Recommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 1 of 6

Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard in Residential Wood Heater NSPS: EPA Proposed Certification of Phase 2 Hydronic Heaters y et Obscured Relevant Efficiency Data for the Phase 2 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300

Prepared by < cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com > 9/28 /2013

The 30 percent average thermal efficiency 1 of a Phase 2 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 , a ccording to EPA ’s 2012 study
, compares “ poorly with oil and natural gas fired residential systems w ith thermal efficiencies ranging from 86% to 92% and 79% to 90%, respectively (McDonald, 2009). ” 2

Figure 2. The Three Stage HH Unit and Illustration of a Down

- Draft Combustion Unit [Gullett, Wood 2012, p 9 3 ]

Table 3. Hydronic Heater Efficiencies [Gull ett , Wood 2012, p 16 , emphasis added 4 ]

Units Thermal Efficiency (%) Boiler Combustion

Conventional HH RO Average 22 NC 74 STDV 5 3.0

Conventional HH RO + Ref Average 31 NC 87 STDV 2.2 3.4

Conventional HH WP Average 29 NC 82 STDV 1.8 3.2

Thr ee Stage HH/RO Average 30 NC 86 STDV 3.2 1.8 European Pellet/pellets Average 44 86 98 STDV 4.1 3.5 0.16
U.S. Downdraft RO Average IM 83 90 STDV 0.71 0.79 NC = Not calculated. IM = Insufficient measurements taken for this calculationRecommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 2 of 6

The make and model of the three

- stage hydronic heater in Table 3 Gullett, Wood 2012 (above) is identified in a presentation by Sidhu and Gullet

. B oth reports use the same photo. Gullett, Wood 2012 on page 9 and Sidhu, Gullett 2011 on page 17

. There can be no doubt that the heater i dentified as ” Three Stage HH ” in Gullett, Wood 2012 i s the EPA Phase 2 qualified Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300.

Central Bo iler E

- Classic 2300 Three stage Combustion Process

[Sidhu, Gullett 2011 , p 17 5 ]

Due to th is model’s 30 percent thermal efficiency
, where 70 percent of the heat value of the fuel is lost, the operator must use a lot more fuel

. Table 3 also shows a combustion efficiency of 86 percent for the same model. 86 percent combustion efficiency means 14 percent of the fuel is wasted , much of it being released as unburned wood particles

.

It is reasonable to con clude that a h ydronic heater having 86 percent combustion efficiency together with 30 percent ther mal efficiency would have significant amounts of unburned fuel going out the chimney that may cause a health risk

.

NSPS Policy Relevance:

On July 2 6 , 2013, OMB received from EPA a package of proposed regulations for residential wood heaters under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in the Clean Air Act. 6 Gill Wood and David Cole with EPA submitted t he proposed rule. 7

In public presentation s in since 2012 and earlier, EPA has proposed to certify Phase 2 hydronic heaters : “ match es EPA Phase 2

. ” 8 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 is on EPA’s list of Phase 2 hydronic heaters

. 9Recommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 3 of 6

EPA Efforts to Obscure:

Gil Wood and other EPA staff with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards had full knowledge that the ir own study
, published in Gullett, Wood 2012 10

, te sted the Central Boiler E

Classic 2300. However, the make and model was withheld in the report

. The 2012 report also fails to reference that the model tested was EPA Phase 2. The photograph on page 9 in the report even obscures the “Central Boiler Classic” la bel on the heater d oor with a white rectangle. Yet, w hen the image is copied into another document, the white label disappears, revealing the manufacturer’ s label. T hrough a separate study b y Sidhu, Gullett 2011 11 , we are able t o identify the device by the coincidence that both reports use the same photo

.
We cannot explain the clear effort to mislead the public and agencies in the run

- up to publi c

r elease of the first draft regulations for hydronic heaters. While we understand that EPA must not release confidential business i nformation, a scientific study must identify the object being tested otherwise the study is not repro ducible or policy relevant. Make and model and photographs of the device are not confidential business information and are not required to be redacted under the EPA Phase 2 voluntary agreement. 12 The Phase 2 voluntary agreement is an off

- the

- books
, quasi

- regulatory standard lacking public notice, public o r agency review, or any oversight given during rulemaking, and lacks statutory enforceability. The Phase 2 vo luntary agreement is purely a contract of convenience between EPA and an individual manufacturer

.

Further , nowhere in the slow

- motion lead

- in to hydronic heater rulemaking has EPA once plain ly state d that the proposed rules would “certify” Phase 2 hydronic heaters under NSPS

.

E xamples : 1) T he most recent public update, March 2013
, states, “ Partnership Program Phase 2 level upon promulgation

. ” 13 2) Feb. 2012 and Dec. 2011 drafts state that the approach for hydronic heaters “ matches Phase 2 of EPA voluntary program .” 14 , 15 3) EPA ’ s March 2011 update to tribes stated, “ 0.32 l b / mmBTU heat output for outdoor HH in 2013 and indoor in 2014

. ” 16 4) Feb. 2011 update on NSPS regarding hydronic heaters notes, “ Include in NSPS

. ” 17

Agenc y staff and a few members of the public have been able to s ee through EPA’s bureaucratic language proposing certification of Phase 2 hydronic heaters. H owever , it is neither clear nor plain, we suspect deliberately so.

By its actions and omissions , EPA has hidden vital information relevant to assessing the efficiency (or lack of) of Phase 2 hydronic heaters and f ailed to s tate the proposed regulations would adopt Phase 2 as the certified standard for hydronic heaters

. EPA has done nothing but impede the public ’ s ability to connect th e dots between a particular Phase 2 heater and the wrath of smoke it would reasonably be expected to emit

. Of grea test concern is that EPA has sought to conceal the connection between the Phase 2 device and its 30 thermal efficiency at the same time as EPA is recommend ing certification of these devices.Recommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 4 of 6

Conclusions:

In its own Gullett, Wood 2012 report, EPA conclude s tha t the tested three

- stage hydronic heater has only 30 percent thermal efficiency

. The policy relevance is that such a highly inefficient wood heating device would be expected to produce significant noxious emissions. The model tested was clearly EPA Phase 2 . Yet, because EPA obscured the make and model, EPA is unable to relate its own test of a Phase 2 heater to its current proposal to include Phase 2 in the certified residential wood heater standard.

We ask that OMB ensure that Phase 2 not be inclu ded in the proposed rule that goes forward to public comment.

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is responsible for setting standards to protect public health. Obscuring the manufacturer’s label, failing to disclose the model, omitting tha t the device tested was EPA Phase 2, then packaging a draft rule that inarticulately but specifically certif ies Phase 2 under the NSPS is deceptive and injurious

.
By law, EPA is bound to pursue a standard that “ shall in clude a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare .” 18 The NSPS was enacted in 1988 and has not been updated to inclu de a standard to regulate the significant harm and air pollution from hydronic heaters. EPA proposes a remedy, but the Phase 2 standard, based on incomplete information with clear evidence to the contrary
, is malfeasance and harmful to the public interest. The cost to public health from Phase 2 hydronic heaters far exceeds any benefit.

We strenuously object to EPA’s lack of transparency. The highest standards of integrity must apply when the issue is a matter of life and safety. EPA appears to have pursued a predetermined goal of certifying Phase 2 regardless of the evidence of harm and inefficiency. Communities, neighbors, and purchasers deserve better from those whose job it is to set the standards that protect lives and safety

.

Source s :

Brian Gullett , G il Wood , et al, June 2012, Environmental , Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies
, Report 12

- 15 , Executive Summary
, US EPA, Off i ce of Research and Development and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards f or New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

. Executive Summary

- Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies

– NYSERD A 12

- 15 Full Report

- Environmental
, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies

– NYSERD A 12

- 15Recommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 5 of 6

Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al
, March 2011
, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning W ood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study , Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation

. Presentation: http://www.glc.org/glad/projects/sidhu08/GLCWebinar110331

- Sidhu.pdf Webinar Series: http://glc.org/glad/meetings/webinar/

EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review T racker for Residential Wood Heater NSPS : http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2060

- AP93

OMB rulemaking page on Residential Wood Heater NSPS : http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=2060

- AP93

For Green Heat webpage review of OMB rulemaking process: http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/08/explanation

- of

- omb

- review

- of

- nsps.html

EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters (includes Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 ) : http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (last accessed 9/28/2013)

EPA draft update Residential Wood Heat ers NSPS 3/ 22/2013 : http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/NSPSDraft Proposal32213.pdf

EPA public o utrea ch on draft p roposed r ule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS
, Webinar 2/9/2012: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20120209NSPSpresentation.pdf

EPA status of draft proposed r ule Residentia l Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20111208nspspresentation.pdf

EPA draft revisions t ribal c onsultation c all Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/2011, p 16. http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/pdfs/3

- 29

- 11TribalConsultation%20Call__W ood%20HeatersNSPS.pdf

EPA draft options Residential W ood Heaters NSPS 2/15/2011: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20110215NSPSDraftOptionsTable.pdf

EPA revised draft review document Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 5/25/2010: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20091230draftreviewofnspssubpartAAA.pdf

EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement b etween EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and individual manufacturers: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

40 CFR Part 2 (see subpart B for Confidential Business Information) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR

- 2012

- title40

- vol1/xml/CFR

- 2012

- title40

- vol1

- part2.xml

Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards 42 USC § 7411Recommen dation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 6 of 6

Defini tions:

Thermal efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of the heat exchanger of the boiler. It measures the ability of the exchanger to transfer heat from the combustion process to the water or steam in the boiler. Boiler Efficiency Guide

- Cleaver

- Brooks p 8

Combustion efficiency is an indication of the burner’s ability to burn fuel. The amount of unburned fuel and excess air in the exhaust are used to assess a burner’s combustion efficiency. Combustion efficiency is not the same for all fuels and, generally, gaseous and liquid fuels burn more efficiently than solid fuels. Boiler Efficiency Guide

- Cleaver

- Brooks p 8

1 Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, June 2012, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies, Report 12

- 15, Executi ve Summary, US EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards for NYSERDA , p 16

.

2 Gullett, Wood, 2012
, p 32

.

3 Gullett, Wood, 2012 , p 9.

4 Gullett, Wood, 2012 , p 16.

5 Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al, March 2011, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study, Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation , p 17.

6 EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker for Residential Wood Heater NSPS website

.

7 OMB rule making web page on Residential Wood Heater NSPS

.

8 EPA draft rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20

.

9 EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters webpage

.

10 Gullett, Wood, 2012

.

11 Sidhu, Gullett, 2011.

12 EPA Hydronic Heater Program P hase 2 Partnership Agreement, p 6

.

13 EPA draft update Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/22/2013, p 5

.

14 EPA public outreach on draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20.

15 EPA draft proposal Residentia l Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011 , p 8.

16 EPA draft revisions tr ibal c onsultation c all Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/2011, p 16

.

17 EPA draft options Residential W ood Heaters NSPS 2/15/2011 , p 1.

18 Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards 42 USC § 7411(b)(1)(A ).