EPA’s New Standards: Burning Up About Fine Particulates from Wood Smoke

We at Families for Clean Air are often asked why the EPA is not actively involved in addressing wood smoke pollution. The answer is complex, but right now there is an opportunity for the EPA to impact wood smoke pollution through their newly proposed particulate matter standards.

On June 14, 2012, the US EPA proposed strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particle pollution, also known as fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ). Full details can be found here. These changes are based on “an extensive body of scientific evidence that shows that exposure to particle pollution causes premature death and is linked to a variety of significant health problems, such as increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems, including non‐fatal heart attacks. PM also is linked to the development of chronic respiratory disease.”

In other words, the EPA has determined that the current fine particle standards are “not adequate to protect public health as required by law.”

Fine particle pollution is regulated to protect the public from the many harmful effects of long- and short- term exposure to PM2.5, such as the PM created by burning wood. The EPA is proposing that the allowable level of PM2.5 be lowered from the current level of 15.0 μg/m³ (set in place in 1997) to a level of 12.0–13.0 μg/m³. An area would meet the standard if the three-year average of its annual average PM_2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the level of the standard. EPA anticipates designating regions as attainment/nonattainment areas by December 2014, and regions will then have until 2020 to meet the new standard.

How will this impact wood burning? That remains to be seen. But tightening this standard will bring more attention to sources of fine particulate pollution, like wood smoke, that have previously been ignored in many areas of the country. By motivating regions to strengthen existing rules or to develop new ones, it will also create opportunities for every air basin in the nation to address wood smoke as part of their overall efforts to attain the new standard.

The EPA states that the proposed standards are expected to yield significant health benefits, with health savings valued at $2.3–$5.9 billion annually for a proposed standard of 12 μg/m³ and $88–$220 million annually for a proposed standard of 13 μg/m³. This represents a return of $30 to $86 for every dollar invested in pollution control. Not only is this proposal good for public health, it makes economic sense as well.

Unfortunately the proposal does not directly address localized PM sources. The EPA is proposing updates and improvements to the nation’s PM_2.5 monitoring network: No new monitors will be required, but a small number of monitors may be relocated to measure fine particles near heavily traveled roads.

This strategy ignores PM pollution “hot spots”, such as neighborhoods with wood boilers or older wood stoves, that are not near mobile transport corridors. In such areas, wood smoke can collect in valleys and have significant health impacts on the community. The EPA needs to hear that there are areas away from the freeways that are also bearing a heavy health burden from PM pollution.

We have an opportunity to tell the EPA that we want PM standards that are as stringent as possible. We need to let them know that we want wood smoke pollution addressed as part of their strategy to reduce the impact of fine particulates. Comments must be sent by August 31^st, and final standards will be issued by December 14, 2012. In addition, two public meetings are being held in Philadelphia and Sacramento. Click here for information about how to comment electronically  or by mail or in person.

Let’s make our voices heard: Everyone deserves to breathe clean air.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Climate Change: New Connections Between Climate Change and Wood Burning

Burning wood produces soot and methane, the second- and third-leading causes of global warming, respectively. Soot, also known as black carbon, kills approximately 1.5 million people per year worldwide, and methane increases ozone, which negatively impacts global health.

Not only are black carbon and methane themselves pollutants, but increasing levels of these combustion products lead to temperature increases that in turn worsen the health effects of air pollution. A recent study at Stanford University notes, “Controlling soot and methane may be the only methods of preventing loss of the Arctic sea ice and a tipping point to more rapid global warming.”

The impact of black carbon on climate change, especially as it impacts California, was the focus of the California Air Resources Board Meeting on May 24, 2012. Scientists from the EPA, Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory described how soot and brown carbon (a combination of soot, methane, and other fine organic particles) are affecting our climate at the regional and global levels in ways that undermine the very foundations of our climate systems.

The presenters noted that black and brown carbon are principally regional pollutants formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass such as wood. The resulting fine particles go directly into the atmosphere, remaining aloft for days or weeks. According to the EPA, “Controlling direct fine particle emissions from sources can be a highly effective air quality management strategy, with major public health benefits. Targeted reductions in black carbon emissions can provide significant near-term climate benefits.”

Reducing wood burning reduces the production of black and brown carbon as well as methane and may help slow climate change. In addition, reducing wood smoke will improve air quality, improve public health, and relieve some of the burden on the climatic systems that sustain life on earth.

Children’s Exposure to Wood Smoke: Small People, Big Problems

There are several new studies that show how pollution from biomass combustion, such as wood burning, has negative impacts on children’s heath. Some of these effects occur during pregnancy, creating lifelong damage to the developing fetus. From rural cook stoves in Africa to the mix of urban pollution in American cities, mothers and children are increasingly exposed to toxins and carcinogens from wood smoke, and their health is being compromised at unprecedented levels.

According to researchers at the University of California at Riverside and at Pitzer College in Claremont, California, children exposed to open-fire cooking in developing countries experience difficulty with memory, problem-solving, and social skills. The study concludes, “Exposure to wood-burning stoves may be more damaging than people realize. It could have cognitive and behavioral effects.”

Recent studies have also shown that prenatal exposure to air pollution can slow lung development in children and cause respiratory ailments, such as allergies and asthma.

These new studies highlight the fact that wood smoke is not only dangerous for those who are already at risk, such as those who suffer from asthma or cardiovascular illness. Wood smoke and other pollutants are also dangerous for developing fetuses and children in ways that are much more profound and long lasting than thought previously.

These studies join the growing body of evidence that wood smoke is a major public health threat that needs to be addressed in order to protect our children’s health and well-being.

Warm-weather Wood Burning: Pollution in Our Own Backyards

The weather is heating up, and homeowners are not burning as much wood to stay warm. Now we can all take a deep breath without fear of inhaling wood smoke, right?

Not quite. Unfortunately, the increasing popularity of backyard fire pits and “chimineas” is creating a new reason to worry if you like to breathe clean air. Burning wood in outdoor fire pits and chimineas is just as bad for air quality as burning wood in a fireplace or wood stove. The same pollutants, including particulate matter and dioxin, are produced. Worse, burning wood in the backyard eliminates the “smokestack” that normally releases these pollutants away from ground level; this results in more direct inhalation of the toxins.

Sitting around a camp fire, backyard fire pit, or chiminea thus results in much more immediate, concentrated exposure to harmful particles and since there is not as much opportunity for dispersion. The Canadian Lung Association notes, “Wood smoke from chimineas may stay closer to the ground since they have low chimney stacks and can pose a problem for neighbors.” The upshot is that those in the immediate vicinity of the fire inhale large quantities of wood smoke pollution, and their neighbors get a big dose as well. Children are especially vulnerable, as their respiratory systems are still developing and they breathe more air (and air pollution) per pound of body weight than adults.

While the romance of an outdoor fire is just as alluring as that of a blazing log in the hearth of your living room, please consider the damaging effects of these fires on your health and that of your children and neighbors. We all deserve to have healthy air and to enjoy our backyards without breathing in the pollution from an outdoor fire.