found this at FF EPA law suit against wood burners

[Ken45101]

Just wondering out loud here, how many of you people old enough to remember back to say 1965 when Chet & David would report on a river ran through Cincinnati, Ohio being on fire again

Bzzzzzt! That was the Cuyahoga River in CLEVELAND, NOT Cincinnati! Opposite corners of the state. Please don't disparage the Ohio River like that! BTW, half of Cincinnati's drinking water comes from the Ohio River.

They are out of control and need to be disbanded, defunded, and dissolved!!

That goes for the vast majority of the (illegal) federal government. Oh wait, they are already out of money (defunded?).

 

[GGB]

(removed) has a good point that I've also questioned-while you can produce results in a lab to gain certain results, the real world is something else.

I'm all for a clean envioronment, but if we end up burning more fuel to produce the improvement, how much did we really gain? And when we end up with a more complex piece of equipment which then requires more maintenance to keep running efficiently, how much did we really gain? Especially when we all know that in the real world proper maintenance often doesn't occur?

Then there is the additional amount of natural resources consumed to make that more complex piece of equipment which consumed energy to build..........I certainly don't have all the answers, but think we often reach the point of diminishing returns without looking at the big picture.

 

[dmccarty]

The link was about outdoor and indoor wood boilers. There have been other reports about wood burning stoves and inserts and west coast TBNers have mentioned that one just cannot burn wood to heat in their states which is taking things too far.

On the other hand, I drive through an area were there are a half dozen outdoor wood boilers, and during cold weather, those things are producing some serious smoke. Enough smoke to make that area look like it is shrouded in heavy fog. Smoke so thick it is dangerous to drive through. No way that is healthy to breath. If I was living near those things I would be PISSED. I looked at buying an outdoor wood boiler but decided against them for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons was that we are on top of a hill, and in some weather conditions the smoke would lay down in the low areas and affect the people who live near us and our neighbors. Now, some of the people who live near us don't give consideration to others, but I will not stoop to their level.

Just up the road from this on area there are two other outdoor wood burners. One is and older unit that will literally fill a part of a major lake with smoke. Something like a 1/4 mile by 1/2 mile of lake filled with smoke. Less than a mile away is an outdoor boiler that was installed a few years ago. You have to look real hard and close to see if that thing is burning. Monday, it was 16 degrees, and I could barely see the smoke from the boiler. I looked to see if he was burning and it was very hard to notice. I bet 99.999% of the people who drive by that boiler even know it is there. I have seen more "smoke" from gas heaters in new houses than what this new boiler was producing. One day I am going to have time when I see the man in the yards and I will have to stop and talk with him about his setup. It is real nice.

Banning wood burners is going to far but having more efficient equipment is not a bad thing. The EPA gets into trouble when its regulations step across the line into management and/or forbidding things. We heat our house with wood and some states are going to far but the other extreme is what I see in some area with wood boilers.

Later,
Dan

 

[Midniteoyl]

Betcha theres more a difference in the wood than the boilers...

You know how in every western movie you've ever seen there is a train belching huge amounts of black smoke? Not true. A proper running boiler should give out very little to almost no smoke. The Hollywood types want it that way for the movies 'cause they think its cool...

 

[WilliamBos]

Yeah, because I sure don't want anyone watching out for ground water pollution, industrial dumping, etc...

they ignore large corporations that pollute every day to go after the little guy, so wrong! Mother nature can handle and process what comes out of the chimney from a wood stove.

The EPA is not about what is best or everyone, they pick on one group with the lefty elitist attitude that if they don't need or don't like it, no one should!!

 

[3930dave]

Yes, wouldn't it be novel if that were the case, because the companies that do most of that just give a kickback and the issue goes away when its the wood burners and small timers that get stuck with these arrogant laws.

These out of control gov agencies like the FDA and EPA need to be kept in check. By the people. Because they are for the people not just the elite who say "just because I don't have or need one NOBODY DOES"


Like its a surprise what states these lawsuits came from. HO-RAY sue happy socialists!!!!!!!!!!:mur:

Small lumber mills were getting shut-down in the Ottawa Valley. Their infraction ? They had piles of sawdust sitting in the bush "in concentrations that wouldn't occur in Nature".

Where I have a problem with "environmental" regulations is when they mainly exist to serve a corporate agenda. Major wood companies love to see these little guys disappear.... funny, there seems to be a lot of retired politicians on their Board of Directors....

I like clean air and water, and am old enough to appreciate how far we've come.

Undue corporate influence in govt is another matter, though obviously not restricted to just environmental issues.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

The link was about outdoor and indoor wood boilers. There have been other reports about wood burning stoves and inserts and west coast TBNers have mentioned that one just cannot burn wood to heat in their states which is taking things too far.

On the other hand, I drive through an area were there are a half dozen outdoor wood boilers, and during cold weather, those things are producing some serious smoke. Enough smoke to make that area look like it is shrouded in heavy fog. Smoke so thick it is dangerous to drive through. No way that is healthy to breath. If I was living near those things I would be PISSED. I looked at buying an outdoor wood boiler but decided against them for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons was that we are on top of a hill, and in some weather conditions the smoke would lay down in the low areas and affect the people who live near us and our neighbors. Now, some of the people who live near us don't give consideration to others, but I will not stoop to their level.

Just up the road from this on area there are two other outdoor wood burners. One is and older unit that will literally fill a part of a major lake with smoke. Something like a 1/4 mile by 1/2 mile of lake filled with smoke. Less than a mile away is an outdoor boiler that was installed a few years ago. You have to look real hard and close to see if that thing is burning. Monday, it was 16 degrees, and I could barely see the smoke from the boiler. I looked to see if he was burning and it was very hard to notice. I bet 99.999% of the people who drive by that boiler even know it is there. I have seen more "smoke" from gas heaters in new houses than what this new boiler was producing. One day I am going to have time when I see the man in the yards and I will have to stop and talk with him about his setup. It is real nice.

Banning wood burners is going to far but having more efficient equipment is not a bad thing. The EPA gets into trouble when its regulations step across the line into management and/or forbidding things. We heat our house with wood and some states are going to far but the other extreme is what I see in some area with wood boilers.

Later,
Dan

Sometimes these blanket "new construction" regs arise because this is easier (from a bureaucratic standpoint) than enforcing existing ones.... path of least work/conflict etc...

As with many things... part of the legitimate problem arises from the tiny percentage of people that do stupid things, like burning tires for fuel.

I like a bit of woodsmoke in the air, but would have an issue with a neighbour burning tires and other noxious material.

Rgds, D.

 

[dmccarty]

Sometimes these blanket "new construction" regs arise because this is easier (from a bureaucratic standpoint) than enforcing existing ones.... path of least work/conflict etc...

As with many things... part of the legitimate problem arises from the tiny percentage of people that do stupid things, like burning tires for fuel.

I like a bit of woodsmoke in the air, but would have an issue with a neighbour burning tires and other noxious material.

Rgds, D.

The balance is gone from the regulations now. It is too one sided. Burning wood is not a big deal for most areas and total bans are going to far but the flip side is that the older wood boilers can produce a lot of smoke which is one reason we did not get one. The smoke would bother me but it would really smoke out people living nearby and that is wrong. Our wood stove produces very little smoke and I would bet people living nearby can't smell the smoke much less see it.

Later,
Dan

 

[2LaneCruzer]

The balance is gone from the regulations now. It is too one sided. Burning wood is not a big deal for most areas and total bans are going to far but the flip side is that the older wood boilers can produce a lot of smoke which is one reason we did not get one. The smoke would bother me but it would really smoke out people living nearby and that is wrong. Our wood stove produces very little smoke and I would bet people living nearby can't smell the smoke much less see it.

Later,
Dan

As most of you have recognized, there are two sides to this story. I spent over 20 years on both sides of these issues, fighting EPA on one hand for overreaching, and trying to draft and implement comparable state rules. In most cases, the rulemaking procedures, which include notice, comment and public hearings, are enough to take out the rough edges. Most of the things EPA does is mandated by law, and held in check both by the states and industry. When states with areas that do not attain the national standards for air quality have trouble getting their air cleaned up, sometimes they grasp at straws just to appease EPA, who, by the way, can impose sanctions on the states that are not in compliance.

EPA is a government agency, and as such is subject to political pressures. The agency heads are for the most part political appointees, with an agenda. When the agency is pressured, say to do something about those terrible air polluting coal-fired power plants, many things can happen, most of them bad...or when global warming is an agenda item, but the science is in question, other bad things can happen, like national standards for CO2 emissions. Most of the time these things can be resolved in the courts...the burden is on EPA to justify all of these standards and policies...but this takes time, money, and someone who cares..not to mention that the courts will ultimately decide a heavily contest standard.

The answer, as I see it, is to take politics out of the agency, but that won't happen. The alternative is for the states and industry to be eternally vigilant.

 

[milkman636]

Thinking back to the woods I grew up in, we harvested firewood annually and our woods was open, accessible, and clear of undergrowth and much of the fallen debris that fuels wildfires and such in places like California. These forest fires are a kind of unregulated burning of wood that releases particulate matter into the air in tremendous volume. Perhaps I should petition my state to sue the EPA to regulate particulate matter being released through wild fires....... And while I'm thinking about it, sometimes when my grill needs cleaning it gets smoky too. Maybe we could sue to have better emission controls on our barbeques as well. Better yet maybe we could get them to ban all fires!:fiery: