Reflections on the EPA Inspector General’s residential wood heat report

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that the agency does not have an effective program to test and certify wood stoves.  Much of the OIG's report tracks findings and positions of an earlier report by North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), which triggered the OIG report (NESCAUM 2021). But the OIG report has a level of authority over the agency and provides a roadmap for much needed changes.

    The OIG report finds extensive faults with the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) instead of laying blame with EPA leadership which for decades under both parties has failed to provide those offices with the resources and expertise they need to effectively do their job. Successive administrations have undervalued the vital role that wood and pellet stoves play, particularly for the rural poor, and also underappreciated the enormous levels of PM2.5 created by wood stoves. The United States has also failed to develop policies and invest in research and development (R&D) in this renewable energy technology that could be far cleaner.  

    The OIG did not break much new ground and wood heating insiders will not find much new.  Unfortunately, the OIG report also missed some of the same perspectives that NESCAUM missed, providing a one-sided view of many problems. Overall, the Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) agrees with most of the findings and the recommendations but is very concerned that the OIG, like the offices within the EPA that it criticized, may not have had the expertise to understand broader issues, other than ones raised by NESCAUM.  

    Both the NESCAUM and the OIG report consistently and incorrectly referred to “wood heaters” when they should have used the term “wood stoves.” Wood heaters include pellet stoves, a mainstream stove technology used by hundreds of thousands of consumers which do not share most of the problems wood stoves have and are a good alternative to wood stoves. The OIG failed to reassure consumers that pellet stoves can offer a cleaner and more trustworthy option. 

    Like the NESCAUM report, the OIG also failed to consider that the original test methods dating from 1988 may also be flawed and may not produce stoves that meet the PM2.5 emission standards.  We suspect that independent retesting of stoves using both test methods – Method 28  and ASTM E3053 - would find stoves emitting far more than the allowable emission levels.  

    The OIG’s quotable finding that consumers can still purchase stoves that failed EPA tests may gain far more traction with the media and environmental groups than it deserves. There is little evidence that those particular stove models are more susceptible to higher emissions than other models. Moreover, the dryness of the wood put into a stove and the amount of air the consumer gives the stove have an exponentially greater impact on emissions than which test method was used to certify the stove.  

    We do not agree with the assessment that EPA's funding for change-out programs should be questioned based on the NESCAUM or the OIG report. The managers of many of these change-out programs likely have far more expertise than the authors of the OIG and know all too well that changing out an old wood stove for a new one has limitations.  Many funds also go to bounty programs, education, pellet stoves, hybrid stoves and increasingly to heat pumps, not just new non-cat wood stoves.

    To get a broader perspective on these issues, we highly recommend reading an article about the experience of one manufacturer and their experience dealing with the EPA certification process as it rushed to respond and fix its system.

    Like the NESCAUM report, the OIG report did not consider the obvious option for the EPA to amend and improve E305, rather than revoking it. Neither report assessed the bigger picture of how ASTM E3053 could have been part of the effort to develop a federal cordwood test method by halting its use for 6 – 12 months, amending it and then gathering more data from it during certification testing. As a result, we have lost many years of manufacturers redesigning stoves that can better burn cordwood, instead of continuing to build stoves that burn cribs.

    Both reports are a badly needed wake-up call for the EPA which has neglected a program that deserved far more funding for decades, and our air quality has paid a price. As fossil fuel prices climb, wood heaters are getting more popular and sales have increased dramatically in recent years. Many policies and strategies are needed to reform and guide this renewable energy pathway beyond the deficiencies of the EPA’s certification program. It’s important for all stakeholders to look at the bigger picture and not be constricted by the narrative that emerged from the NESCAUM report.

    One line in the OIG report elicited ridicule from the wood heating community.  It said, “regulators and the public do not have reasonable assurance that certified wood heaters meet emission standards under real-world conditions,” (OIG 2023, 19). We can only assume that the authors of the OIG report knew that EPA emission standards were never meant to mimic real-world conditions and regulators know that all too well. For many in the wood stove industry, this statement undercut the credibility of the report.

    One weakness in the OIG report is its perfunctory treatment of the connection between Wood Smoke and Environmental Justice (EJ). The OIG did not refer to the findings in the 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), that “risks due to residential wood smoke emissions for disadvantaged population groups generally are lower than the risks for the general population due to residential wood smoke emissions,” (EPA 2010, 9). The 2015 NSPS predated the level of attention that the EPA is now supposed to give to EJ issues, but still EPA has never treated wood smoke as a serious EJ issue. The EPA relied on a very narrow 2010 study commissioned by the EPA’s Gil Wood that did not find increased cancer rate in census data that tracks with higher rates of wood smoke. A finding that wood smoke did disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups would have triggered a requirement that the EPA would have to spend resources to further study this issue. The NSPS discussed the potential causal relationship between wood smoke and cancer numerous times, but when it came to disadvantaged groups, the 2015 NSPS said:

“This proposed rule [2015 NSPS] is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April

23, 1997) because the agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The report, “Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups,” shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due to residential wood smoke emissions among disadvantaged population groups generally are lower than the risks for the general population due to residential wood smoke emissions,” (NSPS 2015, 13700). 

    AGH believes this statement is not sufficiently supported by data and reflects the interests of an NSPS process that lacked the funding and leadership to address the EJ issues that wood smoke presents for rural impoverished and marginalized communities. The OIG report did little to change this trajectory. AGH, tribes and firewood banks are urging the EPA to use EJ funds to help wood heating communities.

AGH perspectives on some of the findings of the OIG report.  Sentences in quotes are from the OIG report, followed by AGH’s commentary.

“The EPA Does Not Have an Effective Program for Testing and Certifying Wood Heaters,” (OIG 2023, 13).   

    AGH largely agrees with this basic conclusion that underlies the OIG report. Despite all the shortcomings of the EPA, which were only made widely public by NESCAUM and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), it's important to also remember that the EPA program is likely the best certification and testing program in the world for cord wood stoves, and it has pushed manufacturers to build stoves that are cleaner than anywhere else in the world. Testing of solid fuel heaters is inherently extremely complex, rendering programs to regulate them vulnerable.  

“The 2015 NSPS and Certification Test Methods Are Flawed,” (OIG 2023, 13). 

    AGH agrees that the 2015 NSPS is flawed but we should not forget some of its most important and most successful results. It finally made outdoor boilers a fully regulated appliance, and ended the loophole of allowing many wood and pellet stoves to be “exempt.” It also jump started a new category of stoves: hybrid stoves that use both catalytic and non-catalytic smoke reduction technologies. However, the operational benefits of hybrid stoves have been overlooked by ADEC and NESCAUM, contributing to California Air Resources Board (CARB) focusing on catalytic stoves in their change-out programs instead of hybrid stoves, which continue to reduce PM even if the cat is not engaged or its clogged or missing.  OECA has also made many improvements to its database of certified wood heaters. The database used to be maintained on excel spreadsheets and lacked much of the detail that it now has. We hope it will be further populated with relevant info, including the expiration date of each stove’s certificate in ways that will not confuse consumers. The EPA program is effective and credible in many ways, despite the deep flaws identified in the OIG’s report. 

• The 1988 NSPS was far more flawed than the 2015 NSPS and for 20 years the EPA largely ignored those flaws, as did state agencies.  

• ALT-125 and ALT-127 (ASTM E3053) could have been improved, instead of revoked.  

• “Testing labs can conduct test runs to produce data that misrepresent wood heater performance to regulators and consumers,” (OIG 2023, 14). This has always been the case and is not a product of the 2015 NSPS.

“The Wood Heater Certificate-of-Compliance Process Lacks Internal Controls,”(OIG 2023, 19). 

    AGH agrees with this conclusion and OECA’s estimate of $100,000 to continue detailed review of certification papers is a small sum given the improvements needed. We question whether the use of contractors is the best way forward for OECA, rather than building its own internal capacity and expertise.   

• “The Agency Does Not Exercise Its Authority to Observe Certification Testing,” (OIG 2023, 21). This activity is yet another victim of underfunding. We believe both OECA and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) staff should regularly observe certification testing as a primary strategy to build its expertise. 

• “The EPA Does Not Use Its Regulatory Authority to Conduct Compliance Audit Tests,” (OIG 2023, 21). We urge the EPA to begin compliance audit testing, primarily of the most popular models to start with

OIG RECOMMENDATIONS

• “Develop and implement a plan to demonstrate whether residential wood heaters certified using the test methods based on ASTM E3053 comply with the New Source Performance Standards for residential wood heaters,” (OIG 2023, 26). This is a nonsensical recommendation unless similar tests are done on stoves tested with Method 28. The EPA should approach all test methods without bias and develop scientific ways to assess all test methods.  

• “Develop and adopt an EPA cord wood test method that is supported by data to provide the public reasonable assurance that certified appliances meet emission standards,” (OIG 2023, 26). Emission numbers in labs will never be the same as emissions in the hands of consumers, particularly if manually operated stoves continue as the dominant technology in North America.  Automated stoves and controls like ESPs are likely the leading options to reduce the gap between lab and field emission profiles. 

• “Establish mechanisms to promote independence between emissions testing labs and third-party certifiers,” (OIG 2023, 26). AGH is not convinced that the next NSPS should extend the role of third-party certifiers. While it may have been a good idea, it didn’t work and other strategies should be considered before trying to fix this process.

Response of the EPA

    We believe that it's important to also read the response by the EPA to the OIG which was included in the end of the report.  We felt their response was fair and measured, and acknowledged many of the charges in the OIG report. However, the EPA also pushed back in many areas, such as this: “The OIG draft report improperly conveys that EPA has generally not altered how we are implementing the wood heater program,”(OIG 2023, 30). We fully agree with this statement because the EPA began improving their program even before the NESCAUM report came out, and accelerated their pace afterwards.  

Conclusion

    AGH believes the work of ADEC, NESCAUM and the EPA’s OIG is generally having a positive impact.  While there have been many missteps and miscommunication, and sometimes an inordinate burden on manufacturers, this process finally got the attention of the EPA leadership and more resources to the EPA offices working on these important issues. It is still unclear if the EPA leadership will continue to give more priority and more resources to this area in coming years and under different administrations.

    States also have a responsibility to put more resources into this area and develop their expertise, if they want to see continued change at the federal level. States can do a lot, as Washington and Oregon have demonstrated by banning the installation of uncertified stove. Cities can restrict the installation of any wood stove and other solutions are emerging in Europe such as requiring electrostatic precipitators, whose prices are dropping rapidly. The Department of Energy (DOE), their national labs and universities can also play a vital role by supporting more R&D and pushing for the development of automated, computer generated stoves, something the EPA has paid little attention to.

    Wood and pellet stoves are not going away and provide a vital source of renewable heat to more than 10 million American homes. They have successfully helped America decarbonize residential heating far more than they get credit for. With increased R&D, innovation and regulatory oversight, wood and pellet heat can continue to help us achieve carbon reductions that are badly needed to stave off the worst impacts of global climate change. A key part of this process lies with the EPA by addressing many of the issues raised in the OIG report.

EPA reverts to stricter wood stove testing

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.

Morrissey included this image to 
illustrate his analysis of ALT-140

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.

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. 

 

Inspector General investigating EPA’s oversight of its residential wood heater program

On October 22, 2021, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General announced it was launching an investigation into the EPA’s residential wood heater testing and certification program. The memo announcing the investigation was directed at both the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) based in DC and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) whose staff is mainly based in Triangle Park, North Carolina. The report is scheduled to be published sometime next year.

The Office of the Inspector General is “an independent office within the EPA that helps the agency protect the environment in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.” It identifies areas it believes need investigation and issues a public report with recommendations. While it does not have enforcement power, the EPA is expected to take the Office's recommendations seriously. There can be disagreements over priorities and that is already happening in the water program and elsewhere. The OIG also submits semiannual reports to Congress. In the event that the EPA ignores any of the recommendations made by OIG, it is possible that the agency can be pressured to address them through hearings, appropriations riders or funding. The EPA OIG can also uncover criminal behavior, which would be addressed accordingly by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

 

More specifically, the memo announcing this evaluation says, “Our objective is to determine whether EPA effectively uses its oversight and enforcement authority to ensure that all residential wood heaters reaching consumers are properly tested and certified in accordance with established standards. … We may also choose to include a sample of regions in our evaluation and to conduct work at laboratories and third-party certifiers in selected regions.”

A current ad for uncertified
outdoor wood boilers

Before publicly announcing this evaluation, the OIG contacted the Alliance for Green Heat on Oct. 13, 2021 and held a conference call with AGH on Oct. 21. For years, AGH has been raising alarm bells about the lack of EPA enforcement in a number of areas, including the numerous companies that continue to manufacturer and sell outdoor wood boilers. AGH has often contacted the EPA Office of Enforcement and published stories on our newsletter on companies who make and/or distribute uncertified residential central wood heaters, including ACME (Missouri), EZBoiler (Michigan), Hyprotherm (Arkansas) and MBTEK (Pennsylvania distributor of Polish appliances). AGH has spoken with most of the companies by phone and they say that they have never been contacted by the EPA or a state agency about certification issues.

AGH also raised EPA’s failure to contact the whistleblower regarding the credible allegations of fraud at US Stove Company, along with a number of other areas where enforcement action was needed.

The OIG’s evaluation is also believed to have been triggered by the NESCAUM report, Assessment of EPA’s Residential Wood Heater Certification Program, that found a “systemic failure of the entire certification process, including EPA’s oversight and enforcement of its requirements.” That report led the EPA to conduct its own review of the certification paperwork for all certified stoves. The EPA is contacting scores of companies to obtain missing information or for clarification. In some cases, it is requiring the company to have the stove tested again.

If you have evidence of misconduct or mismanagement regarding the EPA’s oversight of wood heater testing or certification, you can provide information using this form, and refer to case OSRE-FY22-0026.

Further reading:

EPA fines stove retailer, pursues informal enforcement with many others, Jan. 2020

AGH files report with Consumer Product Safety Commission on alleged fraud, April 2021

Report finds ‘systemic failure’ in EPA wood stove tests, March 2021

EPA's cordwood test protocol for wood stoves moves forward

 AGH wrote to the EPA in June and again in early July, requesting public information about the stove testing that it is undertaking.  We had seen numerous references about the stove testing but could not find more details about it.  Rather than submitting a Freedom of Information request, which would likely provide a jumble of emails and miscellaneous documents, we urged the EPA to provide an overview.  Details about the EPA’s stove testing program are well known by HPBA insiders, and by staff at NESCAUM and NSERDA, yet we have consistently found that the EPA, nor those organizations, share information very well. This blog may be updated soon with rejoinders from experts who take issue with the EPA's narrative.  

This letter from the EPA partially explains how and why the EPA approved an IDC (ALT-140) test method without a full certification test report using that method.  NYSERDA and NESCAUM still have not produced certification level test data for their IDC method "although we [the EPA] understand that Alaska will be providing us with additional data demonstrating use of the ALT-140 for compliance testing."  

In the past 10 years, the EPA has rarely had any budget for lab testing, so its current budget of one million is significant.  AGH believes that its imperative for the EPA to develop its own data and not just rely either on industry or groups like NESCAUM and NYSERDA.  We reproduce below the email verbatim from Stef Johnson, leader of the EPA's Measurement Technology Group.  The photos were added by us.

July 20, 2021

Dear Mr. Ackerly: 

 

Thank you for the questions you forwarded in your July 9, 2021 email.  I appreciate the thoughtfulness of you questions and the opportunity to engage with you on this important topic.  In particular, I’d like to clarify the steps in EPA’s processes for: 

·         New Test Method Development and

·         Alternate Test Methods (ATM) 

 

New Test Method Development 

 

In the method development process, EPA creates new measurement methods for regulatory purposes.  In the case of EPA developing new test methods for wood heaters, EPA has embarked on a public process that engages stakeholders as we develop a new measurement method for this sector.  EPA’s Measurement Technology Group, the group I lead, began the process by convening a Roundtable consisting of manufacturers, Hearth Patio & Barbeque Association (HPBA) staff, state and local regulators, test lab technical staff, and multijurisdictional organization (MJO) representatives.  The Roundtable participants gathered to discuss the use and vetting of the Integrated Duty Cycle (IDC) method for certification of wood fired stoves and consider making that testing approach an EPA test method.   

 

After the January 2020 meeting where we discussed the IDC approach and the ASTM E3053 test approach, the agency determined that we would pursue development of the IDC as an EPA method.  We have been working in that direction ever since.  The process to conduct method precision testing of an IDC for wood heaters, one for hydronic heaters, one for forced-air furnaces, and one for pellet heaters is resource intensive and complex.   

 

EPA remains committed to transparency and open dialogue as we explore and develop new methods for compliance testing of wood heating appliances.  We have provided the Roundtable group information about our Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), the IDC method for wood heaters -- the current subject of our trials, and the Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) Standard Operating Procedures.  We have also shared supporting spreadsheets for using these methodologies.  We have posted this and other information in a public docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0130) and we have begun using this posted IDC, along with TEOM measurements in our contracted laboratory.     

 

The EPA is paying for 26 tests at PFS-
TECO testing in Portland, OR.

We are conducting 52 tests (26 paired tests) at a West Coast lab (PFS-TECO) and will be comparing those data to a duplicate effort that will be funded by NYSERDA and conducted at ClearStak laboratories in Connecticut.  Within each lab, we are doing paired testing to look at intra-laboratory variability -- known as repeatability testing.  We will be comparing the inter-lab variability (method reproducibility) between these bi-coastal sets of 26 test pairs.  This helps us understand the test method performance with respect to overall variability and informs our decisions as to the appropriateness of the test method for use with a given emissions standard.  EPA has committed nearly $1,000,000 to the West Coast portion of wood heater test method work, and to a study of TEOM precision to be done at EPA’s facility in Research Triangle Park, NC.  This type of data has never been collected for any wood burning appliance test method to date.   

 

All data we develop from our trials will be publicly available and placed into the same docket as the QAPP and IDC /TEOM methodologies.  We will convene the Roundtable after the wood heater precision testing is complete and we have data to discuss.  Certainly, there will be lessons learned along the way and improvements made.  As you may know, NYSERDA is also conducting wood heater precision testing, and we expect that they will make their data public.  East Coast testing will likely begin in mid-September.  We anticipate that a full data set will be available for discussion by in early 2022.  Again, this is for the development of a wood heater IDC compliance test method.  Finally, we will propose, take public comment, and finalize a new compliance test method.  All of this will be a public process, and all of the data will be available for review.   

NYSERDA is paying for 26 tests of
the same stoves at ClearStak in
Connecticut.  ClearStak offers
transparency in testing by video taping 
the tests but it is not known if these 
tests will be videotaped or if the tapes
will be released to the public.

 

Alternative Test Methods 

 

The Alternate Test Method (ATM) approval process is different than compliance test method development.   In the ATM process, the requestor is responsible for providing sufficient information to the agency to demonstrate that the proposed Alternate Test Method is appropriate for compliance testing purposes.   Requesting an ATM is an option available to any affected party. The proposed ATM must be deemed by the Measurement Technology Group to be appropriate with the final air pollution standard.  The entity requesting the ATM must demonstrate compliance with a Federal subpart regulated by 40 CFR Part 60, such as subparts AAA or QQQQ regulating wood burning residential heating appliances. 

 

EPA’s Measurement Technology Group receives requests for alternate means of compliance testing from affected source categories, from electric utilities to wood heater manufacturers and everything in between.  We are responsible for reviewing each request and make a technical determination about the appropriateness.  We either work in a direct back/forth manner with the requestor or we agree to the request with some stipulations. (You will note we listed several in our 2021 ALT-140 approval letter).  

 

In sum, the ATM approval process is a technical exchange with a requestor followed by a technical evaluation by my staff.  The goal is to approve compliance testing that meets a specific need and is appropriate for the compliance purpose as outlined in the rule.  While such evaluations may involve exchange of data between the requestor and EPA, each request is evaluated and assessed on a case-by-case basis.  

 

In situations where there is not any test method available, for example, EPA will evaluate the request differently than in situations where we have already approved an ATM.  With regard to ALT-140, we have had the opportunity to learn about the IDC development process through multi-party meetings from 2017 to 2020.  The information shared during this time about the IDC illustrated that this method provides a more rigorous test assessment of heater performance and therefore, provides a more conservative compliance demonstration approach.  Such conservative approaches (more difficult to pass the test) are nearly ideal for Alternate Test Method processes because one of our goals with the ATM process is to not relax the standard in any manner.   

 

That said, when EPA received Alaska’s request to approve an alternative test method for demonstrating compliance with the New Source Performance Standard Subpart AAA, Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters in December 2020, we were not aware of data that demonstrated that a wood heater could meet the emissions limit of the rule using the IDC.  Therefore, we asked Alaska to provide us with that information.  While what they provided to EPA is not an entire test report, it is credible enough for us to allow the use of the test method for compliance demonstration, where a compliance test must fully document all of the test method QA/QC details to satisfy EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)’s requirements.   

 

Finally, using an ATM itself is optional and my staff ensures that all alternative methods are equivalent or more stringent than the test method in the EPA regulation.  No one need ask to use one unless they decide that it is in their interest to do so.   In the case of the Alaska request, EPA’s approval of ALT-140 provides a cord wood compliance pathway for manufacturers wishing to sell in the Fairbanks-North Star area.  They are also free to conduct crib fuel tests and sell crib fuel tested units in that area.   

 

Finally, EPA has received 5 spreadsheets from NYSERDA/NESCAUM in support the Alaska ALT-140 request and they are available upon request.  To date, EPA has not received any other NYSERDA/NESCAUM test data used for their IDC method development purposes, although we understand that Alaska will be providing us with additional data demonstrating use of the ALT-140 for compliance testing.  

 

I hope this has been helpful for your understanding.   

 

Very sincerely, 

 

Steffan Johnson

Leader - Measurement Technology Group

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Related stories

Nine states urge the EPA to revoke the ASTM cordwood method (May 2021)

EPA announces overhaul of wood stove certification process (April 2021)

AGH response to NESCAUM report on wood stoves (March 2021)

EPA and states vigorously defend audits of wood stoves (Sept. 2020)

EPA finds lapses in cordwood certification testing (July 2019)

Nine states urge the EPA to revoke the ASTM cordwood test method

A certification test using ASTM E3053
where logs are loaded north-south on
the bottom and east-west on top.  

The Attorney Generals of nine states sent a letter to Chet Wayland, the EPA’s Director of Air Quality Planning and Standards, urging him to reevaluate the ASTM E3053, and revoke it if the EPA reevaluation confirms the findings in a recent report from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).

The Attorney Generals said “certifications relying on [ASTM 3053] Alternative test methods 125 and 127 suffer from deficiencies that artificially lower emissions during the certification tests and allow too much variability and manufacturer or laboratory manipulation to provide a result sufficient to determine compliance with the Standard.” The letter is reproduced below and can be downloaded here.

 

The NESCAUM report that identified deficiencies in test reports that used ASTM E3053 also found significant deficiencies in test reports of stoves that used Method 5G, the official federal reference method for wood stove emission testing.  That report led to an announcement by the EPA in early April that they were overhauling their process of reviewing certification paperwork, but it did not address NESCAUM’s recommendation that the ASTM method be revoked.

Both the ASTM and IDC cord wood
test methods have been accepted as
"broadly applicable" which means any
manufacturer can use them for 
certification testing.  No stove has yet 
been certified with the IDC method.

At issue is what has become the favored test method by manufacturers and labs.  Eighty-five out of 148 cordwood stoves, nearly 60%, of all wood stoves on the market today used the ASTM test, one indication that the test may be easier than Method 28, the traditional test.  Among the close-knit community of stove manufacturers and test labs, there are few explanations of why labs shifted so quickly to use the ASTM test method.

This controversy, like virtually all others around wood stoves in recent years, have to do with heaters that burn wood, not pellets.  Unfortunately, reports, rejoinders and media coverage rarely make that distinction,  resulting in a loss of confidence in all types of heaters.  Pellet stoves remain fundamentally far cleaner than wood stoves in the hands of consumers and their test methods are far less susceptible to interpretation and manipulation.

 

On June 6, the EPA posted the NYSERDA IDC testing protocol. They say: "We have now docketed the TEOM SOP, and IDC Stove Operating and Fueling protocols, along with their associated spreadsheets (fueling calculator for IDC, data processing for TEOM). These files are static for the duration of our sample collection efforts that have now begun in Portland, OR."  This process too has been exclusionary.  The Alliance for Green Heat requested on multiple occasions to join the Roundtable group made up of scores of industry members, state regulators and EPA personnel, but the EPA declined to allow non-industry stakeholders to be part of this process. 

Industry experts affiliated with the main industry association, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA), take pride in what they call an open, transparent and consensus-driven process of developing and approving the ASTM E3053 cordwood test method. Its detractors, led by NESCAUM and the New York State Energy and Development Authority (NYSERDA), say ASTM is a private non-profit that copyrights and sells its standards.  They also contend that even though anyone can join the committee developing an ASTM standard, the process can be dominated by industry, and comments and recommendations can be discarded if the core committee members do not agree with them.  

 

Lisa Rector explains the IDC test when
it was first publicly showcased at a
Wood Stove Design Challenge in 2018.

The Technical Contact for the ASTM E3053 development process and a subsequent revision which is still being worked on, is Robert Ferguson, a long-time industry insider who often is a consultant for HPBA.  Approximately 90% of the experts included in the ASTM 3053 development process consisted of representatives of wood stove manufacturers, HPBA staff and test lab staff.  In addition there were about 10 staff from EPA, NESCAUM, WESTAR and non-profits, including AGH.  HPBA paid for some of the testing during the development process and Mark Champion, who has done most of the Integrated Duty Cycle (IDC) testing also did testing of the ASTM method.  AGH offered comments during the ASTM process and was told that test data to back up suggestions was needed.  Comments from NESCAUM were reportedly disapproved.

NYSERDA has been funding NESCAUM to develop their own cordwood test method, which was recently approved by the EPA as a broadly applicable method, at the request of the State of Alaska.  Industry members say NESCAUM and NYSERDA have a clear conflict of interest and are trying to get rid of the competition so that their cordwood test method can be the only one used by test labs.  Industry is also frustrated with the lack of transparency surrounding the development of the IDC test method and the errors in it that would have been found if other experts could have reviewed it and tested it.  Tom Morrissey, owner of  Woodstock Soapstone found scores of errors in the NESCAUM report and identified many problematic issues with the IDC test method.  Ben Myren, a veteran test lab owner, also found many problems with the process run by NESCAUM and the state of Alaska.

An EPA reevaluation of finding
in the NESCAUM report
should include rejoinders
from manufacturers, such as
whether this fuel was correctly
flagged for debarking

It is not yet known whether the demands of the nine states could lead to the revocation of the certification of 85 stoves that were certified with the ASTM method, or whether the EPA would just not allow it to be used to certify additional stoves.  Most of those 85 stoves will be requesting to have their 5 year certification approval extended for another 5 years.  The EPA may require that those stoves go through emissions testing again after 5 years, an option that they appear to have been considering even before the letter from the Attorney Generals based on deficiencies flagged by the Alaska review process.

The nine Attorney Generals represent the states of New York, Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington  along with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.  Absent from this list are Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut who are members of NESCAUM and prominently listed at the beginning of the NESCAUM report.

Copy of letter:

Attorneys General of New York, Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

May 21, 2021

Chet Wayland
Director, Air Quality Assessment Division
US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Drop E-143-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 22710

Re: Request that EPA Revoke Use of Alternative Test Methods 125 and 127 for New Source Performance Standard Wood Heaters Certification

Dear Chet Wayland,

On behalf of the Attorneys General of New York, Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, we write to request that EPA revoke alternative test methods 125 and 127, both based on ASTM 3053, to certify compliance with the New Source Performance Standard (the Standard) for wood heaters. These alternative test methods threaten to undermine the air quality benefits of the Standard.

As outlined in an April 28, 2021 letter from multiple state regulators to EPA, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management have together undertaken a comprehensive review and audit of wood heaters certified under test methods relying on ASTM 3053. These entities found that certifications relying on those alternative test methods suffer from deficiencies that artificially lower emissions during the certification tests. Alternative test methods 125 and 127 allow too much variability and manufacturer or laboratory manipulation to provide a result sufficient to determine compliance with the Standard. In light of these findings, we request that EPA reevaluate the authorizations for alternative test methods 125 and 127, and if EPA corroborates the reports’ findings, revoke these alternative test methods. See 40 CFR §§ 60.8(b), 60.534(a)(1)(ii) (specifying authority to authorize alternative test methods); see also 40 CFR § 60.533(l)(1) (allowing revocation of certifications for wood heater models where test results cannot be replicated).

States continue to invest considerable resources to facilitate the exchange of older, more- polluting wood heaters for newer less-polluting units. Wood heater certifications based on deficient test methods, which produce artificially lower emissions than what can be achieved by homeowners, undermines these efforts. Furthermore, wood heaters with high particulate matter emissions pose dangers to the health of our residents, including vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and environmental justice communities. EPA can mitigate these problems by requiring the use of either EPA’s method 28R or alternative test method 140 (the Integrated Duty Cycle Test Method that EPA has indicated represents the future of certification test methods for wood heaters).

Last year, numerous States submitted an amicus brief supporting EPA’s authority to conduct auditing of wood heater certifications. See States’ Amicus Brief, Hearth Patio & Barbecue Ass’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-1056 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 21, 2020), ECF No. 1862523. In that amicus brief, we argued that manufacturers could effectively evade the Standard, and thus contribute to harmful air pollution, by using alternative test methods based on ASTM 3053 for test certifications and running tests more loosely than permitted by method 28R. For example, these methods do not require the use of fuel logs that are 5/6 the length of the firebox, and using shorter logs allows for cleaner burns. What is more, gaming the tests leads to results that cannot be replicated.

We now ask that EPA take the additional step of reviewing the reports and information brought forward by air regulators and other parties and to reassess using alternative test methods 125 and 127. If EPA findings corroborate the state air regulator’s reports—including that stoves certified under alternative test methods 125 and 127 do not reliably produce emissions below the Standard—then EPA should disallow the use of these methods. Moreover, when the certifications for wood heater models that used alternative test method 125 or 127 are up for renewal, EPA should require recertification testing using method 28R or alternative test method 140. See 40 CFR § 60.533(h)(2) (indicating certifications expire every five years).

Thank you for your attention to addressing this troubling threat to the air quality protections afforded by the Standard.

Sincerely,

FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General of the State of New York

By: /s/ Nicholas C. Buttino NICHOLAS C. BUTTINO MICHAEL J. MYERS
Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224
Tel: (518) 776-2406 nicholas.buttino@ag.ny.gov

FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

TREG R. TAYLOR Attorney General

By: /s/ Steve E. Mulder
STEVE E. MULDER
Chief Assistant Attorney General 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501
Tel: (907) 269-5100
Fax: (907) 276-3697 steve.mulder@alaska.gov

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND

BRIAN E. FROSH
Attorney General of Maryland

By: /s/ Michael Strande MICHAEL STRANDE Assistant Attorney General Department of the Environment 200 Saint Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202
Tel: (410) 576-6300 michael.strande@maryland.gov

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General of Massachusetts

By: /s/ Carol Iancu
CAROL IANCU
TURNER SMITH, Deputy Chief Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108
Tel: (617) 963-2428 carol.iancu@state.ma.us

FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General

By: /s/ Lisa J. Morelli LISA J. MORELLI
Deputy Attorney General New Jersey Division of Law 25 Market Street

Trenton, NJ 08625
Tel: (609) 376-2745 Lisa.Morelli@law.njoag.gov

FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General

By: /s/ Paul Garrahan
PAUL GARRAHAN Attorney-in-Charge
STEVE NOVICK
Special Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Section

Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Tel: (503) 947-4593 Paul.Garrahan@doj.state.or.us Steve.Novick@doj.state.or.us

FOR THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

PETER F. NERONHA
Attorney General of Rhode Island

By: /s/ Alison B. Hoffman
ALISON B. HOFFMAN
Special Assistant Attorney General
Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General 150 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
Tel: (401) 274-4400 ext. 2116 ahoffman@riag.ri.gov

FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General

By: /s/ Nicholas F. Persampieri NICHOLAS F. PERSAMPIERI Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 109 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05609
Tel: (802) 828-6902 nick.persampieri@vermont.gov

FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General

By: /s/ Caroline E. Cress CAROLINE E. CRESS Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 40117

Olympia, WA 98504-0117 Tel: (360) 586-4613 caroline.cress@atg.wa.gov

FOR THE PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY

By: /s/ Jennifer A. Dold JENNIFER A. DOLD
General Counsel
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 105 Seattle, WA 98101

Tel: (206) 689-4015

jenniferd@pscleanair.gov