Got a feeling we'll be seeing more of this

[heaterman]

Draw your own conclusions but it is going to be really tough for small to midsize manufacturers to come up with the scratch for on going testing and R&D. I also have a feeling that more than a few will not be able to hit the emission level requirements and be forced to close up shop.
My brothers in the family hardware store used to sell these and dropped them because the company rejected nearly every warranty claim they submitted. .....draw your own conclusions.



EPA restrictions force end of wood furnace line
Setzer’s discontinues HeatSource 1

Story
Discussion

By Patrick Ethridge/Daily Sun editor | Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:00 am | (28) Comments


Since 1997, Setzer’s Manufacturing and HeatSource 1 have operated jointly in Beatrice under the ownership of Mark and Kathy Setzer.

On Wednesday, the Setzers announced that HeatSource 1, a manufacturer of outdoor wood furnaces, will be discontinued effectively immediately.

According to a press release issued by the Setzers, the closure of HeatSource 1 comes after a recent ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency which deemed the testing method of outdoor wood furnaces flawed.

As a result, manufacturers of wood furnaces are now required to redesign and retest any wood furnace which they manufacture, at their own expense.

“With this, and a very bad economy, HeatSource 1 will discontinue its manufacturing activities,†the press release stated.

In 2007, the EPA originally began regulating omissions from outdoor wood furnaces. At the time, Kathy Setzer said HeatSource 1 had its furnaces tested by an accredited lab, at a cost of more than $150,000, and received some of the best readings of any furnace ever built. She noted the cost of redesigning and retesting furnaces to meet the EPA’s new requirements would be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“We’ve known it for a long time that the EPA is really destroying the country,†Mark Setzer said. â€Any manufacturer that you talk to that is moving overseas or shutting down their business, it’s because of EPA and government requirements.

“This is something I started in a small shop, designed it, manufactured it. We had hundreds of dealers around the United States,†Mark Setzer said. “A lot of families sold this, that was their income. As of today, that’s all done. There’s about 22 manufacturers of this type of product across the United States. A lot of them are going out of it like we are.â€

Kathy Setzer reiterated that Setzer’s Manufacturing, in business since 1973, will continue its metal fabrication, powder coating and abrasive/soda blasting.

The company currently has 12 employees and Setzer said that number will not decrease.

In fact, she anticipates that the company will be hiring additional help in the near future as it expands its manufacturing and fabrication lines. Setzer said a new product line will also be introduced in approximately two weeks.

“No one is losing their job,†Kathy Setzer said. “We are extremely busy.â€

For customers who have recently purchased an outdoor wood furnace, the closure of HeatSource 1 means those furnaces will no longer be covered by a warranty.

“They still have a very quality product,†Kathy Setzer said. “They do not have a warranty as Heatsource 1 is no longer in operation.â€

“We have no other recourse,†Mark Setzer added. “We spent between $150,000 to $200,000 on the test a year and a half ago and now they’re saying we have to run the test again. You can’t fight the EPA, they go by their own guidelines. It’s take it or leave it, in our case we’re leaving it.â€

Read more: http://www.beatricedailysun.com/new...3c2-11e0-8c23-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1WSjCbQNg

 

[711mhw]

I gotta agree, more of this back door regs. are coming. RIP American economy, manufacturing, business, firearms, cars and trucks (that people actualy want), common sense, and the constitution. This radical left wing agency has got to go!

 

[brad068]

I get a different feeling of this article. My feeling is that they want to sell a new line of boilers? Aren't they going to have to be tested too? Looks like a good way to void all warranties of old boilers and focus all monies and resources on the new line.

Think this is a company that hates change. And this is an excuse to give them an "excusable jump" into the gasification line which is the Earth Energy Series 190. And if this is the line they are discontinuing then that is too bad. I don't think it is cause there website says they are phase 2 qualified.

 

[BrotherBart]

Why does it cost $20,000 to get testing for a wood stove and a hundred and fifty grand for a boiler? Something ain't washing here.

 

[heaterman]

The issue is, from what I understand, that the EPA has developed a new test protocol because their first attempt was such a dismal failure. They are requiring all the manufacturers to certify using the new method even though said manufacturers have already invested tens if not hundreds of thousands in testing to and meeting the first criteria.

So. To sum things up.
We have manufacturers, who through greed and short sightedness, brought the EPA down on their own heads.
We have the EPA, which seemingly cannot find it's collective a** with both hands at the same time, making rules up as they go along.
We have states and local units of government making up and adopting rules that are outright dangerous in some cases, ludicrous in others.
And finally,
We have the consumer that just wants a product that runs well, burns clean and heats his house for 25% of the cost of fossil fuel.

Guess who is going to lose.......

 

[heaterman]

Why does it cost $20,000 to get testing for a wood stove and a hundred and fifty grand for a boiler? Something ain't washing here.

Inflation you know.......?
The wood stove standards were developed in the 1980's and the boiler standards are 2008 vintage. The EPA has to pay for that marble palace in North Carolina some how.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Have to agree on the cost issue, sounds very steep though I have to admit I have not read the new testing protocol(s). Gonna be very tough for many in this business as it just doesn't have the market share that the fossil industry has & that tends to make for smaller co's. Hope we don't see some very good ideas go the way of the dino because start up costs are too high.

I assume also that the insurance industry will follow suit by refusing to issue/honor policies written for non approved appliances. As always the future will be interesting.

 

[woodsmaster]

Sounds like the epa and osha are working together to ruin the economy. With all of epa and osha's rules its Know wonder all the industries are moving over seas.

 

[steam man]

It sounds like the $150,000 figure is grossly inflated though I could be wrong. Possibly a lot of other costs were included that was not directly related to the testing. Anyone know what the typical cost of testing the emission levels is for a wood boiler is? I know the cost of testing a previous gassifier some time ago and it was more inline with the wood stove figure cited above of $20,000 and I don't see any difference testing the emissions of one over the other that would make that much difference.

 

[tom in maine]

Omni Labs quotes about $30-40,000 for safety and air testing.

 

[Duetech]

Another thought along this line is the K's & M's fossilizers are missing out on because diyers have proven themselves to be diyers with the intent that they think they can spend their money to thier own best interest better than those who spend diyers monies on their own interests. Margaret Thatcher said it well when she said "the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money". I have to question if the EPA is being directed to a particular path since there is ample scientific evidence that wood burning is generally a green approach to energy needs. Sort of who's in your pocket or who's pocket are you in? type of thing. Setting up policy or making sure that policy is being followed, which is their actual purpose? Big energy producers tie things up with legislation while EPA dictates policy as if it were already legislated. Is that how it really works? United we stand and divided we only talk about it. Who polices the EPA when by appearence they benefit big business to the demise of small business? While there is ample political clamor for the separation of fossil fuels and our way of life why isn't there ample political clout to separate our way of life from fossil fuels rather than prevent our separation from it? Just another thought...

 

[lampmfg]

We have been through the wood furnace testing with Intertek and it is definitely around a $20,000 investment, but the results were great. Hopefully the new regulations will benefit the environment and increase safety.

 

[FyreBug]

When you are in business there are two ways to look at changes:

1) It's a pain. Why not leave it the old way? We were doing fine just the way we were.
The problem with this thinking is we would still be using buck saws instead of chain saws. Catalytic converters, emission & safety controls gave us much better automobiles since the 70's. BTW were not doing fine. Many counties across the US have either banned or planning to ban outdoor boilers because of the smoke problem. Either way that business was under stress because of a lack of regulation.

2) It's an opportunity. For those who love their business and industry they embrace any kind of positive changes since they are those who will be first implementers and will have a leg up on their competition. They are in the business to stay and will not wither at the first sign of changes. They are the new pioneer of business.

Looking carefully at this article it is instantly obvious this boiler business was not their primary source of business. They will actually be following the money and build and hire for their 'real' business. Lamentably, while they are still an active concern they chose to shed all their warranty obligations. Sounds to me this is less of a story about EPA but about business management. EPA was just another tipping point.

What we are seeing here is capitalism at work and at its best! It gives a choice to everyone involved. To participate or not...

 

[bpirger]

Regulations forcing jobs overseas? More likely $1/day workers....dumping all the crud in the river is just a little bonus!

So we've seen emissions testing for $20K, unlike what the writer of the article indicates. Perhaps it is just a little desire to blame the whole thing on the big bad horrible government and move on? Who knows. As the last poster said, if they are dropping any jobs but dropping the boiler business, must not be their primary product.

Personally, I value my clean air and clean water. Ever spend time in smog ridden L.A.? Ever spend time driving through a city? I'm sitting about 1 mile from Onondaga Lake, one of the most polluted lacks in the USA. Once a thriving resort-ish community with many lakeside communities...and now I'm quite certain they strongly recommend not to touch the water. But your right, if the EPA and the big bad government had prevented industry from dumping directly into the lake, it would have no doubt cost more for production. The fact that we'd have a clean lake today be damned. It isn't worth it...not if it increases cost of production.

Just like gas drilling in the Marcellus shale. Who cares that water tables may be destroyed, or drinking water supplies are now failing those pesky EPA tests....just keep dumping the fracking water into the rivers and drill baby drill! Geezus people.....do you really think that industry is going to clean up after themselves? Or do you just not care?!


Spoke with a research chemist from Slumberger last week about hydrofracking in shale. He said, without a doubt, the industry knows how to do it without failure, nearly guaranteed. But they don't want to spend the money to do so. They intentionally prefer to pay the $50K fine here, $100K there, as it is WAY cheaper. See, that doesn't make sense. The fine should be at a level that prevents them from taking the dangerous route....not encourages them to do so. Get the gas, but do it safely.

To say that the EPA and OSHA is pushing jobs overseas, I really think such things need to be rethought. How long would you have your job if you could be replaced for 1/20th the cost? If I could buy my lumber down the road for 1/10th the price..... Now that is why the jobs go overseas....

 

[heaterman]

Like I said.....draw your own conclusions.... but I think this was not about testing costs.
Add up what you don't see written in the article with what my brother's experienced with near total lack of warranty coverage and you get the picture of a company that either doesn't give a hoot about their customers or else does not have the financial backing to take care of problems. Having had experience with them personally, I think that they see large warranty costs on the horizon and decided to get out of Dodge. period.

It's pretty much the same thing Greenwood did when they stuck one of their largest dealers for a six figure sum. Got too expensive to honor commitments so it's "Hasta La Vista baby".

Go with someone who has been at it for a couple decades people. There are very good reasons companies last that long.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Like I said.....draw your own conclusions.... but I think this was not about testing costs.
Add up what you don't see written in the article with what my brother's experienced with near total lack of warranty coverage and you get the picture of a company that either doesn't give a hoot about their customers or else does not have the financial backing to take care of problems. Having had experience with them personally, I think that they see large warranty costs on the horizon and decided to get out of Dodge. period.

It's pretty much the same thing Greenwood did when they stuck one of their largest dealers for a six figure sum. Got too expensive to honor commitments so it's "Hasta La Vista baby".

Go with someone who has been at it for a couple decades people. There are very good reasons companies last that long.

So this new requirement should pretty much take care of the current crop of OWB's. Or am I not seeing the whole picture?

 

[heaterman]

I doubt it. The only thing that would do that would be to ban the actual manufacture of such units. AFAIK, the current regs are written in such a way that only the installation and operation of smokers is prohibited. The manufacturers can still make them from what I am told.
On top of that there is virtually no enforcement of the mandate at the local level unless someone (a neighbor) brings suit in court to cease and desist. What local entity is going to hire a "boiler inspector" to go around with combustion? testing equipment and an opacity meter to check things out?

typical government can of worms.

 

[FyreBug]

The issue is, from what I understand, that the EPA has developed a new test protocol because their first attempt was such a dismal failure. They are requiring all the manufacturers to certify using the new method even though said manufacturers have already invested tens if not hundreds of thousands in testing to and meeting the first criteria.

So. To sum things up.
We have manufacturers, who through greed and short sightedness, brought the EPA down on their own heads.
We have the EPA, which seemingly cannot find it's collective a** with both hands at the same time, making rules up as they go along.
We have states and local units of government making up and adopting rules that are outright dangerous in some cases, ludicrous in others.
And finally,
We have the consumer that just wants a product that runs well, burns clean and heats his house for 25% of the cost of fossil fuel.

Guess who is going to lose.......

Will have to disagree with you on that one. EPA and other govt agencies do not always do the right thing. However, no one can argue the 1988 EPA implementation was a bad thing. It was good for those MFG's who decided to stick it out, it was good for the consumers who got clean burning appliances and reduced wood consumptions and it was good for the environment.

While I might disagree with the protocols and new emission rates etc... overall the mission of EPA is to close the loopholes. Why should there be EPA exempt stoves? Why should OWB, Pellet, coal etc... be exempted? Isnt clean air and more efficient appliances a good thing? If EPA will not regulate this then who will?

If MFG brought this on their own heads as you say then they are very stupid. Most MFG's being all about profit are all about 'leave things as they are' since there is more money in the status quo. It's very expensive to keep up to new regulations and re-design product lines.

 

[heaterman]

The issue is, from what I understand, that the EPA has developed a new test protocol because their first attempt was such a dismal failure. They are requiring all the manufacturers to certify using the new method even though said manufacturers have already invested tens if not hundreds of thousands in testing to and meeting the first criteria.

So. To sum things up.
We have manufacturers, who through greed and short sightedness, brought the EPA down on their own heads.
We have the EPA, which seemingly cannot find it's collective a** with both hands at the same time, making rules up as they go along.
We have states and local units of government making up and adopting rules that are outright dangerous in some cases, ludicrous in others.
And finally,
We have the consumer that just wants a product that runs well, burns clean and heats his house for 25% of the cost of fossil fuel.

Guess who is going to lose.......

Will have to disagree with you on that one. EPA and other govt agencies do not always do the right thing. However, no one can argue the 1988 EPA implementation was a bad thing. It was good for those MFG's who decided to stick it out, it was good for the consumers who got clean burning appliances and reduced wood consumptions and it was good for the environment.

While I might disagree with the protocols and new emission rates etc... overall the mission of EPA is to close the loopholes. Why should there be EPA exempt stoves? Why should OWB, Pellet, coal etc... be exempted? Isnt clean air and more efficient appliances a good thing? If EPA will not regulate this then who will?

If MFG brought this on their own heads as you say then they are very stupid. Most MFG's being all about profit are all about 'leave things as they are' since there is more money in the status quo. It's very expensive to keep up to new regulations and re-design product lines.

?????
I'm not arguing for zero regulation in any way here. My ranting is based on the fact that the regulating agency (EPA) came out with specifications, after spending a few million in taxpayer $$ on "research", with a test protocol that was meaningless at best . Then after discovering (or rather, being told) that their million dollar standard was sheer lunacy, they come up with a new standard and expect the manufacturers to pony up for that. The goofy test protocol was their fault not the manufacturer's. The EPA should be footing the bill for their own mistake and paying for the retest.
As to standards, emissions and efficiency, I am 100% in favor of a protocol that is rigorous and accurately portrays normal use of the product IN THE FIELD. Practically anyone can make a wood burner run good under controlled lab conditions. Getting emissions and efficiency where they should be out where John Q. Public is actually doing the operation is another feat entirely. Not sure that the new standard accomplishes that either.......
The ASTM protocol is probably the best and is closest to real world operating conditions.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for the manufacturers who now have to deal with the 900 pound gorilla in the room (EPA). The technology to produce clean burning solid fuel stoves and boilers is not rocket science and they could have easily made the transition years ago. They chose however to take the easy way in the market and sell devices that were super easy to operate but performed terribly. They have made their own bed, now they have to lie in it.

 

[EricV]

The issue is, from what I understand, that the EPA has developed a new test protocol because their first attempt was such a dismal failure. They are requiring all the manufacturers to certify using the new method even though said manufacturers have already invested tens if not hundreds of thousands in testing to and meeting the first criteria.

So. To sum things up.
We have manufacturers, who through greed and short sightedness, brought the EPA down on their own heads.
We have the EPA, which seemingly cannot find it's collective a** with both hands at the same time, making rules up as they go along.
We have states and local units of government making up and adopting rules that are outright dangerous in some cases, ludicrous in others.
And finally,
We have the consumer that just wants a product that runs well, burns clean and heats his house for 25% of the cost of fossil fuel.

Guess who is going to lose.......

Will have to disagree with you on that one. EPA and other govt agencies do not always do the right thing. However, no one can argue the 1988 EPA implementation was a bad thing. It was good for those MFG's who decided to stick it out, it was good for the consumers who got clean burning appliances and reduced wood consumptions and it was good for the environment.

While I might disagree with the protocols and new emission rates etc... overall the mission of EPA is to close the loopholes. Why should there be EPA exempt stoves? Why should OWB, Pellet, coal etc... be exempted? Isnt clean air and more efficient appliances a good thing? If EPA will not regulate this then who will?

If MFG brought this on their own heads as you say then they are very stupid. Most MFG's being all about profit are all about 'leave things as they are' since there is more money in the status quo. It's very expensive to keep up to new regulations and re-design product lines.

Well said, let the better forward looking companies thrive and the lesser drop away.

 

[FyreBug]

The issue is, from what I understand, that the EPA has developed a new test protocol because their first attempt was such a dismal failure. They are requiring all the manufacturers to certify using the new method even though said manufacturers have already invested tens if not hundreds of thousands in testing to and meeting the first criteria.

So. To sum things up.
We have manufacturers, who through greed and short sightedness, brought the EPA down on their own heads.
We have the EPA, which seemingly cannot find it's collective a** with both hands at the same time, making rules up as they go along.
We have states and local units of government making up and adopting rules that are outright dangerous in some cases, ludicrous in others.
And finally,
We have the consumer that just wants a product that runs well, burns clean and heats his house for 25% of the cost of fossil fuel.

Guess who is going to lose.......

Will have to disagree with you on that one. EPA and other govt agencies do not always do the right thing. However, no one can argue the 1988 EPA implementation was a bad thing. It was good for those MFG's who decided to stick it out, it was good for the consumers who got clean burning appliances and reduced wood consumptions and it was good for the environment.

While I might disagree with the protocols and new emission rates etc... overall the mission of EPA is to close the loopholes. Why should there be EPA exempt stoves? Why should OWB, Pellet, coal etc... be exempted? Isnt clean air and more efficient appliances a good thing? If EPA will not regulate this then who will?

If MFG brought this on their own heads as you say then they are very stupid. Most MFG's being all about profit are all about 'leave things as they are' since there is more money in the status quo. It's very expensive to keep up to new regulations and re-design product lines.

?????
I'm not arguing for zero regulation in any way here. My ranting is based on the fact that the regulating agency (EPA) came out with specifications, after spending a few million in taxpayer $$ on "research", with a test protocol that was meaningless at best . Then after discovering (or rather, being told) that their million dollar standard was sheer lunacy, they come up with a new standard and expect the manufacturers to pony up for that. The goofy test protocol was their fault not the manufacturer's. The EPA should be footing the bill for their own mistake and paying for the retest.
As to standards, emissions and efficiency, I am 100% in favor of a protocol that is rigorous and accurately portrays normal use of the product IN THE FIELD. Practically anyone can make a wood burner run good under controlled lab conditions. Getting emissions and efficiency where they should be out where John Q. Public is actually doing the operation is another feat entirely. Not sure that the new standard accomplishes that either.......
The ASTM protocol is probably the best and is closest to real world operating conditions.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for the manufacturers who now have to deal with the 900 pound gorilla in the room (EPA). The technology to produce clean burning solid fuel stoves and boilers is not rocket science and they could have easily made the transition years ago. They chose however to take the easy way in the market and sell devices that were super easy to operate but performed terribly. They have made their own bed, now they have to lie in it.

Maybe a little background history would clarify this. EPA in 1988 after much research and industry involvement introduced the NSPS regulation better known as EPA certification. The purpose was to reduce emission for wood stoves *only* with a benchmark of 7.6 g/hr. Other categories were exempted such as some wood stoves, Pellet stoves, Biomass Central Heating, Coal etc..

However, the federal government had mandated EPA to move to a phase 2 a few years later to look at new benchmarks, regulation and phase out the exempt categories. So that by the Mid 90's we should have had Phase 2 implemented and by now possibly look at Phase 3. Government agencies as they are they sat on their hands and did nothing. Couple of years ago the Federal Govt woke them up and they now are looking at implemented Phase 2 with an intent announcement in January 2012.

It needs to be said there was no EPA regulations for Wood burning furnaces to this day... It is strictly voluntary. So I have no idea what this company who is going out of business is saying regarding the cost of meeting EPA for furnaces since such regulations actually does not exist EPA has the 'intention' to copy the Canadian CSA B415.1 for Central Heating but this is not a given until they actually make the announcement. What I'm saying is the Biomass Furnace MFG's have had a free ride since 1988 knowing full well the free ride would eventually stop. That's almost 25 years to see the gorilla coming and improve your product.

I am not sure which ASTM protocol you are referring to. The only one I'm aware of is still under the umbrella of EPA, was introduced last year and is called ASTM 'low mass' and is primarily directed at decorative wood fireplaces. It's not much of a standard at 5g per Kg of wood burned but it's better than nothing.

As far as the statement that it is easy to meet the EPA protocol and anyone can do it... Nothing could be further to the truth. It is exceedingly difficult, time consuming & expensive to design from scratch a fire chamber to pass EPA certification. Engineering, designing, prototyping, testing, proofing etc.. is not easy. Ask any MFG that are on this board.

As far as the protocol not reflecting what is done in the field, I totally agree with that. Phase 2 will hopefully address some of that. However, it is a benchmark and since we're talking about wood burning there are too many variables for anyone to come up with a 'real life' definition. As long as we have a benchmark that also translate into the real world (ie. good seasoned hard wood) we can work with this. Think of the car industry. Do you truly believe the Miles per gallons stated on the sticker? No one does since the protocol involves ideal driving conditions. But at least it gives us a useful benchmark as a consumer when comparing products.

 

[rkusek]

An old high school buddy has one of the stainless steel units made by that company about 4 years ago. Last time I talked to him it was still working fine. I looked at his but was already sold on the gassifiers. I believe Heaterman is correct about that company. Probably moving on to more profitable business that doesn't involve dealing with the EPA. At 5-6 grand a pop you think there would enough money in it to build it right, maybe not.