5/22/00 - Palo Alto Bans Fireplaces
5/24/00 - San Jose Bans Fireplaces
6/7/00 - CHH Sues Palo Alto & San Jose
7/5/00 - Contra Costa Gears Up
1/6/01 - San Francisco Chronicle and CHH Response
*******
NEW WOODBURNING FIREPLACES BANNED
IN PALO ALTO
ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WOODBURNING FIREPLACES DURING RECONSTRUCTION OR REMODELING
Editorial Contact:
Michael Gersick
(916) 449-9507
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA -- May 23, 2000 -- In a move more symbolic than likely to have any effect on air quality, the Palo Alto City Council last night banned woodburning fireplaces in all types of new constuction, including hotels and restaurants.
The ordinance was sponsored by Councilmembers Mossar and Eakins, based on a "model ordinance" drafted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mossar is a member of the District Board.
Fireplace industry representatives supported the need for stringent air quality standards for "woodburning appliances", but strongly opposed the Palo Alto ordinance's use of "EPA certification" as the criterion that determines which "appliancesÓ may be built. EPA ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) certification is not available to fireplaces, even though recent tests conducted at EPA certified laboratories have shown some fireplaces burn as cleanly as the EPA "certified woodstoves". Under the Palo Alto ordinance, the certified woodstoves would be permitted. The clean-burning fireplaces would not.
"The Palo Alto Council was committed to throwing out the baby, the bathwater, and the bucket", said California Hearths & Homes representative Michael Gersick. "The Council is on a Holy Crusade to eliminate woodburning fireplaces in Palo Alto and, by God, don't try and confuse them with facts."
"It's very unfortunate that so much misinformation was accepted by the Council and its staff, with so little critical review or analysis."
"The fact that some individuals -- among them Councilwoman Mossar's mother-in-law -- are bothered by woodsmoke apparently makes it OK in Palo Alto to abandon established principals of law and logic. Future generations of Palo Altans are not the only victims of this kind of lawmaking. Fairness and fact-based public policy were abandoned, as well. To permit woodstoves to be installed and to simultaneously prohibit fireplaces that have been shown to burn as cleanly, is neither fair nor fact-based."
Gersick indicated that industry would be seeking advice of counsel on the apparent inequity of the ordinance.
###
© California Hearths & Homes . All Rights Reserved.
back to top of page
San Jose Bans Fireplaces Too
San Jose Council passed to a 2nd reading, an ordinace based on
the Air District's model banning fireplaces.
I am going to use the occasion of your message to this group
to update everyone on the results of yesturday's city council meeting
in San Jose.
In brief, the council passed to a 2nd reading, an ordinace based on
the Air District's model. In fact, they passed it on unanimously.
All the public comments were given two minutes each, Michael Gersick
was given just a little more time because he asked to raise a
procedural issue before his time started but when it became clear that
he wanted to talk about how difficult it was to find out when the
transportation committee was meeting (which is clearly where the
details were supposed to be dealt with), the Mayor began the two
minutes.
My comments focused on giving the building department discretion to
approve 'other than EPA certified appliances', based on another
communities ordinance (Petaluma, California). One citizen urged the
council to pass this for his asthmatic son, and another congratulated
the council for considering this, and urged them to pass it, citing
the mis-information in that area about woodsmoke being a significant
cause of Dioxin in San Francisco Bay.
No masons, no builders, no citizens of any strip who thought this was
a good idea.
This issue is clearly finished, UNLESS, local people raise a great
deal of indignation. My sense is that no one in that area cares that,
after August, or thereabouts, no permit will be issued for a
woodburning appliance that is not either, EPA approved, or pellet
burning.
I'm very discouraged, particularly given the amount of local focus
that Michael Gersick has been able to bring to this, thanks to Jeff
McNear, and other's who have contributed to that effort.
I should mention that HPA has been doing more than just cheering
Michael on, I did norganize an op-ed piece in the San Jose Mercury
News on rather short notice, see:
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/086300.htm for
HPA's piece, and
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/edit/FIREPLACE.htm Is
that Fireplace a Respitory Danger, for the Mercury New's Pro view.
Today, for a story on the council meeting, see:
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/fireplace07p.htm
In anyone on this list has any questions I will be out until next
Tuesday, but will be happy to answer any questions next week. Please
do not direct any customers who might want to help to me, however,
Michael might be interested in speaking to a local builder or mason
who cares about this. Also, San Jose is a fairly net centric town, so
all of the contact info for the council is on the web. I would
caution folks who wish to try and intervene, that a local address is
probably the only relevant item right now for standing on this issue,
all non-locals should find a person within that town to funnel their
concerns through.
John Crouch
HPA
__________
The San Jose Merc's account of yesterday's hearing can be found at: http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/fireplace07p.htm
back to top of page
Palo Alto sued over fireplace limits
Air quality: Builders say bans deny them chance to meet standards.
BY LISA FERNANDEZ
Mercury News
Palo Alto has been hit with a lawsuit -- and the city of San Jose should expect one, too -- by the California Hearths and Homes industry group, which wants to overturn cities' bans on wood-burning fireplaces.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleges that Palo Alto's May 22 ban on new wood-burning fireplaces denies manufacturers the opportunity to meet air emission standards.
But City Attorney Ariel Calonne on Friday called the lawsuit a political "smoke screen, no pun intended, in an attempt to scare off" other cities from adopting similar ordinances.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which has been urging cities to limit wood burning, says wood smoke from stoves and fireplaces is estimated to generate 40 percent of the small particulate matter in the Bay Area during cold winter nights, which is particularly harmful to people with asthma. Wood smoke is a major contributor to dioxin pollutants going into the bay, affecting nearby water treatment plants. The air district has been pushing residents instead to use natural gas fireplaces, which can reduce air pollution by 75 percent.
In the Bay Area, San Jose, Los Gatos, Petaluma and Dublin have wood-burning bans. Morgan Hill, Los Altos, Berkeley and Contra Costa County are considering similar edicts.
"We hope other cities are as courageous as Palo Alto and San Jose, and think about the health of their constituents as a priority," said Luna Salaver, spokeswoman for the air district.
Another suit planned
The plaintiffs' attorneys said they soon expect to serve a similar suit on San Jose, which adopted a wood-burning fireplace ban this month. Representatives for California Hearths and Homes, an ad hoc group of masonry fireplace designers, architects and manufacturers with eight active members, had complained about the proposed bans at city council meetings throughout the region.
The lead plaintiff, Jim Buckley, is president of the Buckley-Rumford Co. that designs wood-burning fire products in Washington state. He alleges that wood-burning fireplaces are denied the opportunity to meet air emission standards. The suit also claims that the ordinance gives the illusion of being fair because it has a clause allowing wood-burning fireplaces if the federal Environmental Protection Agency certifies them. The problem, according to the suit, is that the EPA doesn't have such a certification program.
Buckley's attorney, Kenneth Finney of the Heller Ehrman law firm in San Francisco, said Palo Alto's law is arbitrary because it allows some wood-burning products to operate but not others, and therefore violates state law. He wants to work with Palo Alto, and other cities that have wood-burning bans, to instead adopt air standards, as is the case in Washington and Colorado. In those states, Finney said, fireplaces are allowed if they meet those standards.
Differing regulations
Calonne from the city attorney's office said cities are under no legal obligation to regulate all wood-burning appliances in the same way: "To the best of my knowledge, there is no constitutional protection for fireplace manufacturers."
Since Palo Alto has little room left for new construction, the wood-burning ban is almost a moot point. The ban only affects new construction. There is no law against burning wood in existing fireplaces. Pellet-fueled wood heaters are exempt from the ordinance. Also, wood stoves used exclusively for cooking are OK.
Home developers and real estate agents have testified at city council meetings that the new law shouldn't affect their businesses.
Dena Mossar, a Palo Alto council member who began spearheading the wood-burning ban about a year ago, is replacing her old-fashioned fireplace Monday with a natural gas one, complete with electric switch and ceramic logs.
``I won't have to haul wood or breathe that smoke,'' she said, excited about her new gas fireplace. When she was visiting a Mendocino County lodge, she was taken by a glowing fireplace where fake logs were burning warm and bright: "It was really quite lovely."
__________
Envelope-to: buckley@rumford.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:34:32 -0700
From: Michael
Subject: Response to "Palo Alto Sued Over Fireplace Limits"
To: pyost@sjmercury.com
Editor
San Jose Mercury News
Dear Editor:
The regional debate over woodburning fireplaces has been tainted by recurring misunderstandings, and your recent account of California Hearths & Homes' suit against Palo Alto ("Palo Alto Sued Over Fireplace Limits", June 25) falls prey to most of them.
ÊÊÊ
Your report perpetuates the mistaken assumption that the disagreement is about air quality, pitting our stalwart environmental regulators against another industry concerned more about profits than public health. ÊEven a casual review of the dispute would have revealed the fallacy of that assumption.
California Hearths & Homes, the plaintiff in the suit, supports more aggressive regulation of fireplace emissions, supports No Burn Nights whenever required by climatic conditions, and has offered to provide a "burn cleanly" public education service to owners of every woodburning fireplace, both already constructed and yet to be built.
Most importantly, California Hearths & Homes supports holding fireplaces to the same emission limits per unit of fuel which is imposed on woodstoves that earn "EPA certification". ÊÊThat simple request to be regulated to an equivalent standard is what we requested of the Palo Alto City Council, and subsequently of the San Jose City Council. ÊThe denial of that request made litigation unavoidable.
The suit is about fair and equal treatment under the law, not about avoiding or weakening emission limits.
By using deliberately deceptive language, the Palo Alto Ordinance appears to hold both woodburning fireplaces and woodburning stoves to the same strict standard, but instead utterly prohibits woodburning fireplaces. ÊThis cynical, backdoor approach was promulgated by the BAAQMD, which could not muster support for its own regulation of woodburning fireplaces and so passed the matter on to the less technically sophisticated local jurisdictions, where "lip-synch legislation" was more likely.
The success of that cynical strategy depends on just the sort of cavalier journalistic treatment given to it by the Mercury News, to date. ÊSo long as city councilmembers blindly rely on the unchallenged blandishments of the BAAQMB and avoid being confronted with the facts -- in the media or elsewhere -- Êthe strategy works.
California Hearths & Homes welcomes public discourse on the issue of fireplace regulation, and invites the Mercury News to investigate the issue more thoroughly. ÊThere is useful data on both sides of the issue that is worthy of critical review. ÊBut unquestioning recital of the BAAQMD's inflammatory rhetoric regarding particulate matter, exaggerated for its political effect, is neither good journalism nor a constructive contribution to the public debate.
Modern, cleanburning masonry fireplaces should have the opportunity to prove they can meet "EPA certification" equivalents as well as any other woodburning devices. ÊSome would pass and some will fail, just as have other woodburning devices. ÊBut the stringent standards of certification should be applied fairly and without exclusion to all woodburning sources of emissions. ÊThat Ð and that alone Ð is the substance of the suit.
Michael Gersick
California Hearths & Homes
Michael Gersick & Associates
public affairs -- issue management
980 Ninth Street, #1600
Sacramento, 95814
(916) 449-9507
e-mail: gersickassociates@pacbell.net
back to top of page
7/3/00
Uilkema, Chairwoman
Internal Operations Committee
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Dear Supervisor Uilkema:
California Hearths & Homes, comprised of masonry fireplace designers, firebrick kiln operators, architects, and masonry craftspeople, looks forward to providing constructive input to your Committee’s consideration of woodsmoke regulation, beginning on July 10.
We commend the unhurried pace and careful preparation the Committee has demonstrated to date. Some other Bay Area jurisdictions, eager to dispose of the issue without understanding it, have rushed to unsound and legally flawed resolutions which, in turn, have led to litigation. We believe that a full and fair hearing of the facts of woodsmoke-related emissions will produce a regulatory system and public information program for Contra Costa County that can unabashedly claim the title "model".
In anticipation of the hearing on the 10th, I’d like to make some fundamental points unequivocally clear.
First, California Hearths & Homes speaks only for masonry fireplace stakeholders, designers and craftspeople. We do not represent the mass-produced “builders’ boxes” that are available at retail outlets, nor any of the various “fireplace accessories”, inserts, appliances, or other “manufactured” woodburning devices. Our fireplaces are brick, stone, mortar, and pre-cast ceramic components hand-assembled to specifications developed and refined over decades. In recent years, technology has accelerated the pace of those improvements, particularly improvements in the combustion dynamics of our fireplaces. Minimizing particulate emissions is the predominant goal of the testing and modification process. Our members design and build fireplaces that produce fewer particulate emissions per unit of fuel than an EPA certified woodstove.
Second, California Hearths & Homes supports the adoption of stringent standards for domestic fireplaces. The role of woodsmoke in the calculation of wintertime air quality in the Bay Area is a matter of considerable disagreement, but there is no disagreement regarding the wisdom of reducing woodsmoke-borne particulates to practical minimums. Permitting only the cleanest of domestic woodburning options is not only sound public policy, but a welcome market response to fireplace craftspeople who have worked hard to reduce fireplace emissions. Now, we want to work with you to develop standards that will protect the health and safety of Contra Costans while offering them the broadest range of domestic woodburning options that are compliant with EPA certification equivalents.
Third, while the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District should be applauded for raising awareness of particulate matter pollution as a public health issue, their so-called “model ordinance” is ill-conceived and should be rejected. Their ordinance completely ignores the source of all of Contra Costa County’s current woodsmoke concerns: all the fireplaces, stoves and “woodburning appliances” already in use in Contra Costa County. Further, in terms of what would be permitted for construction in the future, the BAAQMD's "model" distinguishes between acceptable woodburning and unacceptable woodburning by reference to the wrong index. "EPA certification" - the BAAQMD's proposed clean-burning determinant - is a term that applies to woodstoves only (fireplaces are not subject to EPA certification). Even though masonry fireplaces have been shown to burn with fewer emissions than an EPA “certified” woodstove, those cleaner-burning fireplaces would be prohibited in Contra Costa while the "certified" woodstoves would be permitted if the approach recommended by the BAAQMD is adopted.
We hope that the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors will recognize the inappropriateness and inequity of the BAAQMD’s chosen criterion, and, like the states of Washington and Colorado and other local jurisdictions in California, allow woodburning fireplaces whose emission factors have been properly demonstrated to be EPA certification-equivalent. (The District's choice of criterion, which cavalierly discriminates against masonry fireplaces with no emission-related justification or benefit, has prevented California Hearths & Homes from participating constructively in woodsmoke-regulation efforts in the Bay Area. We have been forced to initiate litigation against Palo Alto and will likely do so next week against San Jose, because of their uncritical adoption of the discriminatory language in the BAAQMD's "model". See attached.)
Thank you for the invitation to participate in your woodsmoke regulatory process.
Sincerely,
Michael Gersick
California Hearths & Homes
Enc.
deSaulner
**************
Envelope-to: buckley@rumford.com
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:28:54 -0700
From: Michael
Subject: "Banning of gardens proposed to remedy pollen allergies"!!!
To: tkeegan@cctimes.com
Theresa:
On July 10, the CoCoCounty Board of Supervisors begins formal consideration of an ordinance that may ban future woodburning fireplaces in Contra Costa. ÊThe ordinance was spawned by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAQMD).
Perhaps not the most sensational public affairs issue of this decade, but a noteworthy example of a good regulatory objective gone bad. ÊCalifornia Hearths & Homes, a group of masonry fireplace designers, firebrick kiln operators, architects, designers and masonry craftspersons, would like to introduce the issue to the Times editorial staff.
The story may begin as an emissions-reduction issue, but has aspects of administrative abuse, the blurring of personal and public agendas, due process and equal protection under the law, credible environmental regulation being undermined by sloppy science and institutional arrogance, and costly, disruptive litigation made necessary by cursory local lawmaking (by some South Bay city councils).
If you're interested, I'd like to meet to brief you. ÊIf you're not THAT interested, I commend the July 10 hearing to the attention of your Assignment Editor.
I hope to hear from you.
Michael Gersick
California Hearths & Homes
Michael Gersick & Associates
public affairs -- issue management
980 Ninth Street, #1600
Sacramento, 95814
(916) 449-9507
e-mail: gersickassociates@pacbell.net
back to top of page
San Francisco Chronicle
Sharp Rise In Wood Burning
Fireplaces in use to ease utility bills
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environmental Writer
Saturday, January 6, 2001
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/06/MNE146454.DTL
Bay Area residents trying to cut utility bills by heating their houses with fireplaces may be contributing to a recent spate of bad air days and possible health problems, air quality officials warn.
Between Christmas and New Year's, the number of days when the Bay Area's air quality index showed at least moderate levels of small-particle pollution rose 49 percent over 1998 and 1999 levels.
At the same time, tradespeople are reporting that consumers faced with higher energy costs are clamoring to buy cords of wood and fire up unused hearths.
The combination of increased wood burning, a dry winter as well as the topography of hills and valleys could be responsible for pollution that has diminished visibility and threatened people's lung function, officials say.
"The concentrations of particulate matter have increased since Dec. 20, especially in the Santa Clara Valley area," said Luna Salaver, a spokeswoman for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Other areas affected include the San Mateo County coast, San Francisco and western Alameda County.
Air-quality officials could not directly attribute the haze to more home fires. Yet in winter, they know the tiny pollution particles -- smaller than 10 microns, a fraction the size of a human hair -- come from wood burning as well as from car exhaust. Traffic was light over the holidays, they say.
The first increase in tiny particulates came Dec. 20, reaching a classification called "moderate," meaning the pollutants are at high enough levels to affect unusually sensitive people, such as those with respiratory problems. A string of "moderate" pollution levels followed every day from Dec. 23 through yesterday.
To be sure, the Bay Area's recent cold and dry spell has not helped; there have been few winter storms to clean the air.
And generally, low temperatures create an inversion layer of warm air holding down the cold air, trapping the pollution in a dirty blanket within 200 feet of the ground. Normally, pollutants circulate within 1,500 feet of the ground.
Without wind, the emissions accumulate and stagnate in the valleys and shallow basins for weeks.
"You inhale them, and you can have minor symptoms of coughing and eye irritation. But you can also have more serious health effects should those small particles become embedded in your lungs," said Salaver. It's even more of a problem for children, asthmatics and people with emphysema.
In San Jose, where pollution levels were highest, two hospitals -- San Jose medical Center and the Regional Medical Center of San Jose -- reported a rise in respiratory visits, although spokeswoman Leslie Kelsay said they could not pinpoint the reason.
"Most of the increase represents patients with respiratory complaints. We're on the leading edge of the flu season, and we're seeing a range of other viral respiratory ailments. Certainly, when air quality is poor, people of all ages with chronic pulmonary illness are impacted."
Although no move is afoot in the Bay Area to ban traditional open-hearth fireplaces as Reno, Nevada, did, health officials are urging people to buy wood stoves or fireplace inserts that have been certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
An old fireplace releases 60 grams of small particles an hour, 85 times as much as certified wood stoves and equivalent to 3,000 natural gas-fueled furnaces.
San Jose, Petaluma, Palo Alto, Los Gatos and Morgan Hill and Contra Costa and San Mateo counties require new buildings to use the EPA-certified wood stoves or natural gas stoves.
Despite pollution concerns, people are buying wood and revving up fireplaces more than ever this year. Chimney sweeps and wood sellers say they have been flooded with calls, many more this season from people saying they want to save on PG&E bills.
"Every house in the city has a fireplace, pretty much. People used to burn fires as a luxury, usually on holidays or to brighten the room with a Duraflame log, which doesn't put out much heat," said Jeff Friedman, owner of SF Chimney Sweep.
"But now I have calls from people asking me where to buy wood. They mention that they're using it to heat their homes," said Friedman.
He has fixed fireplaces for renters in the Haight and Bernal Heights and for homeowners citywide who say they are supplementing forced-air central heating. "That's usually the people who have just bought a house and are hurting for cash -- or older folks," Friedman said.
The chimney sweep warns people that using old-fashioned fireplaces is inefficient and expensive. The living room may stay warm but the drafts created by a fire just suck the heat out of the rest of the house.
In Livermore, at Tammy's Nice and Neat Chimney Sweep, owners Tammy Hildebrand and Richard Shubert have seen a sharp rise in fireplace service and wood sales.
"Oh yes, because of the PG&E gas and electric going up, they're taking their fireplaces and changing them into pellet stoves and wood-burning inserts like back in the '70s," Hildebrand said. Since November, she has replaced 12 to 14 open-hearth fireplaces with more efficient, less polluting wood burning devices.
Shubert, who handles the firewood part of the business, estimates that sales have jumped about 30 percent this year. Five years ago, firewood sold for $185 to $200 a cord. Today, oak sells for $330 and almond wood for $235 a cord.
In Sonoma, Jose Aguilar, a gardener, supplements his central heating with a certified stove that was in a three-bedroom house with an insulated attic when he bought it in 1991.
"When I use the heater alone, I know my bill is going to be pretty high, maybe $125. So most of the time, I use the wood stove, and the heater kicks in when the thermostat hits 65 degrees. The heat from the wood stove is so nice. It's more comfortable."
But he doesn't have to pay for his wood. He cuts oaks already felled for new Sonoma County vineyards, and uses five or six truckloads a winter. "I'm lucky I have a lot of friends, and I hear by word of mouth. Then I go cut the wood."
At the air district, spokeswoman Teresa Lee warns that people rushing to wood burning may be doing a disservice to the health of the Bay Area.
"We're very concerned about wood burning in the winter,' Lee said. 'Even though the price of natural gas is going up, it's still the most environmentally friendly way to heat your home whether you're using a central heater or buying a natural gas stove that looks like a wood stove.'
E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A11
Response
by Michael Gersick for the CHH
Editors of the Chronicle:
California Hearths & Homes appreciates the Chronicle's recognition (Sharp Rise In Wood Burning Fireplaces... , January 6, 2001) that the Bay Area's wonderfully irregular weather is the culprit in the controversy over woodsmoke particulate matter. ÊDuring "normal" winter weather patterns, woodsmoke-borne particulate measurements by BAAQMD air quality monitors are so low as to be almost undetectable. ÊOnly during those few climatic "inversions" is woodsmoke captured at ground level, temporarily triggering "exceedances". ÊUsing the BAAQMD's own measured monitoring data for the years 1990 through 2000, those exceedances have averaged fewer than five days per year.
On that basis the BAAQMD proposes to eliminate the woodburning fireplace, the source and symbol of domestic warmth for thousands of years.
To justify this remarkable overreaction, the BAAQMD puts out stunningly misrepresentative data such as that quoted in your recent article. ÊIt is unfortunate for all of us when our watchdog environmental agencies spend their most valuable asset -- their credibility -- so carelessly. ÊThe Air District has data from recent tests conducted by EPA-certified laboratories, funded in part by the District itself, that show masonry fireplace emission factors are very closely comparable with "EPA woodstoves". ÊThe comparisons offered the Chronicle by the BAAQMD are outlandish and irresponsible.
California Hearths & Homes has proposed a two-step approach by the Air District, in lieu of their current demand to prohibit woodburning fireplaces.
Laboratory test have proven that variations in wood fuel, starting methods, and firewood stacking patterns can produce dramatically different particulate matter emission rates, so we believe that providing simple guidelines for cleanburning home fireplace use would be an effective first step. ÊBy contrast, the BAAQMD "model" response denies the comfort of a woodfire to all who don't currently own a woodburning fireplace, but ignores the possibility of realizing significant emissions reductions from all those fireplaces currently in use.
Secondly, we would propose the BAAQMD respond to those few episodes of "inversion" each winter by issuing "No Burn Night" alerts through the Bay Area's media, much like the more frequent summertime ozone alerts. ÊThose few words, included within local television, radio and newspaper weather reports, would discourage most occasional fireplace users from unknowingly contributing to unhealthful air in their own neighborhoods.
Until such practical, cooperative approaches are tried and tested, draconian prohibitions seem unjustified and punitive.
back to top of page
