Should towns adopt cleaner burning regulations? Suggestions about restricting Outdoor Furnaces/boile

[elkimmeg]

Working in my town to have the board of health adopt the EPA standards for wood burning. Also to pass regulations concerning outdoor furnaces/
boilers. We now have 3 that. I know of. Only one approaches a neighborhood and I have had smoke complaints. There are no regs yet, other than a permit required. Anyone can install them anywhere they choose. I think it wise to pass regulations now, We have a lot of open space developments or called cluster zoning. What is the feeling of the forum members?

 

[elkimmeg]

Out door boilers /furnaces are not EPa regulated. Many burn at 20% effeciency nowhere near EPA required 63%
Out door boilers are boilers installed in steel sheds not attached to the main home only by piping

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

They need to be regulated in some way.
Again this morning, on the way to work,
I smelled the strong smell of wood being
burned (this I smelled from inside my car).
About a 1/4 mile later I met the "smog" coming
from an outdoor wood boiler. I feel really bad
for his neighbors.....

Rob

 

[saichele]

Presumably we're talking about the really nasty external smoke makers, not the indoor furnaces.

I think the easiest way would be with a setback. Do it through a zoning ordinance of some sort, rather than a building code (after all, it's a nuisance issue rather than a real safety issue).

"No exterior furnaces within 500 feet of another occupied structure" would seem to cover it.

Obviously the pols would have to decide the number, and your local wood furnace dealers would have to make some contributions to get it knocked down to 200 or so... But then the Sierra Club or some similar ilk could trot out a kid with asthma and do a heart wrenching TV spot. If you're lucky, maybe nothing will happen.

Steve

 

[babalu87]

Out door boilers /furnaces are not EPa regulated. Many burn at 20% effeciency nowhere near EPA required 63%
Out door boilers are boilers installed in steel sheds not attached to the main home only by piping

Start by making them compliant with the 63% EPA rule
How did the EPA let it go as far as it has, does that agency really have its head that far in the sand or do they just dont care?
Shocking when you think about all the manufacturers of those appliances and nary a one of them had to follow any guidelines.

I guess they would have to grandfather the existing installations unless they could somehow deem it unsafe (short chimney, hot embers, dry field .......................?)

 

[elkimmeg]

Two are remote on large tracts of land not an issue. The third next to the neighborhood is an issue,so far I have made that one extend the chimney 6'. It only becomes a problem witha Northeast wind. What I am trying to advoid is one being installed in a cluster zone neighborhood. Then it becomes a huge issue law suits ect. Time now to regulate, before there anymore are installed
The board of health can regulate or pass laws to restrict their usage. You know post for two prior public meetings and then pass the ordinances. I agree they should be EPA regulated so should gas milage for SUV's onother loop hole that has fallen threw the cracks.
Now the EPA is going to mandate milage requirements for SUVs in year 2011 only took them 14 years to figure that out. and allow 5 more years of guzzling

My town has changed from a working class town to Uppie city. We get the stupidest complaints. Last week we got a complaint one store advertised in its window it sells " bad ass jeans". We had to tell the store to remove the window sign.
I can see it now a neighborhood fued over smoke placing me in the middle. What I am trying to accomplish is preventing smoke poluting beast from being installed, this day forward and encourage the existing ones to be replaced by cleaner burning ones. Another objective is a grace period say from May 15 to Oct 15 for all installed non permited listed stoves to be permitted. therefore grandfathered usage. As it stands all non permitted stoves if there is a complaint must be removed. The permit allows for continued usage. If a complaint is recorded on an existing stove non Epa we can suggest an upgrade to a cleaner EPA stove. I think there has to be a case by case basis where all factors are considered the economics of the owner. Though this is not a poor town, most can afford EPA stoves. Eductational factors have to be brought forward, Proper fuel /wood burning techniques reduces pollution. Finally, if approved I am working with a manufacturer, that may offer exchange rebates to encourage swap outs. I am also trying to advoid making judgement on that old clunker that has never been permitted, but now the insurance industry or mortage compaines require inspections and compliance. It is hard to tell owners, I have to condem them and order their removal. I am trying to avoid the many post where some unsuspecting bargin hunter picks up a useless piece of junk and now wants to install it. These odrinates will be well publisizes so that no one can claim ingorance, just stupidity when I have to refuse permitting. Rid the world of death traps Zolzangs in occupied homes

 

[Eric Johnson]

I think forcing manufacturers to comply with the EPA woodstove standards is probably the best way to get the job done. But you would need some sort of grandfathering clause (maybe with a time limit, like, say, 5 years) and a phase-in for new-unit compliance.

Maybe while "they're" at it, they can kick the automobile mileage standards up another couple of mpg. That would do more to control pollution than banning all woodburning appliances altogether.

 

[elkimmeg]

Sate of Ny is formulating regulations. Waiting for the EPA is a leap of faith. Look at how they addressed the SVUs.
Some states have adopted cleaner air or EPA regs. Here in Ma the adoption was left up to the towns, never pushed
and forgotten about. I think we all must share some responsibility not to scortch out earth. Try to do our best to leave
something for our grandchilders childrens. We all know The ecomomice situation for them is being shaped now.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

"Perhaps a regulation should be adopted requiring the owner to locate the furnace UP-wind of THEIR OWN dwelling. It might induce potential users to rethink the idea."

Brave idea Dylan, but this is already "real" where I live.
A person down the road from us had their outdoor boiler put
unusually close to their house & now they can't put their
laundry outdoors very often (aquires the smokey smell)
and can't use their boiler to just heat their water when it
is warm outdoors - the smoke billows into their house.

For me, the biggest issue isn't the smoke, it's the huge
amount of wood that is required to keep these units "satisfied".
When 10 to 15 cords is required over a typical heating season,
it is easy to see why woodlots are beginning to look a bit stripped.
Unfortunately, we have an abnormally high concentration of these
units around us, and I know how big their wood piles are and know
too much also about the smoke....

Rob

 

[webbie]

Working in my town to have the board of health adopt the EPA standards for wood burning. Also to pass regulations concerning outdoor furnaces/
boilers. We now have 3 that. I know of. Only one approaches a neighborhood and I have had smoke complaints. There are no regs yet, other than a permit required. Anyone can install them anywhere they choose. I think it wise to pass regulations now, We have a lot of open space developments or called cluster zoning. What is the feeling of the forum members?

I think VT already has regs of this type - or at least I remember someone sending them to me years ago.

My opinion, for beginners:

1. Since they are potentially explosive (like any boiler), they either should should be installed a certain distance from homes (including the one they heat)...or, be tested in some form to boiler standards.

2. They should be considered as "outdoor burning" - this would allow you to regulate them to your hearts content. You could give the folks a permit to use them, and you could simply remove that permit if not used correctly.

3. Require an efficiency test - The state does this with just about everything else - why not these? Set the bar low, perhaps 50%. This is probably enough to discourage the dirtiest units.


There is actually a caucass of our trade group that consists of the manufacturers of these. Although they have a special interest, they also know they are about to get legislated out of existence in many locales so they are attempting to raise their own standards of efficiency, etc.

Perhaps you should get in touch with the HPBA about this. If you like, I will put you in touch with their government affairs guy and you can then find out if the caucas is "friendly".

 

[Eric Johnson]

I thought the explosion potential was mitigated by the fact that most of these boilers are not pressurized. If there's a problem, the water just pours out a hole in the top of the unit, instead of having to lift a PRV.

The problem with State regulation, Elk, at least in a state like NY, is that the people writing the laws respond to the concerns of people who live south of Albany, leaving those of us Upstate with unrealistic (for us) rules and regs that don't reflect our needs and situation. What else is new? And the problem with local regulations is that they're different from locality to locality. That gets in the way of efficient commerce and allows various warlords to enact legislation at their whim.

I wouldn't hold my breath wating for this administration's EPA to do much of anything constructive, but down the road (like after 2008), we might see some progressive rules and regs that take energy conservation and clean air into account. You can always vote and hope.

 

[wg_bent]

I thought the explosion potential was mitigated by the fact that most of these boilers are not pressurized. If there's a problem, the water just pours out a hole in the top of the unit, instead of having to lift a PRV.

The problem with State regulation, Elk, at least in a state like NY, is that the people writing the laws respond to the concerns of people who live south of Albany, leaving those of us Upstate with unrealistic (for us) rules and regs that don't reflect our needs and situation. What else is new? And the problem with local regulations is that they're different from locality to locality. That gets in the way of efficient commerce and allows various warlords to enact legislation at their whim.

I wouldn't hold my breath wating for this administration's EPA to do much of anything constructive, but down the road (like after 2008), we might see some progressive rules and regs that take energy conservation and clean air into account. You can always vote and hope.

Just a minor correction...I live south of Albany Eric....I'm with you...but the laws are written for people a whole lot further south than me. I live in UPSTATE, NY.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

Out door boilers /furnaces are not EPa regulated. Many burn at 20% effeciency nowhere near EPA required 63%
Out door boilers are boilers installed in steel sheds not attached to the main home only by piping

Elk, you shure there not regulated? I was under the assumtion they were EPA exempt do to the 20cf firebox or larger rule. Some would call this unregulated i guess, but the EPA has given them rating. Kinda falls in the same catagory as the 1 cu ft rule for a baking compartment. Like the rais or wood burning cookstoves. There exempt as well. I would assume that a outdoor furnace that has less then a 20 cu ft firebox wouldnt be exempt and not meet epa guidline exempt status.

 

[Mo Heat]

Yesterday, I experienced what I believe was my first whiff of outdoor boiler smoke. I couldn't figure out what it was until about a half hour later when I noticed a huge plume of smoke coming from a hillside. It was about 70*F outside and I saw this thing come on again before I left. It was too far away to determine if it actually WAS an outdoor boiler, but I'm guessing it was by the way it started puffing so big all of a sudden, like an old steam engine train smokestack. It must have been 2 or 3 miles away from me! If that WAS an outdoor boiler, these things are serious smokers! Not surprising I guess if they are burning 15 or 20 cords of wood a year at 20% efficiency.

I agree with the set-back approach. Simple to implement. Simple to enforce. I'd say a full mile would be required to substantially minimize the effect on neighbors. A distance of 1,000 feet or less seems like it would be inadequate. So somewhere between 2,000 feet and a mile. This should completely eliminate installation in normal residential neighborhoods and large land tract neighborhoods, too. Only someone with a lot of land would qualify.

EPA non-approved vs. EPA exempt seems confusing and a big can of worms. Maybe you could simply disallow anything that didn't meet the current EPA woodstove standards for indoor stoves, or that meets a 'so-many-grams-per-hour' smoke measurement. Or maybe you could limit the size of a firebox to something less than these big boilers have for close quarters residential areas.

You could grandfather existing installs where there are no complaints. Where there are complaints, you could even reimburse people willing to uninstall their outdoor boiler, to be fair. Hopefully all this doesn't affect people like Eric with indoor boilers whose neighbors don't have complaints. Or even outdoor boilers, for that matter.

I don't understand the EPA's logic behind making the biggest of the big fireboxes exempt from EPA smoke restrictions. Especially for a product that someone is allowed to install in a residential neighborhood. Maybe an industrial application in some remote location, but not a neighborhood! I mean, you can't just build a cement plant in a residential zoned area, so why allow what seems like an industrial sized boiler. Even if it is a 'small industrial' size.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

If i had to take a guess Mo, the reason they cant restrict these outdoor furnaces/cookstoves is because some people live off the grid, and my not have any other heat/cook source. Seems weird to me too, but i bet that you cant get those big ass furnaces to burn clean. When i saw them at the show, i tell you they looked as big as a tomb. I agree that it doesnt make sense, but i guess there isnt enough of them out there yet to make a stink, unless there your neighbor.

 

[webbie]

If i had to take a guess Mo, the reason they cant restrict these outdoor furnaces/cookstoves is because some people live off the grid, and my not have any other heat/cook source. Seems weird to me too, but i bet that you cant get those big ass furnaces to burn clean. When i saw them at the show, i tell you they looked as big as a tomb. I agree that it doesnt make sense, but i guess there isnt enough of them out there yet to make a stink, unless there your neighbor.

The basic reasoning behind not applying EPA to cookstoves, central heaters and large mass fireplace was that a relatively small number of them exist and cleaning them up would not affect the total picture very much. Also, they understand that a small manufacturer with limited production might have a tough time getting through - so runs or 50 stoves or less in a year are also exempt.

But now these waterstoves are selling by the thousands - so they are becoming a problem. Seems like every time you leave a little loophole, someone decides to drive a Mack Truck through.

 

[fbelec]

ok i'll play stupid also
why can't they make a retro fit cat for those things?
did i miss this?

 

[BTOP]

:roll: Glad to see others are concerned with these monsters. I live 3/4 of a mile down wind from one. When the guy loads it up not only the smell reaches my place but actual smoke. There is another one 1/2 mile N.E. of me which can be smelled when the wind comes from that direction. I agree the best solution for regulating them are setbacks. Based on my experience 1 mile would be appropriate. I have talked to people who own these things. The first year they think they are on top of the world. By the end of the second or third year they are not nearly so enthused. When asked how the stove worked they get this glazed look in their eyes as if thinking 'why the hell did I buy it'. I imagine having to feed their beastes 10-12 cords a winter is catching up to them. Also, if you have to buy wood at $150-$200 a cord they would make no sense at all. If you have a wood lot to feed them from, I would guess the the wood lot would be gone in no time. If anyone knows of a municapal ordanance regulating these, please post something here.

 

[begreen]

Okay, I'll play stupid. WHY do they have to be so big?? Is it marketing, ie, to decrease the frequency of loading?? The fuel....I understand their fires are so large that they can tolerate wet wood?? I realize that they NEED to produce more BTU's to cover the heat exchange and transport losses.

I think I'll call a few people in my town's government, tomorrow.

Truth is, there isn't a reason why they can't make them burn much cleaner. They're just not required to yet. I posted some links on testing of these smokers a while ago. Just a little smarter burning practices and lining it with firebrick doubled the efficiency in one test. And that was without a cat on it. However, with a cat on it you wouldn't be able to burn green wood (and old fenceposts, oil soaked palettes, neighborhood garbage, etc.) in it. What a pity, those folks need a plasma furnace.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/103/

(broken link removed to http://www.woodheat.org/q&a/qaoutboiler.htm)

 

[G-rott]

Well it seem that the SMOKE produced is the problem!
Is there an effective way to measure smoke production?
Grams per hour or in the case of larger stoves grams per hour per cubic foot of fire box?
If this measurement can be made, then...

Set max allowable Smoke production Y.

Set minimum setback at up to X grams per hour, like 100' from property line public space and 150' from other buildings.

Add to setback for additional smoke production, add 100' to setback requirement for each X/10 grams per hour over Min (X)

Areas with special needs due to inversion other natural or man-made factors need to be clearly identified.

Just make it fair so an efficient wood-boiler(tarn) can be used in a location that will not adversely affect the neighbors, a wood lot owner could make all the smoke(up to a point) he wants if it is set up a half mile from the nearest neighbor or public land.

I don't know if these number work out or if the measurement is something that could be done in the field?
Let us know how you proceed with this "problem".


Garett

 

[HarryBack]

Inefficient or not.....Id hate to live downwind of one.....even a 100' setback, if the air is still, it'll flow over. I think its been proven there are harmful things in wood smoke...unhealthy things. Maybe it'll take a few lawsuits to make it prohibitively expensive for someone to own one. I have a right to enjoy my property, as you do yours. But when something is done on YOUR property that affects mine, something must be done. Its a no-brainer in court, and I cant beleive it hasnt been tested yet.

 

[pinetop]

Living in northrn Minnesota one would be hard pressed not to see at least acouple of these stoves belching out smoke on any given day. The first one I saw was appropiately called a white elephant because of the exposed insulating material. I think the main reasons I've heard for ownership is less frequent firing and you can burngreen and poor quality wood thusley creating huge amounts of smoke at ground level. I had a friend whose neighbor burned old railroad ties in his (since restricted) and the smell not to mention the unseen particulates was horrendous. The newer brands have at least become less obtrusive from a visual stand point. If they are to become more prevalent in higher density population zones the manufactures will have to address the smoke problemwhich would also cut wood consumption. Fifteen cord per year is common although many do use them continuously for heating water. I guess the insurance industry still treats them as wood burning appliances .

 

[keyman512us]

Hello All...
...I know this is an "old topic"...but it is rather interesting. Interesting because of all the good points brought out in these discussions. Given the "bad rap" that outdoor units (whether you want to call them "outdoor wood boilers-OWB's", water stoves or whatever else) I would like to bring up a few points...if I might be so bold:
1.) Just like anything else in America...a few "bad apples" spoil the crop. 2.)Anyone who doesn't "comply with the norm" is going to be a "target" 3.) Someone with a "persuasive" battle cry is going to lead the masses.
...Regardless of your position pro or con you had better take notice. If you burn a single stitch of wood to stay warm....what happens in regards to OWB's is likely to effect everyone. From my personal experience...the playing field isn't level. It isn't because the manufacturers' like many have said throughout this forum have been exploiting a "loop hole"...The owners' of these units by and large are not "responsible" operators...and unfortunately the mostly "ignorant" public is jumping on the "bandwagon" shouting to "squash" their use or existance....period.
...In my honest opinion these boilers are not going to advance any further because the "up-hill battle" is a losing one. The present manufacturers whether they build a better unit or not will not have a market left in a couple of years...and even if they do, there isn't going to be anyplace left to test them. OWB's are going to go the way of Nuclear Energy...A great concept, but some bad press...galvanizes the general public? Why? Irresponsible operation.
...Herein lies the danger (to quote a previous poster):

I think its been proven there are harmful things in wood smoke...unhealthy things. Maybe it’ll take a few lawsuits to make it prohibitively expensive for someone to own one. I have a right to enjoy my property, as you do yours. But when something is done on YOUR property that affects mine, something must be done. Its a no-brainer in court, and I cant beleive it hasnt been tested yet.

It does bother me (as someone who has burned wood for many years) that these units are going to be a threat to anyone who burns wood in the future. Eventually some lawyer somewhere is going to use precedents set by all the past, present, and future regulations to go after EVERYONE. soon it will be the little old couple heating their home with an old "all nighter", next the people who regulary use a fireplace, and eventually everyone who doesn't have the latest technology on their stove. Grandfathering? Kiss that principle good bye!
I wouldn't expect to see Tarm or any of the other gasification boiler makers with good ratings jumping in making an outdoor rated unit anytime soon...for the fear of 'getting egg on their face'.
As a "New Englander" I drive many miles all over these states. For ever one OWB throwing out smoke there are 10-12 people with a stove dampened out to the point of throwing out just as much smoke and particulates, burning crap wood or garbage...BUT I never see any talk of doing something about those people?
Regulating OWB's is the beginning of a "slipery slope"...with dangerous implications.
Everyone who wants to, does, or is planning to burn wood should get together as a group and work together, as a group to set principles, guidelines, ideas and be a voice for change.
Lumping every outdoor unit/installation into one broad term...and allowing the press to "sensationalize" the issue should not be tolerated...period.
What disturbs me is I hear all this talk about x-hundred feet setback this, maybe 1 mile from this & that? Even if the industry changes, design gets better...Do you really think the regulations can keep up? I have yet to hear of any regulations based on firing rates. Am I out in "left field" to suggest a boiler firing at less than 100,000 btu's/hr should have less requirements than one firing at 750,000 per hour?
I'll put it to you this way...I am a "responsible owner of an outdoor installation" who takes the same view of say a "responsible gun owner". I don't own a gun...but I sleep better at night knowing people own them and HAVE THE RIGHT TO! Enuff said?
As an American I'll tolerate quite a bit before I vehemently say BACK OFF! This country (and the state of MAssachusetts) is starting to reach the point where somebody better "rein it back in".
I have faith that I am not alone in this view after this week.
Here in my town the "powers' that be" are taking a carefull approach...and rightly so. When you start regulating how someone can heat their home you are looking at a powder keg. The town next door is interested to see how these regulations turn out because to quote an official who shall remain anonomous "...They are paranoid if they try it people are going to be bringing shot guns to the meetings...and thats' just the officials'..."

..."Tread lightly folks...It is a God given right for a New Englander to heat his home with wood..." {anonomous}
....And the Saga goes on...

 

[HarryBack]

So, Key, Im a bit confused about what your solution is, here......another quote for you:

"If you are not part or the solution, then you are part of the problem"

Are you saying that OWB's arent an issue? That their gross inefficiency, coupled with the fact that they CAN be quite detrimental to their neigbors/neighborhood isnt a problem? As for your folks burning crap in their old woodstoves, the industry has taken great strides there, spearheaded, often enough, by responsible inspectors like Elk, who adamantly insist a owner install a listed appliance, rather than the 55 gal drum superstove that their cousin Bobby-Joe welded up in the scrapyard.

Possibly, the manufacturers here should take heed of your above warning. Basically, clean up their act, follow clean, green, specs, and make their units less "dirty". This actually happened in an unrelated industry, the Pressure Treating industry. The voluntarily stopped treating wood with CCA (Copper Chromated Arsenate), and switched to other means, due to possible health and envirmonental repercussions in the future. In every case, the choice they made was more expensive, but they read the writing on the wall as well, and it happened.

Now, as for my quote. Was something I said untrue in that quote? Do you dispute there arent harmful things in wood smoke? Especially in wood smoke from a unit burned inefficiently? Do you dispute the fact that i dont have the right to enjoy my property, as you do yours? Do you dispute the fact that your actions on your property shouldnt affect my own (one of the reasons for zoning)? I do think we both agree at some point it will be tested in court, and I do feel the OWB wont be favorable in that case.

 

[elkimmeg]

Since I made this post I no longer isnpect OWB installations. IT is now under the Board of health and their agent All OWB have to be 1200' from lot lines and streets 300' away from the primary ressidence Certified plot plans required with distances to setback provided. There are only 2 land owners that could install them.

In all fairness to the poster that owns one you should read or should have NY state publication Smoke gets in your eyes before you purchased yours
Most North East news papers have had Cover stories about OWB smoke nuisances Sunday NT time Cover Boston Globe Portland ME news
Prividence Journal. It's not one neighbor in a pissing war with one another. IT front page news. The barn door is open and the cows are long gone

What is a shame is OWB's have given wood burning a black eye. All strides of clean responsible burning the general public is reading front page NewYork Times

these OWB are drawing attention to legit wood stoves. You are right a few bad apples can spoil the bunch. Be it the manufactures of them or the user burning garbage.

Like the smoke gets in your eyes article Manufactures had years to clean up their act I think that article was printed in 2001

One final reg our board of health passed the burning season for the existing OWB is now confined to OCT 15 to April 15 Maxium fine of $500 per day burning outside that time period
The third violation the unit shall be removed.. In the morning the smoke is so bad from one that it covers RT 140 and one can not see 5' infront of you car. Ask anyone who has traveled that route, they can confirm this including two of our members MA loger and earthharvester. It's that bad ,settles in that valley low area and for 1000' it is as bad as any dense fog