Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004
From: Dan Gibson

Well Jim, it looks like we are still in the game. I received your email and just talked to Gail Williams of the APCD and she seems willing to hear and review the info that you are going to send her. I am convinced that the Rumford can classified as a clean burning device in spite of thebad rap it may be getting from some of the opposition. Please let me know of the latest info and progress. Thanks for your help! Dan

2/6/04
From: Dan Gibson

Jim,

I received your email the other day and printed out the info on emissions for the air quality control board here in Chico. They responded a day later by saying that the test results that your company supplied are "skewed" and unacceptable as data for the consideration of building a Rumford fireplace. This is disturbing to me as I am sure it is to you. I do not know how to proceed. Your info meets exactly the EPA standards and I do not have a rebuttal for the refusal to allow me to build the Rumford. The names of the people that were used to make their decision are George Erdman of Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District ( APCD ) and Paul Reitz of San Luis Obispo APCD. I am dealing with Gail Williams of Butte County Air Quality Management District. They have a web site of www.bcaqmd.org and their phone # is 530-891-2882 The FAX # is 530-891-2878. If there is any way that you could provide them with data on emissions that they would accept I would greatly appreciate it. The builder that I have chosen is aware of the Rumford fireplace and will work with you if needed to help you get this approved. He would like to see the fireplaces become a part of his building options. Thank you for your help and I look forward to doing business with you in the near future.

Dan Gibson

Thanks, Dan,

I called the Butte County Air Quality Management District to speak with Gail Williams. She wasn't in but "Steven" told me Butte County "Rule 207" on residential wood-burning is on line at http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BUT/CURHTML/R207.PDF Rule 207 is also "captured" on my website.

Upon reading Rule 207 it appears that a "fireplace" is defined as not meeting the EPA definition of a "wood heater" (stove) which is approved. The rule does not specifically ban fireplaces and it has some exemptions and, according to Section 6.2, allows for the addition of other wood-burning devices upon review of testing by and EPA certified testing lab. I think we comply with all the requirements listed in 6.2 and we should apply for approval.

Somewhat disquieting, however, Rule 207 defines a "gas-fired fireplace" as a dedicated gas fireplace or one that "cannot be converted to wood-burning" although it does not specifically ban gas logs installed in a masonry fireplace.

Also of concern is your report that George Erdman of Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District and Paul Reitz of San Luis Obispo APCD were involved in making their decisions. Paul and George are no friends of ours and have gone to great lengths to frustrate us with innuendo such as being "skewed" when they can't find fault with our science. See additional comments and background about that at http://www.rumford.com/emissions/SLO.html and http://www.rumford.com/emissions/NSonoma.html

I have left a message for Gail Williams to help clarify these issues and to let me know how we might apply for approval.

Best,
Jim Buckley

Letter written to Gail Williams 3/11/04