EPA drops cordwood testing qualification
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Well then this latest testing snafu seems be just another step to everyone eventually being in full compliance by not burning wood at all.
Baby steps.
In the grand scheme of all air pollution , wood burning overall is a drop in the ocean.
Outlaw non military jet fuel.
Cord Wood and Crib Wood Testing | US EPA
the differences between testing cord wood and crib wood for emissions limits
BKVP
Minister of Fire
A individual can build and burn their own wood stove. If you sell them, you are defined as "commercial" and must adhere to EPA regulations.
EPA. In 2015, EPA granted certain shared rights to state agencies, including random compliance audits, witness of emissions tests etc.
Fairbanks Northstar Borough has a serious air quality concern. But it didn't "start" there. Millions of dollars were spent on ill-prepared stove change outs. Industry has a strong history of success in change out programs but were excluded from the process in Fairbanks. It was an organization in the Northeast that began the review of test reports and then supplied that data to AK state regulators.
I think EPA standards are essential. I chair our industries Solid Fuel Section. There are generally 33 or so members. 100% are in favor of EPA standards. We are not in favor of regulations that are arbitrary. If something will clean up the air, allow industry critical time to prove technically advanced designs and is fiscally responsible, we'll do it. If you're old enough, you might recall 1984...the year Oregon started testing wood stoves for compliance. 1,200 companies started shoveling combustors in stoves. Within a scant 4 years, 55 companies remained and EPA started Federal requirements. Within 5 more years cat stoves weren't desirable due to unreliability. This is what happens when pushed to compliance.
BKVP
Minister of Fire
The problem is our industry is the low hanging fruit. When the Governor for Utah tried to ban wood and pellet stoves a few years, he was in his own words "I'll advised". Public hearings held mid day (while everyone is at work) resulted in thousands of conservative residents showing up and saying it like it was. I was at those hearings. It was encouraging.
As a friend in Fairbanks said to me a couple of weeks ago..."you ever sweep an oil stove chimney? Now you do that once and you say wood stoves are ultra clean."
There is no question about the role wood stoves have in air quality issues. But these are mostly area with continuous inversions. Lobby MT, Fairbanks Northstar Borough, Oakridge Oregon and 50 more places with no wind, no natural gas and dark winters for some.
Banning is not a solution, it's a bandaid.
I clearly don't support banning woodstoves at all.
I just like to ask those who push the "they are coming for our stoves narrative" if they have anything to back it up.
I know there are areas where inversions are a problem where they have been banned or severely limited.
Thanks.
In Red. Is the air quality concern caused by heating with wood?
In Green. What is the organization?
In blue. Easier to control?....I believe my DAKA fell victim among the 1200 . ( I love that stove.)
Is there reliable data showing where home heating with wood is heading, I assume up? I guess what I'm asking is it a fad that ppl will try for awhile then realize it it hard work?
Come to Massachusetts some towns will not issue permits for new homes etc..
Heating Your Home with a Wood-Burning Appliance
You love it so much you cut into it and added secondary combustion tubes in an attempt to make it burn like an EPA stove.
Yes and people will eventually challenge those limitations in court as they have in other places.Come to Massachusetts some towns will not issue permits for new homes etc..
Heating Your Home with a Wood-Burning Appliance
www.mass.gov
BKVP
Minister of Fire
In some areas, yes. Because that's all they have...that is affordable.
NESCAUM
Perhaps
Year over year, solid fuel heating can increase. Decade over decade, some folks like to flip a switch.
It has gone up and down through the decades. Right now it's on its way up. Then it will taper off then up again
The jet fuel comment simply points out the hypocrisy that runs amuck with those who want to control us little ppl in the name of saving the planet.
barnaclebob
Feeling the Heat
There is more than one type of air pollution. The concern with jets and cars is C02 emmisions as these vechicle actually burn very cleanly when exhaust systems are functioning properly. The issues with wood stoves center around particulates (smoke) which greatly affect local air quality depending on local environmental factors. Particulates dont really hurt the environment, they hurt the lungs of those who live near dirty wood burners.
Last edited:
EPA has study the effects of jet fuel on the environment and restrictions and changes on aircraft and aircraft engines in reguards to less pollution and fuel economy. The Boeing 777x is a prime example of this, EPA started studies with aircraft in the late 60's or very early 70's. In 1970 the EPA purchased a Plymouth Superbird outfitted it with sensors to chase jet airliners down the run way and take air samples of jet exhaust. There is much speculation that the Superbird had under gone pollution test as well helping lead to the detuning and lower compression ratios seen in 1972.
I own 4 stove/ furnaces have 3 installed and actively burn 2 at a time. I do not see myself heating my house any other way in the future. I have burned both epa and non epa stoves, I currently only run epa stoves. I don't find one harder than the other except the fact that I used more wood in the non epa stoves. All stoves take time and certain amount of work to use properly the epa stove does require you to be better prepared on wood and have it dryer, but in my experience requires less wood and less chimney cleaning. The biggest struggle I have had with burning wood is fighting a tall chimney not the epa or the stove manufacturers fault. My hose I have now was originally set up for decorative fires not heating. I took it upon myself to adapt the decorative fireplace to an actual heat source not the epa or the stove manufacturer. I have no one to blame for hi draft except me, I bought the house< I installed the stove in a less than ideal place.
I can not see how the Daka would be any easier to operate than a Drolet Heat Commander, I would think the Drolet would be easier. I loved my Woodchuck furnace but after burning epa stoves and a furance made by Ashley which is low quality I do not want to go back to to my non epa woodchuck. I am actually looking at the future if I can find a good deal upgrade one of my tube stoves to a hybrid and the Ashley to a heat Commander. Both newer with stricter EPA regulations and higher efficiencies. When I look at the wood pile at the half way point of winter and I already used 4 cords it seems like a good idea, I could always turn the gas furnace up but that's no fun.
I can not see how the Daka would be any easier to operate than a Drolet Heat Commander, I would think the Drolet would be easier. I loved my Woodchuck furnace but after burning epa stoves and a furance made by Ashley which is low quality I do not want to go back to to my non epa woodchuck. I am actually looking at the future if I can find a good deal upgrade one of my tube stoves to a hybrid and the Ashley to a heat Commander. Both newer with stricter EPA regulations and higher efficiencies. When I look at the wood pile at the half way point of winter and I already used 4 cords it seems like a good idea, I could always turn the gas furnace up but that's no fun.
My only fault with the EPA is that they did not create and require a specific, consumer-focused, template for the labs to follow. I say consumer-focused because ultimately that is who is buying the product. Core information about the stove and how the stove tested should be in the front few pages, not buried and lost in hand-scrawled addendums.
My issue with the current methodology of stove testing is the fact that real world emissions are not the same as the lab tested emissions. If every wood stove truly emitted 2.0g/hr in every home they were installed in smoke from wood stoves would be much less of an issue. 2.0g/hr isn't much more than a modern diesel pickup is permitted to emit.
I know and understand that a repeatable test is needed to create some kind of baseline and maximum PM quantity to not exceed, which is fine if it weren't for the fact that "meets EPA 2020 2.0g/hr emissions" are plastered all over marketing materials for almost every manufacturer. It just gives so much ammunition to anti-wood heat activists, really it's not a whole lot different than the whole dieselgate saga, where emissions passed legal requirements on the test dyno, but were actually orders of magnitude higher in real world operating conditions.
What I know is this, once the EPA receives enough pressure from outside entities, or a mandate from the federal government, emissions limits will tighten, and with the stroke of a pen legislation will be enacted to drastically curb wood smoke emissions from stoves, regardless of manufacturer or stove user input. It will be a scenario very much the same as with diesel engines in the late 2000's, changes will be rammed through, some manufacturers will adapt and thrive, some will struggle, some will exit the industry completely, and another group will offer services to remove or alter pollution controls and the EPA will fine them into bankruptcy.
I know and understand that a repeatable test is needed to create some kind of baseline and maximum PM quantity to not exceed, which is fine if it weren't for the fact that "meets EPA 2020 2.0g/hr emissions" are plastered all over marketing materials for almost every manufacturer. It just gives so much ammunition to anti-wood heat activists, really it's not a whole lot different than the whole dieselgate saga, where emissions passed legal requirements on the test dyno, but were actually orders of magnitude higher in real world operating conditions.
What I know is this, once the EPA receives enough pressure from outside entities, or a mandate from the federal government, emissions limits will tighten, and with the stroke of a pen legislation will be enacted to drastically curb wood smoke emissions from stoves, regardless of manufacturer or stove user input. It will be a scenario very much the same as with diesel engines in the late 2000's, changes will be rammed through, some manufacturers will adapt and thrive, some will struggle, some will exit the industry completely, and another group will offer services to remove or alter pollution controls and the EPA will fine them into bankruptcy.
BKVP
Minister of Fire
Agreed! So I suggested that the labs all use a template provided by EPA. The problem now is each labs reports are not comparable...making it hard to read them. The EPA template needs to be designed around your suggestion.
BKVP
Minister of Fire
Read my comments! I suggested with stick with M28R. Same 4 runs. However, as required by law, when we notify EPA 30 days in advance of our intent to test, EPA would ask the lab to complete one additional run on cordwood. That run would not have any influence on your emissions score. Had they taken my suggestion into consideration and implemented it, there would be 155 runs completed on various species, on various technologies at various burn rates.
We'd be able to then have data that could be compared to crib tested stoves. Consumers get comparable data, regulators get real world data (of course from a lab on a dilution tunnel).
Thanks for suggesting that to them. I have read dozens of these reports and it's frustrating with some of them. In a good report, I can get the pertinent info in a few minutes. In a weak report, it may take 5-10 minutes, and some don't list stuff like actual measurements of the stove firebox at all. The EPA template should have an executive summary at the beginning that covers pertinent test data and stove specifics.
Another weakness of EPA testing is that all stoves get a consistent draft with a stack of 15'. That's fine for an average ranch house, but way off for a 2 story colonial with attic. I want to know how much emissions go up with a tall stack and strong draft. If it's a notable amount then the EPA should acknowledge the value of a draft reducing device.
Another weakness of EPA testing is that all stoves get a consistent draft with a stack of 15'. That's fine for an average ranch house, but way off for a 2 story colonial with attic. I want to know how much emissions go up with a tall stack and strong draft. If it's a notable amount then the EPA should acknowledge the value of a draft reducing device.
Similar threads
