 |
|
|
| 11/21/2008 9:42:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Opposition is overwhelming at woodburning public hearing
Comparative health hazards disputed; grandfathering urged
A packed house of several hundred people sent a clear message Monday to the Oneida County Board of Health: Don't approve a proposed ordinance to regulate outdoor woodburning units, at least as it is written.
At an early evening courthouse public hearing, speaker after speaker disputed the need for any ordinance, backed by polite but certain applause that left no doubt where the vast majority of those attending stood on the issue.
Fewer than five people supported the ordinance outright, and two of those backed the idea of grandfathering existing units.
The draft code would allow outdoor woodburning units/outdoor furnaces with an approved permit from the zoning department; the units would have to meet emission standards embodied in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency and of the Outdoor Furnace Manufacturer's Caucus of the Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association.
Specifically, the draft states, regulated units would include any accessory structure or appliance designed for use outside the principal structure to heat any principal or accessory structure on the premise through the transfer of heat via liquid or other means, by burning wood or other solid fuels.
Only natural untreated wood could be burned in the units. Lawfully operated fire pits, open burning, barbecues, fryers, grills and chimneys would not be regulated under the ordinance.
Outdoor wood-fired furnaces would have to be placed no less than 200 feet from any residence not served by the furnace. For existing units within that 200-foot boundary, the stack would have to be at least two feet higher than the peak of adjacent properties.
For units located between 200 and 500 feet of any residence not served by the furnace, the stack height would have to reach at least to the peak of adjacent properties.
Under the ordinance, the planning and zoning committee could approve a lesser stack height on a case-by-case basis if no hazard is posed to neighbors and the board of health recommends the lesser height.
A one-time permit for new units would be required under the ordinance. Owners of existing furnaces would have one year to obtain the needed permit for each unit, provided the stack height met the ordinance's requirements.
What the people think
Members of the public attacked the ordinance on a variety of levels and offered a number of suggestions.
Former Minocqua town chairman Don Gauger said the proposed code's stack-height requirements would be impossible for him and many others to meet. That sentiment was echoed throughout the night.
"My neighbor is on a hill," Gauger said. "I can't get 500 feet away. Maybe 350 feet. If I did that, I would still have to have a stack 35 feet tall. That's impossible."
Gauger suggested basing an ordinance - since one was likely, he said, given government's penchant for wanting to control people's lives - on a seasonal basis, allowing use, for example, during the heating season.
"Nobody has looked at a timeframe," he said. "You've assumed that people are using them year-round. Oct. 15 to April 1 is a logical way to do it the way things are going for people today. With all the people receiving help with their heating bills, many need woodburners."
Oneida County supervisor Larry Greschner, who represents Woodruff, said the ordinance language was too vague.
"I would not like to be the county corporation counsel going into court on an alleged violation with the wording you have here," Greschner said. "Who determines what is a hazard and what isn't? There's nothing there."
Greschner said the county's role should be to pass along any complaints it receives to the DNR.
Most unfair of all, he said, was the attempt to regulate those who already have OWBs.
"No ordinance was in effect when people spent their hard-earned money to buy these units," he said. "Now we're going to make them spend thousands more to rip them out? I hope not."
Greschner said the health department and the DNR already have ample authority to investigate complaints on a case-by-case basis and take action, if necessary.
"How much regulation is too much?" he asked. "This proposal is a clear case of over-regulation."
In addition to those worried about impossible stack-height requirements and the need to grandfather those with existing units, others asserted that officials were trying to discriminate against OWB owners because nobody was trying to regulate campfires or indoor wood furnaces or fireplaces - in which, one said, many people burn such things as Christmas wrap - or the persistent outdoor burning of leaves and brush.
Resident Tom Handrick picked up on that theme and on another pressed throughout the evening - with only four complaints last year about OWBs, the ordinance was an overreaction.
"You do not need an ordinance," Handrick said. "You are simply trying to take control of people's lives. What's next? Will you need to hire someone to be the woodburning Nazi? If there is a complaint, you have the means to take care of it, just as you have in the past."
A smattering of support
Joel Flory challenged the notion that lack of complaints translated into the lack of a problem.
"It's like nonpoint source pollution," Flory said. "You see that the lake is polluted, but you don't know where it came from. It's hard to complain when you don't know where the pollution is coming from, and it affects every citizen of Oneida County."
Donna Wininsky of the Wisconsin Lung Association, a nonresident of the county, supported the ordinance and challenged the argument of discrimination.
"OWBs are a little different than campfires and fireplaces simply because of the duration they are allowed to burn," Wininsky said. "We're talking about six to eight months a year or more and the number of hours during the day, so we are not really comparing apples to apples."
The federal Clean Air Act already mandates certain standards for particle pollution, she said, and six Wisconsin counties don't meet those standards now but will have to take steps to do so. Oneida County, she said, should pass an ordinance to help ensure continued compliance in the future.
Wininsky did, however, support the idea of grandfathering existing units.
But, she cautioned, while a visible plume of smoke from an OWB indicates an absolute exceeding of federal pollution standards, OWBs pollute even when there is no visible plume, and invisible particulate matter infiltrates homes through even closed doors and windows.
Neal Baudhuin, the DNR's northern region air supervisor, also supported an ordinance.
"The DNR gets a number of complaints," he said. "It's not a huge number of complaints, but the ones we do get, the people are very annoyed. They have a difficult time breathing."
A firewall of opposition
But the opposition was overwhelming overall, and even the respiratory issues were contested. Breathing was in fact a major theme among opponents.
A few said neighbors' outdoor woodburning units aggravated asthmatic conditions; however, others said standing in one's home was more dangerous than standing next to an OWB, given the amount of indoor pollution, and others said respiratory conditions improved in their own homes when heating units were moved outside.
"My wife has asthma, and we can't afford gas," Steve Schramke said. "The doctors told us we have to get the wood out of the house. I don't have a lot of money. I spent $8,000 for my OWB to cuts costs. I cut my own wood. Now if somebody buys the land next to me (and builds), you're going to come and tell me I have to get a permit and might have to get rid of it, when I've had it for five years? This really stinks. This isn't right."
On and on the drumbeat went. Wally Dahlquist, owner of Dahlquist Heating & Cooling, said four complaints out of 40,000 citizens didn't warrant a law; the former police chief of Rhinelander, Glenn Parmeter, said he would be in immediate violation if the ordinance was passed and he would take a loss on his investment of $9,000; firefighter Jim Grant said too many factors had not been considered or studied, including comparisons of OWB particulate matter levels to those produced by the issuance of 5,000 outdoor burning permits in Oneida County, where the smoke is at head level or below.
Multiple people said OWBs had saved lives by reducing the number of house fires.
Near the end of the meeting, Chuck Kopp of Pelican summed up the sentiment of just about everybody: "This is government gone wild."
At the end of the hearing, health board chairwoman Romelle Vandervest said the public comments would be taken seriously, but she held out little hope that no ordinance would advance.
"We'll take all these comments into consideration," Vandervest said. "It won't be a lighthearted decision. There are a lot of comments and we need to think them through. Maybe there will be some tweaking. But it won't be a split decision. It hasn't been so far."
The department's argument
Before hearing comments, the health department offered a presentation outlining, in the words of a local student, why the department believes the ordinance is needed.
"It's a matter of balance," said another attendee who urged regulation before others sought a ban. "There's no need for sparks to fly over this issue. There is a middle ground."
The state of Wisconsin is aggressively pushing local regulation of the units.
According to the state Department of Health Services, wood smoke contains a concoction of at least 100 different compounds in the form of gases and fine sooty particulate matter. Those include six of the Environmental Protection Agency's "criteria pollutants" in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
|
Comment on this story
|
|
|
|
