Letter to the editor:

Wood smoke - to regulate or not

Editor:

The Yodeler's recommendation to write the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to support a proposed ban on woodburning fireplaces is short-sighted and needs to be balanced against the sustainable nature of wood-burning. It is particularly hypocritical for BAAQMD to go after such a minor contributor to air pollution while they do nothing about the major source of air pollution, the internal combustion engine. What the District is really saying is: Let's prohibit the use of readily available, renewable fuels to heat our houses, and for most people, limit them to only non-renewable fossil fuels, generally high-priced natural gas.

I note from the District's own sources that the non-attainment days in terms of meeting State and Federal pollution standards occur in the warm, dry windless days of late summer and early fall, not in the cold, blustery or rainy periods of December, January and February when people are most likely to actually use their woodburning stoves and fireplaces. The newer Environmental Protection Agency approved wood stoves and inserts produce much less particulate matter than the millions of older fireplaces in use.

Additionally, there are tremendous micro-climate differences re where wood smoke is an issue and where it is not. Interior valley bottoms are the worst places for particulate build-up. Hilly and coastal areas are rarely a problem.

Sincerely,

Michael Henn

Response from Jenny Bard, assistant director of advocacy and communications at the American Lung Association of California and author of the Yodeler article.

Wood smoke is the largest single source of particle pollution in winter (33% overall with much-higher localized concentrations). Winter is when we have federal exceedances for particle pollution (PM2.5) occur. (Ozone exceedances occur in summer.)

Mr. Henn is correct that tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks are the leading source of air pollution in the Bay Area, but their emission rates are controlled by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, as the regional air-quality agency, has limited power to influence these emissions, mainly through grants and incentives. The District's charge is primarily to regulate stationary sources of pollution, such as refineries, power plants, cement plants, and the thousands of private residences with `smokestacks' where wood is burned.

While wood is a renewable resource, breathing wood smoke is injurious to health. These tiny particles can lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, contributing to stroke and heart attacks. Wood smoke worsens breathing and exacerbates lung disease, and even low levels of this pollution increase the risk of premature death. Despite years of voluntary effort to curtail pollution, the lack of controls on wood-burning and wood-smoke pollution in the Bay Area has created unhealthy air for everyone, and a situation where neighbors are suffering health effects, becoming prisoners to their neighbors' wood-burning pollution.

The proposed regulation does not ban wood-burning. It does ban harmful wood-smoke pollution. There are many cleaner-burning alternatives available to enjoy the glow without the smoke.

U.S. EPA Phase 2 certified wood-burning devices are generally cleaner, but if not properly maintained and operated, over time they can pollute at levels nearly as high as uncertified devices. US EPA Phase 2 certified means any stove built after 1992. Many of the complaints we receive are from neighbors of residents burning in their EPA certified wood-burning stoves.

There will be exemptions for financial hardship and if natural gas is unavailable.

Wood-smoke pollution is an issue everywhere, not just inland valleys. The air district received more than 200 letters of support for the regulation from all over the Bay Area, including flat and hilly areas.