“I want to wait and hear from the pollution control commission,” Hopkins said Monday. “They offered opinions last year. Many of those have been incorporated into the ordinance. We’ll see what they say this year.”
The draft measure goes before the Air Pollution Control Commission on March 9 at 6:30 p.m. in the Borough Assembly chambers. Public testimony will be accepted at the meeting.
Hopkins said he also will make changes of his own, such as reinforcing language that grandfathers solid-fuel burning devices already installed in the borough. He declined to mention other changes until he hears from the pollution control commission.
The mayor said he anticipates assembly members to be absent from the public meetings this month and said he plans to bring up the ordinance the next time there’s a full assembly.
Hopkins introduced the ordinance in response to a mandate by the federal government to reduce levels of PM 2.5, an air pollutant known to cause health problems.
“This is to address health risks for borough residents,” Hopkins said.
Wood smoke is believed to be the largest single contributor to PM 2.5.
If the borough refuses to develop a pollution control plan, the state will make a plan. If no one forms a plan, the state risks losing federal aid, according to municipal officials.
The plan’s debut last week before the Borough Assembly drew overwhelming critical public testimony from those in attendance.
Two assemblymen, Guy Sattley and Hank Bartos, held back the measure from automatically advancing to a public hearing. The measure was set to return to the assembly March 11 for a decision on whether it should move forward to a public hearing.
At issue are proposed borough-wide regulations on chimney smoke emissions from wood and coal burning stoves.
Violators would face fines of up to $500. Designated borough employees would measure emissions’ opacity using techniques approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
“All of the enforcement would be complaint-driven,” Hopkins said. “We’d talk to people. A citation is way down the line.”
The measure also proposes to ban the burning of certain materials in the borough’s non-attainment area, which stretches from the Tanana River to the Goldstream Valley and from North Pole to the Old Nenana Highway. An estimated 83,000 people live in the area. The no-burn list includes plywood, construction debris, particleboard, garbage and tires.
The measure sets limits on the sorts of solid-fuel burning devices that can be installed in the borough. Existing devices would be grandfathered in.
“We’re trying to prohibit actions that will cause our air quality to be worse,” the mayor said. “We have to quit putting in poor-quality stoves and outdoor hydronic heaters, and we have to burn seasoned wood properly.”
The plan offers tax breaks and government subsidies to people willing to replace pollution-belching stoves for cleaner-burning devices.
Hopkins proposes using $1 million in federal economic stimulus funds to pay for the program.
A pollution control plan is due to the federal government by November 2012.
Contact staff writer Amanda Bohman at 459-7544.
Government telling me how to heat my house and my kids warm and safe is ridiculous!
Can anyone here cite any instance when the feds made good on there threat?
And could the State collect the income tax form the people (that normally goes to the feds) and withhold it from the IRS.
Would be nice to se
Let's not forget all the barrels of crap they both, the base and post, have buried in the ground around here. No doubt the Government is the worst polluter in any area.
bad example when looking for any kind of positive comparison there.
The reason the borough isn't monitoring or doing anything is because they made the State responsible for the industrial stuff, that way the borough can focus on screwing with the citizens of the borough.
The borough as a whole doesn't have a problem, it's only in town, like 5% of the borough, yet one would believe it's right to hold the whole borough hostage, for those that chose to live nose to butt with their neighbor!
I would say the same for you. "Allot?" Mastery of the english language doesn't seem to be your skill, either.
MODERN wood-stoves burn wood much more efficiently than the home made things you people make from scrap (this is not some vast conspiracy theory, it is scientific fact). Do you go through allot of wood? Does it burn fast in your old stove (outlaw)?
I know that Eielson, at least, uses a MODERN system of burning coal (they don't have guys with shovels loading fist size chunks of coal into archaic boilers), the coal is ground to a fine powder so it burns much more efficiently and thereby putting much less particulates through the stacks. Much like the system downtown- Notice how it's just steam and not black smoke rising?
- Marie Antoinette, 1791
"Let then burn oil"
- Fairbanks Mayor, 2010
Maybe the census folks should wait until after the wood burning issue is settled .. could be a whole lot less folks in FNSB, with no heat allowed.
Yep, you can take it from an old timer .. a job isn't near as important as a little heat, when the thermometer drops below minus forty below zero.
Makes a fellow wonder if Santa Claus is going to be thawed out in time for Christmas? Yep, the USPS going to get lots of nasty letters from the youngsters from all over the world, because the government says that Santa can't even use his own chimney to keep warm.
Anyway- it is not a "God given right" to pollute the air everyone else breathes just because you can't make enough of a living to afford a modern stove. It's not the mayors fault, or the federal governments that y'all are failures and have to eek out an existence in the state with the harshest climate in the union. Move to Florida or Arizona if you people can't survive RESPONSIBLY in Alaska, there are plenty of us who can, we won't miss you or y'alls pollution none either.
Borough policing policies = unconstitutional
Can only buy "Borough approved" stoves = unconstitutional
The automotive IM program was voted out by the people. = constitutional
To put this policy/ordnance on the books should only be done by a ballot vote, at the same time we vote in a new assembly that is responsive to the people, not the Federal Government. = constitutional.
How about dropping this nasty ordinance and putting your efforts into real solutions that make sense for everyone. People will heat with what they can afford. They are not going to freeze to death no matter how much you gnash your teeth and threaten to fine them. Give them heat they can afford and they will use it. Think of the new jobs created and the pollution alleviated, why , you could end up one of the "good guys".