It is in the 90s and June, therefore it must be a good time to discuss the consequences of wood burning smoke. As those who read the Vanguard a week ago already know, eastern portions of Davis had a number of complaints (see Part One of Alan Pryor’s articles and Part Two). On Tuesday we will hear the views of city staff and the council.
The city of Davis has been hearing this issue now going on two years. We know that wood smoke, a contributing source of Particulate Matter 2.5 is harmful to the health of people above certain concentrations. The Natural Resources Commission has examined the issue and believes that Federal standards are not protective enough due to the regional nature of the standard and measurements that do not capture the micro or neighborhood effect of wood smoke exposure.
In September of last year, the Council established voluntary no burn days and agreed to continue monitoring air quality during the burn season. The District called for 16 voluntary no burn days and out of those 16 days, 13 of them lowered the PM2.5 concentrations below what was forecasted.
Staff reports, “City staff and Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District staff recorded all reported neighborhood air quality concerns via telephone message, email, and the Citizen Response Manager on the city’s webpage. Sixty-eight wood smoke concerns were logged from November 1, 2009 to February 15, 2010 by 19 named and 7 anonymous citizens.”
Furthermore:
“At the end of the studies, YSAQMD concluded that “Based on the data collected during the study period, it appears that PM2.5 levels in some of the more urbanized parts of Davis can be higher than levels at the nearest permanent monitors during the late fall and winter months. Because the temporary monitors were specifically placed in urban areas where it was suspected that PM2.5 concentrations could be higher, it was not possible for the monitors to be sited in strict accordance with EPA protocol. This should be kept in mind when reviewing PM2.5 concentrations recorded at the temporary monitors. However, the fact that concentrations at the temporary monitors increased and decreased in patterns similar to those observed at the permanent monitors (Charts 7-11) suggest that the temporary monitors were not heavily influenced by non-traditional sources of PM2.5. Since there were no observed conditions during the study period that were out of the ordinary for the Davis area, the study period can be considered representative of typical conditions during the late fall and winter.”
DELTA Group, in their final report, concluded that aerosol pollutants in Davis are regional in nature and not caused by local sources. On May 12, 2010, YSAQMD staff presented to The District Board of Directors their report on City of Davis 2009/2010 Special Monitoring Study. The Board received and accepted the report.”
On the other hand, Alan Pryor argued that “Davis has a total wood smoke complaint frequency about 10 times greater [than] that of the Sacramento AQMD.” From this he concludes, “This indicates that citizens in Davis are affected much more by exposure to local sources of wood smoke than the average resident in the Sacramento AQMD. This is in spite of the fact that awareness of the complaint process is far greater in the Sacramento AQMD region than in Davis because of the extensive and effective outreach program in the Sacramento AQMD. One could infer from this data that mandatory restrictions on wood burning on problematic days in Davis, such as occur in the Sacramento AQMD, could dramatically reduce the number and frequency of wood-smoke complaints from Davis residents.”
Mr. Pryor also argues that contrary to the claims by the report that voluntary no burn days reduce the expected amount of particulate matter, that burn days produce no real change in the complaint level. He said, “The complaint frequency was actually higher on No-Burn Days than otherwise although there does not appear to be any statistical difference at all between complaint frequency on Burn and No Burn days. From this data one could infer there is virtually no compliance with voluntary No-Burn days in Davis.”
Commentary
As I was looking things up, I happened to find an op-ed written by David Pepper in the Napa Valley Newspaper. Dr. Pepper is a family practice physician, who also volunteers for the American Lung Association. He teaches family medicine at the UC Davis-affiliated Family Practice Residency in Martinez.
He writes,
“Breathing these particles can literally shorten life and send our most vulnerable residents to the emergency room. Wood smoke contains harmful microscopic particles that, when inhaled, enter directly into the lung and bloodstream. Once there, they damage cells, exacerbate asthma and cause lung and heart disease. For asthmatic children, breathing wood smoke can lead to immediate harm, including asthma attacks and respiratory distress.
A recent study by the California Air Resources Board reported that wood smoke can cause a 10 percent increase of hospital admissions for respiratory problems among children, who are at most risk since their lungs are still developing. Exposure to wood smoke may also reduce lung function and reduce the blood’s ability to clot properly.”
He continues, “And it doesn’t take much; one fireplace or wood-burning stove can produce levels of smoke in a neighborhood that exceed federal air quality standards and affect all the neighbors. According to the California Air Resources Board, up to 70 percent of smoke from chimneys can re-enter neighboring residences, exposing neighbors to toxic smoke.”
He concludes, “The American Lung Association repeatedly has given failing grades for air quality to several counties in the Bay Area due to high levels of particle pollution, of which wood smoke is a primary source. We know we can do better. Indeed, air districts such as Sacramento that have adopted wood-burning prohibitions have experienced a reduction in these harmful particles.”
It is clear to me that wood burning now is where second hand smoke was 30 years ago. I do not believe we have a full understanding of the health impacts of inhalation of wood burned smoke. I do not believe we understand how it impacts an urban population for these particulates to get lodged into the air.
I think Alan Pryor is largely correct on this issue, but he is also ahead of his time. This is not a Davis issue. This is an issue that most communities are having to deal with as the result of federal regulations. The voluntary no burn days are a beginning I think of an education process. The idea of collecting data is a good idea and needs to continue over the course of the next few winters. We need a good sense for where and how much particulate matter is occurring in Davis. We need data that we can better understand the interaction between weather, atmospheric conditions, and particulate matter.
In the meantime I would like to see move at least as far as Sacramento in terms of regulations. I would like us to look into cleaner and safer alternative to heat our home. We need to study this issue more, the public is not there right now, they may not be there for another ten years. What we can do in the meantime is educate, study, and find better alternatives.
We can look at what other communities are doing, communities that are taking the lead on this issue. I think people got the sense two years ago this was a crazy Davis thing, when in reality it is an issue that everyone is having deal with in Northern California, places where people burn wood to heat their homes or for ambiance.
Until then, Mr. Pryor needs to keep holding council and the Natural Resources Commission to the fire and keep pressing for better ways in which we can reduce particulate matter in the atmosphere.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Cleaner and safer” in this context means installing a gas-fired appliance, nearly all models of which can be retrofit into chimney stacks. Problem solved.
=========
“As of 2008, the population of [Sacramento County] was estimated to be 1,394,154. . .The County covers about 994 square miles (2,570 km2) . . ” [Wiki]. “The AQMD issued 136 violations to residents who burned on a no-burn day and we received 172 smoke complaints.” [Sac AQMD]
Davis: population around 62,000; approx. 32 sq. miles; total AQMD complaints “Sixty-eight wood smoke concerns were logged from November 1, 2009 to February 15, 2010 by 19 named and 7 anonymous citizens.”
Comparisons between the City of Davis and Sacramento County make no sense at all.
Neutral, exactly:
The anti-burners have to make it sound worse than it actually is.
Pardon my cynicism, but holding hearings on wood smoke particulate matter in June is a rather effective way of making certain the subject stays under most people’s radar. The number of posts this article has drawn so far this morning validates my belief. It’s difficult to wrap your mind around the issue of fireplace pollution at the time of year Davis air conditioners are beginning to hum. The council should, at the very least, bring Davis up to par with our more enlightened neighbors in burn policy. I mean what part of the phrase “wood smoke POLLUTION” do they not understand? Lets see how it plays out.
I’m not sure I would ever use number of posts as a measure of interest. Some of the most read articles have few posts, so of the move heavily commented articles are not read widely. Plus Sunday morning is a difficult time to measure.
The “more enlightened neighbors” are the ones who are willing to stand up against too much government intrusion in their lives.
Thank you very much.
The Delta Group study cannot address near neighbor impacts because the particulate matter measuring devices had to be placed in secure publicly owned locations, such as the center city parks. They may not be near a burning fireplace. Dr. Barnes of the Delta Group agreed with that the study only addresses regional impacts when he presented study results to the NRC.
The problem with wood smoke is near neighbor impacts; people a house or 2 down from the burners do complain to us at the Natural Resources Commission – many feel shut in during the winter and the worst case (reported second-hand) tapes all his doors and windows shut. The difference between East Davis and other city readings supports the thesis that people aren’t imagining the smoke in the air – it varies throughout the city depending on whether you’re near a burning fireplace, how stagnant the air is, and what type of fireplace is used. We only had 3 monitors, however, so we can’t conclude too much.
I still support a permit system with burning tied to wind speed and potentially regional air quality, as informed by EPA-approved SCREEN 2 model simulations. At the highest wind speeds, everyone could burn including open hearths. At the lowest wind speeds, only the super-efficient stove users could burn, at medium wind speed people with EPA-certified but nonetheless somewhat polluting stoves can burn. When people get their permits they would get informed about good burning practices, and where to check the web or phone recordings for what burning will be allowed for their type of stove or fireplace. Enforcement would occur by neighbor complaints. With a list of who has permits the police can easily know whether to ticket people (plus a hand-held infra-red reader pointed at a chimney can confirm the burning). Of course police will use good sense and prioritize urgent tasks before nuisance complaints, as they do for noise. And burners who aren’t distressing their neighbors will not be bothered.
This doesn’t address the barbeques that ruin many of my spring and summer evenings, by City Council liaison directive. So please folks, only barbeque with fire when there’s enough breeze to not empoison your neighbor. And use a charcoal “chimney”, not lighter fluid.
Oops, I mean “center OF city parks.” I should have previewed.
Also this would continue to exempt people who need to burn for heat because of power outages or economic distress.
We own a home with a classic hearth fireplace. We stopped using it completely in the mid 90’s because of the horribly inefficient heat production of these types of fireplaces and my sensitivity to wood smoke. Of course, I only noticed the problems then when I went outside – inside was no problem.
Asthma runs in my family – I’ve been fortunate not to have it, but I did inherit the respiratory symptoms that pop up occasionally, so I understand how people with more sensitivity can have severe problems. One of my aunts died from effects of pollution in the LA basin, and it was a horrible death – she started having an asthma attack, and then inhaled her false teeth, which choked her to death.
We also used to use a charcoal barbecue, with a chimney for lighting, but switched to a gas grill for the same reason – to reduce particulate pollution. I’d like to see charcoal banned as well as open hearth fireplaces, but that would involve regulation, which as we all know is evil.