EPA watchdog issues second stinging report on the EPA’s wood heater program

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General found continued lack of enforcement of the EPA wood heater regulations, more than a year after its first major investigative report found similar issues. Unlike that in-depth report, this new report cites very specific details of instances where manufacturers and labs have violated EPA regulations.  It found that even when the EPA knew of significant violations, it did not take action to correct the problem.  

The wood heater manufacturing and test lab industry is a collegial community where members rarely publicly criticize other members, even when major violations of the EPA regulations are widely known. However, manufacturers often relay private complaints about their competitors to the EPA, putting the EPA on notice of a wealth of compliance issues.

“We call on EPA leadership to provide more resources toward the wood stove program and address systemic enforcement issues,” said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. “Its also vital for the public to know that pellet stoves are not involved in much of this controversy and that many wood stove manufacturers make good products, follow the law and are being undercut by those who knowingly skirt regulations,” Mr. Ackerly said.

Over the last 15 years, the only entity that has consistently published specific instances of non-compliance is the Alliance for Green Heat (AGH) in its monthly newsletter, and on its website.  Like the EPA, AGH is often contacted by industry members who are troubled by the conduct of other members.  The OIG listed five instances of abuse that the EPA overlooked and failed to take sufficient action, but there are scores more.  For instance, the internet continues to be rife with the sale of uncertified wood heaters, including outdoor wood boilers, which the EPA has known about for years, and appears not to have done anything.

  

US Stove sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified

This week’s report from the OIG follows up on several high-profile cases that AGH has pressed the EPA to address, including widespread fraud at US Stove Company which the EPA has been silent on for 5 years. In that case, an employee of US Stove was outraged and blew the whistle on his company.  US Stove then sued the whistleblower, getting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against him to shut him up, which the local Tennessee court said was “in the public interest.” 

 This week’s OIG report described how US Stove manufactured and sold 4,321 stoves before they were certified, and d859 of them were sold even before the test lab started testing the unit. Though the EPA had all of these details, it did lead to further action.

The stove in question was never officially recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  A list of wood and pellet stove recalls can be found here.

A second whistleblower came forward, providing extensive details of fraud to the EPA, imploring them to take action.  That person wrote: “To those of us who refused to cooperate with this fraud [at the US Stove Company], we had hoped that the EPA would step in, enforce its regulations, and thus provide some level of protection and dignity to whistleblowers. I expect US Stove may come after me, and possibly file a lawsuit against me, as they did with the first whistleblower. The company has dragged that man through the mud, and forced him to hire expensive lawyers, just because he was willing to stand up for EPA regulations.”

False advertising of efficiency

Another major issue that AGH has pursued over the years is false or misleading advertising of efficiency levels, often telling consumers that the unit is eligible for the IRS tax credit, which requires stoves to be 75% efficient, using the higher heating value (HHV). In one case, a test lab listed the stove at 70% efficient, but the manufacturer told consumers it was 75% efficient and eligible for the tax credit. The EPA sent the manufacturer a cease-and-desist request via email, which the manufacturer did not act upon.  The OIG report said the EPA could have revoked the certification of the stove but has not taken further action.  

 

False and misleading efficiency advertising was widespread up until 2021, when most manufacturers began to advertise the efficiency as reported by test lab, and listed in the EPA database of certified stoves. US Stove continued to falsely represent some of its units and declined to comment on the record. Stove Builder International, a large Canadian manufacturer insists that various interpretations of efficiency were acceptable until and unless the IRS defined “efficiency” more clearly. For example, some experts argue that if a stove reaches 75% efficiency on any official test burn, it can qualify even if the average efficiency of all four burns is less than 75%.

 

While the OIG vigorously raises the issue of false advertising of stove efficiencies, it is far from clear whether OECA even believes it has the authority to address efficiency.  Efficiency testing became mandatory in 2020 but the EPA began listing efficiencies in 2012. The EPA does not regulate efficiency, as most European countries do, allowing stoves as low as 51% efficient to be certified.

 

EPA lab served as own third-party certifier

One of the 5 incidents of concern in the OIG report included an EPA approved lab serving as its own third-party certifier of a test report it has produced.  Again, the EPA knew about this but did not revoke the certification and “the lab remained approved by the EPA.”  

 

Test labs are allowed to be third party certifiers and most of them are.  However, they cannot certify the results of stoves tested in their own lab.  PFS-TECO, Intertek, OMNI, RISE (Sweden) and SZU (Czech Republic) are both test labs and third-party certifiers.  PolyTest (Canada), ClearStak and the Danish Technological Institute are approved test labs but are not third-party certifiers. 

 

Deviation from test methods

A fourth concern raised by the OIG, which has already been resolved, involved Lamppa manufacturing who makes Kuuma wood furnaces.  Lamppa had obtained an alternative test method, but the test lab deviated from that method, due to complications.  The manufactured disclosed the deviation and explained why, and the EPA certified it anyway.  After 5 years, the EPA informed Lamp it would not recertify the unit, and Lamppa had to retest and recertify the unit.  

 

Recommendation to the EPA

 

The OIG listed several significant recommendations, some of which could be incorporated into the next set of wood stove regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which the EPA is currently working on.

 

·      Including a federal criminal false statement clause into the wood heater certification application process, which would require manufacturers, but not necessarily retailers, to not make false statements in their advertising.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the approval of test labs that do not follow NSPS requirements.

·      Develop procedures to revoke the certification of wood heaters that do not coply with NSPS requirements.

·      Inform the OIG of investigations into fraud or abuse of the wood heater NSPS.

 The  OIG report can be found here. 

EPA finds lapses in cord wood certification test reports

A Regency stove being tested at RFS labs
for 2020 compliance using the Alternative
ASTM E3053 cordwood method. (NOTE: The
3 photos used in this story are NOT connected
to the EPA memo.  They are just random 
cordwood certification test.)

The EPA recently sent a memo to wood heater test labs and third party certifies about significant lapses in documenting certification tests using the cord wood test method and potentially significant lapses in cord wood testing.  We reproduce the memo below.  

[For the more recent blog on lab testing, 30-day notices and non-CBI reports, click here.]

The memo does not specify which labs and which manufacturers are involved and the EPA is not making that public as of now.  The manufacturers involved are being contacted to have labs submit paperwork to the EPA, via third party certifies, who also could have caught the lapses before forwarding documentation to the EPA.  Some stoves may have to do the cord wood emissions tests again.

A Kuma stove using the ASTM
test method at Omni labs

AGH supports a transition to cordwood testing under the assumption that stoves tested with cordwood are more likely to burn more cleanly in the hands of consumers. But cordwood testing of stoves in the United States is still in its infancy and so far there is only the ASTM E3053 test method.  There are still many, many questions about whether the ASTM method can help achieve the emergence of a class of wood stoves that truly operate better in peoples' homes.

AGH asked the EPA to provide us with the memo to test labs when we heard about it.  The EPA promptly sent it to AGH but more often than not, we do not know about memos that go to labs, HPBA and manufactures.  EPA rarely shares many

A Travis stove using the ASTM cordwood
method at Omni lab.

such memos with the wider stakeholder community, that also includes stove retailers, state air quality agencies and others.  We believe documents such as this should be made routinely available by EPA without anyone having to file a freedom on information act request.   

Documentation from test labs to show stoves meet certification requirements go to Rafael Sanchez at the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance at EPA's headquarters in Washington DC.  This memo came from a review done by Steffan Johnson, based in Research Triangle in North Carolina.  Mr. Johnson is the Group Leader for the Measurement Technology Group at EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,  the Measurement Technology Group provides national leadership in furthering the science of characterizing and measuring air pollutant emissions from industrial sources and is the EPA's focal point for producing validated emissions test methodology.  The Group also provides expert technical assistance for EPA, State, and local enforcement officials and industrial representatives involved in emissions testing.

(March 2021 update: Alaska sought and received approval from the EPA for an IDC cordwood stove test method to be "broadly applicable" which means any manufacturer can choose to use it in a stove's certification test.  It was partially sought because of weaknesses in the ASTM cordwood method and it also sets the stage for Alaska to potentially require that test for stoves sold in Fairbanks.)

From: "Johnson, Steffan", EPA
Date: 6/13/19 4:18 pm

To: all EPA Approved Wood Heater Test Laboratories and Third Party Certifiers,

In reviewing some recent test reports that have been submitted to EPA with the intent to certify a wood heater to the Subpart AAA cordwood emissions standard, there are some discrepancies and concerns that we are observing, and we will be asking some manufacturers to revise and resubmit a corrected compliance test report.  At least one of these concerns (noted below) is critical and may require re-testing.  All of these items are important enough to request a corrected report, and we wanted to let all of you know just why you may be contacted by your client(s) with such a request.

1. We have seen a number of test reports using the Alternate Test Method and ASTM E-3025 that do not identify the species of cordwood used for the com pliance testing.  While it is true that the ASTM method allows selection from a wide list of wood species, the test report must identify the species of fuel used.  This is specified not in the test method but in the General Provisions to EPA 40, Part 60.8 (f)(2) which governs content that must be included in the test report. Paragraph (iii) of this section reads:  “(iii) Description of the emission unit tested including fuel burned, control devices, and vent characteristics; the appropriate source classification code (SCC); the permitted maximum process rate (where applicable); and the sampling location.”

We are asking that test reports that did not identify the wood fuel species burned during a compliance test submit an amended test report to this Agency.  If you are a third party reviewer and have certified such a test report, we request that you include this item, along with other items listed in the General Provisions, in your review checklist. 

2. We have seen some test reports that reference “manufacturer’s instructions” for conducting the certification test, yet those instructions were not included in the test report.  The requirement to submit this information is to comply with the General Provisions of 60.8(b) and (c).  The guiding principle here is that ONLY the EPA Administrator has the ability to modify a test method for any reason, and these manufacturers instructions do NOT supersede the test method.  Also, the National Stack Test Guidance Document (available here:  https://www.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-national-stack-testing-guidance) clearly states that the emissions test report “must demonstrate all information from the test lab such that it is a stand-alone document capable of reproducing the entirety of the test results”.  As such, all information pertinent to the operation of the appliance during the testing must be included in the test report (per 40 CFR 60.534). Also, as such instructions are relevant to how the testing was conducted, this documentation is not Confidential Business Information (CBI). 

We are asking manufacturers that have issued test reports where the manufacturers provided instructions to the test lab regarding appliance operation during the test, and that documentation was NOT included in the emissions test report available to the public, to take corrective action and submit an amended test report to this Agency.  If you are a third party reviewer and have certified such a test report, we request that you now include this item, along with other items listed in the General Provisions, in your review checklist.

3. We have seen some test reports that contain manufacturer’s instructions that may run contrary to the test method and rule requirements.  Specifically, we have seen instances where manufacturers have directed laboratories to conduct low load testing with air inlet damper settings at “specified distances from fully closed”, meaning that the unit may not be getting tested at the lowest operating rate that a homeowner will have access to during the course of normal daily operation.  Testing at the lowest setting a consumer will be able to operate the appliance in their home is specifically required in 40 CFR 60.534.

Test labs and third party certifiers who are conducting /observing testing where manufacturers provided such instructions AND where you have knowledge that such devices are capable of combustion with air inlet dampers more fully closed than those setpoints specified by the manufacturer review the rule requirements with their client(s) and either select the lowest available setpoint or modify that stove model to fix the lowest available air inflow setting at that specified point, to remain fixed thereafter.  Furthermore, we insist that laboratories and third party certifiers add the requirement(s) of 60.534 to their checklists and take necessary steps to not look past this requirement in the future.  Appliance models found to have been tested in this manner and subsequently certified, will need to be reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis.  As a reminder, third-party certification is an attestation that all testing was conducted as specified in the regulation; certification of testing that does not meet the regulatory requirements may result in loss of EPA Approval status.  

4. We have seen some test reports where cordwood fuel is used to demonstrate compliance, and the dimensions of the “cordwood” very closely match the dimensions of crib fuel.  While we recognize that it may happen that occasionally a wood splitter would produce a piece where the minor cross section is nearly equal to the major cross section of the fuel piece, we expect that this happens infrequently and is not normal for every piece in a fuel load. 

We ask that labs and third party certifiers use pieces that approximate hand-split fuel and not something that seems to be far more selective.  While fuel pieces are ‘selected’ for the test based on size and weight and, to some extent, dimension, we expect to see fuel loads that are more random (in terms of piece-to-piece comparisons) than not.

As always, thank you for continuing to support the EPA Wood Burning Appliance Certification Program.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to us and ask questions, any time, with respect to any certification testing you are undertaking; we are happy to offer our technical direction to help you, and your clients, meet the subpart AAA and QQQQ regulatory requirements.

My best regards,

Stef Johnson

Steffan M Johnson | Leader – Measurement Technology Group | US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards | Air Quality Assessment Division | 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC  27710 | Mail Drop: E-143-02 | Phone: (919) 541-4790  | Cell: (919) 698-5096

-->

EPA releases long-awaited searchable wood heater database

A screen shot of part of the
navigation of different fuel types
in the new EPA database

Consumer friendly site is cause of worry for some

Updated Dec. 2020  - The EPA released its long-awaited searchable stove and central heater database, overhauling a decades-old practice of using basic excel sheet lists.  The database is now a very user friendly site for consumers and all stakeholders.  A simple search that could have taken hours, now takes seconds.

The EPA said the new database was designed to“improve accessibility and usefulness” by allowing users to search for the cleanest stoves, the most efficient stoves, those designed to burn cordwood and other attributes.

A wide range of stakeholders, from industry to states to non-profits, had been urging the EPA to switch to a modern searchable format for nearly a decade. The painfully slow development of the database at times seemed to epitomize the government's reputation to move at a snail’s pace. The list is maintained by the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, which like much of the EPA has been hit with repeated budget cuts and loss of staff in recent years.

The sleek new functionality of the list, allowing users to focus on one parameter or another, is also worrying to many in the stove industry. Traditionally, this list of certified wood heaters has not been a primary information source for consumers. But with this new functionality, consumers may start relying on it more and more, leading to some unintended results, such as worse buying decisions or ones that favor some manufacturers over others.  Similar to the feature in the old excel spreadsheets, the new database now also indicates new additions.

One fear is that consumers will put too much reliance on higher BTU output if they can easily search and cross reference by these values. Right-sizing a stove is already problematic, and the BTU values on the list are overinflated due to loose parameters that allow labs to show high BTU output. Another fear, expressed by some manufacturers at the recent HPBA Expo in Nashville, is that consumers will favor “Cord Wood” stoves over “Crib Wood” stoves because they are not familiar with the lexicon of stove testing and the legacy of crib wood. 

The EPA chose to include a box that helps consumers identify the cleanest and most efficient stoves,

and some say that this puts unwarranted attention to values that won’t necessarily translate from the lab to the home. This “Quick Searches” box will likely be used by consumers who don’t understand pellet stoves work similarly in the home as they do in the lab, but wood stoves can only achieve the optimal lab numbers with a large bed of coals, dry wood and careful operation.

This “certified fuel type” feature also sheds light on one the biggest problems with the new searchable data – accuracy. Six wood stoves were initially listed as using wood chips as a fuel, an apparent mistake according to one of the manufacturers of those stoves. As of November 2020, two stoves are still listed as being tested with wood chips, even though no such test method exists. This could hurt sales of those units if consumers are relying on the database to narrow down the stoves they may purchase. EPA staff are quick to say that this is a work in progress and it is incumbent on manufacturers to vet the list and provide the EPA with corrections. In 2017, the HPBA warned the EPA that many inaccuracies existed in the database. Many of the same errors are still listed two years later.  A whole new frontier of recognizing deficiencies is now being opened up by an Alaska initiative that is reviewing all certification documents.

The Alliance for Green Heat welcomes the new database and had the opportunity to provide input on several occasions as other stakeholders did. Some of our suggestions and wording was adopted and some was not. AGH believes that the new database will help consumers become more educated about the working of stoves and the terminology, but it will take time and effort by the wood heating community.  AGH is currently urging the EPA to add a column showing what test method was used to identify single burn rate stoves and stoves that used an alternative test method.

The release of the database was coordinated with the update of some key pages on the EPA's Burn Wise website. The EPA finally changed their page on hydronic heaters which previously defined and pictured them just as outdoor boilers, a change that AGH had urged them to make for years. They also made major changes to their efficiency page which had not been updated since the EPA began requiring testing and reporting of efficiency of stoves.

Features and functions

·      Pellet stoves

The database shows 98 out of the 242 models are pellet stoves.  Nearly half of the  pellet stove models are 1 gram or under.

·      Catalytic Stoves

The database shows that 30 of the 144 models are catalytic, and another 19 are hybrids which also use catalysts. 

·      Hybrid Stoves

Wood stoves are divided into three
subtypes - cat, non-cat and hybrid.

Hybrid stoves, which almost all use both catalysts and air tubes for secondary combustion, are listed as a subtype and  there are now 19 stoves listed as hybrid. AGH is urging the EPA to also add “automated stoves” as a subtype in the future. Both hybrid and automated stoves offer great promise to help consumers run stoves more cleanly.

·     Cord vs. Crib wood
                  As of Nov. 2020, 83 of the 144 wood stoves were tested with cord wood, indicating a surging popularity with the ASTM test method, that allows more flexibility in the lab.

      BTU Output

With tighter homes and a new breed of tiny homes, it is now easy to search for stoves with the lowest BTU output. Many models are tested at less than 25,000 BTU. AGH believes that many units still have erroneously high BTU values based on loose parameters in lab testing and reporting, and these values should be used with great caution. 

Firebox volume

The cubic size of the firebox is an equally useful tool to estimate BTU output.  They range from 0.5 to 4.4 cubic feet. AGH has concerns that some BTU output figures are exaggerated due to the allowable calculations that labs can use to estimate heat output.  Small fire boxes are usually considered to be up to 1.5 cubic feet and good for holding a fire for no more than 4-6 hours.  Medium fireboxes are in the 1.5 to 2.5 range and usually can hold heat for 6 - 9 hours and large fireboxes are 2.5 - 4.5 cubic feet and can easily hold heat overnight.

Test method

In December of 2020 the EPA added a column to designate the test method that was used to determine emissions, but they have not yet populated the column with any data. This will help better understand which are single rate burn stoves, for example, and which stoves got variances.  The detail will be too technical for the average consumer but useful for stove geeks and agencies.

·      Efficiency

The EPA has chosen to use the term “overall efficiency” instead of simply “efficiency.” Some manufactures use “optimal efficiency” or “maximum efficiency” instead of publishing the EPA tested efficiency, which is lower. One hundred out of 244 models tested at 75% HHV efficiency or greater.

·      Carbon monoxide

Like efficiency, carbon monoxide is required to be tested and publicly disclosed, but there is no regulated minimum or maximum that must be met.  The CO listing raised concern from some who worry that consumers may use it instead of PM as a primary indicator of cleanliness, or that consumers may think it’s an indication of amounts of CO emitted into the room.

· 

·       Previously certified

The database also shows the 205 stoves that were previously EPA certified at 4.6 grams or higher, a feature that could be very helpful for change out program managers who want to target older certified stoves, many of which need replacement.

·      Key terms and definitions

The EPA provides a new page with definitions of key terms such as adjustable burn rate vs. single burn rate heaters, fireplace insert, wood pellets, etc.

·      Central Heaters

The database is separated into two: “Room Heaters” and “Central Heaters” and you have to select one or the other or your search may turn up empty. There are 32 central heaters with 12 that use pellet fuel.  Of the 32 heaters, only 3 are forced air furnaces.

·
Not included in the new database

Some stakeholders have urged the EPA to include more search attributes, such as the test method, lab, and a link to the detailed lab report that manufacturers are required to post on their websites. The list also does not say whether PFI certified pellets were used during certification testing and are thus technically required to be used by the consumer.  Up until 2007, the list used to include the deadline that the five year certification certificate expired.  Up until the summer of 2015, the list included the outmoded estimated default efficiencies, which listed all non-cats at 63%, cats at 72% and pellet stoves at 78%.  The default efficiencies were set based on testing in the mid and late 1980s, resulting in relative accurate estimates for wood stoves, but helping to develop the enduring myth that pellet stoves had such high average efficiencies.

Contact Rafael Sanchez at the EPA's Office of Enforcement to address errors or omissions in the database, (sanchez.rafael@epa.gov) at (202) 564-7028.

EPA sends “Compliance Reminder” to Stove Manufacturers

There are six accredited test labs that
issue confidential and non-confidiential
test reports.  Non-confidential ones are
required to be posted on company websites.

On January 10, 2017 the EPA Office of Compliance sent a “Compliance Reminder” letter to all stove and boiler manufacturers because some manufacturers were not complying with transparency, reporting, and record keeping requirements.

At issue is the requirement that manufacturers 1. Post non-confidential certification test lab reports on each of their stoves on their websites, 2. Implement a quality assurance plan that is approved by a third party certifier, and 3. Submit a report to the EPA every two years about sales and other information.

The Alliance for Green Heat reached several manufacturers who did not consider these requirements overly burdensome and welcomed the prospect of a level playing field. Representatives of HPBA, the industry association that represents most stove and cordwood boiler companies, were not immediately available for comment. (Their position will be added to this blog when it is available.)

In May 2016, the Alliance for Green Heat wrote a blog on which companies were complying with EPA regulations and posting test lab certification reports on their websites. We wrote: “The EPA has not started enforcing some of the provisions of the 2015 regulations that are being ignored by many companies. And, its enforcement capabilities are slim, a fact that is not lost on the industry that it regulates.”

We found and commended companies like Blaze King, Jotul, Kuma, J.A. Roby, Seraph, Travis, and Woodstock Soapstone who posted some or all of their test lab reports. However, we found the largest company of all, Hearth & Home Technologies, did not. Two weeks later, they had posted the required reports.

A pdf of the full compliance reminder letter, signed by Director Edward Messina, can be downloaded here. It was copied to HPBA, NESCAUM, WESTAR, NYDEC, and NYSERDA. The Alliance for Green Heat obtained a copy on January 24. The Alliance for Green Heat is concerned that in many instances, some stakeholders, including the stove retailer community, are not privy to such letters that the EPA shares or directs to industry, states, and air agencies.

When there is widespread non-compliance, the EPA has relied on compliance reminder letters in the past, partly to assure manufacturers that there is not selective enforcement, but that all manufacturers need to play by the same rules. In May 2013, the EPA sent a tougher letter to manufacturers of qualified outdoor boilers, giving them seven weeks to remove exaggerated efficiency numbers from their hang tags and advertisements. This letter did not give any deadline for compliance.