APPENDIX F 

Comments and Responses
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 1 

 Public Workshop & Stakeholder Comments

Stakeholder Meeting with HPBA

July 9th, 2009, 4:00 pm

Attendees: Jeannie Kendrick, Stove Connection 

Amie Ryan, Ryan Brothers Chimney Sweeping 

John Crouch, HBPA 

Kaity VanAmersfaro, HBPA Pacific 

Peter Ross, HBPA Pacific 

Keith Bond, Valley Stove & Chimney 

Rusty Savard, A.E.S 

Allan Heller, Custom Fireside 

Allan Heller

Comment #1: The District is not focusing on the real problem. You need to 

eliminate open wood burning and fireplaces. Providing incentives 

for changing open hearth fireplaces to gas logs is a waste of fuel. 

Response: The District is focusing on residential wood combustion that is the single 

largest source of particulate matter in the wintertime season. Although 

certified wood stoves and pellet stoves are cleaner than open wood 

burning and fireplaces on a per log basis, they generally emit more on a 

per day basis because certified devices and pellet stoves burn more 

fuel for a longer duration. Consequently, certified devices contribute 

significantly to the air quality problem. Nevertheless, due to public 

opposition to Staff's original proposal, Staff will recommend retaining 

the provision that allows certified wood stoves and pellet stoves to be 

used on days with moderate air pollution. 

The District’s voucher program provides incentives to convert high 

emitting open hearth, wood burning fireplaces to gas logs that emit very 

low levels of particulate matter. It is an improvement if someone who 

was burning wood periodically for ambience in an open hearth fireplace 

switches to gas logs to provide that ambience. Staff does not 

recommend nor suggest that an individual use gas logs as a heating 

device. Because of the health benefits associated with a decrease in 

particulate matter pollution, Staff does not consider this to be a waste of 

fuel. 

Comment #2: A lot of our clients are frustrated with upgrading their device to a 

pellet or certified device and then being told they cannot use that 

device on some days. Customers are not upgrading and they are 

not complying. 

Response: Aurora’s survey data shows that a large segment of the population is 

complying. The compliance rate to date is excellent and Staff feels as 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 2 

people receive more education about the Check Before You Burn 

program (CBYB) compliance rates could increase. In general, once a 

person has received education about the CBYB program, they 

understand that if they comply with the rule, then on a bad air quality 

day they do contribute to the overall particulate problem. 

 The District does enforce the rule and has written a number of 

violations. The District issued 211 violations last season. People are 

required to check before they burn and comply with No Burn days. 

Additionally, Staff sees that people are still upgrading and there 

continues to be a number of applicants utilizing vouchers through our 

change out program. 

Peter Ross

Comment #3: I am frustrated that there is new, emerging technology that is 

being ignored. These newer technologies include a newer 

catalytic insert that could be used in fireplaces and pellet stoves 

that emit less than 1 g/hr of particulate. I would like to see a 

remove or retrofit open hearth fireplaces/uncertified stoves/inserts 

law. Oregon DEQ has something along these lines for mandatory 

removal of uncertified technology upon resale of property. 

What about a program where visible smoke is not allowed from 

September to April? If someone was emitting visible smoke on 

any day they would get a ticket. The program would still be a two 

stage program with Stage 2 still prohibiting all burning on bad air 

quality days. 

You should keep the incentive to upgrade devices. 80% are 

upgrading to gas anyways. If you want to eliminate Stage 1, have 

every day be no burning except with certified/pellet devices with 

no visible smoke allowed except for startup/shutdown. In the 

winter season, there would be no burning in fireplaces. Identify 

the gross polluters by visible smoke and fine them a significant 

amount to force them to get a certified/pellet device.

If you do eliminate Stage 1, the people who bought devices with 

the incentives are more likely to be non-compliers. I would be in 

support of a one-stage program if the District were to ban visible 

smoke every day. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. An option to prohibit visible smoke for 

the entire winter season would in effect ban all 155,649 fireplaces, 

14,310 uncertified wood stoves and 44,184 uncertified wood inserts as 

well as tens of thousands of certified devices which are not capable 

(either by design or user operation) of burning without visible smoke on 

every day, not just on the bad air quality days. The cost of replacing or 

retrofitting all fireplaces and uncertified wood stoves/inserts is over $400 

million. In addition, this approach would burden our limited staff 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 3 

resources by requiring enforcement on every day of the wood burning 

season instead of just No Burn days. Therefore staff does not 

recommend establishing a comprehensive winter time smoke ban at 

this time. 

Replacement and retrofit requirements on property sale, like those in 

place in Oregon and other places, were considered and not 

recommended during the SB656 further study evaluation in 2006. That 

requirement is a more expensive control option than Rule 421 estimated 

to cost $7.48/lb. An additional problem with a retrofit requirement is 

that it has a smaller short term benefit because only a small percent of 

homes are sold each year; therefore, replacement of dirty residential 

wood combustion devices happens over decades. The District needs 

PM2.5 reductions in the short term to meet federal deadlines. However, 

this strategy will be re-evaluated and if it would provide reductions 

needed for attainment, this requirement may be included in the PM2.5 

attainment plan due to be completed in late 2012. 

Because of the significant public opposition to eliminating the limited 

exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves operating on Stage 1 

days, Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that keeps the 

limited exemption for those devices. 

The District does enforcement on all No Burn days, including a 

prohibition of visible smoke from certified and pellet stoves/inserts on 

Stage 1 no burn days, which will help us to identify those in violation 

and educate them about the seriousness of wintertime pollution 

problems facing Sacramento County. The District continues to operate 

the wood stove and wood fireplace incentive program that assists in 

cleaning up the air quality. 

Amie Ryan

Comment #4: The incentive to upgrade devices is removed if you go with the 

recommended change of a one stage program. The preferred 

option is A so that you don’t get push back from people who say 

why did they spend money to upgrade.

Response: Staff has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposal 

presented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, 

Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that keep the limited 

exemption for certified and pellet stoves/inserts. 

Comment #5: Setting the threshold at 30 μg/m3

 is too low. You should keep a 

two-stage or no visible smoke program or keep the current 

program with no changes. Going down 10 μg/m3

 and going to a 

single stage program is too much. The District is going to upset 

those who have changed their devices to certified or pellet.
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 4 

Response: Thank you for your comments. Refer to the response to Comment 4 on 

retaining a two-stage program and the response to Comment 3 for a 

discussion of the “no visible smoke” approach. However, Staff’s 

recommended change in thresholds levels to 35 μg/m3

 for Stage 2 and 

31 μg/m3 for Stage 1 is necessary to account for the estimated forecast 

underprediction and the actual Stage 1 benefit of 4 μg/m3

. 

John Crouch

Comment #6: The compliance rate for the rule is pretty good. Why change the 

rule this year? It is too soon to make changes. Is there a concern 

that if you go too far, compliance will drop?

Response: The District will be designated as a nonattainment area for 

24-hour PM2.5 health standard of 35 μg/m3. Strengthening Rule 421 

now by lowering the concentration thresholds will help to further reduce 

PM2.5 concentrations during winter months, potentially reducing the 

need for other, more costly regulatory measures. The District is 

required to develop a federally mandated attainment plan in late 2012 

or early 2013. If the standards are not achieved by that time, then the 

District will have to consider the adoption of more costly measures to 

reduce PM2.5 emissions. Because three years of data are used to 

determine whether the health standards are met, additional wood 

burning emissions reductions must begin in 2010 to provide 

Sacramento the best chance of avoiding those additional regulations. 

The regulatory controls that could be avoided include controls on: 

agricultural, non-agricultural, and prescribed burning; fugitive dust from 

bulk materials storage and handling; fugitive dust from paved roads, 

unpaved roads, and agricultural operations; chipping and grinding 

operations and composting operations. In addition, tighter control 

efficiency standards for PM2.5 control devices (baghouses, wet 

scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, etc.) may be considered. A more 

effective “Check Before You Burn” (CBYB) program may reduce the 

need for some of these additional measures and will reduce the number 

of unhealthy air quality days. 

The reductions in PM concentrations due to Rule 421 have been 

significant; however, additional reductions are needed to meet the 

health standards by the deadlines. Staff has tried to balance health 

protectiveness with the number of additional days called under each 

option. The most health protective option is Option B, but Staff has not 

recommended that option because of the potential of a significant 

number of additional No Burn days. Due to this factor, there is concern 

that Option B may result in a decrease in compliance. Instead, Staff is 

recommending an adjustment to the current rule to account for forecast 

underprediction. 

The Board may also choose to take no action at this time. 

Comment #7: Do you see a likelihood of an increase in enforcement? 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 5 

Response: No, Staff will continue to enforce Rule 421 on No Burn days and 

respond to complaints as needed. 

Comment #8: People need to burn correctly and operate their burning device 

properly. Devices are not designed to burn wet wood, tires and/or 

garbage. In some other areas, when the stove is not properly 

operated, the authority invites the store/retailer into the discussion 

with the opacity violator to teach proper operating techniques. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. District Rule 417 prohibits burning tires 

and garbage in a solid fuel device. The District does provide information 

on proper burning techniques in the wood smoke compliance course. 

We also provide a copy of the CARB Wood Burning Handbook, which 

provides information about wood burning, including proper wood 

storage and drying techniques. The CARB Wood Burning Handbook 

can also be found on the Spare The Air Web site at: 

 http://www.sparetheair.com/burncheck.cfm

Comment #9: You can get where you want to go by increasing the compliance 

rate. 

Response: From the recent Aurora survey, the statistics on people aware of 

burning restrictions within Sacramento County and the number of 

people complying is very high. It is unlikely that the compliance rate will 

increase dramatically in the short term when reductions are needed 

before the PM2.5 attainment plan is due. With continued enforcement 

and education, Staff would expect an increase in compliance rates over 

time. 

Jeannie Kendrick

Comment #10: People aren’t complying right now. 

Response: Aurora survey results show that compliance rates are high but not 

100%. Staff feels this is an excellent compliance rate in the beginning 

years of a new program. 

Keith Bond

Comment #11: Why group all certified/pellet devices in the same category. The 

EPA certification standard is set at around 7g/hr, but there are 

newer stoves which emit less than 1 g/hr.

Response: On very poor air quality days when the air quality is expected to exceed 

federal health standards, even these devices would be contributing to 

the problem. The recommended option does allow for certified/pellet 

devices to burn on Stage 1 days when fireplaces and non-certified 

devices cannot. Also, on days when the air quality is expected to be 

poor but not over the health standards, these cleaner burning devices 

still contribute to PM2.5 concentrations and can have a health impact on 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 6 

a community level. 

Public Workshop La Sierra Community Center, Carmichael

July 14, 2009, 6:00 pm

Attendees: SKIP AYRES, Custom Fireside 

 ANNE IACCOPUCCI, Breathe California 

 AMIE RYAN, Ryan Brothers Chimney Sweeping 

 JEFF HADDEN, NPC Firewood 

 B LODGETT L SCHELDR 

 DON SWAIN DAVID BURNS 

 MEL & ESTELLE SYLVIN S PLOY 

 FRED LYTHGOE MILKA LAVEVIC 

 MIKE ROGERS BILL BLACKBURN 

 ANN PARSONS MARVIN LAUER 

 BARRY SMITH CHRIS JOHNSON 

 E AHART BAILEY HEISMAN 

 CURT FOLEY STACEY KING 

 RUTH PERSON MIKE BULLER 

 CLAUDIA MOORE WILLIAM TRUMBALL 

 JOHN SVER DAVID HUMPHERS 

 AL HUGHES HILMER FELTON 

 SUSAN MARVEL LARRY PINNEY 

 PHIL MOCETTINI PETER KITECK 

 KATHLEEN & FARNK ROMANO 

 MARILYN DITO R MIDDLETON 

 KEN WHITALL-SCHENTIE CURTIS KANFMAN 

 DENNIS KAYL +3 REFUSED TO SIGN 

Written comments received from Marilyn Dito dated July 15th

Comment #12: From the slide “Air Quality Benefits”, the last bullet states 40% 

fewer days above the federal health standards. How many days is 

40% fewer? Please give actual numbers. What 3 methods were 

used to back up these results?

Response: A 40% reduction in days above the federal health standards is 13 fewer 

days. The analysis of the benefits was completed by STI using cluster 

analysis, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and numerical modeling. 

Refer to the “Rule 421 Effectiveness Analysis and Results” section in 

the Staff report for additional details. 

Comment #13: “Why amend Rule 421” slide, 3rd bullet, please provide data from 

the studies. Who did the study? How long did it last? What was 

actually studied, the criteria? Who participated? Since 421 came 

into effect in 2007, and studies were conducted in 2007, how much 

studying actually took place?

Response: The effectiveness studies were actually conducted in 2009. Staff 

contracted Aurora Research Group (Aurora) and Sonoma Technologies 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 7 

Inc (STI) to analyze the program effectiveness and benefits. Aurora’s 

phone survey examined behavior of residents in Sacramento County 

during the 2008/2009 winter season. Aurora’s survey took 

approximately three months to complete and included responses from 

400 randomly-selected residents who own wood burning devices. STI 

examined data from the past 8 years and took approximately 5 months. 

STI is working on a transport analysis with results to be detailed in the 

Board report for the September 24, 2009 Board Hearing. 

Comment #14: “Proposed Rule Changes” slide, rather than 5-year average 

category please state the actual proposed to be No Burn (days). 

An average is misleading.

Response: Staff is unable to predict the exact number of days for future seasons. 

The “Impacts and Benefits from Potential Rule Changes” section of the 

Staff report shows the number of days per season over the past 5 

years, assuming the CBYB program was in effect each of the last 5 

years. Depending on weather patterns, the number of No Burn days 

can vary. 

Comment #15: Keep the Rule the same for at least one more year or maybe two to 

get all folks (who burn) on board. This will give more time for 

people to adjust their routines when they are thinking of burning a 

fire. The Rule already works so give it more time. Stop expecting 

so much so soon and you’ll see better numbers.

Response: Thank you for your comments (refer to Comment 6.) 

Written comments received from Claudia Moore dated July 14th

Comment #16: I like the recommended option. We need cleaner air in 

Sacramento. 

Response: Thank you for your support. However, Staff also received 

many comments from residents and industry representatives who 

expressed concerns about eliminating the current two-stage program 

(see response to Comment #4). Staff has reviewed the comments 

received in response to the proposal presented at the workshops. After 

consideration of these comments, Staff is now recommending workshop 

Option A, that maintains the limited exemption for EPA certified and 

pellet stoves/inserts. The Recommended Option is slightly less health 

protective than the most protective, Option B, but would cause a much 

smaller increase in the number of No Burn days. 

Written comments received from Frank Romano dated July 16th

Comment #17: I’m opposed to the proposed restrictions. In 1975 I installed a 

county approved fireplace insert with hydro coil. This provides 

heat and hot water for my home using alternative energy sources. 

Why not keep the present rule in effect for another year and get 

better information about program effectiveness. You may find at 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 8 

that time that more people are complying, eliminating the need for 

more restrictive regulations. 

Response: The reductions in PM concentrations due to Rule 421 have been 

significant; however, additional reductions are needed to meet the 

health standards by the deadlines. There are still too many days that 

are over the federal health standards. Additionally, noncertified wood 

burning devices (pre-1992 units) are the largest contributor to 

residential wood combustion emissions. 

See also response to Comment #6. 

Written comments received from Bill Blackburn dated July 16th

Comment #18: It is critically important to me that my family minimize exposure, as 

much as practical, to PM2.5 and other toxic constituents that are 

generated from fireplace smoke. 

Response: Thank you for your support. In addition to PM2.5, wood smoke also 

emits other air contaminants including volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are precursors to aerosol 

forms of PM2.5, and toxic and/or cancer-causing substances, such as 

benzene, formaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene, a polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon (PAH). In addition, wood smoke is a component of black 

carbon. See also response to Comment #16.

Comment #19: I live in a neighborhood built in the early 1960s and many 

neighbors frequently burn in the winter and I know of no EPA type 

fireplaces in my area. As a result, the area is routinely smoky in 

the fall and winter. Every time my natural gas heater turns on, it 

pulls polluted air from outside neighborhood smoke, making it 

impossible to keep my home smoke free. Burning wood in an 

uncontrolled environment is literally “cave man” technology and 

must be sharply limited in major metropolitan areas like 

Sacramento.

Response: Thank you for your support of Rule 421. As noted in the staff report, 

wood smoke causes significant health impacts. Wood smoke emitted 

from chimneys can actually enter into neighborhood dwellings, causing 

indoor air quality problems. See also response to Comment #16. 

Comment #20: The greenhouse gases emitted from fireplaces (namely CO2 and 

carbon black) contribute to global climate change and continuing 

to ignore this imminent problem puts us all at peril. I urge you to 

continue to strengthen Rule 421 and create a healthier 

environment for us all. 

Response: The commenter correctly identifies black carbon as a global warming 

pollutant that is emitted when burning wood. This rule is directed at 

improving the regional benefits from reducing particulate matter, but 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 9 

reduction in wood burning from increasing the number of days would 

also reduce this global warming pollutant. See also response to 

Comment 16. 

Written comments received from R Middleton dated July 23rd

Comment #21: Why not let the current 421 rule run for a couple more years to get 

more data? 

Response: See response to Comment #6. 

Comment #22: What about all of us who got EPA approved inserts? It is unfair to 

eliminate the exemption for certified devices. 

Response: See response to Comment #4. 

Written comments received from Jeff Hadden dated July 14th

Comment #23: Give guidance on proper wood storage so people know how to 

burn only clean dry wood. 

Response: See response to Comment #8. 

Comment #24: I believe it is highly unfair for you to expect the citizens of this 

region to bear additional burdens to clean up the air in this region, 

when large utilities are not willing (referring to the 7/15/09 

Sacramento Bee article on utilities backing away from high-voltage 

transmission line). 

Response: See response to Comment #84. 

Oral Comments from La Sierra Community Center Public Workshop

Comment #25: I bought a stove that was approved to Canadian standards, is my 

stove clean enough? Why not?

Response: Wood stoves certified in Canada are tested using the Canadian 

Standard Association procedures. The Canadian standards are virtually 

identical to the EPA standards; however, in order to qualify for limited 

exemption from Rule 421 Stage 1 No Burn days, the device must be 

EPA Phase II certified. 

Comment #26: What are the surrounding counties doing to curtail wood burning? 

Why does the District have this rule if Placer and Yolo counties do 

not? 

Response: Bay Area Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Air Pollution 

Control District have similar but more restrictive mandatory episodic 

curtailment restrictions of wood and other solid fuel burning. Yolo 

County has a voluntary No Burn program and the City of Davis has 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 10 

been looking at adopting a mandatory curtailment program. Placer 

County requires replacement of uncertified stoves on property sale. 

 Staff is in the process of analyzing the transport effects within 

Sacramento County from rural to urban areas and of the surrounding 

counties on Sacramento and vice versa. Parts of Placer and Yolo 

Counties will be included in the PM2.5 nonattainment area and an 

assessment of the needed controls will be done by each District during 

the plan development required by U.S. EPA. The residents within 

Sacramento County are the most significant contributor to the wood 

smoke emissions in the District. 

Comment #27: How much PM is coming from the Bay Area and other areas? 

Response: Staff is in the process of analyzing the transport effects from 

surrounding areas and what impact Sacramento County has on other 

areas. Results are expected prior to the September 24th Board hearing 

and will be included in the Board package for the rule adoption. 

Comment #28: No more government regulations are needed. Why is there 

another thing the government says we should do? 

Response: The District is charged with protecting public health, in this case 

reducing the health risks from high levels of particulates in the air. 

There are many incentive strategies and regulations already in place to 

reduce particulate pollution problems, including reducing pollution from 

cars, trucks, buses, construction equipment, industrial and commercial 

boilers and power plants. Because fireplaces and wood stoves 

contribute 54% of directly emitted particulates, the Board adopted Rule 

421 in 2007 to reduce wood smoke only on those days when air quality 

was forecast to be poor. However, the PM2.5 levels in the county are 

still above the federal health standards. Staff recommends adjusting 

this rule as the most effective way to achieve additional reductions in 

ambient PM2.5 levels with the least impact. 

Comment #29: I made an investment on a clean burning technology 20 years ago. 

You can’t change the rules now.

Response: As mentioned above in response to comment #28, the District is 

mandated to reduce the amount of particulates in the air. To that end, 

the District has the authority to regulate sources of air pollution. As to 

your investment, devices that are from 20 years ago are potentially not 

EPA Phase II certified devices. Phase II certification was not effective 

until 1992 and significant improvements have been made to solid fuel 

burning devices since the certification was effective. 

Comment #30: The industry has worked hard to lower the amount of pollution 

being emitted from devices. Everyone should have the 

opportunity to burn with no visible smoke. Why not let very clean 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 11 

devices burn? 

Response: Staff recognizes that the industry has worked to reduce emissions from 

wood burning devices, however, even without smoke, particulates are 

still being emitted. Staff’s recommended option maintains the two-stage 

mandatory curtailment, allowing certified and pellet devices to burn on 

days when open hearth fireplaces and non-certified devices cannot. On 

Stage 2 No Burn days, all burning is prohibited as any additional 

particulate matter on very poor air quality days would be adding to the 

unhealthy levels of particulates. 

Comment #31: Why not require the retrofit of devices upon sale of property? 

Nevada County is taking the action of requiring people to change 

out devices? 

Response: See response to Comment #3. 

Comment #32: How did you pick the threshold levels?

Response: The option threshold levels were originally selected to limit wood 

burning to avoid exceeding the federal 24-hour health standard. The 

Rule 421 evaluation considered alternative thresholds that used new 

information about the actual benefits from the current Rule 421, actual 

air quality forecast accuracy, and thresholds used in other districts. 

Staff's recommendation adjusts the thresholds downward slightly to 

address forecast underpredictions, and the actual benefits achieved by 

the Stage 1 no burn requirements, to further protect public health. 

Comment #33: How do you know the health effects? What are the numbers 

dealing with health effects and how are they determined? 

Response: Many health studies on fine particle and wood smoke health impacts 

have been conducted by academic researchers and published in 

scientific and medical publications. We rely on these studies and 

information from air quality and health experts at other government 

agencies including the information listed below. 

 CARB sponsors some of the health studies and also reviews published 

health studies to estimate health impacts. A fact sheet on CARB's 

information can be found at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/pm_ozone-fs.pdf

Here is a link to CARB's recent review of wood smoke health impacts: 

ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/board/books/2009/012209/09-1-1pres.pdf 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/healthup/citations01-22.htm 

EPA conducts similar reviews in setting federal PM2.5 standards. Here 

is a link to that information: 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 12 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.acces

s.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-8477.pdf

 

 An EPA fact sheet of particulate matter health issues can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/pdfs/pm-color.pdf

 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's medical expert 

prepared a brief summary of several health studies specifically related 

to wood smoke. Here is a link to that summary (See Appendix A): 

 http://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2

008/October/Item_07/Oct%2016%202008_Agenda%20Item_7.pdf 

Comment #34: When was Rule 421 adopted? 

Response: Rule 421 was adopted in October 2007. 

Comment #35: What other efforts are there to reduce pollution on No Burn days?

Response: Residential wood smoke is one of the last, largely unregulated, large 

sources of PM2.5 emissions. There are a number of State and District 

rules that reduce emissions of particulate and particulate precursors 

from cars, trucks, trains, agricultural operations, internal combustion 

engines, boilers and painting operations. The District is required to 

develop a plan to meet the federal health standards and submit that 

plan to EPA for approval in late 2012. We will consider whether the 

existing strategies, along with Rule 421, are sufficient to meet federal 

health standards. If not, then the District will have to consider the 

adoption of more costly measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions, such as 

requiring replacement or retrofit of fireplaces and wood stoves on resale 

of homes, controls on: agricultural, non-agricultural, and prescribed 

burning; fugitive dust from bulk materials storage and handling; fugitive 

dust from paved roads, unpaved roads, and agricultural operations; 

chipping and grinding operations and composting operations. In 

addition, tighter control efficiency standards for PM2.5 control devices 

(baghouses, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, etc.) may be 

considered. A more effective “Check Before You Burn” (CBYB) 

program will reduce the need for some of these additional measures. 

 There are also other episodic controls to regulate PM emissions. There 

are sources within the District with permit conditions that prevent the 

equipment from being operated on poor air quality days. Agricultural 

burning is also prohibited on poor air quality days throughout the year. 

Lastly, there is District Rule 701 that establishes control and advisory 

procedures on very unhealthy air quality days. 

Comment #36: How does the recommended change compare to the single stage 

threshold proposed in 2007?

Response: Rule 421 was originally proposed in 2007as a single stage program with 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 13 

a 35 μg/m3 threshold. Currently, the single stage threshold proposed is 

30 μg/m3, consistent with SJVUAPCD Rule 4901. Note that this is no 

longer Staff’s recommended option. See response to Comment #16. 

Comment #37: If you are burning and not smoking on a No Burn day, is that 

legal? 

Response: No, wood burning on a No Burn day is illegal unless exempt. 

Comment #38: Rather than make a change now, why not give it another year or 

two to let public adjust and improve? Also, the District should do 

additional marketing.

Response: See response to Comment #6. In response to additional marketing, the 

District does marketing as our budget allows and continues to expand 

outreach opportunities with supporting partners to educate residents. 

Education is also a part of every violation issued by the District. 

Comment #39: What are the specifics of the goal of the District and the health 

standards? 

Response: The District’s overall mission is to achieve clean air goals by leading the 

region in protecting public health and the environment through 

innovative and effective programs, dedicated staff, community 

involvement, and public education. Rule 421 is specifically intended to 

help meet state and federal particulate matter health standards, but 

contributes to other health objectives such as reducing toxic pollutant 

and greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing walkability in our 

community. 

See also the response to Comment #28. For details of the health 

standards see Comment #55. 

Comment #40: You can’t comply even with an EPA certified device? Go after and 

put burden on fireplaces and gross polluters. Going from 23 days 

to 31 days is about once every four days that I will be unable to 

burn.

Response: Although certified wood and pellet stoves/inserts are cleaner than open 

fireplaces on a per log basis, because they are often used as an 

alternative heat source they generally emit more on a per day basis 

because they burn more fuel for a longer duration. Therefore, they still 

contribute significantly to the air quality problem. Nevertheless, 

because of public opposition Staff’s recommended option (previously 

workshop Option A) retains the limited provision that allows certified 

wood stoves and pellet stoves to be used on days with moderate air 

pollution. Under this option, the total number of No Burn days is 

expected to increase from 23 days to 28 days. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 14 

Comment #41: I’ve built hundreds of homes with zero clearance fireplaces. Four 

more days of avoided exceedances isn’t enough to justify the 

increase in no burn days. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Staff has changed the Recommended 

Option so that there will be 5 additional No Burn days (previous 

recommendation would have resulted in 8 additional No Burn days). 

Pollution levels are expected to decline by up to 23 percent on each of 

the 5, but based on historic data an estimated three additional days 

over the federal health standards will be avoided. In general, on the 

other days a 23% improvement in air quality is still not sufficient to meet 

federal health standards. However, the actual number of days avoided 

may be higher due to future benefits from other strategies being 

implemented to reduce particulate pollution. The Board of Directors will 

consider whether these public health benefits and potential avoided 

regulations are sufficient to outweigh concerns over increased number 

of no burn days. 

Comment #42: I burn wood and shut off my gas years ago. Why don’t you give 

me an option to convert to a compliant system?

Response: If burning wood or pellets provides the only source of heat for your 

home, then burning is always allowed. If you have another source of 

heat in your house, you will need to use that source on No Burn days. 

Other options for heating your home include natural gas, propane, or 

electric heaters. The District has financial incentives available to 

replace existing dirty devices with a cleaner burning device. We 

encourage you to take advantage of those incentives to reduce the 

wood smoke health impacts on you, your family, and your community. 

Comment #43: How is the forecasting done and how accurate are the 

measurements?

Response: Forecasting is contracted to Sonoma Technology, Inc. Sonoma 

Technology, Inc. (STI) is a firm providing air quality and 

meteorological research and services. STI has performed air 

quality forecasting continuously since 1996 and has intimate 

knowledge of the meteorological conditions that influence both 

ozone and PM2.5. STI has developed forecasting tools (forecast 

guidelines and objective tools) for over 40 cities across the United 

States as well as for cities abroad. In addition, STI developed and 

gave regional courses on PM2.5 forecasting to assist over 25 cities 

throughout the United States transition from ozone-only 

forecasting to both PM2.5 and ozone forecasting. As part of this 

transition project, STI issued daily PM2.5 forecasts for about 15 

cities over the course of a winter season and developed statistical 

forecasting tools for 22 cities. STI also forecasted air quality for 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 15 

the 2002 Olympics held in Salt Lake City, Utah, and continues to 

issue daily ozone and PM2.5 forecasts for several cities throughout 

the United States. STI designed, developed, and taught courses 

on air quality forecasting and forecast tool development at EPA’s 

National Air Quality Forecasting conferences for several years 

and authored EPA’s guidance document on ozone and PM2.5

forecasting. The forecast data is used by AQMD Staff to determine 

and announce the next day Check Before You Burn category i.e. No 

Burn day. 

 Keep in mind that the forecast is a prediction of the PM2.5 

concentration that would occur if a No Burn day were not called. 

Therefore, when a No Burn day is called, the actual concentration that 

occurs on that day should be lower than the forecast, which, upon first 

impression, makes the forecast look inaccurate. To assess the forecast 

accuracy, it is necessary to account for the average benefit of Stage 1 

and Stage 2 days before making the comparison between forecast and 

observed concentrations. Taking this factor into account, last season 

No Burn days were correctly called 28 times out of 38 times, a forecast 

accuracy of 74%. 

Comment #44: I would like to see the strictest possible requirements on wood 

burning. I’m concerned about my kids and my neighbor’s burn 7 

days a week.

Response: Thank you for your support. Although Staff is not 

recommending the most health protective of the options proposed, the 

recommended option will significantly strengthen the rule and improve 

its effectiveness. See response to Comment #16. 

Comment #45: What is the source behind the emissions information? 

 

Response: CARB is responsible for calculating the emissions for residential wood 

combustion (RWC) for all the air quality districts in California. The 

current emission inventory numbers are presented in the emissions 

inventory of the Staff report; however CARB is in the process of 

updating the RWC emission inventories for all the air quality districts in 

California. Staff has presented RWC emission inventory in the Staff 

report based on these assumptions. For additional information see the 

Emissions Inventory section of the Staff report. 

Comment #46: What are we allowed to burn?

Response: Any wood, pellet, or other solid fuel is subject to Rule 421 burning 

restrictions on poor air quality days. Rule 417 prohibits the burning of 

garbage, treated wood, plastic, rubber, waste petroleum products, 

paints, solvents, coal, glossy/colored paper, particle board or other 

material not intended by a manufacturer for use as fuel in a solid fuel 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 16 

burning device. Electric fireplaces, natural gas, and propane-fired 

devices are not regulated by Rule 417 or Rule 421 and may be used 

anytime. 

Comment #47: Is this being done to get money from the Federal government?

Response: No, the District does not receive any additional federal funding for 

implementing this rule. The District is mandated to reduce particulate 

pollution to achieve the federal health standard. The District is required 

to submit a plan to show how the standard will be achieved. If no plan 

is submitted that demonstrates the federal health standards will be met 

by the required deadline, then the federal government can withhold 

federal funding for the Sacramento region. 

Comment #48: Who are the Board of Directors? 

Response The Board of Directors is body of elected officials who oversee the 

activities of the District. The AQMD's 14-member Board of Directors is 

composed of all five Sacramento County Supervisors, four members of 

the Sacramento City Council, one member representing each of the 

Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho Cordova, and 

one member representing the Cities of Galt and Isleton. A list of the 

current Board members can be found on our website: 

http://www.airquality.org/bod/directors.shtml

Comment #49: Is there a public hearing with testimony? 

Response: Yes. The public hearing for Rule 421 is expected to be conducted on 

September 24, 2009 at 9:30 am at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 

700 H Street - Room 1450. 

Public Workshop Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, City of Sacramento

July 15, 2009, 5:30 pm

Attendees: PERRY TROOLIN, Rustice Fireplace 

 DAVID KELLY, Clear Skies 

 DAVE & NORMA KOPP, Leisure Time Pellet Stoves 

 JARED KOPP, Leisure Time Pellet Stove 

 PETER ROSS, HBPA 

 EARL WHITYCOMBE WILLIAM PETERSON 

 RAY NIELSEN ED SUAREL 

 SEAN WARD KITTY WILSON 

 +2 REFUSED TO SIGN 

Written comments received from Jane Penly dated July 15th

Comment #50: The Rule does not consider retired people who depend on the heat 

source for warmth and keeping utilities down. EPA stoves emit 

limited pollution and meet current EPA standards; therefore these 

devices should not be eliminated as heat sources in the current 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 17 

economy. 

Response: In response to public comments, Staff is now proposing to maintain the 

limited exemption for EPA certified stoves on Stage 1 No Burn days. 

They will continue to be prohibited from operating on Stage 2 No Burn 

days, and we are proposing a lower threshold for triggering those No 

Burn days to help achieve federal health standards. However, residents 

may qualify for a Hardship Waiver pursuant to Section 403 and be 

allowed to burn on all No Burn days. Forms to apply for this waiver can 

be found on our website or by contacting the District. 

Written comments received from Edward Suarez dated July 15th

Comment #51: Can you tell the difference between automobile pollution and wood 

fire burning pollution?

Response: Yes. Most sources of pollution have a “fingerprint” of chemical species 

that identify the source of the emissions. Such an analysis was 

performed on particulate samples collected in Sacramento County. For 

more information please see page 14 of this Staff report. 

Comment #52: Not everyone has the daily paper to know the No Burn days.

Response: Other than the newspaper, the Check Before You Burn CBYB) program 

has several ways to check if current day and/or the next day is a No 

Burn day, including calling a toll free number (1-877-NO-BURN-5), 

consulting our website, and listening to radio or TV weather 

broadcasts. You can also sign up for an E-mail alert sent daily. 

 The CBYB Web site is: 

http://www.sparetheair.com/burncheck.cfm

 To sign up for the Air Alert daily e-mail please use the following link: 

http://www.sparetheair.com/airalert.cfm

Comment #53: Some people are burning green wood. What is seasoned firewood 

and how do you know what the moisture content is? 

Response: Rule 417 prohibits the advertising of wood as “seasoned” or “dry” unless 

the wood has a moisture content of 20 percent or less by weight. Staff 

recommends the use of only seasoned or dry wood. When buying 

wood advertised as “seasoned” CARB recommends looking for: 

• Dark colored, cracked ends 

• Light in weight 

• Dry wood rings with a resonant “crack” 

• Easily peeled or broken bark. 

 The CARB Wood Burning Handbook can also be found on the Spare 

The Air Web site at: 

 http://www.sparetheair.com/publications/wood_burning_handbook.pdf
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 18 

Comment #54: Are there any reports from local hospitals on residents suffering 

from smoke particles? 

Response: An increase of hospital admissions during times of high particulate 

matter concentrations has been documented in health studies. For 

more information on the health impacts of Particulate Matter see the 

“Health Impacts” section of this Staff report. 

Comment #55: What are the federal, state and city health standards? 

Response: The federal 24-hour PM2.5 health standard is 35 μg/m3 and the annual 

average standard is 15 μg/m3. California's annual health standard for 

PM2.5 is 12 μg/m3

. California does not have a 24 hour standard for 

PM2.5, but they do have a 24 hour PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3

. There 

are no separate local standards. There are no city health standards for 

particulate matter pollution. 

Written comments received from Peter Ross dated July 15th

Comment #56: Keep the incentive for homeowners with non-EPA certified 

appliances and open fireplaces to upgrade to cleaner technology 

by maintaining the 2-stage program. 

Response: See response to Comment #4. 

Comment #57: A no visible smoke year round rule would keep our air cleaner 

even on days we meet attainment and would most likely reduce the 

number of No Burn days needed to meet attainment. 

Response: See response to Comment #3. 

Written comments received from Sean Ward

Comment #58: For the sake of our health and the health of our children, my family 

asks you to pass the amendment to Rule 421 and that you 

continue your work to establish standards, which will require 

chimneys be smoke-free, 365 days per year, through the creation 

of mandates which specify clean-burning fireplace products and 

technologies such as natural gas. We live in midtown Sacramento 

and the air we breathe from late September through April is full of 

smoke; smoke which comes from neighborhood chimneys. We 

often cannot go on evening walks because the smoke filled air 

causes our daughter to have asthma attacks. We ask you to 

mandate gas technology, as clean-burning solutions are good for 

our air and our lungs, fair to homeowners, and fair to industry. 

Response: Thank you for your support for air quality goals. Although Staff is not 

recommending the most health protective of the options proposed, the 

recommended option will significantly strengthen the rule and improve 

its effectiveness Please see response to Comment #16. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 19 

 Some comments have suggested a visible smoke option that would 

require all devices to emit no visible smoke, 365 days per year, which in 

effect would ban the use of wood burning fireplaces and uncertified 

devices on every day, not just on days with poor air quality. Staff is not 

recommending that at this time. Please see response to Comment #3. 

Oral Comments from Tsakopoulos Library Galleria Public Workshop

Comment #59: Are Board hearings open to the public and can I make comments?

 

Response: Yes. 

Comment #60: Are sole source of heat burners exempt from all no-burn days? 

Response: Yes. 

Comment #61: Are there businesses in Sacramento County that contribute to the 

PM problem? Are those businesses regulated? 

Response: Yes, the District has over 4,000 permitted sources that are subject to 

various District rules that limit the release of air contaminants. These 

facilities include a variety of business types such as industrial and 

manufacturing plants, gas stations, paint shops, dry cleaners, power 

plants and boilers. 

Comment #62: I have a problem with eliminating the Stage 1 day certified device 

exemption. People would have no encouragement to upgrade a 

more polluting device. I would like to see a no visible smoke rule. 

There will be cleaner technology available in the future that will 

make it affordable for everyone.

 

Response: Staff is now recommending a slightly less health protective alternative 

that maintains the exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves. See 

response to Comment #4. Also, see response to Comment #3 for a 

discussion on a no visible smoke rule. 

Comment #63: Is there anyone beside the hearth products industry that would 

benefit who recommends the “no visible smoke” approach?

 

Response: This option may encourage additional sales of hearth products that do 

not emit visible smoke, and provide greater health protection than the 

recommended option. See response to Comment #3. 

Comment #64: I would recommend an option to require retrofit of fireplaces to 

make them cleaner. Our company creates a catalytic fireplace 

insert to reduce fireplace emissions. I suggest changing the 

incentive program to convert every fireplace to a cleaner burning 

device. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 20 

 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. See the response to Comment #3 for a 

discussion of mandated retrofit requirements. Please note that our 

existing incentive programs encourage home owners in Sacramento 

County to replace older, more polluting units with cleaner burning 

devices. These programs currently do not incentivize catalyst retrofits 

for fireplaces because catalysts generally fail in three to five years with 

little incentive for owner/operators to replace the catalyst. We will 

continue to monitor development of new technology and revisit incentive 

program elements as appropriate. 

Comment #65: I understand that PM is carbon, and gets deep in the lung. I carry 

around asthma inhalers and I want the smoke out of the air. I 

support the proposed option. 

 

Response: Thank you for your support for air quality goals. Please see response to 

Comment #16. 

Comment #66: Don’t eliminate recognizing certified devices/pellet as being 

cleaner burning devices. 

 

Response: Staff is proposing to keep the certified devices and pellet stoves exempt 

from Stage 1 No Burn days. Please see response to Comment #4. 

Comment #67: How does the number of days when an exceedance was avoided 

compare to the current number of days over the health standards? 

What are the additional measures if exceedances still exist? If we 

don’t make the health standard deadline what happens? 

Response: A total of 20 days exceeding the health standards were observed last 

season. The days avoided last season was 13 days. For the additional 

measures that may be required if exceedances still exist see response 

to Comment #35. If we don’t attain the health standard, EPA makes a 

finding of failure to attain, and we have to submit another plan within a 

year. Should we fail to submit a plan to meet attainment, we face 

sanctions. The plan must demonstrate that we will or have adopted 

sufficient additional control measures to attain “as expeditiously as 

practicable.” 

Comment #68: I have an EPA approved the device, why can you say now that it is 

not good enough?

Response: Wood smoke is a significant contributor to the PM2.5 emissions in 

Sacramento County. Although certified devices emit less than their 

noncertified counterparts, they still emit pollution. There are also 

enough certified devices in the county that, in aggregate, their 

emissions can’t be ignored. Therefore, the program prohibits the use of 

certified devices on the worst air quality days. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 21 

Comment #69: I burn firewood in an insert. Why not go after fireplaces first and 

then re-evaluate the program effectiveness? Why penalize 

everyone at once?

Response: See response to Comment #3. 

Comment #70: My concern is that the District may eventually get rid of 

woodstoves to meet standards. 

Response: That is not a proposed option. Currently, the District’s strategy to 

improve particulate matter air quality includes a three-pronged approach 

to reducing emissions from wood burning: providing financial incentives, 

Rule 417 which regulates new wood burning installations, and Rule 421 

curtailment on poor air quality days that reduces burning from existing 

wood burning devices. 

Public Workshop SMAQMD Office, City of Sacramento

July 16, 2009, 1:30 pm

Attendees: DAN SANFORD, Regency Fireplace Products 

 BILL ORLANDO, A.E.S. 

 RUSTY SAVARD, A.E.S. 

 TINA SUAREZ-MURIAS, CARB 

 YUSHOU CHANG, Placer County APCD 

 ERIC RASMUSSON, RPA, SAR 

 CAYLYN BROWN, SAR 

 ANDREW TARBUSKOVICH, AAA Fireplaces & More 

 T LATHROP, Yolo Solano AQMD 

 DAVID KELLY, Clear Skies 

 RAQUEL LOPEZ, Breathe California 

 J ELDER, AAA Fireplaces 

 ROBERT WHITEHEAD 

 KURT TROMBINO 

Written comments received from Robert Whitehead dated July 16th

Comment #71: I have an EPA approved wood stove. My device is 72% efficient 

and emits 1.4 g/hr. I heat primarily with wood heat. Wood burning 

is an art, using dry seasoned wood makes for a hot fire and I go 

out and check that my chimney isn’t smoking. My goal is little or 

no smoke. The AQMD should educate the public on proper 

burning. Healthy air is important. Diesel vehicles are exempt from 

smog check. I don’t want to see smoke, so I’m in favor of devices 

that are low-emitting. Keep the current Rule 421. The AQMD 

needs to give exemptions to citizens with EPA approved stoves. 

Response: Thank you for your comments and efforts to limit wood smoke. The 

reductions in PM concentrations due to Rule 421 have been significant; 

however, additional reductions are needed to meet the health standards 

by the deadlines. Staff is proposing changes that will strengthen Rule 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 22 

421 and make it more effective. Staff has changed the recommended 

option, as noted in the response to Comment #4. 

Heavy duty trucks and buses have been subject to inspection for 

excessive smoke conducted by the California Highway Patrol weigh 

stations and other roadside locations since 1998. CARB has several 

other programs that subject heavy-duty diesel vehicles to periodic self 

inspection and idling regulations. More information on diesel 

enforcement programs is available at the following link: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/diesel.htm

 Other diesel vehicles are under state law to be incorporated into the 

Smog Check Program beginning January 2010. More information on 

this requirement is available at the following link: 

http://www.bar.ca.gov/80_BARResources/05_Legislative/RegulatoryActi

ons/FAQs%20for%20Diesels%201-8-09_GC.pdf

Written comments received from David Kelly dated July 14th and 16th

Comment #72: If you use visible smoke to determine violations on No Burn days, 

then it only makes sense to incorporate that guideline in your rule 

to apply to all wood burning devices that do not emit visible 

smoke. EPA has spent millions in developing a new wood burning 

fireplace standard to be used by the states. You should make 

reference to it in your rules. 

Has the District considered the no visible smoke approach that 

other districts have used (Ringleman chart)? My company makes 

products that can be used to retrofit fireplaces to produce no 

visible smoke.

Response: Visible smoke is the current enforcement mechanism to observe 

violations because District inspectors will not go onto private property 

when inspecting for No Burn day violations. Rule 421 prohibits 

operation of EPA certified devices and pellet stoves that emit visible 

smoke on Stage 1 no burn days. For a discussion of the visible smoke 

option, please see response to Comment #3. 

 For open hearth fireplace catalyst technology devices, the District 

incentive programs currently do not incentivize catalyst retrofits for 

fireplaces because catalysts generally fail in three to five years with little 

incentive and no requirement for owner/operators to replace the 

catalyst. 

 Rule 417 governs the installation of new wood burning appliances and 

is not open for revisions at this time. The numbers show the significant 

majority of fireplace owners use their fireplace for aesthetic reasons. 

Because of the significance of our air quality problems and the large 

contribution from wood burning, Rule 417 prohibits the installation of 

new wood burning fireplaces. To allow installation of even lower 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 23 

emitting fireplaces would increase emissions when compared to the 

current Rule 417. The EPA emissions standards program for fireplaces 

is voluntary, and even if a fireplace is voluntarily certified, data on low 

mass fireplaces indicates that they emit more than EPA certified and 

pellet stoves and fireplace inserts. As such, Staff would not recommend 

amendments to Rule 417 to allow installation of low mass wood-burning 

fireplaces. 

Written comments received from Dan Sanford dated July 21st

Comment #73: As an industry representative, I believe it is very important to 

maintain a distinction for EPA certified products. A 2 stage no 

burn system is very important in maintaining the public’s 

confidence in their investment.

Response: See response to Comment #4. 

Oral Comments from SMAQMD Public Workshop.

Comment #74: How many inspectors does the District have?

 

Response: 14 inspectors throughout the County that inspect all permitted and 

unpermitted facilities and respond to air pollution complaints. 

Comment #75: Are you able to separate emissions from fireplaces from 

agricultural burning for instance. 

Response: No. However, agricultural burning is currently prohibited on the same 

days as Rule 421 prohibits burning. In addition, there is a smoke 

management program to limit the amount of agricultural burning that 

occurs on burn days to minimize impacts. 

Comment #76: Enforcement is based on visible smoke? So if you are around 1 

g/hr with no visible smoke, is it legal to burn on a No Burn day? 

Response: No, it is not legal, but visible smoke is currently how we detect burning 

is occurring. 

Comment #77: If emissions from wood burning devices are going down, then 

shouldn’t that be good? 

Response: Yes, when a new wood stove or pellet stove is compared to an old, 

uncertified wood stove. However, a common misperception is that EPA 

certified and pellet stoves are "better" than fireplaces. Looking at annual 

emissions, an individual EPA certified stove and some pellet stoves 

emit more than an individual fireplace because they generally burn 

more fuel for a longer duration. Currently estimates for an average 

winter day show the total emissions from fireplaces are less than the 

total emissions from all EPA certified and pellet stoves. While certified 

devices and pellet stoves are designed to pollute less than fireplaces 

and non-certified wood stoves, their emissions are about an order of 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 24 

magnitude higher than gaseous fueled devices. 

Comparison of Emission Factors 

Technology PM2.5 Emission Factor 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Certified Wood Stove (Catalytic) 1.62 

Certified Wood Stove (Non-Catalytic) 1.16 

Pellet Stove 0.18 

Propane Fireplace 0.01 

Natural Gas Fireplace 0.01 

Gas Heater 0.01 

Electric None 

Comment #78: Forcing people to use natural gas, propane or electricity is not fair 

when there are technologies to reduce PM emissions dramatically 

and might achieve goals. 

Response: Even very clean solid fuel devices emit more than 10 times the particle 

pollution from gaseous fueled devices. See response to Comment #77. 

Comment #79: When are the most burn days (worst months)? Is there a pattern? 

Response: No Burn days can occur on any day from November 1st until the end of 

February. Usually, there are more No Burn days in December and 

January; but will vary year to year depending on weather patterns. 

Comment #80: You take comments on options; will these be the only options to 

be considered? After workshops, will the options change?

Response: The Board can choose to take no action, consider staff's 

recommendation or any of the other options, or direct staff to come back 

at a subsequent meeting with another alternative. Staff has considered 

the oral and written comments received and the recommend option has 

been changed. The recommended option, previously referred to as 

Option A at the workshops, is to maintain the two-stage program but 

reduce the concentration thresholds for prohibiting burning to 31 μg/m3

for Stage 1 and 35 μg/m3 for Stage 2. Please see response to Comment 

#4. 

Comment #81: In regards to the emission reductions – Is the Stage 2 reduction in 

addition to Stage 1 reductions? The emission reduction rates 

would indicate that Stage 1 is more effective? Our industry has 

spent millions of dollars to develop cleaner burning devices. We 

hope you’ll consider an approach that doesn’t force to natural gas.

Response: The emission reductions presented for Stage 1 and Stage 2 are not 

additive. The estimated overall emission reductions are 43% for Stage 

1 days and 70% for Stage 2 days. Therefore, emission reductions are 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 25 

higher on Stage 2 days. The emission reduction percentages take into 

account the compliance rates from the Aurora telephone survey as well 

as the fact that certified devices and pellet stove are exempt on Stage 1 

days. 

In terms of air quality, the Stage 1 benefit is 4 μg/m3 and the Stage 2 

benefit is 12 μg/m3. The benefits are not cumulative, meaning the 

additional benefit on a Stage 2 day versus a Stage 1 day is 8 μg/m3

. 

Public Workshop Chabolla Center, Galt

July 20, 2009, 6:00 pm

Attendees: RUSS WOLD, Hearth & Home Technologies 

 DAVE KOPP, Leisure Time Pellet Stoves 

 JOHN CROUCH, HBPA 

 DIANE AND GUY KANNENBERG VERN KLEOLM 

 RUSSELL OOMS FRANCIE AXTELL 

 TYRELL KREMER CHRIS & LAURIE AXTELL 

 PATTI KREMER +4 REFUSED TO SIGN 

Written comments received from Russell Ooms dated July 22nd

Comment #82: If you cannot distinguish between an open face fireplace and a 

pellet stove how can you possibly make a reasonable rule 

regarding the burning of solid fuels? 

Response: Pellet stoves are easily distinguished from fireplaces. 

Comment #83: Why were people encouraged last year to upgrade to clean 

burning wood stoves when this year they might not be allowed to 

use them? 

Response: The rule restricts wood burning on days with high PM2.5 pollution. 

Under the Recommended Option, which maintains the two-stage 

program, EPA certified devices and pellet stoves will be allowed to burn 

on a Stage 1 day. On a Stage 2 day, all burning will be prohibited. This 

is the same program that was in place last year – the difference is that 

we are proposing small decreases in thresholds that are used to declare 

No Burn days. Based on analysis of air quality data from prior years, 

Staff does not expect that wood burning will be restricted on every day, 

or even on most days. Even on days when there aren’t burning 

restrictions, reducing PM emissions by upgrading to cleaner devices 

improves public health and reduces smoke impacts at the neighborhood 

level. 

The District provides financial incentives to replace or modify fireplaces 

with natural gas or propane firelogs or fireplace inserts, clean burning 

pellet inserts, or electric fireplaces. Replacement of uncertified stoves 

with EPA certified, pellet, natural gas, or propane stoves is also 

incentivized. We do not encourage replacement of fireplaces with EPA 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 26 

certified wood inserts because the emissions from the EPA certified 

devices are generally higher than fireplaces because they are used 

more frequently and for a longer duration to provide heat that would 

otherwise have been provided using electricity or gaseous fueled 

device. 

Comment #84: Why are corporate fuels, natural gas, propane, oil and coal taken 

off the table? Why are they protected? I know you are making this 

rule because the federal government lowered the air standard. 

Corporations buy our legislators. If I sold natural gas I would pay 

for a rule that took away my competition. 

Response: Natural gas and propane fueled devices emit 10 times less than even 

clean wood burning devices. Coal is a solid fuel, and would be 

prohibited from being burned on a no burn day. However, we are not 

aware of any data that suggests coal or oil is burned in fireplaces or 

stoves in Sacramento County. Additionally, the industries that supply 

fuels are heavily regulated to curtail the emissions from power plants 

and from obtaining these fuels. 

Comment #85: This rule will make criminals out of ordinary citizens. Do you 

believe a person will sit in a cold house on a no burn day if their 

only source of heat is wood?

Response: The provisions of Rule 421 do not apply to wood or other solid fuel 

burning devices that are the sole source of heat in a residence. You 

may notify the District by completing an exemption form available on our 

website or by contacting the District. These exemption forms are 

consulted when burning is detected by a District inspector on a no burn 

day. 

Comment #86: Please do not let bureaucratic efficiency create an unfair rule. I 

know it is much easier to make a blanket rule then do all the work 

necessary to make a fair rule.

Response: The District has conducted 5 public workshops and several briefings 

with affected industries. The District is mandated to reduce the amount 

of fine particulates in the air. Staff has balanced health protectiveness 

with the potential number of additional days that would be declared No 

Burn days under each option. See response to Comment #4. 

Written comments received from Francie Axtell dated July 23rd

Comment #87: The Air District is giving up to $750 incentives for people who have 

open fireplaces to replace with an EPA certified device. Why 

would someone spend ≈$2000 to purchase a new device, when the 

incentive to be allowed to burn on a Stage 1 day no longer exists. 

Those of us who purchased an EPA certified device are now upset 

that Stage 1 day is proposed to no longer exist. We are being 

punished for doing what Air Quality Management District asked us 

to do.
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 27 

 

Response: The District does not provide financial incentives to retrofit an open 

fireplace with an EPA certified device. Participants are advised that the 

incentive program does not exempt them from mandatory burning 

restrictions unless natural gas, propane or electric devices are 

purchased. Nevertheless, after review of comments received, Staff is 

now recommending that the limited exemption for EPA certified devices 

remain in the rule. See response to Comments #4 and #16.

Oral Comments from Chabolla Center Public Workshop

Comment #88: Please explain what a permit fee is for? What do the district’s 

permit fees do? Aerojet pays a fee before they can test a rocket. 

You want people to pay to pollute? You would put surcharge on 

wood stoves if you could. Go after gross polluters not pellet 

stoves.

Response: The District receives fees from pollution emitting sources to cover the 

cost of permitting and inspecting for compliance with federal, state and 

local rules and regulations. If Aerojet chooses to pay the fee, federal 

law requires districts to accept that fee to mitigate the emissions from 

rocket testing in lieu of providing other mitigating emission reductions. 

We have never considered establishing a fee on wood stoves. Rule 

421 currently restricts burning in uncertified stoves and fireplaces first, 

on Stage 1 days, and then if the air quality gets worse, it restricts EPA 

certified and pellet stoves as well. 

Comment #89: Do other counties have their own districts? And what are those 

other districts doing?

Response: Yes, the state is divided into 35 air districts. Some air districts 

encompass many counties however each air district only has authority 

within their geographical region. San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 

Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD have already passed wood 

burning restrictions. Staff is also aware of other air districts that are in 

preliminary discussions of wood burning restrictions. 

Comment #90: Does the rule apply to burning of corn?

Response: Yes, Rule 421 applies to any solid fuel, including corn. 

Comment #91: On a summer day I look to Sac and see a brown cloud, but the 

Emissions Inventory pie chart shows wood at 49% and trucks at 

8%, why?

Response: The air quality problems in our county are different in the summer and 

winter seasons. Poor air quality in the summer season is due to high 

concentrations of ground-level ozone. Mobile sources such as trucks, 

buses, passenger cars, and construction equipment emit about 75% of 

the nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds that are precursors 

to ozone formation. In the winter season poor air quality is caused by 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 28 

high concentrations of particulate matter (PM). Both types of pollution 

have serious health consequences. The graph below illustrates the 

average monthly concentration of fine PM through out the year and as 

can be seen, the PM levels are the highest during the winter months. 

The largest single source of PM emissions in the winter months comes 

from wood burning, and the proposed rule is the most effective control 

measure to reduce PM concentrations. 

Comment #92: Can you distinguish between smoke particles from here and 

smoke coming down the hill?

Response: The monitors cannot identify the geographic origin of particles. 

However, Staff contracted Sonoma Technologies to use weather and 

emissions information to quantify the impact of smoke from Sacramento 

versus surrounding counties. The results of this study will be presented 

during the September 24, 2009 Board hearing. 

Comment #93: What is the statewide cost for having clean air? 

Response: The statewide costs for not meeting the health standards have been 

compiled. The economic impact is $170 billion annually. Staff is not 

aware of data that estimates the total statewide costs for the regulations 

needed to meet clean air goals. 

Comment #94: Can we purchase carbon credits for burning? 

Response: The purchase of carbon credits is not an alternative to complying with 

the burning restrictions. In addition, the District does not currently 

regulate or sell carbon credits. The District’s goal with this rule is to 

reduce regional health impacts from particulate matter. If you wish to 

purchase carbon credits to offset your burning you may want to contact 

a carbon offset market vendor. 

Comment #95: How accurate was the forecasting? What is the number of days 

called versus what shouldn’t have been and vice versa? 

Response: Keep in mind that the forecast is a prediction of the PM2.5 

concentration that would occur if a No Burn day were not called. 

Therefore, when a No Burn day is called, the actual concentration that 

occurs on that day should be lower than the forecast, which, upon first 

impression, makes the forecast look inaccurate. To assess the forecast 

accuracy, it is necessary to account for the average benefit of Stage 1 

and Stage 2 days before making the comparison between forecast and 

observed concentrations. Taking this factor into account, last season 

CBYB days were correctly called 28 times out of 38 times, a forecast 

accuracy of 74%. 

Comment #96: What is the health standard? 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 29 

Response: The federal health standards set by EPA are 35 μg/m3 for 24-hour 

PM2.5 and 15 μg/m3 for annual average PM2.5. California has an 

annual PM2.5 health standard of 12 μg/m3

. 

Comment #97: Can you shift focus to removing open fireplaces?

Response: The District's strategy to improve particulate matter air quality includes a 

three-pronged approach to reducing emissions from wood burning: 

providing financial incentives, regulating new wood burning installations, 

and reducing burning from existing fireplaces and wood stoves. The 

program to provide financial incentives to remove or replace existing 

fireplaces and dirty wood stoves was established in June 2006. On 

October 26, 2006 the Board of Directors approved Rule 417 to prohibit 

installing new fireplaces and dirty wood burning devices. The last prong 

was adopted on October 25, 2007, as Rule 421, Mandatory Episodic 

Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning. Residents and 

businesses that take advantage of the financial incentives to install 

gaseous fuel burning devices are exempt from our wood burning 

regulations. 

The District has addressed the installation of any new open hearth 

fireplaces by adopting Rule 417. Rule 417 prohibits selling, supplying, 

installation or transferring a new wood burning appliance unless it is an 

EPA Phase II certified pellet-fueled, masonry heater, or an appliance 

that can meet the EPA PM emission standard. 

See also response to Comment #1. 

Comment #98: For those of us who live in the country on acreage, is my smoke 

getting to the city of Sacramento?

Response: See response to Comment #92 

Comment #99: How close are we to achieving the standard? Would a total burn 

ban do it? 

 

Response: Attainment of the federal health standards is determined using the 

design value (three-year average of the 98th percentile PM2.5 

concentrations). The Design Value for the District over the past three 

years is 52 μg/m3 (for more information see page 5 of the Staff Report). 

To meet the federal health standard the Design Value must be below 35 

μg/m3

, or a 33% improvement in air quality. 

From the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) analysis (see Staff Report 

page 7) the estimated wood smoke of the total PM2.5 as measured at 

the monitor was in the range of 26%. By making a crude assumption of 

completely eliminating wood smoke and assuming a 26% reduction of 

the design value, the District would need additional reductions to meet 

the health standard. A burn ban alone will not deliver clean air but Rule 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 30 

421 combined with other federal, state, and local strategies and 

regulations may be sufficient. The estimated reduction from these other 

strategies and regulations is 4 μg/m3. A more refined analysis will be 

conducted over the next three years to determine whether additional 

reductions are needed. 

Comment #100: I agree that there are some days with bad air. But leave pellet 

stoves alone and go after open face fireplaces. 

Response: See response to Comment #11. Because of the significant public 

opposition to the original staff recommendation, staff is now 

recommending a slightly less health protective alternative, workshop 

Option A, that maintains the limited exemption for EPA certified and 

pellet stoves. 

Comment #101: It would be good to have a database of people who have registered 

that they have a clean burning device. You can start with the 

incentive program participants. 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. 

Comment #102: Are there any other episodic controls required by the District? 

Response: Yes. Permit conditions prohibit operation of some engines on poor air 

quality days. Agricultural burning is prohibited when air quality levels are 

forecast to exceed state or federal air quality standards. 

 

 See also response to Comment #35. 

Comment #103: What is the difference between a 70% reduction on a Stage 2 No 

Burn day but an air quality benefit of 23% reduction in wood 

smoke? 

Response: The Stage 2 emission reduction of wood smoke is 70%, however, wood 

smoke is only one part of the PM2.5 pollution problem on any given 

winter day. The 23% air quality benefit reflects the reduction in ambient 

PM2.5 concentration. 

Comment #104: Do you have an estimate of fireplaces and wood stoves?

Response: Yes, that information can be found in the Emission Reductions section 

and in Appendix E of this Staff report. 

Comment #105: Why are you forcing us to use corporations for fuel? 

Response: See response to Comment #84. 

Comment #106: If pellet stove is sole source of heat, what happens?
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 31 

Response: That pellet stove would be exempt from Rule 421 restrictions because it 

is the sole source of heat. The provisions of Rule 421 do not apply to 

wood or other solid fuel burning devices that are the sole source of heat 

in a residence. You may notify the District by completing an exemption 

form available on our website or by contacting the District. These 

exemption forms are consulted when burning is detected by a District 

inspector on a No Burn day. 

Comment #107: What is the definition of an average winter day (referring to the 

emissions inventory)?

Response: The emissions inventory is prepared by CARB using various wood 

burning studies. CARB estimates the average winter day 

emissions by dividing the total burning that occurs during the 

winter months (November through April) by 182.5 days. The 

temporal profile below is used to apportion monthly emissions.

 

Residential Wood Combustion Temporal Profile (%)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

18.2 18.2 12.7 9.1 0 0

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

0 0 0 9.1 14.5 18.2 

Comment #108: Does the rule apply to slash burning?

Response: Rule 421 applies to wood and other solid fuel burning in a wood burning 

device or fires, such as fire pits or bonfires, so it would not typically 

apply to "slash" burning. The traditional definition of "slash" burning 

applies to forests being cut down to establish an agricultural practice. 

To our knowledge, this no longer occurs in California, and certainly not 

in Sacramento County. This type of burning is not permitted 

under Health and Safety Code Section 41800. If you mean "slash" 

burning as weed control in or around fields under cultivation, this is 

regulated by Rule 501, Agricultural Burning. Under that rule, 

the burning would not be allowed on a poor air quality day. 

Comment #109: Is fog an indication of inversion level? 

Response: Not always, fog can be present below the inversion layer when sufficient 

humidity is present. 

Comment #110: Wouldn’t fog wash out the PM?

Response: Fog does remove fine particles from the air through the effects of 

scavenging and deposition processes. A recent study

1

 suggested that 

 

1

 "Examination of the Influence of California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study Fog Episodes on Aerosol 

Formation and Removal" by Collett, Herckes, Chang, and Lee of Colorado State University and Pandis and Fahey of 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 32 

fog may be relatively better at removing some organic carbon emissions 

from wood smoke, and less effective at removing polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, which are toxic compounds emitted from burning wood. 

Fog also may increase some types of secondary organic aerosol fine 

particles when soluble volatile organic compounds are converted to 

nonvolatile products that are released when fog evaporates. In 

addition, fog interactions with inorganic aerosol species have been 

more widely researched. Nighttime aqueous phase reactions 

occur during which the liquid water in fog combines with nitrogen oxide 

compounds to form nitric acid. The nitric acid then reacts with available 

ammonia in the air to form ammonium nitrate particulate aerosols. 

Ammonium nitrate is the largest source of secondary PM2.5. The 

science regarding the competing processes of PM2.5 production and 

removal continues to evolve2. 

Comment #111: Board needs to consider that more people will need to burn wood 

with the way the economy is going to save money.

Response: Burning wood only provides a clear cost savings if wood is obtained 

without any costs associated with cutting and transporting the wood. 

For people who use wood as their primary or supplemental heat source, 

there will be a shift in costs from wood to an alternate source for heat. 

The average cost of heating a home with a wood stove for 30 days is 

$236, while the cost is $153 for electricity and $88 for natural gas. In 

the case of reported cost savings resulting from personal comfort 

choices and/or because supplemental sources heat main living rooms 

while other rooms remain cooler than the home’s alternative heat 

source would provide, resulting in a net reduction in heat delivered. 

Staff cannot rely on anecdotal information to estimate community scale 

impacts of additional No Burn days. 

Heating Device Thermal Efficiency Fuel Cost per mmBtu 

Fireplace 7% $206.23 

Certified Wood Stove 63% $22.91 

Pellet Stove 76% $28.29 

Propane Fireplace 75% $34.24 

Natural Gas Fireplace 75% $14.54 

Electric Fireplace >99% $25.23 

Gas Central Heat & Air 80% $13.63 

Electric Central Heat & Air 100% $25.23 

Propane Central Heat & Air 80% $32.10 

 

Carnegie Mellon University, January 13, 2005. 

2

 "The ammonium nitrate particle equivalent of NOx emissions for wintertime conditions in Central California's San 

Joaquin Valley" by Stockwell, Watson, Robinson, Steiner, and Sylte, Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000) 4711-

4717. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 33 

Note: 

1. Used as primary source of heat 

2. PG&E rates for natural gas (Winter 2009) 

3. SMUD rates for electricity (Winter 2009) 

4. Average cost of cord of wood = $269, average cost of pellets = $344/ton, and Cost of 

propane = $2.31/gallon

 

Comment #112: Have you taken into account other PM sources and are they being 

regulated? Are all sources that contribute to PM being looked at 

for controls?

Response: See response to Comment #35 and comment #61. 

Comment #113: What is an “average winter day”, what is the wind speed etc? 

Doesn’t that come into play in the pie chart? What is a “No Burn 

day” as far as meteorology? 

Response: The emissions inventory is not related to the weather conditions on an 

average winter day. See the discussion of how an average winter day 

inventory was prepared in response to comment #107. Weather is the 

most important factor to consider when making no burn forecasts. 

Weather conditions last season were conducive to high PM 2.5 

concentrations and two extended multi-day pollution episodes occurred 

when an upper-level ridge of high pressure persisted over the West 

Coast resulting in warm aloft temperatures, limiting the vertical mixing of 

pollutants. And at the surface, high pressure over Nevada and the 

Great Basin resulted in calm-to-light winds, limiting the dispersion of 

pollutant. 

Comment #114: For those of us who bought clean devices and live in rural areas, 

why are we included?

Response: Wood smoke and PM are a regional air pollutant and pollution from all 

parts of Sacramento County has an impact. There can also be local 

pockets of dirtier air than what is observed at the monitor. See 

response to Comment #92. 

Comment #115: How many air monitors does the District have and where is each 

located? 

Response: Sacramento County has 11 air monitoring stations, five that monitor 

PM2.5 concentrations. The PM2.5 monitoring stations are located in Elk 

Grove (Elk Grove/Bruceville Road), two locations in downtown 

Sacramento (UC Davis Medical Center (Stockton Blvd) and 13th and T 

streets (T Street)), near Del Paso Manor Elementary School (Del Paso 

Manor), and at Folsom City Hall (Folsom/50 Natoma). In addition, there 

are two monitoring sites that are only run during the winter months to 

monitor PM2.5; one is located at Sloughhouse and the other at Rancho 

Seco. A map of all the monitoring sites can be found below. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 34 

 More detailed information about the air monitoring sites and the 

pollutants monitored can be found in the District’s 2008/2009 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan at the following web site: 

http://www.airquality.org/notices/other/AnnualAMNetworkPlan20082009

.pdf 

 You can also get additional information from CARB at the following Web 

site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/countyselect.php?c_arb_code=34

Comment #116: Do you have an estimate of fireplace & clean burning devices? I 

don’t like to have to pay some corporation to heat my house. 

Doesn’t seem fair because I don’t have a certified device, but I 

could get one but not if I can’t burn it.

Response: Yes, there are estimates of how many wood burning and pellet devices 

are in Sacramento County. Please see the emission reduction section 

of the Staff report or Appendix E of the Staff report for detailed 

calculations. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 35 

Comment #117: Who is your boss? Your boss should be my customers who 

bought pellet stoves. I don’t appreciate workshops in July.

Response: The District is governed by a 14-member Board of Directors composed 

of elected members who oversee the activities of the District. The 

Board is composed of all five Sacramento County Supervisors, four 

members of the Sacramento City Council, one member representing 

each of the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho 

Cordova, and one member representing the Cities of Galt and Isleton. 

A list of the current Board members can be found on our website: 

http://www.airquality.org/bod/directors.shtml

 Workshops were held in July due to circumstances of being unable to 

evaluate the Check Before You Burn program until after the program 

ended last season. Once the analysis was completed, changes to the 

program must be in effect before the following season starting 

November 1, 2009. As such, the workshops were in July due to 

timelines and necessity.

Comment #118: Go after open hearth fireplaces.

Response: See response to Comment #97. 

Comment #119: You can’t tell me a number for how clean my device needs to be 

for it not to be considered a polluter. 

Response: Any device that burns fuel emits some level of air pollution and would 

be considered a polluter. The Stage 1 exemption for certified devices 

and pellet devices recognizes a difference between the emission levels 

of certified device versus a fireplace. Natural gas or propane fueled 

devices are exempt from Rule 421. 

Also, see response to comment #77 and Emission Reduction section in 

the Staff report for a comparison of the emissions levels from various 

devices. 

Comment #120: Last Thanksgiving had a beautiful, clean air but it was a Stage 2 No 

Burn day. Why?

Response: Last year Thanksgiving Day was on the 27th of November. The forecast 

for that day was a Stage 2 No Burn day (42 μg/m3). The observed 

concentration on that day was 30.5 μg/m3

. This was one of the days 

that the Check Before You Burn program prevented from being over the 

health standards due to the reduction in wood burning. 

Comment #121: We bought what you told us to buy, why are you penalizing us? 

Response: See response to Comment #87. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 36 

Comment #122: With regard to visible smoke emissions are you saying I can burn? 

Response: See response to Comment #76. 

Comment #123: Has the Federal health standard changed? 

Response: Yes, the federal PM2.5 health standards were originally set by EPA in 

1997 and updated in 2006. Rule 421 was adopted to help the 

Sacramento region meet the lower 2006 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3. 

Comment #124: How many cogeneration plants are there in Sacramento County? 

Do they burn wood? 

Response: There are four large scale cogeneration plants and two small scale units 

located in Sacramento County. None of the units are permitted to burn 

wood. 

 

Comment #125: If all fireplaces were shutdown, what would the affect be? 

Response: Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 No Burn days prohibit wood burning in an 

open hearth fireplace. Based on Staff estimates of wood burning 

emissions, open hearth fireplaces on average account for about 44% of 

the total emissions from wood smoke however this could vary on a day 

to day basis. On some days this may reduce ambient concentrations 

below the health standard however more reductions would most likely 

be needed. See also response to Comment #99. 

Public Workshop Folsom Community Center

July 22, 2009, 6:30 pm

Response: 

Attendees: KEITH BOND, Valley Stove 

 JUNE LIVINGSTON, BERC 

 DAVE KOPP, Leisure Time Pellet Stoves 

 JARED KOPP, Leisure Time Pellet Stoves 

 KORI THUS, BCSET 

 ROBIN MCDONELL, A.P.S.S. 

 JEANNIE KENDRICK, The Stove Connection 

 WALLACE MORGAN, Sacramento Regional Conversation Corps 

 SIRGUTE MORGAN, UCD Medical Center 

 BOB CLINE, Duraflame 

 JEFF HADDEN, NPC Firewood 

 DARLENE BARNES DEE GARCIA 

 KARIM ABDELLA KARCA SWANSON 

 THOR LUDE GODON AND JOAN HEIDT 

 DICK HARDPER LISA BOURASSA 

 DOUG DAVIS BILL CAMERON 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 37 

 GLEN OTEY ROGER PLUMMER 

 LARRY IVES RICHARD BLODGET 

 DON WEBER BOB PARRICK 

Written comments received from Dave Kopp dated July 22nd

Comment #126: Instead of not allowing any burning on No Burn days the District 

should focus on the “gross polluters” - Open face fireplaces and 

woodstoves that aren’t EPA approved. 

Response: See response to Comment #97. 

Comment #127: Identify the homes with masonry fireplaces by finding out who the 

developers are or by visual identification of chimneys. Send 

letters directly to the mailing addresses. 

Response: Staff estimates that there are 502,095 housing units and 155,649 

fireplaces in Sacramento County. The District does not have the 

resources to pursue this identification process. Staff does send 

information about the CBYB program and clean burning practices to 

residences that receive violations. 

Comment #128: Rule 421 should not apply to pellet stoves and EPA certified wood 

stoves. 

Response: Rule 421 was adopted with an exemption from Stage 1 No Burn days 

for certified and pellet devices. Because of the significant public 

opposition to eliminating the limited exemption for EPA certified and 

pellet stoves operating on Stage 1 No Burn days, Staff is now 

recommending workshop Option A that keeps the limited exemption for 

those devices. 

 See also response to Comment #11. 

Written comments received from Glen Otey dated July 23rd

Comment#129: I was astonished to see the audience at the Folsom workshop was 

dominated by people from the firewood and stove business. They 

seemed determine to put their profits ahead of the health of the 1.4 

million people in this county. The proposed change is a very 

modest step in making our air more breathable and I urge you to 

give full support when this measure reaches the Board of 

Supervisors. I urge you to press ahead with the proposed change, 

although I personally favor Option B as presented in the 

workshop. 

Response: Thank you for your support. 

Written comments received from Anonymous dated July 22nd

Comment #130: Call no burn hours during daylight when people are outside. After 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 38 

7 pm you can burn cleanly. Night time air is thinner so smoke 

dissipates quickly. I have asthma and don’t walk around at night. 

Central heat is drying.

Response: In evening hours when an inversion is present night time air is cooler 

and thicker and traps in suspended particulates. This causes a 

significant health impact on residents and high PM 2.5 concentrations. 

Additionally, the hours when most people are burning are in the early 

morning and evening hours which exacerbates unhealthy air quality at 

those times. Additionally, the air monitors in Sacramento County are 

operating 24 hours a day and have high readings throughout the day on 

bad air quality days. 

Comment #131: Government tells us to conserve gas and fossil fuels – we use 

more gas and electricity not burning. 

Response: Comparing devices on an efficiency basis, electricity and natural gas is 

more efficient at heating than burning wood. In other words, fewer 

natural resources are utilized to produce the same heat output when 

using natural gas or electricity than burning wood. See also response 

to Comment #111 for comparison of efficiency factors of various 

devices. 

Comment #132: Work on cleaning up school bus emissions. 

Response: The State has adopted the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel In-Use 

Regulation that requires all school buses in the state to retrofit the 

buses with particulate traps. This rule requirement will begin 

implementing in 2013 and all buses will need to meet the requirements 

by 2017. More information on this regulation can be found at the CARB 

Web site at: 

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm

 In addition, there is a program to incentivize school districts to retire old 

buses and replace them with new cleaner buses. You can find out 

more about the school bus incentive program either on the District Web 

site at: http//www.airquality.org/mobile/schoolbus/index.shtml or at 

CARB Web site at: 

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/schoolbus/schoolbus.htm

Written comments received from Doug Davis

Comment #133: I’d like to see a mobile phone version of the sparetheair.com Web 

site.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District is working to have a version of the Spare The Air 

Web site available for Blackberry's and other personal digital assistants 

(PDAs) in 2010. 

Comment #134: More enforcement is needed for No Burn days so that people with 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 39 

EPA certified stoves are not caught up in the No Burn days. Open 

burning fireplaces need to be the target. Clean burning stoves 

have no visible emissions. Target the source rather than those 

trying to help. 

Response: Enforcement on Stage 1 no burn days ensures that certified devices do 

not emit visible smoke. Visible smoke can be emitted by EPA certified 

stoves that are not operated properly or use improper fuel. For 

comparison of relative emissions from fireplace and stoves, see 

response to Comment #77. 

Written comments received from Karim Abdella dated July 24th

Comment #135: Based on the information, while I rather not have any more no burn 

days than are currently in place, I believe that Option A should be 

put in place until next years season/analysis. Hopefully the 

Sacramento Valley will, after 3 years, experience more normal 

winter conditions in which Mother Nature may alleviate part of the 

problem. Since wood smoke is not the only element (although it 

appears to be the largest contributor), I suggest the board next 

year present ideas to minimize the problem from all other sources 

as well. 

Response: Thank you for your support. Because of the significant public opposition 

to eliminating the limited exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves 

operating on Stage 1 days, Staff is now recommending workshop 

Option A, that keeps the limited exemption for those devices. See 

response to Comments #6 and #35 about efforts to control other 

sources of particulate. 

Written comments received from Wallace & Sirgute Morgan

Comment #136: We vote for the least intrusive change of Rule 421. Since we can 

not restart Rancho Seco for cheap clean electric power, we plan to 

use a pellet insert stove to replace our elegant wood burning 

insert. 

Response: See response to Comment #135. Please keep in mind that pellet 

stoves are prohibited from burning on all Stage 2 No Burn days 

because any wood burning, including pellet stoves, on very poor air 

quality days contributes to unhealthy air. 

Oral Comments from Folsom Community Center Public Workshop

Comment #137: Dust is transported from China and should be included in our 

emission inventory pie chart. I feel that 50% of South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) PM comes from China. 

What is the effect on Sacramento air quality from dust from China?

Response: Neither CARB nor any District in the state includes PM from China as 

an emission source in their inventory. In January 2009, SCAQMD 

reported that episodic Asian sand dust transport of PM10 and larger 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 40 

diameter particulates has some impact on their air basin however the 

full impact is unknown and they are continue to study what the full 

impact is from air pollution traveling in the jet stream. 

Comment #138: Who makes the call on the forecasting?

Response: See response to Comment #43.

Comment #139: Are there air monitors located in the county? 

Response: See response to Comment #115. 

Comment #140: Is one station causing all to be in nonattainment?

Response: As mentioned earlier in Comment #99, attainment is determined by 

design value at each air quality monitoring station. Attainment of the 

federal health standards is determined using the design value of each 

monitoring station. All monitoring stations that measure PM 2.5 

concentrations must be in attainment for Sacramento to be in 

attainment. The design value for the PM2.5 monitoring stations in the 

District are listed below: 

Monitoring Station Design Value (2005-2007) μg/m3

Del Paso Manor 52.3 

Health Dept Stockton Blvd 40.7 

T Street 43.0 

Folsom 35 

Bruceville 40 

 Note: Folsom and Bruceville are estimations of design value as these two stations are not federal 

reference monitors however they measure PM2.5 concentrations using Beta Attenuation Monitor 

(BAM) 

Comment #141: Is the Folsom monitor located at a valid site location? How was 

the site location chosen?

Response: The federal government sets criteria for siting air monitoring equipment 

in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D: Monitoring network design requirements and 

40 CFR 58, Appendix E: Probe siting requirements. The Folsom 

monitoring site meets these siting criteria. More information on the 

Folsom air monitoring site can be found in the District’s 2008/2009 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan that can be down loaded at: 

http://www.airquality.org/notices/other/AnnualAMNetworkPlan20082009.pdf. 

You can also get additional information from CARB at the following Web 

site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/countyselect.php?c_arb_code=34

Comment #142: What is the elevation of the air monitoring stations? 

Response: The elevations of the PM2.5 air monitoring stations for the District are: 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 41 

 

Monitoring Site Elevation 

(meters above sea 

level) 

Elk Grove/Bruceville Rd 7 

Stockton Blvd 8 

T Street 5 

Del Paso Manor 38 

Folsom/50 Natoma 85 

Sloughhouse Road 70 

Rancho Seco 69 

More detailed information about the air monitoring sites and the pollutants 

monitored can be found in the District’s 2008/2009 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan at the following web site: 

http://www.airquality.org/notices/other/AnnualAMNetworkPlan20082009.pdf

You can also get additional information from CARB, including the 

elevation of the sites, at the following Web site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/countyselect.php?c_arb_code=34

Comment #143: What were the No Burn days of last season? 

Response: Last season had 10 Stage 1 days and 28 Stage 2 days. 

Comment #144: Is there a concern on a push back on compliance?

Response: See response to Comment #6. 

Comment #145: How many violations were issued? 

Response: Last season 211 violations were issued. 

Comment #146: No one complies with the restrictions.

Response: See response to Comment #9 and #10. 

Comment #147: No visible emissions all season will force fireplaces and 

uncertified devices to cleaner devices.

Response: See response to Comment #3. 

Comment #148: Does it only take one air monitoring station to cause a No Burn 

day?

Response: Yes. Air quality forecasts are used to determine a No Burn day. The 

forecast is based on an ambient concentration across the county. If the 

threshold is anticipated to be exceeded at any location then a No Burn 

day is declared. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 42 

Comment #149: Are you reconsidering your position on Duraflame logs? 

Response: No. Staff reported back to our Board of Directors in May 2008 regarding 

the use of manufactured logs such as Duraflame. As was indicated at 

that Board meeting, Staff, EPA, and CARB do not endorse 

manufactured fire logs as a cleaner burning option because: 

1) The voluntary no burn day component was added to discourage 

optional burning when air quality levels are poor. Manufactured logs 

are burned for ambience which is considered an “optional” use. 

Therefore, burning manufactured logs should not be encouraged on 

poor air quality days. 

2) Manufactured logs are more emissive than EPA certified wood 

burning devices and pellet stoves, and 

3) There is no assurance that manufactured logs emit less than wood. 

At the May 2008 Board meeting a motion was passed to allow 

manufactured logs to be included in the “Burn Cleanly” category of the 

Check Before You Burn program. The descriptor to the “Burn Cleanly’ 

category was changed to say, “When the forecast is 25 μg/m3

 or lower, 

the public is allowed to burn and the burning of manufactured firelogs is 

acceptable at this level.” 

Comment #150: Is Duraflame involved in a lawsuit against Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD)? 

Response: Yes, the reference for the lawsuit is Duraflame v. Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District, Superior Court of California, County of Contra 

Costa, Case No. MSN09-0102. For additional information Staff would 

suggest contacting BAAQMD or Duraflame directly. 

Comment #151: Do you know of any person on their death certificate that says died 

from pellet/wood smoke? 

Response: Epidemiological studies have shown an increase in the number of 

premature deaths in people with heart or lung disease on days with 

increased PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 and wood smoke are also 

associated with irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, thrombosis 

(increased blood clotting causing obstruction of blood flow), increased 

coughing and wheezing, aggravated asthma, permanently decreased 

lung function, and reduction in IQ among children exposed in vitro to 

high PM2.5 concentrations, and increased risk of cardiovascular and 

cerebrovascular events in post-menopausal women. For details of 

health impacts of wood smoke please see page 3 of the Staff report. 

Comment #152: What about the wildfires?

Response: Rule 421 only regulates wood or other solid fuel burning in wood 

burning devices during the months of November through February. The 

emission inventory included in the staff report is the inventory for 

anthropogenic sources (emissions come from man-made sources). 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 43 

Natural sources, such as wildfires and the biogenic emissions from 

vegetation, are not included in the anthropogenic inventory. CARB 

does estimate the emissions from these non-anthropogenic sources. 

Comment #153: How many respondents in the phone study?

Response: A representative sample of 400 Sacramento County residents who 

owned a wood burning device either inside or outside their home. 

There is a 95% confidence level that the percentages to each survey 

question lie with a 4.9% margin of error3. 

Comment #154: What do you attribute the difference between the 70% reduction to 

100% compliance?

Response: Compliance is not 100% due to a percentage of people not aware of the 

no burn restrictions and some who choose not to comply. The 70% 

compliance rate was calculated by taking the total respondents of the 

survey, eliminating those who were not aware of wood burning 

restrictions, eliminating those not aware of a Stage 2 No Burn day and 

finally eliminating those who did not comply with all the Stage 2 No Burn 

days. The result was 70% of the respondents who were familiar with 

No Burn restrictions and the Stage 2 No Burn days choose to comply. 

Comment #155: If 50% of people don’t burn and 30% burn infrequently, there 

should not be any pollution.

Response: This highlights how much pollution is being emitted by those choosing 

to burn wood. The amount of pollution from wood burning has been 

corroborated by the Chemical Mass Balance analysis of actual air 

samples and the emission inventory calculations for Sacramento 

County. 

Comment #156: Are there cities that have attained the standard with similar rule?

Response: The San Joaquin Valley attributes their attainment of the federal PM10 

standard largely to the reductions from their mandatory no burn rule. 

They lowered their no burn day thresholds in October 2008 to achieve 

the 2006 PM2.5 health standards. It is too soon to tell whether that 

change will be successful. There are some cities that have been 

successful in achieving the old PM standard of 65 μg/m3 using wood 

burning curtailment as part of the solution. 

Comment #157: I don’t believe motor vehicles contribute less pollution than wood 

burning. Have you done a study on how much pollution is from 

wood burning versus how much pollution is from cars? 

Response: The District did examine how much PM2.5 is coming from Wood 

 

3 Morley Chavero, Dawn and Holobow, Naomi, “2009 Wood Burn Awareness Survey,” May 2009. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 44 

burning and how much PM2.5 is coming from other sources. Wood 

burning is the single largest source of wintertime PM2.5 emissions. 

From the Chemical Mass Balance analysis (see Staff Report page 7) it 

was observed that wood burning is the single largest individual source 

of PM2.5 collected on an air quality monitoring filter in the wintertime. 

Both the emission inventory and the scientific analysis show that wood 

burning is the single largest source of PM2.5 in the wintertime. 

Comment #158: What is the budget of SMAQMD? 

Response: The SMAQMD budget for fiscal year 2009/2010 is $24,217,783. 

Comment #159: What is the difference in No Burn days For Option A & Option B?

Response: For the recommended change of Stage 1 at 31 μg/m3 and Stage 2 at 35 

μg/m3 (which was Option A at the workshop), on average, there would 

be 28 No Burn days per season. For Option B with Stage 1 at 25 μg/m3

and Stage 2 at 30 μg/m3, on average, there would be 44 No Burn days 

per season. The difference in No Burn days is 16. 

Comment #160: Do you have elevations of air monitoring stations on your web 

site?

Response: See response to Comment #142. 

Comment #161: Del Paso Manor also seems to be a high site for ozone? 

Response: Ozone is a summer time pollution issue. Del Paso Manor site violates 

state and federal ozone health standards. In 2008, 18 exceedances of 

the federal ozone standards were recorded. While the majority of 

ozone-forming emissions, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), are produced in the Sacramento metropolitan 

area, prevailing winds usually carry these emissions from cars and 

other sources up into the foothills. 

During this transport time, the VOCs and NOx continuously react with 

the sun’s ultraviolet rays to form ground-level ozone. By the time this 

polluted air reaches the foothills, the majority of the emissions have 

been converted to ozone causing the foothills to frequently have the 

highest ozone levels in the region. 

When the wind is calm, the emissions and ozone are not transported to 

the foothills, but remain closer to Sacramento. However, when the wind 

blows from the north to the south, the highest ozone concentrations 

actually occur south of Sacramento in areas like Sloughhouse or 

Jackson. 

In addition, foothill communities often have higher levels of ozone air 

pollution late at night compared to other sites. This occurs because 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 45 

ozone is depleted at night by chemical reactions with fresh NOx 

emissions from cars and other mobile sources. The foothills have very 

few fresh NOx emissions, and therefore the ozone isn’t “consumed” 

overnight in this area. 

Comment #162: Are there state rules on idling of trucks and buses?

Response: Yes, CARB passes airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) to restrict 

the release of air contaminants. The District is responsible for enforcing 

ATCM requirements. The ATCM that limits school bus idling and idling 

at or near schools to only when necessary for safety or operational 

concerns was effective as of July 16, 2003. For more information on 

the school bus idling ATCM you can see the following Web site at 

CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/sbidling/sbidling.htm 

 The ATCM that limits Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling

was effective February 1, 2005. For more information on the heavyduty vehicle idling emission reduction program you can see the 

following Web site at CARB: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm

Comment #163: Who determines when it is a No Burn day? 

Response: See response to Comment #43. 

Comment #164: When is the No Burn information published?

Response: The District releases the No Burn status for the next day each day 

before noon. The daily No Burn status is therefore known more than 12 

hours before the start of the next day. On rare occasions there are 

same day changes to the No Burn day status. 

Comment #165: Burning is cheaper than paying for gas or electric.

Response: See response to Comment #111.S

Comment #166: I would like to know the violations that were over the health 

standards by site. How many at each site? How many air 

monitoring sites over the health standards constitute a violation?

Response: Attainment of the federal health standards is determined using the 

design value of each monitoring station. A design value is a three-year 

average of the 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations in a year at each 

monitoring site using a Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor. For 

Sacramento County, those sites are T Street, Del Paso Manor, and 

Stockton Boulevard. One station’s design value is sufficient for the 

entire region to be considered in violation of the federal health standard. 

 The chart below shows you how many days for each site were over the 

35 μg/m3 concentration for the three FRM monitoring sites from 2004 -
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 46 

2008. Since attainment is determined on the three year average of the 

yearly 98th percentile, each individual day exceeding the 35 μg/m3

standard is not a violation but contributes to raising the design value 

over the standard which is a violation. Fewer days over the standard 

lower the design value of the each monitor station to be in attainment. 

 

Days over 35 μg/m3

Monitoring Site 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

T Street 10 10 14 19 5 

Del Paso Manor 13 18 19 22 8 

Stockton Blvd 6 11 11 19 7 

Other Written Comments Received

E-mail comment received from Bill Pieper on July 3rd

Comment #167: I bought an EPA approved fireplace insert so I could continue to 

burn as freely as the original Rule 421 would allow, while willingly 

not burning at all on the more severe bad air days. I urge you to 

give the existing rule 3 or 4 more years before scrapping it. 

Response: See responses to Comments #6 and #13. 

 Also, see written response at the end of the comments section to Bill 

Pieper dated August 20, 2009 from Director Susan Peters. 

E-mail comment received from Lawrence J. Hannan & Saundra R. Wolk on July 6th

Comment #168: Has the Air Quality Board considered the use of Duraflame and 

other logs which pollute less than conventional wood? 

Response: See response to Comment #149 

E-mail comment received from Peter Kell on July 6th

Comment #169: What is the proposed impact to those of us who purchased EPA 

Phase II certified emission units in the last few years with the 

support of a SMAQMD voucher? 

Response: The impact to those who have purchased EPA Phase II certified 

emission units will be a small increase in the number of Stage 2 No 

Burn days when all burning is prohibited. In addition, staff has reviewed 

the comments received in response to the proposal presented at the 

workshops. After consideration of these comments, Staff is now 

recommending workshop Option A, that keep the limited exemption for 

certified and pellet stoves/inserts. 

E-mail comment received from Pamela Reed on July 6th and on August 10th

Comment #170: Since 2000, I have replaced the way I heat my home with a wood 

burning stove. We seldom purchase wood, we harvest it legally 

ourselves. I feel PG&E gas is too expensive and Air Quality is not 

bad in Sacramento. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 47 

Response: Sacramento air quality is among the worst in the nation, 6th worst in the 

nation for Ozone and 7th worst for 24-hour Particulate Matter. The 

District is currently does not meet the state PM10 health standards and 

state or federal PM2.5 and ozone health standards. 

Comment #171: The number of No Burn days is not the few you profess. Almost 

all of December 2008 was under No Burn. 

Response: During December 2008 (calendar shown below), there were a total of 4 

Stage 1 (orange boxes) and 5 Stage 2 (red boxes) No Burn days called. 

There was also 11 Burn Cleanly and 12 Burning Discouraged (yellow) 

days last season however those are voluntary days where we ask if you 

do not need to burn to choose not to burn. Voluntary days are not 

considered a No Burn day as the public is allowed to burn and has the 

choice to choose not to. Last season’s weather played a significant 

factor in contributing to more conducive conditions for high PM 

concentrations. On average over the past 5 years of PM concentrations 

there would have been 23 No Burn days per season. Last season there 

was 38 No Burn days however in the 2007-2008 season there was only 

8 No Burn days. 

E-mail comment received from Genie Turner on July 6th

Comment #172: I oppose the proposed new guidelines. I use my fireplace to keep 

my SMUD bill down. 

Response: See response to Comment #165. 

E-mail comment received from Virginia Petree on July 13th

Comment #173: I have an EPA certified insert. I feel any changed in the current 

rules to be overly restrictive and you should support the rule as 

1 2 

8 

3 4 5 

7 9 10 11 

6 

12 13 

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 

28 29 30 31 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 48 

written. We are over regulated as it is. 

Response: See response to Comment #21. 

E-mail comment received from Staci Louie on July 13th

Comment #174: A few years ago we purchased an EPA certified wood stove. If 

people don’t get special “privileges” for doing the right thing, why 

would they do it at all? No one will spend money on an EPA stove 

if there is no benefit. With fewer EPA stoves in homes, even your 

good air days will become bad air days. Please reconsider the 

overhaul to Rule 421 and keep the same policies in effect for EPA 

certified stoves.

Response: Over time with change outs of uncertified devices to newer cleaner 

burning devices there would be a reduction of emissions. This is the 

goal of the District’s financial incentive programs. Fireplaces that 

replace with EPA certified devices may increase emissions due to an 

increase in burning. However, reductions from replacements generally 

occur over a longer time period than needed to meet the federal health 

standards and to improve public health. 

 Staff has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposal 

presented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, 

Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that keep the limited 

exemption for certified and pellet stoves/inserts. Also, see response to 

comment #21 as to why we need to make a change to Rule 421 now. 

E-mail comment received from Don McCormick on July 13th

Comment #175: I object to this latest government intrusion in our region. I think 

the burn ban is doing little to improve air quality while ignoring 

major sources of air pollution by such things as diesel powered 

trains, planes, trucks, and buses. Nor can the district control 

prevailing winds blowing in pollution from outside the district 

boundaries. In addition, the Air District is taking this action in 

isolation from improving air quality regionally and is a mere blip 

on a much larger screen. I also see this as another government 

“job killer” in that more small businesses are being forces out of 

business. It seems to me the board staff is focusing on 

homeowners, knowing that they are not well organized, do not 

have lobby organizations, and are rarely able to defend themselves 

against these senseless regulations. I would like to see the district 

re-focus on the big picture and coordinate regionally. 

Response: See written responses at the end of the comments section to Don 

McCormick dated July 16, 2009 from Larry Greene and August 13, 

2009 from Director Susan Peters. Also see the discussion of 

socioeconomic impacts discussed in this staff report. 

Phone call from Helmer Felton to Director Susan Peters on July 13th
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 49 

Comment #176: He does not want more bans on wood burning for those who use it 

as a primary source of heating their home. Open fires are the worst 

pollutant. He has an insert and it really helps to keep down their 

heating bills. He is on fixed income. 

Response: See written response at the end of the comment section to Mr. Felton 

dated July 21, 2009 from Director Susan Peters. 

Phone calls from Gary Hubble, John Hammond, and Chris Boswell to Director Sandy 

Sheedy on July 13th

Comment #177: All three callers were in opposition to the change.

Response: Comment noted. 

Written comment received from Manual & Peggy Soliz on July 14th

Comment #178: We are protesting the plan to curtail wood burning entirely. We 

use our fireplace to save a lot on our gas bill. 

Response: See response to Comment #165. 

E-mail comment received from Frank Tanforan on July 14th

Comment #179: Is the City of West Sacramento part of the SMAQMD? Is it 

reasonable to regulate when they are unregulated just across the 

river? 

Response: The City of West Sacramento is located in Yolo County which is a part 

of the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. Even without 

restrictions in West Sacramento, last season our CBYB program had a 

very positive impact on air quality. STI is working on a transport 

analysis with results to be detailed in the Board report for the 

September 24, 2009 Board Hearing. 

Comment #180: How many No Burn days were there last season? Was Christmas 

Eve or Christmas day a No Burn day?

Response: Last season there were 38 No Burn days. Neither Christmas Eve nor 

Christmas day was declared a No Burn day. 

Comment #181: How many people in Sacramento County has respiratory problems 

associated with wood burning appliance and how many

households have wood burning devices? 

Response: Numerous studies have been conducted by CARB and academia on the 

adverse health effects of PM and wood smoke. The number of wood 

burning devices in Sacramento County can be found on page 13 of the 

Staff report. 

 Please see written response at end of comments section to Mr. 

Tanforan dated July 22, 2009 from Larry Greene see the July 22nd letter 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 50 

to Mr. Tanforan at the end of the comments section.

Phone calls from 5 anonymous callers to Director Sandy Sheedy from July 14th to July 

21st

Comment #182: All five callers noted opposition to the changes.

Response: Comments noted. 

E-mail comment received from Jerrold & Laura Stubblefield on July 15th

Comment #183: It is unfair to restrict the use of wood burning inserts/pellet stoves 

for the 10% of all fireplace burners (page 13 staff report). Our 

wood insert is the main heating element in our home and we burn 

when it is truly cold, not for ambiance. We have a gas heater, but 

choose to use it sparingly because our family makes conservation 

a family affair. Despite our conservation, our Natural Gas bill 

average is $ 100.00 plus/winter but only $33.00/summer. 

Response: Wood burning inserts have the same emissions as wood stoves; the 

breakdown is to show inserts are less prevalent. Wood inserts and 

stoves (including certified and non-certified) combined emit more 

emissions than fireplaces. 

 Additionally, while certified devices and pellet stoves are designed to 

pollute less than fireplaces on a unit of heat basis and non-certified 

wood stoves, their emissions are about an order of magnitude higher 

than gaseous fueled devices. 

Comparison of Emission Factors 

Technology PM2.5 Emission Factor 

(lb/mmBtu) 

Certified Wood Stove (Catalytic) 1.62 

Certified Wood Stove (Non-Catalytic) 1.16 

Pellet Stove 0.18 

Propane Fireplace 0.01 

Natural Gas Fireplace 0.01 

Gas Heater 0.01 

Electric None 

 In response to your concern on heating costs, please see response to 

comment #111. 

Written comment received from Terri Friedman on July 15th

Comment #184: I only use my fireplace 5-6 times a year on those few occasions 

when it is cold out. I feel that unless all other sources of 

particulate matter are also addressed, then it is unfair to target 

only fireplaces. I would be willing to use an inexpensive 

particulate trap if one is available. I would feel less put upon if all 

other sources of particulates were also banned on these bad air 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 51 

days.

Response: See responses to Comments #6 and #35. 

E-mail comment received from Georgianna and Eric Pfost on July 15th

Comment #185 Many of us have installed high-efficiency fireplace inserts in recent 

years to reduce emissions and to more efficiently heat space in 

our homes. Please clarify what an “EPA-certified appliance” is. 

Response: An EPA-certified appliance refers to any appliance certified by the U.S. 

EPA to meet performance and emissions standards set forth in Title 40 

CFR, Part 60, Subpart AAA. The current standards were established in 

1988 and became fully effective in 1992. 

Comment #186: To further reduce emissions, how about considering a ban or curb 

on gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers? These tools have 

readily available and affordable replacements in the form of rakes, 

brooms, electric blowers and electric or push mowers. 

Response: The District has an annual Mown Down Air Pollution event that provides 

incentives for purchasing electric lawn mowers. The 13th Annual Mow 

Down Event occurred Saturday March, 28, 2009. This year 933 new 

rechargeable mowers were claimed and 34 tons of metal were recycled. 

The cordless rechargeable lawn mower exchange program promotes 

the use of electric lawnmowers, which benefits regional air quality. The 

emissions reduced by this year's event are estimated at 14.4 tons. 

Electric lawn mowers also help reduce storm water pollution and 

promote recycling (grass & metal). The wintertime PM 2.5 emissions of 

lawn mowers is under 0.02 tons per day making a ban on lawn mowers 

a far less effective program at reducing PM 2.5 concentrations than 

solid fuel burning curtailment. 

E-mail comment received from Christine & Dean Boswellon July 15th

Comment #187: Last year we installed an EPA rated wood burning stove in order to 

be able to have a fire and curtail our use of propane during the 

winter months along with ensuring that our burning does not 

impact air quality. Since the rule has only been in force for two 

years it is likely that there is insufficient data to make a 

determination. It is our request that the current four stage rule 

remain in place. 

Response: See written response at end of the comments section to Christine and 

Dean Boswell dated July 22, 2009 from Larry Greene.

E-mail comment received from Michael G. Peterson on July 18th

Comment #188: I am in total agreement with the goals of reducing carbon 

emissions and environmental hazards but not for this draconian 

response to a minimal problem. Wood burning during winter 

months, when few people are outside is something that my family 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 52 

has done for centuries. The weather usually dissipates any 

perceived problems. Issues with air quality need to be 

concentrated with the transportation system where the majority of 

smog is produced. My residence has 3 fireplaces I use to heat to 

save money. I have 2 cords of wood that’s value is $600. I don’t 

mind an occasional ban on burning but to make this permanent 

code violation would devalue my home. 

Response: The weather is a contributor to the buildup of PM during episodes of No 

Burn days. On days when the prevailing weather includes high winds and 

an absence of an inversion layer burning is generally allowed. 

 Staff has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposal 

presented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, 

Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that keep the limited 

exemption for certified and pellet stoves/inserts. The proposed option 

limits burning on an average of 28 days per winter season. The benefits 

of this occasional ban on burning have been demonstrated to provide 

significant reductions of PM and health improvements. Regarding making 

fireplaces a code violation, although some commenters suggested a 

requirement to require fireplace replacements or retrofit, those 

requirements are not being considered at this time. 

E-mail comment received from Carol Anderson on July 18th

Comment #189: Please continue to support the rule as written. 

Response: See response to Comment #6. 

Email comment received from Frank Gwerder on July 20

th

Comment #190: My family has always partially depended on wood burning as a 

source of heating in the winter. I do appreciate the restrictions 

placed in 2007, and I hope you will continue with the same 

regulation. 

Response: See response to Comment #6. 

E-mail comment received from Jay S Wells on July 20th

Comment #191: Residents that have EPA approved inserts or stoves should be 

allowed to use their investment. 

Response: See response to Comment #4. 

Email comment received from John Olsen on July 21st

Comment #192: My wife and I purchased a fireplace insert ten years ago. We are 

elderly and due to the obvious medical problems we have I urge 

the District to refrain from changing the wood burning guidelines 

as they exist. We have found that it is difficult for a gas fired 

furnace with an electric blower to efficiently remove dampness 

from the air within a house. School buses along with diesel 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 53 

contaminating vehicles are the most obvious polluters and there is 

where you should train your energy. 

Response: Wood burning is the single largest source of wintertime PM in 

Sacramento County. Rule 421 is the most cost effective control for 

PM2.5 in the wintertime. Emission reductions are occurring through the 

replacement of school buses and heavy duty vehicles through District 

and state programs however they are not the most significant 

contributor to the wintertime pollution in Sacramento County. See also 

response to Comment #132. 

Phone call from Derrick Kendricks to Sibyl McWalters at the City of Sacramento on July 

29th

Comment #193: He called the council to let them know that they would like to use 

their wood burning stove whenever needed for heat. 

Response: Comment noted. 

E-mail comment received from Michael on July 22nd

Comment #194: Many Sacramento area homes built post World War II only have a 

fireplace and one or possibly two wall heaters. I think there should 

be consideration for exempting homes built 50 years ago similar to 

what we do for smog checking of cars from Stage 1 requirements. 

They would still have to comply with Stage 2. To install central 

heating would cost at least $7000. Is anyone going to compensate 

homeowners for these added costs? 

Response: Fireplaces are an inefficient method of heating and contribute significant 

to the local health impacts. The cost to heat with a fireplace is an order 

of magnitude more expensive than an alternative heating source. See 

response to Comment #165. The District’s wood stove & wood 

fireplace change out incentive program provides incentives with the 

largest incentive amount for replacing a fireplace with a gas 

stove/insert. Additionally, the District has a low income program to 

replace an open hearth fireplace with an insert with no cost to the 

participant. For more information on the low income change out 

program see the following link: 

http://www.airquality.org/woodstove/assistance.shtml

Comment #195: What do you do with the firewood that cannot be burned? Many 

trees you cut down at residences are chopped into firewood. As 

you get more and more trees that can’t be used this way, where do 

you propose you toss this greenery? And what is the fire 

potential? 

Response: Burning is not the only use for wood. Wood that is not burned can be 

used for a number of other purposes such as construction material for 

making furniture, houses artwork, paper, ground cover as wood chips 

and many other things. Forests are managed by US Forest Service and 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 54 

are managed to minimize forest fires. 

Comment #196: Professional firewood sellers remove dead trees in national 

forests. If wood is not removed, it will burn in a forest fire. You 

will have larger forest fires with more pollution. Wood gets burned 

anyway, and it will be summer and not winter. 

Response: See response to Comment #195. 

Comment #197: What is the number of job losses associated with these changes?

Response: The recommended change has a maximum potential impact to 

independent wood dealers of 3 job losses however this assumes that 

100% of all wood purchased in Sacramento County would be 

purchased from independent wood dealers. The reality is some 

percentage less than 100% is purchased from independent wood 

dealers as a significant quantity of wood is purchased from retail stores. 

For more details see the “Socioeconomic Impact” section of the Staff 

report and ERG’s Socioeconomic Report in Appendix G

Comment #198: Make a requirement that any home sold after 1/1/2010 that was 

built before 1960 would have to meet some new requirements for 

their fireplaces.

Response: See response to Comment #3. 

Phone call from Susan Lima to Director Susan Peters during week of July 20th

Comment #199: She voiced concern about expanding the ban on wood burning 

during the winter.

Response: See written response at end of the comments section to Ms. Lima dated 

July 23, 2009 from Director Susan Peters 

E-mail comment received from Gordon Linder on July 26th

Comment #200: The May 2009 report shows that of those with wood burning 

devices, 83% burn in a fireplace and only 7% burn wood or pellet 

stoves. The report then quickly goes on to whether stoves are 

EPA certified not whether or not fireplaces are any kind of 

certified. It seems to me that based on the Staff report the biggest 

culprit to air quality in Sacramento County in the wintertime is 

Fireplaces. Why don’t you go after the biggest offender and leave 

wood stoves and pellet stoves out of the mix altogether. Rule 421 

is restrictive enough as it is; please do not penalize me anymore. 

Response: Staff’s recommended change keeps the exemption for certified wood 

burning stoves and inserts and pellet devices. However, based on 

emission inventory estimates, the biggest percentage of PM2.5 

emissions from wood burning is from uncertified wood stove/insert 

devices. Fireplaces are used less often for heating purposes than for 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 55 

aesthetic purposes. For details of the emission estimates refer to 

Appendix E. See also response to Comment #3. 

E-mail comment received from Alan Douma on July 26th

Comment #201: I am against the proposed changes. The current program is not 

wonderful but at least it recognizes that some stoves are more 

efficient than fireplaces and gives owners of these stoves some 

advantage. It would cost us $15K to upgrade our old inefficient 

HVAC. Please consider how you can provide exceptions that are 

MORE than just “those with only wood source of heating”. Our 

stove allows us to heat a single room where we spend 90% of our 

time instead of 100% of home with HVAC. The additional possible 

reductions in particular matter are inconclusive and certainly 

affected more by other localities who have no such burn 

restrictions.

Response: See responses to Comments #4 and #6. Additionally, STI is working on 

a transport analysis with results to be detailed in the Board report for the 

September 24, 2009 Board Hearing. 

E-mail comment received from Robert & Rosalie Brown on July 22nd

Comment #202: I suffer health issues due to air pollution and when people use 

their fireplaces and wood burning appliances my health 

deteriorates and I have to labor for breath as well as have burning 

eyes, nose, and throat. Where I reside my house fills with smoke 

so badly it leaves a heavy layer of particulates. But the bad air is 

everywhere in Rancho Cordova, so there is no escaping the 

problem. Please take health considerations above profits of 

companies. I encourage the District to make much stricter 

regulations than are being proposed and eliminate fireplaces and 

wood burning appliance use on many more additional days, 

because the problem affects us every day the air is filled with 

smoke. Too many fireplace and appliance users do not obey the 

no burning days and you have no way to enforce compliance for 

all of Sacramento. A total ban would seem a more realistic rule.

Response: Thank you for your support for air quality goals however a total ban on 

wood burning is not feasible due to the dramatic increase in 

enforcement and the possibility of compliance rates decreasing. See 

also response to Comment #3. 

Written comment received from Bill & Debbie Thompson on July 20th

Comment #203: We would not have spent $2,000+ for an approved stove had we 

known about these proposed changes especially since they come 

so soon. People need to be encouraged to help clean the air by 

giving incentives to purchase the approved stoves by being 

allowed to burn when others cannot. Threatening people with 

fines and having neighbor report on neighbor does not seem to be 

the best approach. 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 56 

Response: See response to Comment #4. 

Additional Written Comments

Phone call from Barbara Mendoza to Director Susan Peters on July 29th

Comment #204: She has a wood burning insert and wants to have the ability to 

continue to burn on days that AQMD classifies as a burn day.

Response: See written response at end of the comments section to Ms Mendoza 

dated July 30, 2009 from Director Susan Peters.

E-mail comment received from Steve Holl on August 3rd, 2009

Comment #205: The staff report references a state report that estimates 0.28 cords 

of wood is burned annually, per household. This data is 20 years 

old and represents use in a rural area, where wood is inexpensive. 

It does not provide reasonable estimate of actual use per 

household statewide because costs vary by area and a lower 

portion in urban areas use their fireplace. The staff report 

provides another estimate of annual household use at 0.92 

cords/year. Many recently constructed homes use gas and 

therefore, never burn wood. Staff did not provide data on the 

statistical reliability of an estimate of an annual household use of 

0.92 cords per year.

Response: The 0.92 cords per year is an estimate based on the UCB/CARB 2003 

survey data specific for Sacramento4. This was the usage amount used 

in the 2007 adoption of Rule 421. CARB is in the process of updating 

the emission inventories for residential wood combustion. An updated 

cord wood usage for solid fuel burning devices is part of the CARB 

revised inventory methodology. For fireplaces burning for aesthetics 

wood usage is 0.069 cords/year per fireplace and for heating wood 

usage is 0.656 cords/year per fireplace. The usage factor for heating in 

an a fireplace was evaluated from a review of 377 fireplace source 

tests, 18 local wood use surveys, and several market research studies. 

From all of these analyses, a composite wood-burning rate, for 

fireplaces without inserts being used for heating was determined. The 

usage factor for aesthetics in a fireplace was evaluated from a review of 

18 local wood use surveys, and several market research studies. From 

all of these analyses, a composite wood burning rate, for fireplaces 

without inserts being used for aesthetic purposes, was developed. 

These usage amounts are from Houck et al, A Recommended 

Procedure for Compiling Emission Inventory National, Regional and 

County Level Activity Data for the Residential Wood Combustion 

 

4 Houck, James. 2003 “Results of Wood Burning Survey – Sacramento, San Joaquin, 

and San Francisco Areas, University of California Berkeley/California Air Resources 

Board – GIS Study” 

 
Staff Report 

Rule 421 

Appendix F 

August 27, 2009, Page 57 

Source Category. U.S. EPA Emission Inventory Conference, Denver, 

CO, 2001.

Comment #206: EPA-approved burning devices will reduce emissions and that is 

why responsible citizens purchase them. The Staff fails to 

quantify household burning sources to identify emissions by type 

of wood burning device.

Response: See response to Comment #22. 

Comment #207: The District’s proposed rule changes are not based on science 

without supporting data and assumptions. The voluntary 

restrictions that were employed in 2008 were effective as there was 

a 57% reduction in the number of people burning during Stage 1 

restriction. The Air District did not estimate that change in 

emissions from a Stage 1 or Stage 2 restrictions days. Any 

additional restrictions on household wood burning must include 

an analysis of the effectiveness of EPA-approved devices and how 

that effectiveness reduces emissions. There is no shortage of 

excess fuels in nearby forests or orchards. Rather than encourage 

citizens to use those sources of fuel, which must be disposed of 

anyway, in approved devices, the Air District wants to eliminate all 

burning. 

Response: Voluntary restrictions have been proven to be less effective than the 

mandatory curtailment. Both the 2007 and 2009 Aurora surveys show 

less awareness and less reduction of burning on voluntary days. 

 The emission reduction rate for a Stage 1 day, which is a mandatory No 

Burn day for fireplaces and uncertified wood stoves, was 57% and for 

Stage 2 was 70% (see Staff Report page 6). The estimation of 

emission reductions from a Stage 1 and Stage 2 were calculated in the 

emission calculation (Appendix E) and presented on page 14-15 of the 

Staff report. 
Written Comments Received