tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post5316821481889295790..comments2024-03-28T06:18:02.329-07:00Comments on Heated Up!: The EPA Publishes Trove of Documents that Influenced the NSPSJohn Ackerlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07548459677032843743noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-26556381382355704332014-03-05T13:53:57.970-08:002014-03-05T13:53:57.970-08:00A treasure to read through for those who have time...A treasure to read through for those who have time. Thanks John for pointing this out. To me it shows so many details of a past technology that should be long gone for any crowded place. Only in the rural places would steam locomotives, outhouses, iceboxes, horses and wood stoves still be acceptable, unless the new EPA regulations are followed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12158622545885389489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-67057624341270742642014-02-28T16:38:26.059-08:002014-02-28T16:38:26.059-08:00In the blog above, we had said that the HPBA who h...In the blog above, we had said that the HPBA who had paid for the study showing cat stoves performed poorly. We were wrong and edited the article to say that a group of manufacturers paid for that study. <br />John Ackerlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548459677032843743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-10316859306280311692014-02-28T14:56:29.569-08:002014-02-28T14:56:29.569-08:00John, you are wrong.
There are many things in t...John, you are wrong. <br /><br />There are many things in this blog that are modestly inaccurate, but this is just plain wrong and needs to be retracted. <br /><br />HPBA DID NOT provide any funds to either side in the catalytic vs. non-catalytic discussion. Both groups have organized on their own and raised their own funds. This is, in some respects, a side issue in the NSPS. Though important, it is not the main event. The key is that EPA can’t have it both ways on Step two for woodstoves; i.e. they can’t use a database compiled with an artificial fuel load, to derive a passing grade, and then alter, 1) the fuel, 2) the test method, 3) and the method of calculating the results!<br /><br />Even if they didn’t propose to change the fuel, the change in the calculation method alone invalidates all but five of the existing woodstoves currently certified on the artificial crib - both catalytic, and non-catalytic. And none of this is demonstrated to improve how EPA certified stoves operate in the field, in people’s homes, which is what the focus should be. Unfortunately, EPA has no data to support any of these proposed changes. <br /><br />But make no mistake, HPBA did NOT provide funds to either the catalytic or non-catalytic coalition. If, in the future you are unclear about any of this, you know how to get in touch with me. I hope you will print a retraction of this erroneous statement.<br />Sincerely, <br />John Crouch, HPBA <br />crouch@hpba.org<br />John Crouchhttp://www.hpba.orgnoreply@blogger.com