Ohio EPA regs outdoor boilers
- Thread starter bikerm40
- Start date
-
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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
That's interesting. From what I read, there is no distinction being offered between conventional OWBs and gasifiers. And I'd like to know what constitutes an "outdoor boiler" installation. If you put an indoor boiler in a shed, does that count? And the article mentions EPA emissions regulations, but there's no other mention about how they come into play in this proposed ordinance. I thought there were no EPA regs for outdoor boilers, though the article seems to suggest that one exists and that it somehow influences the permitting process.
The 200 foot setback is a real problem, as is the April-Sept. timeframe for allowable operation. Can you heat your DHW in the summer if you have an outdoor gasifier? Not according to this.
The stack height could be a real problem, too, as Bondo suggests.
The 200 foot setback is a real problem, as is the April-Sept. timeframe for allowable operation. Can you heat your DHW in the summer if you have an outdoor gasifier? Not according to this.
The stack height could be a real problem, too, as Bondo suggests.
Why should big brother government step in to take away more freedoms from people? I have an OWB that I burn wood and occasionally a shovel of coal in. I don't burn trash or any other junk in it. The closest house to me is probably 400' across the road, and nothing on either side of me for at least 800'. However, my property is just under 200' wide. Therefore, according to the proposed law, I can't put it anywhere on my property even though I own 6 acres.
I think if the government wants to put restrictions on things, restrict the cost of other fuel sources. It would conservatively cost me over $3500 a year to heat my house with propane. Look at what gasoline and other heating fuel costs have done to families and the economy already!
I think if the government wants to put restrictions on things, restrict the cost of other fuel sources. It would conservatively cost me over $3500 a year to heat my house with propane. Look at what gasoline and other heating fuel costs have done to families and the economy already!
Well, that is what happens when you burn manure and carpet. The regulation axe falls.
Notice the part about output? Seems confusing in the article, but I think what they are getting at is that the units will have to have honest ratings and not be over sized.
Oh, well, I didn't make it so, but will be happy when products and more efficient and properly sized. This happened on the stove end of things 20+ years ago, so I guess the central heaters are just now catching up.
Notice the part about output? Seems confusing in the article, but I think what they are getting at is that the units will have to have honest ratings and not be over sized.
Oh, well, I didn't make it so, but will be happy when products and more efficient and properly sized. This happened on the stove end of things 20+ years ago, so I guess the central heaters are just now catching up.
Glad I never moved to Ohio (that's a whole nuther boring topic) . . . I'd have to decide if I wanted to add a bunch of Metalbestos to get up over MY OWN ROOF, or figure out how to move the GW indoors.
Sad too, because given incentive I can:
1)Make the GW smoke enough to send the black flies back to Maine (Keep temps low by adding water, rotten wood(Aspen at more than a 33% mix), paper, cardboard, garbage, etc), and
2)Make it burn VSF to the point where all but this forum's members would think it was out.
And if I put the higher chimney on it and/or moved it into my basement, I could STILL do 1 and 2 above.
Sad too, because given incentive I can:
1)Make the GW smoke enough to send the black flies back to Maine (Keep temps low by adding water, rotten wood(Aspen at more than a 33% mix), paper, cardboard, garbage, etc), and
2)Make it burn VSF to the point where all but this forum's members would think it was out.
And if I put the higher chimney on it and/or moved it into my basement, I could STILL do 1 and 2 above.
My guess is that, all high-mindedness aside, some hot shot, living next door to and upwind from a legislator, or a very good constituent of a legislator, and thinking that this is a free country where you can dump your smoke and ash on your neighbor, got a new OWB and poured tons of smoke down wind. The offended legislator simply told him/her self that enough is enough, pressured the OH EPA, and guess what? . . . the offender and all similarly situated are outlawed.
Perhaps this will be a wake up call to the manufacturers that the days when they can dump the social cost of their appliances on the public are near an end.
And a wake up call to those of us who call ourselves citizens of a free country, that citizens have a responsibility to promote the common good, not just what one perceives as one's own good.
And a wake up call to educate our legislators and regulators that high efficiency, clean burning technology is available now, in use, and is socially responsible.
Perhaps this will be a wake up call to the manufacturers that the days when they can dump the social cost of their appliances on the public are near an end.
And a wake up call to those of us who call ourselves citizens of a free country, that citizens have a responsibility to promote the common good, not just what one perceives as one's own good.
And a wake up call to educate our legislators and regulators that high efficiency, clean burning technology is available now, in use, and is socially responsible.
I do not know but these rules are usually made by or influenced by the same people who want their neighbors yard/house/ect... to look a cetain way to satisfy their standards.What happened to personel freedom?Our OWB burns 24/7 365 .Nine out of 10 days very little smoke. luckily we don't have any neighbors.But 9 out of 10 days smoke from large plants just across river does not blow this way either.I will buy a new boiler if they do.I agree if your smoke is blowing into neighbors yard something needs to be changed. Maybe we need more input on a case by case basis.Building code inspector? He could evaluate if one could install owb ,or if it needs longer stack ect... In my opinion its not rocket science , but it could be made to seem that way!
CB OWB
stihl 064
6#maul
CB OWB
stihl 064
6#maul
I agree with that. One size fits all--Not!
Welcome to the Boiler Room, Ncountry. What part of the North Country are you from?
Welcome to the Boiler Room, Ncountry. What part of the North Country are you from?
bikerm40 said:
I don't live in Ohio but I don't like what I am reading! Does big oil run Ohio?? The new boilers probably don't have much more emissions than an older oil furnace.. That's progress for ya!
Ray
Ncountry said:
Every single point of combustion (source) which is manufacturers is regulated. It has to be so when we have a world with 6 billion and a country with 300 million (all packed together in a few areas).
It really does have a lot to do with personal freedom, that is the personal freedoms of the other 299 million plus who do not burn wood in a boiler. A case by case basis is cause for real trouble - imagine if we did this with cars and other combustion devices.
It is not "picking" on one group - every combustion technology today must prove that it meets the BAT specs....meaning Best Available Technology. There are always some exceptions - like you can use an antique car which burns dirty, etc.
I am certain that the makers of OWB can (and are) making them burn better. And education of users - plus responsible users - helps a lot. At the same time, it has been proven long ago that there are always the bad eggs who insist on burning tires, trash, plastic and other toxic mixes. Whether it is done in a barrel or in an OWB, this should be curtailed (in my opinion).
Again, you notice that no regs (in Ohio, etc.) are being put against open fireplaces, indoor (dirty) boilers or furnaces, nor older woodstoves. Yet there are millions of these out there burning regularly. So it stands to reason that certain OWB users have taken things too far, and caused the axe to fall. I don't think anyone has it in for them, just that a few bad apples can ruin the whole bunch.
I live in up upstate NY Lisbon 1 hour south of Ottawa. Btw very good Site .I am also in market for a new boiler probably a gasifier or maybe home made for the new home.
Wellll.....you came to the right place.
Craig, that's a good point about all the other polluting wood-burning appliances. I used to think OWBs were bringing the heat down on everyone else, but now it's beginning to look like they're taking the heat for everyone else. It's a classic scapegoat scenario: get rid of the OWBs and everything will be fine.
Craig, that's a good point about all the other polluting wood-burning appliances. I used to think OWBs were bringing the heat down on everyone else, but now it's beginning to look like they're taking the heat for everyone else. It's a classic scapegoat scenario: get rid of the OWBs and everything will be fine.
Webmaster said:
I would have to agree to a certain extent. But there is something to be said for out of sight out of mind. No one drives around looking up, so smoke from an elevated chimney was never a problem but now that the smoke is in our face we now have a good discussion. The day when all emissions are regulated is closer.
The big problem I see is politicians, who most likely know nothing about any type of wood heat, are making arbitrary decisions. Having a stack higher than any peak within 150 ft? So the guy with a ranch house and a 3 story barn needs his OWB stack to go higher than his barn roof? What if the barn is between the house and the OWB? And, is this measured from ground or true elevation plane?
I agree that case by case is a bad idea, but there has to be some practical middle ground. I'm also worried that there will be no distinction between conventional and gassifier when this comes to NY. I don't know what the right solutions are, but I'm certain the govt can screw up anything they put their mind to.
I still believe that the time will come not only when all of these are more closely regulated, but that we will be taxed on our wood consumption or the heat provided by wood consumption. Once they figure out how to do it, we'll be paying.
I agree that case by case is a bad idea, but there has to be some practical middle ground. I'm also worried that there will be no distinction between conventional and gassifier when this comes to NY. I don't know what the right solutions are, but I'm certain the govt can screw up anything they put their mind to.
I still believe that the time will come not only when all of these are more closely regulated, but that we will be taxed on our wood consumption or the heat provided by wood consumption. Once they figure out how to do it, we'll be paying.
It's stupid. Typical, but still stupid. Legislators sitting in their offices reading info that doesn't delve into the whole picture of wood burning, making laws that don't address the real problem. And that is; typical OWB's are not clean burning and indeed cannot be made to burn cleanly. It's not in the nature of the beast. Whenever you cycle a solid fuel fire by choking off O2, you will get a dirty burn. It's as simple as that, just plain combustion physics. You want to burn wood? Burn it high, hard and hot and burn it all. Don't smolder the fire because that's when the emissions get really ugly. Properly cured wood, gasification type burning and storage is the answer to the problem.
The law we need is one that causes manufacturers to design wood burners that can burn clean. The standards already exist in Europe as well as the technology (gasification) to meet those standards.
What they've done here is equivalent to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. The disease being poor combustion quality. All they're doing with the setbacks and the chimney height restriction is allowing continued poor combustion but trying to avoid the nuisance complaints. It's just stupid!
The law we need is one that causes manufacturers to design wood burners that can burn clean. The standards already exist in Europe as well as the technology (gasification) to meet those standards.
What they've done here is equivalent to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. The disease being poor combustion quality. All they're doing with the setbacks and the chimney height restriction is allowing continued poor combustion but trying to avoid the nuisance complaints. It's just stupid!
- Status
Similar threads
