[Stoves] Aprovecho's ISO certificates

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

1. You have mentioned this distinction for "developing countries" before. I
imagine the WTO may have such distinction. ISO serves to facilitate trade
and reduce non-tariff barriers such as incompatible national standards. So
EPA may be on solid legal grounds on that issue. The contract between US
and ANSI for TC-285 ought to be in the public domain or available via a
FOIA request. It is illogical that ISO standards may not apply to developed
countries, only that developing countries may be permitted a different
standard because they are more appropriate to use in those countries. Which
gets back to the "contextual" testing, design and promotion. This is
definitely a researchable legal question and we should ask Sally Seitz
about the justification.

2. Going by your assertions only - "outside the Limit of Quantification"
and limits of LEMS to less than Tier 4 - Aprovecho certification of any
test result as Tier 4 for that particular metric (PM2.5?) is hollow. If
anybody has obtained such a certificate from Aprovecho, I would like to see
it.

3. It may well be that PM2.5 Tier 4 Target Emission Rate was SET above LEMS
limit in order to make it an "aspirational" target. (I read this term in a
paper by Annenberg or Rosenthal or on GACC website.) It could be that the
purpose of such an "aspirational" PM2.5 target - lower than the US NSPS for
residential wood heaters - was to permit Kirk Smith to claim that no
biomass stove to date (under WBT, Aprovecho equipment, etc.) was "truly
health protective." EPA is known to drive out fuels and technologies by
regulation. That is one reason for legions of lawsuits about emission
rates. (I was involved in some.)

4. I suspect there is a UN definition of "International Organization".
Sorry, I took a course in IO between MIT and Harvard Law School in 1976 but
am totally rusty on it except nuclear-related stuff. We'll have to ask
Sally Seitz.

Nikhil

PS: Mitchell probably headed the US delegation to TC-285 via ANSI, not
ANSI.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
>
>
> >Trustworthiness does not come by claims alone.
>
>
>
> Fair comment.
>
>
>
> >I believe EPA did go to UL for certifying cookstoves.
>
>
>
> I was not aware of that.
>
>
>
> >Maybe, after the ISO issues standards of performance from TC-285, US
> would incorporate them in law and then approve UL, Aprovecho, or other
> suitable body for testing and certification.
>
>
>
> ANSI, headed by John Mitchell from EPA, declared at the very beginning
> that the USA would not be using the product of ISO TC-285, even though they
> are co-sponsors of its creation. France commenting on the creation of the
> TC, questioned whether the result would affect existing regulations
> governing cooking appliances in Europe (which are covered by an omnibus
> standard for all stoves). That comment was addressed by saying the TC-285
> product was for use by developing countries, which excludes France and the
> USA. I have no idea how the ISO determines which counties are ‘developing’
> ones, nor where there should be different ISO standards for developed and
> developing countries.
>
>
>
> >When a product manufacturer's claims fail, the buyer ought to have legal
> recourse in addition to merely voting with money.
>
>
>
> I guess there are two targets for such ire: the vendor making claims that
> are not valid, and the lab that certified that it has the performance
> claimed. If a claim is outside the Limit of Quantification of the
> apparatus, then *a priori* it is not a valid claim.
>
>
>
> >The manufacturer then cannot hide by merely appealing to UL
> certification. A court would hold UL liable if it made a finding that UL
> used improper protocol - not an "industry standard" - or wrong equipment.
>
>
>
> Well, the relevant way to talk about it is: is someone is using a pre-2016
> LEMS and making claims that a stove ‘performs at tier 4’ for some or other
> measurement, say PM2.5, then someone’s leg is being pulled. It is not
> ‘wrong equipment’ it is that equipment has limits with respect to detection
> and quantification, and there are standards ways to rate it. Nothing about
> this is unusual. That is how equipment ratings are done.
>
>
> > "Anyone can claim to be following any protocol they like." What do you
> think - Gold Standard would be next, or GACC, or me?
>
> You are free-with-abandon to invent your own test method and assemble
> equipment and make claims within the constraints of the equipment and
> protocol.
>
>
> >UNF could. If it is an "international organization", it may be above US
> jurisdiction for certain liabilities. I will have to look up the IO law.
>
> I understand there is a legal USA definition of an IO. Surely there is
> also an international one?
>
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171018/be3f3998/attachment.html>