air quality in the Fairbanks North Star Boroguh (Eielson AFB, North Pole: 2015, foreclosures)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I have been researching the Fairbanks area, I have found a great deal of press on the region's EPA designation as a "non-attainment" area for particulate matter, primarily from wood burning. It seems that the local politics (at least as reflected in the News Miner) has gone back and forth about what to do about this, with the most recent development being to allow local authorities to issue regulations of some sort, but without enacting specific solutions at this time. A recent News Miner article predicted that the area could attain compliance within 4 years (with delay resulting from the way the EPA measures attainment, with 5 year look-back period)
The problem with air pollution in the Fairbanks North Star Borough cannot be resolved with regulations, simply because there are too many factors involved, most of which aren't mentioned by those who want to regulate wood burning. For example, heating fuel is used on boilers and furnaces to heat our homes and every building in the borough and outside of it. Since the clean air standard is so strict, even a home boiler burning heating fuel breaks the rule. The same can be said for trucks, buses, heavy equipment, and so on, as these too burn diesel fuel.
We also have three coal-burning plants, one at UAF, another in Fairbanks, and the last one at Eielson AFB. In my view these three power plants, coupled to home boilers and automobiles produce a lot more particulate emissions than what wood burning ever will. To make matters worst this area experiences a recurring air inversion, and because of a lack of wind, sometimes for weeks at a time, the smog hangs at low altitude over Fairbanks and vicinity.
Salt Lake also experiences air inversions like Fairbanks, although in here we have such not only during the winter months. As you can see below, Utah is trying to control air pollution with vehicle smog checks. But this was tried in Fairbanks in the past:
Wintertime inversions are a common event in Utah, occurring primarily during the months of December through February. Prolonged inversions can lead to the high levels of fine particulate pollution, or PM2.5. These high pollutant levels raise significant health and air quality concerns, particularly on days when the pollutant concentrations exceed the national health standards.
Utah residents may be surprised to discover that vehicles and urban "area sources" contribute the largest proportion of the emissions responsible for the formation of fine particulates. Whether it's driving less or being more energy efficient, personal behavior changes that reduce emissions have a beneficial impact on air quality, not only during inversion periods but year round.
These are the primary sources of particulate matter in the air around Fairbanks:
-Power plant emissions
-Boiler and furnace emissions
-Automobiles
-A very fine dust from crushed gravel and dried salt used for aiding with traction on the roads
-Wood burning (people smell wood smoke quite easily compared to the rest)
1. The air is unhealthy in some areas when we have an air inversion, which happens quite often.
2. It is not getting better since each day we have more people moving in, and with these more automobiles, more homes, business, etc.,. all of which burn fuel. On top of that, we cannot change nature.
If you want to understand this problem thoroughly (probably more than you want to), you should read the draft Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Moderate Area Attainment Plan that was released by the State on 11/14/2014. It is available at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm...ons%201-13.pdf.
For example, section 5.6 contains a very detailed emissions inventory discussion with quantitative estimates of the sources of PM2.5 in Fairbanks. Page 5.6-28 shows a pie chart of the relative contribution of emissions sources during a PM2.5 episode, and indicates that wood heating accounted for 54% of PM2.5 emissions in the 2008 baseline year. Projected 2015 inventories, provided later in the same section, show similar percentages. So I respectively disagree with Ray's statement about the source of the problem.
While there's a lot disagreement about what to do to address the problem, I think just about everyone agrees that a major root cause is the high cost of energy in Fairbanks. Many believe that getting widespread usage of natural gas for home heating, at a cheap enough rate, will solve the problem. But progress on this remains slow (we'll see if the Walker administration makes this more of a priority) and the key issue will be just how cheaply natural gas can be delivered to homeowners and how costly it is for folks to convert to natural gas home heating.
Thanks for your replies, rwjoyak and RayinAK. Is the air quality better if you live in the hills near town? If so, how far do you need to go in order to notice a difference?
Thanks
If you want to understand this problem thoroughly (probably more than you want to), you should read the draft Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Moderate Area Attainment Plan that was released by the State on 11/14/2014. It is available at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm...ons%201-13.pdf.
For example, section 5.6 contains a very detailed emissions inventory discussion with quantitative estimates of the sources of PM2.5 in Fairbanks. Page 5.6-28 shows a pie chart of the relative contribution of emissions sources during a PM2.5 episode, and indicates that wood heating accounted for 54% of PM2.5 emissions in the 2008 baseline year. Projected 2015 inventories, provided later in the same section, show similar percentages. So I respectively disagree with Ray's statement about the source of the problem.
While there's a lot disagreement about what to do to address the problem, I think just about everyone agrees that a major root cause is the high cost of energy in Fairbanks. Many believe that getting widespread usage of natural gas for home heating, at a cheap enough rate, will solve the problem. But progress on this remains slow (we'll see if the Walker administration makes this more of a priority) and the key issue will be just how cheaply natural gas can be delivered to homeowners and how costly it is for folks to convert to natural gas home heating.
Such a study relates to a few specific areas where the air monitors are placed, not all areas of the borough. Also, how come when we had the IM inspections because of the same air pollution wood burning was not part of the study? Wood burning has always taken place around Fairbanks. But lets say that wood burning contributes to 54% of the emissions borough wide, where is the rest coming from and why is that side not addressed or corrected?
Also, the natural gas that is supposed to be brought to Fairbanks and vicinity is not going to reduce the high cost of energy. It will be another expensive proposition:
a. It will be trucked to this area , which means that it will have to be cooled to over -260 degrees prior to shipping. All of these steps will add to the cost. Besides that, the price of natural gas has been going up steadily, and even in the Matsu area home owners are complaining about its high cost.
b. I imagine that to convert your home heating from heating fuel to LNG will cost somewhere around $14,000, and that is not taking into account that "whenever" the gas line is at the street by your house you still have to pay to bring the gas to your house. http://www.adn.com/article/20131117/...if-price-right
Thanks for your replies, rwjoyak and RayinAK. Is the air quality better if you live in the hills near town? If so, how far do you need to go in order to notice a difference?
Thanks
All depends. For example, when you drive through North Pole you will see some areas where there aren't visual traces of air pollution. A friend of mine who lives on the hills around Fairbanks was telling me that when he gets up early in the morning and looks down toward Fairbanks the air looks fine, but when the morning rush hour starts he can see brown smog rising. By the afternoon rush hour the smog blankets the city.
Two weeks ago I drove through Fairbanks toward Cleary Summit to photograph the Auroras (around 9:45PM). The air was nice and clear from North Pole all the way past Badger Road and then Airport Way on the Steese. But from that point on, out to Birch Hill, the city was covered with a layer of ice fog from the Army and City power plants. The fog was thick, and for some reason I started sneezing non stop when I passed through the same areas on the way back around 1:00 AM.
-------
A few years ago when we had an IM program the air pollution was attributed to automobiles, not wood burning nor power plants, boilers, furnaces, and the rest
Such a study relates to a few specific areas where the air monitors are placed, not all areas of the borough. Also, how come when we had the IM inspections because of the same air pollution wood burning was not part of the study? Wood burning has always taken place around Fairbanks. [/url]
The state study estimates emissions both within the boundaries of the PM2.5 nonattainment area and a larger area called Grid 3 in the online draft document. So the study relates to where the traffic, people and PM2.5 pollution exists within the Borough. It doesn't need to be and shouldn't be for the entire Borough since few people live there and it makes no sense to look at controlling emissions in those areas. But it does relate to a much larger area than just where the monitors are located.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Also, how come when we had the IM inspections because of the same air pollution wood burning was not part of the study? Wood burning has always taken place around Fairbanks. [/url]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
A few years ago when we had an IM program the air pollution was attributed to automobiles, not wood burning nor power plants, boilers, furnaces, and the rest
The air pollution problem back then was carbon monoxide (CO) pollution, not PM2.5. The problem was addressed through a variety of measures, including the IM program and, most importantly, new federal controls on cold temperature CO emissions from motor vehicles. Cars and trucks built since 1994 are required to have much lower CO emissions at cold temperatures, these emissions were essentially uncontrolled before that. The new cold temperature CO controls had a large beneficial impact on ambient CO levels in Fairbanks, since the majority of CO during episodes was due to vehicle cold starts. Fairbanks was able to get into attainment and end the IM program since the CO problem had been solved.
The current problem is with fine particulates, not CO. It's a harder problem to solve because there are a lot of different sources of PM2.5, as the document I previously referenced discusses. Ray is correct that wood burning has always occurred around Fairbanks but there's a bunch more wood being burned these days due to more people living in the area and a higher percentage heating with wood because of the high cost of other heating methods. Some folks have also installed relatively dirty types of wood burning appliances, which put out a disproportionate share of emissions; these weren't used in the old days.
The draft document talks about reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all sources, including the coal burning plants Ray previously mentioned. It states that for these, "All of the emission units that were reviewed are already implementing the emission control techniques identified as RACT." I'm not an expert in stationary source emissions controls but I would be surprised if the experts at the State and their consultants overlooked some easy ways to reduce PM2.5 emissions from these sources.
After reading through the document, I came away thinking that most people who take the time to read it would conclude (unless they have a personal bias) that the reason the State and the Borough before them has focused on reducing wood heating emissions is because these are the ones that are most uncontrolled at present. More emissions reductions can be achieved through these controls at a lower cost than through other means.
The PM2.5 problem is very complex and the contribution of a lot of different kind of sources makes this problem much harder to solve than was the case with the previous CO problem. I was in charge of the Borough's air quality efforts back then and I can tell you that problem was relatively simple to solve compared to the current PM2.5 problem.
I'm not involved with trying to solve this one, although I was invited up in 2009 as part of a symposium the Borough organized about the PM25 issue. I said then that I believed the only way to solve this problem would be to export as much energy production outside of the Fairbanks airshed as possible. I still believe this is really the best long-term solution. The inversions are just too strong and too many people now live in the area to think that small reductions in emissions from various sources will solve the issue.
I view building a large natural gas fired power plant outside of the airshed and supplying cheap electricity for both power and home heating as the best way to address this. There would also need to be backup systems for when the electricity goes out since as everyone that lives up there knows, this can and does happen. Folks would also have to have some guarantee (State controls) that, if they did switch to electric heat under this scenario, GVEA would not raise their rates once they had switched. Those of us that were living up there in the 70s remember that is exactly what GVEA did back then.
I think the Borough made a big mistake a few years back when they first started working on this problem. Rather than immediately implementing stringent wood burning controls, I believe they should have attempted to work more with the industry (stove and wood sellers, etc.) and the public on education and voluntary measures. They could have also targeted one or more of the areas that were particularly bad and used it as a test case; e.g., contacting the wood burners in the area who were emitting the most visible pollution and trying to work with them to see how much reductions could be achieved in this manner.
Having grown up in Fairbanks, I think most folks would be reasonable in trying to help solve the problem if they didn't feel they were being unfairly targeted. Too much stick and not enough carrot. The ban in air quality regulations has caused the Borough to adopt a more voluntary approach in recent years, but by then the lines were drawn and the community has drawn apart rather than together over this issue. This will make the problem even harder to solve.
Thanks for your replies, rwjoyak and RayinAK. Is the air quality better if you live in the hills near town? If so, how far do you need to go in order to notice a difference?
Thanks
I think there's lots of reasons to live in the hills - less air pollution, being able to see the sun in the middle of winter instead of being socked in with ice fog, and temperatures that can be much warmer than in the valley. Of course, getting water at a house in the hills can be more of an issue and if you live up there you'll have a commute to wherever you're working. But if you would be working at UAF, I think living in the hills makes a ton of sense if you can afford it. Yes, the air quality is much better up there.
The state study estimates emissions both within the boundaries of the PM2.5 nonattainment area and a larger area called Grid 3 in the online draft document. So the study relates to where the traffic, people and PM2.5 pollution exists within the Borough. It doesn't need to be and shouldn't be for the entire Borough since few people live there and it makes no sense to look at controlling emissions in those areas. But it does relate to a much larger area than just where the monitors are located.
The air pollution problem back then was carbon monoxide (CO) pollution, not PM2.5. The problem was addressed through a variety of measures, including the IM program and, most importantly, new federal controls on cold temperature CO emissions from motor vehicles. Cars and trucks built since 1994 are required to have much lower CO emissions at cold temperatures, these emissions were essentially uncontrolled before that. The new cold temperature CO controls had a large beneficial impact on ambient CO levels in Fairbanks, since the majority of CO during episodes was due to vehicle cold starts. Fairbanks was able to get into attainment and end the IM program since the CO problem had been solved.
The current problem is with fine particulates, not CO. It's a harder problem to solve because there are a lot of different sources of PM2.5, as the document I previously referenced discusses. Ray is correct that wood burning has always occurred around Fairbanks but there's a bunch more wood being burned these days due to more people living in the area and a higher percentage heating with wood because of the high cost of other heating methods. Some folks have also installed relatively dirty types of wood burning appliances, which put out a disproportionate share of emissions; these weren't used in the old days.
The draft document talks about reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all sources, including the coal burning plants Ray previously mentioned. It states that for these, "All of the emission units that were reviewed are already implementing the emission control techniques identified as RACT." I'm not an expert in stationary source emissions controls but I would be surprised if the experts at the State and their consultants overlooked some easy ways to reduce PM2.5 emissions from these sources.
After reading through the document, I came away thinking that most people who take the time to read it would conclude (unless they have a personal bias) that the reason the State and the Borough before them has focused on reducing wood heating emissions is because these are the ones that are most uncontrolled at present. More emissions reductions can be achieved through these controls at a lower cost than through other means.
The PM2.5 problem is very complex and the contribution of a lot of different kind of sources makes this problem much harder to solve than was the case with the previous CO problem. I was in charge of the Borough's air quality efforts back then and I can tell you that problem was relatively simple to solve compared to the current PM2.5 problem.
I'm not involved with trying to solve this one, although I was invited up in 2009 as part of a symposium the Borough organized about the PM25 issue. I said then that I believed the only way to solve this problem would be to export as much energy production outside of the Fairbanks airshed as possible. I still believe this is really the best long-term solution. The inversions are just too strong and too many people now live in the area to think that small reductions in emissions from various sources will solve the issue.
I view building a large natural gas fired power plant outside of the airshed and supplying cheap electricity for both power and home heating as the best way to address this. There would also need to be backup systems for when the electricity goes out since as everyone that lives up there knows, this can and does happen. Folks would also have to have some guarantee (State controls) that, if they did switch to electric heat under this scenario, GVEA would not raise their rates once they had switched. Those of us that were living up there in the 70s remember that is exactly what GVEA did back then.
I think the Borough made a big mistake a few years back when they first started working on this problem. Rather than immediately implementing stringent wood burning controls, I believe they should have attempted to work more with the industry (stove and wood sellers, etc.) and the public on education and voluntary measures. They could have also targeted one or more of the areas that were particularly bad and used it as a test case; e.g., contacting the wood burners in the area who were emitting the most visible pollution and trying to work with them to see how much reductions could be achieved in this manner.
Having grown up in Fairbanks, I think most folks would be reasonable in trying to help solve the problem if they didn't feel they were being unfairly targeted. Too much stick and not enough carrot. The ban in air quality regulations has caused the Borough to adopt a more voluntary approach in recent years, but by then the lines were drawn and the community has drawn apart rather than together over this issue. This will make the problem even harder to solve.
The bottom line is that stopping the burning of wood for heating is not going to solve the problem, since at least an equal amount of particulates are produced by the other sources I have mentioned. Also, electricity regardless of how cheap, would be too expensive to heat one's home. What is happening is that it's a lot simpler for governments to regulate the burning of wood, than it is to regulate the emissions from power plants, from its own vehicle fleets, and the rest.
The State has had a wood stove exchange program for several years now, and a lot of people in the borough have been using the newer and more efficient stoves, and pellet stoves as well.
I think there's lots of reasons to live in the hills - less air pollution, being able to see the sun in the middle of winter instead of being socked in with ice fog, and temperatures that can be much warmer than in the valley. Of course, getting water at a house in the hills can be more of an issue and if you live up there you'll have a commute to wherever you're working. But if you would be working at UAF, I think living in the hills makes a ton of sense if you can afford it. Yes, the air quality is much better up there.
There also are other problems with living in the hills:
a. Extremely expensive to drill water wells that may be hundreds of feet deep. A lot of people living in the hills have water delivered to their homes.
b. The air pollution we are referring to usually happens during the air or temperature inversions, not all the time. I spend lots of hours photographing the Auroras down in the valley, with crisp air and beautiful skies full of stars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
