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)

Whistleblower alleges wood stove manufacturer defrauded retailers and customers

Breaking update: April 15 2022: A year after a whistleblower provided the EPA with extensive evidence of fraud and violations of stove regulation at the US Stove company, the EPA appears to be aggressively investigating the case.  The whistleblower initially the EPA's Office of Enforcement (OECA), who appeared to do very little for most of the past year.  But a breakthrough happened when Special Agents of the EPA's Office of the Attorney General (OIG) responded to a short form on the Attorney General website for members of the public to raise concerns.   It is not clear if the OIG office knew that OECA was already supposed to be investigating the case and already had documents from the whistleblower.  

The case involves more than 4,000 2015 certified stoves that were sold and delivered to Tractor Supply that US Stove claimed were 2020 certified.  Randall Dodds, a Vice President at Tractor Supply in charge of the order from US Stove, was allegedly unaware that US Stove had provided them with 2015 certified stoves at end of 2019, when they needed to stock up on 2020 certified stoves.  When Tractor Supply found out about the alleged fraud, they had already shipped the stoves and begun selling them at their retail outlets in boxes that claimed they were 2020 certified, according to multiple sources.  Mr Dodd declined to discuss "its vendor relationships with third parties."  

The original whistleblower remains under a Restraining Order, given by a local judge to US Stove because the judge thought "the public interest would be served by granting the requested temporary restraining order." At that time, the public was being misled and sold stoves that were mislabeled and more polluting.  No notice, recall or compensation has been offered to consumers.

Breaking update: April 16, 2021:  US Stove Co. got a temporary Restraining Order against the whistleblower requiring him to refrain from accessing, publishing, disclosing, or otherwise disseminating USSC’s confidential information to any third party. The Temporary Restraining Order also requires him to return all USSC documents containing Confidential Information within 48 hours of receipt of the Temporary Restraining Order.  There will be a hearing on April 26 in a Tennessee Court for a Temporary Injunction and "other appropriate relief."  As the EPA investigation gears up, US Stove could sue the whistleblower for damages, requiring substantial legal fees on both sides. 

April 9, 2021 - US Stove Co., a Tennessee-based company that manufactures most of their stoves in China has been accused by a former employee of fraudulent activity, which he also reported to the EPA enforcement division.  The employee who wishes to remain anonymous, alleged the company told retailers that a popular stove model complied with 2020 EPA emission standards. If those allegations are confirmed, thousands of people may have purchased far dirtier stoves than they thought they were buying and lead to massive fines for the company.

The old and new model of the 1269
look exactly alike and has a similar
model number. 

The whistleblower says that more than 4,000 model 1269E stoves were sold to Tractor Supply Company during 2019 and 2020. According to the whistleblower, US Stove Co. told Tractor Supply that the stoves complied with the 2020 emission standards and about 900 were sold after the May 15, 2020 deadline when all stoves had to be 2020 compliant.  The 1269E emitted 4.2 grams of particulates per hour based on EPA approved certification testing.  The newer US 1269E was tested at 1.8 grams an hour.

 

A representative of US Stove Co. vigorously denied these allegations, saying that “U.S. Stove has never sold a non-compliant product to Tractor Supply or ‘other outlets’. Further, U.S. Stove has never misrepresented the 1269E model as a 2020-compliant model, and further has never shipped 1269Es as if they were US1269Es.”

August Jones, President on left, with
Richard Rogers, Chairman of the
Board in their warehouse in 2019.

US Stove may be the oldest operating stove manufacturer in the US and is still owned and operated by the Rogers family.  The company was original based in upstate New York, and used extensive prison labor in its operations.  When that practice was banned in 1886, the company moved south, in part to avoid unionized labor.  But after a 1927 union fight, the company closed for a period until S. L. Rogers incorporated US Stove Corporation in 1930.  Today, Richard Rogers is the Chairman of the Board and his nephew, August Jones, is the President.  

Documents and emails viewed by AGH tell a different story, indicating that US Stove Co. was shipping 1269Es and telling Tractor Supply they were US1269Es, which were 2020 compliant.  EPA regulations stipulate that you cannot market or sell a stove model until the EPA has issued a certificate of compliance.  Polytest, the test lab that did the emission testing for the US1269E, completed their report on August 26, 2019.  Yet, documents appear to show that between June and September of 2019, US Stove Co. purchased 4,144 US 1269E’s from Jinhua Jason and Ningbo Precise, two factories in China.  The Certificate of Conformity was issued by PFS-TECO, the third-party reviewer to John Vorhees, a senior engineer at US Stove Co. Tractor Supply issued purchase orders for the US1269E’s in March of 2019. The national hardware chain reportedly received the stoves and paid the invoices between June and August 2019.   At issue is when US Stove released the first model plate for the US1269E.  There is no allegation of wrongdoing by Polytest lab or PFS-TECO.

The permanent metal name plates on
the back of the 1269Es are made and
affixed in China, and stoves sent
directly to Tractor Supply.

In February 2020, the Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) was contacted by a consumer who thought he was buying the 2020 compliant US1269E, but when he opened the box, it was the 1269E. He asked “why the box says one thing but the identity on the stove says something different. …  I checked other stores and they have the same small wood stoves with the same descrepancy.[sic]  I called the company about this situation and the young girl gave me the impression there is no difference.”

 

According to the former US Stove Co. employee, Tractor Supply may not have known that the description of the stove on the box did not match the EPA nameplate on the back of the stove, or that the devices “were actually twice as dirty and not what the customers were expecting.”  Mary Winn Pilkington, Tractor Supply’s communications officer confirmed that the company was investigating this issue but did not yet have any comment.

In response to a request for a statement by AGH, the EPA said that "you may be assured we take allegations of fraud very seriously and are working to address the concerns you have raised."  The EPA's statement thanked AGH for providing them information about this case, however the information was sent by whistleblower to EPA office of Enforcement before AGH received it.  (See full statement below)

One outlet is now selling the 1269
for $428, possibly making it the 
cheapest EPA certified stove on
the market, a key reason that 
explains the high sales volumes

US Stove Company is well-known within the industry for selling low-cost wood stoves through hardware chain stores and online and experts believe it is probably the highest volume seller of stoves in North America, although actual sales figures are kept secret.  Both the older version of the 1269 and the 2020 compliant version sell for under $600 and it is not clear how much the company had to adjust the design to meet the stricter emissions requirements.

 

April 2020 flood damage US Stove facilities

In April of 2020, a severe storm brought heavy flooding to South Pittsburg, damaging hundreds of stoves and stove parts at US Stove Co.  The whistleblower also alleges that products US Stove claimed to be damaged by the flood in April was put back into stock in September and sold as new. This product was detailed as “scrapped” to the insurance adjustor.

 

The whistleblower also contacted Tractor Supply to alert them of potentially dangerous products that they may have sold.  “I'm having a hard time sleeping knowing the risk of fire, injury or even death could be caused by this water damaged product in the homes of families,” he told the buyer at Tractor Supply.

 

A company representative said in an email that “U.S. Stove was damaged by a flood in one of its warehouses. U.S. Stove worked with its insurance company to recover its damages. U.S. Stove did not sell flood-damaged stoves as new.”

Third party certifiers
are supposed to double check
the testing process, but have
no role in reviewing 
manufacturing or shipping

It is unclear whether this could lead to a recall of stoves, if the allegations are confirmed.  For stoves that may have been improperly labelled as 2020 compliant, Tractor Supply may have an obligation to notify them and offer a refund.  Previously, the largest recall of stoves in the past two decades also involved a U.S. Stove product when 4,400 window mounted pellet stoves were recalled.  

 

The Alliance for Green Heat has often contacted US Stove over the past 10 years after finding scores of non-compliant US Stove products on the market as well as examples of misleading advertising.  In 2012, US Stove products and those of other companies appeared to mislead consumers about their certification status.

 

In June of 2017, AGH found many non-compliant furnaces made by US Stove on the market.  AGH contacted nine of the retailers, and of those, six stopped advertising those boilers within 2 weeks. Others continued advertising uncertified wood furnaces after being alerted they were illegal to sell, including Sears’ online marketplace (orders fulfilled by the third party 123Stoves, Inc.), Homeclick, and HVAC direct. HVAC Direct continued to sell uncertified furnaces until they stopped in March, 2021 after pressure from a facebook campaign.  The EPA was aware of all these instances of non-compliant furnace sales but said they cannot discuss any enforcement actions.  There is little indication that they took any enforcement action in these cases.

 

An advertisement for a non-compliant
 US Stove boiler being sold in April
2021. The seller has two unused ones.

Today, AGH found brand new non-compliant US Stove furnaces (model 1660EFE) being sold on facebook  by a private individual in Jasper, Tennessee. This is a town adjacent to South Pittsburg where US Stove is headquartered and a number of US Stove employees and executives live.

The allegations from this senior executive of a stove manufacturer may represent the first time an industry insider has publicly blown the whistle in what is often seen as a tight-knit community where colleagues protect one another.  And it appears to be a coincidence that these allegations are coming out on the heels of scathing reports from NESCAUM and the State of Alaska that EPA’s enforcement of wood heater regulations are “dysfunctional.”  These reports led to the EPA announcing an extraordinary shake-up of its wood heater enforcement program.  This instance of alleged fraud may become one of the first test cases of how the EPA is ramping up enforcement of its wood heater regulations.

Tractor Supply was still selling the 1269
earlier in 2021 but they appear to have 
removed it from their website.

 

This whistleblower says that after raising his concerns internally, he was forced out of the company.  Now, he says he is worried about retaliation and how he can “resume support for my family in the future.”

Statement by the EPA's Office of Media Relations

April 8, 2021

Thank you very much for contacting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding potential fraud at U.S. Stove.  We appreciate the efforts you have made to date in collecting information and your willingness to share it with us. We are very much interested in understanding better the facts surrounding this case and want to assure you that EPA is committed to reviewing the information you have provided as quickly as possible.  As an open enforcement action, EPA does not comment on the specifics involved, but you may be assured we take allegations of fraud very seriously and are working to address the concerns you have raised. 

 

We are aware of the findings from the NESCAUM report issued in March. EPA is committed to ensuring that wood stoves and other wood burning devices comply with Clean Air Act standards to reduce health-harming pollution.  In light of information from states and other stakeholders provided in late 2020 and early 2021, the agency is taking a number of actions to address concerns about the certification of wood stoves, including the methods and manner in which wood stoves are being tested for compliance with the 2015 New Source Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act.

 

Numerous brand new, uncertified units,
such as the 1660EFE furnace, are 
frequently for sale by private owners 
near the US Stove factory.

These actions will take time and continued engagement with stakeholders. Given the concerns raised, EPA is carefully reviewing both current and new Certifications of Compliance and will take actions as appropriate.

Postscript: June 8, 2021. US Stove furnaces that do not meet the current, 2020 EPA certification standards continue to pop up for sale around the US Stove factory, that spans the Tennessee/Alabama border. Even while US Stove Company is under scrutiny for various alleged illegal sales, it appears that they may still be trying to get rid of excess inventory of the 1660EFE model furnace. The EPA knows about this but they still apparently do not have the staffing or resources to do anything about it. See many more images and detailers about sellers on our Facebook page.

 

 

Records reveal successes and challenges in laboratory wood heater testing

Stove and boiler regulations appear to have survived Trump’s first term 

As the wood stove industry nears the May 15, 2020 deadline for meeting stricter emission standards, EPA records show a steady stream of stoves being certified but do not show which models, if any, failed. Manufacturers are required to notify the EPA of stoves they are testing 30 days in advance of the test and to report results after 60 days. Labs are also required to provide emission data to the EPA within 60 days, even if a test is suspended.

Percent of certification tests
scheduled for larger EPA-
approved test labs.  

Data from stove certification tests is a core resource for understanding and improving the effectiveness of regulations. A trove of documents just became available that helps us better understand how stove testing works and how a declining number of EPA staff is trying to oversee detailed regulations that partially rely on an honor system within the industry they are regulating.

Data recently released by EPA shows the pipeline of what is being tested by which lab, what has not been certified and other trends. The 2015 performance standards for residential wood heaters require manufacturers to notify the EPA at least 30 days in advance of the model’s certification test in an EPA-approved laboratory.

The EPA does not maintain a public database of 30-day notices, but the Northeastern interstate air quality organization NESCAUM requested copies of these reports through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The main function of the 30-day notice is to enable the EPA and other agencies to witness testing, which otherwise occurs behind closed doors.

There is nothing proprietary in the 30-day notices and the EPA has no grounds to keep them confidential. Once anyone files a FOIA, the information is made public on the US government FOIA online site. To find the underlying data from these requests, type in “NESCAUM” in the FOIA online site or use these record locators: EPA-HQ-2019-006560, EPA-HQ-2019-000324 and EPA-HQ-2018-006770.

The EPA provided 30-day notices filed between 2015 and 2019 for 143 distinct heaters and 41 duplicate notices.  Matching the 30-day notices to the end result on the EPA's certified heater database indicates that approximately two-thirds of them are certified to 2020 standards.

We could not tell, for example, if crib tested stoves had a higher or lower passage rate then cordwood tested stoves, or which fuel led to more suspensions. The rapid rise in popularity of the cordwood test may indicate the stove manufacturer community’s confidence that they will not be more likely to suspend or fail a test.

More than 10 stoves or central heaters may have been certified since 2015 but only achieved Step 1 standards. The reason for this is unclear. It could be that these stoves already had Step 1 status but failed to achieve Step 2 emission limits. It may also indicate that manufacturers thought the EPA regulations would be struck down or EPA would grant a sell-through, neither of which appear to be happening at this point.

The EPA’s inaction to date on revising  2015 NSPS, and HPBA's strategy to seek repeated delays in their litigation, means that Step 1 stoves will likely be illegal to sell in the US after May 15, 2020. For companies that certified to Step 1 standards since May 2015, the expenses of testing the stove, and potentially modifying it, resulted in a stove that can only be sold for 2 – 4 years on the US market.

Approximately twenty-three stoves with 30-day notices do not appear on the EPA database of certified heaters. It is possible that some of the unlisted stoves have been tested very recently and are still in the certification process, while others might have failed certification testing, did not make it to market for a separate reason, or were discontinued by the manufacturer. 

Test labs

Two labs, Polytest and Omni, test a majority of stoves for the American market. Polytest is based in Montreal and Omni in Portland, Oregon. PFS acquired Dirigo, so it is now one lab, also based in Portland Oregon. Dirigo used to qualify or certify many outdoor wood boilers. Myren Labs is now only an R&D shop and no longer conducts certification tests, but EPA-approved labs can certify at Myren's lab. Two relatively new European EPA labs – RISE (formally SP) in Sweden and the Danish Technology Institute (DTI) have done a few certification tests.  Only the SZU lab in Czech Republic has apparently not yet done certification testing for any heaters for the US.

Four labs account for the great
majority of certification testing.

Polytest and Omni are also the labs that certify the most stoves with the ASTM cordwood protocol, though all labs now have experience with cordwood for either stoves or boilers.

Many stoves certification tests are done in manufacturers’ or R&D labs by EPA-approved lab technicians who travel there to undertake the testing. Using the same lab that the stove was developed in may be one way to enhance the repeatability of emissions testing and help ensure the stoves passes.

Stoves vs. boilers, crib vs. cordwood

Currently, there are 130 appliances on the EPA's central heater database, however we only have 14 30-day notices in for central heaters (boilers and furnaces), indicating a drastic cut back on testing central heaters to 2020 standards since 2015. Moreover, the testing of those units only resulted in 3 certified heaters: 2 European pellet boilers and 1 domestic cordwood furnace. Possibly the most notable manufacturer that does not have a 2020 certified unit is Central Boiler, who led the charge to stave off the EPA’s 2020 emission standards (litigation still outstanding). Omni labs filed a notice to test a new Central Boiler unit in the winter of 2017, but as this unit does not appear on the EPA list, it is unclear if the testing was suspended or what the results were.

The majority of the 30-day notices obtained were for stoves or room heaters, a category which includes wood, pellet, and multi-fuel stoves. Of these 129 unique room heaters, 36% listed crib wood, 33% pellets, 25% cord wood, and 2% coal/wood and >1% densified logs as the test fuel on the notice. A few 30-day notices did not have a fuel type selected. Twenty-two heaters were listed as having a catalyst, and at least five stoves were single burn rate stoves, a feature that is sometimes not advertised to consumers.

Posting non-confidential lab reports

A new provision of the 2015 EPA stove regulations requires manufacturers to publish their certification testing reports. These lab reports include all emission data, efficiency, grams per hour for each test run and the averaged final numbers. They also include photos of the stove and the crib loads, how the stove was loaded and other data once routinely kept private by manufacturers. These lab reports are usually too technical for the average consumer, but often read by other manufacturers, regulators, retailers and stove hobbyists.

However, these reports are sometimes hard to find on company websites and sometimes appear not to be posted at all by a few smaller manufacturers. After extensive searching, AGH was able to find more than 90% of the 2020 certified heaters’ certification reports online, as well as most Step 1 reports. To be listed as a certified heater by the EPA, manufacturers must provide the EPA with a link to their online report.  While major manufacturers are posting their reports, some remain hidden or difficult to find. And, since most stoves were grandfathered into the 2015 Step emission category, many lab reports detail the original certification testing which happened 15 – 30 years ago. (Once a stove was certified, it received a 5-year certificate of certification, which could be renewed without any additional testing every five years. Some currently certified stoves models are using tests conducting in the early 1990s, having received 5 EPA renewal approvals.)

Lab reports are often more than 200 pages long, but some companies limit what they disclose. Some are only 20 pages, and black out things such as the name of the company representative who witnessed the test. One very old report, from 1992, was only 2 pages long. Manufacturers are only required to post test reports for units tested after 2015, but the overwhelming majority posted test reports for all their certified units, providing testing transparency for the first time and access to third-party efficiency data, which consumers did not have access to before.  A few companies, including Central Boiler, only make reports public for tests done after 2015 and not for all of its certified units. (Those tests reports could likely be obtained through a FOIA request.)

Most companies maintain a single, centralized page for all their lab reports, making it easy to find them with a single click. They are called a variety for names from test report, to EPA data to website report, to certification certificate. Innovative Hearth Products that owns Astria, Ironstrike and Superior have some of the hardest pages to find as they are simply titled “Wood Heaters” and tech support told us that the company did not post those reports. Other manufacturers have the lab test report on the individual product page. At least 4 companies fixed broken links and reposted their test reports after we contacted them, notifying them that we could not locate them.

Links to non-CBI test lab reports

This is not an exhaustive list of manufacturers but includes most of the larger stove companies. (We will periodically update these links.)

Lab reports on central page: 509 Fabrications, Arada Stoves, Astria, Blaze King, Buck Stoves, Central Boiler, Drolet, Enerzone, Enerco Group (Mr. Heater), England's Stove Works, Enviro, Fire Chief Industries, Foyers Supreme, FPI Regency, Harman, Hearthstone, Iron Strike, JA Roby, Kuma, Morso, Napoleon, Osburn, Pacific Energy, Quadrafire, Regency, STUV, Superior, Travis/Lopi, US Stove, Vermont Castings, Woodstock Soapstone.

Lab reports on individual product pages: Froling, Jotul, MF Fire, RSF, Sierra Products, Thelin, Thermorossi, Timberwolf, Wittus (links go to a sample report).

Lab reports not found: Invicta, Laminox (we sent multiple emails and will post links if we get responses.)

Suspension of certification tests

From a review of 30-day notices of lab tests, and resulting certification, it would appear that virtually no stove fails a certification test. That is because if initial test runs are not going well, the certification test is suspended. There is no point continuing costly tests if the average grams per hour for all the tests is not going to be below 2 or 2.5 grams an hour. However, the EPA’s 2015 stove heater regulators require labs to “agree to immediately notify the Administrator of any suspended tests through email and in writing, giving the date suspended, the reason(s) why, and the projected date for restarting. The laboratory must submit the operation and test data obtained, even if the test is not completed.”

This data enables the EPA, state regulators and industry experts to understand how rigorous – or easy – a test protocol is for stoves of various firebox sizes and designs depending on whether crib or cordwood is used, for example.

In addition, the 2015 wood heater regulations stipulates, “Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, e.g., initial certification test, tests conducted for quality assurance, and tests for renewal or recertification, each manufacturer must submit the performance test data” to the EPA. Thus whether the tests resulted in certification, or were suspended or failed, the data still goes to the EPA and becomes part of the public record.

However, most labs appear to not always comply with this part of the NSPS and the EPA appears to not be strictly enforcing compliance (NESCAUM as submitted a FOIA request (EPA-HQ-2019-008306) for suspended test reports). This undermines the process of developing better test methods that could result in genuinely cleaner stoves.  In an unusual move, the EPA made a memo to test labs public that detailed lapses in lab test reports.  Filing reports from suspended tests was not among the issues the EPA raised to labs.

The high certification success rate of stoves scheduled to be tested may appear to undermine industry claims that the 2020 standards are impossible or crippling. However, stoves are intensively tested in private or internal labs before they are scheduled for expensive certification testing, as manufacturers need to know that they have a high chance of success to justify the expense. Manufacturers need to be able to repeat the prescribed test protocol relatively consistently to avoid a level of randomness between practice tests and certification tests that could result in repeatedly suspending certification tests. This issue of repeatability is at the core of the entire concept that wood heater testing is a valid and useful way to tell which heater is clean enough to put into homes and communities across America.

The fact that a very high percentage of certification tests are successful may undermine some industry claims that the variability of testing stoves under 2 grams an hour is far too high to render the test useful. Manufacturers have reams of data from in-house testing that could show how close their certification test results were to their practice tests. Some communities, often outside of the HPBA core, are far more transparent in sharing testing data, such as the Masonry Heater Association and various parts of the international cook stove community.

It is unclear if all manufacturers are following the same guidance about filing 30-day notices, as the EPA has become laxer about when wood heaters can be tested. Heaters often face delays in testing due to a variety of reasons, technically requiring a new 30-day notice. One stove AGH found has seven 30-days notices filed for it. Others had only one, but they may have delayed the test multiple times.

Conflicts of interest

An equally thorny issue is the conflict-ridden economic relationship between the labs and manufacturers. Labs want their clients to have confidence that they can get their stoves or boilers to pass the certification test. There is a process leading up to a certification test where labs come to know the strengths and weaknesses of a heater and match those with the areas of flexibility in a test protocol.

Labs guard their privacy and confidentiality on behalf of their clients. Curtains are often used to ensure that visitors cannot see whose heaters are being tested, and when and how. The 30-day notification rule was supposed to enable state or federal regulators to periodically witness certification - announced or unannounced. Witnessing testing allows regulators to understand the complexities, nuances and loopholes involved. Without that understanding, regulators cannot gain the level of expertise necessary to enforce existing rules, much less write better ones.

But here is the rub: AGH is not aware of any federal or state regulator who has witnessed a certification test in the last 5 years.  Rod Tinnemore, a Washington State regulator was one of the few who did witness tests and he gained the expertise, trust and respect of many stakeholders.  After his retirement, Washington appears to have backed off its multifaceted wood heater roles. Certification tests often last 4 – 7 days and can be very boring. Labs exist in only a few states and agencies do not have the time, resources – and sometimes even the authority – to witness testing. Most regulators do not even have the expertise to fully understand what they are witnessing and what nuanced lab practices are allowed or not allowed. The result is nearly a classic catch-22.

Conflicts are also potentially abundant in stove testing protocols like the ASTM E3053-17, which was developed and paid for by many of the same industry players whose stoves will be certified by those methods. Developing a protocol is an expensive and lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that it will be approved for use by the EPA and the EPA can unilaterally modify its use for certification testing. The EPA, however, may not have the resources and data to fully understand the nuances of a new alternative protocol until years later, when enough stoves have used the method. Further handicapping their oversight role is not consistently getting data from manufacturers for suspended tests.

Ultimately, audit testing of stoves in the same and different labs that certification testing was performing will likely be needed to bring attention and clarity that many of these issues deserve.  Audit testing by the EPA and/or states may help all labs ensure that testing parameters are consistently applied.

Similar, but more entrenched conflicts of interest in the European community stove testing community have led to what many experts regard as weak and ineffectual testing regimes. Some fear a convergence of cultures in US and European test labs if the EPA loses more staff and resources, or has its hands tied by appointed officials who favor industry concerns.

Future Challenges

Corporate, religious and educational institutions across America are coming to terms with legacies where people felt they had conflicts of interest and didn’t speak up about infractions and abuses. The VW auto testing scandal is a perfect example because it was in plain sight all along but everyone involved kept quiet. The issues and the stakes appear to be far smaller in the wood heater community, but we are dealing with devices that combust at extraordinarily hot temperatures in our living rooms and basements. When those temperatures are not present, the chimney may be emitting excessive particulates into our neighborhoods. Like the European auto testing community, the wood heater industry is also a relatively small group of seasoned experts, many of whom are older, known each for decades and abide by spoken and unspoken agreements not to publicly criticize others by name or expose issues to authorities.

In the 1970s, many industry insiders had a compelling mission - helping hundreds of thousands of families avoid incredibly high prices and live a simpler life that was more connected to nature and their own hard work. That mission is still a prominent driver for much of the wood heater industry, but instead of struggling to weld together enduring, affordable stoves, they are now filing 30-day notices, 60-day notices and a dizzying array of other paperwork.

One result is consolidation and a banding together to fend off stricter regulations and more oversight. Many manufacturers feel that they need to keep as much data as possible away from the government to survive. When outdoor wood boilers took off, just like when sales volumes of exempt single burn rate stoves soared, most industry insiders stayed quiet publicly, even when they privately fumed over the damage that these unregulated devices were causing to airsheds and the industry’s reputation. Top industry leaders also stayed quiet while highly exaggerated efficiency values proliferated and deployed their lawyers to ensure all stoves could be treated as 75% efficient or higher for IRS purposes.

Issues surrounding 30-day notices and suspension reports are not at the core of the struggle for the future of how well wood heaters work in the hands of homeowners, but they illuminate a slice of the struggles facing industry, EPA, state regulators and the air quality community as our country decides which renewable technologies will power our future. Once represented by the Washington DC based trade group “Wood Heat Alliance” in the 1980s, wood heaters are now represented by the HPBA that also represents more profitable gas and propane appliances and struggles to fit in to the renewable sector that thrives on greater transparency.

Recommendations

1. The 30-day notifications sent to the EPA are currently only being made through a Freedom of Information Act request, rendering them far less useful than if the EPA maintained a publicly available database. This could also provide transparency of key information that is not available elsewhere.

2. If state regulators who have labs in their state visited labs periodically to witness even part of a certification test, it could provide valuable insight and potentially oversight into the nature of testing procedures for states, the EPA and others.

· Oregon is by far the most important state since Omni and PFS-TECO are located there, and has a unique and longstanding role in stove regulation that predates the EPA’s role. The state also has areas where excessive wintertime wood smoke is a serious problem.

· NESCAUM has risen to become the most active and informed entity in the wood heating testing community. Its staff and member states can use their expertise to put pressure on the EPA and assist them in developing future test methods.

· California often plays a large role in national air quality policy, the state has taken a back seat for stationary wood heaters so far. Their engagement could help.

3. Manufacturers should start to routinely comply with the rule that they send a report with data on suspended tests within the required 60-day period. EPA also needs to enforce this regulation and clarify what those reports should look like. HPBA could take a leadership role in highlighting this regulation for labs and manufacturers.

4. The EPA and/or states should start conducting audit testing of stoves to better understand the application of crib and cordwood test methods.  This would assist all stakeholders to focus on vital issues about lab testing during a time when wood and pellet heating is under public scrutiny as a renewable energy solution.