Proposed Outdoor Wood Furnace Ban in Hyde Park, NY

[kevinlp]

Hyde Park’s Town Board worked late into the evening on Nov. 19, trying to finish up business before the next town board takes office in January.

-SKIP-

During the workshop session of the meeting, town leaders reviewed highway material bids for 2008, an illicit discharge law, a proposed SPCA expansion, electrical inspectors, fee schedules, proposed regulations pertaining to outdoor wood-burning furnaces and the police/court facility.

-SKIP-

Outdoor wood burning furnaces

Town residents engaged in a heated debate several months ago regarding a possible ban on outdoor wood burning furnaces and Delafield brought the issue back to the table Monday night to see if the board is interested in wrapping the issue up before year’s end.

“I wanted to offer this board the opportunity as to whether we want to proceed with this,” said Delafield, who prefers a ban on the furnaces. Moss interjected at the discussion, notifying board members that New York is considering a statewide ban on outdoor furnaces.

Board members disagreed as to what the future of outdoor furnaces should be; Perkins cited studies that indicate outdoor furnaces emit significant amount of pollutants into the atmosphere while Kampf noted that for some residents, outdoor furnaces are an inexpensive way to heat their homes.

“I don’t want to see it completely banned,” said Kampf.

After much debate, members came to a compromise of proposing limits on outdoor furnaces; devices would be allowed on lots of 10 acres or more with a minimum setback of 300 feet, and the furnaces would not be operated from May 15 to Oct. 15. “Studies have clearly shown these things do not work efficiently in warm weather and are much more polluting in warm weather,” said Delafield. A public hearing will be held in December to allow input from residents regarding the proposed regulations.


contact Supervisor Pompey Delafield - [email protected]

http://www.weeklybeat.com/2007/11/23/hpboardupdate.html

 

[JimWalshin845]

I remember Hyde Park very well.

What I remember about it is:

When FDR ran for President he didn't carry the town or Dutchess County.

Was the first town to disallow the Golden Arches to be put in front of the new McDonnels.

Had/Has one of the highest Fire Tax districts in the Nation.

Voted down a large shopping center that would bring in oodles of tax revenue.

Yep,
I remember it well!

 

[kevinlp]

No I don't have one nor do I know anyone who has one.

 

[stonehouse]

Well, that's hyde park.
They also require businesses to maintain a rock wall outside.
I like it there but it just takes so long to get to. And I live close in highland.

 

[JimWalshin845]

Well, that's hyde park.
They also require businesses to maintain a rock wall outside.
I like it there but it just takes so long to get to. And I live close in highland.

LOL... the rock walls are to keep patrons out. The only reason I would go to HP for is the Eveready and the CIA for food.

BUUURRRP

 

[RedRanger]

They should be banned!! Everything I have read about them points to SMOG and more smog. Silly thing to consider in the first place because they are also wood hogs. They gobble up wood like crazy. Only some one lazier than myself_who dosen`t stack his firewood , would consider that route.

 

[synthnut]

Anytime I see the government instituting environmental restrictions, I think of how the feds voted in Christie Whitman from N.J. ( one of the most filthy environmental states in the country ) to head the committe on Environmental Issues ....Not to mention that my brother in law is an Environmental Scientist , and he claims that the the largest sites that need cleaning up in the entire country, are GOVERNMENT SITES !!.....I guess this is just another "do as I say, not as I do " situation ..... I'm not saying that we don't need tighter restrictions, I'm saying that the government should set a better example !!.....

I see a LOT of the outside stoves upstate where my cabin is , and since my neighbor has a hardwood business in the next town, I can get wood on the cheap .....I was ready to buy one of these stoves until I joined this forum ....I had NO idea how bad these things really were until reading up ....Education is the key issue here......Thanks for the education ....Jim

BTW ...Hyde Park, NY has Eds motorcycle shop ...They do great work on Triumph motorcycles !!

 

[Eric Johnson]

New York is a big state with a lot of different economies, environments and wood supply situations. I don't think blanket bans on anything in NYS make much sense. Most of them originate downstate anyway, and usually work to the disadvantage the rest of us, who also pay taxes. If you ban OWBs and the like, in some communities you'll be hurting people who really can't afford the alternative. Just to cut air pollution in a place where it really doesn't matter.

Let Hyde Park do what it needs to do, but don't try to impose its values on everyone else.

 

[synthnut]

I don't think they should ban them either, but there should be tighter regulations on how these stoves are being built so that good air quality can be maintained .....Air polution matters EVERYWHERE not just Hyde Park ....Air polution is GLOBAL not just one particular town or state .... If wood stoves can be regulated, so can outdoor furnaces/boilers .....Jim

 

[Eric Johnson]

Regulation on central heating appliances is fine, and the sooner the better.

There's pollution and then there's pollution. People have always burned wood in the places I'm talking about. In some ways, an OWB that burns 10 cords annually is better than an old Round Oak stove or fireplace that consumed 20. And that's how people heated their homes and farms for centuries. Wood smoke has always been in the air and it's not the same kind of pollution that you get from oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, thousands of cars, trucks and other vehicles and all the other crap that we dump into the air in most cities and populated areas. I'm drawing a distinction here between wood smoke and everything else, because I think it's a different animal.

If, for whatever reason, you force people in rural areas who are heating with OWBs now to burn oil or gas instead, have you gained anything for the global environment? I'd argue just the opposite. So I wouldn't favor a ban on existing OWBs and I wouldn't favor regulation that drove the cost of new woodburners out of the range of people who might benefit the most from them. There's gotta be a way to phase out traditional OWBs while replacing them with an affordable alternative. I don't think we're there yet, but we may be in a few years.

 

[WILDSOURDOUGH]

The OWB, in it's self is not a bad heating appliance.

It does not 'polute' (read Eric's commets above- re: polution and Polution) anymore that me buying forgien oil- that has to be shipped to be refined, then pumped to a termnal ,trucked to the next town down hill from me, then trucked to my house- before I burn it at some efficenticy less than 90%.
My OWB burns very cleanly- I burn 'dry' wood logs- and that is all ! I burn a very hot fire and I don't use it for domestic HW (not year round).
The real problem is not the OWB- It is people (oparators) who use it as their own personal incinarator- burning trash, green wood, plastic, cats- anything. Although I live in the country- I see lots of these things everywhere, 'smoking' away- with a log truck load of wood and a few pieces cut (cutting as they go). I don't like it either.

Maybe, instead of banning, there could be a OWB licensing program, kinda like 'Hunter safety course' before you could operate one. That, along with checking the moisture of the wood being burned would go a long way to improving the air.

Again, It is not the product- It is the boob running it.

 

[kevinlp]

Wildsourdough - right on.

It is not the product- It is the boob running it.

 

[Todd]

Why can't they have an EPA standard to follow like wood stoves have? Maybe that will force the manufactures to make them more efficient and cleaner burning. Most of those OWB's don't last long anyways, and if there were new EPA standards it wouldn't take long to faze the smoke dragons out.

 

[synthnut]

Here's a small section from a thread that was over at the "Boiler Room" .....There ARE tests on these boilers , and here is the outcome of one of these tests .....Again, this is NOT imformation from me , this is from a thread mentioning a REAL test on these products ....

Early this spring Warnock Hersey labs in Wisconsin tested 7 units from major OWB manufacturers and the results were stunning. Under tightly controlled lab conditions, burning 20% moisture content wood, in spotlessly clean equipment, these 7 units ran from a low of 28% to a high of 41% efficiency. This does not include heat loss from the unit sitting outside or the piping to the structure. As I understand it, agencies from several states were involved in this in order to gain insight as to what type of regulations should be applied to these. To my knowledge these test results have not been released as yet so I cannot divulge any information regarding brands. I only know of it because of some correspondence with a person in the Michigan DEQ Air Quality division. Testing has also shown that one of these units emits the same amount of particulate matter as about 1,000 fuel oil fired furnaces.

Few OWB’s are actually boilers because a boiler has to be a closed system. Most are open to the atmosphere to preclude the possibility of explosion. Being open vessels they cannot be sealed from the ravages of oxygen corrosion, hence the importance of proper chemical treatment of the heating fluid. Many OWB’s fail because of this fact. Many of the OWB companies were started by sheetmetal fabricating shops with virtually no knowledge of proper and clean combustion. They are as technically advanced as a pot of water over top of a camp fire.

 

[Cath]

Here's a small section from a thread that was over at the "Boiler Room" .....There ARE tests on these boilers , and here is the outcome of one of these tests .....Again, this is NOT imformation from me , this is from a thread mentioning a REAL test on these products ....

Early this spring Warnock Hersey labs in Wisconsin tested 7 units from major OWB manufacturers and the results were stunning. Under tightly controlled lab conditions, burning 20% moisture content wood, in spotlessly clean equipment, these 7 units ran from a low of 28% to a high of 41% efficiency. This does not include heat loss from the unit sitting outside or the piping to the structure. As I understand it, agencies from several states were involved in this in order to gain insight as to what type of regulations should be applied to these.
...
Few OWB’s are actually boilers because a boiler has to be a closed system. Most are open to the atmosphere to preclude the possibility of explosion. Being open vessels they cannot be sealed from the ravages of oxygen corrosion, hence the importance of proper chemical treatment of the heating fluid. Many OWB’s fail because of this fact. Many of the OWB companies were started by sheetmetal fabricating shops with virtually no knowledge of proper and clean combustion. They are as technically advanced as a pot of water over top of a camp fire.

...
My OWB burns very cleanly- I burn 'dry' wood logs- and that is all ! I burn a very hot fire and I don't use it for domestic HW (not year round).
The real problem is not the OWB- It is people (oparators) who use it as their own personal incinarator- burning trash, green wood, plastic, cats- anything. Although I live in the country- I see lots of these things everywhere, 'smoking' away- with a log truck load of wood and a few pieces cut (cutting as they go). I don't like it either.
...
Again, It is not the product- It is the boob running it.

I'm not sure I agree with the "OWBs don't pollute; their owner's do" argument. I have to wonder if some OWB owners do understand just how inefficient they are and try to offset that disadvantage by burning anything they can, regardless of how much it may pollute the environment.

Restricting ownership to those with 10 acres of land may protect the neighbors but it would allow the most irresponsible and selfish OWB owners to burn virtually anything with impunity.

Unfortunately, it's easier to regulate the stove than it is the operator and their choice of fuel.
My feeling is that if OWBs are more efficient then their owners would be less tempted to burn anything that doesn't move.

That's just my take on it.
~Cath

 

[ISeeDeadBTUs]

The same 'downstate mentality' that doesn't want industrial wind power, generally doesn't want wood smoke. It's funny how people from more affluent areas want to move out of their downstate location (high taxes, urban sprawl, crime, etc) then when they get here - 'the country' - they want to change everything the ' do. Why? Because things were so great where they came from that they now want to show us 'uneducated locals' how to improve our lives??!?

Having vented that. . . . has anyone ever seen a study that compared total pollution from burning wood versus oil? A study that includes ALL contributions to pollution.

And if we study this and determine that two people living in a large home contribute more pollution, are we going to have the intestinal fortitude to tell people they can only build, say, 1000[] of living area per occupant? Or maybe institute a green points system. If one person burns more than, say 300 gal of oil a year, he/she cannot burn more than say 200 gal of gas a year.

Jimbo

 

[synthnut]

I am selling my house downstate to move into my cabin upstate for a lot of the reasons you listed ....Downstate has too many taxes, cost too much to live, is overcrowded, and high crime, not to mention the air polution ..... I always enjoy going up to my cabin because it's not overcrowded , and the air is good, and so is the water, and I can live peacefully , with much lower taxes, and there is much less crime .... Since homes are much further away from each other, and there are a lot of farms where I have my cabin, my nearest neighbor is about 1/4 mile away from me ..... He knows quite a bit about wood as he owns a hardwood business , and has lived in the area for many years ......He is a "local" and knows quite a bit about wood whether it be burning it , or building with it ..... He also happens to have quite a bit of $$ from his business, and could afford to have any system he wants in his home ....I asked him why he didn't have an outdoor setup ...He said that it was too much money to buy the unit , and that they didn't last that long , and he could get the same results with much less wood by running his fireplace insert .....When I was in his home, it was VERY comfortable .... I talked more with him about the Outdoor stoves , and he was telling me about how folks would burn anything that would burn in them .....He also talked about the smoke comming out of these stoves ....Then he commented that it wasn't too bad since the folks who had these stoves mostly had larger tracts of land , so the smoke didn't bother the neighbors ....Like I said earlier, my house is 1/4 mile from his ....What if I lived right next door to him as I have to live downstate , and he had an outdoor stove and decided he was gonna burn his bald tires ? ..... What does that do for me ? .... What does that do to the environment ? ..... What if I had a matching stove and did the same thing ?...

I'd love to see efficient running outside stoves , that are clean running like the stoves that we run in our homes .... Not only would we burn less wood, but we would have cleaner air too .... Does this sound doable ? .....Jim

 

[ISeeDeadBTUs]

Well, I burn oil - rarely - in a very efficient Viessmann boiler, and wood in an efficient GreenWood boiler. I defy anyone to show me how the GreenWood contributes more pollutants per burn time than the Viessmann.

No question in my mind, If I lived in a Village or City, I would want woodfurnace stacks to be up where oil stacks are.

Since it seems many of us recognize that burning things other than wood tend to make smokier fires, are we ready to say that because you COULD burn inappropriate things in a wood boiler, we should ban them? Are you aware that, while the NYSDEC has attempted to prosecute people for outside burns (burn barrels) that Judges who live in the real world will not convict people for that? How much better is burning wood product garbage (paper, cardboard) NOT petroleum based garbage (Plastics) in a boiler where the temperatures are much higher, instead of burning them in a smoldering burn barrel.

Oh, for those of you that think the government should regulate this. . . . Why does the Fed Govt take money for postage of mass mailers, resulting in voluminous paper garbage that you and I then have to PAY TO DISPOSE OF, when we don't want the 100's of credit card offers that arrive?!!

Jimbo

 

[JimWalshin845]

Dutchess County runs a HUGE OWB!

Hyde Park is in Dutchess County, about 60 miles north of Manhattan/NYC. I believe back in the early 80s the county was in a position of no place to landfill their garbage, came down to 'not in my backyard' mentality.

So they came up with a burn garbage to make steam to generate electricity and sell it back to the largest employer in the area at that time, IBM.

They employed the lowest bidder who had no past experience in the field and of course the project went sour and way over budget. Go figure?.

GE had to bail out the project since their technology and generators were being used. The plant was suppose to be self sufficient through garbage haulers paying a tonnage fee and the sale of the electric/steam. IBM 'down-sized' dramatically and didn't need all the product that was 'suppose' to be generated.

The end result is that the plant is often shut down, garbage has to be trucked out to PA/CT and every year in the county budget there is a small subsidy for the burn plant that very few taxpayers know about. Last I saw, which was about 6 years ago, $1,300,000 of taxpayers' money was going to the plant whether they used it or not.

So Dutchess County now houses one of largest OWBs on the east coast and the air quality went down so the Feds were able to raise the gasoline tax too.

So between local planners, the Feds, big business and the lack of public awareness, it proves our system often "DOESN'T WORK".

 

[synthnut]

I agree that the government is one of the worst offenders , but there are people who run tests and can probably tell you how to make a clean burning outside stove too ...Just because the government does not follow it's own rules doesn't mean that the rules are bad !!.....As I stated in my earlier email the " do as I say, not as I do " mentallity is in full effect here ..... I don't want to ban outside stoves, but I would sure like to see them run more efficiently and cleaner, so I can set one up at my cabin ...I don't see where I'm gonna save any money putting in a $5,000 to $6,000 setup that won't even last me 5-10 yrs ... Jim

 

[Eric Johnson]

You can buy a clean-burning outdoor wood burner using wood gasification technology. Seton, Adobe, Garn, Greenwood, Blue Forge and New Horizon's BioMax outdoor unit come to mind. There are others, and probably more in the pipeline. I'm pleased to hear that Central Boiler is developing one. They're in a good position--and probably have some moral obligation, IMO--to lead the way to a cleaner future for OWBs.

And while we're on the subject, I drove past a rather typical OWB a few times this past weekend just outside of town. While it was smoking all four times I passed it, 3 of the 4 involved just a little wisp, i.e., barely worth mentioning. The other time it appeared to be firing hard, but still a fairly thin stream of blue smoke. And it was keeping a big old farmhouse warm on a cold day.

On the other hand, there's a business on my way to work that has 3 or 4 big OWBs heating its various buildings. When the wind is right, it smokes out the people who work in the convenience store/gas station across the highway. I'd say it's a serious health conideration for those people. Why doesn't this business just buy a big, clean-burning industrial boiler? Probably to get around state regs regarding various permits and a licensed operator. That's abuse of the system, IMO, but they're the biggest employer in town, so they have some pull. And they know it.

 

[hardwood715]

I remember Hyde Park very well.
What I remember about it is:
When FDR ran for President he didn’t carry the town or Dutchess County.
Was the first town to disallow the Golden Arches to be put in front of the new McDonnels.
Had/Has one of the highest Fire Tax districts in the Nation.
Voted down a large shopping center that would bring in oodles of tax revenue.
Yep, I remember it well!

I live in the village, between Vanderbuilt and Roosevelt, taxes are outrageous, and I have to go to either south of Poughkeepsie or Kingston to buy a pair of shoes!

 

[JimWalshin845]

I remember Hyde Park very well.
What I remember about it is:
When FDR ran for President he didn’t carry the town or Dutchess County.
Was the first town to disallow the Golden Arches to be put in front of the new McDonnels.
Had/Has one of the highest Fire Tax districts in the Nation.
Voted down a large shopping center that would bring in oodles of tax revenue.
Yep, I remember it well!

I live in the village, between Vanderbuilt and Roosevelt, taxes are outrageous, and I have to go to either south of Poughkeepsie or Kingston to buy a pair of shoes!

%-P I almost sprewed my coffee all over the CRT and keyboard. I told ya they have those rock walls in front of the stores in Hyde Park to keep the customers out! ;-P %-P :lol: