Summary of Industry sponsored wood stove testing in Colville, December 14-16, 2011

Testing was conducted at Ben Myren’s lab using Quadra-fire 3100, non-catalytic stoves. Those present 

included David Cole (EPA), John Crouch (HPBA), Dan Henry (Home and Hearth Technologies), Robert 

Ferguson ( consultant) , Timothy Seaton (masonry heater manufacturer), Leah Hauer (NWHPBA Exec 

Director), and Ben Myren (owner/operator of Myren Test Lab). 

Three demonstrations were conducted:

• Demonstration 1: to show the difference between EPA test fuel cribs and cord wood burns at the 

low burn stop (stove setting),

• Demonstration 2: to show the performance difference between cord burns at (a) the low stop 

setting and (b) a modified low stop that gives 15% more air,

• Demonstration 3: to show what happens to emissions when fuel moisture content is increased 

above the recommended 20% moisture level.

Observations

Regarding demonstration 1, the stove fueled with cordwood was able to successfully complete 

the low stop burn but with considerably greater difficulty than the stove fueled with standard cribs. It 

seems obvious that cordwood, the fuel used by consumers, is less able to quickly move from ignition to 

proper burning conditions than the test cribs. I’ve requested the test data to show the emission 

differences.

Regarding demonstration 2, I agree with the industry reps that a slight increase in air supply at 

the low burn stop does greatly improve the burn for cordwood and reduce emissions. Please note: I 

learned from another source that industry has previously communicated to EPA that they want to be 

allowed to raise this low burn stop (increase the air supply) for their emissions test but then be allowed 

to build the stoves with an even lower (reduced air supply) burn stop. I strongly disagree with this 

option. Interestingly, that option was not discussed with David Cole or me. I can understand the 

pressure from consumers to have a burn that lasts through the night but industry need to innovate 

methods of providing a clean overnight burn. Testing should mirror how a device will be used by 

consumers. Again, the test result data has been requested.

Regarding demonstration 3, we saw increased emissions from high moisture fuel. While this 

demonstration confirms the common opinion about fuel moisture content, no solution were discussed 

or demonstrated. Rather than blame the stove operator or propose that education will eliminate the 

issue of high moisture wood, industry failed to propose (a) improved stove technology that warns the 

operator of incorrect fuel or shuts down with less than optimum fuel or (b) offer discussion of current 

catalytic technology that is far less sensitive to fuel moisture or operator error to reduce emissions. 

Catalytic technology does not rely as exclusively on the elevated temperatures need by non-catalytic 

stoves to reduce emission. 

Two other items of interest were discussed after David had to leave: 1) the development of a wood cook 

stove test method, with conversations to continue in Atlanta on this topic and 2) a possible WA state 

requirement to place a metal liner inside masonry chimneys. This latter item would improve the draft 

and performance of wood stove inserts but also raises the cost to some consumers. Industry would 

back this measure.

Rod Tinnemore