Opinions of top wood stove industry insiders revealed in 1998 interviews

The late Paul Tiegs, one of the
greatest authorities on wood
stoves, conducted the
interviews for the EPA. 
Long before the regulatory debate about wood stoves heated up in the 2010s, the EPA commissioned a series of fascinating interviews with the top wood stove experts in the country on a host of technical and policy issues.  These interviews give a glimpse of the opinions and philosophies of industry and academic leaders at a time when they apparently felt free to go on the record about what became controversial topics. 
The content of these interviews remains very relevant today for anyone interested in a behind-the-scenes look at many of the underlying issues in the 2015 EPA stove and boiler regulations.  The interviewers – Jim Houck and Paul Teigs (who are top experts themselves) – asked questions ranging from whether masonry, pellet, boiler and furnace appliances should be regulated, to the vulnerabilities of catalytic stoves, to how lab testing can better reflect real world use of stoves. 
These interviews remain a valuable resource because each of the nine experts was asked the exact same questions.  Thus, if you are interested in masonry heaters, or catalytic or pellet stoves, or how labs coax the best numbers from stoves, it is relatively easy to scroll down and see how each person answered the question.  Of the nine interviewees, four are from industry (John Crouch, Bob Ferguson, Dan Henry and Michael Van Buren), two from test labs (Rick Curkeet and Ben Myren), two from academia (Skip Hayden and Dennis Jaasma) and one from EPA (Robert C. McCrillis). Their full titles and affiliations are at the end of this blog along with the full list of questions asked.  The full set of questions and answers are in Appendix B on page 58 and can be downloaded here (pdf).
In general, Bob Ferguson and Dan Henry tended to oppose further regulation, and felt, for example, that pellet stoves and wood-fired central heating appliances did not need to be regulated.  Ben Myren tended to favor a blanket approach of closing loopholes and regulating all appliances.  This difference in views between two industry experts and one test lab expert can be viewed through their respective economic interests and how it would affect their livelihoods.  But these interviews also show deeper philosophical differences and illuminate the reasons for their positions, whether they concern the health impacts of wood smoke, profitability, practicality of test method changes, etc.
We have chosen to reproduce the answers to two questions and invite readers to refer to the full set of interviews to find issues that they may be more interested in, such as the impact of wood species on emissions, stress testing to see how durable stoves are, and options to promote or require education or maintenance of stoves by consumers. 
When the Alliance for Green Heat began ten years after these interviews in 2009, much of the content had already been seemingly lost or obscured.  Very few people, for example, knew of the origin or impact of the 35:1 air-to-fuel ratio loophole that allowed pellet stove manufacturers to make low efficiency stoves in order to avoid regulation.  Right up until 2014, state and federal government agencies, along with top industry outlets, continued to propagate myths about pellet stoves.  Even the EPA never advised consumers that uncertified pellet stoves were likely to have lower efficiencies due to the 35:1 loophole they created.  These interviews provide the best information anywhere on how this came to be and what impact it had on the pellet stove industry and consumers.
We chose the question about whether central heaters should be regulated because this turned into one of the biggest issues in the 2015 regulations.  Only one interviewee – John Crouch – saw a causal relationship between the rise of outdoor wood boilers and the 1988 emissions regulations. 

Question: The 35:1 air-to-fuel ratio cut-off for certification has produced two classes of pellet stoves — those that are certified and those that are not. The latter class may have models that are less efficient and have higher emissions than the former. Should the regulations be amended to close the loop-hole and discourage the practice of intentionally designing models with a higher air-to-fuel ratio to avoid certification?


John Crouch, HPBA’s
foremost wood stove expert.

John Crouch, HPBA: I wouldn’t use the term “close the loop-hole”. I would say, “is the proper place to cut off the definition of a wood heater?” We all know the whole discussion during the Reg-Neg ignored this emerging category of pellet stoves. So this gets back into my other broader comment, which is, instead of going back in and changing the NSPS in a piecemeal fashion, there needs to be a true revision of the whole thing that deals with the category of pellets and masonry heaters and outdoor furnaces.

Rick Curkeet, Intertek: Yes. The way to amend the regulation is to simply remove the 35:1 air/fuel ratio exemption. This has never been required by fireplaces (they meet the 5 kg/hr minimum burn rate exemption criterion anyway). Pellet units are readily able to meet emissions requirements and the exemption only encourages making these units less efficient to avoid the regulation.

Bob Ferguson, Consultant: The 35:1 cutoff was intended for fireplaces. However, pellet stoves are the only product that even take advantage of the air-fuel exemptions. Fireplaces generally use the burn rate exemption. Pellet stoves probably don’t need to be regulated at all. They are all quite clean burning. Let the marketplace decide if exempt stoves are acceptable. If pellet stove users demand products that use fewer pellets (more efficient), the manufacturers will respond. 

Skip Hayden, Researcher: Yes. In Canada, we recommend that people buy only EPA-approved pellet stoves. We have developed a high ash pellet stove that’s operating around 85% and its emissions are about 0.3 g/hr or less. 


Dan Henry, a founder of Quadrafire
stoves is one of industry’s most
articulate spokesmen.

Dan Henry, Aladdin: There is no data that indicates that even a poorly operating stove is a dirty burning appliance. They are inherently clean, becoming more and more reliable, and don’t fix them if they aren’t broken.

Dennis Jaasma, University of VA: Pellet stoves are inherently clean burning unless there is something very bad about their design. I am not concerned about regulating the currently uncertified units unless their field emissions are bad compared to certified stoves.

Robert C. McCrillis, EPA: Yes, all pellet stoves should be affected facilities and not subjected to that 35:1.

Ben Myren one of Amreica’s most
thoughtful and experienced stove tester.


Ben Myren, Myren Labs:  I agree, no more loop-holes. The new technology stoves that are coming on the market are going to be totally new critters. I don’t think that turning down the air- to-fuel ratio, to make it whatever it is, should get you out of the loop. Some of those suckers have got to be just filthy. I mean you look at the flame. I’ve seen them burn at the trade show; you know, the glass is sooting up on the edges. You can just see it.

Michael van Buren was a technical
expert with The Hearth Products
Association, now HPBA

Michael Van Buren, HPBA: I don’t know what that loop-hole does, whether it really affects the operation of the stove and the efficiency of the stove.

Question: According to a Department of Energy survey out of the 20.4 million households that used a wood burning appliance in 1993, less than 0.3 million used a wood burning furnace as their primary source of heat. Are there enough wood-fired central heating furnaces in use to merit their closer evaluation? How many commercially available models are there? Are there emissions data for them? Should they be certified?

John Crouch: The [1988] EPA New Source Performance Standards killed the indoor furnace industry and created this little loop-hole which the outdoor furnace industry is beginning to exploit and kind of underscores the need for a more comprehensive wood burning regulation which sets out over a several year period to codify all forms of wood burning technology.

Rick Curkeet tested stoves for Intertek
labs and is one of industry’s top experts.


Rick Curkeet: I don’t know how many new units are being produced but I’m sure it’s a very small number. Still, one really poor unit can be a significant problem if it’s in your neighborhood. There have never been any standards for testing this type of product for emissions and efficiency. However, we have adapted existing methods and can say that the performance range is very wide. Poor designs may be 30% or less efficient and produce nearly 100 grams/hr emissions rates. Good designs are able to approach certified wood stove performance levels.

Bob Ferguson: I don’t feel there are enough units being sold to merit any activity what-so-ever. There are only a handful of manufacturers. I don’t think there has been anything published–so if testing has been conducted, it is probably a good assumption that the numbers aren’t that good. They shouldn’t be certified, as you would have to develop test methods and standards. The country would be better off using the money to pay manufacturers to phase out of production, sort of like the agricultural method of paying farmers not to grow certain crops.

The late Skip Hayden, one of the main
wood stove authorities during the 1980s
and 1990s.


Skip Hayden: The number of central wood furnaces in Canada, certainly in comparison to the United States, would be higher. In our Eastern provinces, it’s a relatively common add-on to existing oil furnaces. Generally, they are as dirty as can be.

Dan Henry: I think a lot of these are used in rural areas and considering the fuels that are out there, I don’t think they should be regulated. Maybe just a spot check of some sort. I think the only thing that would benefit would be the testing laboratories. If it emits particulate into an air shed where it can have an adverse effect on the industry (my ability to make a living), then yes.

Dennis Jaasma
also ran a research
test lab at the
 University of VA.


Dennis Jaasma: Yes, central heaters merit further evaluation. I don’t know how many models are available. I think EPA has done some work on them, but I do not know any results. Yes, they should be certified. They are in danger of becoming extinct if they don’t wind up with a certification program.

Robert C. McCrillis: In some localities I think these furnaces are a problem; I don’t know how many are commercially available. I think I can name off six or eight companies and each one makes several models, but I don’t know what the total market is, maybe 10,000 – 15,000 a year. The little bit of testing that we did here, says that they are probably on a par with a conventional wood stove. The way those things work, they have a thermostatically operated draft and when the thermostat shuts off the draft closes, so you get this real smoldering burning situation. Secondary combustion technology probably wouldn’t work. Possibly a catalytic technology would, but I just don’t think it stays hot enough in there. I guess that really depends on the impact.

Ben Myren: I don’t think they should be exempt for any reason. As to the rest of it–are there emissions data for them? I suspect there are. Should they be certified? Yes they should be certified. Nobody should be exempt from the process.

Michael van Buren: I think there should be some type of testing on them.


List of Experts Interviewed
Mr. John Crouch, Director of Local Government Relations, Hearth Products Association (CA) [now HPBA]
Mr. Rick Curkeet, P.E., Manager, Intertek Testing Services (IL)
Mr. Bob Ferguson, President, Ferguson, Andors and Company (VT)
Dr. Skip Hayden, Director, Combustion and Carbonization Research Laboratory (Ontario, Canada)
Mr. Daniel Henry, Vice President, Aladdin Steel Products, Inc. (WA) [now Quadrafire]
Dr. Dennis Jaasma, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VA)
Mr. Robert C. McCrillis, P.E., Mechanical Engineer, Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Division, U.S. EPA (VA)
Mr. Ben Myren, President, Myren Consulting (WA)
Mr. Michael Van Buren, Technical Director, Hearth Products Association (VA) [now HPBA]
Interview Questions
RWC Technology Review
Environmental Protection Agency Order no. 7C-R285-NASX
prepared by
OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.
Beaverton Oregon 97005
1. State-of-the-art of wood stove combustion and emission control technologies.
  1. 1.1  Are in-home emission reductions as compared to conventional stoves shown in Table 1 for catalytic and non-catalytic certified stoves reasonable?
  2. 1.2  Are efficiencies shown in Table 2 for catalytic and non-catalytic certified stoves reasonable?
  3. 1.3  Can catalytic technology for use in wood stoves be fundamentally improved?
  4. 1.4  Is the use of manufactured fuel (densified and wax logs) a credible emission
reduction strategy? See Tables 1 & 2 .
  1. 1.5  For non-catalytic stoves the heat retention adjustment with refractory material of various densities can reduce particulate emissions. How big an effect can this have?
  2. 1.6  Approximately one half of the particulate emissions occur during the kindling phase for non-catalytic wood stoves and more than half for catalytic wood stoves. Are there improvements in technology that can mitigate this problem? Can specially designed high BTU wax logs be used to achieve a fast start and reduce kindling phase emissions?
  3. 1.7  Should masonry heaters with tight fitting doors and draft control be classified as a wood stove and be subject to some type of certification even though most weigh more than 800 kg?
  4. 1.8  Are the emissions and efficiencies for masonry heaters, based on in-home tests, shown in Tables 1 and 2 reasonable?
  1. 1.9  The OMNI staff feels the emissions per unit of heat delivered (e.g., lb/MBTU or g/MJ) is a more appropriate way to rank the performance of wood burning appliances than emission factors (lb/ton or g/kg) or emission rates (g/hr). — Comments?
  2. 1.10  Default efficiency values are used for wood stoves. This coupled with the fact that emission factors or rates (not g/MJ) are used to rank wood stoves does not provide an incentive for manufacturers to increase the efficiency of their stoves. — Comments? Should an efficiency test method as described (FR v. 55, n 161, p. 33925, Aug. 20,1990) be required to be used and the results listed?
  3. 1.11  Have certified stove design and performance improved since the first certified stoves? If so, how?
  1. State-of-the-art of fireplace emission control technology.
    1. 2.1  Are the emission factors and efficiencies for the in-home use of fireplaces and inserts shown in Tables 3 and 4 reasonable?
    2. 2.2  There appear to be only a few practical design or technology options for fireplaces that will potentially mitigate particulate emissions. — What designs and technologies are available? What retrofit options are there?
    3. 2.3  The use of wax fire logs reduces emissions over the use of cordwood. Can the formulation of wax logs be changed to produce even less emissions?
    4. 2.4  What are the distinctions between a masonry fireplace and a masonry heater?
    5. 2.5  As with wood stoves, the OMNI staff believe that the mass of emissions per unit of heat delivered is a better way to rank the performance of fireplaces than emission factors or emission rates.
  2. State-of-the-art of wood-fired central heating furnace emission control technology.
3.1 According to a Department of Energy survey out of the 20.4 million households that used a wood burning appliance in 1993, less than 0.3 million used a wood burning furnace as their primary source of heat. Are there enough wood-fired central heating furnaces in use to merit their closer evaluation? How many commercially available models are there? Are there emissions data for them? Should they be certified?

4. State-of-the-art of pellet-fired wood stove technology.
  1. 4.1  Are the emissions and efficiencies for the in-home use of pellet stoves shown in Tables 1 and 2 reasonable?
  2. 4.2  The 35:1 air-to-fuel ratio cut-off for certification has produced two classes of pellet stoves — those that are certified and those that are not. The latter class may have models that are less efficient and have higher emissions than the former. Should the regulations be amended to close the loop-hole and discourage the practice of intentionally designing models with a higher air-to-fuel ratio to avoid certification?
  3. 4.3  Have pellet stove design and performance improved since the first models were introduced? If so, how?
1. Ramifications of ISO.
5.1 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has a technical committee for developing emissions, efficiency and safety test standards for wood-fired residential heaters and fireplaces. (See Table 5 for comparison of the draft ISO method 13336 with EPA methods 28, 5G and 5H.) Do you feel that the EPA methods should be replaced with or be made comparable to an international standard?
  1. Correspondence between in-home and laboratory emission test results.
    1. 6.1  How accurately do certification tests predict in-home performance?
    2. 6.2  How would you design research testing in the laboratory to simulate in-home use?
  2. EPA Method 28 strengths and weaknesses.
    1. 7.1  Method 28 is in part an “art”. Fuel loading density, fuel moisture, fuel characteristics (old vs new growth, grain spacing, wood density) and coal bed conditioning can be adjusted within the specification range of the method to influence results. In your experience what things have the most effect on particulate emissions? How much influence can they have?
    2. 7.2  Burn rate weighting is based on very limited data and the cities from where the data were obtained are not very representative of wood use nationwide (see Table 6). How can the weighting scheme be improved to be more representative of the nation as a whole?
    3. 7.3  The equation for the calculation of the air-to-fuel ratio as in Method 28A is in error. The error produces a small but significant difference in the calculated air-to-fuel ratio. Should the method be corrected or should it be left as a “predictor” of the air-to-fuel ratio?
7.4 The assumed mole fraction of hydrocarbons (YHC) is defined as a constant in the air-to-fuel ratio calculations in Method 28A. The mole fraction of hydrocarbons in the vapor phase will vary significantly with fuel and combustion conditions. Should hydrocarbon vapors (more appropriately, organic compound vapors) be measured as part of the method?
4. EPA Methods 5G and 5H correlations.

8.1 The comparison data to demonstrate the correlation between 5G and 5H are limited. Should the correlation between the two methods be reevaluated?
  1. Performance deterioration of EPA-certified wood stoves in the field.
    1. 9.1  It is the opinion of many in the wood stove industry that catalysts last only five years and that a stove designed for a catalyst operated without a functioning catalyst can produce as much emissions as a conventional stove. — Comments?
    2. 9.2  Field studies in Glens Falls, NY, Medford, OR, Klamath Falls, OR and Crested Butte, CO showed that emissions from some catalytic stoves became appreciably worse even after two to three years of use. Inspection of stoves in Glens Falls showed that catalyst deterioration and leaky bypass systems were responsible. Have improvements been made in the design of catalytic stoves to minimize these problems? Is it reasonable to require homeowner training on the proper use of catalytic stoves and/or to incorporate into their costs an inspection and catalyst replacement program?
  2. Stress test pros and cons.
    1. 10.1  A short-term laboratory woodstove durability testing protocol was developed to predict the long-term durability of stoves under conditions characteristic of in- home use (see EPA-600/R-94-193). It was concluded in that study that damage occurs during those occasional times when a woodstove is operated in the home at exceptionally high temperatures. The laboratory stress test was designed to operate a woodstove at very high temperatures over a one to two week period to predict long-term durability under in-home use. Is this a reasonable approach?
    2. 10.2  Should a stress test be made part of the certification process?
  3. Feasibility of developing separate emission factors for dry and wet wood and for
softwood and hardwood species classes.
  1. 11.1  Optimum wood moisture for low particulate emissions seems to be in the 18% to 20% range. Are you aware of any data that will allow the impact of wood moisture to be isolated from other variables? Could it be different for wood from different tree species?
  2. 11.2  Wood from different tree species clearly burns differently. The chemical make-up and density of wood from different tree species is different. For example wood from coniferous trees has more resin than wood from deciduous trees. It is believed that particulate emission factors will be different for wood from different tree species. If this is true different parts of the country may have different emissions factors for residential wood combustion. Are you aware of any data that document different emission factors for wood from different tree species?
8. Routine maintenance.
12.1 Would routine maintenance of stoves once they were in a home reduce particulate emissions? Would this be more relevant for catalytic stoves than non-catalytic stoves? Would this be relevant for pellet stoves with electronic and moving parts?
  1. 12.2  Should the home owner be provided with a maintenance manual or a training course at the time of purchase? Should a maintenance program be part of the purchase price particularly for catalytic stoves?
  2. 12.3  What would the key elements of routine maintenance be?

– end –

Heated Up!

New Paper Undermines Stove Industry Variability Research

A new paper written by Woodstock Soapstone, a New Hampshire wooden stove maker, phone calls a essential stove business examine misleading and flawed.&nbsp The market research suggests the inherent variability in wood stove testing implies that the EPA cannot reduce emissions requirements under four.5 grams an hour.&nbsp
The EPA posted the 7-web page Woodstock Soapstone paper today as portion of the formal file that the EPA can use to figure out the ultimate rule because of in February 2015.&nbsp It was composed by the company’s CEO, Tom Morrissey, and claims the industry variability review is “based on a info sample that is modest, previous and deeply flawed.”&nbsp
The late Paul Tiegs from OMNI
&nbsptest labs was a &nbspprominent
critic of variability becoming caused
primarily by gas.

Morrissey’s paper argues that variability has considerably more to do with regardless of whether a producer is spending&nbspfor emission certification than inherent variability in the combustion approach. “When a manufacturer pays for certification screening, why are the results so a lot much better than at any other time the same stove is analyzed?” Morrissey asks. &nbspThe Alliance for Eco-friendly Warmth thinks, as the Morrissey paper also suggests, that check labs have a range of running procedures allowed by the EPA that can consequence in variable emission results. &nbspThe late take a look at lab icon Paul Tiegs, a founder of Omni check labs, turned a champion of tightening testing protocols to achieve regularity in tests, and rejected the notion that variability was primarily induced by reliable fuel, as the business review argues.

If the EPA, states, and air companies just take the Woodstock Soapstone paper severely, it could unhinge a major industry lawful method in the combat towards stricter air pollution boundaries.&nbsp Several officials in the EPA and point out air agencies ended up presently essential or at the very least skeptical of the sector variability research.&nbsp However, there has not been this kind of a in depth critique from inside (or outside) the stove industry prior to this.

The variability review was developed and composed by Rick Curkeet, a fireplace merchandise engineer at the Intertek testing lab and Robert Ferguson, a specialist who is now functioning for HPBA on the proposed EPA rules.&nbsp It was launched in October 2010 in anticipation of the proposed EPA regulations and is known as the “EPA Wooden Heater Test Technique Variability Research: Analysis of Uncertainty, Repeatability and Reproducibility.”&nbsp

The examine showed that there is a really broad range of variability among proficiency screening and certification screening of wood stoves.&nbsp HPBA contends that “it is arbitrary for EPA to determine … a worth that is decrease than the precision range” of the check technique. &nbspHPBA says the minimum justifiable emission restrict is 4.five grams an hour, which Washington Condition adopted in 1995 and has because become a de facto nationwide standard.&nbsp The variability review does not say who paid for it but HPBA confirmed that they provided partial funding and thoroughly vetted early drafts in late summer and early fall of 2010.

Even though Morrissey’s paper is by much the most direct critique of the variability examine, most specialists concur that the understanding of variability in wood stove screening can be assessed in numerous much more approaches than the info established used by this business review.&nbsp For illustration, compliance test knowledge could be utilised.&nbsp The EPA demands that all stoves be retested soon after they make in between two,five hundred and ten,000 units.&nbsp This data, if it could be attained from the EPA, would provide possibly a far more crucial info established than the a single the sector examine chose to use.&nbsp An additional info set will be from the “K list” changes.&nbsp Most stove producers are re-certifying their stoves in progress of the new EPA principles so they will have five a long time before they have to take a look at again.&nbsp HPBA has been encouraging its users to recertify stoves with “K list” changes as they are allowed to do by the EPA so that they will not have to encounter higher tests expenses that consist of twine wooden screening and the uncertainty of a new check strategy that may be tougher to go.&nbsp HPBA had urged the EPA to grandfather all stoves below four.five grams an hour until finally 2020.&nbsp In any scenario, these retests will give a new and far better info established to evaluate variability.
Even if substantial variability could be proven and verified making use of different methods and info sets by unbiased professionals, the poor relations in between market and point out air agencies and other essential gamers has undermined the ability of the two sides to concur on much.&nbsp At a November 2012 assembly in Minneapolis convened by NESCAUM, Greg Eco-friendly of the EPA remaining the place and urged the two sides to chat much more among on their own.&nbsp That technique did not operate and quite little effective interaction occurred for more than a yr, a consequence that is most likely not helpful to the passions of HPBA sector members.&nbsp
Greg Environmentally friendly, Alison Simcox and Gil&nbsp
Wood&nbspof the EPA listening to testimony&nbsp
at&nbspthe Boston listening to on the NSPS.
The tough line technique to critics is what prompted Morrissey to create his rebuttal of the variability review which begins as a defense of test reports of his personal stoves that experienced been named into serious issue by HPBA, Rick Curkeet and Roger Purinton at Jotul stoves in official responses to the EPA.&nbsp Ironically, proof that catalytic or non-catallytic wooden stoves can be regularly clear has grow to be the largest danger to the mainstream stove market that HPBA represents.&nbsp This conflict between cleaner catalytic stoves and not-as-thoroughly clean non-catalytic stoves turned very heated and community in an EPA listening to in Boston on February 26, 2014.&nbsp But it was preceded by the release of research in 2013 by non-catalytic makers that dismissed the performance of catalytic stoves to reduce wood smoke in real entire world settings.&nbsp If this community rift inside of HPBA had not occurred, the stove sector would most likely have manufactured it via the EPA rule producing with a a lot far more unified voice.&nbsp
According to interviews with non-catalytic stove companies, they felt it was important for the EPA to realize that quite low emission figures from catalytic stoves in screening labs did not accurately replicate emissions in peoples’ houses as catalysts often clog, are not replaced, and are not correctly engaged and used by buyers.&nbsp This problem has proved to be essential because the EPA proposed emission restrictions of one.3 grams an hour in 2020, a amount that only a few catalytic stoves can seem to meet.&nbsp The firm that has made checks displaying it can fulfill it is Woodstock Soapstone.
The Woodstock Soapstone defense of its take a look at results and critique of the variability research will come at an essential time when the EPA is finalizing its new wood heater requirements, recognized as the New Supply Overall performance Expectations (NSPS).&nbsp It is considered that as of September or October, the EPA personnel will have produced most of their important selections to ship to Washington for overview and acceptance by senior EPA officials and EPA legal professionals.&nbsp Makes an attempt among HPBA and air agencies to attain any agreements driving the scenes could even now be fruitful, but time is running out.&nbsp And even if any agreements could be attained, the EPA might not undertake them.
The regulation and emission restrictions for out of doors wooden boilers are also hotly contested but the testing variability for boilers is not a massive problem, nor is it an concern with pellet stoves.&nbsp A single remedy, supported in portion by the Alliance for Green Warmth, would be to set independent emissions specifications for pellet stoves, catalytic stoves and non-catalytic stoves, based mostly on how thoroughly clean each technologies has become.&nbsp The argument for separating pellet stoves from cat and non-cat wood stoves could be even stronger since they use a various and very uniform gasoline and are burned in a much far more managed combustion location.&nbsp The Catalytic Fireplace Caucus, of which Woodstock Soapstone is a member, strongly opposed separate emission limits for cat and non-cat stoves as effectively.&nbsp&nbspUltimately, HPBA did not recommend setting separate emission restrictions that Jotul and other non-catalytic producers initially appeared to help.&nbsp At this position in the procedure, the EPA may possibly have presently decided to established a one emission normal for these very various technologies, as they had proposed.
If senior management at EPA sees reputable data that at minimum a single stove can constantly be tested under one.3 grams an hour, they now have a greater authorized foundation to adhere to their proposed one.three gram an hour normal.&nbsp And this is the nightmare state of affairs that HPBA and non-catalytic stove makers worry.
Stove authorities like Tom Morrissey, Robert Ferguson and Rick Curkeet are not only savvy about how stoves are tested, they are also competent amount crunchers.&nbsp Decoding stove examination info is like any other knowledge established: it can generate extremely diverse conclusions dependent on what information is employed, how it is interpreted and what statistical approaches are used.&nbsp The EPA in turn has to evaluate the trustworthiness of each research and they can fairly assume that their assessments will be challenged in courtroom.
Tom Morrissey, leading, 2nd from correct and
the staff that developed and built the
Perfect Metal for a 2013 competitiveness

The stove that Tom Morrissey says is reliably and constantly much less than one.3 grams an hour was exclusively constructed to acquire the 2013 Wood Stove Style Obstacle, and it did. The Wooden Stove Decathlon judged stove on five classes: emissions, effectiveness, affordability, customer attractiveness and innovation.&nbsp The Excellent Metal Hybrid is licensed by the EPA at 1. grams an hour and receives 82% efficiency.&nbsp A 2nd location winner, the Cape Cod, was a equivalent hybrid stove by Travis Industries that is qualified at even reduce&nbsp .05 grams an hour.&nbsp Travis however does not say that they can reliably or constantly take a look at at this kind of lower emission quantities, specifically with wire wooden.&nbsp Woodstock Soapstone says tests shows that their Excellent Metal Hybrid is as clean with twine wooden as it is with crib wooden.

The Alliance for Environmentally friendly Warmth encourages cleaner and a lot more productive residential wooden heating to minimize our reliance on fossil fuels and assist people affordably warmth their houses.&nbsp Started in 2009, the Alliance is based in Takoma Park, Maryland and is registered as a non-revenue, 501c3 instructional firm.

Heated Up!

Pro-wood heating group suggests EPA rules sensible and will help industry increase

The Alliance for Green Heat welcomed the release of proposed EPA laws on residential wooden and pellet heating products, expressing that new, stricter emission requirements “will support The us embrace wood and pellet heating as a crucial renewable power that can help significantly lessen fossil gasoline usage.”

More than ten million American homes heat with wood and pellets, ten occasions far more than photo voltaic and geothermal mixed, in accordance to information from EIA and the US census. “We can harness the massive demand for this variety of renewable power if the stoves and boilers are thoroughly clean ample,” mentioned John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Inexperienced Heat. “We imagine the emissions quantities unveiled by the EPA these days are affordable and achievable and will support the wood stove market increase and thrive in coming decades,” Ackerly continued.

The proposed rule has number of surprises in phrases of emission figures. Almost all the key quantities have been integrated in draft proposed policies shared with market, states and non-profits during 2013. But the proposed rule does replicate the considerably stricter numbers the EPA developed soon after states and air quality agencies intervened in 2012. Previously, the EPA was contemplating 2.five grams&nbspper hour to be the strictest level for wood and pellet stoves. But final calendar year, the EPA floated a one.3 grams&nbspper hour for all pellet and wood stoves and that is the amount that was unveiled right now.

The EPA is proposing that wooden and pellet stoves at first satisfy a 4.5 grams&nbspper hour standard, and then fulfill a considerably stricter regular of one.3 grams&nbspper hour 5 several years soon after promulgation. Alternatively, the EPA proposes a three-phase procedure of heading to 2.5 grams&nbspper hour soon after 3 a long time and then one.three grams an hour soon after 8 a long time.

Likewise, the EPA is proposing two alternatives for furnaces and boilers. The first would set up rigorous emission boundaries soon after 5 several years, and the next would have an intermediate phase after 3 years, and then the stricter standard right after 8 several years. Initially, heat air furnaces would only be held to .93 lb/MMBTU, while hydronic heaters would be held to .32. Ultimately, the two would need to have to get to .06 lb/MMBTU both five or 8 years right after promulgation. It is commonly expected that industry will advocate for the 3-stage approach and that EPA would be open up to this as effectively.

The EPA’s press launch stated that “when these expectations are totally carried out … [c]onsumers will also see a monetary benefit from performance advancements in the new woodstoves, which use much less wooden to warmth houses.” However, the EPA decided not to contain any effectiveness common, leaving open up the chance that some extremely inefficient units may continue to be on the market place. Wooden and pellet heating appliances are the only HVAC tools with no bare minimum efficiency standards.

Each performance and CO would have to be recorded and noted underneath the new proposed rules. To stay away from logjams in screening to the new requirements, the EPA is proposing “to allow ISO-accredited laboratories and ISO-accredited certifying bodies to boost the availability of laboratories and certifiers.”&nbsp

The EPA is scheduling a public hearing on these laws in Boston on February 26. Interested get-togethers need to register by February 19 at http://www2.epa.gov/household-wood-heaters if they want to make community responses. Every person will be constrained to 5 minutes. The community has 90 days to comment on the laws following they are posted in the Federal Sign up, which is anticipated to come about in the up coming week or two.&nbsp

The proposed rule does offer you an abnormal glimpse into disagreements in between the EPA, the Little Business Company (SBA) and the Office of Price range and Management (OMB).&nbsp&nbspIn the Panel Report, the “SBA and OMB advisable that the EPA not go ahead with proposed emission boundaries for pellet stoves, indoor hydronic heaters, biomass pellet stoves, masonry heaters.”&nbspThe EPA even so rejected this suggestion and provided a sound foundation for their proposal to incorporate pellet stoves, all hydronic heaters and masonry heaters.

The SBA and OMB also advised that the NSPS only protect parts of the country exactly where wooden smoke air pollution was substantial. They advised that states and areas where wooden smoke is not high be authorized to issue their own restrictions and consider voluntary expectations. The EPA selected to emphasize and counter these recommendations in its proposed rule, demonstrating that they have regarded these choices but discovered they ended up not justified.

The Alliance for Inexperienced Warmth is a non-earnings client advocacy group that fights for cleaner and much more efficient wood and pellet heating to help households affordably switch to a renewable heating fuel.

For the full rules see: http://www2.epa.gov/household-wooden-heaters

A summary of the restrictions well prepared by EPA, without emission figures, can be found listed here:
www2.epa.gov/internet sites/manufacturing/data files/2013-twelve/paperwork/proposed_wood_heater_nsps_overview_simple fact_sheet_1.pdf
Heated Up!

EPA Inaction and an Industry Faction Are Holding us Back

On Oct 9, seven states and five environmental teams sued the EPA for failure to promulgate new emission specifications for household wood heaters.&nbsp If EPA had carried out its occupation many years ago, as it was obligated to do below the Cleanse Air Act, the stove sector and customers would be much far better off nowadays.

Rather, we have all been dragged down by an agency that has not taken residential wooden heating seriously ample.&nbsp And some the outdoor wood boiler producers have opposed realistic condition and local regulations on their items, top to controversies with condition air organizations and environmental groups that could be averted.
Privately, most people in the wooden heating industry concur that outside wooden boilers have presented us all a black eye.&nbsp These gadgets, notably concentrated in the Excellent Lakes location, are contributing in direction of a damaging view of wooden heating at a time when the public and policymakers could have been building a a lot more optimistic check out, as they have in Europe.&nbsp
But some outside boiler manufacturers, even though officially declaring that they want to be regulated, have fought in condition after point out to keep promoting old-fashioned polluting boilers.&nbsp And now they are fighting the EPA above what they feel are considerably also burdensome rules.
In the meantime, in Europe, exactly where such technologies really don’t exist, governments are vigorously supporting wood heat systems through rebates and incentives.&nbsp
A single purpose Europe has been in a position to incentivize wood heating is that virtually each place has a inexperienced label to identify the cleanest and most successful stoves and boilers, which presents lawmakers the potential to give rebates and incentives to the very best merchandise.&nbsp In the US, there is no Vitality Star system for wooden heaters and market has place the brakes on a state initiative to develop a environmentally friendly label program.&nbsp When we have a eco-friendly label program, I believe we will start to see the tide flip, with states starting to shift consumer buys in direction of the cleanest and most productive wood and pellet stoves and pellet boilers.
In polluted city locations, like Denver and Montreal and areas of the Pacific Northwest, we are likely to see much more bans on the new set up of wood stoves and a shift toward pellet stoves.&nbsp This may possibly not be ideal, but it is also a sensible response.&nbsp Cordwood is not an proper energy answer for lots of people in densely inhabited city locations, especially these that knowledge temperature inversions, when the technology is so dependent on operators utilizing seasoned wood and giving the equipment adequate air.&nbsp
In coming months, our neighborhood will be increasingly in the community spotlight as these lawsuits from the EPA get underway and we have a ninety-working day community comment period of time over the EPA’s extended awaited regulations.&nbsp We are in an period exactly where engineering can make wood and pellet stoves considerably cleaner, even though nevertheless becoming cost-effective. &nbspNumerous of these stoves had been on show the National Shopping mall at the Wooden Stove Decathlon in mid-November.&nbsp There, plan makers noticed what stove engineers are functioning on and are capable of generating.&nbsp They saw very first hand that wood warmth technological innovation is developing quick and can be a vital part of our renewable strength future, not just a relic of the earlier.
Outside wooden boilers are the most polluting class of residential wood heaters on the market these days, and as this sort of they will be the most in the information. &nbspBut the EPA restrictions are still essential in demanding equally wooden and pellet stoves to turn out to be cleaner and a lot more effective.&nbsp As soon as that takes place, public opinion can get started to change in a more favorable way toward deploying present day wooden and pellet engineering to reduce our reliance on fossil gas, and shrinking the divide between US and European coverage.

Heated Up!

Confirmed Pellet Stove Efficiency Essential to Industry Success

The pellet sector has been developing certification standards to make certain that consumers know the top quality of the pellets they are getting, but a comparable problem is currently being ignored when it comes to the products that makes use of the pellets—the performance of the stoves.

There is virtually no credible info offered to consumers that signifies which stoves are really successful, and which are pellet guzzlers. The federal and point out governments must be clamoring for this data, because pellet stoves and boilers are the biomass heating appliance that most justifies incentives, and incentives are virtually always tied to effectiveness.

For full tale, click right here.
Heated Up!