EPA new wood stove requirements!

[j7art2]

I'm burning almost 100% hardwood extensively this year. I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment, assuming I'm not a responsible burner. I use a moisture meter, and this is my first year burning wood in my own house, so I'm making due with what I've got, but I've done a darn good job checking what I have and separating it. I grew up on wood heat and always seasoned for 2 years C/S/S growing up. I'm well versed in good wood burning practices. Considering the amount of wood I've burned, if I had poor wood burning practices, I'd have had a chimney fire or four by now, and why I specifically offered to show a pic of my chimney to prove it.

I guess this is neither here nor there, but I've narrowed my extremely high wood consumption to a few factors:

1.) I didn't have a fresh air intake installed in my basement. Wood like to smolder without it, making me put more wood on to cause it to "catch". Immediately the problem remedied itself once I installed one and my wood usage has been cut significantly since.
2.) I have a HUGE firebox. I am 6', and 215lbs, and if I could fit through the door, I could literally fit inside my firebox. It's 28" deep and probably close to 40" high. This leads to problem #3.
3.) My entire large firebox is completely uninsulated steel. The only place for firebrick are on the sides. It has a very poorly designed V shaped bottom, and each piece fits 5(?) pieces of firebrick. No insulation on the sides, none on the back, none on the ceiling. Essentially, I'm losing half my heat due to poor insulation. There is no way to install firebrick along the sides or back, which results in #4.
4.) My basement is completely uninsulated cinderblock, and my wood furnace is in the corner. The walls are cold to the touch, and it is actually a bit chilly in the basement with the fresh air intake installed. My unit gives off virtually no radiant heat unless I'm burning close to the overburn mark on my flue thermometer. I don't know if this is because the basement walls suck it out or what.

This makes me wonder if getting a Drolet Tundra will even work for me. It heats 2500 sqft, but the house is 1700sqft, and the basement is probably 600-700. The last thing I need is to install another unit that struggles to keep up. If I wanted that, I'd just keep what I already have.

 

[begreen]

What you are dealing with is phenomenal heat loss in the house and an inefficient furnace. Most homes this size are heating with 4-5 cords of wood. It sounds like this was compounded at times by burning the 30% moisture fuel. It takes a lot of heat energy to boil out that moisture. That is heat that didn't go into the house. A more efficient burner will save wood, but it will only do so if the wood burned is <20%. It sounds like you have a handle on that. If so the Tundra should make a nice difference. But I would also aggressively go after the sources of heat loss and cold air intrusion into the home to ensure a successful next winter burning.

Both of these issues are not directly related to the new EPA regs. Please start a new thread on the topic in the boiler room. There are folks there that have wood furnaces that can provide more specifics and comparative experiences.

 

[semipro]

I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment, assuming I'm not a responsible burner. I use a moisture meter, and this is my first year burning wood in my own house, so I'm making due with what I've got, but I've done a darn good job checking what I have and separating it. I grew up on wood heat and always seasoned for 2 years C/S/S growing up. I'm well versed in good wood burning practices

As begreen said, "sounds like you've got a handle on that".
I think we're sometimes quick to jump on the "your trying to burn wet wood" response probably because its so common among those posting with burning issues.
I second begreen's suggestion to look into keeping the heat you make in your house by browsing the "green" and "DIY" forums here. The more heat you retain the less you cut, move, burn, clean, etc.

 

[bholler]

r. I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment

i apologize for that i really though that you had said your wood was not as dry as you would like and you had trouble getting enough split to get it dry my mistake. But i think you need to change something you are burning a ridiculous amount of wood for a house that is not all that big. Mine is smaller i have a 40 year old stove and i use half the wood you do. I do supplement with some oil though about 150 gals so far this year i might hit 200 for the year but if i had a bigger stove i think i could heat the house with 7 to 8 cords on wood alone.

 

[j7art2]

Wood usage has been cut in half since I installed a fresh air intake. I went through 7-8 cords getting to January, and with January and February being by far the coldest months, have only gone through around 3 in two months. It made an incredible difference. I'm not at 12 yet, that's simply what I gathered. I've got about 1 left, so I've technically gone through 11.

Back on topic though, I'm still struggling to make sense of what the actual EPA wood FURNACE requirements are. They are different regs completely, and looks like they have slightly longer to comply. Drolet is stating that they're making a bigger furnace with a bigger firebox soon that's a step above the Tundra, but I think I'll probably be taking the topic over to the boiler/furnace room, as though it is related, it's more focused on a single type of unit.

 

[begreen]

It sounds like you are making good progress and getting a handle on wood heating with the furnace. Here's the new regs for wood furnaces:
http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces
http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces

 

[brenndatomu]

Here is what Yukon has to say about it. They have a link to the same EPA info that BG just posted. ^ ^ ^ (and some other stuff too)
http://www.yukon-eagle.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=380&tabid=36&portalid=0&mid=653

 

[j7art2]

Good to know that a Super Jack is still a possibility for now. Thank you.

I've read the regs, I just can't make sense of them. I has the dumb, and cannot compute.

 

[brenndatomu]

Good to know that a Super Jack is still a possibility for now. Thank you.

I've read the regs, I just can't make sense of them. I has the dumb, and cannot compute.

Yeah, it sounds like they can continue selling existing models for a couple more years. My takeaway from what they said was that it will be 2-3 years until we could actually buy a new "EPA" Yukon. I personally am glad that they will have to meet actual testing requirements now instead of just saying "Our furnaces have secondary air so they must burn clean" but then have no real test documentation to back it up.

 

[j7art2]

I could have sworn they claimed 90% efficiency on their units on their website, but that may be 90% for the multi-fuel units, and the efficiency of the 'other' fuel, whether it's LP, natural gas, or fuel oil.

Regardless, not bad. Once fall comes, I'll be evaluating my money situation and figuring out what the best unit is for the price. The Drolet Tundra is priced right for certain, but the firebox is about the size of my thumb. I don't know if that makes any difference though. The Yukon Eagle isn't much bigger I don't think. Compared to mine, everything but a summer bonfire is a small firebox.

 

[brenndatomu]

they claimed 90% efficiency on their units on their website

they wish. Notice that word claim...like I said earlier, no docs to back it up. And once that monster is paid for, and sitting in your basement, whatcha gon do about it if their "90%" claims turn out to be...well, large load of steamy BS?

 

[JRHAWK9]

I spoke to Daryl (designer of the Kuuma furnace) and he's all excited about this new requirement. Finally we will get to see all wood furnace manufacturers tested to the same standard and see who's blowing smoke and who's not (pun intended). He's going to be going back to Intertek once again very soon to get his furnace re-tested even though the original test back in 2010 was the same one they agreed on. He said for some reason he now needs to get re-tested with the identical test in order for it to become "official" according to the new EPA requirement. That's another $25,000.

brenndatomu, he also stated, after the results of Intertek's first test in 2010 were made public, he had two manufacturers call him asking how he burns wood so clean. Yukon was one of them. He told me he pretty much told them to figure it out.

 

[brenndatomu]

he had two manufacturers call him asking how he burns wood so clean. Yukon was one of them. He told me he pretty much told them to figure it out.

Yeah I think I remember hearing that before. There used to be a guy that worked for Yukon that would hang out over on AS, he and Kuuma had some pretty entertaining pizzin matches
I hope they do figure it out though, they have a well built product, just need to clean it up

 

[DougA]

Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I haven't been following the thread since I am in Canada. I just saw this article on ABC news and it gives an interesting twist that the new regs. may not be enforced anyway.
(broken link removed to http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/states-fight-wood-fires-burning-29481533)

Not saying I agree or disagree, just interesting info and it's always good to hear everything.

 

[John Ackerly]

In the entire life of the EPA I have never seen them take a step back. With the auto industry I have seen them extend a deadline when compliance was impossible but for wood stoves many today already meet 2020 standards so that will not happen.

They took some big steps back in this case, compared to what they proposed. And, it took them 26 years once they started regulating stoves to come back and update the regulations. Its all about grassroots pressure and pressure from states and industry. Seems like EPA's job is just to thread the needle so as to give something to everyone, but not go too far in any direction.

 

[begreen]

Our national energy policy is a mess. It lacks a comprehensive vision. Since the 70s it has been more reactionary and crisis managed than a good long term plan that industry and manufacturers can invest, innovate and develop around. I wish I could say that we are learning and getting better at planning but instead it is becoming more political and divisive. "Money talks, nobody walks."

 

[John Ackerly]

Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I haven't been following the thread since I am in Canada. I just saw this article on ABC news and it gives an interesting twist that the new regs. may not be enforced anyway.
(broken link removed to http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/states-fight-wood-fires-burning-29481533)
.

That's just about state's posturing and saying their agencies won't enforce the NSPS, even though they never enforced the previous one. 95% of enforcement is by the EPA directly with manufacturers and testing labs. Some of those states pass similar laws to all EPA regs.

 

[valuman]

I just came across this article, discussing EPA requirements, two state's positions on them and the overall concerns around particulate emissions. There's also a little about the impact of requiring stove upgrades and one city's solution to helping people make the change.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...ont-per-capita-wood-stove-emissions/24784007/

MONTPELIER – The heavily forested states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are among the top five in the country for the per capita emission of pollutants from wood stoves used to heat homes.

Statistics compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency show that residential wood stoves in Vermont emit just over 22 pounds per person, almost double that of Minnesota, the No. 2 state. Maine is fourth and New Hampshire is fifth.

The Vermont figures do not include larger-scale wood heating facilities such as power plants, schools and prisons, said Michael Snyder, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forest Parks and Recreation.

“Using wood is really good, for heating in particular. We have wood. It’s potentially renewable, if we do it right. We think we can do it right,” Snyder said. “It’s a great way to avoid fossil fuel use, keep the money locally; there’s a lot of good in what we’re calling modern wood heating.”

But he recognizes that older stoves can cause air pollution issues. About half the wood stoves in Vermont are the older, inefficient and dirtier models.

Nationally, the EPA is pressing ahead with regulations to significantly limit the pollution from newly manufactured residential wood heaters. But some states with the most wood smoke are refusing to go along, claiming that the EPA’s new rules could leave low-income residents in the cold.

Missouri and Michigan already have barred their environmental agencies from enforcing the EPA standards. Vermont does not object to the regulations, but Snyder said the state wants to ensure that the new regulations don’t hurt the state’s wood stove manufacturers.

“We want to support these new thresholds and standards,” Snyder said. “So we’re not pushing back. We just need to think about how we phase it in and how we support these businesses.”

Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are pushing a bill that would prohibit the Department of Natural Resources from enforcing new national regulations limiting pollution from wood-fired heaters.

Federal data from 2011, the latest available, show Wisconsin was second in the country in fine particle emissions from wood stoves, furnaces and heaters with 32,375 tons.

The bill’s chief author, Rep. David Craig, said in a memo seeking co-sponsors the limits will increase costs for consumers.

A DNR fiscal estimate, however, notes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would likely enforce the limits in Wisconsin if the DNR doesn’t.

The Wisconsin Assembly Environmental and Forestry Committee held a public hearing on the bill on Feb. 19. A spokeswoman for Speaker Robin Vos says he’s still reviewing the legislation.

Disputes over wood heaters have sparked intense emotions— and legal battles — among neighbors. In late January, for example, an Indiana judge rejected a request from Mable and Gary Bowling for a preliminary injunction forcing one of their Rush County neighbors to stop using an outdoor furnace. The Bowlings claimed the smoke was unhealthy; the neighbors claimed the Bowlings had harassed them by repeatedly contacting police or firefighters.

Mable Bowling contends the wood smoke has worsened her asthma and led to other respiratory problems.

“What we’re breathing is slowly killing us,” Bowling, 61, said during a telephone interview occasionally interrupted by coughs.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says fine particle pollution from burnt wood can get deep into people’s lungs, causing breathing troubles.

But burning wood can be cheaper for some rural residents than heating their homes with propane, oil or electricity. A 2008 survey of Vermont wood stove users found that more than half the wood stoves in use were made before 1990 and don’t burn as cleanly or as efficiently as the newer models. Vermont is working on the wood stove equivalent of a “cash for clunkers” program that would provide financial incentives for Vermonters to get clean and efficient modern stoves.

In New Hampshire, the city of Keene frequently gets temperature inversions that cause wood smoke to settle in over the city on cold winter days, triggering poor air quality alerts. In 2010-11, the city offered an incentive that helped scores of residents pay to switch from older, less efficient and higher-polluting stoves to newer ones that met more stringent standards.

“We want people to have the choice and, in fact in New Hampshire, biomass heat sources are really important,” said W. Rhett Lamb, the city’s planning director. “There’s no doubt that the newer stoves produce a lot less particulate matter. In an ideal world, everybody would have the same stove that produces more BTUs and less pollution. But we don’t want to send out the message that we think burning wood is bad because we think it’s good.”

Gary Spalding, who works at Embers Stove & Fireplace Shop in South Portland, Maine, and spent 35 years in the industry, said wood stove emissions can be dramatically reduced with newer stoves.

Spalding said he anticipates wood stoves will remain popular in the northern New England because of “the warm glow in the living room.”

Associated Press writers Rik Stevens in Concord, New Hampshire, and Patrick Whittle in Portland, Maine contributed to this report.


A look at emission numbers

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adopted new rules limiting the amount of fine particle emissions from residential wood stoves, furnaces and heaters. Here’s a look at the Top 10 states in total fine particle emissions, and per capita emissions, from residential wood burning. Figures are from 2011, the latest year for which the EPA has statistics.

Total emissions are listed in tons. Per capita emissions are listed in pounds per person.

TOTAL EMISSIONS

1. Michigan: 39,691

2. Wisconsin: 32,901

3. Minnesota: 30,012

4. Pennsylvania: 23,634

5. New York: 22,939

6. Ohio: 21,635

7. California: 18,693

8. Washington: 17,070

9. Oregon: 15,034

10. Indiana: 12,146

PER CAPITA EMISSIONS

1. Vermont: 22.80

2. Wisconsin: 11.53

3. Minnesota: 11.22

4. New Hampshire: 9.85

5. Maine: 9.51

6. Michigan: 8.04

7. Oregon: 7.77

8. Idaho: 5.63

9. Washington: 5.00

10. Iowa: 3.77

 

[John Ackerly]

The NSPS, after a very long and strange trip, becomes law on May 15 - regardless of any lawsuits filed before then. We read through it and put together a list of how it will impact consumers and what they can expect.

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-consumers-need-to-know-about-new.html

Would love to hear if anyone thinks we are off base in how we present this to consumers.

The bottom line is that I suspect 90% of consumers won't ever notice that there is a new law - even in 2020. Two big price increases that consumers will see don't come from having to redesign stoves, but from simply having to buy better ones already on the market. THe real cheapo exempt wood stoves for $300 - $600 will disappear as of Jan. 1, 2016, though single burn rate stoves can stay on market if they hit the same emissions levels of adjustable stoves. I'm not sure there is a market for a single burn rate stove anymore, if it has to be certified. The other similar big price change is that is about 40 states, you won't be able to buy a cheap outdoor boiler after Jan. 1, 2016 because they too come off the market. Cheap, uncertified furnaces got a 1 - 2 year lease on life.

So in the end, the test method didn't change, there is no requirement to use cord wood, and the really strict 1.3 gr/hr didn't stick. But the alternative, voluntary compliance option with cordwood is a pretty huge step, and may be the most important legacy of this drawn out rule.

We hear that HPBA is suing on the cost effectiveness of Step 2 standards. Anyone else planning on suing? I think these suits are a waste of time and money - but I may be wrong.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

But the alternative, voluntary compliance option with cordwood is a pretty huge step,

Hey John,
did the EPA come up with any parameters as far as testing with cordwood , (species, moisture content load size per CF of firebox etc.)?

strikes me that "cordwood" is a pretty broad description

 

[grobinson2]

I'm looking forward to seeing some of the new solutions that will be coming out. It doesn't have to be a revolution. As noted, Englander & Harmon already are there with some of their stoves. VC too.

What has VC come out with that is new since 2010? Not being a smartass being serious.

Thanks again,
Glenn

 

[begreen]

Do they need to? VC already has stoves that meet the 2020 requirements, as does the 9+ yr old Englander 30NC design. The point is that in spite of all the complaining, some mfgs. have already met the spec. It's possible without adding a kings ransom to the stove price. The 30NC sells for $899.

 

[grobinson2]

Do they need to? VC already has stoves that meet the 2020 specs, as does the 9? yr old Englander 30NC design. The point is that in spite of all the complaining, some mfgs. have already met the spec. It is possible without adding a kings ransom to the stove price. The 30NC sells for $899.

Agreed. I thought you meant they had come out with something new.

 

[begreen]

No, not that I know of. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do under the new owners.

 

[grobinson2]

No, not that I know of. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do under the new owners.

I sure wish they would. I sell VC stoves (along with a few others) and they make a great product but they could improve on them a lot.