New EPA wood-stove air standard proposal

[begreen]

I've no problem with it being in the main forum as long as we stay on topic and keep the politics out.

Stoves like the PH, Ideal Steel, Cape Cod, etc. are indicators of where the market will be going. The Mulciber by the U Maryland class is also an intriguing design. I think we'll continue to see new designs coming out from the major manufacturers in the next few years. It will be interesting to see how BK, Hearthstone, PE, Quad and Jotul tackle the new regs if they are implemented.

 

[DougA]

I don't see this as being any different than cars. Keep pushing for better standards that will give us better fuel economy and cleaner air. It will cost more for the mfg's to adjust their designs but in the end, we all benefit by paying a bit more up front. The cost of a new Chrysler minivan at the dealer today is identical to what I paid for one 23 years ago and it gets almost double the mileage with less pollution. It would be nice if stoves could do that. Be even nicer if they could cut and split too but that's in my next lifetime.

 

[branchburner]

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.

Yes, passed...but enforced? Just like Prohibition was enforced. And what the EPA ignores is that stove emissions in perfect lab conditions have no bearing on how an individual stove will be used in the real world. A stove like mine, improperly used and/or stoked with green wood, will produce as much or more pollution as an old smoke dragon.

Personally, I think the government should spend less time, money and effort trying to mandate things by force and the imposition of higher costs, and much MORE time, money and effort trying to improve things by means of education and gentle persuasion via the tax code. Many people don't understand that burning clean can save them money... but I'm not sure how/what you subsidize to get people to burn seasoned wood instead of green wood.

I would love to see an affordable retrofit developed, that could be subsidized and then cheaply installed in existing smoke dragons to make them (potentially) cleaner. And as much as I hate the idea of greater regulation, I would favor a legal (if not enforceable) standard for "seasoned" wood. Imagine if gas stations could sell "regular" under the designation of "super". They would. And drivers upset by pinging would blame their engines, since they were (they believed) using the correct fuel.

The fact remains, those burning green wood can sometimes actually get better effective heating from a smoke dragon than from an EPA stove. What will inspire a person with low income to pay $2000 for a stove that he feels gives less effective heat than a stove that costs $200? Nothing. So instead of trying to "inspire", we decide to "require".

You could try to criminalize and destroy every smoke dragon in the country, but if the cost of an EPA stove goes up too much, people might just import and sell and use (and even make) new black-market smoke dragons on the cheap if they can't find old/legal ones on the cheap. Criminalizing things/behaviors does not remove the desire and underlying incentives related to those things/behaviors. Rather than provide education and positive incentives to change certain behaviors of people, our government prefers to designate those people criminals.

 

[begreen]

The enforcement for new stove installations comes at the inspection stage. In WA, if the stove is not EPA phase II and OAK connected it should fail inspection and get red tagged.

PS: it's OR where one can not sell a pre-EPA stove.

PPS: There are lots of education programs for clean burning in WA. There is a $30 fee on new stove sales that applies toward wood burning education. And decathalons like Green Heat Alliance also are education programs with EPA blessing and support. Let's keep politics out of this or the thread gets canned.

 

[Highbeam]

The enforcement for new stove installations comes at the inspection stage. In WA, if the stove is not EPA phase II and OAK connected it should fail inspection and get red tagged.

PS: it's OR where one can not sell a pre-EPA stove.

PPS: There are lots of education programs for clean burning in WA. There is a $30 fee on new stove sales that applies toward wood burning education. And decathalons like Green Heat Alliance also are education programs with EPA blessing and support. Let's keep politics out of this or the thread gets canned.

Oh no, it is also WA where one cannot sell, buy, or install a pre-EPA stove. Folks on CL selling old stoves were being contacted and harassed by the gov't and told to add some sort of statement that the stove was for scrap only.

 

[begreen]

Really? I have not heard of this in WA state and certainly have not heard of any follow thru even in OR. We have had several OR folks report that they have just bought an older stove and are asking for install advice. We tell them that they should scrap it, but they are still sold in large quantities in both states. I'll have to look into WA regs on used stove sales. So far this is all I can find:

Any new wood burning device sold, offered for sale, or given away to Washington residents must meet Washington’s standards.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/wood_smoke_page.htm

 

[begreen]

OK found references, but not the actual reg. Puget Clean Air says that any stove sold in WA state must meet WA state emissions standards. Thanks for the tip Highbeam. Still looking for the actual regulation. Twud be nice if these sites provided a link to the governing reg.

 

[DougA]

Oh no, it is also WA where one cannot sell, buy, or install a pre-EPA stove. Folks on CL selling old stoves were being contacted and harassed by the gov't and told to add some sort of statement that the stove was for scrap only.

I still see people selling old baby cribs at yard sales that have been outlawed for decades. You get fined if you are caught but nobody there to check.

Gotta admit, enforcement is impossible. The only solution is through insurance but I know plenty of people who don't have their house insured because they know it will not pass inspection. Not the best way to enforce a rule either. Let's not get started on the insurance industry either.

What our Cdn. gov't likes to do is subsidize home heating retrofits a** backwards. First, you pay $3-500. for someone to come in and do a heat-loss analysis, then you have to use an approved contractor to install the high efficiency furnace or a/c. Then you get a grant of $3-500. months later. All the contractors jack the prices because they know you have to buy and install through them. In the end, it's a good idea that went way wrong. Hope this is not too off topic. I don't think there is any solution that works well. Eventually, us old smokies will die off and leave a bunch of scrap metal & iron behind.

 

[branchburner]

I don't see this as being any different than cars.

It is, because users of stoves can choose to use improper fuel and improper techniques, and thus not achieve the desired and potential efficiencies. There is no such option for cars.

In addition, energy-efficient cars are often lighter and less powerful, and thus less expensive, than gas guzzlers. But smoke dragons are ALWAYS less expensive than EPA stoves, so a person of limited means may be economically incentivized to pollute less on the road but to actually pollute more at home.

Consider also, cars and their fuel are both costly necessities that have no real alternatives for the average person. There is a limit to how much gas a poorer person can use, regardless of whether he is getting 10 mpg or 50 mpg. He is restrained in his ability to pollute here by pure economics, regardless of improved fuel efficiencies. In practical terms, more efficient cars provide the ability to drive more miles at a given cost, not necessarily to reduce net output of pollutants. But nor will a person of limited means greatly INCREASE net output of pollutants in driving. Limits on disposable income and increased fuel costs, not MPG standards, may be the driver of reduced emissions. In heating your house, however, you choose among a variety of alternatives. If a poor person heats with "free" wood, dirtier is easier, and there is no real economic restraint on polluting.

American consumers desire newer cars, and there is virtually no market for much older and less-efficient models. The old models simply disappear as MPG requirements progressively increase. Smoke dragons, on the other hand, last forever and retain roughly the same desirability and value at ten years of age as forty years of age. Not to mention, they are rarely involved in head-on collisions that send them to the crusher.

 

[begreen]

Can't agree with that. Folks have been tinkering with cars since they were invented. Young guys that can't afford a new car keep the used car market very active. Hot rodding was even done to the Model T. Used Civics are a very hot market. How many tuners do you think are EPA legal? After market performance computer chips are now big business. The beat goes on and will as long as boys will be boys. For as long as I have been driving, and that is a long time, JC Whitney and others have had catalogs of after market fuel improvement gizmos and performance tuning options.

 

[Highbeam]

OK found references, but not the actual reg. Puget Clean Air says that any stove sold in WA state must meet WA state emissions standards. Thanks for the tip Highbeam. Still looking for the actual regulation. Twud be nice if these sites provided a link to the governing reg.

Here we go BG, note the tricky switch to section 3 after 1995. Another wac I found requires OAK in WA.

WAC 173-433-100Emission performance standards.
(1) Woodstoves. On or before January 1, 1995, a person shall not advertise to sell, offer to sell, sell, bargain, exchange, or give away a new woodstove in Washington unless it has been tested to determine its emission performance and heating efficiency and certified and labeled in accordance with procedures and criteria specified in "40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart AAA - Standards of Performance for Residential Wood Heaters" as amended through July 1, 1990. After January 1, 1995, woodstove sales shall comply with the requirements of subsection (3) of this section, Solid fuel burning devices.
(2) Fireplaces. After January 1, 1997, a person shall not advertise to sell, offer to sell, sell, bargain, exchange, or give away a factory built fireplace unless it meets the 1990 United States Environmental Protection Agency standards for woodstoves or equivalent standard that may be established by the state building code council by rule. Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to fireplaces, including factory built fireplaces, and masonry fireplaces.
(3) Solid fuel burning devices. After January 1, 1995, a person shall not advertise to sell, offer to sell, sell, bargain, exchange, or give away a solid fuel burning device in Washington unless it has been certified and labeled in accordance with procedures and criteria specified in "40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart AAA - Standards of Performance for Residential Wood Heaters" as amended through July 1, 1990, and meets the following particulate air contaminant emission standards and the test methodology of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in effect on January 1, 1991, or an equivalent standard under any test methodology adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency subsequent to such date:
(a) Two and one-half grams per hour for catalytic woodstoves; and
(b) Four and one-half grams per hour for all other solid fuel burning devices.
(c) For purposes of this subsection, "equivalent" shall mean the emissions limits specified in this subsection multiplied by a statistically reliable conversion factor determined by ecology that relates the emission test results from the methodology established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency prior to May 15, 1991, to the test results from the methodology subsequently adopted by that agency.

 

[begreen]

Thanks. I knew about the OAK for new construction, but missed the used stove sale inclusion.

 

[branchburner]

Can't agree with that.

Talking about what I see as the rule, not the exception. Of course that may vary regionally and generationally. In my neighborhood, everyone drives a fairly new car. But hardly anybody burns a newer stove. When I look at craigslist, used cars tend more towards later models and used stoves tend more towards smoke dragons. So I am generalizing about secondary markets from my own impressions, but the existence of gearheads would not be inconsistent with my assumptions. The average car-driver is not a worshipper of antique fix-it-uppers, and even those of very limited means seem willing to take on ample debt just so they can drive a newer car. Yet around here, older guys with lots of bucks still love their smoke dragons and still burn wood split in the fall as "seasoned". Tell people your wood is 3-years old, or that you burn pine, and they think you are nuts.

 

[Highbeam]

Thanks. I knew about the OAK for new construction, but missed the used stove sale inclusion.

I hadn't noticed that WA requires cat stoves to only admit 2.5 gph. My BK is barely legal at 2.42!!

 

[branchburner]

I really wish there was some sort of exchange program.
.

EPA has co-sponsored these with certain localities, but only in areas with serious problems or in states with more strict standards, like WA and CA. We had one in Keene, as their location makes them prone to frequent temperature inversion and high particulate levels.

(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/how-to-guide.html)

(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/wc_are_happening.pdf)

 

[begreen]

Talking about what I see as the rule, not the exception. Of course that may vary regionally and generationally. In my neighborhood, everyone drives a fairly new car. But hardly anybody burns a newer stove. When I look at craigslist, used cars tend more towards later models and used stoves tend more towards smoke dragons. So I am generalizing about secondary markets from my own impressions, but the existence of gearheads would not be inconsistent with my assumptions. The average car-driver is not a worshipper of antique fix-it-uppers, and even those of very limited means seem willing to take on ample debt just so they can drive a newer car. Yet around here, older guys with lots of bucks still love their smoke dragons and still burn wood split in the fall as "seasoned". Tell people your wood is 3-years old, or that you burn pine, and they think you are nuts.

Good point. On the west coast you see a lot more old cars because they don't rust.

 

[gyrfalcon]

What our Cdn. gov't likes to do is subsidize home heating retrofits a** backwards. First, you pay $3-500. for someone to come in and do a heat-loss analysis, then you have to use an approved contractor to install the high efficiency furnace or a/c. Then you get a grant of $3-500. months later. All the contractors jack the prices because they know you have to buy and install through them. In the end, it's a good idea that went way wrong. Hope this is not too off topic. I don't think there is any solution that works well. Eventually, us old smokies will die off and leave a bunch of scrap metal & iron behind.

We have the same kind of program here with weatherizing, and it drives me nuts. It's great for people with enough money to do some serious weatherizing and want to know how to get the best result, but for lower-income people, painfully saving up the $400 bucks for an energy audit means they don't have that $400 to actually make any improvements any time soon.

 

[begreen]

Here is more information including the expected results of the new regs.

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/arti...d-update-to-residential-wood-heater-standards

 

[begreen]

One might think that a greater reduction in emissions year round would be achieved by directly addressing heat loss in homes. A nationwide conservation retrofit program would reduce both heating and cooling needs. That would reduce coal plant emissions too. It would also create a lot of jobs. During an energy audit, if a pre-EPA stove was found, a low cost replacement should be incentivized as part of the program.

 

[Parallax]

I live in Washington, am in the process of purchasing my first wood stove, and can confirm that old stoves cannot be legally resold. People do list them for sale, but then you won't get a permit. People install without a permit, but then you're just asking for trouble with your insurance company.

 

[Charles1981]

There are a lot of modified cars in Michigan (no state inspections). Lots of modified and or removed catalytic converters... Don't know why other than for those cases were the exhaust system rusted out and it was cheaper and easier to just replace with straight pipe and forget about the converter. Only illegal if you get caught...

 

[begreen]

Only illegal if you get caught...

That's true of any crime including murder, but it doesn't make it right. I hate following older cars and trucks without emissions control. The smell of partially burnt fuel is obnoxious.

 

[Watchguy]

Here's Washington's Dept of Ecology web sites that I've been using to determine my stove purchase.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/wood_smoke_page.htm

One more-

(broken link removed to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/wood_cook.htm)