Local News
Boiler owners want grandfather clause in new Linn County ordinance
Posted on Aug 18, 2009 by admin.
Mike Snyder's outdoor wood furnace at his home in rural Springville. (Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)
Linn County supervisors and administrators Tuesday night continued to feel the heat of public frustration with a proposed ordinance that would place new limits and standards on wood-burning boilers.
More than 50 owners of wood-burning boilers attended a public hearing at Roosevelt Middle School to voice their concerns over an ordinance they see to be as ineffective as it is unfair.
These requirements for smokestack height and distance from neighbors are less strict than the ones discussed earlier this year. That proposal would have effectively shut down many of the 200 wood-burning boilers in the county.
Even so, Jim Hodina of Linn County Public Health, who wrote the new ordinance, said many residents who use the devices to heat their water and their homes will have to modify their boilers — as well as respect limits on how much fuel they can burn and when — if they are to meet national clean air standards that date back to 1976.
“We need to show the EPA that this ordinance does not adversely affect our health standards, our air quality,” Hodina said. “Everyone can keep their boiler. The key is adding ten or fifteen more feet of stacks (to their boilers) in a year, and that is not a hardship.”
Owners in attendance disagreed. Most said they bought their boilers to cut down on utility costs with renewable sources of energy. They said they now face increased costs and maintenance to bring the units into compliance with rules that didn’t exist at the time of purchase.
“We’re talking about 200 people with wood-burning boilers. Why can’t we talk about amnesty?” asked Rick Smith of Alburnett. “It’s OK for some people in the county to pump pollutants into the water … but you’re telling 200 people they can’t lower living costs with energy independence?”
The supervisors have scheduled public readings of the proposed ordinance on Aug. 26, Aug. 31 and Sept. 2.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=774f7fd2-8324-4de4-9c54-6f96c1254706)
The City should have a greandfather clause. I hated it when Governement thinks they know better. If they don't I would tell the 200 people to sue the City and have them pay the extra cost that they will have to pay for… Come one City Leaders do the right thing here.
If they can grandfather in before the 1976 standards that would be one thing. None of these boilers were installed then. That the manufacturer did not meet the mentioned sandards is not the fault of the county. If the owners sue anyone, it should be the manufacturer who sold them an appliance that didn't meet code.
If these boilers are the same as required by Code in Minnesota, then what is the air quality in Minnesota because there is probably a lot more of them in Minnesota?
the EPA reports have show these boilers to be one of the most efficient means of heat. i thought the liberals on the county board were all about going green ?
I'd like to hear from their neighbors. Do the neighbors have complaints about the boilers? Thats the key factor in this issue, and it isn't mentioned in the article. If the things smoke out other people, the new application of old requirements are the least of what should happen to deal with it. Open burning is a similar issue. It angers me to no end when I have to close all my windows on a beautiful fall day because some jackoff wants to get pyro with his leaf pile. Many intelligent communities have joined the 21st century and banned it, but not all.