The seven-member group, devised to consult Borough Mayor Luke Hopkins on air pollution issues, passed a motion unanimously affirming the pollution control plan at nearly midnight Tuesday after a five-and-a-half-hour meeting.
The mayor’s proposed measure sets limits on the types of solid-fuel burning devices, or wood and coal stoves, that can be installed in the borough. It limits the kinds of fuels that can be burned and sets fines for chimney smoke pollution. It also establishes government subsidies to encourage people to swap their dirty stoves for cleaner ones.
A mandate by the federal government to clean up the air prompted the measure, which is drawing both praise and angry opposition in the community.
Wood smoke is believed to be the No. 1 contributor of airborne fine particulate matter, which scientists say is unhealthy. The average particulate level in Fairbanks air exceeds federal guidelines.
The voters last fall were given a choice of whether they wanted pollution control policy to be developed by the state or the borough, and the majority selected the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Judging from the commission’s debate about the ordinance, some of the changes are likely to center on what wood and coal stoves are selected for an approved list. The ordinance grandfathers in stoves that are already installed.
Commissioner Lawrence Duffy said he’d like a better definition of what sort of smoke constitutes a “nuisance.”
Commissioner Mike Pollen said he wants to work on the proposed lot-line setback for outdoor wood boilers.
The mayor is also working on some changes, which he said will be posted on the municipal Web site along with an explanation in plain language of what the 16-page ordinance sets out to do.
Burn wood or what ever you want, but don't infringe on my rights to breath my GOD given clean air. Keep your toxic releases on YOUR property.
Low-sulfur Heating Oil Legislation
Most of the states in the northeast where heating oil use is widespread are currently finalizing legisaltion that will phase out high-sulfur heating oil by 2014. Do you think that the in-place beaurocracy that has been overseeing the highway desulfurization plan is simply going to disband this summer after they finalize the implementation of the current regulations?
The comprehensive NESCAUM study relating PM 2.5 to sulfur in heating oil all but spells out what is to come in the near future. Read the summary of findings in this paper and tell me that this is not on the EPA's agenda.
Low-sulfur Heating Oil Report
"CONCLUSIONS
The Northeast states are in the process of developing long-term strategies to meet national ambient air quality standards and visibility goals and regional targets for mercury and greenhouse gas reductions. As part of the planning effort, a wide range of pollution control strategies are being evaluated. Residential and commercial space heating with fuel oil has been identified as an important source of emissions. Given the relative lack of regulation of this sector, the implementation of lower sulfur fuel standards appears to represent a cost-effective emission reduction option. The emissions from residential and commercial oil heating contribute to ozone and particulate matter formation, mercury deposition and the build up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Given the impracticality of applying source-by-source emission control technology, the best option for reducing emissions from fuel oil heaters is the introduction of cleaner-burning fuel."
I also love all the self-appointed experts that say the EPA, the APC, UAF professors, etc, aren't qualified to write any regulations...but don't offer up any of the qualifications that make them qualified to be a judge.
genflect to the boss every time.
As a good Republican I think these people should only be offered low-interest commercial loans that don't steal money from the taxpayers.
Of course, all the teabaggers are with me on this because of their belief in principle. I can't wait to see the protests!
It's an anti-a-hole plan.
Every good libertarian knows that you're free to do whatever you want on your property as long as it doesn't harm anyone else or infringe on the rights of others.
Of course, in Alaska, saying you're a libertarian is simply an easy way of avoiding the embarrassment of admitting you vote Republican.
Nothing like going backwards 80 years to prove a point!
did I get my quotation marks in the right place?
So, for you sheeple in training, for the Borough to tell you that you have to buy only "Borough Approved solid fuel burning devices.... NO, it is unconstitutional, that puts every member that voted for this program in violation of there Oath.
There isn't one government office that doesn't have the clause in it when you hold up your hand and take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's for all governments foreign and domestic.
You mention water quality. How can thousands of underground heating oil tanks, many buried in high ground water be good for water quality? Do you think they do not start to leak after a few decades? Did you know the property owner is liable if he contaminates his neighbor’s groundwater? There are no federal funds available for this issue and so DEC and FNSB will not go there.
Evidence, please? My evidence to the contrary is that the majority of citizens have elected legislators and supported legislation that have served to reduce air and water pollution.
If it were up to the short-sightedness of the majority of people, the air and water quality of the entire country would be about as good as in Beijing, China. This issue is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, in which individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally for their own self-interest, will eventually deplete a shared limited resource (clean air in this case), even when it is apparent that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. In a case such as this, the self interest of the majority of the people is not in the long-term interest of a society, and represents an appropriate place for government intervention which may, in the short-term, seem to only benefit the desires of the minority.