SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

For Agenda of October 25, 2007

To : Board of Directors Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

From : Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Subject: New Rule 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND

OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING

Recommendations

1. Determine that the adoption of Rule 421 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. Decide whether to include one or more of the options in the proposed rule; and 3. Approve the attached resolution adopting Rule 421.

Executive Summary

Proposed Rule 421, which was heard by the Board at the September 2007 meeting, prohibits wood or other solid fuel fires and use of fireplaces and wood or pellet stoves and inserts on days forecast to exceed the federal health standards. At the September hearing, the Board directed Staff to prepare the following additional options: 1) a voluntary program element, 2) a one year exemption for certified devices, 3) ex empting certified devices from some mandatory no burn days, and 4) exempting certified devices from the rule without limitation. The Board also continued the public hearing to the October meeting.

Staff has analyzed the impact of the new options on our progress toward attaining the federal PM2.5 standard. The first three options may provide for attaining the federal PM2.5 standards, however, there is a smaller margin of safety for meeting the standards with options 2 and 3. Staff’s analysis suggests that if certified stov es are exempt from Rule 421, Sacramento County may not meet the federal health standards by 2012. It is likely that the District will need to regulate other sources to replace the 2.5 tons per day of emission reductions that will be lost by exempting certified devices.

Attachments

The table below identifies the attachments to this memo.

Item Attachment Page Number

Board Resolution A 8

Proposed Rule 421 B 11

Options for Rule 421 C 16
Comments Received after September Hearing D 28
September Board Package E 67Board Memo Rules 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING October 25, 2007, Page 2

Background

Three issues were discussed at some length during the September Board meeting: outreach, estimates of the number of devices and related emissions, and exemptions for EPA certified devices and pellet stoves. This document will discuss only those issues, but additional information about the proposed Rule 421 can be found in the September Board materials (Attachment E.)

Outreach Rule 421 will rely on the existing public outreach structure well established through the Spare the Air program. The program will be called Check Before You Burn. Our Communications office and public relations consultant have prepared an outreach strategy that will use hundreds, if not thousands, of partnerships already in place to educate the community, including ethnic and grass roots community groups.

Estimates Staff evaluated the information presented by Du raflame at the September hearing. When the industry data sources are used, the wood smoke em issions inventory is slightly higher than the inventory prepared by the California Air Resources Board, but within the range of staff's original estimates. The industry figures were used for the calculations and the estimate of wood smoke

emission reductions that would be needed for attainment in this Board letter.

Certified devices and pellet stoves In the discussion on certified devices and pellet stoves, several issues were raised including: 1) whether Rule 421 conflicts with the District’s incentive program which encourages replacement with certified devices and pellet stoves, while Rule 421 prohibits their use on some days; and 2) whether emissions from certifi ed devices and pellet stoves are small enough to be exempted without interfering with attainment goals.

The District began the incentive program at the same time staff was preparing Rule 421 for adoption. As originally conceived, Rule 421 would have banned all wood fires on days when air quality was predicted to exceed federal health standards. Since the Rule would have prohibited use of the devices on no-burn days, encouraging the purchase of the devices through the incentive program did not conflict with clean air goals.

If certified and pellet devices are exempt from the no-burn days, the incentive program will have the unintended effect of increasing emissions on no-burn days, when air quality is at its worst.

At the outset, the exemption will allow the emi ssion of 2.5 tons of PM2.5 per day from the existing 45,196 certified and pellet stoves already installed within the district 1 . These emissions will increase over time, because the incentive program will encourage people to shift away from devices that would have been subject to the ban and toward installation of devices that will be allowed to operate on no-burn days. To date, the incentive program has replaced 52 uncertified devices and 195 fireplaces with certified devices and pellet stoves.

1 Total number of wood stoves is from 2004 American Hous ing Survey. The percent of stoves certified is from Amanda Aldridge, EPA (10/3/07). Number of pellet stoves is from US Census Projection.Board Memo Rules 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING October 25, 2007, Page 3

The interplay between a Rule 421 exemption and Rule 417 may also lessen the emission reduction potential of Rule 421. Rule 417 prohibits the sale and installation of uncertified devices or open hearth fireplaces. That rule could result in the installation of more certified and pellet stoves (in addition to natural-gas fired stoves). Since these devices would be allowed to burn on no-burn days, the level of uncaptured emission reductions will be more than the current

2.5 tons of missed reductions.

Between the incentive program and Rule 417, sta ff has estimated that emissions from new and replacement wood-burning devices will increase annua lly by 0.2 tons per day on no-burn days. If these emissions occur, the staff analysis indicates that the district will not meet the PM2.5 attainment goals.

In addition, based on the usage information obtained by staff, certified devices are used more often than fireplaces (28 days per year versus 43 days per year). As the number of these devices increases, there is a risk that the number of no-burn days will increase because people will be burning more frequently.

Moreover, staff has calculated that to achieve the same reductions achieved under an allinclusive no-burn rule, the area would have to replace over 60,000 uncertified devices and open hearth fireplaces with certified or pellet stoves. Since this replacement rate is unrealistic, the District will have to look at other regulations that could replace the 2.5-plus loss in emission reductions. It is important to note we have not yet identified sufficient reductions to offset the entire 2.5 tons, either individually or collectively. A more comprehensive search may identify additional strategies. The potential programs identified to date include:

Regulations Potential PM

Emission reductions (tons/day) Controls for agricultural and non-agricultural open burning, including residential burning of vegetative waste (currently allowed in parts of southern Sacramento County) 0.325

Controls for fugitive dust from bulk materials storage and handling (e.g. aggregate plants or animal silage) Unknown

Design restrictions to reduce fugitive dust from new and modified paved roads 0.004

Control of fugitive dust from agricultural sources such as tilling, off-field operations, paved and unpaved roads, and livestock operations 0.03

Control of chipping and grinding operations, and co-composting with

biosolids and/or manure Unknown

More stringent control efficiency requirements for PM control devices such as baghouses, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators (e.g. concrete batch plants, cabinet shops, and wood processing operations) Unknown

Summary of Proposed Rule and Options

One of the most critical aspects for the success of this rule is public education. Residents in Sacramento County already hear no burn announcements for San Joaquin County. Local meteorologists have provided information on t he San Joaquin Valley’s program during weatherBoard Memo Rules 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING October 25, 2007, Page 4

forecasts for several years. Consistent media messaging with San Joaquin will decrease confusion for both the public and the meteorologists that we will be relying on to assist us in getting out our no burn messages. In addition, having consistent graphics and messages will improve the likelihood of meteorologists broadcasting our information. San Joaquin uses the following graphics and messages in their “Check Before Your Burn” program:

GOOD or MODERATE AIR = Burn Cleanly

AIR UNHEALTHY FOR

SENSITIVE GROUPS = Wood Burning Discouraged

UNHEALTHY AIR = Wood Burning Prohibited

At the October hearing, the Board of Directors could choose to adopt proposed Rule 421, including the financial hardship exemption, or adopt a revised Rule 421 under one or more of the options discussed below. The benefits and disadvantages of each option are also

discussed.

Proposed Rule 421 without any options The original proposed Rule 421 can be consistent with the graphics and messaging already in use by San Joaquin. The District would rely on the “Please Burn Cleanly” and “Wood Burning Prohibited” graphics and messages for this rule.

Option 1 – Voluntary No Burn This option adds a voluntary no burn component. Voluntary no burn days would be called below the federal health standards in Rule 421 that trigger mandatory no burn days. Adding this component would make proposed Rule 421 most consistent with San Joaquin Valley’s no burn rule. On voluntary no burn days, wood burning would be discouraged. Those that choose to burn would be advised to burn cleanly, preferably in a certified device or pellet stove. Two thresholds are proposed; 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air ( μ g/m 3 ) which is estimated to result in 24 voluntary no burn days (in addition to the 23 mandatory no burn days), or 30 μ g/m 3

, which leads to 8 voluntary days. Additional days may decrease compliance rates if the public gets oversaturated by the requests or defies the requests because they perceive it as too frequent. All three of San Joaquin’s graphics and messages could be used for this rule.

Option 2 – 1 year exemption This option adds a limited exemption for EPA cert ified devices and pellet stoves that do not produce visible smoke. There are two alternativ es proposed. Under the first, the exemption expires in one year unless the federal standard is met (using 2007/2008 burn season data). Under the second, the exemption expires unle ss the Board extends it. One year is used because attainment must be demonstrated during 2009, 2010, and 2011, to avoid requirements associated with nonattainment, including the additional regulations noted above.

If certified devices and pellet stoves are exempt ed from the rule, then their emissions (2.5 tons/day and growing by 0.2 tons/day each year) would contribute to high particulate concentrations on poor air quality days. Under t he first exemption, if Sacramento meets the

health standards with emissions from certifi ed devices and pellet stoves, then the exemption would continue. Weather conditions, which vary fr om year to year, have dramatic effects on airBoard Memo Rules 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING October 25, 2007, Page 5

quality. Meeting federal health standards during the first year doesn’t guarantee that the exemption would not contribute to nonattainment in future years. The second exemption allows the Board to consider any reason for extending the exemption.

San Joaquin’s graphic and media messaging for a no burn day would require changes to be consistent with exempting devices from the “Wood Burning Prohibited.”

In addition, media messaging and outreach materials would change if the exemption expires. This will add costs to outreach efforts and may cause some confusion. This version of the rule may help meet the federal health based standards, particularly if it expires after one year.

Option 3 – 2-stage mandatory no burn program This option is a two stage mandatory no burn program. During a first stage mandatory no-burn, EPA certified devices and pellet stoves that do not produce visible smoke would be exempt. A first stage no burn day would be called if air quality is forecast to exceed the federal health standards, but is not likely to exceed 40 μg/m 3 . During the second stage no burn, above 40 μg/m 3 , all wood burning would be prohibited.

San Joaquin proposed a two stage program at a public workshop, but after considering comments received, chose not to implement a two stage mandatory program. This option has a greater potential for confusion on part of the media and the public. Because certified devices are prohibited from operating if air quality is forecast to exceed 40 μ g/m 3 , staff estimates that this option may meet attainment goals and avoid other regulations. However, continued emissions growth from certified devices and pelle t stoves may result in future nonattainment designation. Staff estimates that emissions from certified devices and pellet stoves may contribute to nonattainment levels in about ten years.

The Hearth Patio and Barbeque Association supported this option, provided the first stage is

called at 20 or 25 μ g/m 3 . Staff is not recommending this because: 1) staff could not identify a health related basis for selection of a threshold other than the federal health standards, and 2) starting with a program that has significantly more mandatory no burn days is more likely to increase public frustration and resulting non-compliance rates.

San Joaquin’s graphic and media messaging for no burn days would not be able to be used because it would not be consistent with having a two-stage “Wood Burning Prohibited.”

Option 4 – exemption without expiration date This option adds an exemption, without an expiration date, from the mandatory no-burn rule for EPA certified devices and pellet stoves and inserts that do not produce visible smoke. Fireplaces and uncertified wood burning would be prohibited if federal health standards are

forecast to be exceeded.

The lost emissions reductions from exempting cert ified devices will likely cause us to fail to

meet federal health standards.

San Joaquin’s graphic and media messaging for a no burn day would not be able to be used because it would not be consistent with exempting devices from the “Wood Burning Prohibited.”Board Memo Rules 421, MANDATORY EPISODIC CURTAILMENT OF WOOD AND OTHER SOLID FUEL BURNING October 25, 2007, Page 6

Environmental Review and Compliance

Rule 421 was created as part of the response to the requirements of Senate Bill 656 that the District implement cost-effective control measures for particulate matter emissions. Staff finds that the proposed rule is exempt from the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act as an action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment (Class 8 Categorical Exemption, Section 15308 State CEQA Guidelines) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant adverse effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines).

California Public Resources Code (Section 21159) requires an environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance. The proposed rule will not increase emissions and will not cause any significant adverse effects on the environment; therefore the

Environmental Coordinator has concluded that no environmental impacts will be caused by compliance with the proposed rule.

Conclusion

Proposed Rule 421 will reduce emissions from t he single largest PM2.5 emissions source, which was largely unregulated in the past. It will also reduce the serious health effects of wintertime particulate pollution, potentially avoiding some consequences from a federal nonattainment designation, and satisfy the requirements of state law (Health and Safety Code Section 39614).

Proposed Rule 421 provides the simplest, most easily understood rule with appropriate exemptions to avoid undue burdens on the public.

Option 1, adding a voluntary no burn element to proposed Rule 421 would be most consistent with the San Joaquin Valley program and is consistent with the District’s incentive program.

Option 2, provides a one year exemption for ce rtified devices. This provides an opportunity to test impacts from exempting certified devices. However, this option gives less certainty that the

District will meet federal health standards and allows the exemption to be automatically extended even if air quality improvements are pr imarily related to uncharacteristically good weather. It also causes a conflict between the District's current incentive program and air quality goals because it increases the number of polluting devices operating when federal health standards are exceeded, because certified devices pollu te even if they don't emit visible smoke.

Option 3, with a staged no burn program that exem pts certified devices from the first stage, provides the marketing advantage requested by hearth products manufacturing representatives and provides for attainment with a small, but declining, margin of safety. This option also causes a conflict between the District’s incentive program and air quality goals by increasing the number of polluting devices operating when air quality levels exceed the federal health standards and may cause confusion because of differences in the media message.

Option 4 adds an exemption, without an expiration date, for certified devices and pellet stoves. This option also causes the incentive program c onflict described previously, results in additional adverse health impacts, and is not likely to lead to attainment, thereby potentially triggering

additional controls on other businesses.