NESCAUM Part 1 Review Clarification

Linked below is Tom Morrissey's reply to comments made by NESCAUM regarding part 1 of the previously posed Review.  Two of Woodstock Soapstone's stoves (with similar model numbers) were certified to EPA 2020 standards using two different approved test methods on two different dates.  These tests are available online.  NESCAUM is alleging that the reports & stoves are the same (they are not), and that the "similarity in the appliances and their close proximity in test dates caused significant confusion for the reviewers."  This response was written to allay any confusion NESCAUM may have regarding these fully disclosed and publicly available test results.   

Click to Read

 

NESCAUM Review: Part 2B

Linked below is Part 2b of Tom Morrissey's review of the NESCAUM "Assessment".  Part 2b focuses on density, data, and invalid test runs.

NESCAUM was unable to achieve the required density in a majority of its tests reviewed, rendering these tests invalid and raising red flags about their methods.  Appended to Part 2b are 10 pages of emails written during the week of 7/5/2021 between Tom and the EPA, in which they try to derive whether NESCAUM meets the requirements of its own proposed standard in runs documented to EPA.  The data sets for ALT-140 are very small, but even now there are obvious problems with load density, large coal beds, and representative low burns meeting the criteria spelled out in ALT-140.
 

Click to Read