EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe someone who actually lives in Fairbanks, Alaska can chime in on this one...

OK.

I read the article. For as deep as it goes (not very), both sides are reasonably well represented.

Lance Roberts and Tammie Wilson are both on (or recent members of) the borough assembly. As borough mayor, Karl Kassel presides over the 9 members of the assembly at borough meetings. Jean Olsen, the veterinarian is a private citizen. Tammie has done a recent stint in the Alaska Legislature, I live outside both her historic borough and legislative districts. I do live inside the regulated burner "rectangle of death."

The link between elevated PM2.5 concentration and cumulative lung damage is statistically very strong. It is, I think, most correct to refer to "the preponderance of evidence." When Roberts and/or Wilson say "unproven" they are technically correct, but overlooking the preponderance of evidence when they do so.

The air quality in Fairbanks does suck, often. Wintertime inversions are bad. One sticky point not covered in the linked article is the EPA is doing nothing, and proposing nothing, to ameliorate summer time air quality when forest fire smoke blows into town.

You know how in the lower 48 forest fire control is all about protecting structures, real property? How many houses are threatened? If we have, again this summer like last summer, a 10k acre fire 30 miles out of town not threatening any structures the forest service does jack-doodle because no structures are threatened, when the wind blows the smoke into town it counts against our EPA measured air quality score, so we are supposed to get our year round air quality scores low enough to meet the benchmark by changing our behavior on the things we can control while the forest fires burn, often all summer, and hurt our annual AQ score. There are lots and lots of otherwise reasonable people very very pissed off about this little detail.

With a gentle pencil, Lance and Tammie are all about property rights, what you do on your land is your business. While I do agree with this in principle, we do have a law up here that you can't run a pipe across the lawn to dump raw sewage from your toilet onto the lawn of your next door neighbor. I think that is a good law.

What we don't have here is a consensus public opinion that wood stove exhaust is more or less the same, though even Lance and Tammie agree we share a less than ideal air shed. Recently the borough passed an ordinance that you don't have to show cause to lodge a complaint. The vote was 8-1, Lance Roberts the only assemblyman opposed - so Tammie Wilson must still be in the state legislature. I think the community would have been better served long term by a class action lawsuit filed by many many people who can't burn wood while the AQ is bad (Stage III) against the borough for not having shut down the few folks with dirty stacks.

What I see with my own eyes driving around Fairbanks and North Pole and the surrounding area is the vast majority, say 99% or even 99.9% or so of wood burners are running clean plumes. I am not an EPA certified Visual Emissions Evaluator, but I have done the course work to take the test to become one. My own opinion, based on personal observation of many many chimneys in the borough is we could significantly improve our wintertime AQ by changing out another 20-30 wood burning appliances. It might or might not be enough to bring us in to EPA compliance, but as usual it only takes those one or two jackholes to ruin it for the rest of us.

The borough AQ ordinance has only been on the books about a year, year and a half now. Mayor Kassel was very very gentle the first winter with enforcement, He issued an edict that anyone found in non-compliance was to be brought to his attention before they were ticketed and he called them, each and every one. Made home visits. Wheedled. Begged. Behaved like a public servant.

He did eventually give the sheriff permission to ticket one of the offenders after several personal home visits. The accused made the front page of the local paper, above the fold, with a list of the dates and times the mayor had visited the home to offer the accused an upgraded wood stove. Still presumed innocent of course, but good luck finding 12 impartial jurors for that one. Pretty sure that one was settled without a court date.

It does gall me that builders with "No Other Adequate Source of Heat", the NOASH permits, get the same tiered verbal warning system ahead of ticketing that supplemental burners like me get. I think anyone committing to heating their home with wood only ought to know what they are doing and surrender all (or all but one) of their verbal warnings before they get ticketed and fined for AQ offenses. Instead, as written, they can basically continue to pollute for the rest of this winter before they get ticketed in late spring.

With four kids of my own, I am all about saving money on utility bills. As a Registered Nurse I think clean air is a good thing. Let's get these 20-30 worst offenders cleaned up and see how much of a problem we have left to deal with.

Don't get me started about natural gas. On the North Slope at the oil wells they are re-injecting trillions and trillions of cf of NG every day. Its a really big number that starts with a 2 and has lots of zeros. "They" could possibly build a NG pipeline beside the existing oil pipeline from the north slope all the way down to Valdez, AK. Then "we" could export NG and crude oil both. But "they" have been talking about since the 1960's and haven't done it yet. Given historic ice data, it makes a lot more sense to wait a few more years, build a liquefaction plant on the north slope, and then use LNG tankers to sail the stuff down to Seattle or Tokyo where it will be worth real money and bypass Fairbanks (and pipeline construction expense) entirely. Unfortunately LNG is coming out of the south Pacific so cheaply that the electricity plant in Anchorage, AK is buying LNG from the Phillipines rather than out of the North America infrastructure at the Seattle terminal. Economic reality is what it is.

M2c anyway.
 
I think the EPA is history soon. Move on folks, nothing to see here....
Yeah that is not going to happen. They may loose some funding and some power yes but they are not going away sorry
 
Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."

What do you think?

nytfbx.jpg


My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack. Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure. But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF.

I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.

Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.

That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation. The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...

@begreen?

If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."
 
Looks like steam to me but regardless it certainly isn't billowing at all.
 
The link is about doctors in Alaska asking for the government to push the thinking-impaired into getting EPA stoves (which are better and more convenient in every way except that you can't burn your garbage in them, which is a second win for breathable air).

You have to squint pretty hard to get "GUMMINT COME GET MAH STOVE" out of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rwhite and bholler
OK.

I read the article. For as deep as it goes (not very), both sides are reasonably well represented.

Lance Roberts and Tammie Wilson are both on (or recent members of) the borough assembly. As borough mayor, Karl Kassel presides over the 9 members of the assembly at borough meetings. Jean Olsen, the veterinarian is a private citizen. Tammie has done a recent stint in the Alaska Legislature, I live outside both her historic borough and legislative districts. I do live inside the regulated burner "rectangle of death."

The link between elevated PM2.5 concentration and cumulative lung damage is statistically very strong. It is, I think, most correct to refer to "the preponderance of evidence." When Roberts and/or Wilson say "unproven" they are technically correct, but overlooking the preponderance of evidence when they do so.

The air quality in Fairbanks does suck, often. Wintertime inversions are bad. One sticky point not covered in the linked article is the EPA is doing nothing, and proposing nothing, to ameliorate summer time air quality when forest fire smoke blows into town.

You know how in the lower 48 forest fire control is all about protecting structures, real property? How many houses are threatened? If we have, again this summer like last summer, a 10k acre fire 30 miles out of town not threatening any structures the forest service does jack-doodle because no structures are threatened, when the wind blows the smoke into town it counts against our EPA measured air quality score, so we are supposed to get our year round air quality scores low enough to meet the benchmark by changing our behavior on the things we can control while the forest fires burn, often all summer, and hurt our annual AQ score. There are lots and lots of otherwise reasonable people very very pissed off about this little detail.

With a gentle pencil, Lance and Tammie are all about property rights, what you do on your land is your business. While I do agree with this in principle, we do have a law up here that you can't run a pipe across the lawn to dump raw sewage from your toilet onto the lawn of your next door neighbor. I think that is a good law.

What we don't have here is a consensus public opinion that wood stove exhaust is more or less the same, though even Lance and Tammie agree we share a less than ideal air shed. Recently the borough passed an ordinance that you don't have to show cause to lodge a complaint. The vote was 8-1, Lance Roberts the only assemblyman opposed - so Tammie Wilson must still be in the state legislature. I think the community would have been better served long term by a class action lawsuit filed by many many people who can't burn wood while the AQ is bad (Stage III) against the borough for not having shut down the few folks with dirty stacks.

What I see with my own eyes driving around Fairbanks and North Pole and the surrounding area is the vast majority, say 99% or even 99.9% or so of wood burners are running clean plumes. I am not an EPA certified Visual Emissions Evaluator, but I have done the course work to take the test to become one. My own opinion, based on personal observation of many many chimneys in the borough is we could significantly improve our wintertime AQ by changing out another 20-30 wood burning appliances. It might or might not be enough to bring us in to EPA compliance, but as usual it only takes those one or two jackholes to ruin it for the rest of us.

The borough AQ ordinance has only been on the books about a year, year and a half now. Mayor Kassel was very very gentle the first winter with enforcement, He issued an edict that anyone found in non-compliance was to be brought to his attention before they were ticketed and he called them, each and every one. Made home visits. Wheedled. Begged. Behaved like a public servant.

He did eventually give the sheriff permission to ticket one of the offenders after several personal home visits. The accused made the front page of the local paper, above the fold, with a list of the dates and times the mayor had visited the home to offer the accused an upgraded wood stove. Still presumed innocent of course, but good luck finding 12 impartial jurors for that one. Pretty sure that one was settled without a court date.

It does gall me that builders with "No Other Adequate Source of Heat", the NOASH permits, get the same tiered verbal warning system ahead of ticketing that supplemental burners like me get. I think anyone committing to heating their home with wood only ought to know what they are doing and surrender all (or all but one) of their verbal warnings before they get ticketed and fined for AQ offenses. Instead, as written, they can basically continue to pollute for the rest of this winter before they get ticketed in late spring.

With four kids of my own, I am all about saving money on utility bills. As a Registered Nurse I think clean air is a good thing. Let's get these 20-30 worst offenders cleaned up and see how much of a problem we have left to deal with.

Don't get me started about natural gas. On the North Slope at the oil wells they are re-injecting trillions and trillions of cf of NG every day. Its a really big number that starts with a 2 and has lots of zeros. "They" could possibly build a NG pipeline beside the existing oil pipeline from the north slope all the way down to Valdez, AK. Then "we" could export NG and crude oil both. But "they" have been talking about since the 1960's and haven't done it yet. Given historic ice data, it makes a lot more sense to wait a few more years, build a liquefaction plant on the north slope, and then use LNG tankers to sail the stuff down to Seattle or Tokyo where it will be worth real money and bypass Fairbanks (and pipeline construction expense) entirely. Unfortunately LNG is coming out of the south Pacific so cheaply that the electricity plant in Anchorage, AK is buying LNG from the Phillipines rather than out of the North America infrastructure at the Seattle terminal. Economic reality is what it is.

M2c anyway.

Thanks Poindexter!

I also noticed the "smoke plume" dissipates rather quickly. First thought I had was honestly, that may be Poindexters house lol
 
The link is about doctors in Alaska asking for the government to push the thinking-impaired into getting EPA stoves (which are better and more convenient in every way except that you can't burn your garbage in them, which is a second win for breathable air).

You have to squint pretty hard to get "GUMMINT COME GET MAH STOVE" out of that.

I can burn garbage just fine in my epa stove. I don't but there's no reason I couldn't.

Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."

What do you think?

View attachment 191249

My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack. Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure. But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF.

I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.

Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.

That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation. The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...

@begreen?

If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."

All steam since it is white and dissipates. Whether or not the visible white steam is attached or detached is completely irrelevant. Turns out that steam becomes visible as soon as temps are low enough. This can easily happen in the flue and when ambient temps are well above freezing.

I am noticing that the very efficient stoves make very low flue temps and lots of steam. Smoke police need to be smarter if they hope to honestly identify smoke vs. Steam.

Think about fossil fuel chimneys or even automotive tail pipes. Lots of cool steam when efficiency is up.
 
Funny the article didn't mention the fact that for every 1 GWe of power we get from coal power plants, we throw away - as waste - 13 GWe of Thorium. Wonder why that is?
 
I wanted to do a wood boiler, but Washington State bans them. I am on 21 acres with very few neighbors and I am above all of them and the prevailing wind does not hit their house from mine. I was highly upset that WA state bans boilers. First and foremost, I think that any wood burning device has the potential to adversely affect my neighbors so it is something to be cognizant of. I am on the hill in a valley and at times in the winter the air sinks and air does not move much. I take this into account when I want to burn a slash pile because I want to be a good neighbor. I do not agree with blanket bans of wood burning devices. Like everything in life, it is highly dependent on numerous factors such as location, quality of wood and stove, etc etc.

Issues like these are better left to local communities. I can burn wood all day long where I am at and it will have minimal impact on anyone else. I have also seen the wood boiler in action in a trailer park burning green wood - that is not cool. Bottom line, allow local communities to regulate air quality from wood burning. In a state like Washington, that has a hundred thousand plus acres burn every summer it is hard to swallow a "one Earth air policy" that factors into the government decision. On the other hand, I don't have any issue with EPA stoves or cars that do not belch exhaust on everyone behind them. It is a balance and like everything with government - someone will not be happy.

Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?
 
For the time being. With the new phase 3 guidelines they should be allowed, but that needs to be agreed upon by the legislature.
 
All steam since it is white and dissipates. Whether or not the visible white steam is attached or detached is completely irrelevant. Turns out that steam becomes visible as soon as temps are low enough. This can easily happen in the flue and when ambient temps are well above freezing.

I am noticing that the very efficient stoves make very low flue temps and lots of steam. Smoke police need to be smarter if they hope to honestly identify smoke vs. Steam.

Think about fossil fuel chimneys or even automotive tail pipes. Lots of cool steam when efficiency is up.

I have taken several photos of my own stack. I do not feel good about making reads from photos, and I believe it is specifically forbidden for (local ordinance required) level 9 EPA VEE's.

In the grabbed photo above there is that uppermost puff of white that might be steam or might be smoke. Without being there live to watch it behave I am unwilling to call it either/or. If I was standing there next to the photographer the right thing to do would be to read between the stack and plume if the steam plume is detached - very difficult given the lighting, or watch that upper most puff cloud to see how much grey is left behind as the white settles out if the plume is attached.

Either way, this particular home - not mine- is not one of the 20 or 30 or 100 worst burners in my air shed, within the limits of photography I think that is burning legally within the local ordinance.

That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit. What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home. Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.
 
Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?


Yep. Crazy thing is that the Garn when I researched it appears to be below the guidelines on particulate matter, but pretty much a blanket ban. I actually thought about filing a suit using their own data, but I was told that I would be wasting my time. $10,000 fine if you get caught running one. Washington is dominated by the folks on the coast and a pretty rabid environmental lobby so they decided what was best for those of us who live in far less populated areas. Ironic thing is that the same environmentalist are the ones who stop healthy forest practices out here so we suffer massive wildfires almost every year that put far more crap in the air in hours than all the woodstoves do in a year. Go figure.
 
That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit. What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home. Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.

This is the kind of insanity that only government can provide. This is the game that many local governments are playing for revenue and it just hurts the real property values of homes around them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix Hatchling
Could you write to the
. What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home. Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.

That is freaking nuts, but I'd go pull the siding off my house right now if it'd lower my property taxes... I could buy a house in a lot of the US for what these bloodsucking parasites charge for property taxes every year on LI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix Hatchling
This is the kind of insanity that only government can provide. This is the game that many local governments are playing for revenue and it just hurts the real property values of homes around them.
I agree it's insane but it seems like it's the homeowner playing the game not the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix Hatchling
I agree it's insane but it seems like it's the homeowner playing the game not the government.

The homeowner is playing the game the local government created. I am not a fan of progressive taxation on property. I look at it like this - first off - I pay sales tax and a pretty high one at that. After that, we all want to support schools, roads, and necessary government services, but that was the original point of the sales tax. My house and property are nice. I get it. I pay through the nose for it - literally. For what I pay every month in property taxes I could purchase a brand new diesel 1-ton truck and pay the insurance. I want to pay my fair share and I knew when I bought it. However, having them tell me they will raise my taxes for any and every improvement I make on my own property is insane. Paying 2000 bucks a year for a pasture and forest in my acreage is crazy. It is a big game. If I add a closet to the guest room in the basement they will raise my taxes. If I mud and tape the sheetrock in the basement storage room they will count it as finished living space. It is asinine and it erodes the genuine idea of private property ownership. How can I ever own something if I have to pay the County more in taxes every month than what it costs to rent a nice apartment?
 
The homeowner is playing the game the local government created. I am not a fan of progressive taxation on property. I look at it like this - first off - I pay sales tax and a pretty high one at that. After that, we all want to support schools, roads, and necessary government services, but that was the original point of the sales tax. My house and property are nice. I get it. I pay through the nose for it - literally. For what I pay every month in property taxes I could purchase a brand new diesel 1-ton truck and pay the insurance. I want to pay my fair share and I knew when I bought it. However, having them tell me they will raise my taxes for any and every improvement I make on my own property is insane. Paying 2000 bucks a year for a pasture and forest in my acreage is crazy. It is a big game. If I add a closet to the guest room in the basement they will raise my taxes. If I mud and tape the sheetrock in the basement storage room they will count it as finished living space. It is asinine and it erodes the genuine idea of private property ownership. How can I ever own something if I have to pay the County more in taxes every month than what it costs to rent a nice apartment?
If Washington taxes everything else like they do a pack of cigarettes then I feel your pain! Everywhere I have lived the taxes seemed to balance out. Seemed like if property taxes were low the sales and vehicle taxes were through the roof. One way or another they get their money.

Sorry getting off topic.
 
There is a local cap on how much property tax the borough can collect. They collect right up to the cap every year. If all the occupied construction sites put up their sheathing tomorrow my taxes wouldnt go down very much really.
 
If Washington taxes everything else like they do a pack of cigarettes then I feel your pain! Everywhere I have lived the taxes seemed to balance out. Seemed like if property taxes were low the sales and vehicle taxes were through the roof. One way or another they get their money.

Sorry getting off topic.

No worries. I gripe about it when it comes up, but otherwise I just suck it up and move on. We have terrific public schools here that are very well funded so there is that bonus. Otherwise, it is crazy. I can buy local materials, hire local workers, and pay my permits if I wanted to add to my deck. That generates economic activity and it is good for everyone. However, the county will come along and raise my taxes whatever they feel is appropriate and I will pay for that deck the rest of my life. It makes you feel (correctly) that you do not really own your home or property. You "own it on paper" and you have to pay them to live there. When the citizens lose control of taxes that are levied upon them the real owner of the property becomes government. That is why we had a revolution.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregbesia
Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?

Wood furnaces too. The current Washington regs require a specific grams per hour max from solid fuel burners. None of the old furnaces could do it and modern furnaces don't test for gph but instead some other emission rate to comply with the new epa furnace testing protocol. So yeah, we can burn stoves still.
 
Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."

What do you think?

View attachment 191249

My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack. Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure. But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF.

I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.

Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.

That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation. The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...

@begreen?

If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."
That was my thought when I read the article - why show a steam plume? I can head out with my camera and within 5 miles take several shots that would make that look like a clean air poster child.

What you point out is true here too. It only takes 20-30 yahoos in an area to trash the air for miles, especially during a temperature inversion, which are common in cold weather locally. And when one does it, that becomes justification for another.
 
One other (uncontrollable? ) thing that adds to poor air quality is snow removal/clean up. This was a big issue when I lived in Missoula. All the salt, gravel etc that is put down goes airborne when it dries and gets swept and driven on, this adds to the particulate levels. We would have no burn days quite often because of this. They werent about to quit using gravel and wood burning was easier to control. But the stoves became the poster child for bad air when in reality they still couldnt meet the standards because of dust.
 
Thanks Poindexter for the explanation on the local situation. While Canada has encouraged home owners to switch to EPA approved stoves, they have zero enforcement capacity ... no officials to check, quantify, warn or ticket. In my area, it is more like Fairbanks in that negative days create that "smoke" plume that it more steam ... I know it's cold out when I can see the exhaust off the pellet stove.

Would the photographer even realize that was a steam plume rather than smoke ... how familiar are they with the difference? How familiar is the average citizen with the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam
I doubt the average citizen would know or would have a bias toward the wood stove. What's coming out of the chimney is not much more that what comes out of my vent from a propane furnace. I would bet if you showed folks the steam coming off a furnace they wouldn't care "It's just steam". If you showed them the same thing off a chimney, then it's billowing smoke. Must be it's a wood stove. As unbiased as an article may be pictures tell a story. If people are told that the picture represents smoke billowing out then that's the reference that will stick in their minds to make judgement from.
 
Even if the guy in the photo is running the cleanest cat stove on the planet, he could have been reloading the stove when the photographer walked past.

Even if it is steam, that doesn't really point to dishonesty in the article to me. Would you expect a reporter and photographer to know the difference between a smoke plume and a steam plume, or even to know that clean burning stoves produce steam?

Whether smoke or steam or cotton candy is coming out of the pipe in the photo doesn't change the information in the article- some in the medical profession want the government to enforce clean air laws because their patients are suffering.

(I think they should let 'em suffer, because those same guys are probably going home from the doctor's office to post "GIT YER GUNS OBAMA COMIN TO TAYK MAH STOVE" on the internet... So I guess it's a good thing that I am not a doctor in Alaska. :). ).

Edit: "I take that let 'em suffer" back, because it's the guy who lives on top of the hill with a smoke dragon who is choking out the guy who lives in the valley with a cat stove.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.