January 2, 2009
I E-MAIL CITY HALL TO DISCUSS ENFORCEMENT OF OUR COMPLAINT BY EXISTING ORDINANCE.
Hi Karin,
Thanks again for stopping by our house earlier in the week. We've been talking things over and we have a few questions. I know you are new to the City and the ordinances, so maybe others at City Hall might be more familiar with them.
Regarding the following existing ordinance:
TITLE 1300 - ZONING REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 1318 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Subd. 10. OTHER NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS. No noise, odors, vibration, smoke, air pollution, liquid or solid wastes, heat, glare, dust, or other such adverse influences shall be permitted in any district that will have a significant negative effect upon adjacent or nearby property. All wastes in all districts shall be disposed of in a manner that is not dangerous to public health and safety nor will damage public waste transmission or disposal facilities.
In this case, smoke and odor, along with the ash, are waste product from the heating process. The EPA, MPCA and other research confirms smoke is a danger to public health. From both Agencies:
" Residential wood combustion emissions emit sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and potentially carcinogenic compounds including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde and dioxins. Some of these pollutants are known to cause cancer. If people are burning wood for recreational purposes, they should consider the impacts on their health, their family’s health, and their neighbors’ health."
The Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/woodheaters/
" For many Minnesotans, burning wood to heat their home is a time-honored tradition and a way to save on heating bills. For others, the aroma of wood smoke often conjures up a romantic or nostalgic ambience. Unfortunately, wood smoke contains toxics and harmful microscopic particles. And the appliance you use, how it’s installed and maintained, and the type of wood you burn – all make a difference to both the heating efficiency and the amount of harmful pollution emitted."
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/wood smoke/index.html
The Washington Dept. of Ecology (who banned OWB's in Washington State) says the average OWB pollutes 22 times more than a wood stove (I think this is from the EPA, also):
" OWBs present unique issues, unlike other residential wood burning devices, based on the following factors:· Year Round Operation: OWBs are designed to provide heat and hot water year round. Cyclic operation: The cyclic nature of OWB operations, unlike EPA certified wood stoves, does not allow for complete combustion and creates an environment conducive to increased toxic and particulate emissions."
" Tests found that the average fine particle emissions (a particularly harmful pollutant) from one OWB are equivalent to the emissions from 22 EPA certified wood stoves, 205 oil furnaces, or as many as 8,000 natural gas furnaces. One OWB can emit as much fine particle matter as four heavy duty diesel trucks on a grams per hour basis. The smallest OWB is likely to have an emission rate of 8.5 pounds of chemical soot ejected from the stack in a 24 hour period, or almost one and one-half tons of particulate matter every year. Although older style indoor wood stoves emit more than new certified stoves, they are still several times less polluting than OWBs. Due to the poor combustion conditions, it is also probable that OWBs emit proportionately more benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, formaldehyde and other toxic partial combustion products which have been linked to asthma, heart attacks and cancer."
State of Washington Dept. of Ecology: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/AOP_Permits/Boiler/Outdoor_Boilers_home.html
Question 1: All ordinances are written with purpose, and Chapter 1318 of Oak Grove's Ordinance was written to include smoke and odor. Since this ordinance does not give any specific cases of where smoke and odor would be a nuisance, can someone at the City give us an example of under what conditions would this be an enforceable ordinance? As a reference, what situation would smoke and odor be considered a nuisance or have a significant impact on adjacent property?
Question 2: The EPA and MPCA in use phrases "carcinogenic compounds" and "harmful particles" in describing smoke. The source of the smoke in question is emitting an amount equal to 22 wood stoves in one location. (not our words, but the above quoted Government Agencies.) At 22 times the volume of smoke and odor, common sense says there could be a significant negative effect on adjacent properties and the people who live on them. Additionally, heart attacks and cancer are both indubitably a significant negative effect. (believe me, triggering asthma attacks is not a positive side effect, either) Additionally, according to the City, this is an older model OWB, which means it is in all likelihood even MORE polluting than an "average" or "smallest" OWB. In our case, the smoke and odor (waste) is being disposed OFF the OWNER'S property, and onto adjacent properties without permission--- 6 properties (with appx. 20 people living on them), have confirmed that in writing.
I'm no Ordinance expert, but it seems pretty apparent that with this many complaints about the smoke and odor, along with statements backed by the higher authority of the EPA and MPCA, Chapter 1318 is being violated on a continuing basis?
Please give us your feedback when you have time. I know you are very busy, and although this is a daily issue for us, we aren't going anywhere for awhile, so get back to us when you are able.
Thanks again,
xxxxxxxx