2009 July 30 to May 12: AK Fairbanks: Run up to passage of local wood stove regulations in Oct. 2009
Heavy smoke prompts Fairbanks health alert FAIRBANKS: Forest fires in area drive up the particulate levels. By DAN JOLING The Associated Press (07/30/09 15:51:46)
Heavy smoke from forest fires poured into Fairbanks on Thursday, fouling the air for residents and tourists and prompting air quality officials to issue a health advisory.
Air quality officials at the Fairbanks North Star Borough declared particulate levels to be unhealthy and said the National Weather Service forecast called for poor dispersion conditions in the borough, which has more than 97,000 residents.
Borough officials warned people with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children to avoid prolonged exertion and everyone else to limit prolonged exertion.
A major source of the pollution is the blaze dubbed the Railbelt Complex Fire about 12 miles northwest of Nenana. The fire began with a lightning strike June 21. As of Thursday afternoon, fire had consumed 340,884 acres, or about 532 square miles.
Borough air quality technician Jim McCormick said other fires were adding to the haze.
"So many fires putting so much smoke into the air, it's the Railbelt first plus other fires plus the new Wood River fire that's 27 miles south of Fairbanks," McCormick said.
Seventy-three fires were burning Thursday in Alaska. Nine were staffed with firefighters.
About 224 personnel are assigned to the Railbelt Complex fire outside Nenana 55 miles south of Fairbanks.
They were expected to receive an assist from a Boeing 747 equipped to drop retardant on forest fires.
Evergreen International Aviation of McMinnville, Ore., flew its plane to Fairbanks to demonstrate its ability to douse an area three miles long and 100 yards wide. The jet can carry up to 20,000 gallons of retardant and water. That's about 10 times the amount of two tankers the state Division of Forestry has under contract.
The objective of the drop was to reinforce fire lines near the Arctic Wolf drill rig site.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported that state officials had not decided whether to sign a contract with Evergreen for future use of the jumbo jet tanker.
Firefighters have concentrated on protecting cabins and structures, Alaska Native land allotments, timber resources and a drill rig site. There are no evacuation orders or road closures.
However, ash had fallen in Fairbanks, McCormick said, and the irritating smell of burning brush was penetrating buildings.
Crews on Wednesday worked on the fire's north and east flanks. They constructed fire lines and conducted burning operations to protect allotments, cabins and timber.
Crews at Dune Lake continued mopping up the fire's edge after controlled burns around structures.
Eight smokejumpers prepared structures at Totek Lake for protective burning operations and delivered an all-terrain vehicle by "paracargo" to a crew at Totek Lake.
Light west winds pushed smoke into Nenana, with about 500 residents, on Thursday morning. Firefighters set up a command post at the Nenana Student Living Center.
The Alaska Interagency Coordination Center reports that 464 fires have burned more than 1.8 million acres in Alaska this year.
2009 July 19: AK Fairbanks: Opinion: North Star borough must remained involved in air quality
July 19, 2009 (editorial)
Breathe deeply
Borough must remain involved in air quality
Published Sunday, July 19, 2009
Fairbanks residents have more time to take a few deep breaths and consider how to deal with our sooty air, now that the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly has delayed consideration of an agreement with the state.
Those deep breaths should calm the over-excited, some of whom claim the borough administration wants an outright ban on wood stoves.
The borough is advocating no such policy; the opposite is the case. The borough is seeking authority to be involved in the process so drastic measures are not imposed from on high by the federal government.
The federal government kicked off the controversy two years ago when it tightened the nationwide standards for fine particulates in the air. That tightening puts Fairbanks air out of compliance with the rules on many days during the winter.
In some cases, the public is legitimately suspicious about the alleged dangers of pollution at the regulated levels found in this country. Standards often are written so only tiny increased risks occur after decades of constant exposure to pollution levels well above the standards. The cost of such caution can be extremely high.
However, recent science has made a good case for reducing fine particulates in the air. The effects of bad air aren’t enormous — we don’t see people keeling over in the streets — but there is a well-established correlation between very low levels of fine particulates and poor health.
As a result, we have good reasons to seek better air. Achieving this does not require a ban on all wood burning. It might require some general limits on the burning of wood, coal or other material in inefficient, poorly designed stoves.
If that doesn’t solve the problem, the borough might need to prohibit wood or coal burning during bad air days by those who have oil or gas heat alternatives.
The borough administration is not even advocating a ban on the outdoor wood-fired boilers that produce a disproportionate amount of the particulates.
Rather, it is considering the adoption of common emission limits for those and other wood stoves, combined with financial incentives to replace existing poorly performing boilers, within the parts of the borough where air quality is a problem.
These are the kind of targeted, reasonable measures the borough can help implement. If the borough is not at the table, though, we are more likely to see more blunt bans imposed by the state and federal governments.
FAIRBANKS — Borough officials said on Tuesday they see a locally developed pollution prevention plan as preferable to the alternative of state-imposed controls.
The plan, which Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker has said he’ll propose soon, would phase out inefficient home-heating systems that data suggests contribute heavily to chronic air pollution here.
Borough and state officials have drafted an agreement that would pave the way for the plan. That agreement, a memorandum of understanding, is up for review tonight at the Borough Assembly.
Whitaker said the need for pollution-prevention measures is inevitable, and the question falls to local officials of whether they’d like to set their own rules — ones that will likely introduce carrots and sticks meant to wean Fairbanks off older and inefficient home-heating systems that studies link to chronic “fine particulate” pollution.
“If we don’t do this, then it simply falls to (the state) to impose. And they will,” Whitaker said.
Researchers and scientists have linked fine particulate pollution — tiny bits of airborne dust — to a handful of health problems. When particulates become lodged deep in the lungs, they can cause chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function and, for people with lung or heart disease, shorter lives, health specialists told members of the borough’s Air Pollution and Control Commission during a panel discussion last summer.
Mike Pollen, a Fairbanks-based environmental consultant who serves on the pollution commission, said Fairbanks walks a fine line between the need to keep home-heating costs low and regulations in federal pollution laws. He said unique lifestyles and cold winters here mean Fairbanks would do best by regulating its own pollution problems instead of waiting for Anchorage- or Seattle-based government regulators to step in.
“We understand the situation; we live here,” Pollen said. “I can’t think of anybody better to impose tough regulations like this, which are going to affect us, than ourselves.”
A handful of residents plan to lobby borough officials to wait on pollution prevention plans to give people more time to digest the proposal. Contractor Schaeffer Cox, who as of Wednesday was looking to rally opposition, said he sensed the plan is simply a reaction to pressure from eager federal agencies.
“It’s the state’s or the local government’s business,” Cox said, adding that he doubts air quality-related pollution problems exist here.
Whitaker said borough officials’ first assessment three or four years ago of the particulate problem provided early justifications to prepare a pollution prevention plan. He said the science linking the pollution to health risks is peer-reviewed and looks solid, adding that any challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency would basically pit the borough against the federal Clean Air Act. “We do not think that a legal challenge is viable.”
Glenn Miller, who directs the borough’s Air Quality Division, said history has shown communities that “thumb their noses” at federal environmental regulators see ramifications such as decreased federal aid.
Whitaker also cited a simpler justification for the plan: Chronic air pollution impacts the quality of life for everyone who lives here.
“I don’t enjoy driving into town and seeing that brown haze,” he said.
well... i agree with you akhusker... EXCEPT for the fact that i really seriously hope you aren't firing up your wood boiler in the summer. you'd have to be a masochist to do so.
it is a well known fact that the air quality in Alaska sucks it sideways during the summer simply due to natural conditions. you can hardly burn an area the size of Massachusetts without causing SOME air quality issues. (obviously.)
with the wood boilers it is a winter time air-quality issue. in the winter the "bowl" we live in acts as an inversion field... trapping all the particulates and pollution on the ground level all winter long. the 'chimney effect' doesn't work on low-stack wood boilers. so you get a TON of low-level particulates and smog when using them. even the power plants (like on base) that have huge stacks can barely overcome the inversion. wood boilers are even worse since they are unlikely to have 100' stacks on them (if you do... kudos to your engineering skills!)
so as i think that IM is basically a complete joke... as most all pollution is either naturally occurring in the summer or during the winter (when we normally fail) by wood stoves... i think that wood boilers specifically are much more polluting than conventional wood stoves.
that isn't really an opinion. the state of washington did a study on wood boilers (before banning them) confirming that the short stacks don't have full combustion and as such are many magnitudes more polluting than a conventional wood stove (even those with a moderately short stack).
so comparing naturally occurring summer time forest fires to winter time man-made pollution is a bit disingenuous.
i'm not even talking about "global warming" ... i am talking about localized pollution and air-quality. and in the winter... wood boilers are crapcan.
because forest fire do not occur in the winter time. i thought that would be somewhat obvious. lightning (which hardly occurs in the winter) can hardly ignite snow. seriously.
nor during the summertime is there the inversion effect that traps particulates and pollution on the lower levels vs. venting out.
thought that would be self-evident. apparently not.
for instance : is the ft. wainwright power plant causing low-level icefog during the summer? no? well then. there is one extremely obvious example of the wintertime inversion effect.
and once again... i am not talking about "global warming" i am specifically talking about localized air quality issues entirely relative to this particular area.
but again. the smoke from a wood boiler is not happening congruently with the smoke from a forest fire. i think this point has been made *several times*.
repetition : not congruent. and not in the same environmental conditions.
this is not a national nor an Obama issue... as much as some people would like to frame it as such. like i said *several times* i am specifically talking about local air quality issues. NOT "global warming" and NOT anything to do with any national program.
in that regard... wood-boilers have been proven to be massively more pollutant than normal household wood stoves (which aren't angels to begin with) and are massively more pollutant (volume for volume) than even mass-energy plants like on base.
i have lived here for decades... i know the winter time air quality sucks... i know that even the major producers have a hard time getting the pollutants out of the "bowl". i also know just a wee bit about the chimney effect and proper combustion... and a wood boiler does not properly combust materials. period.
and not only does it not properly combust them... but it has a ridiculously short stack that pretty much guarantees particulates hanging out in the "bowl" all winter.
this is an issue of particulate pollution that far exceeds any pollution created by cars in the borough. (hence my thinking the IM program is a money-grab and a scam.)
once again... for the 9 billionth time... no one is comparing summer time forest fires to winter time stove use. that would be an inane comparison on so many levels that i am not going to point out... even in grade-school simplified terms... *again*.
these aren't even opinions... they are things that are verifiable by actual scientific experimentation. i know that anti-intellectualism is in vogue these days... but being popular doesn't make it right.
i am sorry you decided to buy a wood-boiler. but ya know... buyer beware. i personally thought it'd be a decent idea for a bit. i did some research... realized it wasn't the best idea... and skipped on it. critical thinking skills *are* your friend! you decided to buy on "gut instinct" and so sorry... so bad... boo hoo.
trying to "fight" for your bad decision making skills will not make your bad decision making skills "right". no matter how many times you try to make it Obamas fault or anything else. the onus is on YOU. YOU made the bad choice. no one else.
"So you are saying that winter time particulates are more harmful than summer time particulates?"
not saying that at all. i don't know how more clear i can be.
summer time particulates are not equivalent to winter time particulates.
summer time particulates are for the most part beyond the control of man. they are naturally caused. summer time doesn't have a temperature inversion.
winter time particulates are for the most part entirely within the control of man due to the winter time inversion we live in. there are no forest fires in the winter. the smog is caused by wood burning. and wood-boilers cause an exponential amount more particulate pollution than normal wood stoves. during the winter. this is fact.
short of drawing pictures i don't know how i can explain this more simply.
i couldn't care less about your supposed health problems (or your nose. or your body.) in the summer time. that isn't the point i am making. i am specifically talking about air quality in the winter and the fact that wood boilers are absolutely horrendous regarding air quality. IN THE WINTER. due to the environmental conditions that exist in the winter vs. those that exist in the summer.
i never once suggested that forest fires are lesser a health problem than wood-burning in the winter in the grand scheme of things. not even close. i said specifically that wood-burning in the winter is man-made and thus controllable vs. forest fires in the summer that are not. furthermore... i have said multiple times that the environmental conditions in the winter are quite different than those in the summer.
if you have truly lived here for 70 years this would be self-evident unless you are consciously denying your own experiences. that is called a cognitive bias.
i am having a really hard time discerning where the logical disconnect is happening. i have been more than clear.
once again... i am sorry you were scammed into buying a wood-boiler. your inability to do proper and complete research is not entirely my (nor the rest of the borough at larges) problem. wood-boilers were banned for obvious reasons in many places before being promoted here. too bad. so sad. don't punish the rest of us with your filth because you couldn't research things properly.
once again... the simple experiment. easy for a 70 year old resident...
1) does the base powerplant cause road-blocking smog during the summer?
2) does the base powerplant cause road-blocking smog during the winter?
see the obvious seasonal difference? see why wood-boilers that don't even run in the summer... combined with the winter conditions *might* cause an issue?
no? then sorry. can't help you. you are being purposefully ignorant for some reason. possibly related to buyers remorse since you spent a couple coins on a crapcan wood-boiler.
"If the borough is so concerned about your health [etc etc]"
i don't think the borough cares about anyones health. fact of the matter is that wood-boilers are filthy. actual real life science backs this fact up. they are horrible compared to a normal wood stove.
deny it all you want... facts do not agree with your opinions.
i am not being "arrogant" nor "self-absorbed". that is a common tactic of those that have no counter argument though. (eg. using the "elitist" labeling et al.)
"self-absorbed" is a frequent accusation towards those that actually have a fact-based argument. it deflects your lack of counter facts by simply saying my original ideas were merely egotistical genuflection vs. an actual fact-based point.
to think that you think you were merely "poking fun" at my supposed "arrogance" is pretty hilarious though.
if you have some valid point to actually make i'd be more than willing to discuss them. i think you may have originally... then folded. and passed it off as mere "poking fun". i don't believe that for an instant... and deep down i doubt you do either.
"And no, I do not for a minute believe I was "scammed" into purchasing a wood boiler."
it is possible you did not do any research on them however. they were banned in several places before gaining prominence in the interior.
they weren't banned for S'n'G ... they were banned for real life reasons. real life reasons that were only massively compounded by the regional winter time environmental conditions in the interior.
I'm listening to the borough assembly meeting right now and I am quite dismayed at what appears to be the blatant lack of intelligence displayed by the citizens of this community.
That or I've been completely misled about this bill and it will actually ban indoor wood stoves.
Which is it? Does this bill concern ONLY outdoor boilers? Or will it send "heat police" to my house to determine if my woodstove is efficient? These outdoor boilers are about as smart as putting your blaze king out in the yard and running the stack through the livingroom expecting heat. Besides the point ilustrated above by WAYFAST concerning the tank capacity, many of the outdoor boilers are ridiculously inefficient by design.
What is the big issue with efficiency? Since when is it so wrong and scary to let the borough decide a minimum efficiency for wood burning (providing it is not prohibitive)? I wasn't aware that this bill would cause men in jackboots to break into my house and take my stove- I was pretty sure that this bill was only applicable to new purchases, particularly outdoor boilers.
Am I completely confused? Is all this "thur takin owr stoves!" talk misled (or misleading?) Or was this bill going to make my woodstove illegal? Because THAT does seem a bit crazy.
If anyone could direct me to the text of this bill it would be appreciated. I'm having some trouble tracking it down. It seems like one way or another there is less than perfect information circulating on this one. The DNM seems to not mention anything very specific about the actual bill- and they certainly don't lead me to believe that my woodstove needs to fear for it's life.
And why is everyone talking about IM? Is this really on topic?
It seems like it would be better to have the local government take a position on this rather than let the State or (godforbid) Feds come up with their own way of controlling it first.
What a bummer, I thought Schaffer was kinda bright (if naive) before that "doubts there is an air quality problem" bit above . . .
FNSB Public Notices The Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) is taking public comment on the 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the related Air Quality Conformity Determination from Wednesday, July 15 until Friday, August 14, 2009. The associated FMATS Open House meetings will be held on Monday, July 27, 2009 from 4:00–7:00 p.m. at the Fairbanks Noel Wien Library, 1215 Cowles Street and on Thursday, July 30, 2009 from 4:00–7:00 p.m. at the City of North Pole – City Hall, 125 Snowman Lane. Copies of both documents are available at the Coordinator’s Office and on the FMATS website. Should you need additional information or have questions, please contact Donna Gardino at 459-6786. http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/PublicNoti...
FMATS 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Transportation Air Quality Conformity Determination—Public Comment Period and Scheduled Open House http://notes4.state.ak.us/pn/pubnotic.ns...
FAIRBANKS — Public air quality specialists, two years into a study to figure out where Fairbanks’ air pollution problems originate, have scheduled a mid-July symposium to share findings from their research to date.
Glenn Miller, air quality director for the Fairbanks North Star Borough, said the research project — involving state, local and federal governments, and funded largely with federal money — is still too young to draw final conclusions.
But researchers have collected and analyzed enough data to help policymakers with ideas to lower fine particulate pollution, concentrated more in Fairbanks’ air than in all but a handful of cities in the Northwest United States.
The signs show wood-based home heating is a major contributor to particulate pollution — tiny particles of airborne dust — in Fairbanks. As a result, an ordinance is expected to hit the Borough Assembly’s docket soon aimed at weaning Fairbanks off inefficient wood-based home heating systems.
Miller said air quality specialists are two-thirds into their three-year research project in Fairbanks, which last year was on a list of communities where fine particulate pollution is bad enough to worry health specialists.
The symposium will run July 15-17. It will include a public presentation on the first evening, led by borough Mayor Jim Whitaker and state and national officials.
2009 June 9: AK Fairbanks: Comments on passage of OWB moratorium
Fairbanks puts wood boilers on back burner
Council temporarily forbids installation of controversial heaters
The Council needs more facts? That sounds reasonable. Clearly, dirty air kills some residents of Fairbanks and makes others very sick every year. (Visit the Alaska Cancer Registry for facts about our cancer mortality rates).
This entire debate could have been avoided if Legislators and several Alaska Governors had followed the lead of 143,000 Alaskans who mandated that the All Alaska Gasline be built in 2002. If they had listened, we'd have affordable (a key part of this debate) energy today.
Instead we watch the Canadians move ahead of Alaska with an LNG export project.
Do not forget that our dirty air, and need for affordable energy, in the COLDEST city in the USA, is a direct result of failed leadership and contempt for voters wishes by our representatives.
From Burningissues.org:
"What's in Wood Smoke and Solid Fuel Emissions?
All burning creates harmful by-products of combustion, resulting in air pollution. Materials on the low end of the energy scale such as wood and charcoal create the most pollution. Other recreational solid fuel sources are incense, candles, wax logs, charcoal grills and tobacco. Sources on the high end of the energy scale or ladder, such as natural gas and propane burn very cleanly resulting in very little air pollution. (Caution: though small in amount, these combustion by-products are also dangerous and need to be completely vented from living spaces!) The basic components of wood smoke pollutants are:
Particulates: PM10, PM2.5, Nanoparticulate: Tiny particles suspended in the air that are too small to be filtered out, and thus become embedded deep within the lungs. The most injurious are particles classified as PM2.5. They are 2.5 microns in diameter or less. Wood smoke PM2.5 contains creosote, soot, and ash. Most smoke particles average less than one micron (one millionth of a meter), allowing them to remain airborne for 3 weeks. The particles are efficient vehicles for transporting toxic gases, bacteria and viruses deep into the lungs where they pass into the blood stream. Inhalation of PM25 causes coughing, irritation and permanent scarring and damage to the lungs resulting in decreased lung function and increases in respiratory illness. It contributes to cancer, heart disease and changes in DNA leading to autoimmune disease. It causes sudden, premature death. These effects become significant at averages less than 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Smoke from just one fireplace burning has been found to cause particulate levels to exceed 200 ug/m3 in the outdoor air surrounding the neighboring property. These particles are so small that they filter into your home even with all the doors and windows closed."
To read more about carcinogens, dioxins, and other poison found within wood smoke, follow this link:
There's a house in my mom's neighborhood with one of those boilers. They have all kinds of crap wood piled up to burn..old pallets, old weather treated wood...that makes these things worse..people are burning whatever they can get their hands on.
Thirty paces off the porch of rental property I have owned for 25 years, a neighbor recently set up one of these boilers. It burns coal, and some days dense black smoke billows out. On other days the smoke is dense, opaque and gray. On all days, the smell drifts across my properties. I was working over there for a few days, and every day I got sick to my stomach from breathing this toxic soup. It would be impossible for any of the defenders above to sit on this porch and simply enjoy the property. And when I begin to lose tenants, I will further be denied the earnings from my rental business. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. You do not have a right to pour filthy, black, sulfur dioxide-laden smoke onto my property, regardless of whether you find it convenient or economical to do so. If you can't stand some level of government oversight, get out of the city -- move to the bush!
Our neighbor had one for a while and even though he burned cured firewood it still put out dense smoke that made it hard to breathe outside. My kids couldn't play in the yard for long before they were complaining about the smoke and had to come in. Thankfully he realized that unless he cut his own firewood it wasn't any cheaper to heat that way because the wood was so expensive and since he didn't have time for that he sold the furnace.
I can only imagine how miserable it would be to live right next to someone burning coal or waste/green/chemical treated wood. I sympathize with people who are having trouble affording oil but choking your neighbors with noxious smoke is not the solution.
They should ban them borough-wide, I live in a subdivision with 5 acre lots and my neighbor across the street has one and because I have a HRV, I get the smell of burning wood, trash and excrement inside my house when the wind is right, which is most of the time in the winter. If he were to confine the heavy and toxic smoke to his property, I wouldn't care.
Anyone who lived here prior to the '67 flood will recall the noxious air in Fairbanks during the winter from all the coal furnaces. (The flood pretty well wiped them all out.) These outdoor wood boilers are just as bad if not worse than the coal burners since so many people are burning green wood. And I understand some people are burning coal in them too. We do not want to go back to that nasty air quality around here... NO WAY!
All these boilers should be registerd and a no notice inspection completed on the combustion chamber to ensure no trash or unfit lumber is being used. A shut down and HEAVY fine should be enforced for those who violate. Your neighbors should not be made to suffer due to your stupidity.
It's not about economics!! At $8-12000 per unit, plus installation, etc there is no way you can cry poverty. At $4 per gallon on heating oil, that's at least 2000-3000 gallons of heating oil. Add in the expense of wood (after you have clear cut your property), upkeep etc and it may take a full decade to recoup your investment. While I can appreciate wanting to use alternate fuels, saying it's an econmic reason is bunk.
All I can say is this: If you have a neighbor who is running a really obnoxious boiler - complain loudly and often to the city, borough and whomever else will listen. There has to be an air quality fine on the books somewhere.
I live on Chena Ridge and noted a change in the view of Fairbanks this winter. A dirty haze seemed to cover the town which I have not seen in the past. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that dirty, stinky air is probably not good for you to breathe. Fairbanks already has air quality problems in the winter and these outdoor boilers likely worsen the situation.
I agree with the City Council in taking up this issue and believe that the Borough should too. It is absolutely the role of government to protect its citizens from people who feel that they can do whatever they want in the name of individual freedom. I understand that people here are just trying to reduce their energy costs but if by doing so, it reduces their neighbors' quality of life, it should not be allowed.
If you don't like "government interference" you should move to a place without a pesky rule-making borough or city. I hear there's room in Tok (where the State pays for street maintenance, Troopers, schools etc.) but you anti-government types may not like these "freebies" as I understand you turn back your Permanent Fund checks each year. Dammmm gov'ment!
"It is absolutely the role of government to protect its citizens from people who feel that they can do whatever they want in the name of individual freedom."
Well said. Thanks.
June 15
2009 June 9: AK Fairbanks: OWB ban put on back burner
June 9, 2009
Fairbanks puts wood boilers on back burner
Council temporarily forbids installation of controversial heaters
By Rebecca George
Published Tuesday, June 9, 2009
FAIRBANKS — After a four-hour meeting, the Fairbanks City Council voted 5 to 1 to prohibit the installation of outdoor hydronic heaters, commonly known as wood boilers, until the council is able to develop and adopt clear standards regarding the heaters.
The council essentially agreed it needed to do more homework before placing a complete ban on commercial and residential hydronic heaters.
Almost 30 city and borough residents came out to protest an ordinance that would ban outdoor hydronic heaters within city limits by October 2014.
“The reason this ordinance came forward is because of the calls that we received from residents in the city who were complaining about outdoor hydronic heaters and the impact they had on households,” Fairbanks Mayor Terry Strle said following a seven-minute break after three hours of public comments Monday night. “These hydronic heaters are designed for rural areas and clearly, city lots are not rural lots.”
According to city officials, more than 20 hydronic heaters are used for commercial and residential heating within city limits.
Strle calls the hydronic heaters a threat to public safety, citing the negative impact these stoves have on the local air quality.
The majority of those protesting the ordinance live outside city limits and did not own hydronic heaters but spoke in fear of future bans on wood burning and other heating devices.
Tammie Wilson, a borough assembly member, testified as a public citizen and explained her opposition with the ordinance, line by line.
“It doesn’t make sense to me,” she said. “We have no current alternative affordable energy, should we not help each other be less dependent on the government. People are putting these in because they can’t afford oil.”
Bob Boswood, who refers to himself as the chief cook and bottle washer for Fairbanks Auto Trim and Design, is against the ordinance.
He uses a hydronic heater at work and sells them in the borough.
“You have no evidence to prove that an outdoor wood boiler hurts our air quality more than others,” Boswood said. “Shame on you,” he said to the council. “It’s wrong because there are systems out there that can burn clean and meet EPA standards.”
Boswood said his company invested $57,000 in a wood boiler.
“As of October 2014, you’re going to make me a criminal because I’m not taking it out,” Boswood said. “To say I’m sick of the government interfering with my life is a minimal statement.”
Councilwoman Stiver nodded in approval as Boswood noted he was against the ban on outdoor wood boilers.
“’I think you’re absolutely right,” Stiver said. “I don’t want anyone’s torn down; I’m against the ban. We need to know more.”
Donna Brady Robertson is a heating and ventilation contractor for Sun Air Sheet Metal in Fairbanks and suggested the city gather more data to figure out just how much hydronic heaters impact the air quality.
She spoke against the ordinance, calling it misplaced.
“I believe we need to determine a prescriptive type of program where we set a level of particulate or emissions and use that as a performance standard for these heaters,” Robertson said.” There are ways to handle most of the problems that have been brought up. It’s important we look at air quality but this approach is premature and ineffective.”
Stiver asked if it wouldn’t be reasonable for the city to go back and research which hydronic heaters would meet air quality standards and in the meantime, place a ban on the installation of any new heaters in the city.
Following a seven-minute break, city officials offered their two cents on the matter.
“We had a lot of complaints, and that’s where this started,” said Steve Shuttleworth, building official for the city of Fairbanks. Shuttleworth has served the city building department for the past 29 years and said he received more complaints about hydronic heaters in a 10-week period than ever before during his tenure with the city.
“To do nothing is absolutely wrong, and that’s where this thing started — complaints from the public, taxpayers.” Shuttleworth quoted a former public protester who said the best government is one closest to the people.
“With that, the council needs to make a decision tonight but to do nothing is also not right,” he said. “These things were not intended to be put in a metropolitan urban area.”
Shuttleworth reminded the council that hydronic heaters are completely banned in the state of Washington, and the state of Oregon strongly recommends against the use of hydronic heaters and suggests they be used only in very rural settings.
“I think they have a great purpose and that was to go in a rural setting, but they don’t belong in a city,” Shuttleworth said. “It’s not easy coming up here and saying something that goes against the grain but decisions have to be made on facts and not on emotions.”
Members if the council discussed the ordinance through
11 p.m.
“We’ve received quite a bit of information about what different states have done,” Councilman John Eberhart said. “I think there is an issue, I’ve had complaints two winters ago about coal dust and his smoke and his wife was a cancer patient and really upset. I think there are issues both ways here.”
Stiver said she would like to see an alternative ordinance that rids the city of poorly manufactured stoves for better-quality stoves.
“The problem is the economy, too,” Stiver said. “My concern is it’s about heating homes, and I do believe economically these guys feel the crunch.”
Stiver recommended the council forego the ordinance and pursue more research on the stoves before placing any restrictions.
Councilman Jerry Cleworth made the same recommendation.
“Up until two weeks ago I don’t think we ever discussed any of this,” he said. “This is a blanket ban on commercial and residential and I’m not willing to go there.”
“We haven’t studied it, we haven’t talked about it,” he said.
Councilwoman Emily Bratcher, said she is a proponent of the ban on hydronic heaters because she views it as a win-win for everyone in the city.
“It’s going to provide education for folks who currently have wood boilers, and it’s also an opportunity for experts to explain to the public just how big a deal this is,” Bratcher said. “We’re all in favor of efficient and affordable energy, but these stoves are not efficient. Wood stoves are efficient, outdoor boilers are not, and we have to draw the line at perceived affordability and what ultimately becomes a public health.”
“Let’s take our time and get it right,” Councilman Bernard Gatewood said.
2009 May 12: AK Fairbanks: considering ban on OWBs
May 12, 2009
Fairbanks considers eliminating outdoor furnaces
Proposed ordinance would spur their removal by providing financial incentive
By Rebecca George
Published Tuesday, May 12, 2009
FAIRBANKS — City officials say they plan to draft an ordinance that would require all outdoor wood and coal furnaces to be registered with the city and be removed within about five years with the help of some sort of financial incentive.
“We’d like to do this sooner rather than later, before more people invest in these stoves,” Fairbanks Mayor Terry Strle said during a work session Monday night.
Though details of the ordinance haven’t been developed, the city wouldn’t be the first to restrict the use of the furnaces.
The state of Washington has outlawed them, and Oregon has severely restricted their use in urban areas.
Juneau issues fines to individuals who use the furnaces when there is an air quality alert.
Outdoor wood and coal furnaces, said Fairbanks borough air quality specialist Jim Conner, are a problem because a single outdoor furnace produces as much smoke as 10 indoor wood stoves.
“A couple hundred of the outdoor (furnaces) is like a couple thousand wood (furnaces) in the area, and that’s beginning to make an impact,” Conner said.
City officials estimate about 20 furnaces would be affected by the ordinance.
“This past winter was a real eye-opener in respect to the amount of complaints our department received,” City Building official Steve Shuttleworth said. “The common denominator was outdoor wood (furnaces).”
At least six are in the Hamilton Acres neighborhood, which is a densely populated area.
“There is an extremely high concentration of particulate matter and everyone in the area is affected by it,” Borough Transportation Director Glen Miller said. “They were never designed to be installed in residential areas. They were meant to be used as secondary heat sources in rural areas, but unfortunately, when the price of oil jumped, everyone was looking for alternative heat sources and they became popular.”
Miller estimates there are more than 300 outdoor wood and coal furnaces in the borough.
“In some cases, residents are being smoked out of their houses and schools are telling asthmatic children not to come to school,” he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency has designated the Fairbanks region as a non-attainment area in terms of air quality. This means the high level of particulate matter floating in the atmosphere creates dangerously poor air quality, especially in cold weather.
Improper wood burning is one of the problems with the furnaces.
“If wood is burned properly, it isn’t that bad, but the problem is that people aren’t burning it properly and that creates a lot of smoldering,” Conner told the council. “People aren’t using the right fuel, their wood isn’t seasoned, it’s wet, and if it’s smoldering then it is producing a lot more particulates.”
The outdoor furnaces are a greater health hazard than indoor wood-burning stoves for a number of reasons, Miller said. The biggest of these is their short smokestacks, which keep emissions low to the ground.
According to the state of Washington’s Department of Ecology, all wood smoke is harmful because fine particles from smoke can seep deep into the lungs and cause health problems including asthma, lung diseases, heart disease and even death.
“Secondly is the volume of wood these things consume,” Miller said.
Outdoor wood furnaces can require as much as 20 cords of wood per winter, Miller said.
One cord is equivalent to 128 cubic feet.
“They use probably ten times what a standard wood stove uses,” he said. “The problem is most people don’t plan ahead to burn 10 to 20 cords so they end up burning green wood or stuffing anything they can in there whether it’s treated lumber or other materials that emit toxins.”
City officials plan to introduce the ordinance for a first reading during next Monday’s council meeting.
“We don’t want to have any more in the city,” Strle said. “It’s a tough decision — people did it to save money, and it’s expensive.”
Outdoor wood furnaces cost anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000, plus the cost of installation.
Strle suggested using financial incentives, possibly from a $90,000 fund of EPA money, to help rid the city of the furnaces.
“If handled properly, I really think you’ll find more good come out of this than negative,” Shuttleworth said. “If we approach this from a positive standpoint and get people to recognize it, I think this will take care of itself.”
Councilman Bernard Gatewood seconded that remark, and added that the city needs to move fast on the issue.
“It does seem like it might be a problem for the community in the very near future,” he said.
Insert within text:
It’s easy to get tripped up by the jargon of wood and coal furnaces, so here’s a guide to picking apart the terminology.
Officially, they’re known as hydronic heaters, meaning they heat water to heat a home. They’re best known as wood boilers, even though many can burn coal, and some don't boil anything — they force heated air into the house from outside.
The term furnace includes heaters that warm water — which is used in heating elements like radiators — and those that warm air directly.
Confused yet?
Wood boilers also sometimes are called stoves, even though you can’t cook on them and they’re completely different from wood stoves, which won’t be covered by the proposed ordinance because they pollute less.
2009 June 18: AK Fairbanks: Editorial: OWBs need to be regulated as nuisance
June 18, 2009 (editorial)
Regulate boilers
Air quality problems require action on solid-fuel heaters
Published Thursday, June 18, 2009
Outdoor boilers fired by wood, coal or other solid fuels threaten the air quality in Fairbanks, but an outright ban on the devices isn’t the proper reaction. The Fairbanks City Council made the right choice last week when it agreed to prohibit the installation of new boilers only temporarily.
The council prohibited new boilers until it comes up with regulations that guide their use.
Some governments have banned boilers, but others have adopted regulations to limit their effect upon air quality. Regulation is the logical course, because not all boilers are all bad.
Testing data show that, if used properly, some boilers emit fewer fine particles than modern, efficient non-catalytic woodstoves. Given that fact, it’s hard to justify a ban on all boilers without a parallel ban on such woodstoves.
Neither ban would be a good policy. Local governments in Fairbanks should maintain room for wood burning because it can be an economical, relatively clean source of heat that is based on a renewable, abundant resource.
However, given the trouble the Fairbanks area will have in meeting new federal air particulate standards and given the unpleasant smoke created by some stoves, regulation of emissions from solid-fuel heating devices is needed.
That’s is essentially the conclusion of the most comprehensive local study of the issue, conducted for the Fairbanks North Star Borough by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center.
“An emission limit applied to both prospective sales and existing devices has distinct advantages over a device ban and moratorium combination,” the center said in its report. “The primary advantage is that it applies a standard based on desired emission levels and not by device class, the latter of which can result in clean devices being unduly restricted.”
The center recommended an emission standard of 7.5 grams per hour for all such devices. That’s the standard the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires non-catalytic woodstoves to be capable of meeting. Some newer outdoor boilers can meet that standard as well, if operated properly.
Of course, not all owners will run their heaters properly. To address that likelihood, many governments, while adopting emission standards, also have adopted “public nuisance” rules. The rules usually cap the measurable density of the smoke. So when a nice new boiler starts belching, authorities have a fair, consistent way to shut it down. The housing research center recommended adoption of this sort of policy as well.
Minimum stack heights and mandatory setbacks from property boundaries are other ways in which governments have limited the effects on neighbors.
Even with strict regulation of outdoor boilers, Fairbanks might find itself unable to meet the federal standards for fine particles in the air. The particles will not only harm the health of local residents but also block the permits necessary for future business and government activity. A number of other steps — short of an outright ban on wood heat — might be necessary, but regulation of outdoor boilers should be the first step.
บัญชีของคุณถูกปิดใช้งานการแสดงข้อคิดเห็น เนื่องจากระบบของเราพบว่าคุณอาจกำลังสแปมผู้ใช้รายอื่น หากคุณมั่นใจว่าบัญชีของคุณถูกปิดใช้งานอย่างไม่ถูกต้อง โปรดติดต่อ ฝ่ายสนับสนุน Windows Live
เครื่องมือ 
วิธีใช้
