Latest EPA Wood Stove News

[Whitespider]

Well Oxford, it could be argued that, after the succession of seven southern states, the actions of Abraham Lincoln created the first constitutional crisis by a branch of federal government... particularly by unilaterally suspending writ of habeas corpus. But without any doubt, the Reconstruction Era saw the baby being thrown out with the bath water...
*

 

[fixit1960]

I agree with most of what you wrote (except I care about the environment), but this. You are attempting to take an idealized and arbitrary point in the past and hold it fixed forever in a world of constant change and chaos. What was the law of the land in 1790 was not in 1788, is not now and will not be tomorrow. Every time discussion comes up about proposed legislation, you loudly insist that the world first conform to your fantasy before discussion can proceed, which leaves you irrelevant and disruptive.

There are no fixed rules, there never were and there never will be, and the pace of change is increasing rapidly.

Chris , I agree with Whitespider here. The Constitution is the playbook. It may not be perfect but it is the guideline. It has in it the ability to be amended and has been successfully many time. One of those amendment has been repealed. It is the only thing I feel we have to keep all the players and referees of this huge "game" in check. If we don't follow it then we will degrade into something that is one step away from a dictatorship. Oh!, look at what we have now, my how did we get here. Because they didn't follow the playbook. As someone else pointed iout it may have started with Lincoln but the slippery slope was probably started down before that.

I do care about the environment also, but I think government entities can become too powerful and be used to enforce attitudes and direct economic and social issues in subtle ways that many will not pick up on. I've lived near an industrial area for 54 years. It is many times cleaner here now than it was in the 60's. Yet they want more. It is killing jobs and driving economic development away. For what purpose? Those jobs and factories are going overseas and those smokestacks are spewing that same (or worse) pollution into the same fish bowl we all live in. And the consumers still buy that product so.... My point is at what point are the regulatory agencies told to slow up before we have a country that is basically a park and no one can live in it. Doesn't that sound just like the maps Agenda 21 is proposing depict for a lot of inhabited USA?

 

[e pairs]

I really don't care what the regulatory agencies in this country think about what's best. They don't live in my house. I'm going to keep my stove.

Yeah me to its a lot warmer and cheaper too. Thats what I like.

 

[Chris-PA]

It is many times cleaner here now than it was in the 60's. Yet they want more. It is killing jobs and driving economic development away.

This is accepted here as fact, but it is false. It is less scary to believe it can be blamed on someone and therefore fixed, and our industrial society will return, but it will not. There is greed and incompetence, but that is not the problem, rather just a symptom. Industrial manufacturing is no longer a profitable venture due to the costs of energy and the accumulated costs of debt, and of waste that was not dealt with and resources that have been used up. We pretend by compartmentalizing costs and profits and looking at only the incomes while ignoring the debt.

The primary source of all wealth is nature and the processes that occur there without our direct efforts, so not interfering with those is to our benefit. Reducing the costs of poor human health is also a net benefit. Our habit of compartmentalizing things distorts the picture, but cleaning up the pollution did not cost our society, rather it was a huge benefit. Forcing organizations to account for the wastes produced by their industrial processes added to their costs, but that was minor compared to the costs of energy and debt. The US peaked in oil production in the early 1970's, and we've never come close since, while the cost has risen (that was also the peak in per capita income). After that industry began to move off shore to cut every cost possible and the nation ran up massive debt. This is why things are not made here anymore - the next step is that they will not be made at all.

Bureaucracies, like all human social and political structures, will turn into a permanent support for many. They will accumulate and continue trying to apply old solutions that no long work, until the complexity and cost burden can no longer be supported. Simplification is usually messy and unpleasant.

 

[olyman]

Jesus slowp, nobody said anything about "The Good Old Days"... exactly when were those days anyway??
Nobody gives sour owl crap what your "fair state" does or doesn't do... this ain't about what "states" do... give it up already.
As far as the women's suffrage movement and the resulting 19th amendment; without the "rules" specifically spelled out in the constitution it would not have been possible... period‼ You'd still be a man's "property", and you still wouldn't be able to vote. It's also interesting to note that it was the Democrats that blocked it's passage for years (Democrats were the "progressives" of the time, Republicans were the "classical liberals"... i.e. "Old School"). You might also note that mid-western states began ratifying the amendment within days, but it took your "fair state" nearly a year to get around to it.
And the three branches of (federal) government?? Well, I ain't forgetting about them, I'm fully aware that all three have usurped power (sometimes from each other) that the constitution does not grant them to have... let alone allow them to take‼


That's ridiculous‼ Just because the teams choose to ignore them, and no one has the nutzsack to hold them accountable... in no way means they don't exist.
I emphatically, and ardently reject your premise as preposterous.
*

shes a NOW!! female

 

[philoshop]

This accepted here as fact, but it is false. It is less scary to believe it can be blamed on someone and therefore fixed, and our industrial society will return, but it will not. There is greed and incompetence, but that is not the problem, rather just a symptom. Industrial manufacturing is no longer a profitable venture due to the costs of energy and the accumulated costs of debt, and of waste that that was not dealt with and resources that have been used up. We pretend by compartmentalizing costs and profits and looking at only the incomes while ignoring the debt.

The primary source of all wealth is nature and the processes that occur there without our direct efforts, so not interfering with those is to our benefit. Reducing the costs of poor human health is also a net benefit. Our habit of compartmentalizing things distorts the picture, but cleaning up the pollution did not cost our society, rather it was a huge benefit. Forcing organizations to account for the wastes produced by their industrial processes added to their costs, but that was minor compared to the costs of energy and debt. The US peaked in oil production in the early 1970's, and we've never come close since, while the cost has risen (that was also the peak in per capita income). After that industry began to move off shore to cut every cost possible and the nation ran up massive debt. This is why things are not made here anymore - the next step is that they will not be made at all.

Bureaucracies, like all human social and political structures, will turn into a permanent support for many. They will accumulate and continue trying to apply old solutions that no long work, until the complexity and cost burden can no longer be supported. Simplification is usually messy and unpleasant.

OK. I think I see where you're coming from now with regard to your posts here. Thanks.
Best of luck to you.

 

[wampum]

In the not to distant future many that now support the EPA will wonder what went wrong.Right now I personally believe the unelected EPA has way to much power.But their attempt at their latest power grab will bring many many more under their thumb.I am a member of the Pennsylvania farm bureau and through the bureau have learned of this power grab.They wish to change one word in the clean water act,this change will effect every private land owner in the country.

Currently the EPA through the Clean water act controls all navigational waters in the USA.The wish to remove the word navigable from the act.In other words they want to control what happens to all waters in the USA. Example water running off your roof during a rain storm could cause you to be fined because it is not being controlled the way the EPA guideline say it should.That drainage ditch that is dry except during a rain storm will now be under EPA control.Drive your tractor through it make mud get fined.

This act will cause many farmers to go under.Because many will not be able to afford the changes required to divert the natural rain water run off from their field to sediment ponds the EPA will require.The ponds will create wet lands that will have to stay wet lands from that point on.In other words thousands of acres developed to control natural run off will be taken out of production.

Every state farm bureau in the country is fighting this to my knowledge.Goggle farm bureau fighting change in clean water act.Here is just one example that comes up:http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/polkfishwrap/news/local/farm-bureau-looking-Another good sighthttp://www.gfb.org/ditchtherule/to-fight-epa-water-rule-change/article_6742e39c-f62c-11e3-9371-0017a43b2370.html

 

[zogger]

In the not to distant future many that now support the EPA will wonder what went wrong.Right now I personally believe the unelected EPA has way to much power.But their attempt at their latest power grab will bring many many more under their thumb.I am a member of the Pennsylvania farm bureau and through the bureau have learned of this power grab.They wish to change one word in the clean water act,this change will effect every private land owner in the country.

Currently the EPA through the Clean water act controls all navigational waters in the USA.The wish to remove the word navigable from the act.In other words they want to control what happens to all waters in the USA. Example water running off your roof during a rain storm could cause you to be fined because it is not being controlled the way the EPA guideline say it should.That drainage ditch that is dry except during a rain storm will now be under EPA control.Drive your tractor through it make mud get fined.

This act will cause many farmers to go under.Because many will not be able to afford the changes required to divert the natural rain water run off from their field to sediment ponds the EPA will require.The ponds will create wet lands that will have to stay wet lands from that point on.In other words thousands of acres developed to control natural run off will be taken out of production.

Every state farm bureau in the country is fighting this to my knowledge.Goggle farm bureau fighting change in clean water act.Here is just one example that comes up:http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/polkfishwrap/news/local/farm-bureau-looking-Another good sighthttp://www.gfb.org/ditchtherule/to-fight-epa-water-rule-change/article_6742e39c-f62c-11e3-9371-0017a43b2370.html

And again, this is an ongoing part of the agenda 21 deal. They have these fanatics entrenched in all areas of officialdom now, in a lot of cases, right down to a local level. True believers, nutcases who want to shrink the human population down to not much, and them be in charge while it happens. Force people into corridors where it is "allowed" to live, megacities.

Driving people away from the rural areas where it is much easier to remain at least semi independent is a huge part of the plan. The insidious part of the deal, is it is couched in what gives the appearance as good stuff, the reality is, it is designed to promote a two class society, which is highly controlled and regulated, down to almost every aspect of your life. Land takings, denying use of property, etc, is part of it. making everything a wetland gives them tremendous economic leverage, as if you say "no", and don't go along with what they demand and refuse to pay for it, you'll get the shaft up to the bundy ranch treatment. they have already proven this is exactly what they will do, raiding small farms, etc. Declaring huge areas off limits because of the endangered three eyed newt, crapola like that, and they know as long as they do it gradually, no revolt, people will for the most part just eat it raw.

 

[Whitespider]

Chris-PA,
I read your last post this morning... and have been mulling it over all day as I was working in the field.
First, let me say you make a fine adversary in an argument, or debate... and I believe we could go round 'n' round for many enjoyable hours. I also acknowledge you have bested me in pure wit more than I have you... and more than just a couple of times. Actually, I appreciate the "adult" way you defend your position, or opinion... because it makes the debate fun... win, lose or draw.

OK... with that said...
I believe your last post is of a defeatist attitude... and I won't, or (if you'd rather) simply don't want to argue that on an internet board.
That would be better served face-to-face.
*

 

[MechanicMatt]

Hey wampum. I'm a gm technician. They send me to gm technical school so I can get certified on different auto related stuff. While getting the run down on the new vettes convertible top we had to "water test" it for leaks would you believe that once the water has touched the car it is grey water? So says the EPA! Morons, what happens when it rains? Lots of grey water every where.......... they made the training center remove the floor drains and modify them to collect the water for proper disposal. BASTARDS are ruining our country. They have no one moderating them so they'll be out of control in no time

 

[Chris-PA]

Chris-PA,
I read your last post this morning... and have been mulling it over all day as I was working in the field.
First, let me say you make a fine adversary in an argument, or debate... and I believe we could go round 'n' round for many enjoyable hours. I also acknowledge you have bested me in pure wit more than I have you... and more than just a couple of times. Actually, I appreciate the "adult" way you defend your position, or opinion... because it makes the debate fun... win, lose or draw.

OK... with that said...
I believe your last post is of a defeatist attitude... and I won't, or (if you'd rather) simply don't want to argue that on an internet board.
That would be better served face-to-face.
*

WS, it's been an interesting (and mostly remarkably civil) conversation, and in spite of considerable differences we do in fact share many views. If there is one thing I'd hope people could take away from it, that would be it - that there is common ground and people can share interests and views even while disagreements exist.

As for defeatist, rather it is a different view of what drives the cycles of history, and where our civilization stands in relation to those cycles.

But this has gotten rather off topic into areas I would not have gone if Saturday had not been such a miserably rainy and boring day, and made me ornery thinking about all the projects I need to get done before winter. Probably best to let it go.

 

[Oxford]

You may want to slow your roll on that gray water deal. I'd be willing to bet that they are doing the leak testing in a test chamber, where they can simulate rain and other events that combine wind with water, or maybe water only. Regardless, they probably took the water to the floor drain, which was tied to the sanitary sewer, and it was probably either the municipal water treatment utility or the plant's if it's large enough that asked not to receive those large slugs of nearly pure water since they tend to really screw up waste water treatment. Not to mention that it's expensive to treat gray water like it's truly sanitary waste.

In fact, being able to dispose of this as gray water instead of waste probably saves the facility money out of its operating budget. Doesn't fit your narrative, I know, but I'll be the doughnut against the hole that the water line for that test chamber has a deduct meter on it so that the facility isn't charged for sewer on those gallons.

 

[MechanicMatt]

No pal we get a garden hose and spray the top to see how the "water management" system of the top redirects the water. And the drain used to dump out in the parking lot. But they had to seal up that pipe and redirect the water into a catch container. Where it goes from there, Im not sure. I just know that the Idea of water that hits a car being "grey water" is nonsense. What happens when it rains? Does that not produce gallons of "grey water"
Test chamber?!? your funny. GM went broke pal, they train us in a dungeon.

 

[MechanicMatt]

And the Dungeon comment is nothing against the Instructors there, I'm quite fond of two of them, really great guys. Making the best with what they have to work with.

 

[Whitespider]

Probably best to let it go.

Here's to your health sir.

 

[wampum]

Went to the mountains the last couple of days,to check out the Pennsylvania Elk herd.On the way back today I stopped at an Outdoor boiler manufacturer Plant. This is too crazy to be funny,but all of there old wood burners have been fitted with grates and now have a decal on them for coal only.They will not pass EPA emissions for wood but a decal saying coal only makes them EPA approved.If you buy one you technically are not allowed to burn wood(Ha Ha Ha)just coal.If you are caught burning wood you could be fined,according to what the stove guy told me.

 

[Whitespider]

That was briefly mentioned, about a year ago I think, in a thread about these new "proposed" regulations wampum (I believe it was I that mentioned it). Technically (call it a loophole in the regulations), manufacturers of wood/coal appliances need only to fit the product with a coal (shaker) grate as standard equipment (currently it's an option for many, like my DAKA furnace) and remove the word "wood" from any literature or marketing description. I half-expected the EPA to close that loop hole in the "final" draft... but now, I'm not so sure they could without tipping their hand.

That sort'a creates a conundrum for retailers... any mention of the word "wood" could land them in very hot water. For that matter, if a potential purchaser has stated he is looking for a wood-fired appliance, just the simple failure by the retailer to state "coal only" could be seen as an implied violation. Sort'a reminds me of when autos started coming with the "unleaded" fuel doors... people would punch them out so the leaded fuel nozzles would fit. As a dealer, if we took one of those in on trade, and someone asked about the fuel door modification... we couldn't say why the previous owner had done it unless we also stated the car used "unleaded fuel only". If we didn't, we were "implying" the purchaser could put leaded fuel in the thing... putting us in violation. It was sort'a a tip-toe dance... because technically, if anyone knows a law is being broken, or is about to be broken (any law)... by law that person is required to report it. Not reporting it is against the law in-and-of-itself, plus you can be seen as a collaborator of the primary violation... a Catch-22, if you will.

And as far as the end user/operator... these new regulations are also reminiscent of the early unleaded fuel autos. Just like the 1988 wood stove regulations, the early federal "unleaded" regulations applied only to manufacturers and dealers... the end user could do what he wanted, even remove or bypass the catalytic converter if he wished. Eventually that all changed, evolving into regulations on the individual (nothing even close to regulating "Interstate Commerce")... and that's what you're seeing with these new wood-fired appliance regulations, a gross overreach of power.

Of course, people still did what they wanted (just as we will with our appliances)... a regulatory agency just don't have the resources to check every individual. So the next step will be the same as what happened with leaded fuel. The feds (at least the current administration, maybe the next) will effectively close the loophole by taxing those "coal only" appliances out of existence... make them so expensive no one will buy them. Mark my words on that... heck, how many times has the "carbon tax" and "energy tax" been mentioned already?? The foundation has already been poured... if they can't regulate your liberty away, they'll tax it away... history repeats itself. Mark my words.
*

 

[olyman]

That was briefly mentioned, about a year ago I think, in a thread about these new "proposed" regulations wampum (I believe it was I that mentioned it). Technically (call it a loophole in the regulations), manufacturers of wood/coal appliances need only to fit the product with a coal (shaker) grate as standard equipment (currently it's an option for many, like my DAKA furnace) and remove the word "wood" from any literature or marketing description. I half-expected the EPA to close that loop hole in the "final" draft... but now, I'm not so sure they could without tipping their hand.

That sort'a creates a conundrum for retailers... any mention of the word "wood" could land them in very hot water. For that matter, if a potential purchaser has stated he is looking for a wood-fired appliance, just the simple failure by the retailer to state "coal only" could be seen as an implied violation. Sort'a reminds me of when autos started coming with the "unleaded" fuel doors... people would punch them out so the leaded fuel nozzles would fit. As a dealer, if we took one of those in on trade, and someone asked about the fuel door modification... we couldn't say why the previous owner had done it unless we also stated the car used "unleaded fuel only". If we didn't, we were "implying" the purchaser could put leaded fuel in the thing... putting us in violation. It was sort'a a tip-toe dance... because technically, if anyone knows a law is being broken, or is about to be broken (any law)... by law that person is required to report it. Not reporting it is against the law in-and-of-itself, plus you can be seen as a collaborator of the primary violation... a Catch-22, if you will.

And as far as the end user/operator... these new regulations are also reminiscent of the early unleaded fuel autos. Just like the 1988 wood stove regulations, the early federal "unleaded" regulations applied only to manufacturers and dealers... the end user could do what he wanted, even remove or bypass the catalytic converter if he wished. Eventually that all changed, evolving into regulations on the individual (nothing even close to regulating "Interstate Commerce")... and that's what you're seeing with these new wood-fired appliance regulations, a gross overreach of power.

Of course, people still did what they wanted (just as we will with our appliances)... a regulatory agency just don't have the resources to check every individual. So the next step will be the same as what happened with leaded fuel. The feds (at least the current administration, maybe the next) will effectively close the loophole by taxing those "coal only" appliances out of existence... make them so expensive no one will buy them. Mark my words on that... heck, how many times has the "carbon tax" and "energy tax" been mentioned already?? The foundation has already been poured... if they can't regulate your liberty away, they'll tax it away... history repeats itself. Mark my words.
*

yep,,and lying deceived leftists,,will come and decry the truth you just spoke,,as it doesn't fit their mind right!!

 

[Whitespider]

Well olyman , unlike the wood stove regulations, the regulations on leaded fuels were (for the most part) justified under the constitution. It was a known and proven fact that lead was a poisonous substance as early as the 1800's. As early as the 1920's people working in the fuel industry were dieing from lead poisoning. Around 1950 the effects of "tetraethyl lead" (the fuel additive) on the environment and (more importantly) humans was accidentally discovered. Only after some two decades of research and study (based on real numbers and sound science) did the phase-down of leaded fuel begin. In the beginning (1976), the regulations related to leaded fuel were, in fact, justified under more than one clause of the constitution. Leaded fuels were, in fact, adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. The plan, as I said, was a phase-down, not a phase-out... and it worked quite well. Moderate regulation, designed to have minimal affect on the economy, reduced lead levels in Americans (especially children) dramatically. It wasn't until 1996, when leaded fuel was less than 1% of the total sold, did the "ban" change the plan. During the late 1980's and into the 1990's some of the regulations and taxes are questionable under the constitution. And they were unneeded by that time... leaded fuel would have disappeared from the pump all on it's own.

But the regulations on wood-fired appliances are not based in "real numbers", they ain't supported by "sound science", and the appliances are not adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. As I said, "reminiscent"... not identical.
*

 

[olyman]

Well olyman , unlike the wood stove regulations, the regulations on leaded fuels were (for the most part) justified under the constitution. It was a known and proven fact that lead was a poisonous substance as early as the 1800's. As early as the 1920's people working in the fuel industry were dieing from lead poisoning. Around 1950 the effects of "tetraethyl lead" (the fuel additive) on the environment and (more importantly) humans was accidentally discovered. Only after some two decades of research and study (based on real numbers and sound science) did the phase-down of leaded fuel begin. In the beginning (1976), the regulations related to leaded fuel were, in fact, justified under more than one clause of the constitution. Leaded fuels were, in fact, adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. The plan, as I said, was a phase-down, not a phase-out... and it worked quite well. Moderate regulation, designed to have minimal affect on the economy, reduced lead levels in Americans (especially children) dramatically. It wasn't until 1996, when leaded fuel was less than 1% of the total sold, did the "ban" change the plan. During the late 1980's and into the 1990's some of the regulations and taxes are questionable under the constitution. And they were unneeded by that time... leaded fuel would have disappeared from the pump all on it's own.

But the regulations on wood-fired appliances are not based in "real numbers", they ain't supported by "sound science", and the appliances are not adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. As I said, "reminiscent"... not identical.
*

I was speaking of woodstoves,,and not gasoline the bad thing about tet lead,,,stick your hand in a gas can,,it immediately absorbs into your skin!!! tho I wasn't in the gas,,i went to dsl fuel immediately...