Aug. 16, 2011
To the editor:
The air pollution in Fairbanks is some of the worst if not the worst in the nation. This wintertime pollution comes predominately from wood smoke, and the great crime is that a tiny, tiny fraction of irresponsible users create the bulk of this toxic air.
The levels of pollution we have been subjected to in the past few years are already off the chart and will continue to climb. It’s become a bona fide scandal. Basically, it’s the outdoor boilers that are burning green wood or coal. These few are damaging the health of all of us, especially children.
A yes vote on Proposition 2 will give the borough the authority to actually do something about these fewer than 300 chronic abusers. It’s a pretty simple fix, use dry wood.
Please vote Oct. 4.
http://www.epi.alaska.gov/bulletins/docs/b2010_26.pdf
Association between Air Quality and Hospital Visits — Fairbanks, 2003–2008
"These data indicate that increased concentrations of ambient PM2.5 levels in FNSB were associated with increased risk of hospitalizations due to cerebrovascular disease in all persons and respiratory tract infections in persons aged less than 65 years during the study period."
For more information about the adverse health effects of pm2.5, wood smoke, and coal smoke pollution, see:
http://www.healthyairnow.org/learn-more/science-health/
"OneDad is wrong. I have an Earth Stove inside my house from when I moved in during 1981. I have a hydronic heater from the EPA's list below:"
Your casual observations do not constitute "research". A fair amount of actual research has been done and it tells us that outdoor hydronic heaters *Are a Problem*
From: "Reducing PM2.5 Emissions from
Residential Heating Sources in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough"
"Graph 4 displays the relative PM2.5 emissions from residential sources on a per household basis to rank which heating sources individually emit the most PM2.5. Wood-fired hydronic heaters emit the most per household at 467 pounds per year with coal ranked second at 329 pounds per year. The next closest residential source is a non-certified wood stove at 60 pounds per year."
This is not an opinion... it is tested fact.
Even from the page you linked:
"The wood-burning appliances that are "qualified" under the EPA's Voluntary Hydronic Heater and Fireplace Programs are not "certified" per EPA's Wood Heater New Source Performance Standard. Contact your state or local air quality agency for clarification on the type of wood-burning appliances, if any, that may legally be installed in your area"
The *best* HH's under ideal test conditions still can't meet the standards to be EPA Certified!
Like you say, I could burn *any* device poorly and make it smoke like crazy, even an EPA certified stove. The problem is *nobody* can burn an outdoor HH through the winter without it smoking significantly. This most likely happens when you are *not* watching it.
1. Yes, we need to do something now. I would still prefer making standards that exceed EPA requirements vs. an outright ban.
2. My point exactly. We haven't even tried enforcing our current nuisance standards! I think this would have fixed a good percentage of the issue. Instead, we are being hard-pressed against a deadline.
3. I'm not usually a proponent of government "payouts", but in this case I agree with it. I'm not sure the changeout program is perfect, but I understand what it is there for.
I agree with you the issue needs to be addressed; I just don't agree with all of Prop 2.
There comes a time when you have to accept that a term has become nothing more than a cheap buzzword.
Living in a community and being responsible to your neighbor and their rights, and they to yours, is not “socialism”. It’s called civilization.
If you’re not being a menace to society, what's your gripe?
If you feel your "rights" outweigh everyone else's do us all a favor and leave.
"Probably the biggst problem with smoke is that the population density has increased over time."
This is a big part of it. There is nothing "forcing" people to live close together, they just choose to in order to be close to Home Depot and The Big I. There is plenty of cheep land in Clear, Salcha, Chatanika, Paxson and Cantwell, where you can burn as much wood as you want in any way you want. If you want freedom to burn whatever... you have it, just not in the small region called the "Non-Attainment area"
The other part of it is that OWB's were previously unavailable. If one person switches from a wood stove to an OWB, it is like there are 22 new houses on that *One* lot all heating with wood. This means that with OWB's in the mix, the population density could even go down, while still massively increasing the pollution in a community.
This is the reason for banning OWB's in the Non-attainment area. They really are that much worse then a wood stove.
The 2014 deadline is meaningless. We were in violation for carbon monoxide for nearly 20 years and all they did was give us more and more money. With the feds running out of money the epa is going to be a great target for gop budget cuts.
Has anyone ever wonder why while living in the largest state that we are jammed up so close together?
really there are not much in the way of barriers to to account for our close proximity other than the rich folks owning the land be it government or private who sale the land then divide and sub divide till your neighbor can see into your kitchen......
What is preventing nuisance ordinances from being ineffective?
Does the changeout money come from the taxpayers? What strings are attached to it? How can an investment with a 20 year lifespan, that pays for itself in 6-7 years, be called a bad investment?
Vote NO on Prop 2.
1. We don't have time for some future technological invention to fix the problem. 2014 will be here before we know it. Current wood boiler smolder and put out huge amounts of smoke. Coal stoves do the same. Current boiler technology that works are pellet boilers. Those are approved.
2. Nuisance ordinances are ineffective and are not being used. this is a chance for citizens to fix the problem.
3. The costs for removal, for investment recovery are paid by the changeout program. Not often that a person gets his money back on a bad investment. Even the EPA phase 2 qualified boilers are heavy polluters and do not belong here.
We have to clean up our air now. Nothing currently on the books will do it. This one will.
1. There is no allowance for technology improvements. In fact, the way I read the ordinance (please correct me if I am wrong) is that all HH's and coal burning will be banned, no exceptions. If you make an exception for the power plant because of it's advanced technology (which is good), why can you not make the same allowance for homes? An emission limit is fine; an outright ban is wrong.
2. Enforcement is another issue. I still believe that most of these HH's that are causing the majority of the issues already violate nuisance ordinances. Enforce these first.
3. Costs. For the "rich" people this isn't a concern, but how about those who invested to put one of these in to save money (or stay afloat) in the long run? I am not saying they have the right to run health, but to dismiss their legitimate concerns is not the right course either. Plus, most of those who made the investment (as Batman_ak says he has done) have HH's that are in compliance with EPA standards.
There are legitimate concerns. I am fully aware of the deadline and the health issues. I just don't think this ordinance is the right way to go.
However, to you wet-wood burners; BURN DRY WOOD! Season it for at least a year.
Nice map, thanks for the link. The map has a scale at the bottom. A 10 mile radius around Fairbanks and an 8 mile radius around North Pole more than covers the non-attainment area. If he's is really 10 and 8 miles out, he's outside the non-attainment area.
If you're outside the non-attainment area, you can keep your wood boiler. But if we don't meet attainment by 2014, we all lose.
I don't plan to vote for this proposition, though it doesn't affect me. It affects those like me, living on the wrong side of an arbitrary line.
"So one dad, how about getting rid of forest fire smoke in summer which creates more non obtainment days then wood burning"
You are incorrect on this point. see:
"if wood smoke is so dangerous to our health, why haven't professional fire fighter been protected by the government for inhaling smoke?"
Why indeed??? Hummmm, let me think, oh right, they *do* have significant protection in the *Oxygen tanks* they wear into a fire!!! May I suggest a field trip to the local fire house to ask some questions?
« bluesriff2 wrote on Wednesday, Aug 17 at 11:12 AM »
"Solve the real problem instead of showing up with a box of band aids."
Well, *I* don't have any trouble heating my well insulated house without making massive amounts of PM2.5, so that must not be "the real problem". I think the real problem is people who think it is OK to fill Wood river school with toxic gas just to save $100 on heating their *rental* property. This proposition is a good start to solving *that* problem, so I will
Vote Yes on Prop 2.
"Maybe he's not FBX79, but this ordinance gives the borough the authority to ban them throughout the borough if it so chooses."
The Borough always has (and had) that authority (except for the two years that Prop A remains in force). This proposition doesn't give them any more authority.
"Now, if it said "Will ban wood-fired hydronic heaters that do not meet "x" criteria" then I would consider and may even vote for it."
The problem is that there is no such thing as a good cord wood OWB because it is an air controlled fire instead of a fuel controlled fire. As soon as it gets up to temp it damps down the air intake, and starts wasting wood and making poison for the rest of us to breath, even if the wood in it is dry.
even the "good" OWB's produce 22 TIMES as much pm2.5 as a wood stove. click the image for more info:
Have the Change out program help you replace yours with a pellet boiler or an EPA certified wood stove and all will be good!
And about the Coal power plants, they are already required to use scrubbers that remove almost all of the pm2.5. I could support coal heat if all appliances had 99% efficient scrubbers that were inspected by the state each year to make sure they are still working well, just like the power plants.
Oh, and check out Graph 4 on page 15 of this local research!
"Reducing PM2.5 Emissions from
Residential Heating Sources in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough"
http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/Docs/naboundary.pdf
Now, if it said "Will ban wood-fired hydronic heaters that do not meet "x" criteria" then I would consider and may even vote for it. For those who burn badly, use the current nuisance ordinances.
(I still can't believe that batman_ak and I agree on something!)
Heating with wood does make sense if it is done right. Using outdoor boilers, that put out about 20 times as much smoke as a normal woodstove, does not make sense in the non-attainment area. Prop 2 protects the ability to use woodstoves properly. I'm voting for it.