New EPA wood-stove air standard proposal

[RCCARPS]

Got this email from the EPA this morning. Figured I would pass it on.



EPA Proposes Updates to Air Standards for Newly Manufactured Woodstoves and HeatersUpdates would make the next generation of woodstoves and heaters significantly cleaner and more efficient

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing standards for the amount of air pollution that can be emitted by new woodstoves and heaters, beginning in 2015. The agency’s proposal would make the next generation of stoves and heaters an estimated 80 percent cleaner than those manufactured today, leading to important air quality and public health improvements in communities across the country. The proposal would affect a variety of wood heaters manufactured beginning in 2015 and will not affect heaters and stoves already in use in homes or currently for sale today.

Smoke from residential wood heaters, which are used around the clock in some communities, can increase toxic air pollution, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and soot, also known as particle pollution, to levels that pose serious health concerns. Particle pollution is linked to a wide range of serious health effects, including heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks. In some areas, residential wood smoke makes up a significant portion of the fine particle pollution problem. EPA’s proposal would work in concert with state and local programs to improve air quality in these communities.

The agency’s proposal covers several types of new wood-fired heaters, including: woodstoves, fireplace inserts, indoor and outdoor wood boilers (also called hydronic heaters), forced air furnaces and masonry heaters. Many residential wood heaters already meet the first set of proposed standards, which would be phased in over five years to allow manufacturers time to adapt emission control technologies to their particular model lines. Today’s proposal does not cover fireplaces, fire pits, pizza ovens, barbecues and chimineas.

When these standards are fully implemented, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to comply with these standards, the American public will see between $118 and $267 in health benefits. Consumers will also see a monetary benefit from efficiency improvements in the new woodstoves, which use less wood to heat homes. The total health and economic benefits of the proposed standards are estimated to be at $1.8 to $2.4 billion annually.

EPA will take comment on the proposal for 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold a public hearing Feb. 26, 2014 in Boston. EPA expects to issue a final rule in 2015.

For more information, visit:


http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters

R001

 

[Slow1]

Good to have tight standards and while it may help in the long run I seriously doubt those $ savings - too many assumptions in my opinion.

The image of these new standards somehow cleaning up the valley I drive through in the morning due to the smoke pollution is a bit of a laugh as I don't believe that those folks are going to go out and buy new units and/or change burning habits (even if they did upgrade). I expect the current standards are sufficient to clean up that space if folks were to burn properly using current EPA standards.

I am concerned about tighter standards pushing stove manufactures out of business as costs to comply grow.

 

[HotCoals]

If you really want to read here is the proposal ..all 354 pages.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/proposedrule.pdf

 

[begreen]

Thanks for the update. This has been in the works for a while. We've had a few threads on it. If enacted new wood stoves would need to meet WA state standards which most do. Then 5 yrs later (2020?), they would need to meet a new standard of 1.9 gms/hr.

Here is the short form fact sheet:
Fact Sheet: Proposed Requirements for Wood Stoves and Pellet Stoves (PDF) http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...erformance-standards-residential-wood-heaters

 

[DougA]

Dumb question: I'm looking at a Woodstock Progress Hybrid or Steel Hybrid sometime this year. For future re-sale value, I would want to make sure that anything I might buy would meet the newer standards because in 10 years, they will be the 'old' standards and 'old' stoves are worth peanuts. Any thoughts on whether the existing rating of 1.33 gm/hr avg is close enough to 1.3 that may be the new one?

I see this as a positive move but agree that new stoves will get pricey and older stoves will be around for generations unless the insurance industry changes their standards also. Can't see that happening. Even though I should be concerned about the smoke my ancient VC Resolute spews out, I'm actually more concerned with heat output and efficiency ratings.

 

[begreen]

I would think so, but wouldn't worry about it. In spite of 1988 EPA regs, old stove sales are still brisk.

 

[Fireshoppe]

The 800lb gorilla is the old stoves in use for 35 years. Look at Libby MT

 

[begreen]

The 1000lb gorilla is fireplaces which they didn't touch.

 

[Fireshoppe]

But they are going after masonry heaters? Yeah that's a big problem.

 

[HotCoals]

One thing they don't like is the fact that cats start dying by at least 5 years(if not sooner) and they know it. But they also know they burn really clean at low burn rates.

 

[Andy S.]

2016 can't come soon enough.

 

[Slow1]

Dumb question: I'm looking at a Woodstock Progress Hybrid or Steel Hybrid sometime this year. For future re-sale value, I would want to make sure that anything I might buy would meet the newer standards because in 10 years, they will be the 'old' standards and 'old' stoves are worth peanuts. Any thoughts on whether the existing rating of 1.33 gm/hr avg is close enough to 1.3 that may be the new one?

I see this as a positive move but agree that new stoves will get pricey and older stoves will be around for generations unless the insurance industry changes their standards also. Can't see that happening. Even though I should be concerned about the smoke my ancient VC Resolute spews out, I'm actually more concerned with heat output and efficiency ratings.

Unless testing methods change and assuming the 1.9g/hr standard is correct, then it appears that the PH (at 1.33 g/hr) at least already exceeds these standards. I expect that the Steel Hybrid will come in at least as clean. No worries.

I'm sure that Woodstock isn't alone in currently exceeding these standards - that rather makes me wonder what the point of these regulations is, who are they targeting anyway? Now if they don't allow existing installs to be used if they violate these standards that would be a horse of a different color eh? Never going to happen....

 

[HotCoals]

Unless testing methods change and assuming the 1.9g/hr standard is correct, then it appears that the PH (at 1.33 g/hr) at least already exceeds these standards. I expect that the Steel Hybrid will come in at least as clean. No worries.

I'm sure that Woodstock isn't alone in currently exceeding these standards - that rather makes me wonder what the point of these regulations is, who are they targeting anyway? Now if they don't allow existing installs to be used if they violate these standards that would be a horse of a different color eh? Never going to happen....

Tree hugging lobbyist maybe?

 

[Highbeam]

If the goal is to implement tighter emissions standards then the EPA is wise to close the gap between what is currently very common and feasible and what the current EPA regs are. Meaning, nobody will complain so long as their stoves are already clean enough but the EPA won a little victory in reducing the allowable pollution.

I am amused that they don't touch fireplaces. Shows how weak that they really are.

I also agree that more good would come from swapping out old stoves but that costs money and simply reducing the allowable emissions is free.

 

[HotCoals]

I have to say that in 2010(I guess it was then) the 1000 tax credit the feds offered pushed me over the edge to buy the stove I have now.
I doubt I would have replaced my old BK smoke dragon with this new one..and that would have been a shame.

So that said I think rebates and or tax credits would go along ways to get rid of some of the dragons.
Maybe the states and feds need to get together on this.
One thing I found strange about when I did the deal is that they said nothing about my old stove..so i could have sold it and it might still be in operation..no gain there in saving the world!
But I scrapped it. So I did my part!

 

[Slow1]

If the goal is to implement tighter emissions standards then the EPA is wise to close the gap between what is currently very common and feasible and what the current EPA regs are. Meaning, nobody will complain so long as their stoves are already clean enough but the EPA won a little victory in reducing the allowable pollution.

I am amused that they don't touch fireplaces. Shows how weak that they really are.

I also agree that more good would come from swapping out old stoves but that costs money and simply reducing the allowable emissions is free.

As I understand it in some states (WA?) you cannot install (or resell) non-compliant stoves. I wonder if such a regulation could be passed and enforced nation wide and if so, if that might help actually reduce the pollution more than these updated new stove regs.

 

[Fireshoppe]

The HPBA took them on and won over the EPA trying to claim blanket authority over gas appliances. While this issue is different, the HPBA has had several years to prepare and I hope there will be some movement from the EPA's current position. The EPA though hasn't forgotten the last fight and is still going after gas appliances although through channels this time and will have something to prove.

I think we can all be classified as tree huggers. We love to see a green beautiful forest and sit in their shade on a hot day. And when the tree has served it purpose and has fallen or needs to be thinned from the forest we love to cut it up and burn it cleanly in our stoves. And when we get old and can't or don't want to go to the wood pile any more we would love to relax and warm ourselves by an efficient gas fire. (I know my customers do) I just hope our way of life isn't being strangled out of existence by ne'er do wells and bureaucrats propelled by the urge to 'do something' even if it accomplishes little good.

 

[Nick Mystic]

I applaud the the approach the EPA is taking on this. In an ideal world there would surely be better ways to reign in the pollution caused by people burning incorrectly, but since we are not a police state we have to move incrementally to make improvements in areas like this. I think this falls into the same category as the CAFE standards for auto mileage. As the standards were tightened Americans benefited on multiple levels: cleaner air, less emissions, less money spent on gas, and even better performance in many instances. The impact won't be felt quickly, but in the long run the environment will be better for it.

 

[Dustin]

I really wish there was some sort of exchange program.

I try to burn clean, mainly out of respect for my neighbors. If I have a cold start and billow any smoke that floats across the street, I start to feel bad about it.

But, that's not what happens on the rest of the street. I have a neighbor a few houses down, with his house sitting physically lower then mine, smoldering all day and all night long. So bad that I can smell the wood smoke in my house, and it burns my eyes when I go outside.

 

[Fake coal burner]

Maybe the EPA will come up with a retrofit device for clean air, every time you let a fart !

 

[brenndatomu]

Hey, they suggested that already ^^^, only it was fart bags for cows. Seriously..can you imagine driving by a dairy farm with a couple hundred "bagged" cows wandering around the pasture?! Reminds me of the bumper sticker I seen a while back, it said "why you don't let your dog chew bubble gum" had a pic of a pooch blowin a big pink butt bubble

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Cynnergy]

So what will the new regs mean in practice? More hybrids? More cats? Or something more akin to the uni students entry at the woodstove decathlon?

I sure hope there are some more beautiful cat stoves to come out of it. I'm not a fan of the Woodstock look and while BK done good with the Ashford, it's no alderlea or jotul.

 

[DougA]

Unless testing methods change and assuming the 1.9g/hr standard is correct, then it appears that the PH (at 1.33 g/hr) at least already exceeds these standards. I expect that the Steel Hybrid will come in at least as clean. No worries.

I'm sure that Woodstock isn't alone in currently exceeding these standards - that rather makes me wonder what the point of these regulations is, who are they targeting anyway? Now if they don't allow existing installs to be used if they violate these standards that would be a horse of a different color eh? Never going to happen....

I'm reading the new standards as 1.3 not 1.9. Older stoves in our area (ON) are selling for peanuts. Not sure this applies elsewhere but there is no way you can buy house insurance if you are using a non-certified stove and installation. If you have insurance without them knowing, it is invalid if they can find anyway of showing the claim was due to the stove.

 

[Patapsco Mike]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...14fd66a0-9199-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239&hpid=z13

Hopefully this will push some of the stoves that give us all a bad name off the market.

 

[BobUrban]

Not a fan of more government but that is probably not a good topic for this forum.