Air, Wood, BBQ: PA Wood boilers on chopping block

Complaints over wood-fired burner prompt ordinance in Smithfield

October 13, 2007
By Beth Brelje, Pocono Record Writer

When it comes to water, some like it hot.

But Smithfield Township residents will need to think twice before installing an outdoor wood-fired burner for heating water or homes.

A new ordinance severely restricts the conditions in which an outdoor wood-fired burner may be used.

The ordinance change comes after a disagreement between Smithfield neighbors Robert McLaughlin and Robert and Ilona Harrison on Kings Pond Road.

In 2005, McLaughlin placed a burner on his 3.3-acre property, just 12 feet from the property line and 94 feet from the Harrison’s bedroom window.

At the time of the $10,000 installation, McLaughlin’s project adhered to Smithfield’s building codes.

But when he fired the burner up in November 2005 for year-round, 24/7 operation, the intense smoke created health problems for Ilona Harrison, who suffers form asthma.

“I had a pain in my lungs when I took deep breath,” she said.

Smoke stung the Harrison’s eyes, forced their windows shut and still permeated inside, stinking up their drapes and clothes.

“We were prisoners in our own house, but we were not even free here because of the smoke. It was a terrible risk to our health,” Robert Harrison said.

Now well versed on the issue, he mentions a study from Connecticut researches that states smoke particles from this type of burner constitute both a substantial cancer and non-cancer risk.

Two other neighbors joined the attempt to shut down McLaughlin’s burner.

The Harrisons hired attorney Jeff Durney, who sought help from Smithfield’s zoning officer and next, the zoning hearing board.

Durney cited an ordinance that states you can’t use your property to cause injury, annoyance or disturbance, and another covering noxious or objectionable smoke.

In May 2007, the zoning hearing board deemed the burner a violation, and ordered it shut down.

The board could fine McLaughlin up to $500 a day if he burns again.

McLaughlin has appealed the decision.

“Many people have asked me, why am I the only one the township is shutting down? Why am I being singled out?” McLaughlin asked.

He said Central Boiler, the company that made the stove, had tests done by the EPA.

The stoves passed air quality particulate tests and all EPA regulations. According to McLaughlin, the tests showed the stove is cleaner than a barbecue grill and an indoor fireplace.

But no tests were done locally.

“There were no air quality tests done in the area of my stove whatsoever by the township or the Harrisons,” McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin said the township changed the ordinance based on opinion rather than fact.

The ordinance had language that mentioned air quality.

That same issue is raising protests over the proposed concrete batch plant in the same area of the township.

McLaughlin said the Harrisons have been vocal opponents of the concrete batch plant.

“It almost sounds like the Harrisons are using Smithfield Township as a sword in an air-quality fight,” McLaughlin said.

“Today it’s my wood furnace; tomorrow it’s your wood stove, or how about the campground?” he said.
Read
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/NEWS/710130322

---

Ban wood-burning fireplaces?

September 4, 2007

Every so often, readers will call to pitch an idea for a cause they believe I will champion.

Such is the case with a caller who left this message: “I was wondering if you would consider writing a column on fireplace burning, especially on nights when the weatherman says it’s cool enough and you can leave your windows open. You know, “great sleeping weather.’ Inevitably, certain people will use the cool night weather as an excuse to light a fire and snuggle next to a fireplace.

“The fumes fill the neighborhood and your bedroom and you can’t leave your windows open. Maybe we need a ban on fireplace burning. I live in Levittown. It’s getting really bad around here. But I was wondering if you would consider writing about this.”

Fireplaces cause “fumes” and give people an excuse to “snuggle”? Outrageous!

You are onto something, caller. Wood-burning fireplaces should be banned. Let me make the case, beginning with the “fumes” issue first.

Who can stand the smell of wood smoke wafting through the neighborhood, especially on a crisp autumn day?

Why, the next thing you know, a person might find himself digging through the garage for the football, calling his kids outside, tossing the football, having fun, and this inevitably puts him in a good mood.

But he should not be in a good mood!

This is because he and his children are inhaling noxious fireplace fumes, which are loaded with grimy “particulates” that cause cancer, asthma and sleepless nights for grumpy neighbors.

Why, I wouldn’t be surprised if wood-burning fireplaces also cause global warming, cancer clusters, men who wear flip-flops while shopping, and other planetary plagues.

Now for the “snuggling” issue.

Lighting a fire naturally leads to this. In some cases, people are tempted to open a bottle of wine, recline in front of the crackling flames, and drink the wine.
click here

This leads to something even worse than snuggling — drunken snuggling! And, dear caller, I think we know what kind of hanky-panky that leads to.

We need to lead Bucks County in the movement to ban wood-burning, planet-killing, snuggle-inducing fireplaces.

I suggest you and I form an environmental awareness group. We can call it “Fireplaces Are Really Terrible” and put the acronym on bumper stickers.

Maybe we could enlist the help of the New Hope Borough Council. New Hope has banned smoking in bars and wants to ban Dunkin’ Donuts. New Hope seems to like banning stuff. Why not wood-burning fireplaces, too?

We could get annoying Irish rock star Bono to come and speak for the cause. He’s with us on this. Last week, according a newspaper, he requested his neighbors in New York’s Central Park West neighborhood stop using their fireplaces. He, too, is bothered by stink and fumes. Yay, Bono.

Naturally, people who like wood smoke, snuggling and hanky-panky will strongly object.

We may have to compromise and permit propane fireplaces. Many of the new ones are operated by remote control, so we’ll easily have the couch potato population on our side.

If people miss the sound of real wood crackling, we can have them download fireplace sound effects from our Web site. With digital quality sound, is there really a difference?

Sure, when Christmas comes, people may have to sing “Chestnuts Roasting on a Phony Fire.”

But we’ll tell them to get over it. We’re trying to save the planet, and get a fume-free night’s rest, too.

Mullane’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday.

---

Wood boiler emissions not a local issue
April 03, 2007

Are outdoor wood-burning boilers a viable alternative to oil, gas or electricical home heating systems? Or do they produce a heavy dose of air pollution that threatens public health?

The simple answer is probably both.

Smithfield Township resident Robert McLaughlin actually got permission from township authorities to install his outdoor wood-burning boiler, something he says saves him $2,000 in annual heating costs. The unit, through a series of wires, transfers heat from the unit to various parts of his home.

But following complaints by a neighbor and a series of public hearings, the township’s zoning hearing board decided a year later that McLaughlin could no longer use the outdoor boiler to heat his Kings Pond Road home.

Neighbors aren’t yet breathing easier, though. McLaughlin is allowed to continue using the outdoor unit pending his appeal to county court. If he loses all other legal remedies, McLaughlin also loses much of the $15,000 investment he made with the township’s blessing.

McLaughlin contends the zoning board decision wasn’t based on scientific evidence that the smoke by-products are a threat to human health, but on conjecture. But others point to previous studies that indicate prolonged exposure to a large amount of such smoke is harmful.

The township, and a growing number of other municipalities around the country, are left to apply local laws and regulations to a problem that was never foreseen when those laws were developed. The outdoor wood-burning boilers are a relatively new, but growing phenomenon.

Other states have taken steps to outlaw the boilers, or at least study their effects. But the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has made a conscious decision to do nothing, to leave it as a local issue. That’s unfortunate.

It’s the DEP that is specifically empowered in Pennsylvania, through financial resources and enabling legislation, to examine and regulate pollutants. This is particularly so when it comes to air pollution. Those airborne particulars, though perhaps most concentrated in the areas of origin, travel far and wide — sometimes for hundreds of miles. Leaving it to individual municipalities to regulate, on a piecemeal basis, something that potentially impacts numerous other communities, has serious shortcomings.

The DEP, on the other hand, is better able to apply a comprehensive statewide approach. The state agency also is uniquely qualified to study and examine the environmental evidence. Townships, boroughs and even cities don’t have the resources to conduct wide-ranging scientific investigations, or to sanction a community elsewhere for allowing migratory pollution to enter their borders.

Another issue that needs to be closely examined: Are outdoor boilers really that much more damaging to the environment than multiple indoor wood-burning stoves more commonly used for household heat? A consistent environmental standard should be applied and that’s the DEP’s job.

DEP, where are you?