1

REVIEW(PART2a)of

ASSESSMENTOFEPA’sRESIDENTIALWOODHEATERCERTIFICATIONPROGRAMTestReportReview:Stoves&CentralHeaters

WrittenbyNESCAUM,March2021and

ALT-140TestMethod

Reviewedby:ThomasMorrissey

WoodstockSoapstoneCompany,Inc.66AirparkRoad

WestLebanon,NH03784June15,2021

2

REVIEW(PART2a)of“ASSESSMENTOFEPA’sRESIDENTIALWOODHEATERCERTIFICATIONPROGRAM”

andIDCTM(nowALT-140TestMethod)

Part 1 of this review concluded with 3 short paragraphs about

NESCAUM/ADEC’s criticism of the ASTM E-3053 method, because the medium burn

rate in ASTM E-3053 was not at least 0.30 kg/hr higher than the low burn rate.

There is no regulatory basis for the medium burn rate to be at least 0.30 kg/hr

above the low burn rate. Nevertheless, the “Assessment” identifies “Medium burn rates

within 0.3 kg/hr of low burn rates” as one of 7 serious deficiencies of ASTM E-3053.1

Since this is featured prominently in the NESCAUM/ADEC list of flaws with ASTM

E-3053, it deserves a more thorough review than just three paragraphs.

The “Assessment” states:

“Analysis of the 69 ASTM E-3053 tests found that almost two thirds

(46) of the medium air setting’s burn rates were within 0.30 kg/hr of the burn

rate for the low burn. For example, the range of allowable burn rates in

Method 28R for Category 2 is 0.80 to 1.24 kg/hr.” (“Assessment,” page 39-40).

It is interesting that the “Assessment” compares this “deficient” characteristic of

ASTM E-3053 to M28R, rather than its own IDCTM. We shall see why they chose to

make this comparison on the following pages.

After eliminating duplicate ADEC Test Summary sheets and sheets with very

little data, I come up with 42 (not 46) stoves getting “Flagged” for violating this

arbitrary requirement. Eight of the 42 cases cited by NESCAUM/ADEC, were the

result of arithmetic errors by NESCAUM/ADEC, where the value NESCAUM/ADEC

got after subtracting the low burn from the medium burn was in error – i.e., in each case

1The7deficienciesare1)“debarking”and2)“squaring”ofcordwoodfuelwhichwerediscussedatlengthinPart1ofthisseries.3)istheseparationofmediumandlowburnsbymorethan0.30kg/hr,whichisdiscussedatlengthhere.Thefinal4deficienciesrelatetofireboxcalculationsandfuelloadingprotocols,whichwillbediscussedinalaterreview.

3

the medium burn was at higher than the low burn by 0.30 kg/hour or more. These 8

cases are highlighted below.

Theyellowcolumnunder“<0.30”indicatesthatthesestoveswere

identifiedand“flagged”for“non-representative”runsbecausethemediumburn

rateswerenotatleast0.30kg/hrabovethelowrates.Themediumburnratesare

listedinthecolumnunder“M,”andtheburnratebywhichmediumisabovelowis

intherighthandcolumn(“MlessL”).

Clearly,noneofthesestovesfailedthe0.30kg/hrseparation.Inafew

othercases,ASTME-3053testreportswere“flagged”forhavingmediumburn

ratesthatwerelowerthanhighburnrates.Inmanycasesthereviewersopenly

questionedwhythedampersettingusedtoachievethemediumburnrateswasn’t

alteredtoachieveahighermediumburn.Belowandtotherightisa

representativesampleofthistypeofcomment:

4

Thepointofreportingonthearithmeticerrorsandthesnarkymargin

commentsisnotthattheyareabigdealinandofthemselves.Theyarepresented

heretoprovidecontext.

Thecontextisthatthe“Assessment”presents7disqualifying

characteristicsofASTME-3053.Arithmeticerrorsareevidenceofpoordata

controlandinaccuratereporting.Ifthemediumburnratereallyshouldbeatleast

0.30kg/hrabovelowburnrate,thenNESCAUM’sIDCTMitselfisacompletefailure

asareplacement.TheIDCTMresultsreportedinthe“21-02InterimReport

DevelopmentofIntegratedDutyCycleTestMethodCordwoodStove”(“Interim

Report”)areuniformlymuchworsethantheASTME-3053teststhatNESCAUM

criticizesinthe“Assessment”.TheyarealsoworsethantheASTME-3053tests

performedbyNESCAUMitself,andreportedinthe“InterimReport”

TheIDCTMCompletelyFailstoCreateMediumandLowBurnRatesthatAre“Representative,”UnderNESCAUM’sOwn

Definitionof“Representative”

IhaverevieweddatafromtheNESCAUM’s“InterimReport”toseeifthe

IDCTMmethodproducedtestresultswherethemediumburnwasconsistentlyat

least0.30kg/hrabovethelowburnrate.Inthe“InterimReport”NESCAUM

presentssummarydata(norawdata)fromteststhatitperformedusingtheFinal

“IDCTM”protocol.Ofthefollowing24testresultsfrom7stoves,18hadlowburns

thatwerehigherthanmedium,andjust5hadresultswherethelowburnwas

actuallylowerthanthemediumburn(seechart,following).Only1of24testruns

(run#11)hadresultsthatfellwithinthedefinitionof“representative”separation

betweenlowandmediumburnrates(i.e.,mediumburnatleast0.30kg/hrmore

thanthelowburnrate)thatNESCAUM/ADECclaimedwasnecessarytobea

“representative”mediumburnrate.

5

Inalmosteverystudyofin-homewoodstoveuse(likethewellknown

KlamathFallsOR,andPortlandORstudiesin1998-99,whichloggedover5,000

actualhoursofburntime),theaverageburnratewasabout1kg/hr.Atug-of-war

hasbeengoingonfordecadesbetweenmanufacturersandregulatorsabout

wheretoplacelow-burntestingrequirements(withregulatorsalmostalways

wantinglowerburnrates,andmanufacturersalmostalwayswantingtoeasethe

lowburnraterequirement).Noonehaseversuggestedthatalowburnshouldbe

higherthanamediumburn...untilNESCAUMandtheIDCTM.

6

IfNESCAUM/ADECconsidertheASTME-3053separationbetweenmedium

andlowburnratestobesuchabigproblem,whyistheseparationbetween

mediumandlowburnratesusingtheIDCTMMethodsomuchworsethanASTME-

3053?

Putanotherway,whyistheNESCAUM/ADECIDCTMtestmethodunableto

achieveanaveragelowburnratebelowabout1.5kg/hr?Andfurther,whyisit

unabletoachievealowburnratelowerthanitsmediumburnrateon18of24

(75%)ofitsreportedruns?

NESCAUMalsoranASTME-3053testson3stovesdescribedinthe

“InterimReport.”EmissionsfortheASTME-3053testsweremeasuredwitha

TEOM.ThemostsignificantdifferencebetweentheASTME-3053andIDCTMruns

wasthefuelloadingprotocol–i.e.,sizeandtimingofeachload.

TheASTME-3053resultsarecomparativelymuchbetterthantheIDCTM

resultsapplyingNESCAUM’sowncriteria.TheaverageandmedianASTME-3053

lowburnsarelowerthantheASTME-3053mediumburns,astheyshouldbe,and

theASTME-3053lowburnslookmorelike,well,lowburns.

7

The“InterimReport”states:“researcherscomparedstovedata...that

suggest2thatASTME-3053proceduresresultinanartificiallyhightemperatureat

thebeginningofthat(low)testphase.”(pg.322)Itcontinuesbyclaimingthat

IDCTMresultsina“loweraveragetemperaturebeforethebeginning(of)thefinal

phase(RL3),thephasewhichsimulateslong,low-burnperiods.”(“Interim

Report,”pg.322).It’stoobadthisclaimisfalse.TheIDCTMlowburnsarehigh

becausecoalbedsaredeeper,andstovetemperatureshigherthanintheASTME-

3053tests.

Onthelimitednumberofstoves(Stove1,6,and7)whereNESCAUMran

bothIDCTMandASTMtests,theASTMtestswereslightlylonger,(byvirtueof

havinglowermediumandlowburnrates).Ontwoofthestovestested,emissions

perkilogram3offuelwerealmostidentical(stoves1and7).Onstove6,the

emissionsusingan“ASTMprotocol”administeredbyNESCAUMwere

approximatelyonethirdofemissionsusingIDCTM(onagm/kgbasis),even

thoughtheIDCTMisallegedtobeamorerigorousmethod.4

The“90%TEOMWorkaround”PartoftheproblemwiththeIDCTMiswhatIcallthe“90%TEOM

Workaround”.The“90%TEOMWorkaround”wasadecisiontostopevery

segmentofeverytestwhen90%ofthefuelwasburned.AlthoughNESCAUM

makesvariousargumentsforstoppingat90%ofeachload(lesstesttime,

theoreticallylessexpense,theoreticallyamorereal-lifeloadingpattern,andso

2Theword“suggest”isdoingalotofworkinthissentence.IamsurethatifNESCAUMhaddatatoprovethispoint,theywouldprovideit.Thefactofthematteristhatthisclaimisfalse,misleading,andnotsupportedbytheevidence.Infact,theevidenceisexactlytheopposite,whichiswhytheASTMlowburnsaresomuchmorerepresentativethantheIDCTMlowburns.3Iamcomparingstoveemissionsinthiscasebyemissionsperunitoffuel(g/kg),sowedon’thavetoargueabouttheproblemswithmeasuringemissionsovertime.4TheIDCTMisNOTamorerigorousmethod;rather,itisanextendedmediumburntest.Itwillbemuchmorecostly,however,becausethetestswilltakeaminimumofthreedaysinsteadoftwo,andthereforelikelytocost50%moreinlabtime.Itisalsolikelytoproducesignificantlydifferent(lower)calculationsofefficiencywhichcannotbereconciledwithcurrentmethods.

8

on),IsubmitthattherealreasonisthattheTEOMtendstoshedcollectedPM

towardtheendofthetestwhichactuallyreducestheparticulatecatchifthetestis

continuedthroughalongcoal-bedphase.5Onpage95ofthe“InterimReport”

NESCAUMcommentsonlowandmediumrunsusingASTME-3053asfollows:

“Inalllowandmediumfireruns,mostofthePMwasemittedearlyintherun

andPMwasvolatizedfromthefilterslaterintherun,asisthecaseinthe

M28runs.Inthethreelow-firephaseruns,thePMmeasurementsatthe

endofthephasewas9%-19%lowerthanatthemaximum.Forthefour

ofthefivemediumphaseruns,13%-21%ofthemaximumPMwaslost.In

oneofthemediumphaserunsthatburnedredmaple,S6019-01-31,only1%

oftotalPMwaslost,althoughthemaximumoccurredafter25%oftherun.

(“InterimReport”,page95,emphasisadded)

NotetheTEOMsheddingPMfromMinute108totheterminationofthetest.

5Iftheirreasoningisclosetocorrect,theycouldjuststopemissionssamplingwhen50%oftheloadisconsumed,orafter3hours,whichevercomesfirst.ButtheIDCTMhasbeenconcoctedinsecret,sowedon’tknowwhatotheralternativeswereevenconsidered.

9

Thecaptionatthebottomofthegraphonthepreviouspagestates“Real-

timePMMeasurementswithTeom.OnaverageTeommeasurementsare10%less

thanfiltermeasurements.”(Graph(previouspageisfrompage12,“Interim

Report”).Wedon’tactuallyknowhowemissionsarecalculatedusingIDCTM,

becauseNYSERDAownstheIDCTMMethod,andtheyrefusetoprovideanydata,

orthebasisforanyoftheircalculations.AreNESCAUMIDCTMemissions

measurementsbasedonactualcollectedPM,oristheresomeaveraging?

Thechartbelowprovidessummarydataforthegraphonthepreviouspage

(TestS1-17-10-03),andtherungraphedisthelowburndescribedinthe

summarydatabelow.6Thisisa“ModifiedM28TestRun”fromNESCAUM.

Notethat100%burnrate(low)is111minuteslongerthanNESCAUM’s

90%terminationpoint.“TotalPM(g)”islowerat100%ofBurnthanat90%of

Burnineveryrun,nomatterhowshort(eveninthehighburn).NESCAUMhas

chosentoterminateallrunswhen90%ofeachloadhasbeenconsumedasa

“workaround”forweaknessesintheTEOM.Wedon’tknowifNESCAUMalso

compensatesfortheTEOMmeasurementsintheirfinalPMcalculations(basedon

theirassessmentthat“Teommeasurementsare10%lessthanfilter

measurements”)becauseNYERDArefusestopubliclydiscloseanyoftheirraw

dataorcalculations–eventoEPA!6TheefficiencynumbersintherighthandcolumnofthissummarydatachartsetoffalarmbellsandfirstpiquedmyinterestinNESCAUM’sefficiencycalculations–describedonpp.10-14,following.

10

4Loads+Only2DamperSettings(FullyOpen/FullyClosed)+

“90%TEOMWorkaround”=HugeCoal-beds

TheIDCTMrequires4fuelloadingsforeachrun(kindling,highburn,

mediumburn,andlowburn).Thesesuccessiveburnsareallconductedatjusttwo

differentdampersettings:allthewayopen(kindlingandhighburn)andallthe

wayclosed(for“medium”and“low”).Eachloadisplacedonacoal-bedthatis

progressivelylargerthantheoneprecedingit.Overthecompleterun,the

cumulativecoal-bedbecomesdeeperanddeeper,andthemediumandlowburns

becomejustasteadystatemediumburnonanever-largercoal-bed.TheIDCTM

couldbeaptlyrenamedthe“STEADYSTATEMEDIUMBURNTESTMETHOD”.

TheInterimReportattemptstodismissthe“90%TEOMWorkaround”and

theattendantproblemofmassivecoal-bedsbypresentingitasaFNAB(“feature,

notabug”):

“Existingmethodsdonotrequireassessinghowtheapplianceperforms

withdifferentcoal-bedconditions.TheIDCassessesthreedifferentcoal-

bedconditions.Theloadsareburnedto90%,withcoal-bedconditionsat

approximately10%,15%,and20%oftotalfireboxvolume.”(Interim

Report,page323,emphasisadded.)

ANew,andNotVeryInformative,EfficiencyCalculationTheIDCTMdoesnotmakeanyattemptto1.)calculatetheamountofenergy

inthesemassivecoal-beds,or2.)calculatehowmuchoftheenergyinthefinal

remaindercoal-bedistransferredfromthestovetotheareaitheats.Thisiswhythe

IDCTMefficiencymeasurementsaresignificantlylowerthansimilarcalculations

usedforM28RandASTME-3053.TheformulausedinM28RandASTMmethods

calculatestheamountofenergyinafuelload,andthenultimatelycalculateshow

muchofthatenergyistransferredtotheroom,includingenergyinthecoal-bed.

11

Thus,M28RandASTME-3053aredesignedtomeasurecombustionefficiencyand

heattransferefficiencyforburningadefinedloadofwood(inbothcases,thefull

chargeofwood).

The“90%TEOMWorkaround”forcesNESCAUMtocomeupwithanother

methodofmeasuringefficiency,becausethefullloadisnotburned.Thestartand

endpointsaredifferentforeachload.Tocompensate,theIDCTMmeasures

“instantaneousefficiency”.

TheIDCTMmeasuresinstantaneousefficiencyperatomofcarboninthe

exhaust,andthenitreachesanoverallefficiencybyaveragingallofthoseindividual

calculations.7WhatisinadequateabouttheIDCTMisthatthetestprotocolproduces

ahugecoal-bedattheterminationofthetest–muchbiggerthanM28orASTME-

3053–andthentheIDCTMsimplyignoresthishugecoal-bedforthepurposeof

calculatingefficiency.IDCTMjustpretendsthattheenergyinitshuge-coalbeds

aren’trelevant(atbest)ordon’texist(atworst).

WhyWouldAManufacturerAgreeToPayToUseATestMethodThat:A)CalculatesSignificantlyLowerEfficiencyForEachStoveTestedbyArbitrarilyChangingtheEndpointofthe

Test,andB)ArbitrarilyDecidesNOTTOMEASURETheEnergyInHUGETerminalCoal-Beds,orTheHeatTransfer

FromThoseHUGECoal-Beds?

7WithrespecttocalculatingefficiencytheIDCTMisa“secretmethod,”atleastsofar.Thetriumvirate(NESCAUM/ADEC/NYSEDA)hasrefusedtoprovideanyrawdata,orexplainhowitaveragesefficiencycalculations,excepttoprovidethebasicequationforcalculatingefficiencyattheendofthetestreport.It’shardto“back-into”theircalculationswithoutgoodrawdata.Moretothepoint,peopleemployedbystateandfederalagenciesarepublicservants,sotheextremesecrecyofNESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAseemslikeanoddstance;asiftheyhadsomethingtohide(likethefactthatthatthereportedefficiencyforeverystovetestedwiththeirmethodwillgodown,comparedwiththewaystoveefficiencyisunderstoodandcalculatedtoday).IwassurprisedthatnotevenEPAhasback-updataorcompletesamplecalculationsforhowefficiencyismeasuredintheIDCTM.TheonlythingthatEPAhas,asfarasIknow,isonelockedspreadsheetindicatingthatasuccessfulemissionstestwasperformedontwostoves–butevenEPAhasnoinformationonhowanythingwasactuallycalculated.Transparency,anyone?

12

Currently,thereisa26%federaltaxcreditforwoodstovesthatareover

75%HHVefficient.Ibelievethatmoststovesthatmeetthis75%efficiency

requirementstodaywouldnotqualifyforthetaxcreditiftheirefficiencieswere

calculatedusingtheIDCTM-notbecausethestovesareinefficient,butbecause

theIDCTMprotocolproducesVERYLARGECOAL-BEDSthatarecompletely

ignoredinitsefficiencycalculations.

Somestovedesignersdeliberatelydesignstovesthathaveextremelylong

tails–nottogamethetestmethod(s),butbecausealongtailisaverydesirable

andhighlysoughtafterconsumerbenefit.Wedesignmechanismstokeep

reducingtheairflowandmaintainthecoal-bedtoextendthetimerequired

betweenre-loadings.Theextendedburntime,andtheheattransferredduring

thatextendedtimeareimportantbenefitstoconsumers.

Twoofthemostfrequentlyaskedquestionsbyconsumersare:“Howlong

willtheyourstoveburn?”(meaning:howlongwillitholdcoalsuntilIhaveto

reloadit?)”and“HowmuchlesswoodwillIhavetoburnwithyourstove?”

(meaning:willtheefficiencyofthestovereducemywoodconsumption?).The

IDCTMcannotanswereitherofthesequestions.Infact,theIDCTMwillonly

introduceconfusiononbothissues.

TheIDCTMrepeatedloadings,combinedwithanever-increasingcoal-bed,

producealmoststeadystatetemperaturesandpreventthestovesfrombeing

testedatlowburnrates,oratreloadsonsmallcoal-beds.Theexamplebelow

showsasamplefuelingsequenceforStove#7,astovewitha1.9cuft.firebox.The

cumulativeloadingstotal42.34poundsofcordwoodandresultina5.9pound

coal-bedattheterminationofthetest,after665minutes(11.08hours).

ThechartbelowshowstheloadingsequenceforStove#7,thetime

requiredtoburneachloadandthesizeoftheendingcoal-bed.Thefinal5.9pound

coal-bedisaBIGcoal-bedforthissizestove.

13

Start ET End ET Ld, wet lb

MC, dry %

Start Coals, lb

End Coals, lb

0 46 7.59 17.5 0.0 2.0

46 199 13.33 19.0 2.0 3.3

199 339 9.32 19.9 3.3 3.9

339 661 19.69 21.2 3.9 5.9

0 661 42.34 20.2 0.0 5.9

Ofequalimportanceisthattheconstantlybuildingcoal-bedandthe

frequentloadingtendstoproducealmoststeady-statestovetemperatures.Far

fromsubjectingthestovetoastresstestatmultipledifferentburnconditions,the

IDCTMisbasicallyjustanextendedmediumburn,maintainedbyfrequent

loadingsandanever-increasingcoal-bed.

ThegraphbelowisderivedfromtheonlysetofdatathatIhaveforanIDCTMtest.ThisdatawasprovidedbyEPA,butneithertheynorIhaveaccesstoefficiencycalculationsoranyother“back-end”calculations(forthisoranyotherrun).Thosecalculationsareabigsecret.Butthegraphbelow,usingavailabledata,doesshowthecoalbedbuild-up,thesteadystatetemperaturesduringtherun,andtheportionofheatoutputandheattransferproducedbythisrunbutignoredbyIDCTM;hencetheunnaturallylowefficiencynumbersreportedbyIDCTMtests.

14

Asthesizeofthefireboxincreases,sodoesthesizeoftheload(s),andthe

cumulativesizeofthecoal-bed.Stove17hasa2.8cu.ft.firebox(medium),sothe

sizeofthecoal-bedincreasesoverthetimeoftheNESCAUMtest(1145minutes,

or19.08hours)from2.8poundsafterthe11.14poundsofkindlingandstart-up

fuelareburned,to9.5poundsattheendofthetest.A9.5poundcoal-bedina

stovewitha2.8cu.ft.fireboxisMASSIVE.

AlloftheIDCTMteststhatIreviewedhavewhatIwouldconsidertobe

abnormallylowefficiencynumbersandabnormallylargecoal-beds.TheIDCTM

deliberatelyignoresthesignificantportionoftheburntime,heatoutput,andheat

transferthatoccursaftertheirtestendpoint.Iwouldarguethatallofthese

metrics(totalburntime,totalheatoutput,andefficiencyincludingenergyin

terminalcoalbeds)shouldbemeasuredineverytestrunregardlessofthe

“method.”Theseareimportantmetricsofsignificantinteresttoconsumers.

Understatingthelengthofburncycles,ignoringasignificantportionofheat

output,andchoosingtocalculatediminishedheattransferefficienciesiserror,in

myopinion.WhyanyonewouldchoosetotestwiththeIDCTM,whenother

alternativesareavailablethataccuratelyreportthesemetrics,isamysterytome.

IquestionwhetheranystovetestedwiththeIDCTMwouldachievethe

75%HHVefficiencyrequiredtoqualifyforthe26%FederalTaxCredit,basedon

NESCAUM’sreportedefficienciesforstovestheyhavetested,andNESCAUM’s

unwillingnesstoproducesamplerawdataandefficiencycalculationsforstoves

theyhavetested.

ExtremesecrecyonthepartofNESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAjustfuels

suspicionsthattheyarehidinginadequateorcontrivedcalculations.

ReturningbrieflytotheissueofburnratesandwhatNESCAUMthinksis

“representative,’weshouldtakeabrieflookathowNESCAUM/ADECinterpretthe

requirementfor50hoursof“conditioning”beforetesting.

15

The“Assessment”notonlycriticizesmediumburnratesinASTME-

3053tests,buttheyalso“flag”theburnratesthatareusedto“condition”stoves

for50hourspriortotesting.Herearesomesamplecommentstakenfromthe

ADECSummarySheetsontherequirementfor50hoursofconditioning,:

PeoplewhowerereviewingtestdataforADECclearlythought(orwere

instructedtothink)thatthe“50hoursofconditioning”hadtobeconductedat+/-

0.50kg/hrofthemediumburnrateasitwasexpressedonthetestreport,inkg/hr.

Thisiserror,becausetheASTME-3053TestMethodrequiresnosuchthingfor

“conditioning.”

WhatASTME-3053requiresisthattheconditioningshouldbeconducted

“foratleast50hoursatamediumcombustionairsetting.”Thereisabig

differencebetweena“burnrate”andan“airsetting,”andthereisnorequirement

fortheconditioningpriortoanASTME-3053testtobeconductedataparticular

“burnrate.”

Whenitcomestotheirownmethod(IDCTMnowALT-140),

NESCAUM/ADEC/NYSERDAdoseemtounderstandthedistinctionbetween“air

setting”and“burnrate.”TheIDCTMalsodoesnotrequirethatconditioningbe

conductedataspecificburnrate,butitsimplystatesthattheappliance“shallbe

operatedatavarietyofburnrates”andthemanufacturershallreport“airsettings

16

used,timespentineachairsettingphase,theamountoffuelburned,and

applianceburnrates.”Implicitinbothmethodsisthattheappliancecanbe

burnedeitherata“mediumsetting”(ASTME-3053)orcanbeburnedatdifferent

“airsettings”(IDCTM).8Ineithercase,iftheapplianceisleftunattended,theburn

ratewillgraduallydrop,asfuelisconsumed,butthatisfineforconditioning

purposes.

ThecommentsmadebyADECreviewersabouttheburnratesduringthe50

hourconditioningperiodaremisplacedandyetanotherexampleoferrorinthe

“Assessment.”Inthecaseofthe“50hourconditioningrequirement”theADEC

reviewersobviouslydidn’treadtheASTME-3053testmethodbeforetryingto

determineifitwascorrectlyapplied

____________________________________________________________________________

ObviouslytherewillalsobeaPart2b,andaPart3ofthisReview,because

thereissomuchmoretounpackinboththe“Assessment”andtheIDCTM(now

ALT-140).

Here’safinalthoughtontheIDCTMefficiencycalculation,whichIfind

especiallygalling:Imaginethatsomebaseballregulatorscameupwithawayto

determinewhetherahomerunwashitbycomputingthespeedthattheballleft

thebat,thelaunchangle,theexacttrajectoryandthelikelyarc.Theywouldclaim

thatthiswouldvoidtheneedforreplays,preventoutfieldersfromrunninginto

walls,providemoreaccuratehittingmetrics,smoothoutthephysicaldifferences8AlsoincludedintheIDCTMsectionon“Conditioning”arerequirementsforappliancesusingcatalyticcombustors.Thissectiononcatalyticcombustorconditioningrequiresthereportingofrequirementslistedin8.1.1,butthereisno8.1.1inthetestmethod.ThisisjustoneofasignificantnumberofdraftingerrorsintheIDCTM.Herearejustacouplemoresamplesoutofmany:Section10.1.2.3statesthathighertunnelflowsmayberequiredtomeettheparametersof8.6.3.Butthereisno8.6.3CSAB415.1-2010isnotcitedasareferencemethod,butitisreferencedintheIDCTM,in“9.10.FlueGasAnalyzers”(inanincompletesentence!)andin“Section11.4.2.”AuthorsoftheIDCTMshouldgivethefolksatCSAsomecredit,bylistingCSAB415asareferencemethodinsection2.

17

betweenballparks(bye,bye“FenwayMonster”inleftfield),andgenerallymake

thegamemorescientificallyaccurateand“fair.”(Eyesroll.)

Thereisvalueincontinuityofmethodsandmetricswaybeyondjust

stubbornnessandresistancetochange.TheIDCTMproposestochangetheway

efficiencyismeasured,bycalculatingandaveragingmeasurementsof

instantaneousefficiency,andthendeliberatelyhidingthesecalculationsfrom

publicscrutiny.EvenEPAdoesnotknowhowIDCTMcalculatesandaverages

efficiency:whenasked,theiransweris“askNYSERDA”.

TheIDCTMmethodofcalculatingefficiencyisincompatiblewiththe

currentmethodofcalculatingefficiency(whichisgenerallyacceptedand

understoodbyregulators,stovemanufacturers,professionalengineers,andthe

generalpublic).

WhenFederalAgencies(here,EPA)beginapprovingTestMethodswhere

theydonotknoworunderstandhowtheback-endcalculationswork,andthe

back-endcalculationsarefarremovedfromdecadesoftribalknowledge,weare

muchclosertothebaseballanalogythanonemightthink.