The EPA, now there's a winner. We don't need more regulation over Pellet Stoves. What we need is more free market capitalism. The more pellet stoves are regulated the more we will pay in the end.
EPA Regulations
- Thread starter Vinelife
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Lake Girl
Moderator
I hope you took part in the comment period for the new regulations if you disagree with them. I know the information was posted on the forum. Not much point in closing the barn door after the horse is gone ...
Curious if commercial/industrial bio-mass burners have the same emission targets?
Curious if commercial/industrial bio-mass burners have the same emission targets?
The "new" regulations comment period is usually advertised on the back page in small print so the majority of people don't realize what is going on until its to late. Comes down to it there can be one end of the country where there is a need but not all over. It boils down to over regulation and "I got the power over you" situation that seems more and more prevalent in this county. I do know that some places used to have problems with the older outdoor wood burning units but individual cities could handle that as they did with regular fireplaces.
oldengineer
Member
Good thoughts. I personally think that a government that was really interested in the "common good" could do a reasonable job establishing national standards on a lot of things. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are non regional last time I checked 
so I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a national standard for smoke pipes in outdoor boiler systems for example. That's a good example because until recently there were a lot of complaints and lawsuits over them in my area. Also things like cell phone usage while driving, headlight usage in bad weather, driving in the left lane on a freeway, driver's licenses for senior citizens (I'm one) all have the same consequences for misuse regardless of where they occurred yet laws on these issues vary widely, even within states. Problem is that myself and a lot of other good citizens are becoming weary of seeing the government getting more and more involved in our lives to "help us" by making policy that is becoming more regulatory and intrusive rather than being in the "common good" . Oh, Oh, don't get me started on this.
so I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a national standard for smoke pipes in outdoor boiler systems for example. That's a good example because until recently there were a lot of complaints and lawsuits over them in my area. Also things like cell phone usage while driving, headlight usage in bad weather, driving in the left lane on a freeway, driver's licenses for senior citizens (I'm one) all have the same consequences for misuse regardless of where they occurred yet laws on these issues vary widely, even within states. Problem is that myself and a lot of other good citizens are becoming weary of seeing the government getting more and more involved in our lives to "help us" by making policy that is becoming more regulatory and intrusive rather than being in the "common good" . Oh, Oh, don't get me started on this.
Common good and common sense seem to be blurred today. Too much common good and little common sense.
railfanron
Minister of Fire
Truth be known it seems a vanishing asset.
Yeah, local laws are good and needed... state by state. But an over reaching Fed regulation does more damage than good. Its a good topic to talk about.. we are all consumers. We all pay good money to get our stoves and pellets. To tie the hands of those trying to sell us stoves and pellets hurts everyone.
Not quite sure how any regulations would impact me in the first place because I'm set with my stove and the only change will probably be a hard coal stoker and those aren't even on the gummit radar.
Candidly, I can see some regulation of outdoor boilers and wood furnaces. While there aren't any close by, everytime I go by one sitting in someone's side yard, it's appears to be a chocked up, smoke belching monster, laying out serious particulates (visible smoke) and stink'in up the neighborhood. I wouldn't want to have one next doot, in fact, if I did, I'd be tempted to one night, go over and stuff something in the smokestack... I think they stink and pollute. I already have respratory issues, I don't need additional aggrivation.
Candidly, I can see some regulation of outdoor boilers and wood furnaces. While there aren't any close by, everytime I go by one sitting in someone's side yard, it's appears to be a chocked up, smoke belching monster, laying out serious particulates (visible smoke) and stink'in up the neighborhood. I wouldn't want to have one next doot, in fact, if I did, I'd be tempted to one night, go over and stuff something in the smokestack... I think they stink and pollute. I already have respratory issues, I don't need additional aggrivation.
Interestingly, our 250 horsepower Hurst wood chip (bio fuel) boiler at work smokes less than some outdoor wood furnaces I've seen.
Lake Girl
Moderator
Chrisnow86
Minister of Fire
I'm just gonna build my own stove and burn old car tires to keep my house toasty... Thoes sum bitches burn hot.. And After this winter a little global warming in New England would do some good...
Bioburner
Moderator
MN has the largest wood chip fueled heating and cooling coop in North America, it even helps cool the Capitol buildings and that's a big job with all the hot air that's expelled by all the politicians.
The most interesting part of the final rule that goes into effect, and the thing those of us here should be most concerned with, has to do with the sale or transfer of any noncompliance stove. Pellet stoves got a pass back in 1990 from the EPA and could take a default 78% efficiency rather than be certified. Every single one of those stoves will be illegal to sell used or transfer ownership of or install as of May 15 of this year.
Of coarse, good luck enforcing that, but if local inspection all services starts cracking down, well there you go.
Some mfg have already certified models, such as with Harman, all the p series stove are now certified but the old accentra insert was discontinued so that will never get a pass. Accentra freestanding and xxv still aren't certified as of yet and will not make the deadline most likely.
Englander models are in the same boat. Quads, except for the cb1200 I think are in this category too. Pretty much any company that went out of business is done for too.
Good comment about the commenting period. It was open for about a year. Lots of good will come with the final rule however it may take a decade to start to see the implications.
The HPBA will file a lawsuit against the final rule which will change the outcome of the final phase for 2020 but the near term issues with pellet stoves will not be rolled back.
So there you go.
Of coarse, good luck enforcing that, but if local inspection all services starts cracking down, well there you go.
Some mfg have already certified models, such as with Harman, all the p series stove are now certified but the old accentra insert was discontinued so that will never get a pass. Accentra freestanding and xxv still aren't certified as of yet and will not make the deadline most likely.
Englander models are in the same boat. Quads, except for the cb1200 I think are in this category too. Pretty much any company that went out of business is done for too.
Good comment about the commenting period. It was open for about a year. Lots of good will come with the final rule however it may take a decade to start to see the implications.
The HPBA will file a lawsuit against the final rule which will change the outcome of the final phase for 2020 but the near term issues with pellet stoves will not be rolled back.
So there you go.
My previous post answers that. To elaborate a bit, out Hurst is a true gasification boiler with overfire and underfite combustion air providing an 1800 degree plus burn. The only time it smokes at all is at startup. Once the firebox is above 1500 degrees, all particulates are consumed and it has it's own baghouse and cyclones for fly ash removal. Fly ash is collected in 55 gallon drums that get landfilled along with the residual ash from burning.
The only give away to operation is you can smell the wood burning but you cannot see it, unlike home unit
I'd say for particulates and visible smoke, we are already there and our boiler is a decade old so I'm sure new systems run even cleaner.
Overfired
New Member
Everyone keeps complaining about the EPA in this regard, but they didn't start this mess! In fact, they have been fighting against all of this for YEARS and people rarely recognize that. Quick history lesson:
In 1990 congress passed the Clean Air Act that required the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to reduce air pollution. Most people agree that this was a good change with reasonable standards. However, in that act it was written that every 5 years the EPA must review and update their standards and regulations based on current scientific evaluation. Of course, how you interpret that science is open for debate and the practicality of it all in the real world is contested by various parties with conflicting interests.
In 2006 the EPA got into an argument with some of its science advisers, who wanted to see "stronger pollution protections," and instead adopted a slightly revised version of the existing standards that was more practical.
In 2009 the EPA gets sued by a group including the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association, and a federal appeals court eventually rules that these revised standards were deficient and sent them back to the EPA for "corrective action." The EPA basically repeats their review process over and over and keeps arriving at the same slightly revised conclusion that does not seem to satisfy the court or the plaintiffs.
In 2011 the EPA once again did not significantly update/tighten their limits; most of the groups mentioned above took this as a "complete failure of the EPA to do their job." A lawsuit from those same groups (ALA, etc) led to a court once again ordering the EPA to do another review and update their limits.
In 2012 a dozen state attorneys general also filed lawsuits against the EPA for not tightening the limits, calling it a "growing health crisis."
In early 2014 the HPBA sues the EPA to essentially make them crap-or-get-off-the-pot because none of the manufacturers know what regulations they are going to have to meet and therefor don't know how/where to invest their money.
And now sometime before 2020 the poor EPA is going to be sued again, this time by the HPBA again (and other interested parties) for over-zealous regulations written into the second half of their update.
***So congress started it, scientists meddled with it, environmentalists latched onto it, the courts started pushing it around, and then state attorneys got in on the action. All the while the EPA has been diligently reviewing and reviewing, over and over, always coming to the same practical conclusions that just subtly and delicately revise the emission standards. They were literally FORCED to introduce the standards that everyone has complained about and continues to complain about. The 2016 standards really aren't that tough to meet and the only thing controversial about that portion is the new resale law, but they HAD to put that in there to get groups like the ALA off their back (and it will end up with little-to-no enforcement.)***
They wrote the 2020 standards almost as if they WANTED the industry to sue them and push back hard in court against the over-zealous agendas that have been attacking them for almost a decade. I suspect it was a strategic move.
In 1990 congress passed the Clean Air Act that required the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to reduce air pollution. Most people agree that this was a good change with reasonable standards. However, in that act it was written that every 5 years the EPA must review and update their standards and regulations based on current scientific evaluation. Of course, how you interpret that science is open for debate and the practicality of it all in the real world is contested by various parties with conflicting interests.
In 2006 the EPA got into an argument with some of its science advisers, who wanted to see "stronger pollution protections," and instead adopted a slightly revised version of the existing standards that was more practical.
In 2009 the EPA gets sued by a group including the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association, and a federal appeals court eventually rules that these revised standards were deficient and sent them back to the EPA for "corrective action." The EPA basically repeats their review process over and over and keeps arriving at the same slightly revised conclusion that does not seem to satisfy the court or the plaintiffs.
In 2011 the EPA once again did not significantly update/tighten their limits; most of the groups mentioned above took this as a "complete failure of the EPA to do their job." A lawsuit from those same groups (ALA, etc) led to a court once again ordering the EPA to do another review and update their limits.
In 2012 a dozen state attorneys general also filed lawsuits against the EPA for not tightening the limits, calling it a "growing health crisis."
In early 2014 the HPBA sues the EPA to essentially make them crap-or-get-off-the-pot because none of the manufacturers know what regulations they are going to have to meet and therefor don't know how/where to invest their money.
And now sometime before 2020 the poor EPA is going to be sued again, this time by the HPBA again (and other interested parties) for over-zealous regulations written into the second half of their update.
***So congress started it, scientists meddled with it, environmentalists latched onto it, the courts started pushing it around, and then state attorneys got in on the action. All the while the EPA has been diligently reviewing and reviewing, over and over, always coming to the same practical conclusions that just subtly and delicately revise the emission standards. They were literally FORCED to introduce the standards that everyone has complained about and continues to complain about. The 2016 standards really aren't that tough to meet and the only thing controversial about that portion is the new resale law, but they HAD to put that in there to get groups like the ALA off their back (and it will end up with little-to-no enforcement.)***
They wrote the 2020 standards almost as if they WANTED the industry to sue them and push back hard in court against the over-zealous agendas that have been attacking them for almost a decade. I suspect it was a strategic move.
Last edited:
Don't confuse people with facts Overfired. Their minds are made up. 
They need one in Lansing, Michigan then because our state leaders have a lock on hot air as well.....
The interesting thing about the unit we have it is prefers damp / green wood chips over dry chips. The bone dry chips burn too fast whereas the greener, damper ones burn slower.
My neighbor who is about 50 yards from me has an outdoor boiler, it's grandfathered in and only about 15 feet from his house. On damp calm days, the entire street is filled with heavy smoke. I can barely breathe outdoors on those days.
Me thinks I'd be wandering over there and stuffing his chimney pipe. It's running cold enough, a wet blanket probably would never catch on fire.....
Your neighbor probably thinks everything is hunky-dory....
Thats how the ones I see are burning... Draft chocked down, making creosote, tons of smoke and stinking. A good hot wood fire smells fine. A strangled wood fire stinks.
Because of people like him, they are getting regulated.
Government is the problem, not the solution to this problem. Regulation hardly ever works, and its the consumers that pay. Let people choose with their wallets.
woodmakesheat
Feeling the Heat
Did you read what Overfired wrote above? I, for one, am grateful that my woodburner is able to create a beautiful plasma flame that maximizes the output and minimizes soot and emissions without having to use a catalytic afterburner (as was the solution in my senior mechanical engineering project back in 1986.) If you set standards that are achievable, it levels the playing field. All participants know the minimum standards (which aren't all that difficult to meet) and innovation on how to achieve said results commences. As an engineer I appreciate this - give me the rules, challenge me a little, and I'll design a product that meets the goals in a cost effective manner. And my pellet stove is just gravy the way it can heat my house with no discernible smoke emissions. If technology exists that can improve upon this experience for a minimal (if any) additional cost, then I'm all for it. But there's no way lower-end manufacturers would adopt said technology if it added just $20/unit manufacturing cost because manufacturers don't give a crap about emissions and only a little about efficiency - although they wouldn't even mention efficiency unless 1) they're a high end manufacturer (read $$$) or 2) they are required to. Just like my previous company were and still are traitors freely handing US technology to China - they don't give one crap about this country.
Lake Girl
Moderator
- Status
Similar threads
