District will also be working on an Employer-based Trip Reduction rule in the

near future.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-9 34. Comment: Most of the people in Oakhurst use cured and dried wood that produces little smoke. The District shoul d focus on those that are burning pine

needles and wet wood. Response: The District’s outreach will emphasiz e the importance of burning as clean as possible

35. Comment: Several people asked what the pr ocedure was for when a home with a fireplace or wood stove is sold. Response: If the home has a wood burning heater t hat is not a pell et stove or is not EPA Phase II Certified, t hen (according to the District’s current rule) the seller is responsible for removing it or renderi ng it inoperable. The seller should submit a statement of compliance to the District.

36. Comment: Many people have EPA stoves that burn much cleaner than the old

wood stoves. There should be incentives and rewards for them, such as being exempt from the “No Burn” days. Response: The District’s incentive program pr ovides a monetary incentive for residents to change to a cleaner device. See also the response to Comment 22.

37. Comment: Many people commented that forest fires cause much more smoke and pollution than woodstoves. By burning some wood and clearing their land of dead limbs and brush, they are preventing pollution fr om forest fires. Response: This may be a good idea for those residents who are exempt from the “No Burn” days, or on days that are not “No Burn” days. However, forest fires can eventually overwhelm these efforts.

38. Comment: The District has done nothing to improve the pollution. It is still hazy and people now are living longer. Health risk s are not a true part of why this rule is taking affect. Response: The District and the Valley’s bu sinesses and residents have done a lot to improve pollution over the past several years, and air monitoring data shows that air pollution has decreased. However, there are still air quality challenges ahead. There are many peer-revi ewed studies that show that air pollution is linked to a range of health e ffects, including (but not limited to) premature death in people wi th heart or lung conditions. These health effects are the driving force behind this rule.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-10 39. Comment: Do “No Burn” days affect barbeques or grills? Response: The rule does not apply to barbeques or grills because they are

cook stoves.

40. Comment: Several people commented that the workshop should have been announced in their local paper, the Sierra Star

. Response: Please see the response to Comment 27.

41. Comment: It may be more helpful to forget ge tting rid of the 3,000 ft exemption and instead get rid of the natural gas exemption. Response: The natural gas exemption accomp lishes a couple of things. For one, it ensures that people have a relatively economical way to keep warm (natural gas is generally much cheaper than propane). Secondly , it provides a way for the District to target densely populated urban areas with this rule, and urban areas experience more prob lems with wood smoke.

42. Comment: Where in the documents does it show that those without natural gas are exempt from “No Burn” days? Response: See Section 5.6.3 of the rule (page 6).

43. Comment: There should be more hazard reduction burnings in the area to help reduce the spread of forest fires. Response: More options are becoming ava ilable instead of just burning everything. The goal is to slowly get ri d of large outside burning with things like wood chippers.

44. Comment: Forest fires and trucking in alternat ive fuels generates more pollution than residential wood burning, so wood bur ning actually reduces pollution. Response: The District’s ability to control fo rest fires is limited. Trucking in fuels does increase pollution, but those who truck in fuels (that is, those without natural gas service) are exempt from “No Burn” days.

45. Comment: Several commenters asked if these comments have any impact.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-11 Response: The District tracks all comments for inclusion in the public record.

Public comments are folded into future drafts, and Governing Board members

have access to the comments.

46. Comment: The District should have brought a microphone and a tape recorder. Response: The District agrees and will try to have these things on-hand at offsite meetings in the future.

47. Comment: Thank you for doing the workshop in Oakhurst and giving the community your time. Response: Comment noted.

48. Comment: How does the rule affect new housing developments? Response: There are limitations on whether wood burning fireplaces or wood burning stoves can be installed based on the number of houses per acre.

49. Comment: A few attendees asked whether the county had chippers that were

available for use or whet her they could have a wood and trimmings weekly pick up that is controlled by the county. Response: The County Supervisor in atten dance, Supervisor Tom Wheeler, said that this could be a possibility.

50. Comment: The District shouldn’t control dust by making farmers use fish oil and truck out extra oil on an old water wagon t hat is putting even more emissions into

the air. Response: The road dust controls that have been put in place through the Conservation Management Practices progr am and Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust) have resulted in significant decreases in PM10 emissions.

51. Comment: Propane is too expensive, so there needs to be an allowance to burn wood because individuals may not be able to afford to heat the house any other

way. Response: The District acknowledges the exp ense of propane, and that’s why there is an exemption for thos e who do not have natural gas.

52. Comment: There should be an incentive or gr ant program to buy chippers in order to decrease burning of limbs and twigs.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-12 Response: This comment will be forwarded to our Incentive Program department.

53. Comment: There are environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, that support fuel reduction burning in forests. There are options if people want to

decrease forest fire fuel near their homes and still decrease the amount of burning. Response: Comment noted.

54. Comment: Where can one get more information on the study and report that showed the effectiveness of decreasing the woodstove smoke? Response: The Central California Health Policy Institute is still completing this study, but they reported on t heir initial findings in a presentation to the District Governing Board in May 2008.

55. Comment: Who is on the District’s Governing Board? Response: See Comment 1.

56. Comment: Stoves that are not EPA certif ied but just as clean should be

allowed. Response: The District has changed Sect ion 5.1.2 accordingly.

57. Comment: The public should hold their own meeting to be able to comment some more and make suggestions to submit to the District. Response: Supervisor Tom Wheeler said that it could be a possibility for his next public meeting.

58. Comment: With so many foreclosed or bank-owned properties, would the District still hold the bank responsible for complying to the requirement that old stoves be replaced or rendered inoperable? Response: Yes; as the owner, the bank would be responsible.

59. Comment: There should be incentives for people to change out their old woodstoves to newer, cleaner burning stoves.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-13 Response: Although the District only funded gaseous devices during this past year, the District is considering expandi ng the program to replace devices with

cleaner wood stoves in areas where t here is no natural gas service.

60. Comment: Many people don’t know that they should wait to burn their wood for about a year until it is dry. It would help to have more practical information in the newspapers about procedures like that. Response: The District agrees that it would be a good idea to have more outreach on how residents can burn more cleanly.

61. Comment: Enforcing “No Burn” days is an invasion of privacy. Response: Inspectors do not go onto priv ate property when enforcing Rule

4901.

62. Comment: If there is an insert in a fi replace, is it OK to use it? Response: Yes, but only when wood burning is not prohibited.

63. Comment: Next time the District may want to use the local radio station to announce the workshop and time so more people know about it. Response: Buying time on all of the local radio stations to announce workshops

would be difficult to coordinate and expensive. Please see Comment 27.

August 13, 6:30pm Madera Workshop

1 person in attendance

64. Comment: It was a great idea to have these wo rkshops in the evening so that people could come. Also, it was great t hat you got such great turnout in

Oakhurst. Response: Comment noted

65. Comment: How does the layout and system for nat ural gas work? Is it by house or by area? Response: It is set up by area with a basic grid layout.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-14 66. Comment: With enforcement, how do the compliance people know that the person who is burning on a “No Burn” day isn’t burning because it’s the sole

source of heat? Response: Compliance staff takes a photogr aph and sends it with a notice of

violation to the resident. The notice of violat ion explains that if they qualify for an exemption, they can contact t he District for reconsideration.

67. Comment: This person is in support of the lower micrograms level for the “No Burn” days and was wondering about extendi ng the burning season to more than just 120 days.

Response: District staff considered this but concluded that extending the wood burning season would probably not be as effective as lowering the “No Burn”

level.

68. Comment: People who oppose this rule amendment need to take a closer look at the health effects instead of focusing on t he fact that they c an’t burn as much. Response: Comment noted

69. Comment: Are the documents from the workshop available online? Response: All materials except the PowerP oint presentation are available online. If you would like the Po werPoint, email Jessica Hafer.

70. Comment: Who would be impacted by the remo val of the 3,000 foot elevation exemption? Response: Since most residents above 3,000 feet do not have natural gas service, most are still exempt from “No Bu rn” days. While the extent of natural gas service has been difficult to confirm, there may be people in Frasier Park

who are above an elevation of 3,000 feet and who do have natural gas service.

71. Comment: A commenter referred to a friend in Oakhurst who mentioned that

she is worried about health effects of a ll the smoke because sometimes it gets pretty bad there. Response: Comment noted

72. Comment: Does the Governing Board get a summary of all the comments?SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-15 Response: A summary of all public comments is added to the District’s final rule documentation, which is available to the Governing Board and the general public.

August 14, 6:00pm Merced Workshop

3 people in attendance

73. Comment: Would a geothermal unit qualify for the Burn Cleaner Program? Response: A geothermal unit would not qualify for the program. At this time the Burn Cleaner Program only offers a v oucher given by the manufacturer to purchase a wood burning stove.

74. Comment: February through April is not an ideal time to change out stoves for the Burn Cleaner Program because people ar e still using their stove during that

time.

Response: Residents apply for the voucher between February and April and then use the voucher before it expires to buy the new unit. In 2008, recipients had until June 2 to change out their device.

75. Comment: Why is PM10 still an issue in this rule when the San Joaquin Valley is in attainment for PM10 and PM2.5 is smaller and poses more health risks? Response: The District still needs to consider PM10 through the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation so that the Valley continues to attain the PM10 standard. However, PM2.5 is the primary focus.

76. Comment: What in the PM2.5 standards will be changed, and when will they change? Response: The EPA revised the PM2.5 standard in 2006, lowering the 24-hour standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan focuses on the 65 μg/m3 standard but also ensures progress towards the 35 μg/m3 standard. EPA’s official designations for the new standar d should be finalized next year, and the plan for that standard wil l probably be due in 2012. The District’s proposed changes to Rule 4901 should help the Valle y make significant progress toward

EPA’s new standard.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-16 77. Comment: It’s good that the District is re moving the 3,000 foot elevation exemption. Response: Comment noted.

78. Comment: How is enforcement handled on the weekends? Response: Inspectors are on-call on the weekends. Residents can call the complaint line, and the on-call inspector in the closest area will be notified and

sent to the scene. A Notice of Violati on will then be given to violator within 48

hours.

79. Comment: Why is propane not considered natur al gas? The rule should include propane as a natural gas and t herefore prohibit wood burning if propane is used

also. Response: See Comment 41.

80. Comment: Doors and windows do not seal smoke inside or outside of a house, and wood smoke can greatly increase the severi ty of asthma. It is difficult for people to comprehend effects of asthma and respiratory problems unless they have experienced them firsthand; therefor e, the rule should be stricter sooner

than later for health reasons.

Response: Comment noted.

81. Comment: How is the quality of wood enforced? Response: The rule includes restrictions for the sale and advertising of seasoned wood. If a party is found in vi olation of the regulations, a Notice of Violation will be given.

82. Comment: Taking out the elevation exempt ion will decrease the amount of smoke that can travel through cold ai r currents down into the urban areas. Response: Comment noted.

August 19, 6:30pm Stockton Workshop

7 people in attendanceSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-17 83. Comment: What is the advantage of havi ng an EPA Phase II stove? Are these exempt from “No Burn” nights? Response: They are not exempt from “No Burn” days. See Comment 22.

84. Comment: What are the regulations r egarding manufactured logs? Response: There is not an exemption for manufactured logs.

85. Comment: What percentage of people use wood burning? Response: The latest surveys and census information suggests about 50%.

86. Comment: How are wild fires and agricultural burns factored into the regulations? Are emissions from these sources, cigar ette smoke, and other organic materials distinguishable fr om emissions from fireplaces? Response: Emissions from a variety of sources are evaluated during the planning process and in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan . There are regulations in place for agricultural burning. Regardles s of the sources, though, if air quality is about to

exceed health based standar ds, limiting wood burning has been shown to help prevent exceedances.

87. Comment: Is transport from the Bay Area and Sacramento incorporated into the

rule restrictions? It is unfair for thos e living in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley with economic disadv antages be regulated and end up paying more for heating due in part to the polluti on from the Bay Area and Sacramento. Response: Studies show that the Bay Ar ea and Sacramento impacts on Valley air quality can be small (though there may be exceptions in extreme cases, like the recent wild fires). The Valley generates much of its own pollution. However, both Bay Area and Sacramento have rules that will limit residential wood burning.

88. Comment: Have the current rule restricti ons shown an improvement in air quality, and have PM10 levels decreased? Response: Yes, PM10 and PM2.5 levels ha ve decreased under the current rule. Strengthening this rule is expected to help the Valley make significant progress towards attaining EPA’s revi sed, more health-protective PM2.5

standard.

89. Comment: Wood is a renewable source, but natural gas is not. Response: Comment noted.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-18 90. Comment: The District should consider calling days when wood burning is not prohibited something to the effect of “Smart Burning” to avoid using the term “discouraged” and to highli ght the importance of burni ng cleanly, if at all. Response: The District will consider this. Th is is a multi-faceted message: wood burning is discouraged wh en there are economically feasible alternatives, and if someone does burn, t hey are encouraged to burn as clean as possible. The District’s concern is that by havi ng a three-tiered system, people think that there are nights when it’s just OK to burn, and this doesn’t capture the complexity of the Valley’s situation.

August 20, 6:30pm Modesto Workshop

3 people in attendance

91. Comment: There are so many variables involved (weather, etc), and we may be at the point of diminishing returns. How much PM is actually caused by fireplaces? Response: According to the emissions inventory compiled for the 2008 PM2.5

Plan , an estimated 16.9 tons per day of di rectly emitted PM2.5 will come from residential wood burning in 2010 out of a total direct PM2. 5 inventory of 81.7 tons per day (winter averages). Some sec ondary PM also forms, so air quality modeling evaluates the effectiveness of proposed control strategies. Based on

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan analysis, this amendment to Rule 4901 is an important point of the strategy to reach a ttainment of the PM2.5 standards.

92. Comment: There are concerns surrounding the need to burn brush and trucking wood to another area for chipping or burning. Response: The combustion emissions from burning brush outweigh the

emissions from trucks that take the materials to another area for chipping or burning.

August 21, 6:00pm Fresno Workshop

12 people in attendance (12 Fresno, 0 Bakersfield, and 0 Modesto)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-19 93. Comment: Are rebates offered for devices other than natural gas devices through the Burn Cleaner Program? Are rebates offered to replace older wood burning stoves for more efficient stoves? Response: Currently only natural gas appliance rebates ar e offered, but the Burn Cleaner Program is under review and will be expanded to possibly include other types of devices. More inform ation should available early 2009.

94. Comment: Does pollution from higher elevations travel down to the Valley? Response: This can depend on meteorology.

95. Comment: Why are prescribed burns allowed even on “No Burn” days? Response: The Air District works closely with the Forest Service to predict good days for needed prescribed burns. There are instances when a forecast might allow for burning, but then the forecast changes once the fire has been started. Prescribed fires can take multiple days and may not be able to be extinguished. These fires are regulated and are intended to not coincide with a “No Burn” day.

96. Comment: Will the public comments in this workshop even be taken into consideration in the rule proposal? M any people feel the comments will not be

taken into consideration.

Response: All comments received at the workshops and received by mail will

be taken into consideration when writ ing the final draft rule proposal.

97. Comment: Pollution from wood burning seems miniscule compared to other sources, and it seems as though the Distric t is not taking the proper steps to acquiring concrete information about the source. The District does not take surveys, inspect chimneys, conduct lab te sts, or even know an accurate number of wood stoves and fireplaces in the air basin. The District should be using these means to produce more reliable informa tion for the development of the rule. Response: A wide range of surveys, evaluati ons, and tests are incorporated into air quality plans (like the 2008 PM2.5 Plan ), which specify which rules should be adopted. Direct PM2.5 emissions are t he most significant contributor to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, and reside ntial wood burning accounts for 16.9 tons per day of emissions out of a total direct PM2.5 emissions inventory of 81.7 tons per day, based on winter projections for 2010. See also Comment 33 and

Comment 85.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-20 98. Comment: Many people have expressed interest in knowing more about the District such as its jurisdiction and funding. Response: The District’s jurisdiction covers the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from San Joaquin County down to Kern County. Funding comes from permit fees, DMV fees, and from the State. More inform ation is available on the

District’s website: www.valleyair.org

.

99. Comment: Are the estimated “No Burn” days given as a quota to meet? If not, why stipulate a figure at all? Will the District stop calling “No Burn” days after a

certain amount? Response: The given estimation is how many “No Burn” days would have occurred in 2006 as an example of the potential effects of this rule. This is not a set quota; there may be more or less “N o Burn” days after the implementation of this rule. The amount of “No Burn” days is based on the Air Quality Index and is not a preset amount of days. The staff report language will be cl arified to explain this more accurately.

100. Comment: The Valley residents should have a right to burn. There is no difference in emergency room and allergy vi sits in the winter months compared to the rest of the year.

Response: There are many peer-reviewed studi es that show that PM2.5 and wood smoke are linked to a range of health effects. These health effects are the District’s primary motivation for this rule amendment.

101. Comment: Representing the Huntington Lake A ssociation, we are glad the exemption regarding w ood burning as the sole source of heat is being retained. Are camping sites (fire pits for camp fires) governed by this rule?

Response: Camp sites are not regulated by this rule. The rule is meant to be interpreted to apply to residences only.

102. Comment: Why doesn’t the District work with ARB to create a plan to incorporate bioprocess plants to rid forest s of dry kindling instead of prescribed burns, especially when forest fires are as prevalent as in summer 2008? Response: The District works to regulate pr escribed burns. Land management plans are incorporating alter natives to prescribed burning.

103. Comment: Does the natural gas exemption apply at elevations below 3,000

feet?SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-21 Response: The natural gas exemption applies everywhere. If a residence does not have natural gas service, regardless of where they live, they are exempt from “No Burn” days.

104. Comment: I commend the District for dropping t he criteria for “No Burn” days and know it will be influential in affecting air pollution. The District should also look into using a meteorological based model when determining “No Burn” days to decrease credibility issues. The Distric t should look at how the air quality will be affected when a “No Burn” night is called because a high AQI could be caused by a variety of things, and not necessarily high PM concentration. Response: When PM2.5 air quality is nearing 35 μg/m3, air quality is about to

exceed EPA’s health-based standards. A dding emissions, regardless of the initial cause, will add to the se verity of the exceedance. The District can incorporate meteorological crit eria in its forecasting.

105. Comment: Representing Coalition for Clean Air, we appreciate the outreach for this rule and night workshops. The community is not losing the right to burn, but gaining the right to clean air and healthier living. We are glad the District is making changes now for cleaner ai r in the upcoming winter. Response: Comment noted.

106. Comment: Are pellet stoves considered cl ean burning? Would the District provide incentives to change out w ood burning stoves with pellet stoves? Response: Pellet stoves are a very clean alternative. The Burn Cleaner Program is under revision to possibly incl ude other alternative devices, and pellet

stoves will be taken into consideration.

107. Comment: Where do we send written comments, and how can the public be involved throughout the rest of the process? Response: Written comments should be sent to Jessica Hafer at 1990 E. Gettysburg, Fresno, Ca, 93726 or by em ail at Jessica.hafer@valleyair.org. Written comments will be accepted until Augus t 28, 2008. The final draft of the rule will be posted on September 5, 2008, with another public comment period until October 6, 2008. The public can also attend the public hearing at the District offices on October 16, 2008.

108. Comment: Multiple people stated that t he air quality is poor in their neighborhoods due to wood smoke. Air qua lity is worse here than other placesSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-22 they have lived, and it prohi bits them from enjoying time spent outside. They agreed they were in favor of anything that c ould be done to strengthen the rule. Response: The District will be implementing a change in outreach on wood burning. Wood burning will always be di scouraged and if burning is needed, the District encourages everyone to burn as clean as possible.

109. Comment: Is the air quality as ba d in the countryside? Response: The air quality is often better due to the lower population density. There can be exceptions in down-wind areas.

110. Comment: My neighbors are always burning something. They are either burning in their fireplaces or outside us ing their barbeque. The smoke from these sources seeps into my house, alt hough I have all of the windows and doors closed. My fire alarm has even gone off due to their burning. Why do they have the right to burn when I do not have the right to clean air? The District should promote gas fireplaces and offer discount s to finance it. Wood burning should be banned year-round and not just in the winter months. Response: If your neighbors are burning on a “N o Burn” night in an area that has natural gas service, they are probabl y violating Rule 4901. The District’s grant program provides vouchers for people to change to gas fireplaces. Wood burning is regulated from November – F ebruary because, in general, that’s when most people use their fireplaces and wood stoves.

Written Comments on the Proposed Rule 4901

Comment period held from July 30, 2008 through August 28, 2008.

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Alaska Masonry Heat Di stributing (AMHD) Air Resources Board (ARB) Jeanne and Lou Aceto (Aceto) Ed Alves (Alves) George S. Arata (Arata) John Boogaard (Boogaard) Christine Burke (C. Burke) Gail Burke (G. Burke) Dale E. Dodge (Dodge) Duraflame Incorporated (Duraflame) Leonora P. Ellis (Ellis)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-23 Loran W. Harding (Harding) Kurt A. Kautz (Kautz) John Russell Kelly (Kelly) D. Kirbie (Kirbie) Richard and Kathleen Kirkman (Kirkman) Chanda Meloni (Meloni) Brian C. Moorehead (Moorehead) Steve Moye (Moye) Norma Rogers (Norma Rogers) Milton Raugust (Raugust) Mr. and Mrs. John T. Ross (Ross) Roy Sherman (Sherman) Cindy Wheeler (Wheeler)

Regulations

111. Comment: Although I have stopped using my fireplace in a conscious effort to reduce pollution, I am still gr eatly affected by the pollution and smoke from my neighbor’s wood burning. Pleas e pass a law that bans all fireplace burning in Fresno. ( G. Burke, C. Burke) Response: The proposed Rule 4901 will limit w ood burning in Fresno more than the rule currently does. The District is modifying its outreach to discourage wood burning when there are other feasible al ternatives and to encourage people who burn wood to burn as clean as possible.

112. Comment: The use of wood burning devices for heating should be regulated with tests, such as smog che cks for cars, to ensure the equipment used meets regulat ion requirements. Wood burning should require a permit and equipment upgrades to meet standards. Wood burning devices should not all be considered as one category as they burn differently, with some more efficient

than others. Therefore cont rols should be implemented to allow only those whose equipment qualifies to burn wood. Allow ance to burn should be based on smoke opacity for each device rather than an overall outlaw of wood burning for everyone. (Boogaard) Response: See Comment 22.

113. Comment: Why is the change in the AQI lim it so drastic and how many days would have been triggered by such a limitation in previous years? (Kelly)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-24 Response: The change in “No Burn” level is based on EPA’s update of the PM2.5 standard. In 2006-2007, the pr oposed “No Burn” level would have resulted in 48 “No Burn” days in Fresno Co unty (see Table 2 of the Staff Report).

114. Comment: As was stated in the information given, most of the “No Burn” days in the 2006 data actually measured we ll below the projected levels. Were the projected levels based on an assu mption that considered the amount of people that would be burning and by making it a “No Burn” day the lower levels were achieved? (Kautz) Response: The commenter is correct. Air qual ity forecasts consider the air quality that would be exper ienced with wood burning, based on past trends on days with similar meteorology. Prohibiti ng wood burning reduces direct PM2.5

emissions so that the m easured air quality is lower than the forecasted levels.

115. Comment: The ARB commends and supports the District’s proposed amendments. They are important in t he plan to effectively reduce PM2.5 concentrations in the Valley and reachi ng attainment of the national PM2.5 standards. The proposed rule amendments wil l also result in reducing public exposure to PM2.5 and its associated health effects. The District has proposed a trigger level lower than requi red which will build a margin of safety to allow for uncertainties in forecasting. The propos ed contingency provision is consistent

with the Resolution 08-28 that the ARB adopted in May 2008. (ARB) Response: Comment noted.

116. Comment: We would like to ask you to c onsider other measures before placing more restrictions on wood burni ng. We think the District is misplacing blame and going after something that caus es a small amount of pollution in comparison to other sources. The air quality is no better in the summer months when wood burning stoves ar e not in use. (Kirkman) Response: The Valley’s summer air quality is dominated by ozone, while the Valley’s fall and winter air quality is domi nated by particulate matter. The District has many rules that affect a wide range of sources. Every source of pollution in the Valley is evaluated for potential reducti ons. Central Calif ornia Health Policy

Institute research showed that wood bur ning prohibitions have been effective in decreasing PM2.5 emissions. Direct PM2. 5 emissions are the most significant

contributor to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, and residential wood burning accounts for 16.9 tons per day of emissions out of a to tal direct PM2.5 emissions inventory of 81.7 tons per day, based on winter projections for 2010.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-25 117. Comment: Please differentiate between fireplaces and wood burning stoves, as wood burning stoves burn more efficiently than fireplaces, which produce more emissions and neglig ible heat. (Kirkman, Ellis) Response: See Comment 22.

118. Comment: The District is faced with the challenge of reducing all PM2.5 emission sources and precursor pollutants under its jurisdiction. Still, as the
District evaluates revisions to Rule 4901, it should take care to find a balance between compliance with the new Federal standards without unfairly increasing

the burden for emissions reduction on resi dential wood burning, especially considering clean burning appliance and so lid fuel technologies exist today allowing the public to burn with very fe w particulate emissions. (Duraflame) Response: See Comment 116.

119. Comment: The trigger for mandatory cu rtailments should be set at 35 μg/m3, which is the federal standard for 24 hour PM2.5 violations, not the lower 30 μg/m3 threshold the District has propos ed, for which there is no regulatory compliance justification. This will cause a significant increase in curtailment days and may result in more resistance to co mpliance from Valley residents. Also, setting the mandatory curtailm ent at 35 μg/m3 is consis tent with other California

Air Districts. Some districts share comm on media markets with parts of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and having a different trigger for curtailments may make

communication of curtailments more conf using in those regions of the Valley where the trigger would not match nei ghboring districts. (Duraflame) Response: Setting the mandatory curtailment level at a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 30 μg/m3, rather than 35 μg/m3, prov ides a margin of safety to allow for the uncertainties involved in air quality forecasting. Also, during the Valley’s stagnation events, particulates can accumula te over several days. Prohibiting wood burning when the 24-hour average PM2. 5 concentration is greater than or equal to 30 μg/m3 can help the Valley avoi d air quality that exceeds the 35 μg/m3 PM2.5 standard. The District expect s to maintain an easy-to-understand communication approach that will tell resident s of particular counties whether or not they can use their fireplaces, rather than just providing a PM2.5 concentration and leaving interpretation to residents or the media.

120. Comment: I fully support your proposed str engthening of the Rule 4901. I support lowering the threshold for episodi c wood burning curtailment to a level

consistent with the Federal PM2.5 standards and the further wood burning prohibitions. I live in Fresno and from Oc tober to March the outdoor air in my neighborhood is almost not br eathable. The air is so pol luted in my neighborhoodSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-26 that the smoke from other’s fireplaces gets inside my home although it is closed up and sealed off. I know for various reasons that wood burning in my neighborhood so frequently is not due to ec onomic necessity. The threshold for wood burning curtailment should be lowere d even more than you are proposing. I personally would outlaw all fireplace burning on the fl oor of the San Joaquin Valley and provide strict fines for violat ors. I feel the cu rrent situation is intolerable and I hope you will consider any drastic additional restrictions on fireplace burning beyond what is under consideration now. (Harding) Response: The District’s current proposal is to call “No Burn” days by county to prevent exceedances of EPA’s health-based standards in the county. However, because of more localized, neighbor hood-level impacts, the District will be implementing a change in outreach on wood burning. Wood burning will always be discouraged and if burning is needed, t he District encourages everyone to burn as clean as possible.

121. Comment: Please consider changing the cu rrent curtailment proposition to a staged curtailment system instead of lumping all wood burning devices together. A staged system w ould have an initial curtailment where at some reasonable level, say 40μg/m3, all non- EPA Certified wood burning devices would be prohibited and t hen at 30μg/m3 all wood burning would be prohibited. A three stage type of system has worked in the Seattle Air Basin where the first stage is voluntary, the se cond stage prohibits non-certified wood burning devices and the third stage prohibits all wood bur ning. People who spend a considerable amount of money to burn responsibly should be rewarded with this type of system as an incentive that will cost little to implem ent. Those with EPA Certified devices can register and then be able to burn cleanly still on the second level of curtailment without being fined. (Rogers) Response: See Comment 22.

Public Notice

122. Comment: There is a concern about the District’s proposal to change the

tone of its successful “Check Before You Burn” public outreach program by categorizing all good air quality and non-curtailment days as “wood burning discouraged.” The previous campaign gav e balanced information that made the implementation of curtailm ents palatable to Valley re sidents leading to strong compliance and necessary reductions in emissions from wood burning. The District should therefore classify all non- curtailment days as “Burn Cleanly” days in order to clearly communicate t here are days where wood burning is acceptable, and it should continue to educate residents of the need to use the least emitting options on those days when burning is allowed. This approach willSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-27 continue a balanced public education message and will not only foster better compliance but will also promote cleaner burning practices everyday of the burning season overall deliv ering greater emission reductions from wood burning. (Duraflame) Response: This will be considered as the District’s public outreach materials related to wood burning are revised.

123. Comment: The three tier notification syst em seems to be working in regards to notifying residents of the recommendations on burning but with the proposed two tier system the second tier could be labeled as “please burn cleanly” or “use only seasoned firewood” instead of burning being “discouraged.” These types of labels will produce less hassle and promote smart and clean burning overall. People have a right to use their fireplaces and the best goal is to guide residents on how to burn cleanly. (Kautz) Response: See Comment 122.

Exemptions and Contingency Measure

124. Comment: A sentence should be added to the natural gas exemption clarifying that a residence qualifies for the exemption even though propane may be used for heating purposes. (Aceto) Response: The District is clarifying this in the September 2008 draft of Rule 4901, in Section 5.6.3.1.

125. Comment: The elevation exemption should not be removed and exemptions at lower elevations sh ould be explored such as regulations dependent on parcel size and rewarding those who have EPA Certified wood stoves. (Aceto) Response: See Comment 41.

126. Comment: The elevation level for the exemption has been chosen arbitrarily and is not based on data showing actual air flow patterns. Our house is located at 2,700-feet on a s outh-facing hillside near the to p of a 3,000-foot plus ridge. There is almost cont inuous uphill flow of air from the southwest due to the direction of the prevailing winds and thermals as warm air from lower elevations rise and continue to flow uphill. This air does not seem to travel downhill towards the Valley. Why should we be prohibited from wood burning when our neighbors across the street just happen to hit the 3,000-foot mark and are allowed to use their woodstoves and higher emitting fireplaces? (Ellis)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-28 Response: The proposed rule removes the exem ption for those at elevations above 3,000 feet.

127. Comment: The proposed contingency provisi on to reduce the trigger for mandatory curtailments to a level of 20 μg/m3 is an unfair, disproportionate restriction of wood burning as an emission contributi on source and should be

deleted from draft Rule 4901.The District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan predicts that emissions from residential wood burning will decline faster than other. The Plan also predicts the Valley will comply with the Federal 24 hour emission standard by 2015 and will have a great er challenge complying with the PM2.5 annual

emission standard. Therefore residential wood burning is only a concern for compliance with the 24 hour emissions st andards during the winter months and makes a very insignificant contribution to annual PM2.5 emissions. If the Valley fails to meet federal standards by 2015, it will not be due to emissions from residential wood burning; rather it will be due to the District’s failure to cut other significant sources of PM 2.5 precursor pollutants wh ich account for a larger percentage of wintertime pollutants. Residential wood burning will be an insignificant source of PM2.5 pollution in 2015 while other sources that contribute more are not being regulated and ther efore the contingency measure will have little or no positive effect. (Duraflame) Response: This component of Draft Rule 4901 was mandated by ARB upon their approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008. If the Valley attains the PM2.5 standards by 2015, as the 2008 PM2.5 Plan predicts, then the contingency measure will not be implemented. To calculate compliance with the annual PM2.5 standard, firs t the 24-hour average PM2. 5 concentrations are averaged in each quarter, and th en the four quarters are averaged to obtain the annual average. Since wood burning prohibi tions occur during two out of four quarters, it can have a significant impact on lowering the annual average.

Controlled Burning

128. Comment: Fireplaces should not be regulated more when agricultural burning pollutes the air as well. Burni ng should be allowed if seasoned hard wood is used and the house is closed up be cause people don’t just stand around breathing in particulate matter. (Sherman) Response: Agricultural burning is managed and regulated.

129. Comment: The Air District fails to recognize issues unique to the foothill and mountain areas affected by this ru le. The residents in these areas are integral in helping to maintain a safe environment by clearing the land of possibleSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-29 fire starters to avoid wildfires. There are fewer pollutants emitted from wood burning in residences and controlled burns than there are emissions from wild

fires that start from land that is not tended to. The residents and woodcutting businesses should be acknowledged as part of the solution to clean air as the wildfires have greatly polluted thes e areas and even the Valley. (Aceto) Response: Using materials that might otherwise fuel forest fires to instead fuel fireplaces or wood burning heaters can be appropriate for residents who are exempt from the “No Burn” days (such as those who do not have natural gas service) or on days that ar e not “No Burn” days.

130. Comments: The manner of the public proc ess and the lack of background

research and documentation lead the public to believe the amendments proposed and exemptions re moved will only escalate to eventually ban wood burning all together. Those who live abov e 3,000 feet especially are heavily dependent on wood burning days to maintain proper fire prevention around our homes and the surrounding forest. It is critic al that we continue to be able to burn hazardous fuels for fire protection as we ll as recycling the renewable source for heating purposes. (Aceto) Response: The current rule amendment will not ban all wood burning.

131. Comment: By using a woodstove instead of other heating methods, we are putting to beneficial use, for heat, wood that we would burn anyway on permitted burn days to reduce fuel load and fire hazard on our large wooded lot. This is also the alternative to impor ting wood. The emissions from burning a

small amount of wood to heat portions of our house would be spread out over weeks, rather than burning a very large amount of wood with no emission controls over a period of a few hours or days. (Ellis) Response: Using hazardous waste removal material s to fuel fireplaces or wood burning heaters can be appropriate for re sidents who are exem pt from the “No Burn” days (such as those who do not hav e natural gas service) or on days that are not “No Burn” days.

Approved Wood Burning Devices

132. Comment: The regulations regarding the sa le of wood burning devices should be changed to include other approved wood burning devices that burn cleaner but may not necessarily be EPA certified. (AMHD) Response: The District is incorporating this in the September 2008 draft of Rule 4901, in Section 5.1.2.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-30 133. Comment: A distinction in the rule regulat ions should be made regarding EPA Certified stoves versus regular stov es and fireplaces. By not separating

EPA certified units from the common fireplace in the rule restrictions, the District is not giving the public an incentive to do what they can to improve air quality unless forced to. The regulations shoul d be changed or removed from the rule altogether. (Ross, Kirbie, Raugust) Is there any opportunity for an exemption, perhaps at a lower level elevation, for those with EPA Certified units? (Aceto) Response: See Comment 22.

134. Comment: The rule should recognize the difference between those who use their fireplaces for heating and thos e who use it for the ascetic value. (Raugust) Response: The District is modifying its out reach to discourage wood burning

when there are other feasib le heating alternatives and to encourage people who burn wood to burn as clean as possible.

135. Comment: The District should be advocating all clean burning technologies that can reduc e emissions from fireplac es. Promoting manufactured firelogs for use in fireplaces on non-curta ilment nights is a viable strategy that can produce dramatic emi ssion reductions versus wood burning for a typical evening fire and is consistent with the District’s stated objec tive of embracing new technologies as a method to reducing emissions. (Duraflame) Response: The District will consider a wide va riety of methods of cleaner burning as public outreach materials as revised.

136. Comment: Please include EPA Certified fireplaces in your definition for wood burning heater. They are as clean burning as the units the definition specifies and should be recognized. (Rogers) Response: EPA Phase II Certified devices ar e defined in Section 3.6 of the September 2008 draft rule.

Cost

137. Comment: Other sources of pollution need to be regulated instead of increased restrictions on fireplaces. Taki ng away a cost effective heating source will be hard on people in light of the current economic conditions. (Moye, Wheeler, Dodge from Sugar loaf Area, Kelly, Ar ata, Moorehead, Ellis) Response: See Comment 116.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-31 138. Comment: Building more houses brings more cars and therefore more pollution to the Valley. Builders should have to pay for mass transit instead of further regulating fireplace use to decrease pollution. (Alves) Response: All sources of pollution are evalua ted for potential reductions. The District’s Indirect Source Review progr am (Rule 9510) regulates development projects that add more aut omobiles to the road, and t he District’s public outreach emphasizes the importance of carpooling, bicycling, and other means of trip

reduction.

139. Comment: I live in the country and I c an not afford propane heating. I have to use my insert and woodstove nonstop throughout the winter for heating. I

would choose not to burn if I could affo rd any alternative, but that is not an option. (Meloni) Response: Residences that use propane (resi dences that do not have natural gas service provided by a utility company) are exempt from “No Burn” days.

140. Comment: The drastic increase of “No Burn” days will amount to possibly

over one and a half months out of four mont hs in the season. Those living in the metropolitan part of the basin will hav e to heat with more expensive means during this time. This will pose a great hardship on Valley residents and it is short sighted not to recognize the expens e owners pay to burn cleanly. (Rogers) Response: While some residents may experience higher utility bills as they shift their heating away from their fireplaces , the health benefits will result in an economic benefit (according to the Hall stud y). This is one of the most cost effective rules the District can adopt, and residents may be able to alleviate some of their personal costs by finding effi cient ways to keep their homes warm.

141. Comment: We invested over $2,500 in the purchase and installation of a Pacific Energy woodstove that meets EPA criteria for low emissions. We anticipated we would recover the expens e with the savings from heating a small area of our large house wit h the woodstove instead of heating our whole house with propane. Because we wil l be living in retirement with a fixed income, the savings would be very significant to us. Also by burning to heat a smaller area in our home and for stove-top cooking, we are reducing our electricity costs and carbon footprint. (Ellis) Response: Residences that use propane (residenc es that do not have natural gas service provided by a utility company) are exempt from “No Burn” days. EPA

Certified woodstoves are a great way to burn more cleanly and efficiently.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-32 Rule Process

142. Comment: How many people are aware of this proposal and what means did the Air District use to notify the pub lic? Is the purpose of the workshops to gather public input or promote the proposed changes? (Kelly) Response: The purpose of the public workshops was to explain the proposed changes and gather public input about the changes. See Comment 27.

143. Comment: There appeared to be no effort to conduct public outreach in Eastern Madera County. Though there ma y have been a legal notice in the

Fresno Bee , there was not an obvious attempt in the local paper or legal notices.

There should be better outreach to the ma ke the public aware of a rule that will affect them greatly and the rule proc ess should be reviewed and altered before the proposal to the Board. (Aceto) Response: See Comment 27.

144. Comment: The workshop given in Eastern Madera County was run with a top-down format making it seem as though there was predetermined outcome. The public’s comments were not recorded with a tape recorder but written down under the interpretation of a District staff member. There was al so no attempt to educate the public with respect to the br oad-based issue of air quality or existing

federal and state laws. There was no context provided to explain how the proposed amendments to this rule would fi t into an overall plan. It would have also been helpful to know more about t he Air District itself such as the organization, mission, sources of funding, etcetera. (Aceto) Response: The District wanted to keep the wor kshop presentation short to allow maximum time for public questions and co mments. District staff can answer general questions about air quality and t he District’s organization, mission, and funding. The District will consider bringi ng a tape recorder to future off-site meetings.

145. Comment: This rule targets the private ci tizen and not automobiles, which is stated as producing more pollution. Re sidents are targeted for more rules and regulations while development projec ts continue to add more and more automobiles without being regulat ed. The District does nothing to ameliorate this perception. (Aceto) Response: See Comment 138.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-33 146. Comment: There is a lack of background in formation for the formation of this rule, such as studies of the num ber of wood burning devices in the Valley

and the amount of use for each. How can the public make informed and constructive comments on the proposed rule with estimates given instead of solid background information on the possible outco mes of this rule and no critical

informational documents such as a Soci oeconomic Analysis, CEQA Report, and Environmental Impact Report? One of your Twelve Guiding Principles is to allow adequate time for full public participation when scheduling regulatory actions and your compressed schedule and top-dow n approach absent with complete information appears to violate that principle. (Aceto) Response: The staff report includes tec hnical information on wood smoke health effects and the reductions expected to come from this rule. The Socioeconomic Analysis is available in the September 5, 2008 revised Draft Staff Report for a 30-day public review period.

147. Comment: We are in the process of movi ng to Coarsegold in Madera County and currently subscribe to the Sierra Star . We did not see any notification of the meeting held in Oakhurst on August 12, 2008. I learned of the meeting

from an article in the Coarsegold Gazette on the day before the meeting. (Ellis) Response: Please see Comment 27.

Written Comments on the Revised Proposed Rule 4901

Comment period held from September 5, 2008 through October 6, 2008.

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Philip R. Brothers (Brothers) Christa Cordtz (Cordtz) Gary Parkinson (Parkinson) Doug Vagim (Vagim)

Regulations

148. Comment: The amendment to change the "No Burn" curtailment level will

cause an increase of 5.4 ti mes as many "No Burn" days. The federal PM2.5 air quality standards, with the five year antic ipated extension, does not have to be reached until April 201 5. If a reduction change is i nevitable, a gradual change of the AQI limit by ten each time s hould be the maximum change considered. (Brothers)SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-34 Response: The proposed “No Burn” level has been set to be more consistent

with EPA’s newest health-based PM2.5 st andards. The District proposes moving to this level as soon as possible to protect public health.

149. Comment: The amendment changes are penalizing firewood burning based on combined, unanalyzed PM2.5 from a ll sources, not just firewood. Other sources of air pollution should be cont rolled before wood burning is further regulated. A larger effort is needed to cont rol things like damaging forest fires. Exceptions to the rule should also be a llowed due to the pollution brought in air flow from the coast. Daily public discr imination against firewood burning by newspapers, radio and T.V. seems unf air and unjustified. (Brothers) Response: There are many other regulations in place to control other sources of PM2.5. The District’s ability to control fore st fires is limited. The District works to regulate prescribed burns, and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a feasibility study on prescribed burning. Even if high pollution levels are dominated by forest fires on a particular day, it would not be good fo r public health for more PM2.5 to be emitted from fireplaces.

150. Comment: Persons with asthma, allergies and breathing problems should

consider other localities with a lower av erage AQI. More population in the Valley leads to more pollution. A high enough AQI to cause burning prohibitions is not a wood burning problem, but ra ther a population problem. Even with an inversion layer, the warmer air from a fireplace rises considerably, dispersing PM2.5 particles over a large area. (Brothers) Response: All regions must comply wit h EPA’s health-based air quality

standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan and independent studies show that reducing PM2.5 from fireplaces will c ontribute to PM2.5 attainment and lower AQI levels in the Valley.

151. Comment: There is insufficient evidence a wood burning fireplace emits

the amount of PM2.5 the District assumes. The reports given cite no database or conclusive studies that quantify the ac tual amount of PM2.5 created by an openhearth fireplace or any other wood burning device that falls under this proposed rule. The District Board should require sta ff to withdrawal this proposed rule until a thorough and quantifiable study is co mpleted proving up on what are now assumptions created by the report itself. (Vagim) Response: The PM2.5 inventory for this rule comes from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

. The Rule 4901 staff report cites a wide r ange of evidence to show that reducing wood smoke will have public health benefits.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-35 Cost

152. Comment: With the economy in a recession, the amendments to this rule will only add to the hardships people are facing. Firewood is the most reasonable and dependable heat source and burning firewood should be allowed

under these economic circumstances. Fir eplace burning is also part of many social holiday gatherings . Legally taking this away will have undesirable reactions, predominantly non-compliance a nd negative emotional stress effects.

The radical increase in the number of "No Burn" days at this time is unjustified considering present condi tions. (Brothers) Response: The District expects that w ood burning will be prohibited on less than half of the days between November and February. Compared with the numerous District rules affecting industry, Rule 4901 achieves very cost effective

reductions. The health benefits from this rule can save Valley residents health costs and work and school absences. Natural gas heating may be a more affordable and efficient way to he at a home than buying wood.

Approved Wood Burning Devices

153. Comment: Science and engineering hav e made improvements with

certified stoves and better combustion efficiencies. Given adequate time these technologies can be utilized to promot e burning clean and remove the need for more restrictions. (Brothers) Response: See Comment 22.

154. Comment: I live in the Oakhurst area and t he only time the air is halfway acceptable, people are allowed to burn. T he burning of yard waste up here is a much greater concern. A law regar ding EPA approved stoves and fireplaces desperately needs to go into effect. We need drastic help here. My eyes burn, my nose runs and bleeds and my chest hurts . Everyone has the right to breathe clean air at least on their own property without someone else’s caustic smoke trespassing. I have an EPA approved unit in my fireplace. I believe this is much more important than not allowing heating of homes with wood across the board. I

am a widow on a fixed income and cannot afford the propane. Tax incentives could be put into place to help people switch to cleaner devices and perhaps the state could reimburse some portion of the cost. The health benefits of changing to an EPA certified device and restricting a ll other burning would more than offset the cost. The technology exists today to rectify this and something needs to be done. (Cordtz) Response: The District is continuing its Bu rn Cleaner grant program to help residents change to cleaner wood burning devices or natural gas units.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008

Appendix D: Public Comments D-36 155. Comment: The District should look into the starting an EPA certified heater program that would allow regist ered device owners to burn on “No Burn” days. This would encourage those who have wood burning heaters to switch to an EPA certified device. It could regist er an address that has an EPA certified device to allow that location to burn even on “No Burn” days. Allowing EPA

certified stoves to burn on “No Burn” days would provide long range benefits and results even though there is still some po llution. Wood can be a cost effective renewable energy source. (Parkinson) Response: See Comment 22.