Council Wants To Study Wood Burning More, Will Revisit Recommendations in April

Dr. Tom Cahill has been working with the city since October on establishing guidelines for wood burning that will be based on solid scientific foundations that enable people's health issues to be addressed while at the same time respecting people's rights to the fullest extent possible.

The city council last night heard from a wide variety of experts, many of whom have been in countless hours on the issue of wood burning.

In the end, they adopted Dr. Cahill's measured approach. What Dr. Cahill recommends at this point in time is that given the fact it is already January, the city is not going to implement any new policies this burn year. So at this point, why rush the decision?

His view is that whatever occurs, needs to be done based on the best science possible and since the scientific studies have not been conclusive as of yet, he urged the council to allow for the collection of additional data. It appears that data will take two forms. First, he has and is donating the use of two of his monitoring devices to the city. This will enable the city to have a centrally located monitoring device and one that roams.

There is concern by the citizens, the experts, and the council to determine what exactly is going on in the city. Many suggested the city not be treated as a one-size-fits all solution, that there might be parts of the city that are heavily impacted by smoke while others are unaffected. There is also the need to do more than just have two monitoring devices.

The second portion of a study will look at the impact of Sacramento's burn and no burn days to see how they impact particulate matter in the air. One thing that was noted is that much of Sacramento's air particulate matter is pollutants moving up from the San Joaquin Valley northward. In other words, they are having no burn days based on things that occur down south.

Dr. Cahill argued effectively that by moving the decision back to April, they will have more data at their disposal and can make a better informed decision.

Many members of the public came to speak on both sides of the issue. Those with health problems, once against laid out their concerns with wood burning. However, there were a large number of people who came forward in support of various compromises and ways to continue to burn.

One big issue that came up had to do with the phase-in toward EPA approved appliances and how that should occur. There was a general concern with cost to the consumer. The feeling was that if it was cost prohibitive it would discourage residents of Davis from upgrading and encourage them to rely on PG&E for their full heating needs. Moreover, many expressed the concern that regulations may be a moving a target. In other words, no one would want to invest in EPA approved appliances if there was even a possibility that the regulations would change and they would not be able to use the appliance that they invested a sizable amount of money into to purchase.

There were additional concerns raised about the practicality of six hour burn limits. First, from the standpoint of heating, you could not simply heat a home for six hours. Moreover, the difficulty in stopping the burning of wood makes it less than practical.

Finally, concern was expressed by staff and the public about how this would be enforced particularly if there are limits on types of appliances, length of burn, wind velocity, and other factors.

It was a good discussion. Members of the community with expertise on wood burning, including some in the commercial field, came forward to offer information and advice. It was one of the better discussions that I have witnessed before the city council.

In the end, council is moving forward on this in a measured and responsible fashion. They emphasized the need to implement policy based on hard scientific data.

Toward the end of the discussion, Councilmember Stephen Souza made a key point, he demonstrated the changes that have occurred in our understanding of health risks and practices. He cited for example in the 1970s, when the council met in the old City Hall, that people would smoke in council chambers. We would never see smoking in council chambers these days in part because of our recognition of the health impacts of second hand smoke and laws that prohibit smoking in public buildings. Moreover, now we recognize that even smoking near buildings can be a health risk. As our understandings of health impacts evolve, so too must our laws.

Councilmember Heystek made the further point that Davis is often on the forefront of these type of policies and we do not need to rely on what other communities are doing. We need to look toward Davis-centered approaches that fit our environmentally conscious community. Thus taking into account things like wind speed, taking into account that federal standards and state standards are minimum standards is an appropriate thing to do.

In the end, the council made the correct decision to wait until they had more data in order to do this correctly. One thing that was put into the motion was a provision to educate the community on this issue. That clearly needs to occur. I have been uncomfortable pushing forward with this without greater amount of citizen buy-in. I still think that the council, the NRC, and the experts are ahead of public opinion on this issue.

This is an issue that effects people in their home. One member of the community came up and talked about what an open hearth fireplace means to her. She described it as primal, the need for fire, likening it to the need to reproduce. She has regular picnics with her kids in front of the fire. She argued that the fireplace in her home was one of the reasons that she bought her home and she didn't want the fireplace taken from her. As she said this on the one hand, you could feel for her. On the other, you wonder what if this practice was actually putting her health and her children's health at risk without her knowledge. I would certainly like to do more research on these questions, but Davis is not the only community facing this issue. To some extent if Davis does not get out in front on this issue, the air management district will.

So last night, the council did the right thing given the timing of events , in holding off on a decision about wood burning. Clearly this issue is still a controversial issue in which the city needs to engage the community. The council now has a few more months to engage the community and hopefully they will use this time wisely.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Wood Burning Ban Discussion Turns Up the Heat

The headline reads:

"Smoke Police Begin Crackdown on Newly Illegal Chimney Fires"

The article goes on to say:

Burn a log, go to jail.

Not quite. But at noon Wednesday, it became illegal for residents of the nine Bay Area counties to start a fire in their fireplaces, wood stove or in pits outside their homes.

And those who flout the new law, which is in effect on pollution-heavy Spare the Air days, could be slapped with fines of thousands of dollars. The current ban will last at least until noon today, but about 20 Spare the Air days could be declared during the winter season, which runs from Nov. 1 through Feb. 28.

Teams of inspectors from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be patrolling neighborhoods, on the lookout for chimney smoke and, perhaps, listening for the sounds of chestnuts roasting on an open fire.

"We take this very seriously,'' said district spokeswoman Kristine Roselius.

She said one in seven people in the Bay Area has respiratory problems that can be worsened by soot. "During smoky nights, it's difficult for them to breathe,'' she said.

The article obviously was not written in the Davis Enterprise but rather than the San Jose Mercury News on November 19, 2008.

The article continues:

"The Bay Area has 1.4 million fireplaces and wood stoves, so district officials are hoping most people will voluntarily comply with the new law, adopted by the district's board of directors in July. But residents who decide not to obey might soon regret it.

"We won't have inspectors knocking on doors,'' Roselius said. But first-time violators will be sent a warning in the mail and told they can expect steep fines if they continue to ignore the law.

Roselius said the district hasn't yet set up a penalty schedule for subsequent violations, but "the fines will range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars."

The Mercury News then asks a poll of its readers with a comments section as to whether they would report a neighbor violating a fireplace wood-burning ban. 77% or 464 of 602 votes said no. The responses get heated. People turned to insults. The comments could have been written on the Vanguard.

If you look at the letters to the editor section of the Enterprise, Bob Dunning, etc., people are acting like this is yet another Davis artifice. It is not. It is happening across the state and the agenda is being driven by the Air Quality Management District. In fact, it is not just a California thing, a number of citizens in other states are starting to push for various forms of limits, regulations, or even bans on wood burning. This is not just about Davis.

But Davis of course has to hang their hat on something. Davis' wood burning ban would of course be the strictest in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley.

The key difference is that Davis' regulations would use wind speed as a factor. Moreover, the NRC's proposal would prohibit the use of wood burning fireplaces and stoves somewhere around 60 days per season. Sacramento County's proposal would ban wood burning for 11 days. The City Staff's recommendation would be in that range.

Finally, Davis' NRC proposal would ban open hearth fire places completely and phase-in the EPA modified phase II.

Bob Dunning this morning argues that it's not clear the science is there to support this.

But even the commissioners had to admit they were shocked by one glaringly contradictory factoid that emerged from their studies.

'One surprising aspect of this modeling work,' they write, 'was that the predicted maximum concentrations of PM were less with an open hearth fireplace at a 2.5 mph wind speed' than with an EPA Phase II-Approved wood stove at the same wind speed.

In other words, at a lower wind speed - one that is quite common in our town - an open-hearth fireplace is actually better for the air than one of those fancy and very expensive EPA-certified stoves.

But, rather than embrace this finding, the commission decided to ignore it completely in its headlong rush to immediately ban all open-hearth fireplaces at all times, no matter what the atmospheric conditions.

When you've made up your mind, best not to let a pesky fact or two get in your way.

Mr. Dunning of course omits the explanation for the inconsistency and reasons why a two-tiered approach would be problematic. Here is the full explanation from the study:

This apparent inconsistency is due to the uplifting dispersion effects of the high exhaust velocity of the Open Hearth fireplace relative to the lower wind speeds seen in this particular combination of meteorological conditions. As the exhaust velocity to wind speed ratio drops by either using an EPA Phase II approved wood stove with reduced exhaust velocity or with increasing wind speeds, the resulting wood-smoke plume is forced downward so much higher PM2.5 concentrations are predicted with Open Hearth Fireplaces at either higher wind speeds or stagnant air conditions. Thus, it is not practical to suggest a small wind speed “window” to allow burning with open hearth fireplaces because that window is very small from a meteorological point of view - i.e. variable wind speeds would into and out of the “safe” wind speed window very quickly. This prevents effective practical enforcement of prohibited burning. Further, the degree of neighborhood pollution that otherwise results from burning in an open hearth fireplace when outside the “safe” wind speed “window” is so great that much would be risked to gain little if this wind speed window exemption was implemented for open hearth fireplaces. Thus, we strongly recommend against implementing a two-tiered approach to determination of “Allowable Burn Days” allowing for use of open hearth fire places during this very narrow wind speed “window”

Finally, it is important to note that this predicted net daily PM2.5 exposure calculations assumes only one upwind fireplace and ambient background PM of only 12 ug/m3. If the background PM concentration is higher than 12 ug/m3 as often occurs, then this degree of exposure relative to the recommended exposure threshold increases. If one or more additional fireplaces are also being used in close upwind proximity, this will also contribute additional PM to the plume and the degree of exposure to the exposed individual also increases.

Here is their key recommendation:

"For this reason, there will undoubtedly still be some exposure of some people to PM2.5 concentrations of such a duration that their exposure will exceed even the Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The extent of this exposure is subject to disagreement amongst knowledgeable practitioners, however. Thus, we strongly recommend that the UC Air Quality Research Center be contacted and further study be implemented and completed prior to a complete ban on all wood-burning."

Sounds reasonable. It is clear at this point that we do not have all of this science down. Just as we did not have all the science down a generation ago on the effects of second-hand smoke.

The more I read, the more I agree with a measured approach. I was concerned that this was pushed a bit too far initially. I think the NRC recommendations are where we ultimately need to go, I am not completely sure we are there yet. If we settle for the staff recommendation, I would like to see the council build in a time-table to get to a lot of the elements that the NRC has put forward.

There are a lot of questions that still need to be resolved on this issue. One question that is striking to me is that the language in the ordinance at least from the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) is that the police would police this ordinance. My question is why is the Air Quality Management District not doing the same thing in Davis that they are in the Bay Area? The enforcement mechanism is problematic at this time. I would like to see the city explore other possible models of enforcement other than relying on police resources.

I would also like to see a much more concerted educational campaign on the part of the city to show the public how this can be a very real and very serious health hazard, and not just to people with asthma and respiratory diseases, although that is probably sufficient to do the preliminary restrictions.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Research Sheds Light on Wood Burning

By Alan Kandel

Note: Alan Kandel did this article originally for the California Progress Report. Since this issue is coming on the city council's agenda for next week, it seemed like a good article to post here as well. The wood burning issue is not a Davis issue per se, it is an issue that many communities are having to grapple with due to state and federal regulations and new research that shows possible health risks of exposure to wood burning smoke. A Google search of the issue shows how widespread it has become in California particularly.

It’s 2009 and it is no secret - or it shouldn’t be a secret at this point for that matter - that the San Joaquin Valley - located in the state’s mid-section - has some of the worst air quality in the nation. I’m frequently reminded of this through newspaper articles, broadcast news accounts and through use of my own two eyes, nose and lungs. But not all is doom and gloom for just today in the Fresno Bee news article, “Valley wood-burning bans rise, deaths fall,” the message is that consistent with wood-burning bans initiated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District beginning in 2003, in 2004, there were fewer recorded deaths that could be directly attributed to the burning of wood in fireplaces, stoves, etc.

Bee environmental reporter, Mark Grossi writes:

“The wood-burning bans are preventing at least 50 premature deaths each year in the Fresno-Clovis area and about 30 annually in Bakersfield, a new study suggests.

“The study was completed last month by David Lighthall, who is the health and science advisor for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.”

“Lighthall did the research while working as a scientist for the Central Valley Health Policy Institute at California State University, Fresno.”

According to Grossi and as I understand it, the scientist argues the stricter SJVAPCD air rule - regarding tightening fireplace wood-burning restrictions - “is justified.”

Making the connection between fewer deaths and more fireplace wood-burning restrictions, couldn’t have been easy. Nevertheless, the information is in the report, which can be found here.

Grossi writes:

“Mounting research shows the microscopic soot from wood burning is among the biggest air-pollution threats to the public. The specks, known as PM-2.5, can evade body defenses, lodge in the lungs, trigger many illnesses and result in premature death.”

Specifically, “fireplaces focus PM-2.5 where many people live,” Grossi reveals, something even I can affirm in my own neighborhood, especially on the evening of December 26th. Standing outside on my patio that evening was indeed a very unpleasant experience as the air was more heavily laden with woodsmoke than usual, presumably caused by more neighbors burning wood in their fireplaces than what would typically be the case.

Grossi notes also,

“To determine the impact of the air district’s burning bans, Lighthall studied PM-2.5 exposures in three years before the rule was passed.

“He found that 54 fewer people would have died in the Fresno-Clovis area if the burning bans had been called in 2001 and 2003 (sic)

“Sixty-three fewer people would have died in 2002.”

The incentive for or benefit of not burning wood in one’s fireplace with regular frequency or otherwise, should be obvious. Question is: Is it really?

This article originally appeared on the California Progress Report.

Scaled Down Wood Burning Ban and Restrictions Before Council Next Week

Back in July, the Davis City Council voted unanimously to support a wood burning ban and send the matter to the Natural Resources Commission to write an ordinance. Even at that point of time, while supportive of the concept of banning wood burning stoves, it was clear that council was well ahead of the public on this issue.

Specifically I worried that the public did not even know this was coming down for the most part until the council had already discussed the issue. In the subsequent weeks and months, as the public has become aware of the issue, the public has turned against the idea of banning wood burning stoves.

Back on August 27, nearly a month after the council voted unanimously to move forward with a resolution, I wrote in the Vanguard:

On July 29, 2008, the Davis City Council unanimously voted to recommend to the Natural Resources Commission to draft a resolution that would implement a full ban on wood burning in Davis with an exemption for hardship.

I will say at the onset here, that I am fully in support of that decision, particularly with such an exemption for people of lower income backgrounds who rely on wood burning as a cheaper means by which to heat their homes in the winter.

However, at the time I was concerned about the way in which this issue had been dealt with by the city, the city council, and the local paper--or that is, not dealt. I got up to speak before city council on the night of July 29, 2008, to recommend two things. First, that we need exemptions for people with hardships. And second, that we needed better outreach before this meeting.

On the morning of July 29, I wrote this article in the Vanguard. It essentially lays out my position on the technical aspects of this issue. But I believe that for many in this community, they did not know this issue was even under consideration until that article appeared the Vanguard and subsequently an article in the Davis Enterprise on July 31, 2008.

As a result, the Natural Resources Commission has made an alternative set of recommendations from staff recommendations. Both sets of recommendations significantly scale back the original council action approved on July 29, 2008.

The staff report is roughly 25 pages, thus this summary will not do it justice.

However, staff does make five recommendations that if the council approves them, an ordinance would be brought back well before November 2009 which would constitute the beginning of the next burn season.

Staff recommendations:

a) Work with Dr. Cahill and the YSAQMD to establish monitoring to gather specific air quality information, to be used in assessing what further restrictions may be in order;

b) Adopt the following wood burning restrictions: Establish burn/no burn days based on Federal air quality standard of PM2.5 of 35 ug/m3 and apply the same criteria to open hearth and non-certified appliances. Restrictions do not include the eventual ban on open hearth an non-certified appliances. Further restrictions will be revisited once air quality data is collected and analyzed.

c) Work more closely with the YSAQMD to disseminate all manner of information on the wood burning, i.e., health effects, proper burning techniques, etc;

d) Pursue programs that would encourage the change out of old appliances and the conversion of open hearth. This can be done through promotion of YSAQMD’s Woodstove Change Out Program and pursuing funds to increase the grant amount to further encourage change outs;

e) Pursue viability of using resale requirements that may reduce the number of open hearths and non-certified appliances.

Natural Resources Commission Recommendations:

a) Wood burning will only be allowed on “Allowable Burn Days” defined as a forecasted average regional PM 2.5 of 25 ug/m3 (particulate matter) or lower and a forecasted average wind speed from 6 PM to midnight of 5 mph or greater.

b) Wood burning will be allowed a maximum of 6 hours per day per residence and only burning of seasoned dry wood is allowed.

c) Beginning March 1, 2010, wood burning is only allowed in EPA Phase II-Certified wood and pellet stoves and prohibited in fire places or non-EPA certified appliances.

d) A one time permit is required (for law enforcement and educational purposes). Permit issuance would start March 1, 2010.

e) This proposed ordinance does not pertain to any appliances fueled by natural gas or propane and/or designed and exclusively used for cooking purposes.

f) Exemptions are allowed for temporary breakdowns of other heat sources and power outages.

The major difference between two the recommendations is that Staff's recommendation focus on burn restrictions and contains no bans at this time. The NRC bans open hearth and other non-certified appliances but allows EPA Phase 2 certified appliances.

Staff report explains that they have followed Dr. Cahill's approach:

"At the October NRC meeting, Dr. Cahill, a former professor in the UC system and local expert on global climate change, offered to work with the city to gather air quality information. Staff supports Dr. Cahill’s measured approach of gathering specific information that will aide in assessing the air quality and the nature of future action. This would be accomplished through a donation of monitoring equipment and Dr. Cahill’s expertise and time to evaluate data. Staff has met with Dr. Cahill and a monitoring station has been set up."

The staff report does not know what the fiscal impact of this approach will be.

The enforcement issue has been a concern. The idea that the police would have to become the enforcers seems a waste of police resources among other related problems. The NRC draft ordinance includes enforcement as a response to those who burn illegally, staff seems uncomfortable with the notion however.

"While it is simple to suggest that the Police Department enforce the ordinance, the nuances of actually doing so are quite complex. There are several elements that make the draft ordinance difficult to enforce."

The staff report continues:

1. Because of the inherent difficulties of monitoring actual burning time, the 6 hour
maximum burn time is not enforceable.

2. Enforcement is complicated when various appliances are treated differently. Police officers would be required to distinguish between open hearth, non-EPA certified wood burning stoves and inserts and EPA Phase II certified stoves and inserts. Some of this concern is relieved if permits are issued.

3. Police officers would be required to distinguish between seasoned dry wood and unseasoned or wet wood.

4. And lastly, this type of call could be triaged and be a very low priority. It is difficult to estimate what percentage of calls the Police Department would be able to respond to.

This actually only gets to the tip of the iceberg. Quite simply enforcement would have to be treated specially. Because different devices, different woods, and burning time periods are involved, it would make the police's job very difficult. This is not a like a noise ordinance or a smoking ordinance that would be fairly straight forward to enforce. The city probably does not have the resources to deal with the enforcement and frankly this is not what the police should be doing either. This section needs considerable thought and attention--while I might in general favor the NRC approach, it would be very difficult to enforce which might make the staff approach more feasible.

Finally the issue of burn/ no burn criteria is discussed.

Staff's assessment of the NRC recommendation:

"The criteria the NRC recommends uses an air quality threshold that is lower than the Federal standard. To our knowledge, this lower threshold has not been used in any other burn restricting ordinances. The NRC recommendation further adds an additional factor of wind speed which is also unprecedented."

Staff on the other hand:

"Staff believes a more measured approach and collection of air quality data will assist with the establishment of burn/no burn criteria based on the City’s air quality. The data collected will help define the air quality challenges in the City and thus allow for the development of burn/no burn thresholds that target the city’s needs. Staff recommends starting with moderate restrictions, the Federal standard, and then stepping towards a more restrictive ordinance as may be deemed necessary by the results of the data collection."

It is helpful that the staff report includes a chart to show the impact of each regulation:



The bottom line here is that staff's approach is probably the least preferred alternative at this point. The impact to people who have allergies and asthma of wood burning is immeasurable. It is probably a larger percentage of the population than the percentage that makes frequent use of wood burning.

However, what happened was the initial wood burning ban got too far ahead of the public on this issue and there has been considerable blowback over the last four or five months. The result was the need for a more scaled-back approach. Wood burning bans in short need to be slowly phased in and the public needs to be educated on the health hazards involved. That certainly had not occurred in July, which is why we expressed concern at that point in time that the issue had not been properly vetted.

From our perspective, the NRC approach is the better approach than the staff report. It contains the goal of phasing out and banning non-EPA approved devices and has a more stringent measure for no burn days.

However, even with this more scaled back approach, there remains the concern that because it is multifaceted, it will be difficult to enforce. That is not a reason not to pass it, but it does need to be thoroughly examined.

The Vanguard understands the rationale behind the more measured approach, but fears it does not go far enough and is not aggressive enough in terms of dealing with the very real health hazards involved in wood burning.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Thanksgiving Eve: Woodburning, Child Abandoning, and a Legislative Surprise

Well Vanguardians, it is that time of year, Thanksgiving. As we have done the previous two years, for the only time during this year, the Vanguard will take a vacation. Today will be the last new entry, barring the biggest story of the year, until Monday morning. Everyone have a happy and safe Thanksgiving.

There are three briefer stories that will be covered in this article

WOOD BURNING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED

On Monday, the Natural Resources Commission drafted an ordinance on wood-burning stoves. It was not a complete ban that the city is moving towards. However, it would implement no-burn days when atmospheric conditions and the winds are insufficient to disperse the smoke. Even on those days when would could be burned, it would be limited to six hours per day.

The effects would take place on March 1, 2010. The city would study Davis' air quality to determine the impact of no-burn days and the impact a more stringent ban would take place.

The council will take up this issue on December 16, 2008.

I fully understand the reasoning of waiting on restrictions. I also understand why they did not want to undertake an outright ban. That said, I do not think a March 1 start date makes any sense. Why wait until the end of winter to start the ban? What practical sense does that make? What value is that for conducting a study. It essentially means that we are waiting for the 2010-11 winter to get real data on the impact. That is fine, but if that is the case, why not begin the ban on September 1, 2010?

Second point, and maybe someone knows who attended the meeting, but did they put an exemption in for lower income people? Especially if you are not banning wood burning, it makes sense to exempt low income people who use the fireplace as their primary means for heat.

At some point this is going to become like a smoking ban, incrementally it will get tougher and tougher and people realize exposure to even small amounts of particulate matter in the air is unhealthy, particularly for a broad range of sensitive people. (A number that likely exceeds the number of people who burn wood on a regular basis).

SAFE HARBOR LAW AND DAVIS TEEN

Good article in the Sacramento Bee this morning describing the incident and the conditions that led a Davis woman to leave her 14 year old son in a hospital in rural Nebraska.

I suppose not yet being a parent myself, I do not have standing to admonish this woman, since I do not know what she's been through. Taking that chance, I would offer that my first response to hearing this was this was a despicable act by an irresponsible person who should now lose custody of her other two children. Harsh? Perhaps. Let's take a look at what happened.

But on the other hand, it seems that authorities share some of the responsibility here for failing to assist her calls for help. Do we not have a system set up to help people such as her so that she does not have to take drastic steps such as drive 1600 to Nebraska. A few years ago, I did that drive, you can drive from Western Nebraska to Davis in about 18 or 19 hours of driving if you take minimal rest stops.

The Sacramento Bee article seems a bit less judgmental of her situation than I did, running through exactly what the problem was and how she tried to get help.

Fortunately, Nebraska wisely closed the loophole that was supposed to be for infants to prevent infanticide by desperate mothers who are overwhelmed by the prospect of suddenly having to care for a young baby.

As the Sacramento Bee describes, help is hard to find:

" For parents of such problem teens, there is a network of resources available through schools and mental health providers. But there are cracks in the system, and the frustrations of dealing with a patchwork of services.

When authorities declined to intervene after her son raised a knife against the family, she said, her only option was to abandon him in a state that would accept him.

Her son was the last of three dozen older children abandoned in Nebraska in recent months before the state's Legislature closed a loophole in its new safe haven law. Now, only newborns can be dropped off without legal liability there."

According to the article, start with the child's school and school psychologists. However, they warn that students who *only* have substance abuse problems may not qualify for special education.

"His mother, who works as a custodian, makes about $2,000 a month and lives in a modest house, said she was able to get him into a residential treatment program in Sonoma. He seemed to be improving, she said.

But then he started acting out and getting into trouble. It was the same behavior – defiance and aggression, drugs, drinking and smoking – that had caused such trouble at home, she said."

The woman told the Bee that she adopted the son when he was four and he was aggressive toward all his family members--verbally and physically abusive.

"After the latest knife-waving incident, the woman said, she called police, who did little to help.

Police in Davis and Sacramento said such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, with the officer assessing the nature of the threat and the likelihood of violence.

"There's no formula," said Steve Pierce, assistant chief of Davis police. He said he did not know the details of the particular case, but confirmed police had gone to the house a number of times."

She also called Yolo County Child Welfare Services, according to the Bee, they could only protect abused children, not parents.

Nebraska has sent the child back to Yolo County, now he will be placed in foster care, and a court will decide his fate.

Okay, I still blame the mother after all of this, but I can partially understand her actions. But what really seems amiss is the system. And the worst part is that our social services simply do not have the resources to help in this matter. Nor do we have the systems and protocols laid out. So what does a working class woman who makes a fairly low salary and is apparently a single-mother with other children going to do when these problems arise? She went to the system multiple times and the system failed her?

So at the end of this analysis, I still do not agree with the safe harbor strategy and dumping him on someone else, which she has essentially and completely done, he is now going into a foster care system which is equally overwhelmed and unable to attend to his needs. This is an exceedingly sad case and this boy will likely live a very tough life unless he ends up in a home that will have the resources and patience to make a difference in his life.

DEMOCRAT WILL WIN AD 10 ELECTION

In an open race that featured Democrat Alyson Huber and Republican Jack Sieglock, for most of the post-election period Huber had been trailing her opponent by over 1000 votes. This was one of the very few competitive races.

While we have not discussed this race, it is race that I am familiar with and know quite a few people who spent hours working to get Alyson Huber elected to the Assembly.

Well the news came last night that based on the counting of several thousand ballots from Sacramento County, Alyson Huber has surged to a 531 vote lead. She had a net gain of over 900 votes when they completed counting Sacramento County.

There are a couple of hundred ballots outstanding in El Dorado County, and a few in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, but not enough to overturn the election. The counties must certify their results by December 2.

At this point barring an unexpected change it looks like Huber will win and bring the Democrats to 51 seats in the Assembly next session. It's not the two-thirds the Democrats were aiming for and not enough to forestall another budget lock-down; however, Democrats will be happy to have 51 seats in the Assembly.

The two sides could not even agree on a package of cuts and taxes to reduce the $17 billion budget deficit for the next two years. Republicans refused to budge apparently on new revenues. The Republicans argued that the plan lacked a spending cap, economic stimulus, and did not contain enough cuts.

At some point perhaps we will realize that we have enough checks and balances already in place that requiring a two-thirds vote makes it impossible to have real changes. Simple majority approval by the legislature and the governor's acceptance are all the checks and balances we really need to do something, but the current 2/3 system does not permit that.

Happy Thanksgiving all! Remember, December 2 is the Virtual Town hall Meeting. Big issues are coming up in Davis in December - that is for sure - and the Vanguard will be there to bring you the most up-to-date information and happenings in Davis. See you again on December 1st!

---David M. Greenwald reporting

A Burning Issue For Our Community

Programming note: Join the Vanguard tonight on KDRT 101.5 FM from 6 pm to 7 pm, as I host Alan Pryor who is one of the leaders in the fight to ban wood burning. You can call in with questions at 792-1648.

On July 29, 2008, the Davis City Council unanimously voted to recommend to the Natural Resources Commission to draft a resolution that would implement a full ban on wood burning in Davis with an exemption for hardship.

I will say at the onset here, that I am fully in support of that decision, particularly with such an exemption for people of lower income backgrounds who rely on wood burning as a cheaper means by which to heat their homes in the winter.

However, at the time I was concerned about the way in which this issue had been dealt with by the city, the city council, and the local paper--or that is, not dealt. I got up to speak before city council on the night of July 29, 2008, to recommend two things. First, that we need exemptions for people with hardships. And second, that we needed better outreach before this meeting.

On the morning of July 29, I wrote this article in the Vanguard. It essentially lays out my position on the technical aspects of this issue. But I believe that for many in this community, they did not know this issue was even under consideration until that article appeared the Vanguard and subsequently an article in the Davis Enterprise on July 31, 2008.

Following that article, the dam broke loose, and there have been several op-eds in the Enterprise, numerous letters to the editor, and commentary by Bob Dunning.

This is all a healthy part of the democratic process, but this should have happened before the July 29, 2008 meeting. This is an issue that effects so many in our community on both sides of the fence. Large numbers of people have come forward to tell of their health problems that they suffer from wood burning smoke during the winter months. They came before the council on that evening to present their compelling cases, and it is my belief that the council was moved by those testimonies and it enabled them to take tougher action that they were probably prepared to do prior to the meeting.

Unfortunately, there is also a group of people in this community who feel strongly the other way, and their voices were not heard on that night.

In yesterday's Enterprise for example, George Galamba suggests what he terms a more measured approach:

It is too bad that we are unable to see shades of gray in the debate. Yes, burning wood (or gas, oil, coal, etc.) does produce smoke, and smoke is a pollutant. But there is a bit of difference between burning a branch that was blown down a few months ago in an open-hearth fireplace and burning seasoned wood in an EPA-certified stove.

Rather than a draconian ban on burning all wood, why not a measured response to the problem, which is not wood, but rather smoke? I would like to offer a few suggestions:

-- If it is not already the law, ban open-hearth fireplaces in new construction. Why put a fireplace in a house and then tell the new owners that they can't use it?

-- As properties change hands, require that fireplaces be retrofitted with approved appliances or bricked up.

-- Prohibit burning on days when the air is polluted.

-- Issue burning permits that would require attendance at a workshop on how to burn cleanly.

In many ways it was Thomas Cahill editorial on August 5, 2008 that lit the fire.

He writes:

"One of the greatest threats to effective environmental progress is asking the public to bear the cost of environmental actions that later turn out to be unnecessary or unsupported by current science. Such errors erode the political will to do the hard and necessary environmental tasks. Think of the current credibility of the FDA, for example, after it erroneously labeled tomatoes as the salmonella culprit.

Davis is in danger of sliding down this slippery slope in instituting a total ban on wood burning when the science is not supportive of such an action."

He argues that Davis during the winter months has low levels of Wood smoke and even during the severe problems during this summer, there were no notable increases in doctors' visits or hospital admissions.

"There are two problems. One is that the city of Davis' Natural Resources Commission did not have key documents that have actually determined the surprisingly low levels of wood smoke in Davis in winter, a 55-page report submitted to the City Council in March 15, 1995. This work shows that even in the worst stagnation periods, Davis represents a tiny enhancement over the valleywide winter particulate pollution, which is largely caused by diesels and smoking cars.

In addition, for the past month we have been breathing smoke from the much more dangerous wildfires at levels roughly 100 to 200 times what which we saw during our worst stagnation period, the cold, hazy day in Davis on Dec. 23, 1995.

Yet Glennah Trochet, M.D., Sacramento County's health officer, noted no increases in doctors' visits or hospital admissions from the present wood smoke even in the worst period of mid- to late June 2008."

On the other hand, perhaps that should not be the measure of such problems. Many people I know cranked their air conditioning up and simply stayed inside during the horrid smoke and incessant heat of the early portion of this summer.

Alan Pryor, who will be my guest tonight on KDRT, had a response Op-Ed on August 14, 2008.

Mr. Pryor argues that:

"Cahill made three claims that are unfortunately not substantiated by the older data he presented nor accepted by the larger scientific community."

He then refutes Mr. Cahill's objections.

"Firstly, Cahill implies that wood smoke is not as harmful as suspected or represented... In that article, a county health officer said they had not yet observed a local jump in hospital emergency admissions due to respiratory difficulties during the recent weeks of wildfire- induced wood smoke pollution. There was no data to support that observation and that was the only item in that article that could be possibly be construed to minimize the hazards of wood smoke pollution.

In fact, the actual thrust of that article was to warn people how dangerous were the then-current levels of wood smoke pollution levels and. Both Kent Pinkerton, a UC Davis professor and expert on the health effects of air pollutants, and Larry Greene, executive officer of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, are extensively quoted in the same article, pointing out the severe adverse health effects of wood smoke. "

Next:

"Secondly, Cahill further claims his own research shows wood smoke concentrations are at "surprisingly low levels" in Davis and thus do not constitute a major pollution or health problem. This observation was based solely on a one-time measurement of air quality taken at only two different points in Davis on a single winter day about 13 years ago... The Yolo-Solano AQMD now estimates that, on average, about one-third of current wintertime particulate pollution in Davis is due to residential wood smoke. In Sacramento, the percentage of particulate air pollution due to residential wood - burning in winter is closer to 50 percent. "

Finally:

"Cahill also claims we can solve any "residual" wood smoke problems that might exist simply by heeding the "more stringent" "Spare the Air" restrictions on wood - burning that are periodically issued by the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. Well, that certainly sounds like a reasonable idea.

Unfortunately, the Sacramento AQMD issued only eight mandatory alerts last winter for restricting open-hearth fireplaces and no alerts at all restricting the use of EPA Phase II stoves. That means that during the unrestricted 112 days of the 120-day burn season (from Nov. 1 through Feb. 28), anyone in Davis could still burn an open-hearth fireplace as long as they wanted, at any time and anywhere — even next to a school, hospital, senior center or the home of an asthmatic child or senior. Similarly, an EPA Phase II stove actually could operate without any restriction whatsoever."

The debate is interesting, informative, and necessary. I encourage people to read the full op-eds from August 5 and August 14, in addition to the feature article from Claire St. John that appeared last Thursday in the Davis Enterprise.

However, again, I want to go back a step. This debate should have occurred before the July 29, 2008 City Council meeting. That is not to say the ordinance that will emerge from the NRC will be a done deal any time soon. There will be plenty of time to debate, but it would have been helpful to have a full debate prior to the direction to the NRC.

It is easy for a city like Davis to meet the basic Brown Act requirements for open meetings. Posting notices with able lee-time are sufficient for those requirements. But as I said at the July 29 meeting, the Brown Act should be considered the bare minimum standard for public notification, not the extent to which they go to inform the public on issues that they know will generate public debate. And this was clearly an issue that would. The debate that has emerged in the last month bears out my concerns at that time.

The city, in my estimation, does not make use of its considerable power of the bully-pulpit. It is easy to sit back and rely on reporters to report on the City Council meetings. However, in fairness to the Enterprise, at best one receives the agenda on Thursday late afternoon, that leaves Friday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday to report on anything that has to do with the council's agenda. That is not a lot of time to warn the public and to have any sort of public debate. And so, we often see debates develop after the fact.

Fact of the matter is that the city can write its own story and submit it to the newspaper whenever it wants and the the newspaper is pretty accommodating. Heck, they could submit it to the Vanguard and nine times out of ten, I would probably run it as well.

I think it would have been helpful had the George Galamba's and the Thomas Cahill's of Davis had been able to weigh in on the meeting on July 29, perhaps the council would have given the same recommendation, perhaps not. But at least they would have had their say.

I know they will get their say later on in this process, that is the justification that you will hear for the way this has unfolded, but as I have discovered, the further down the field they run with the ball, the harder it is to stop forward progress. Once they get the ball in field goal range, it is all a matter of damage control.

The debate on this issue will fortunately go on, the public will learn much more about this issue before the final vote is taken, it seems likely that the final vote will be considerably weaker than the direction given in late July. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a serious health issue.

In last week's Davis Enterprise article, Jennifer Anderson of Ace Hardware was quote, among other things she suggested that the city of Davis stay out of the issue.

"Anderson said the YSAQMD should be responsible for regulating wood burning.

'It would be my dream to just leave it to the Yolo Solano Air Quality realm and not bring it into local politics, because that's what they're there for,' she said."

As I understand the issue however, the YSAQMD sets emission standards, it does not regulate wood burning or set policy for the city. The local jurisdictions are in charge of setting such policies.

I point this out because these are issues that must be fully vetted in public and explained. What are the emissions requirements that the city has no control over and what policies are needed in order to meet those standards.

The next question is whether those standards are tough enough. Just like the Brown Act, emissions standards can be minimum requirements rather than limitations on regulations. They are often based as much on political expediency as they are on scientific premises. We need to sort through and determine whether we need to simply adhere to these standards or whether we as the city of Davis, need to set our own in order to meet the health needs of the population.

Regardless, these questions still need to be sorted out and the city has a duty to educate the public on this issue. If the city believes that wood burning represents a health threat, then they should use the power of the bully-pulpit to communicate that, rather than sit back and let those who like the comfort of burning dictate the terms of this debate.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wood Fireplaces and Stoves: A Burning Issue At Tonight's Council Meeting

Wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves is probably about the last thing you expected to read about in the middle of a hot July day. However, experts are increasingly concerned about the impact of wood smoke on the level of particulate matter in the area during the winter. According to a chart provided by the city of Davis staff report, the city of Davis appears to be right on the board between needing a mandatory solid fuel burning curtailment and the requirement of building new cleaner burning devices.

In 2004, the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District passed a rule to prohibit the installation of new non-certified fireplaces or wood stoves. But as we will see shortly, that rule helps, but does not alleviate the problem. According to the staff report, the rules set forth meet federal standards but not state guidelines.

The Davis City Council in January of this year asked the Natural Resources Commission to review this issue of wood burning restriction and to make recommendations to council. They made two recommendations. First, eventual complete wood burning prohibition. Second, "until the date certain for complete prohibition, initiate a permitting system for open hearth and EPA appliances that enables burning on days with certain meteorological conditions, based on wind speed."

The city staff however is not recommending the council follow the advise of the NRC.

"For the City to establish a new program by October 2008 is ambitious at best. The infrastructure for forecasting wind conditions, permitting, advertising and enforcement would all have to be constructed between now and October. Granted, some of the framework for education is there, but not the material and specifics for this program."

Furthermore:

"Staff is recommending that the City fully participate in the YSAQMD voluntary no burn programs. This could involve posting information on the City web page, including the information in City publications and any other action that would get the word out to educate the public on the adverse effects of wood smoke. The goal is to inform the citizenry of the hazards of wood burning.

Spend the next season working with the air district on developing/reviewing additional programs that would address the wood smoke air pollution. It seems that since the YSAQMD is at times, out of compliance on State PM levels, this may be starting place for a more stringent level for future restrictions. In addition to the public education efforts noted above, any large scale restrictions or bans on wood burning would require substantial public outreach and engagement."

A group called Yolo Clean Air is not happy with staff's recommendation. In a letter to the Davis City Council dated July 28, 2008, Alan Pryor writes:

"Staff’s comments seem to be completely and diametrically opposed to the NRC recommendations in that the NRC unanimously voted to recommend "'wood-burning appliances should be eliminated as completely as possible as soon as possible” while staff is recommending that "the City fully participate in the YSAQMD voluntary no burn programs. “…and…”Spend the next season working with the air district on developing/reviewing additional programs”. Quite honestly, this is exactly where the process bogged down three years at the NRC. Nothing was accomplished then as a result and nothing will be accomplished by the current round of studies if staff'’s comments are accepted and implemented."

He continues:

"It would seem by staff’'s comments that the biggest objections of staff to the NRC recommendations as proposed have to do with the amount of time staff feels they would have to spend implementing the ordinance."

Mr. Pryor looks for a compromise solution to bridge the gap between the action he deems necessary and the city staff's recommendation.

"As such, we have proposed what we believe is a very fair compromise that virtually removes all work required by the city staff including the provision for licensing or permitting. In our compromise, we have also suggested a much more gradual phase-out of EPA Phase II wood stoves as long as restrictions on when they can be safely used are included. This is in recognition of the fact that some folks have just purchased EPA Phase II wood stoves in good faith that they were doing the right thing (even though doing the right thing would have meant installing a natural gas-fueled stove or insert instead). However, we are sympathetic to their concerns and we believe our new compromise before the Council is reflective of that."

When I first heard about the possibility of banning wood burning stoves, I was rather outraged at the notion. After all, walking through a town during a cold winter day, it is rather a cozy to walk around and see the fireplaces going and smell the burning wood. That's of course if you do not have allergies. But then you look at the levels of particulate matter produced by wood burning stoves and the possible health impacts and it paints a very different picture.




Source: Yolo Clean Air

The issue came up during the campaign at the Sierra Club candidate's forum. That gives us insight into three of the council members views.

Sue Greenwald simply said:

"I am in favor of looking into an ordinance for banning wood burning."

Don Saylor gave a long-winded answer that read remarkably like the staff report. The synopsis of his answer was this:

"While I want to withhold judgment until hearing from the NRC, I think we will probably see a combination of further restrictions on burning using specific appliances, incentives and rebates for purchases of cleaner EPA appliances, and more awareness of the issues pertaining to wood burning and the environmental effects."

It will be interesting to see how he reacts to the NRC recommendation that differs from staff's recommendation.

Finally Stephen Souza probably gives a somewhat less committed answer than even Councilmember Saylor.

"There are already restrictions in place on new construction and new installation of fireplaces or wood burning appliances. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District's Rule 2.40 requires the use of pellet fueled heater or EPA certified heaters. We should also require that at the time of sale, remodel or a certain date that all fireplaces that do not meet Rule 2.40 be replaced or rendered inoperable.

We can also promote a self-imposed program of “Don’t Light Tonight” whereby residents do not use their fireplaces or woodstoves when air pollution is approaching unhealthy conditions."

It will be interesting to see what happens, though it seems likely given the stated positions of the three candidates that won election, that the staff recommendation will win out.

I will be very interested to see if this issue has resonance for the readers of the Vanguard. As I said, it seemed a bit nebulous for me until I saw the data.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting