Agency scuttles one problematic test method, while backing another
The EPA announced that it was withdrawing the most commonly used test methods to certify wood stoves to EPA emission standards. Those methods, ALT-125 and ALT-127, were developed by an ASTM committee and were the first ever designed to certify wood stoves using cordwood, instead of 2x4s and 4x4s, known as “cribs.”
To hasten the transition from crib testing to cordwood testing, the EPA allowed cordwood tests to meet a looser 2.5-gram ceiling on particulate matter instead of 2.0 grams with cribs. The protocol quickly gained favor with stove manufacturers as it was easier to meet the EPA threshold for fine particles in wood smoke.
By withdrawing those methods, the majority of stoves will have to be retested over the next 5 years with a different method, an expensive and time-intensive process for manufacturers. Normally, the EPA rubber-stamps waivers from retesting for stove certifications every 5 years, and manufacturers have come to expect that, potentially allowing them to sell the same model for decades based on the original certification testing.
The EPA will honor certification tests using ALT-125 or ALT-127 completed prior to Feb. 23, 2022, the effective date for withdrawal of these alternative test methods. The EPA released details of the withdrawal were released Jan. 21 and will appear in the Federal Register on Jan. 24, 2022.
Nine states had petitioned the EPA to withdraw ALT-125 and 127. The EPA summarized the reasons cited by the states, saying the “method allows far too much flexibility within the methodology, such that a test lab can ‘explore’ in its testing to find approaches for passing any appliance, regardless of design, ultimately resulting in a certification program where a manufacturer simply pays the lab to provide a passing test, rather than to measure the actual emissions from their appliance without such positioning.”
Crib testing, on the right has been used since 1988 to certify stoves. ALT-125 and 127 used the more realistic fuel, cordwood, on the left. |
The agency is standing behind another problematic test protocol, ALT-140, indicating a trend of approving test protocols before it sufficiently understands and reviews the data that supports them. Tom Morrissey, head of Woodstock Soapstone, studied the ALT-140 method and says it is “unusable” in its current condition and blasts the EPA for approving a method designed in secrecy and does not disclose underlying data.
The EPA’s move is part of a multi-year trend of EPA relying more on the expertise and data developed by air quality groups, and less on the expertise and data from the main industry association, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA). The EPA appears to have been approving alternative methods before they have been used to certify stove models based on the work of the stakeholder group that wants the approval of the test method.
The withdrawal will involve manufacturers going back to testing with cribs after making the much-heralded transition to using cordwood, which is what homeowners use. The ALT-140 test method uses cord wood but no manufacturer has used it and none are likely to use it, based on the more secretive way that it was developed and lack of data showing that it works. ALT-140 was developed by NESCAUM through funding from NYSERDA and sources say that NYSERDA may not be allowing release of the data, even to the EPA.
Tom Morrissey released a paper accusing the EPA of a “bait and switch” tactic by approving a method that allowed a higher particulate matter threshold and then revoking it. Many manufacturers consider the underlying ASTM method sound but concede that the method could be tightened up to reduce its flexibility, rather than revoking it. A manufacturer could still tighten up the ASTM method and try to get the EPA to accept it again, but that can be a long, expensive and uncertain process. It is not uncommon for the EPA to revise methods and it is highly likely that ALT-140 will have to be revised.Morrissey included this image to
illustrate his analysis of ALT-140
The EPA approved the ASTM protocol for certifying wood stoves in 2018 after a lengthy and transparent 4-year development process by an ASTM committee dominated by industry insiders. Many EPA and state officials were part of that process, but few had voting rights. Most were monitoring the process from the sidelines, and few had any background in test method development. The EPA did not conduct any of its own tests to verify the method and NESCAUM was just building its own internal expertise.
Within a few years, a majority of the stove models sold in the United States and Canada had been certified using the ASTM protocol, instead of the traditional Method 28 protocol that has been in place for decades. The new ASTM method was being used to meet the stricter 2020 emission standards that required manufacturers to go from 4.5 grams of particulates an hour to 2.5 or less. Currently, 90 out of 154 wood stoves were tested in EPA approved labs with the ASTM protocol. This rapid shift to cordwood testing began to draw scrutiny as reports emerged from a program run by the State of Alaska and NESCAUM. Other reports emerged that some stoves did not have to change their design to cut their PM emissions in half, if they used the ASTM method.
The intensive scrutiny from the state of Alaska found scores of deficiencies in most test reports, sending shock waves through the industry and the EPA offices that should have caught those errors. In the process, regulators for the first time realized that the ASTM method allowed too much flexibility in key parts of the multi-day testing process. Shortly after NESCAUM and the State of Alaska released details about the lack of EPA oversight of the stove certification program, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General announced it was conducting an internal investigation of the EPA’s certification program. The results of that investigation will be made public later this year.
I find it ridiculous that a small group of people, many of whom have likely NEVER cleaned a chimney, have such damaging control over an industry. In my 37 years I started as a chimney sweep, ran a shop selling and installing all kinds of stoves, invented and certified two of my own and am again (still) a chimney sweep.
ReplyDeleteNot more than a month ago we found a fairly new Lopi equipped with both secondary air delivery tubes and catalytic combustors which had nearly plugged off a 6" liner 27 feet long with 3rd degree glaze as the owners never got simple training on how to use that product. We had to remove the liner and once on the ground pulled over 60 pounds of chunks out of the liner before putting it back into service.
The answer is not about killing jobs but creating more opportunities where industry professionals can educate the public on proper burning methods which would have a MUCH GREATER POSITIVE EFFECT on the environment while preserving JOBS.
I also find it maddening that many people screaming about "woodstove pollution" drive escalades and fly somewhere for a round of golf...........
The cost of "new technology" (by the way) means many folks struggling with a budget can no longer afford this form of heat which in many cases can mean the difference between warm children or paying the mortgage. I find this highly VILE. And no gas products are not in any way cleaner as activities such as fracking, drilling, transporting, spilling, distillation and distribution can never be cleaner than a good stove run on DRY wood.
SMDH !!!!!
"The protocol quickly gained favor with stove manufacturers as it was easier to meet the EPA threshold for fine particles in wood smoke". This is simply not true. The protocol gained favor with manufacturers because the EPA assured us (industry) that cordwood testing was the future. Manufacturers simply chose the standard that, however flawed NESCAUM wants you to believe it is, was more accurately reflective of the real-world use of the products. Simple as that. If you're saying it was easier due to the higher allowance of 2.5 grams/hour, then you're technically correct. However, the argument is moot since almost all ASTM cordwood tested stoves are less than 2 grams/hour anyway. We (industry) tried to take emissions testing into the future, but EPA let NESCAUM yank the rug out from under the whole thing. The fact that, flaws and all, ASTM is still a more viable method than IDC should be all the proof we need to see that this is classic "build yourself up by tearing others down" by NESCAUM. If their method was any good at all it could compete side by side with ASTM as an ALT method and win out. The fact is ASTM was winning the race to become the next Federal Reference Method and IDC couldn't win fair and square. We had the chance to build on the momentum of ASTM and make it a truly reflective standard of in-home stove use. Too bad it doesn’t look like it has a chance for that anymore.
ReplyDeleteElectricity is essential for both commercial and residential purposes. An increase in demand for electricity increases its cost and increases air and water pollution because of the burning of natural resources causing depletion of the ozone layer. Expert here advises us to transfer our dependence on solar energy.
ReplyDelete