## Comment Letters Received at the Board MeetingFrom: mary giacoletti [ mailto:mpowergiacoletti@gmail.com ]

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:21 PM

To: COB

Subject: Public Meeting/Friday, May 3/Comment



### To quote Lakshman Guruswami, a Sri Lankan-b orn professor of inte rnational law at the

University of Colorado:



## “With a single, concerted initiative, the wo rld could save millions of people from

respiratory ailments and early death, while dealing a big blow to global

warming.”

Professor Guruswami was referring to wood-bur ning, primarily in third-world countries,

and the “sooty pollution” that is the biggest killer of children under five, and arguably the

number one cause of preventable death in deve loped countries, such as the United States.

The two principal sources of black carbon poll ution are wood-burning and diesel exhaust.

By EPA mandate, the emissions from diesel vehicles have been, and continue to be

reduced. There is no equivalent reduction in the soot pollution from wood-burning;

regulations are minimal, if they exist at al l; any hint of enforcement is regarded as a

“violation of freedom.”

In California, the increased popularity of wood fuel for cooking, “warming,” and

entertainment stands in stark, ironic contrast to the poverty that necessitates three-fourths

of the population in India to rely on “primi tive stoves and open fi res which pose serious

health risks.”

“Think about that,” says Guruswami, who directs his university’s Center for Energy and

Environmental Security. “Two billion people are caught in a time warp, with no access to

modern energy. They got energy from Prometheus a long time ago and that was it.”

Guruswami under-counts the billions, underestima tes the access, and perhaps fortunately

for his own mental well-being, does not see the deliberately pointless time warp that is right

under his nose. In Colorado, in California, in Oregon.

Those scientists concerned with the larger pi cture of global warming and focused less on

the individual’s ability to brea the, are pointing out the effect of black carbon on places

such as Tibet and the Himalayas. A Scripps cl imatologist concluded th at black carbon was

causing as much Tibetan Plateau glacial me lt as greenhouse gases. A separate study

estimated that black carbon was responsible for 30 percent of glacial melt in the

Himalayas. NASA’s William Lau has identified a “brown cloud” that causes warming five

times faster over the Himalayas than globally. He attributed this to the local phenomenon

of biomass burning.

Environmentalist, Amanda Rice, has called wood-burning pollution “the low-hanging

fruit” of global warming, recognizing, as does Professor Guruswami, the “surprisingly low

### cost” and efficacy of remediation, from both a human and planetary point of view.

As I see it, the South Coast Air Quality Ma nagement District has the precedent-setting

ability and opportunity to:



## “save millions of people from respiratory ailments and early death, while dealing

a big blow to global warming, w 

## ith a single, concerted initiative.

Respectfully,

Mary Giacoletti

9349 Jasper Avenue, San Simeon, CA (805) 924-1690 mpowergiacoletti@gmail.comFrom: Giulia D'alesio [ mailto:jaguarg90@hotmail.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:02 AM

Cc: Sarah Ewell (Bur); Dennis Yates; Ben Benoit; Ruthanne Taylor Berg er (Ben); Margarita Felix (Ben);

Michael Cacciotti; Andrew Silva (Gon); Joseph Lyou; Shawn Nelson; Shawn Nelson; Clark E Parker;

Miguel Pulido; Miguel Pulido; COB

Subject: Ban Wood Burning

Wood Burning is a Health Hazard

When wood burns, more than a hundred toxic compounds are released into the atmosphere, joining

those released by the combustion of gasoline, diesel and heating oil, as well as those produced by many

industries. According to the MDDEP, in Quebec, 61% of fine particles released result from wood heating,

compared to 22% from industries and 14% from transportation. In a study conducted by the Direction

de la santÃ© publique de MontrÃ©al

‐ Centre, it was demonstrated that people using a wood stove have

a higher concentration of contaminants in their urine than those who do not have a wood stove. The

combustion of wood is therefore an additional source of exposure to toxic substances inside houses.

Wood smoke emissions contain components such as carbon monoxide (an asphyxiant), various irritant

gases such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,hydrochloric acid, and aldehydes such as formaldehyde

and acrolein, and chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs),oxygenated PAHs,and polychlorinated dioxins and furans. Effects, Carbon

monoxide CO Headaches,nausea,dizzy spells, people with heart condition can see their health

deteriorate Composed organic volatile COV respiratory irritation and aches; some COV are carcinogenic

Acrolein and formaldehyde

‐ Irritation of the eyes and of the respiratory tract Fine particle PM2,5

Irritation of the lung tract; serious respiratory problems, including death where amounts are excessive,

especially among those with a pre

‐ existing cardiopulmonary disease. Nitrogen oxides NOx, shortness of

breath, bronchial irritation, especially among people suffering from a pulmonary disease like

emphysema or asthma Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons HAP Some HAP are considered to be

carcinogenic Dioxanes and furans

‐ Some dioxins and furans are carcinogenic Young children, elderly

people and person suffering from asthma, emphysema and cardiac problems are more sensitive to the

air pollution. The largest single source of outdoor fine particles (PM2.5) entering into our homes in many

cities is our neighbor's fireplace or wood stove. Only a few hours of wood burning in a single home at

night can raise fine particle concentrations in dozens of surrounding homes throughout the

neighbourhood and cause PAH concentrations higher than 2,000 ng/m3." (Dr. Wayne Ott, Stanford

University, Feb. 1, 1998). A non

‐ certified wood heating system releases as high a quantity of fine

particles in nine hours as a car does over one year (18,000 km). There is about 50 to 70% of the

particulate matter (PM2.5) that seep (trespass) into every home, measurements of the wood smoke

particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH) by Dr. Wayne Ott of Stanford University showed

levels similar to having smokers lighting up cigarettes inside your home

. We are talking gases when we

talk wood smoke. What is seeping in, is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than, and is 12

times more likely to cause cancer. It is time to care about the air we pollute because it is the same air we

all breathe. We need a ban on wood burning because it is one of the contaminants that will be easiest of

getting rid of and cleaning up our air quality.

For more info. go to

Canadian Clean Air Alliance http://www.canadian cleanairalliance.ca

Clean Air Revival,Inc. http://burningissues.org

.Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Giulia D'Alesio

30, 102 ave.

NDIP, QC

J7V7P2

(514) 425

‐ 5288 or (438) 322

‐ 4132San Bernardino Fireplace & Woodstove Specialties

2240 E. Highland Ave.

San Bernardino, CA 92404

909

‐ 862

‐ 1330

April 21, 2013

Clerk of the Boards

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Re: Proposed Amended Rule 445

‐ Wood Burning Devices

San Bernardino Fireplace & Woodstove Specialties is a family owned business that has been in the City

of San Bernardino since 1914. We started as a sheet metal shop then added heating and air condition

products. In the early 1970’s we switched to selling hearth and BBQ appliances and the related

accessories. We have serviced the mountain areas from Mt Baldy to Big Bear and the greater San

Bernardino/Inland Empire area from Banning, Riverside to Ontario for 40 years. A large portion of our

customers in our service area have homes or cabins above 3000’ elevation.

We have a few issues with the proposed changes to Rule 445 that I would like to bring to your attention.

The first issue is the ban on selling wood burning fireplaces. This has directly affected our business by an

8% to 10% loss. In this economy this loss has been significant.

There is a relatively new category of clean wood burning fireplaces that is recognized at the federal

level, the EPA Qualified Wood Burning Fireplace. The EPA created this program since Rule 445 was

originally adopted. There are currently 21 units approved under this new program. According to EPA,

these units are cleaner burning than conventional fireplaces and we believe the District can reduce

wood smoke in the mountain areas of Big Bear and other higher elevation communities by allowing

clean burning, shorter burning, EPA Qualified fireplaces in new homes above 3000’ elevation. In

September 2011, these devices were displayed at the Air District offices and many staff members of the

District were amazed how clean these devices burned.

Please consider adding this option into Rule 445 for new construction above 3000’ elevation. This will

help us recoup some of the 8% to 10% loss we suffered by not being able to sell wood burning

fireplaces. This option being available could also stop households from circumventing the SCAQMD’s

efforts by going outside the district to purchase an open wood burning fireplace.

The next issue is not being able to use a pellet grill on a no burn day. A majority of our customers,

including myself, cook on a pellet grill all year long. In the event of a no burn day during the winter I

would not be able to cook on my pellet grill. If I did I would be subject to a fine for cooking a meal.

According to the information from the SCAQMD staff, we would not be allowed to use wood chips,

chunks or pellets on our gas or charcoal grills either. Also charcoal is exempt from a no burn day as it is

perceived that it burns cleaner than my pellet grill. I am not aware of any testing by SCAQMD to show

that this is fact. We would like to see pellet grills and the use of wood chips, chunks and pellets on a gas

grill excluded from a no burn day.The last issue we have is with the sub

‐ regional burn ban becoming a basin wide burn ban. While we

understand the simplicity to the public this just does not seem right to punish the entire basin when one

or two sub

‐ regions are the trigger for the no burn day. We think it would be more beneficial to focus

additional outreach efforts into these “trigger” communities instead of treating the entire basin as the

culprit. Please reconsider this issue.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jon Harman

Manager