• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us

National Wood Burner Performance Review: Phase 2

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Test Results

4 Conclusions

Appendix 1: Review Protocol

3 Test Results

Tables 2 and 3 provide summary results of Phase 2 of the performance review ie, whether the wood burners passed or failed. Full results for all burners are provided in Tables 4–6.

Failure classification is outlined in the protocol (see Appendix 1) and discussed in section 2 in more detail. Is it worth mentioning here that an unexpected problem arose during this phase, in that in one case the burner supplied wasn’t the burner ordered (Kent Quantum Max) but was a different product with a similar name but higher emissions.

As can be seen from Table 2, only 20 per cent of wood burners selected for the review passed the emissions and efficiency testing. This was due, in large part, to changes made to the burners since authorisation; 90 per cent of the burners selected for the review failed the design verification test.

Table 2: Phase 2 results summary

Table 3: Phase 2 results summary by burner

Notes: FS = Freestanding; I = Insert.

As with Phase 1, the response by manufacturers varied significantly. Some were swift to fix identified faults and take remedy actions, some immediately disputed findings, and some were slow to respond or undertake follow-up action.

The most notable feature of Phase 2 is the significant variation in quality assurance between manufacturers. A successful design verification test is a strong indication of good quality assurance. The Masport LE 4000 Provincial did well in design verification testing. The project partners note that this burner also has engineering drawings prepared to a very high standard.

The overall lack of compliance in this review means that additional reviews will be necessary. Future reviews are likely to increase costs for those manufacturers who fail to demonstrate compliance as they will also face an increased likelihood of actions such as suspension of burners from the authorised list.

Another, unforeseen, outcome of the review has been the discrepancies with the methodologies employed by the testing laboratory, Applied Research Services. At the time of writing these have been referred to International Accreditation New Zealand.

In the case of serious non-compliance the protocol developed with industry specified notification to the Commerce Commission. At time of writing this is underway.

The details of each failure and the responses by the manufacturers are discussed in detail below.

Table 4: Phase 2 detailed results by burner

View phase 2 detailed results by burner (large table)

Table 5: Phase 2 emission testing results

View phase 2 emission testing results (large table).

Table 6: Phase 2 efficiency testing results

View phase 2 efficiency testing results (large table).

3.1 Contessa AG

Test results for the Contessa AG with wetback are provided in Table 7.

Table 7: Contessa AG with wetback test results and outcomes

1 This burner meets the NES for air quality criterion for emissions but exceeds the standard of 1.0 g/kg for which it is authorised by Environment Canterbury.

The Contessa AG with wetback was classified overall as a ‘moderate failure’ due to a failure to meet the minimum efficiency requirement and a serious failure of the design verification test. In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified Hewitsons of the failure, requested immediate remedy action and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list.

Hewitsons disputed the findings of all tests and queried discrepancies with the design verification testing. At time of writing, the laboratory had undertaken to reissue the report to rectify some of the discrepancies, however, a number of issues were not able to be resolved. These unresolved matters have been referred to International Accreditation New Zealand.

Following notification of failure and with the project partners’ permission, Hewitsons undertook to inspect the burner itself. Bryan Storey of Hewitsons identified an incomplete seal between the primary air tube and the deflector plate that he considered responsible for the reduced efficiency performance. The seal was repaired and the unit retested. At time of publication, the results of the retesting had not yet been made available to the project partners.

Irrespective of the discrepancies identified with design verification, the Contessa AG with wetback did not demonstrate compliance with the NES for air quality efficiency standard. Emissions were also significantly higher than those upon which the burner was authorised. At time of publication, the burner remains suspended from the Ministry’s authorised list.

3.2 Firenzo Insert Flush AG (Forte Fascia)

Test results for the Firenzo Insert Flush AG (Forte Fascia) are provided in Table 8 (initial results and Table 9 (retesting results).

Table 8: Firenzo Insert Flush AG (Forte Fascia) test results and outcomes

The Firenzo Insert Flush AG (Forte Fascia) burner was classified overall as a ‘moderate failure’ due to an exceedance of the NES emission limit and a serious failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• variation in firebox dimensions

• variation in position of flue spigot

• omission of primary air holes in door sill (serious).

In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified Hewitsons of the failure, requested immediate remedy action and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list. The Firenzo Insert Flush AG is a base model burner with two fascia options, the Forte and the Athena, both of which have the same authorisation. In light of this, the project partners also suspended the Firenzo Flush Insert AG (with Athena fascia) burner from the authorised list.

Hewitsons were extremely concerned about the missing air holes and notified all retailers that the burners were not to be sold or installed. With the project partners’ permission, Bryan Storey of Hewitsons then undertook his own inspection. Bryan then drilled the missing holes and commissioned Applied Research Services to retest the burner. The repairs and retesting were carried out under observation by Richard Frizzell of Nelson City Council as representative of the project partners. The results of the original authorisation, testing and retesting are presented below in Table 9.

Table 9: Firenzo Insert Flush AG (Forte Fascia) emissions retesting

The repaired burner demonstrated compliance with the NES for air quality emission limit. The retest report itself, however, provided new discrepancies between the original authorising test report, the design verification report, and the performance review test report. These discrepancies were unable to be resolved through communication with the laboratory and have been referred to International Accreditation New Zealand. At time of writing, these issues had yet to be resolved.

The project partners understand that the Firenzo Insert Flush AG has been withdrawn from the market.

3.3 Kent Logfire Max

Test results for the Kent Logfire Max are provided in Table 10 (initial results) and Table 11 (final results).

Table 10: Kent Logfire Max Initial Test Results and Outcomes

The Kent Logfire Max was initially classified overall as a ‘moderate failure’ due to reduced efficiency, an exceedance of the NES for air quality emission limit and a failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• variation in firebox dimensions

• primary air inlet minimum opening reduced

• secondary air tube diameter outside tolerance

• label – serial number burnt off.

In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified the BBQ Factory of the failure, requested immediate remedy action, and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list. As an aside, whilst Dallas Metals manufactures the Kent Logfire Max, authorisation with Nelson City Council is held by the BBQ Factory hence all communication was through the BBQ Factory.

The BBQ Factory engaged their lawyers Kensington Swan to dispute the accuracy of the test results, query discrepancies between test reports, and threaten litigation against Nelson City Council for earnings lost as result of the burners’ (temporary) suspension from the Council’s approved list.

In responding, the project partners noted that the testing had been carried out by a laboratory accredited with International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) and in accordance with a protocol that had been developed with specific, technical input from a BBQ Factory representative. The partners further noted that, notwithstanding assertions of inaccuracy, the project partners' primary responsibility was to the consumer and that they could not, in good faith, list a burner as authorised which they have found to be inconsistent with the council authorisation and non-compliant with the NES for air quality.

There followed extensive correspondence between the project partners, the BBQ Factory and the testing laboratory. In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Due to incorrect assembly of the air control outer cover and loosening of the air control spigot nuts and bolts, the burner suffered a reduction in primary air during operation. This was held to be the primary cause of the reduction in efficiency and exceedance of the NES for air quality emission limit. The BBQ Factory asserted that this fault occurred during testing and provided an independent inspection of five other models for which the fault was not present. Applied Research Services denied that they had caused the incorrect assembly. Irrespective of how or where the fault occurred, the outer cover has since been redesigned so that removal or tampering with the outer cover does not disturb the air-slide control settings.

• Upon remeasurement, it was concluded that the hole punching process had rendered the secondary tube an oval and not a circle. The project partners accepted that the cross-sectional area of the tube was not significantly changed.

• The burned label was due to the failure to remove a clear cover film which, when heated, caused the ink and printing to fail. The project partners understand that the label is now stamped with the serial number and Nelson City Council authorisation number so that loss of these data is no longer possible.

• The variation in firebox dimensions was unable to be resolved. This issue was complicated by discrepancies between consecutive Applied Research Services test reports for this burner. These discrepancies were unable to be resolved through correspondence with the laboratory and have been referred to International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) as a matter of complaint.

• In view of the above, the project partners reclassified the failure as ‘minor’ and it was returned to the authorised list. At time of writing, however, the issue of depth (acknowledged by the BBQ Factory to have changed) remains unresolved.

The final results for the Kent Logfire Max are provided in Table 11.

Table 11: Kent Logfire Max final test results and outcomes

3.4 Kent Quantum Max

Test results for the Kent Quantum Max are provided in Table 12.

Table 12: Kent Quantum Max test results and outcomes

The Kent Quantum Max was classified overall as a ‘very serious failure’ due to a large exceedance of the NES for air quality emission limit and a very serious failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• increased firebox depth

• changed position of flue spigot

• decreased maximum opening for primary air inlet control

• primary air inlet minimum opening able to be completely closed (very serious)

• decreased primary air inlet distributor width

• secondary air distributors – two tubes replaced with firebox wall holes (very serious)

• decreased refractory lining thickness.

In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified Dallas Metals of the failure, requested immediate remedy action, and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list. Whilst Dallas Metals manufactures the Kent Quantum Max, the burner in question was purchased from the BBQ Factory. Subsequent communications were with both parties.

Dallas Metals responded by asserting that the project partners had purchased an incorrect burner and carried out the review in error. Dallas noted the date of manufacture of the unit tested (serial number 24788) was July 2004 and therefore, this burner was not a Kent Quantum Max as this model was not introduced until 2006.

The project partners clarified for Dallas Metals that the burner they selected for purchase from the BBQ Factory website was indeed a Kent Quantum Max; it was invoiced as a Kent Quantum Max and advertised as “Clean Air” on the BBQ Factory website. At this point, Dallas accepted that there had been an error in the supply chain and referred the matter to the BBQ Factory.

The BBQ Factory maintained the Kent Quantum Max purchased from the internet was assigned an incorrect identification number at point of sale; in this case the identification number for a Kent Quantum non clean air burner (as opposed to a Kent Quantum Max clean air burner). This resulted in the wrong (non clean air) burner being dispatched for delivery. The BBQ Factory maintained such incorrect dispatch would not occur with store sales and further, that the project partners' purchase was the only internet sale all year.

The project partners accepted there had been a supply chain error but noted the net result was that a high emission burner could have been installed on a property under 2 hectares. The partners requested Dallas Metals demonstrate to the partners the necessary changes that would be made to ensure this problem could not reoccur. The partners further queried apparently conflicting statements made by the BBQ Factory as to where the burner was dispatched from.

Following this, the BBQ Factory recalled all remaining stock of non clean air Kent Quantum Max burners. These were relabelled by Dallas Metals as “Kent Quantum Max Non Clean Air” with additional marking that they should only be installed on properties over 2 hectares. Dallas Metals further advised that they were ceasing manufacture of the Kent Quantum Max Non Clean Air model.

The partners were satisfied that the actions by Dallas Metals would protect the integrity of the future supply chain for the Kent Quantum Max. The partners noted, however, that the Kent Quantum Max (Clean Air) burner was not included in the review.

Finally, and in accordance with the protocol, the very serious failure and associated supply chain problems require notification to the Commerce Commission. At time of writing this was underway. Environment Canterbury has also requested a full refund of the purchase price, in exchange for the return of the burner.

3.5 Lady Kitchener

Test results for the Lady Kitchener are provided in Table 13.

Table 13: Lady Kitchener test results and outcomes

1 Authorisation for the Lady Kitchener is based on test data for a wetback model, supplemented with an opinion from the testing laboratory.

The Lady Kitchener was classified overall as a ‘pass’ despite a serious failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• variation in firebox cabinet dimensions

• variation in firebox dimensions

• variation in position of flue spigot

• variation in primary air inlet controls (decreased maximum, increased minimum setting)

• variation in secondary air tube position and hole orientation

• decreased baffle plate thickness

• decreased refractory lining thickness.

In light of the compliant emissions and efficiency performance of the burner, the project partners notified Hewitsons of the design verification failure but did not request any remedy action. It should be noted that whilst this burner meets the NES for air quality, the burner is substantially altered from that authorised by Nelson City Council.

3.6 Masport LE 4000 Provincial

Test results for the Masport LE 4000 Provincial are provided in Table 14.

Table 14: Masport LE 4000 Provincial test results and outcomes

1 This burner meets the NES for air quality criterion for emissions but exceeds the standard of 1.0 g/kg for which it is authorised by Environment Canterbury.

The Masport LE 4000 Provincial was classified as ‘undetermined’ due to the limits of accuracy of testing for efficiency (ie, within ± 5%). The burner passed the design verification test and is compliant with the NES for air quality emission limit.

Accordingly, the project partners notified Glen Dimplex of the results of the performance review and did not request any remedy action.

Glen Dimplex holds the authorisation for the Masport LE 4000 Provincial. Glen Dimplex previously traded as MetalFab Industries (for whom a number of failures were noted in the Phase 1 report).

3.7 Metro Eco Wee Rad

Test results for the Metro Eco Wee Rad are provided in Table 15.

Table 15: Metro Eco Wee Rad test results and outcomes

1 This burner meets the NES fro air quality criterion for emissions but exceeds the standard of 1.0 g/kg for which it is authorised by Environment Canterbury.

The Metro Eco Wee Rad was classified overall as a ‘pass’ despite a moderate failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• variation in firebox cabinet dimensions (minor)

• variation in firebox dimensions (minor)

• variation in position of flue spigot

• substitution of refractory lining across rear surface (moderate).

In light of the compliant emissions and efficiency performance of the burner, the project partners notified Pioneer of the design verification failure but did not request any remedy action.

Pioneer responded that their internal audit (initiated following Phase 1 of the review) had uncovered similar design variations to those identified above. Pioneer further offered to undertake additional emissions and efficiency testing on alternative refractory linings. At time of publication, the results of the retesting had not been made available to the project partners.

3.8 Osburn 2200

Test results for the Osburn 2020 are provided in Table 16.

Table 16: Osburn 2200 test results and outcomes

The Osburn 2200 (wet) was classified overall as a ‘moderate failure’ due to a failure to meet the minimum efficiency requirement and a failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• increase in pedestal height (minor)

• position of flue spigot centre

• variation in primary air opening.

In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified Glen Dimplex of the failure, requested immediate remedy action and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list.

Glen Dimplex responded that they have withdrawn the Osburn 2200 from the market pending design changes and a new application for authorisation.

Glen Dimplex holds the authorisation for the Osburn 2200. Glen Dimplex previously traded as MetalFab Industries (for whom a number of failures were noted in the Phase 1 report).

3.9 Woodsman Matai ECR

Test results for the Woodsman Matai ECR are provided in Table 17 (initial results) and Table 18 (final results).

Table 17: Woodsman Matai ECR initial test results and outcomes

The Woodsman Matai ECR was classified overall as ‘minor failure’ due to undetermined efficiency performance and a moderate failure of the design verification test. Departures from the design specifications included:

• variation in firebox dimensions

• increase in refractory lining thickness.

In accordance with the protocol, the project partners notified WH Harris of the design verification failure and requested remedy action.

WH Harris responded that the baffle plate appears to have moved in transit and this would explain the drop in efficiency. WH Harris queried several dimensions in the emissions test report, noting discrepancies with some of the measurements recorded by the testing laboratory. WH Harris advised their Promat board supplier had changed specifications two years ago but that the original board was now available again and future manufacturing would be in accordance with the authorised design.

The project partners raised the discrepancy issues with the laboratory, Applied Research Services. In response, the laboratory reissued the emissions report. This resolves the issues identified by W H Harris with the burner measurements, but it raised new issues with the laboratory testing procedures. The matter has been referred to International Accreditation New Zealand. At time of writing, these issues remain unresolved.

Due to the above, the project partners reclassified the design verification test result as a ‘minor failure’. Final test results for the Woodsman Matai ECR are given in Table 18.

Table 18: Woodsman Matai ECR final test results and outcomes

3.10 Yunca Finz

Test results for the Yunca Finz are provided in Table 19.

Table 19: Yunca Finz test results and outcomes

The Yunca Finz was classified overall as a ‘moderate failure’ due to failure to demonstrate compliance with the emissions and efficiency NES for air quality limits and a serious failure of the design verification test. Departures from design specifications included:

• decreased number of secondary air tube holes (serious)

• secondary air tube position.

In accordance with the review protocol, the project partners notified Yunca of the failure, requested immediate remedy action and temporarily suspended the burner from the authorised list.

Yunca response was swift and thorough. Within days of receipt of notification, Yunca responded with the results of an investigation into the cause of the problem and notified the partners of their intention to withdraw this unit, permanently, from the market.

[ Previous|Next