APPENDIX F Comments and ResponsesStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 1



## Public Workshop & Stakeholder Comments

Stakeholder Meeting with HPBA July 9 th , 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. Provid ing incentives for changing open hearth fireplaces to gas logs is a waste of fuel.

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

largest source of particulate matter in the wintert ime season. Although certified wood stoves and pellet stoves are cleaner than open wood burning and fireplaces on a per log basis, they gen erally 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. Neverthe less, 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 ga s logs that emit very low levels of particulate matter. It is an improve ment if someone who was burning wood periodically for ambience in an op en hearth fireplace switches to gas logs to provide that ambience. Sta ff does not recommend nor suggest that an individual use gas lo gs as a heating

device. Because of the health benefits associated with a decrease in particulate matter pollution, Staff does not consid er 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 an d they are not complying.

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

complying. The compliance rate to date is excellen t and Staff feels asStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 2

people receive more education about the Check Befor e You Burn program (CBYB) compliance rates could increase. In general, once a person has received education about the CBYB progra m, they understand that if they comply with the rule, then on a bad air quality day they do contribute to the overall particulate p roblem.

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

violations. The District issued 211 violations las t season. People are required to check before they burn and comply with No Burn days. Additionally, Staff sees that people are still upgr ading and there continues to be a number of applicants utilizing vo uchers through our change out program.

Peter Ross

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

being ignored. These newer technologies include a newer catalytic insert that could be used in fireplaces a nd pellet stoves that emit less than 1 g/hr of particulate. I would like to see a remove or retrofit open hearth fireplaces/uncertifi ed stoves/inserts law. Oregon DEQ has something along these lines fo r mandatory removal of uncertified technology upon resale of pr operty.

What about a program where visible smoke is not all owed from September to April? If someone was emitting visibl e smoke on any day they would get a ticket. The program would still be a two stage program with Stage 2 still prohibiting all bu rning 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/pelle t devices with no visible smoke allowed except for startup/shutdow n. In the winter season, there would be no burning in firepla ces. Identify the gross polluters by visible smoke and fine them a significant amount to force them to get a certified/pellet devi ce.

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 15 5,649 fireplaces, 14,310 uncertified wood stoves and 44,184 uncertifi ed wood inserts as

well as tens of thousands of certified devices whic h are not capable (either by design or user operation) of burning wit hout visible smoke on every day, not just on the bad air quality days. T he cost of replacing or retrofitting all fireplaces and uncertified wood st oves/inserts is over $400 million. In addition, this approach would burden o ur limited staffStaff 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 sta ff does not recommend establishing a comprehensive winter time smoke ban at

this time.

Replacement and retrofit requirements on property s ale, like those in place in Oregon and other places, were considered a nd not recommended during the SB656 further study evaluati on in 2006. That requirement is a more expensive control option than Rule 421 estimated to cost $7.48/lb. An additional problem with a r etrofit requirement is

that it has a smaller short term benefit because on ly 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 incl uded in the PM2.5 attainment plan due to be completed in late 2012.

Because of the significant public opposition to eli minating the limited exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves opera ting 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 pel let stoves/inserts on Stage 1 no burn days, which will help us to identif y those in violation

and educate them about the seriousness of wintertim e pollution problems facing Sacramento County. The District co ntinues 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 pre ferred option is A so that you don’t get push back from pe ople 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 k eep the limited exemption for certified and pellet stoves/inserts.

Comment #5: Setting the threshold at 30 μg/m 3 is too low. You should keep a

two-stage or no visible smoke program or keep the c urrent program with no changes. Going down 10 μg/m 3 and going to a single stage program is too much. The District is going to upset those who have changed their devices to certified o r pellet.Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 4

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

retaining a two-stage program and the response to C omment 3 for a discussion of the “no visible smoke” approach. How ever, Staff’s recommended change in thresholds levels to 35 μg/m 3 for Stage 2 and 31 μg/m 3 for Stage 1 is necessary to account for the estimat ed forecast underprediction and the actual Stage 1 benefit of 4 μg/m 3

.

John Crouch

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

rule this year? It is too soon to make changes. I s there a concern that if you go too far, compliance will drop?

Response: The District will be designated as a nona ttainment area for 24-hour PM2.5 health standard of 35 μg/m 3 . Strengthening Rule 421 now by lowering the concentration thresholds will h elp to further reduce PM2.5 concentrations during winter months, potentia lly reducing the need for other, more costly regulatory measures. T he District is required to develop a federally mandated attainment plan in late 2012 or early 2013. If the standards are not achieved b y 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, add itional wood burning emissions reductions must begin in 2010 to provide Sacramento the best chance of avoiding those additi onal regulations. The regulatory controls that could be avoided inclu de controls on: agricultural, non-agricultural, and prescribed burn ing; fugitive dust from bulk materials storage and handling; fugitive dust from paved roads, unpaved roads, and agricultural operations; chippin g and grinding operations and composting operations. In addition, tighter control efficiency standards for PM2.5 control devices (bag houses, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, etc.) may b e considered. A more effective “Check Before You Burn” (CBYB) program ma y 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 nee ded to meet the health standards by the deadlines. Staff has tried to balance health protectiveness with the number of additional days c alled under each option. The most health protective option is Optio n B, but Staff has not recommended that option because of the potential of a significant number of additional No Burn days. Due to this fac tor, there is concern that Option B may result in a decrease in complianc e. Instead, Staff is recommending an adjustment to the current rule to a ccount 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 enforceme nt?Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 5

Response: No, Staff will continue to enforce Rule 4 21 on No Burn days and

respond to complaints as needed.

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

properly. Devices are not designed to burn wet woo d, tires and/or garbage. In some other areas, when the stove is no t 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 R ule 417 prohibits burning tires

and garbage in a solid fuel device. The District do es provide information on proper burning techniques in the wood smoke comp liance course. We also provide a copy of the CARB Wood Burning Han dbook, which provides information about wood burning, including proper wood storage and drying techniques. The CARB Wood Burni ng 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 statis tics on people aware of

burning restrictions within Sacramento County and t he number of people complying is very high. It is unlikely that the compliance rate will increase dramatically in the short term when reduct ions are needed before the PM2.5 attainment plan is due. With cont inued enforcement and education, Staff would expect an increase in co mpliance rates over

time.

Jeannie Kendrick

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

Response: Aurora survey results show that complianc e 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 ai r 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 clean er burning devices

still contribute to PM2.5 concentrations and can ha ve a health impact onStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 6

a community level.

Public Workshop La Sierra Community Center, Carmich ael

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 J uly 15 th

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

fewer days above the federal health standards. How many days is 40% fewer? Please give actual numbers. What 3 met hods 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 b y STI using cluster analysis, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and numerical modeling. Refer to the “Rule 421 Effectiveness Analysis and R esults” section in the Staff report for additional details.

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

the studies. Who did the study? How long did it l ast? 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 c onducted in 2009. Staff

contracted Aurora Research Group (Aurora) and Sonom a TechnologiesStaff 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 Sacr amento County during the 2008/2009 winter season. Aurora’s surve y took approximately three months to complete and included responses from 400 randomly-selected residents who own wood burnin g devices. STI examined data from the past 8 years and took approx imately 5 months. STI is working on a transport analysis with results to be detailed in the Board report for the September 24, 2009 Board Heari ng.

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

category please state the actual proposed to be No Burn (days). An average is misleading.

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

The “Impacts and Benefits from Potential Rule Chang es” section of the Staff report shows the number of days per season ov er the past 5 years, assuming the CBYB program was in effect each of the last 5 years. Depending on weather patterns, the number o f No Burn days

can vary.

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

get all folks (who burn) on board. This will give more time for people to adjust their routines when they are think ing 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 Com ment 6.)

Written comments received from Claudia Moore dated July 14 th

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

Sacramento.

Response: Thank you for your support. However, Staf f also received many comments from residents and industry represent atives who expressed concerns about eliminating the current tw o-stage program (see response to Comment #4). Staff has reviewed t he comments received in response to the proposal presented at t he workshops. After consideration of these comments, Staff is now recom mending workshop Option A, that maintains the limited exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves/inserts. The Recommended Option is s lightly 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 J uly 16 th

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 en ergy sources. Why not keep the present rule in effect for another year and get better information about program effectiveness. Yo u may find atStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 8

that time that more people are complying, eliminati ng the need for more restrictive regulations.

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

significant; however, additional reductions are nee ded to meet the health standards by the deadlines. There are still too many days that

are over the federal health standards. Additionall y, noncertified wood burning devices (pre-1992 units) are the largest co ntributor to

residential wood combustion emissions.

See also response to Comment #6.

Written comments received from Bill Blackburn dated July 16 th

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

much as practical, to PM2.5 and other toxic constit uents 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 org anic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are precurso rs to aerosol forms of PM2.5, and toxic and/or cancer-causing sub stances, such as benzene, formaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene, a polycyc lic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). In addition, wood smoke is a co mponent of black carbon. See also response to Comment #16.

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

neighbors frequently burn in the winter and I know of no EPA type fireplaces in my area. As a result, the area is ro utinely 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 woo d in an uncontrolled environment is literally “cave man” te chnology and must be sharply limited in major metropolitan areas like

Sacramento.

Response: Thank you for your support of Rule 421. A s 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 (namel y CO2 and

carbon black) contribute to global climate change a nd continuing to ignore this imminent problem puts us all at peri l. I urge you to continue to strengthen Rule 421 and create a health ier

environment for us all.

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

pollutant that is emitted when burning wood. This r ule is directed at improving the regional benefits from reducing parti culate matter, butStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 9

reduction in wood burning from increasing the numbe r of days would also reduce this global warming pollutant. See also response to
Comment 16.

Written comments received from R Middleton dated Ju ly 23 rd

Comment #21: Why not let the current 421 rule run for a couple m ore 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 Ju ly 14 th

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 a ir in this region, when large utilities are not willing (referring to the 7/15/09 Sacramento Bee article on utilities backing away fr om high-voltage transmission line).

Response: See response to Comment #84.

Oral Comments from La Sierra Community Center Publi c Workshop

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

stove clean enough? Why not?

Response: Wood stoves certified in Canada are teste d using the Canadian

Standard Association procedures. The Canadian stan dards are virtually identical to the EPA standards; however, in order t o qualify for limited exemption from Rule 421 Stage 1 No Burn days, the d evice 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 fu el burning. Yolo County has a voluntary No Burn program and the City of Davis hasStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 10

been looking at adopting a mandatory curtailment pr ogram. Placer County requires replacement of uncertified stoves o n 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 Pl acer and Yolo

Counties will be included in the PM2.5 nonattainmen t area and an assessment of the needed controls will be done by e ach District during the plan development required by U.S. EPA. The res idents within Sacramento County are the most significant contribu tor to the wood

smoke emissions in the District.

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

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 24 th Board hearing and will be included in the Board package for the r ule 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 p ublic health, in this case

reducing the health risks from high levels of parti culates in the air. There are many incentive strategies and regulations already in place to reduce particulate pollution problems, including re ducing pollution from cars, trucks, buses, construction equipment, indust rial and commercial boilers and power plants. Because fireplaces and w ood stoves contribute 54% of directly emitted particulates, th e 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 re commends adjusting this rule as the most effective way to achieve addi tional 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 th e 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 certifica tion was not effective until 1992 and significant improvements have been m ade to solid fuel burning devices since the certification was effecti ve.

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

being emitted from devices. Everyone should have t he opportunity to burn with no visible smoke. Why not let very cleanStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 11

devices burn?

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

wood burning devices, however, even without smoke, particulates are still being emitted. Staff’s recommended option ma intains the two-stage mandatory curtailment, allowing certified and pelle t 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 wo uld be adding to the unhealthy levels of particulates.

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

Nevada County is taking the action of requiring peo ple 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 original ly selected to limit wood

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

Rule 421 evaluation considered alternative threshol ds that used new

information about the actual benefits from the curr ent Rule 421, actual air quality forecast accuracy, and thresholds used in other districts. Staff's recommendation adjusts the thresholds downw ard slightly to address forecast underpredictions, and the actual b enefits achieved by the Stage 1 no burn requirements, to further protec t public health.

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

dealing with health effects and how are they determ ined?

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

have been conducted by academic researchers and pub lished in scientific and medical publications. We rely on the se 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 s heet on CARB's

information can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/pm_ozone-f s.pdf

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

ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/board/books/2009/012209 /09-1-1pres.pdf http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/healthup/cita tions01-22.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/7/257/2422/01jan200618 00/edocket.acces s.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-8477.pdf

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

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

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Distr ict'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 part iculate precursors from cars, trucks, trains, agricultural operations, internal combustion engines, boilers and painting operations. The Distr ict 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 con sider whether the existing strategies, along with Rule 421, are suffi cient to meet federal health standards. If not, then the District will ha ve to consider the adoption of more costly measures to reduce PM2.5 em issions, such as requiring replacement or retrofit of fireplaces and wood stoves on resale of homes, controls on: agricultural, non-agricultur al, and prescribed burning; fugitive dust from bulk materials storage and handling; fugitive dust from paved roads, unpaved roads, and agricultu ral operations; chipping and grinding operations and composting ope rations. In addition, tighter control efficiency standards for PM2.5 control devices (baghouses, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitat ors, etc.) may be

considered. A more effective “Check Before You Bur n” (CBYB) program will reduce the need for some of these addi tional measures.

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

are sources within the District with permit conditi ons that prevent the equipment from being operated on poor air quality d ays. 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 sing le stage

threshold proposed in 2007?

Response: Rule 421 was originally proposed in 2007a s a single stage program withStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 13

a 35 μg/m 3 threshold. Currently, the single stage threshold proposed is 30 μg/m 3 , consistent with SJVUAPCD Rule 4901. Note that th is 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 ille gal unless exempt.

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

two to let public adjust and improve? Also, the Di strict should do additional marketing.

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

District does marketing as our budget allows and co ntinues 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 achi eve clean air goals by leading the

region in protecting public health and the environm ent through innovative and effective programs, dedicated staff, community involvement, and public education. Rule 421 is spe cifically intended to help meet state and federal particulate matter heal th standards, but contributes to other health objectives such as redu cing toxic pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing walkab ility 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. Goin g from 23 days to 31 days is about once every four days that I wil l 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 oft en 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 op tion (previously workshop Option A) retains the limited provision th at allows certified wood stoves and pellet stoves to be used on days wi th 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 fi replaces. Four

more days of avoided exceedances isn’t enough to ju stify the increase in no burn days.

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

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

recommendation would have resulted in 8 additional No Burn days). Pollution levels are expected to decline by up to 2 3 percent on each of the 5, but based on historic data an estimated thre e additional days

over the federal health standards will be avoided. In general, on the other days a 23% improvement in air quality is stil l not sufficient to meet federal health standards. However, the actual numbe r of days avoided may be higher due to future benefits from other str ategies being implemented to reduce particulate pollution. The Bo ard of Directors will consider whether these public health benefits and p otential avoided regulations are sufficient to outweigh concerns ove r 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 o nly 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 sourc e on No Burn days. Other options for heating your home include natural gas, propane, or electric heaters. The District has financial incen tives available to replace existing dirty devices with a cleaner burni ng 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 th e

measurements?

Response: Forecasting is contracted to Sonoma Techn ology, Inc. 

### Sonoma

Technology, Inc. (STI) is a firm providing air qual ity and meteorological research and services. STI has perf ormed air quality forecasting continuously since 1996 and has intimate knowledge of the meteorological conditions that inf luence both

ozone and PM 2.5 

### . 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, S TI developed and gave regional courses on PM 2.5 

### forecasting to assist over 25 cities throughout the United States transition from ozone- only forecasting to both PM 2.5 

### and ozone forecasting. As part of this transition project, STI issued daily PM 2.5 

### forecasts for about 15

cities over the course of a winter season and devel oped statistical forecasting tools for 22 cities. STI also forecast ed air quality forStaff 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 PM 2.5 

### forecasts for several cities throughout the United States. STI designed, developed, and ta ught courses on air quality forecasting and forecast tool develo pment at EPA’s National Air Quality Forecasting conferences for se veral years and authored EPA’s guidance document on ozone and P M 2.5 

### forecasting. The forecast data is used by AQMD Staff to determin e and announce the next day Check Before You Burn cat egory 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 wer e not called. Therefore, when a No Burn day is called, the actual concentration that occurs on that day should be lower than the forecas t, which, upon first impression, makes the forecast look inaccurate. To assess the forecast accuracy, it is necessary to account for the averag e benefit of Stage 1 and Stage 2 days before making the comparison betwe en forecast and observed concentrations. Taking this factor into a ccount, 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 requirem ents on wood

burning. I’m concerned about my kids and my neighb or’s burn 7 days a week.

Response: Thank you for your support. Although Staf f is not recommending the most health protective of the opti ons proposed, the recommended option will significantly strengthen th e 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 e missions 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 t he process of updating the RWC emission inventories for all the a ir quality districts in California. Staff has presented RWC emission inven tory 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 pr ohibits the burning of garbage, treated wood, plastic, rubber, waste petro leum products, paints, solvents, coal, glossy/colored paper, parti cle board or other material not intended by a manufacturer for use as fuel in a solid fuelStaff 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 a nd may be used anytime.

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

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

implementing this rule. The District is mandated t o reduce particulate pollution to achieve the federal health standard. The District is required to submit a plan to show how the standard will be a chieved. If no plan

is submitted that demonstrates the federal health s tandards will be met by the required deadline, then the federal governme nt 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 B oard of Directors is composed of all five Sacramento County Supervisors, four members of the Sacramento City Council, one member representin g each of the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Ran cho Cordova, and one member representing the Cities of Galt and Isle ton. 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 e xpected to be conducted on

September 24, 2009 at 9:30 am at the Board of Super visors 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 Jul y 15 th

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

source for warmth and keeping utilities down. EPA stoves emit limited pollution and meet current EPA standards; t herefore these

devices should not be eliminated as heat sources in the currentStaff 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 tr iggering those No Burn days to help achieve federal health standards. However, residents may qualify for a Hardship Waiver pursuant to Secti on 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 Distri ct.

Written comments received from Edward Suarez dated July 15 th

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

fire burning pollution?

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

that identify the source of the emissions. Such an analysis was performed on particulate samples collected in Sacra mento County. For more information please see page 14 of this Staff r eport.

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

Response: Other than the newspaper, the Check Befor e 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 (1-8 77-NO-BURN-5), consulting our website, and listening to radio or TV weather broadcasts. You can also sign up for an E-mail ale rt sent daily.

The CBYB Web site is:

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

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

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

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

and how do you know what the moisture content is?

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

the wood has a moisture content of 20 percent or le ss by weight. Staff recommends the use of only seasoned or dry wood. W hen buying

wood advertised as “seasoned” CARB recommends looki ng 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 o n the Spare

The Air Web site at: http://www.sparetheair.com/publications/wood_burnin g_handbook.pdfStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 18

Comment #54: Are there any reports from local hospitals on resid ents 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 Particula te Matter see the “Health Impacts” section of this Staff report.

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

Response: The federal 24-hour PM2.5 health standard is 35 μg/m 3 and the annual

average standard is 15 μg/m 3 . California's annual health standard for PM2.5 is 12 μg/m 3 . California does not have a 24 hour standard for PM2.5, but they do have a 24 hour PM10 standard of 50 μg/m 3 . There are no separate local standards. There are no city health standards for particulate matter pollution.

Written comments received from Peter Ross dated Jul y 15 th

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

appliances and open fireplaces to upgrade to cleane r 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 a ir cleaner

even on days we meet attainment and would most like ly 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 ch ildren, my family

asks you to pass the amendment to Rule 421 and that you continue your work to establish standards, which wi ll require chimneys be smoke-free, 365 days per year, through the creation of mandates which specify clean-burning fireplace p roducts and technologies such as natural gas. We live in midto wn 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 qualit y goals. Although Staff is not

recommending the most health protective of the opti ons proposed, the recommended option will significantly strengthen th e rule and improve its effectiveness Please see response to Comment #1 6.Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 19

Some comments have suggested a visible smoke optio n that would

require all devices to emit no visible smoke, 365 d ays 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 ai r quality. Staff is not recommending that at this time. Please see respons e to Comment #3.

Oral Comments from Tsakopoulos Library Galleria Pub lic Workshop

Comment #59: Are Board hearings open to the public and can I mak e 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 cont ribute to the

PM problem? Are those businesses regulated?

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

various District rules that limit the release of ai r contaminants. These facilities include a variety of business types such as industrial and manufacturing plants, gas stations, paint shops, dr y cleaners, power plants and boilers.

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

exemption. People would have no encouragement to u pgrade a more polluting device. I would like to see a no vi sible smoke rule. There will be cleaner technology available in the f uture 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 Comm ent #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” appro ach?

Response: This option may encourage additional sale s 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 ch anging the incentive program to convert every fireplace to a c leaner burning

device.Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 20

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

discussion of mandated retrofit requirements. Plea se note that our existing incentive programs encourage home owners i n Sacramento County to replace older, more polluting units with cleaner burning devices. These programs currently do not incentivi ze 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 a nd revisit incentive program elements as appropriate.

Comment #65: I understand that PM is carbon, and gets deep in t he 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 qualit y goals. Please see response to

Comment #16.

Comment #66: Don’t eliminate recognizing certified devices/pelle t 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 heal th standards?

What are the additional measures if exceedances sti ll exist? If we don’t make the health standard deadline what happen s?

Response: A total of 20 days exceeding the health s tandards 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 stan dard, 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 atta inment, we face sanctions. The plan must demonstrate that we will or have adopted

sufficient additional control measures to attain “a s 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 t o the PM2.5 emissions in

Sacramento County. Although certified devices emit less than their noncertified counterparts, they still emit pollutio n. There are also enough certified devices in the county that, in agg regate, 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 fire places first and

then re-evaluate the program effectiveness? Why pe nalize 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 t hree-pronged approach to reducing emissions from wood burning: providing financial incentives, Rule 417 which regulates new wood burning installat ions, and Rule 421 curtailment on poor air quality days that reduces b urning 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 dat ed July 16 th

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 hea t. 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 go al is little or no smoke. The AQMD should educate the public on pr oper burning. Healthy air is important. Diesel vehicle s are exempt from smog check. I don’t want to see smoke, so I’m in f avor of devices that are low-emitting. Keep the current Rule 421. The AQMD needs to give exemptions to citizens with EPA appro ved stoves.

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

reductions in PM concentrations due to Rule 421 hav e been significant; however, additional reductions are needed to meet t he health standards by the deadlines. Staff is proposing changes that will strengthen RuleStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 22

421 and make it more effective. Staff has changed t he recommended option, as noted in the response to Comment #4.

Heavy duty trucks and buses have been subject to in spection 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 vehic les to periodic self inspection and idling regulations. More informatio n 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 in corporated into the

Smog Check Program beginning January 2010. More in formation on this requirement is available at the following link : http://www.bar.ca.gov/80_BARResources/05_Legislativ e/RegulatoryActi ons/FAQs%20for%20Diesels%201-8-09_GC.pdf

Written comments received from David Kelly dated Ju ly 14 th and 16 th

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

then it only makes sense to incorporate that guidel ine in your rule to apply to all wood burning devices that do not em it visible smoke. EPA has spent millions in developing a new wood burning fireplace standard to be used by the states. You s hould make reference to it in your rules.

Has the District considered the no visible smoke ap proach that other districts have used (Ringleman chart)? My co mpany 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 4 21 prohibits operation of EPA certified devices and pellet stove s 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 devi ces, the District

incentive programs currently do not incentivize cat alyst retrofits for fireplaces because catalysts generally fail in thre e to five years with little incentive and no requirement for owner/operators to replace the catalyst.

Rule 417 governs the installation of new wood burn ing appliances and

is not open for revisions at this time. The numbers show the significant majority of fireplace owners use their fireplace fo r aesthetic reasons. Because of the significance of our air quality prob lems and the large contribution from wood burning, Rule 417 prohibits the installation of new wood burning fireplaces. To allow installation of even lowerStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 23

emitting fireplaces would increase emissions when c ompared to the current Rule 417. The EPA emissions standards prog ram for fireplaces is voluntary, and even if a fireplace is voluntaril y 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 Ju ly 21 st

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 pu blic’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 curr ently prohibited on the same

days as Rule 421 prohibits burning. In addition, th ere is a smoke management program to limit the amount of agricultu ral burning that occurs on burn days to minimize impacts.

Comment #76: Enforcement is based on visible smoke? So if you a re 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 do wn, then

shouldn’t that be good?

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

uncertified wood stove. However, a common mispercep tion is that EPA certified and pellet stoves are "better" than firep laces. Looking at annual emissions, an individual EPA certified stove and so me pellet stoves emit more than an individual fireplace because they generally burn more fuel for a longer duration. Currently estimate s for an average winter day show the total emissions from fireplaces are less than the total emissions from all EPA certified and pellet s toves. While certified devices and pellet stoves are designed to pollute l ess than fireplaces and non-certified wood stoves, their emissions are about an order ofStaff 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 elect ricity is not fair

when there are technologies to reduce PM emissions dramatically and might achieve goals.

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

pollution from gaseous fueled devices. See respons e to Comment #77.

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

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

February. Usually, there are more No Burn days in December and January; but will vary year to year depending on we ather patterns.

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

be considered? After workshops, will the options c hange?

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

recommendation or any of the other options, or dire ct staff to come back at a subsequent meeting with another alternative. Staff has considered

the oral and written comments received and the reco mmend option has been changed. The recommended option, previously r eferred to as Option A at the workshops, is to maintain the two-s tage program but reduce the concentration thresholds for prohibiting burning to 31 μg/m 3
for Stage 1 and 35 μg/m 3 for Stage 2. Please see response to Comment

#4.

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

addition to Stage 1 reductions? The emission reduc tion rates would indicate that Stage 1 is more effective? Our industry has spent millions of dollars to develop cleaner burnin g devices. We hope you’ll consider an approach that doesn’t force to natural gas

.

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

additive. The estimated overall emission reduction s are 43% for Stage 1 days and 70% for Stage 2 days. Therefore, emissi on reductions areStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 25

higher on Stage 2 days. The emission reduction per centages take into account the compliance rates from the Aurora teleph one 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 μ g/m 3 and the Stage 2 benefit is 12 μg/m 3 . The benefits are not cumulative, meaning the additional benefit on a Stage 2 day versus a Stage 1 day is 8 μg/m 3

.

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 J uly 22 nd

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

pellet stove how can you possibly make a reasonable rule regarding the burning of solid fuels?

Response: Pellet stoves are easily distinguished fr om fireplaces.

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

burning wood stoves when this year they might not b e allowed to

use them?

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

Under the Recommended Option, which maintains the t wo-stage program, EPA certified devices and pellet stoves wi ll be allowed to burn on a Stage 1 day. On a Stage 2 day, all burning wi ll be prohibited. This is the same program that was in place last year – t he difference is that we are proposing small decreases in thresholds that are used to declare No Burn days. Based on analysis of air quality dat a from prior years, Staff does not expect that wood burning will be res tricted 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 repla ce or modify fireplaces with natural gas or propane firelogs or fireplace i nserts, 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 fi replaces with EPAStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 26

certified wood inserts because the emissions from t he EPA certified devices are generally higher than fireplaces becaus e they are used more frequently and for a longer duration to provid e heat that would otherwise have been provided using electricity or g aseous 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 natura l gas I would pay for a rule that took away my competition.

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

clean wood burning devices. Coal is a solid fuel, a nd would be prohibited from being burned on a no burn day. Howe ver, we are not aware of any data that suggests coal or oil is burn ed in fireplaces or stoves in Sacramento County. Additionally, the ind ustries that supply fuels are heavily regulated to curtail the emission s from power plants and from obtaining these fuels.

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

believe a person will sit in a cold house on a no b urn day if their only source of heat is wood?

Response: The provisions of Rule 421 do not apply t o 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 exemp tion forms are consulted when burning is detected by a District in spector 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 works hops and several briefings

with affected industries. The District is mandated to reduce the amount of fine particulates in the air. Staff has balance d health protectiveness with the potential number of additional days that w ould be declared No Burn days under each option. See response to Comme nt #4.

Written comments received from Francie Axtell dated July 23 rd

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

open fireplaces to replace with an EPA certified de vice. 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 a re now upset that Stage 1 day is proposed to no longer exist. W e are being punished for doing what Air Quality Management Dist rict asked us

to do.Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 27

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

fireplace with an EPA certified device. Participan ts are advised that the incentive program does not exempt them from mandato ry burning restrictions unless natural gas, propane or electri c 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 s urcharge 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 wi th 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 emiss ions from rocket testing in lieu of providing other mitigatin g emission reductions. We have never considered establishing a fee on wood stoves. Rule 421 currently restricts burning in uncertified stov es and fireplaces first, on Stage 1 days, and then if the air quality gets w orse, it restricts EPA certified and pellet stoves as well.

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

other districts doing?

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

encompass many counties however each air district o nly has authority within their geographical region. San Joaquin Vall ey Unified APCD, Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD have already pas sed wood burning restrictions. Staff is also aware of other air districts that are in preliminary discussions of wood burning restriction s.

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 clou d, but the

Emissions Inventory pie chart shows wood at 49% and trucks at 8%, why? Response: The air quality problems in our county ar e different in the summer and

winter seasons. Poor air quality in the summer sea son is due to high concentrations of ground-level ozone. Mobile sourc es such as trucks, buses, passenger cars, and construction equipment e mit 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 byStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 28

high concentrations of particulate matter (PM). Bo th types of pollution have serious health consequences. The graph below illustrates the average monthly concentration of fine PM through ou t the year and as can be seen, the PM levels are the highest during t he winter months. The largest single source of PM emissions in the wi nter months comes from wood burning, and the proposed rule is the mos t effective control

measure to reduce PM concentrations.

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

smoke coming down the hill?

Response: The monitors cannot identify the geograph ic origin of particles.

However, Staff contracted Sonoma Technologies to us e weather and emissions information to quantify the impact of smo ke from Sacramento versus surrounding counties. The results of this st udy 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 h ealth standards have been

compiled. The economic impact is $170 billion annu ally. Staff is not

aware of data that estimates the total statewide co sts 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 Distric t does not currently regulate or sell carbon credits. The District’s go al with this rule is to reduce regional health impacts from particulate mat ter. 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 num ber of days

called versus what shouldn’t have been and vice ver sa?

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

concentration that would occur if a No Burn day wer e not called. Therefore, when a No Burn day is called, the actual concentration that occurs on that day should be lower than the forecas t, which, upon first impression, makes the forecast look inaccurate. To assess the forecast accuracy, it is necessary to account for the averag e benefit of Stage 1 and Stage 2 days before making the comparison betwe en forecast and observed concentrations. Taking this factor into a ccount, 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 a re 35 μg/m 3 for 24-hour

PM2.5 and 15 μg/m 3 for annual average PM2.5. California has an annual PM2.5 health standard of 12 μg/m 3

.

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

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

three-pronged approach to reducing emissions from w ood burning: providing financial incentives, regulating new wood burning installations, and reducing burning from existing fireplaces and w ood stoves. The program to provide financial incentives to remove o r replace existing fireplaces and dirty wood stoves was established in June 2006. On October 26, 2006 the Board of Directors approved Ru le 417 to prohibit installing new fireplaces and dirty wood burning de vices. The last prong was adopted on October 25, 2007, as Rule 421, Manda tory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning. R esidents and businesses that take advantage of the financial inc entives to install gaseous fuel burning devices are exempt from our wo od burning regulations.

The District has addressed the installation of any new open hearth fireplaces by adopting Rule 417. Rule 417 prohibit s selling, supplying, installation or transferring a new wood burning app liance unless it is an EPA Phase II certified pellet-fueled, masonry heate r, 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 standard s is determined using the

design value (three-year average of the 98 th percentile PM2.5 concentrations). The Design Value for the District over the past three years is 52 μg/m 3 (for more information see page 5 of the Staff Repor t). To meet the federal health standard the Design Valu e must be below 35 μg/m 3 , 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 c rude assumption of completely eliminating wood smoke and assuming a 26 % reduction of the design value, the District would need additiona l reductions to meet

the health standard. A burn ban alone will not deli ver clean air but RuleStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 30

421 combined with other federal, state, and local s trategies and regulations may be sufficient. The estimated reduct ion from these other strategies and regulations is 4 μg/m 3 . A more refined analysis will be conducted over the next three years to determine wh ether additional

reductions are needed.

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

stoves alone and go after open face fireplaces

.

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

opposition to the original staff recommendation, st aff is now recommending a slightly less health protective alte rnative, 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 sta rt with the incentive program participants

.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion.

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

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

quality days. Agricultural burning is prohibited wh en air quality levels are forecast to exceed state or federal air quality sta ndards.

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% reductio n in wood

smoke?

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

smoke is only one part of the PM2.5 pollution probl em on any given winter day. The 23% air quality benefit reflects t he reduction in ambient

PM2.5 concentration.

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

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 fue l?

Response: See response to Comment #84.

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

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 31

Response: That pellet stove would be exempt from Ru le 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 t he sole source of heat in a residence. You may notify the District by com pleting an exemption form available on our website or by contacting the District. These exemption forms are consulted when burning is detec ted by a District inspector on a No Burn day.

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

emissions inventory)?

Response: The emissions inventory is prepared by CA RB 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 day s. 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 definiti on of "slash" burning applies to forests being cut down to establish an a gricultural practice. To our knowledge, this no longer occurs in Californ ia, 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 c ultivation, this is regulated by Rule 501, Agricultural Burning. Under that rule, the burning would not be allowed on a poor air qual ity 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 a ir through the effects of

scavenging and deposition processes. A recent stud y 1 suggested that

1 "Examination of the Influence of California Region al Particulate Air Quality Study Fog Episodes on Ae rosol Formation and Removal" by Collett, Herckes, Chang, and Lee of Colorado State University and Pandis and Fahey ofStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 32

fog may be relatively better at removing some organ ic carbon emissions from wood smoke, and less effective at removing pol ycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are toxic compounds emitted fro m burning wood. Fog also may increase some types of secondary organ ic aerosol fine particles when soluble volatile organic compounds a re converted to nonvolatile products that are released when fog eva porates. In addition, fog interactions with inorganic aerosol s pecies have been more widely researched. Nighttime aqueous phase re actions occur during which the liquid water in fog combines with nitrogen oxide compounds to form nitric acid. The nitric acid the n reacts with available ammonia in the air to form ammonium nitrate particu late 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 evolve 2

.

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 trans porting the wood. For people who use wood as their primary or supplem ental heat source,

there will be a shift in costs from wood to an alte rnate source for heat. The average cost of heating a home with a wood stov e for 30 days is $236, while the cost is $153 for electricity and $8 8 for natural gas. In the case of reported cost savings resulting from pe rsonal comfort choices and/or because supplemental sources heat ma in living rooms

while other rooms remain cooler than the home’s alt ernative heat source would provide, resulting in a net reduction in heat delivered. Staff cannot rely on anecdotal information to estim ate community scale impacts of additional No Burn days.

Heating Device Thermal Efficiency Fuel Cost per mmB tu

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 e missions for wintertime conditions in Central Calif ornia's San Joaquin Valley" by Stockwell, Watson, Robinson, Ste iner, 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 co st of pellets = $344/ton, and Cost of propane = $2.31/gallon

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

regulated? Are all sources that contribute to PM b eing 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 a verage winter day inventory was prepared in response to comment #107. Weather is the most important factor to consider when making no bu rn forecasts.

Weather conditions last season were conducive to hi gh PM 2.5 concentrations and two extended multi-day pollution episodes occurred when an upper-level ridge of high pressure persiste d over the West Coast resulting in warm aloft temperatures, limitin g the vertical mixing of pollutants. And at the surface, high pressure over Nevada and the Great Basin resulted in calm-to-light winds, limiti ng 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 poll utant and pollution from all

parts of Sacramento County has an impact. There ca n 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 wh ere is each

located?

Response: Sacramento County has 11 air monitoring s tations, 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 13 th 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 t he winter months to monitor PM2.5; one is located at Sloughhouse and th e other at Rancho Seco. A map of all the monitoring sites can be fou nd 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/AnnualAMNet workPlan20082009 .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 burni ng 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 repo rt 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 customer s who

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

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

of elected members who oversee the activities of th e District. The Board is composed of all five Sacramento County Sup ervisors, four members of the Sacramento City Council, one member representing each of the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Fo lsom 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 o f being unable to

evaluate the Check Before You Burn program until af ter the program ended last season. Once the analysis was completed , changes to the program must be in effect before the following seas on starting November 1, 2009. As such, the workshops were in J uly 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 lev el of air pollution and would

be considered a polluter. The Stage 1 exemption fo r certified devices and pellet devices recognizes a difference between the emission levels of certified device versus a fireplace. Natural ga s or propane fueled devices are exempt from Rule 421.

Also, see response to comment #77 and Emission Redu ction 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 27 th of November. The forecast

for that day was a Stage 2 No Burn day (42 μg/m 3 ). The observed concentration on that day was 30.5 μg/m 3 . This was one of the days that the Check Before You Burn program prevented fr om being over the

health standards due to the reduction in wood burni ng.

Comment #121: We bought what you told us to buy, why are you pen alizing 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 sayi ng 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 w ere 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 stand ard of 35 μg/m 3

.

Comment #124: How many cogeneration plants are there in Sacramen to 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 ar e permitted to burn

wood.

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

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

open hearth fireplace. Based on Staff estimates of wood burning emissions, open hearth fireplaces on average accoun t for about 44% of

the total emissions from wood smoke however this co uld vary on a day to day basis. On some days this may reduce ambient concentrations

below the health standard however more reductions w ould 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 C orps 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 CAMERONStaff 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 22 nd

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

should focus on the “gross polluters” - Open face f ireplaces and woodstoves that aren’t EPA approved.

Response: See response to Comment #97.

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

developers are or by visual identification of chimn eys. Send letters directly to the mailing addresses.

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

fireplaces in Sacramento County. The District does not have the resources to pursue this identification process. S taff does send information about the CBYB program and clean burnin g 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 fr om Stage 1 No Burn days

for certified and pellet devices. Because of the s ignificant public opposition to eliminating the limited exemption for EPA certified and pellet stoves operating on Stage 1 No Burn days, St aff is now recommending workshop Option A that keeps the limit ed exemption for

those devices.

See also response to Comment #11.

Written comments received from Glen Otey dated July 23 rd

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

dominated by people from the firewood and stove bus iness. 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 Boa rd of Supervisors. I urge you to press ahead with the pr oposed change, although I personally favor Option B as presented i n the workshop.

Response: Thank you for your support.

Written comments received from Anonymous dated July 22 nd

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

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 38

7 pm you can burn cleanly. Night time air is thinn er so smoke dissipates quickly. I have asthma and don’t walk ar ound at night. Central heat is drying.

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

and thicker and traps in suspended particulates. T his causes a significant health impact on residents and high PM 2.5 concentrations. Additionally, the hours when most people are burnin g are in the early morning and evening hours which exacerbates unhealt hy air quality at those times. Additionally, the air monitors in Sac ramento County are operating 24 hours a day and have high readings thr oughout the day on bad air quality days.

Comment #131: Government tells us to conserve gas and fossil fuel s – 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 ot her 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 factor s of various

devices.

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

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

Regulation that requires all school buses in the st ate to retrofit the buses with particulate traps. This rule requiremen t will begin implementing in 2013 and all buses will need to mee t the requirements by 2017. More information on this regulation can b e found at the CARB

Web site at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.ht m

In addition, there is a program to incentivize sch ool 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.ht m

Written comments received from Doug Davis

Comment #133: I’d like to see a mobile phone version of the spare theair.com Web

site. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The Sacram ento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District is working to have a version of the Spare The Air Web site available for Blackberry's and other perso nal digital assistants (PDAs) in 2010.

Comment #134: More enforcement is needed for No Burn days so that people withStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 39

EPA certified stoves are not caught up in the No Bu rn days. Open burning fireplaces need to be the target. Clean bu rning stoves have no visible emissions. Target the source rathe r than those trying to help.

Response: Enforcement on Stage 1 no burn days ensur es that certified devices do

not emit visible smoke. Visible smoke can be emitte d by EPA certified stoves that are not operated properly or use impro per fuel. For comparison of relative emissions from fireplace and stoves, see response to Comment #77.

Written comments received from Karim Abdella dated July 24 th

Comment #135: Based on the information, while I rather not have a ny more no burn

days than are currently in place, I believe that Op tion A should be put in place until next years season/analysis. Hop efully the Sacramento Valley will, after 3 years, experience m ore normal winter conditions in which Mother Nature may allevi ate part of the problem. Since wood smoke is not the only element (although it appears to be the largest contributor), I suggest t he board next year present ideas to minimize the problem from all other sources

as well.

Response: Thank you for your support. Because of t he significant public opposition

to eliminating the limited exemption for EPA certif ied and pellet stoves operating on Stage 1 days, Staff is now recommendin g workshop Option A, that keeps the limited exemption for thos e devices. See response to Comments #6 and #35 about efforts to co ntrol other sources of particulate.

Written comments received from Wallace & Sirgute Mo rgan Comment #136: We vote for the least intrusive change of Rule 421. Since we can

not restart Rancho Seco for cheap clean electric po wer, we plan to use a pellet insert stove to replace our elegant wo od burning

insert.

Response: See response to Comment #135. Please kee p in mind that pellet

stoves are prohibited from burning on all Stage 2 N o 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 W orkshop

Comment #137: Dust is transported from China and should be includ ed in our

emission inventory pie chart. I feel that 50% of S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) PM comes from China.

What is the effect on Sacramento air quality from dust f rom China?

Response: Neither CARB nor any District in the stat e 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 largerStaff 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 stu dy what the full impact is from air pollution traveling in the jet s tream.

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, atta inment is determined by

design value at each air quality monitoring station . Attainment of the federal health standards is determined using the de sign value of each monitoring station. All monitoring stations that m easure PM 2.5

concentrations must be in attainment for Sacramento to be in attainment. The design value for the PM2.5 monitor ing stations in the

District are listed below:

Monitoring Station Design Value (2005-2007) μg/m 3

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 des ign value as these two stations are not federal reference monitors however they measure PM2.5 conce ntrations using Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM)

Comment #141: Is the Folsom monitor located at a valid site locat ion? 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 Dist rict’s 2008/2009 Annual Monitoring Network Plan that can be down loa ded at:

http://www.airquality.org/notices/other/AnnualAMNet workPlan20082009.pdf

. You can also get additional information from CARB a t 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 station s?

Response: The elevations of the PM2.5 air monitorin g 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/AnnualAMNet workPlan20082009.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 St age 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 fireplac es and

uncertified devices to cleaner devices.

Response: See response to Comment #3.

Comment #148: Does it only take one air monitoring station to cau se a No Burn

day?

Response: Yes. Air quality forecasts are used to de termine a No Burn day. The

forecast is based on an ambient concentration acros s the county. If the threshold is anticipated to be exceeded at any loca tion 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 lo gs?

Response: No. Staff reported back to our Board of D irectors 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 end orse 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 “opt ional” use. Therefore, burning manufactured logs should not be encouraged on poor air quality days. 2) Manufactured logs are more emissive than EPA cer tified wood burning devices and pellet stoves, and 3) There is no assurance that manufactured logs emi t less than wood. At the May 2008 Board meeting a motion was passed t o allow manufactured logs to be included in the “Burn Clean ly” category of the Check Before You Burn program. The descriptor to t he “Burn Cleanly’ category was changed to say, “When the forecast is 25 μg/m 3 or lower, the public is allowed to burn and the burning of ma nufactured 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 informa tion Staff would suggest contacting BAAQMD or Duraflame directly.

Comment #151: Do you know of any person on their death certificat e that says died

from pellet/wood smoke?

Response: Epidemiological studies have shown an inc rease in the number of

premature deaths in people with heart or lung disea se on days with

increased PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 and wood smok e are also associated with irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, thrombosis (increased blood clotting causing obstruction of bl ood flow), increased coughing and wheezing, aggravated asthma, permanent ly decreased lung function, and reduction in IQ among children e xposed in vitro to high PM2.5 concentrations, and increased risk of ca rdiovascular and cerebrovascular events in post-menopausal women. F or details of health impacts of wood smoke please see page 3 of t he Staff report.

Comment #152: What about the wildfires?

Response: Rule 421 only regulates wood or other sol id fuel burning in wood

burning devices during the months of November throu gh 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 i nventory. CARB does estimate the emissions from these non-anthropo genic 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 outsid e their home. There is a 95% confidence level that the percentage s to each survey question lie with a 4.9% margin of error 3

.

Comment #154: What do you attribute the difference between the 70 % reduction to

100% compliance?

Response: Compliance is not 100% due to a percentag e of people not aware of the

no burn restrictions and some who choose not to com ply. The 70% compliance rate was calculated by taking the total respondents of the survey, eliminating those who were not aware of woo d burning restrictions, eliminating those not aware of a Stag e 2 No Burn day and finally eliminating those who did not comply with a ll the Stage 2 No Burn days. The result was 70% of the respondents who we re familiar with No Burn restrictions and the Stage 2 No Burn days c hoose to comply.

Comment #155: If 50% of people don’t burn and 30% burn infrequent ly, there

should not be any pollution.

Response: This highlights how much pollution is bei ng emitted by those choosing

to burn wood. The amount of pollution from wood bu rning 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 wi th similar rule?

Response: The San Joaquin Valley attributes their a ttainment of the federal PM10

standard largely to the reductions from their manda tory no burn rule. They lowered their no burn day thresholds in Octobe r 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 th at have been successful in achieving the old PM standard of 65 μ g/m 3 using wood burning curtailment as part of the solution.

Comment #157: I don’t believe motor vehicles contribute less poll ution than wood

burning. Have you done a study on how much polluti on is from wood burning versus how much pollution is from cars ?

Response: The District did examine how much PM2.5 i s coming from Wood

3 Morley Chavero, Dawn and Holobow, Naomi, “2009 Wo od 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 sou rces. 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 larges t individual source of PM2.5 collected on an air quality monitoring fil ter in the wintertime. Both the emission inventory and the scientific anal ysis show that wood burning is the single largest source of PM2.5 in th e wintertime.

Comment #158: What is the budget of SMAQMD?

Response: The SMAQMD budget for fiscal year 2009/20 10 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/m 3 and Stage 2 at 35

μg/m 3 (which was Option A at the workshop), on average, there would be 28 No Burn days per season. For Option B with S tage 1 at 25 μg/m 3
and Stage 2 at 30 μg/m 3 , 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 y our web

site?

Response: See response to Comment #142.

Comment #161: Del Paso Manor also seems to be a high site for ozo ne?

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 th e majority of ozone-forming emissions, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), are produced in the Sacra mento metropolitan area, prevailing winds usually carry these emission s from cars and other sources up into the foothills.

During this transport time, the VOCs and NOx contin uously react with the sun’s ultraviolet rays to form ground-level ozo ne. By the time this polluted air reaches the foothills, the majority of the emissions have been converted to ozone causing the foothills to fr equently 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. How ever, when the wind blows from the north to the south, the highest ozon e concentrations actually occur south of Sacramento in areas like Sl oughhouse or

Jackson.

In addition, foothill communities often have higher levels of ozone air pollution late at night compared to other sites. Th is occurs becauseStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 45

ozone is depleted at night by chemical reactions wi th fresh NOx

emissions from cars and other mobile sources. The f oothills have very few fresh NOx emissions, and therefore the ozone is n’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 m easures (ATCM) to restrict

the release of air contaminants. The District is r esponsible for enforcing ATCM requirements. The ATCM that limits school bus idling and idling at or near schools to only when necessary for safet y or operational concerns was effective as of July 16, 2003. For mo re information on the school bus idling ATCM you can see the followin g Web site at

CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/sbidling/sbidling.htm

The ATCM that limits Diesel-Fueled Commercial Moto r Vehicle Idling

was effective February 1, 2005. For more informati on 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-idl ing.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 oc casions 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 man y air monitoring sites over the health standards constitu te a violation?

Response: Attainment of the federal health standar ds is determined using the

design value of each monitoring station. A design value is a three-year average of the 98 th percentile PM2.5 concentrations in a year at each monitoring site using a Federal Reference Method (F RM) monitor. For Sacramento County, those sites are T Street, Del Pa so 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 s ite were over the

35 μg/m 3 concentration for the three FRM monitoring sites fr om 2004 -Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 46

2008. Since attainment is determined on the three y ear average of the yearly 98 th percentile, each individual day exceeding the 35 μ g/m 3

standard is not a violation but contributes to rais ing 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/m 3 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 3 rd

Comment #167: I bought an EPA approved fireplace insert so I coul d 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 scr apping it.

Response: See responses to Comments #6 and #13. Also, see written response at the end of the comme nts section to Bill

Pieper dated August 20, 2009 from Director Susan Pe ters.

E-mail comment received from Lawrence J. Hannan & S aundra R. Wolk on July 6 th

Comment #168: Has the Air Quality Board considered the use of Dur aflame and

other logs which pollute less than conventional woo d?

Response: See response to Comment #149

E-mail comment received from Peter Kell on July 6 th

Comment #169: What is the proposed impact to those of us who purc hased EPA

Phase II certified emission units in the last few y ears with the support of a SMAQMD voucher?

Response: The impact to those who have purchased EP A Phase II certified

emission units will be a small increase in the numb er of Stage 2 No Burn days when all burning is prohibited. In addit ion, staff has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposal p resented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that keep the limit ed exemption for certified and pellet stoves/inserts.

E-mail comment received from Pamela Reed on July 6 th and on August 10 th

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 Ai r 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, 6 th worst in the

nation for Ozone and 7 th 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 profe ss. Almost

all of December 2008 was under No Burn

.

Response: During December 2008 (calendar shown belo w), 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 Disco uraged (yellow) days last season however those are voluntary days w here we ask if you

do not need to burn to choose not to burn. Volunta ry days are not considered a No Burn day as the public is allowed t o burn and has the choice to choose not to. Last season’s weather pla yed a significant factor in contributing to more conducive conditions for high PM concentrations. On average over the past 5 years o f 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 6 th

Comment #172: I oppose the proposed new guidelines. I use my fir eplace to keep

my SMUD bill down.

Response: See response to Comment #165.

E-mail comment received from Virginia Petree on Jul y 13 th

Comment #173: I have an EPA certified insert. I feel any changed in the current

rules to be overly restrictive and you should suppo rt the rule as 1 2

8 3 4 5

11 9 10 7 6

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31Staff 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 13 th

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 o n an EPA stove

if there is no benefit. With fewer EPA stoves in h omes, even your good air days will become bad air days. Please rec onsider 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 emiss ions. This is the goal of the District’s financial incentive programs . Fireplaces that replace with EPA certified devices may increase emi ssions due to an increase in burning. However, reductions from repl acements 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 respon se to the proposal

presented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that k eep 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 R ule 421 now.

E-mail comment received from Don McCormick on July 13 th

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 di esel powered trains, planes, trucks, and buses. Nor can the dis trict control prevailing winds blowing in pollution from outside the district boundaries. In addition, the Air District is takin g this action in isolation from improving air quality regionally and is a mere blip on a much larger screen. I also see this as anothe r government “job killer” in that more small businesses are bein g forces out of

business. It seems to me the board staff is focusi ng on homeowners, knowing that they are not well organize d, do not have lobby organizations, and are rarely able to de fend themselves against these senseless regulations. I would like to see the district re-focus on the big picture and coordinate regional ly.

Response: See written responses at the end of the comments se ction to Don

McCormick dated July 16, 2009 from Larry Greene and August 13,

2009 from Director Susan Peters. Also see the disc ussion of socioeconomic impacts discussed in this staff repor t.

Phone call from Helmer Felton to Director Susan Pet ers on July 13 thStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 49

Comment #176: He does not want more bans on wood burning for thos e who use it

as a primary source of heating their home. Open fir es 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 co mment section to Mr. Felton

dated July 21, 2009 from Director Susan Peters.

Phone calls from Gary Hubble, John Hammond, and Chr is Boswell to Director Sandy Sheedy on July 13 th

Comment #177: All three callers were in opposition to the change.

Response: Comment noted.

Written comment received from Manual & Peggy Soliz on July 14 th

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 14 th

Comment #179: Is the City of West Sacramento part of the SMAQMD? Is it

reasonable to regulate when they are unregulated ju st 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 CB YB program had a very positive impact on air quality. STI is workin g on a transport analysis with results to be detailed in the Board r eport 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 respirator y problems

associated with wood burning appliance and how many households have wood burning devices?

Response: Numerous studies have been conducted by C ARB and academia on the

adverse health effects of PM and wood smoke. The n umber of wood burning devices in Sacramento County can be found o n page 13 of the Staff report.

Please see written response at end of comments sec tion to Mr.

Tanforan dated July 22, 2009 from Larry Greene see the July 22 nd letterStaff 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 Sa ndy Sheedy from July 14 th to July

21st

Comment #182: All five callers noted opposition to the changes.

Response: Comments noted.

E-mail comment received from Jerrold & Laura Stubbl efield on July 15 th

Comment #183: It is unfair to restrict the use of wood burning in serts/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 Natur al Gas bill average is $ 100.00 plus/winter but only $33.00/sum mer.

Response: Wood burning inserts have the same emissi ons as wood stoves; the

breakdown is to show inserts are less prevalent. W ood inserts and stoves (including certified and non-certified) comb ined emit more emissions than fireplaces.

Additionally, while certified devices and pellet s toves are designed to

pollute less than fireplaces on a unit of heat basi s 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, plea se see response to

comment #111.

Written comment received from Terri Friedman on Jul y 15 th

Comment #184: I only use my fireplace 5-6 times a year on those f ew occasions

when it is cold out. I feel that unless all other sources of particulate matter are also addressed, then it is u nfair to target only fireplaces. I would be willing to use an inex pensive particulate trap if one is available. I would feel less put upon if all other sources of particulates were also banned on t hese bad airStaff 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 Pf ost on July 15 th

Comment #185 Many of us have installed high-efficiency fireplace inserts in recent

years to reduce emissions and to more efficiently h eat space in our homes. Please clarify what an “EPA-certified a ppliance” 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 w ere 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 th e form of rakes, brooms, electric blowers and electric or push mower s.

Response: The District has an annual Mown Down Air Pollution event that provides

incentives for purchasing electric lawn mowers. Th e 13th Annual Mow Down Event occurred Saturday March, 28, 2009. This year 933 new rechargeable mowers were claimed and 34 tons of met al were recycled. The cordless rechargeable lawn mower exchange progr am promotes the use of electric lawnmowers, which benefits regi onal air quality. The emissions reduced by this year's event are estimate d at 14.4 tons. Electric lawn mowers also help reduce storm water p ollution 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 con centrations than solid fuel burning curtailment.

E-mail comment received from Christine & Dean Boswe llon July 15 th

Comment #187: Last year we installed an EPA rated wood burning st ove in order to

be able to have a fire and curtail our use of propa ne during the winter months along with ensuring that our burning does not impact air quality. Since the rule has only been i n 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 commen ts section to Christine and

Dean Boswell dated July 22, 2009 from Larry Greene.

E-mail comment received from Michael G. Peterson on July 18 th

Comment #188: I am in total agreement with the goals of reducing carbon

emissions and environmental hazards but not for thi s draconian response to a minimal problem. Wood burning during winter months, when few people are outside is something th at my familyStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 52

has done for centuries. The weather usually dissip ates any perceived problems. Issues with air quality need t o be concentrated with the transportation system where t he 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 build up of PM during episodes of No

Burn days. On days when the prevailing weather inc ludes high winds and an absence of an inversion layer burning is general ly allowed.

Staff has reviewed the comments received in respon se to the proposal

presented at the workshops. After consideration of these comments, Staff is now recommending workshop Option A, that k eep 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 demonst rated to provide significant reductions of PM and health improvement s. Regarding making fireplaces a code violation, although some commente rs suggested a requirement to require fireplace replacements or re trofit, those requirements are not being considered at this time.

E-mail comment received from Carol Anderson on July 18 th

Comment #189: Please continue to support the rule as written.

Response: See response to Comment #6.

Email comment received from Frank Gwerder on July 2 0 th

Comment #190: My family has always partially depended on wood bur ning as a

source of heating in the winter. I do appreciate t he restrictions placed in 2007, and I hope you will continue with t he same regulation.

Response: See response to Comment #6.

E-mail comment received from Jay S Wells on July 20 th

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 21 st

Comment #192: My wife and I purchased a fireplace insert ten year s ago. We are

elderly and due to the obvious medical problems we have I urge the District to refrain from changing the wood burn ing guidelines as they exist. We have found that it is difficult for a gas fired furnace with an electric blower to efficiently remo ve dampness from the air within a house. School buses along wi th dieselStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 53

contaminating vehicles are the most obvious pollute rs 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 effec tive control for

PM2.5 in the wintertime. Emission reductions are o ccurring through the replacement of school buses and heavy duty vehicles through District and state programs however they are not the most si gnificant contributor to the wintertime pollution in Sacramen to County. See also response to Comment #132.

Phone call from Derrick Kendricks to Sibyl McWalter s at the City of Sacramento on July

29 th

Comment #193: He called the council to let them know that they wo uld like to use

their wood burning stove whenever needed for heat.

Response: Comment noted.

E-mail comment received from Michael on July 22 nd

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 r equirements. They would still have to comply with Stage 2. To i nstall central heating would cost at least $7000. Is anyone going to compensate
homeowners for these added costs?

Response: Fireplaces are an inefficient method of h eating 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 hea ting source. See response to Comment #165. The District’s wood stov e & wood fireplace change out incentive program provides inc entives 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 wit h no cost to the participant. For more information on the low incom e change out program see the following link: http://www.airquality.org/woodstove/assistance.shtm l

Comment #195: What do you do with the firewood that cannot be bur ned? Many

trees you cut down at residences are chopped into f irewood. 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 th e fire potential?

Response: Burning is not the only use for wood. Wo od that is not burned can be

used for a number of other purposes such as constru ction material for making furniture, houses artwork, paper, ground cov er as wood chips and many other things. Forests are managed by US F orest Service andStaff 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 th ese changes?

Response: The recommended change has a maximum pote ntial impact to

independent wood dealers of 3 job losses however th is assumes that 100% of all wood purchased in Sacramento County wou ld be purchased from independent wood dealers. The reali ty is some percentage less than 100% is purchased from indepen dent wood dealers as a significant quantity of wood is purcha sed from retail stores. For more details see the “Socioeconomic Impact” sec tion of the Staff report and ERG’s Socioeconomic Report in Appendix G

Comment #198: Make a requirement that any home sold after 1/1/201 0 that was

built before 1960 would have to meet some new requi rements for their fireplaces.

Response: See response to Comment #3.

Phone call from Susan Lima to Director Susan Peters during week of July 20 th

Comment #199: She voiced concern about expanding the ban on wood burning

during the winter.

Response: See written response at end of the commen ts section to Ms. Lima dated

July 23, 2009 from Director Susan Peters

E-mail comment received from Gordon Linder on July 26 th

Comment #200: The May 2009 report shows that of those with wood b urning

devices, 83% burn in a fireplace and only 7% burn w ood 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 off ender and leave wood stoves and pellet stoves out of the mix altoge ther. Rule 421 is restrictive enough as it is; please do not penal ize me anymore.

Response: Staff’s recommended change keeps the exem ption for certified wood

burning stoves and inserts and pellet devices. How ever, based on emission inventory estimates, the biggest percentag e of PM2.5 emissions from wood burning is from uncertified woo d stove/insert devices. Fireplaces are used less often for heatin g purposes than forStaff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 55

aesthetic purposes. For details of the emission es timates refer to Appendix E. See also response to Comment #3.

E-mail comment received from Alan Douma on July 26 th

Comment #201: I am against the proposed changes. The current prog ram is not

wonderful but at least it recognizes that some stov es are more efficient than fireplaces and gives owners of these stoves some advantage. It would cost us $15K to upgrade our ol d inefficient HVAC. Please consider how you can provide exceptio ns that are MORE than just “those with only wood source of heat ing”. Our stove allows us to heat a single room where we spen d 90% of our

time instead of 100% of home with HVAC. The additi onal possible reductions in particular matter are inconclusive an d certainly affected more by other localities who have no such burn

restrictions.

Response: See responses to Comments #4 and #6. Add itionally, 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 22 nd

Comment #202: I suffer health issues due to air pollution and wh en people use

their fireplaces and wood burning appliances my hea lth

deteriorates and I have to labor for breath as well as have burning eyes, nose, and throat. Where I reside my house fi lls with smoke so badly it leaves a heavy layer of particulates. But the bad air is everywhere in Rancho Cordova, so there is no escapi ng the problem. Please take health considerations above p rofits of companies. I encourage the District to make much s tricter regulations than are being proposed and eliminate f ireplaces 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 n ot obey the no burning days and you have no way to enforce comp liance for

all of Sacramento. A total ban would seem a more r ealistic rule.

Response: Thank you for your support for air qualit y goals however a total ban on

wood burning is not feasible due to the dramatic in crease in enforcement and the possibility of compliance rates decreasing. See also response to Comment #3.

Written comment received from Bill & Debbie Thompso n on July 20 th

Comment #203: We would not have spent $2,000+ for an approved sto ve had we

known about these proposed changes especially since they come so soon. People need to be encouraged to help clea n the air by giving incentives to purchase the approved stoves b y being allowed to burn when others cannot. Threatening pe ople with fines and having neighbor report on neighbor does n ot 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 P eters on July 29 th

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 commen ts section to Ms Mendoza

dated July 30, 2009 from Director Susan Peters.

E-mail comment received from Steve Holl on August 3 rd , 2009

Comment #205: The staff report references a state report that est imates 0.28 cords

of wood is burned annually, per household. This da ta is 20 years old and represents use in a rural area, where wood is inexpensive. It does not provide reasonable estimate of actual u se per household statewide because costs vary by area and a lower portion in urban areas use their fireplace. The st aff report provides another estimate of annual household use a t 0.92 cords/year. Many recently constructed homes use ga s 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 ba sed on the UCB/CARB 2003

survey data specific for Sacramento 4 . This was the usage amount used in the 2007 adoption of Rule 421. CARB is in the p rocess of updating

the emission inventories for residential wood combu stion. An updated cord wood usage for solid fuel burning devices is p art of the CARB revised inventory methodology. For fireplaces burn ing for aesthetics wood usage is 0.069 cords/year per fireplace and fo r 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 f ireplace source tests, 18 local wood use surveys, and several marke t research studies. From all of these analyses, a composite wood-burnin g rate, for fireplaces without inserts being used for heating w as determined. The usage factor for aesthetics in a fireplace was eval uated from a review of 18 local wood use surveys, and several market resea rch studies. From all of these analyses, a composite wood burning rat e, for fireplaces without inserts being used for aesthetic purposes, was developed. These usage amounts are from Houck et al, A Recomme nded 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 B erkeley/California Air Resources Board – GIS Study”Staff Report

Rule 421 Appendix F August 27, 2009, Page 57

Source Category. U.S. EPA Emission Inventory Confe rence, 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 emis sions 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 volun tary restrictions that were employed in 2008 were effect ive as there was a 57% reduction in the number of people burning dur ing Stage 1

restriction. The Air District did not estimate tha t change in emissions from a Stage 1 or Stage 2 restrictions da ys. Any additional restrictions on household wood burning m ust include an analysis of the effectiveness of EPA-approved de vices 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 b e disposed of anyway, in approved devices, the Air District wants to eliminate all burning.

Response: Voluntary restrictions have been proven t o be less effective than the

mandatory curtailment. Both the 2007 and 2009 Auro ra surveys show less awareness and less reduction of burning on vol untary days.

The emission reduction rate for a Stage 1 day, whi ch 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 est imation 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