Proposed EPA new regs - It is not the end of the world.

[webbie]

why is anyone pushing for tighter regs? Are people dying from brown/black lung that I am not aware of? .

Actually, the answer to your question is yes...people are dying.

But I'm afraid it may take a long time to explain......you could research it, and then at least qualify your opinion...

http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showAirHIA.action

"Studies have shown a 15% decrease in the risk of heart disease deaths with every PM2.5 decrease of 10ug/m3"

Of course, it's always "someone else" who dies of the heart attack, suffers because of asthma, etc.

But, take my word for it. People are dying. It's a fair debate of how many people you want to die or be diseased vs. the costs and vs. other fuel (nukes, coal, etc.). But there is science and medicine and reasoning behind the regs.

 

[webbie]

How bad are actually standard fireplaces in terms of particulate emissions? We are all talking about stove regulations but maybe it's about time to do something about people burning green wood in a fireplace.

I thought they should have attacked some of that problem first. I remember visiting Pico mountain one time and as I drove up the entire valley was smoked in because of all the renters burning wood in those ski prefabs.

Maybe we don't need to make all fireplaces illegal, but it makes sense not to give the city folk and drunk spring breakers wet wood and cheapo prefabs to smoke up the valley with. I hope newer resorts are putting in gas stuff.

 

[Grisu]

For me this is beside the point. Stoves burn plenty clean now so why is anyone pushing for tighter regs? Are people dying from brown/black lung that I am not aware of?

To increase your awareness about the negative health effects of wood smoke:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130820102516.htm
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8446
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15118752
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22157154

 

[Grisu]

I thought they should have attacked some of that problem first. I remember visiting Pico mountain one time and as I drove up the entire valley was smoked in because of all the renters burning wood in those ski prefabs.

Maybe we don't need to make all fireplaces illegal, but it makes sense not to give the city folk and drunk spring breakers wet wood and cheapo prefabs to smoke up the valley with. I hope newer resorts are putting in gas stuff.

Or EPA-approved fireplaces that burn cleaner and would provide heat.

 

[begreen]

In WA state:
http://www.invw.org/content/where-t...wood-smoke-now-a-major-northwest-air-polluter

 

[Bigg_Redd]

And these new regs will do nothing to address any of those concerns, but we do get to act concerned and do something

 

[begreen]

You asked if there were major health issues that you were not aware of and were answered. The answer is yes, definitely, including in our back yard. http://www.invw.org/content/where-t...wood-smoke-now-a-major-northwest-air-polluter And as regional population density increases this is more of an issue. The question of whether new stove regs is the solution is a separate question. It's a reasonable question to ask, but that doesn't change the underlying issue.

 

[Bigg_Redd]

I thought the underlying issue was needless regulation and it's cheerleaders. . .

 

[HotCoals]

Nicely said BG.
The gains from the more efficient stoves that we have today certainly was a good thing. Some save half the wood they used to burn but I don't see those big gains happening anytime soon again. I'm going to try a season of wood bricks of some type. Yeah more money but I will still be saving big money over electric heat and maybe in a small way I'll be helping out and yet still enjoy a fire.
What would you say to a tax break to those that buy those bricks?

 

[byQ]

I thought the underlying issue was needless regulation and it's cheerleaders. . .

The underlying issue is for the wood stove manufacturers to improve their wood burning designs because - THEY CAN IMPROVE. As the wood stove challenge showed. I'm glad to see your state and a few others give the EPA a kick in the behind to push for improvements. And in another 5 or 10 years the EPA should come back with more stringent standards.

 

[begreen]

An important issue is the cost of improvement. Does it achieve a measurable gain? Are the new stoves easy to run and are they durable? The industry experience with VC and Travis downdraft stoves shows that not all solutions work out well for the consumer. We should not repeat this. A second issue is: are EPA stoves the issue or is it the much larger quantity of pre-EPA stoves and fireplaces burning? These burners still vastly outnumber EPA stove installations. I think we should examine other cases to see if we are on the right track. For example,. New Zealand has much more strict emissions regs already in place. Are they working? Apparently not. Why? Because fireplaces and older stoves continue to be used along with varying wood supply, wood dryness, user operation, user maintenance neglect, etc..

 

[firefighterjake]

Like Be Green I too suspect that the main issue with wood burning is the prevalence of pre-EPA stoves vs. Modern stoves being used.

 

[Ehouse]

If we are going to transition to a new generation of stoves, and a large part of the problem is the prevalence of pre-EPA units in service, There would seem to be a huge benefit in some sort of a change out program whereby retiring 1st generation EPA stoves replace pre-EPA ones, at least in rural areas. Perhaps a credit toward a new stove if the older but still serviceable stove is donated as a replacement for a clunker. I think the idea of total replacement of all stoves and/or all old stoves by unfunded mandate is unrealistic.

 

[Grisu]

If we are going to transition to a new generation of stoves, and a large part of the problem is the prevalence of pre-EPA units in service, There would seem to be a huge benefit in some sort of a change out program whereby retiring 1st generation EPA stoves replace pre-EPA ones, at least in rural areas. Perhaps a credit toward a new stove if the older but still serviceable stove is donated as a replacement for a clunker. I think the idea of total replacement of all stoves and/or all old stoves by unfunded mandate is unrealistic.

Fully agree and the effects of such a program have been measurable: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628
But God forbid that we increase taxes or raise the deficit to pay for such a program. Our health is not THAT important, is it?

 

[jatoxico]

If your job is to write regulations why would you ever stop? It's the culture of the agency.

It is the nature of regulation. For better or worse standards are rarely made less stringent over time. When standards in any industry cross the line from being an improvement to a needless impediment is always a basis for debate.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

ok, here's the way i see it.

the standards used currently in testing have always and still provide a "baseline" for the purpose of the regulation. they do not and have not reflected the actual PM output under real world conditions even when a stove is brand new it will probably not achieve the low GPH output it was listed at in testing due to the test charges being what they are (somthing that the average burner will not be operating with)

however the difference initialy between a stove which was tested to standards and recieved a PM rating of say 1.6GPH should burn cleaner than a stove which was rated at say 5.5GPH even though they would both be "approved" one would burn cleaner on average than the other even in "cordwood" operation.

as for the emmissions getting higher with age (especially in cat stoves which IMHO would be more drastically afected) it should be noted that most devices which are rated in similar manners (even cars) will have degrading stats when tested after a certain amount of use. think about a car which may have gotten a certain emissions standard when new, now as the car's engine and emmissions control devices are used there will become a point where the tailpipe emissions will not be as low as they would have been when new. especially if thge operator does not do his due diligence in maintaining the car's engine (oil changes, filters etc)

as for the new regs, i think they are as stated a bit too draconian to be industry friendly and quite frankly will not make a measureable difference in the environment as compared to what is currently regulated. the issue is not the cert stoves, its the older non regulated stoves which even if burned hot to the point that no visible smoke is leaving the stack the PM produced would be off the charts from what a comparably sized phase 2 stove would release, and the low burn would be off the charts better.

my point is , why force the clean stoves to have to burn cleaner when the dirty stoves are the problem to start with

 

[Christopix]

Personally I wish the environmental focus in terms of biofuels would focus on a) outdoor wood boilers, b) large scale wood chip burners and c) the wide spread use of pre epa stoves, exempt stoves for sale and exempt home built stoves as these are the main issues in terms of air quality where I am. Before they attempt to make the "clean" stoves burn cleaner ... they should work on taking care of what's the larger problem.

Wish I could like this post a thousand times! This, IMHO, IS the problem. Looked at from the other direction, if the above offenders were within regulations, meaning burning as cleanly as modern EPA stoves, I believe there would be an entirely different conversation.

 

[bobdog2o02]

This is the most eye opening, logical, and reasonable discussion i have seen on a message board in a VERY long time. I have followed all the links and understood 90% of what is being tossed around with test data. Education on burning should be a PRIMARY starting place. It is the least costly option and it is what pulled me out of my stone-age burn practices, drier wood and learning how to operate my stove. Second should be a focus on old stoves and fireplaces. The cash for clunkers program was very controversial, but it was a motivator to get some very dilapidated vehicles off of the roads, tax credits for compressed brick fuel would also be comparable to buying greener cars. If i remember right there was a ~$300 tax credit for buying EPA stoves a while back.

 

[Christopix]

This is the most eye opening, logical, and reasonable discussion i have seen on a message board in a VERY long time. I have followed all the links and understood 90% of what is being tossed around with test data. Education on burning should be a PRIMARY starting place. It is the least costly option and it is what pulled me out of my stone-age burn practices, drier wood and learning how to operate my stove. Second should be a focus on old stoves and fireplaces. The cash for clunkers program was very controversial, but it was a motivator to get some very dilapidated vehicles off of the roads, tax credits for compressed brick fuel would also be comparable to buying greener cars. If i remember right there was a ~$300 tax credit for buying EPA stoves a while back.

Agreed!

 

[Grisu]

I can already hear people groan when you need to get woodburning training and a license to install/operate a stove in your home.

Coming back to my question above: Are there actually any test data about the emissions of a fireplace? Could those be used to phase out the sale of simple steel boxes in favor of EPA-approved units?

 

[bobdog2o02]

I can already hear people groan when you need to get woodburning training and a license to install/operate a stove in your home.

You say that as a seasoned wood burner but with the sharp rise in popularity there are a lot of, sorry for the pun, "green" wood burners. A license to burn after a small seminar or something really could go a long way.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

You say that as a seasoned wood burner but with the sharp rise in popularity there are a lot of, sorry for the pun, "green" wood burners. A license to burn after a small seminar or something really could go a long way.

while its reasonable to offer this type of class , mandating it would simply not have the effect one would think it does, for instance , mandating a gun safety course may well reduce some accidental shootings , it would not reduce gun crime (and no i am not trying to derail here just using as an example as the "pro wood v/s anti wood" arguement actually has a lot of similarities) one side's extreme faction wants to eliminate wood burning totally, while the far side of the spectrum from there you have those who want to burn whatever and desire no regulation whatsoever. responsible wood burners find themselves (just as responsible gun owners) stuck in the middle.

education IS the key IMHO. remember though you cannot "legislate "intelligence. you can legislate the information be readily available , but not that people will learn from it. look at the warning labels on cigarettes, while these may encourage some to quit it doesnt eliminate their use does it?

 

[Grisu]

while its reasonable to offer this type of class , mandating it would simply not have the effect one would think it does, for instance , mandating a gun safety course may well reduce some accidental shootings , it would not reduce gun crime

Actually not a bad analogy. Sure, you may not be able to convert some stubborn smoke dragon lover into burning responsibly but how many people burn dirty because they don't know better? Just speaking for myself, this forum has been invaluable in teaching me how to burn properly. I would probably had at least one chimney fire without all the great advice here.

education IS the key IMHO. remember though you cannot "legislate "intelligence. you can legislate the information be readily available , but not that people will learn from it.

Speaking of making education readily available: There are a few videos already on the net about seasoning wood and burning it properly in modern stoves. Has there not been any push in the industry to maybe standardize those and add them on a DVD to the manual? Sure, you cannot make people watch it, but a lot may do and improve their burning practices. Maybe some environmental or health groups (or the EPA itself?) would be willing to sponsor some of the production cost.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Speaking of making education readily available: There are a few videos already on the net about seasoning wood and burning it properly in modern stoves. Has there not been any push in the industry to maybe standardize those and add them on a DVD to the manual? Sure, you cannot make people watch it, but a lot may do and improve their burning practices. Maybe some environmental or health groups (or the EPA itself?) would be willing to sponsor some of the production cost.

ya know, some of the best things i recall over the years were publicly sponsored ads and those which were offered by private organizations with help from government to cover costs. education itself can be made available im sure and would be a worthwhile thing to spend some money on.

i think reasonable discussion is important as well, when you look at the politics of politics these days there is precious little discussion on any topic you can come up with , its been replaced by partisan bomb throwing and intolerance of differing views. until we grow up and start communicating again with healthy respectful debate nothing will get accomplished

 

[MishMouse]

If anyone should be certified it should be the dealers.
One dealer selling stoves that has no clue how to operate the stove correctly does a lot of damage.
Before someone can sell a stove, that person must have training and experience on how to operate that stove.
If they do not have the training, nor do they know how to properly operate it, how can they educate the buyer?
Most issues people face come from dealers not knowing what they are talking about and giving the buyer poor advice.