BAY AREA TO BAN MASONRY HEATERS -----------message separator------------------- Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 22:59:25 -0800 From: Jim Buckley Subject: Bay Area Norbert, Looks like the model ordinance the Bay Area in California is coming up with will keep out masonry heaters as well as fireplaces. They only want to accept "EPA certified woodstoves, pellet stoves and EPA certified fireplaces." They understand the EPA doesn't certify fireplaces and suggested we sue the EPA to get them to certify fireplaces. I made a few pleas on behalf of masonry heaters but no one was there to represent heaters except John Crouch and Paul Tiegs. My notes are on line at http://www.rumford.com/emissions/index.htm Best, Jim Buckley -----------------message separator-------------------------------- Date: December 7, 1998 Attention: MHA executive From: Norbert Senf Re: San Francisco Bay Area ban on Masonry Heaters CONFIDENTIAL --- PLEASE DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE I've just read the documentation on this issue at Jim Buckley's site, located at http://www.rumford.com/emissions/index.htm In particular, the following document: http://www.rumford.com/emissions/BAAQMD.html My take on it is that this is a debate about open fireplaces. Masonry heaters were mentioned in passing, mainly to try and bolster fireplace arguments (heat storage, fast burning, high mass). It does not appear that there was any representation made from MHA -- I was unaware of the issue, and have not been checking the regulatory page on Jim Buckley's site, where these documents have been posted, perhaps for some time. It appears that only EPA certified appliances will be allowed. In other words, masonry heaters will be banned by default. This appears to be a similar situation to the one we encountered with R-2000, where heaters were excluded by default when a rule requiring EPA certified appliances was passed. Fortunately, we were able to enter a dialoge with R-2000 and get the situation corrected. In the R-2000 case, Skip Hayden among others was adamant about banning open fireplaces, and I was not interested in arguing this point. Furthermore, Skip predicted that as soon as masonry heaters are allowed, masonry fireplaces will try to get in as masonry heaters. As you will recall, this is exactly the situation that transpired in Colorado, and why we have put a lot of energy into a masonry heater definition. Therefore, it is important that masonry heaters remain differentiated from masonry fireplaces, and if push comes to shove, we may have to choose sides. (...) I would propose that we hire John Gulland to review the documentation on Jim's site, and to make inquiries about any action that may be available to us at this point. I feel that we should be represented here as a separate interest group, and that we should very definitely not be lumped in with masonry fireplaces. Comments? Best..............Norbert