EPA issue ban on wood stoves

[houstonscott]

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/proposed_wood_heater_nsps_overview_fact_sheet_1.pdf Today’s proposed rule would not affect existing woodstoves and other wood-burning heaters currently in use in people’s homes. The proposal also would not apply to outdoor fireplaces, pizza ovens, barbecues or chimineas, and it would not apply to new or existing heaters that are fueled solely by oil, gas or coal. In addition, the proposal would not prohibit or restrict the use of wood-burning appliances for residential heating. EPA estimates the benefits of the proposed requirements for new residential wood heaters at $1.8 to $4.2 billion annually, with costs estimated at $15.7 million – or $118 to $267 in benefits for every dollar spent to comply. The projected benefits do not include the value of the carbon monoxide, VOCs, air toxics (including formaldehyde, benzene and polycyclic organic matter), and black carbon emissions that would be reduced along with PM emissions.  In addition to the health benefits provided by the proposed rule, wood heaters meeting the proposed standards generally would be more efficient than older ones, meaning homeowners will be able to heat their homes using less wood. Much more information at this site. No mention of many of the things some on this thread state. Air Pollution in Asia: Real-time Air Quality Index Visual Map Go to this site for some education on air pollution problems. My primary source of heat is wood. Nothing in the EPA proposal restricts any of us other than future purchases. Similar to auto emissions policies over the last few decades. Air pollution levels are much better than in the good old days. History of Air Pollution | Air Research | Research Priorities | Research | US EPA Air pollution in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:[2] carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons particulate emissions fell by 80% lead emissions fell by more than 98% Loren Loren

I'm going to agree with you, don't fall off your seat, but, how low do you go before there is no more to be gained except control of an industry, which to many now seems to be the real goal. HS

 

[grsthegreat]

Glad I bought a wood stove three years ago. I knew this was coming as well as probably state bans on wood stoves. The problem with all these emissions standards is that for a wood stove, the person running it has more impact on the emissions rate than anything else, and that's not something the mfg's can control for.

Clean air? Of course who wouldn't want cleaner air, but the question is at what cost? Can anyone truly say that if these matters were put to the people that many if any would pass a vote? I say government of the people, by the people, for the people is dead. At what point does large scale civil disobedience start?

govt baaah. things like restricting particulate matter from all diesel rigs...cept for govt owner rigs and govt owned buses which are exempt.

the govt LOVES to exempt themselves out of everything. I bet the white house wont replace their wood burning fireplaces (there are 28 of them in that place)

 

[DarkBlack]

It would not prohibit OR RESTRICT the use of wood burning appliances for residential heating.

Very next paragraph speaks of the requirements of residential wood heaters.

Must be more of that government double speak, but I smell a rat!

I agree :whistleblower:

 

[CHDinCT]

My biggest concern is that if I ever want to sell my house after 2019 I have to upgrade and/or remove the unit unless they develop some type of aftermarket add on it to make it compliant again. Ripping the cultured stone out, possibly installing a new stack, scrapping the old one and then refinishing could easily go in excess of 8 grand with probably no appreciation to the value of the home.
View attachment 363939

Do you have a reference for where this is in the proposed reg? I want to read it for myself. Plan on selling and moving in the next few years, and if a condition of selling my house is to remove a non-compliant stove (2015 or 2019 reg's) I need to make sure I sell soon. Holly chit man, can you believe these bureaucrats?

 

[farmgirl19]

Most places, when you sell a house, it has to be brought up to "code". That might include making sure any fireplace or wood burning appliance is up to the new standards.

 

[Loren49]

It would not prohibit OR RESTRICT the use of wood burning appliances for residential heating.

Very next paragraph speaks of the requirements of residential wood heaters.

Must be more of that government double speak, but I smell a rat!

The information referenced in the next paragraph is:
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf
I N T R O D U C T I O N
This document identifies strategies to help state, tribal, and local air
officials reduce fine particle pollution (PM2.5) that is attributed to residential
wood smoke. For areas that are not meeting, or are close to exceeding the
national ambient air quality standards for fine particles (PM2.5 NAAQS),
developing a wood smoke reduction plan can help achieve meaningful
emission reductions and improve public health in the local community.
Developing and implementing a plan before exceedances occur will lower
the likelihood of violations of the national standards, may limit the number
of Clean Air Act requirements that apply in the future, or can be used to
help an area comply with requirements that may apply in the future. To
learn more about EPA痴 PM2.5 regulations, visit:
Regulatory Actions | Particulate Matter | Air & Radiation | US EPA.

This document also provides education and outreach tools, information on regulatory approaches to
reduce wood smoke, as well as information about voluntary programs that communities around the
country have used to replace old, inefficient wood stoves, hydronic heaters, and fireplaces. It includes
EPA federal actions to help communities address residential wood smoke throughout the United States
(U.S.). In addition, this document includes possible approaches for funding replacement programs,
methods for calculating emission reductions, and the basic components of a wood smoke reduction plan
for fine particles in areas where wood smoke is of concern.

Within this document, state, tribal and local air pollution control officials will find a comprehensive list of
strategies and associated case studies to help identify appropriate wood smoke reduction measures for
their communities. This includes:

 regulatory approaches to reduce wood smoke;
 voluntary programs to replace old wood stoves, hydronic heaters and fireplaces;
 education and outreach tools;
 air quality forecasting and public notification systems;
 funding approaches for wood-burning appliance replacement programs;
 federal actions to reduce residential wood smoke; and
 methods for calculating emission reductions.


This March 2013 document gives guidance to State and Local Governments and also suggests encouraging voluntary possibilities. No Federal Mandates or double talk.

There are good reasons to reduce air pollution...within reason.

Loren

 

[dave1949]

Most places, when you sell a house, it has to be brought up to "code". That might include making sure any fireplace or wood burning appliance is up to the new standards.

For several years we had a law that prohibited multiple appliances sharing a single flue. Furnace plus wood stove for example. That law is repealed now, but something like that would make your house difficult for a buyer to insure if it wasn't corrected, or one of the appliances disconnected.

I've never heard of an old inefficient furnace or wood stove needing to conform to current building codes or efficiency standards for a sale. That could be something that is applied at the city, county or state level I suppose. I could see that maybe happening in locations/regions that aren't meeting the EPA national standards for clean air.

A good thing about more efficient stoves is they seem to produce more heat with less wood due to more complete burning. That's my general impression. It may cost more to produce and maintain a cleaner burning stove, but there should be fuel cost savings over its lifetime of use that offset that by some amount.

 

[westcliffe01]

Catalytic converters have certainly helped clean up emissions on cars and trucks. But, there is a point beyond which tighter regulations only drives up cost and kills the reliability of the system and in fact increases your fuel consumption.

My 2008 model F250 diesel is an absolute fuel hog. Compared to a 2006 model the fuel economy dropped from 19+ mpg to 13mpg, a degradation of 31%. That is a massive increase in the use of fuel, not to mention cost of ownership. Thats after paying an extra $2000+ for the hardware of which easily $1000 is just for extra platinum on the ceramic parts. Before I hit 70k miles, one of the 4 rtd's which measure the exhaust temperature failed at which point I got the curt warning on the dash "pull over safely NOW" and about 20 sec later the engine output dropped to near idle and as soon as the speed dropped below 20mph the ENGINE TURNED OFF. The engine controller would not even allow the engine to crank for more than 6 hours afterwards. Basic recommendation by the dealer was to HAVE IT TOWED at my own expense. It then sat at the dealer for almost the entire winter since they had months worth of backlog on warranty work on their diesel trucks. I tried several other dealers, none were able to offer a better deal.

So, from someone who actually works for a company who designs and manufactures emission control devices, there are definite limits to what can be cured with simple solutions. When one passes this limit, then it is all going the wrong way (increased cost, greatly lengthened development cycles and reduced model offering as a result, introduction of microprocessor control which may require wood stoves to have a 110V mains connection to work etc etc).

 

[dave1949]

I could see forced air combustion as an easy way to meet the standard. For in the room stoves, I wouldn't like that if it were designed such that it won't burn as well as a normal stove does now without a fan--and it probably wouldn't. For burners installed outside of the living space, it wouldn't be much of an issue or new.

Most people probably aren't familiar with the background of the eight New England states suing the EPA to force them to enforce clean air standards in a way that matters to New England. This article is a reasonable overview. Connecticut, 7 other states seek EPA crackdown on Midwest pollution | The CT Mirror

Maine was a part of that group before our Tea Party Gov. came along. This battle concerning "tailpipe" states has been going on for a long time now in one way or another. This is the crux of the problem: "Gov. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire said her state could take every car off the road and still see ozone levels drop by just 3 percent."

The same is true in Maine both for tailpipe and tourism reasons. You could take Maine cars off the road and still fail the pollution standards. Making all Maine vehicles super clean will not fix the problem. We have no control over the vehicles visiting, upwind, or the power plants in other states.

Back in the late 90's we tried emission testing for autos in the southern counties. It was a disaster. The company the state contracted with to do the annual testing was incompetent. People could take their cars to three test stations and get three very different results--all on the same day. It was such an embarrassment that the state canceled the whole program.

The bottom line for New England air quality and all that goes with that (water quality, forest and human health) is, it is not in our power to fix it well enough by making local changes. The air is already well polluted before it gets to us. That is not an excuse for us to do nothing here, but it is a hurdle we cannot jump without federal actions.

 

[westcliffe01]

Dave, your comment regarding forced convection only applies to previously exempted heaters like the outdoor boilers. Excess air as an emission control strategy was what we had prior to catalytic converters - so about mid 80s technology. It still gets used for cold start on gasoline vehicles. But that alone would not suffice to meet the new standards which are only met by the very best catalytic or secondary air stoves today.

Burning off particulates requires a temperature of 1000F. Thats what it takes to ignite carbon - period. Burning off HC can be done at lower temperatures, but then only in conjunction with platinum or palladium. Secondary air stoves do everything at the same time at 1000F and so the efficiency is reduced due to hot stack temperatures. So it is fairly safe to say that there is going to be a big re-introduction of catalysts and an increase in price accordingly. Whether the next limit can be met by these methods is hard to say.