8431 Murphy Drive Middleton, WI 53562

Telephone: 608 836 4400
Facsimile: 608 831 9279

www.intertek-etlsemko.com

3 November 2009

WESTAR NSPS Meeting Regulatory Attendees

RE: Comments Regarding the EP A NSPS for Woodstove Emissions

Dear Conference Attendees:

The following recommendations were submitted to the HPBA Industry group earlier this year.

NSPS Revision Recommendations

Having been involved in the original NSPS negotiation and providing testing services since its inception, we believe we have s ubstantial technical and practical experience to draw upon in offering recommendations th at will improve the process. There is broad agreement that there are many areas of the current regulation that can be, and need to be, improved. In some case s the proposals are straight forward and noncontroversial. However, some of the suggested revisions will require considerable discussion, debate and perhaps compromise to achieve consensus. We believe that the re-opening of the NSPS provides an oppo rtunity to address all of the important issues and concerns that have developed in over 20 years since the original NSPS was

issued.

As a Third-Party testing and certification agen cy Intertek’s interests in this process are primarily technical. The recommendations that follow are intended to improve the process of evaluation and certification of affected products in terms of accuracy, credibility, fairness and relevance.

In the last few years there has been a great deal of activity in the voluntary standards development arena dealing with many of the re levant issues. We be lieve that this is the most appropriate and efficient forum to take on the task of updating, expanding and refining the technical documents involved with testing and rating bio-mass fueled appliances for emissions and heating performance.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 536528431 Murphy Drive Middleton, WI 53562

Telephone: 608 836 4400
Facsimile: 608 831 9279

www.intertek-etlsemko.com

Both ASTM subcommittee E06.54 and the CSA B415 committee have active standards development programs that have proven to be capable of developing test methods

that achieve a broad consensus am ong interested stakeholders.

The following are general comments on those specific areas where changes will, in our view, greatly improve the process of assessing and certifying the performance of effected appliances while maintaining or im proving the impact of these appliances on air quality.

1. EPA Methods 5H and 5G should be withdrawn and replaced with a
reference to ASTM E2515.

Reason: The application of 4 different emissions collection and measurement

methods and the inclusion of the so-c alled 5G to 5H adjustment factor produced many opportunities for va riability in results and poorer reproducibility. This issue was thoroughl y discussed and debated in the ASTM E06.54 subcommittee and the consensus achieved agreed that a single universal method was appropriate and should be applicable to all types of solid fuel appliances. The curren t EPA Methods contains restrictive requirements which do not allow direct application to bio-mass appliances other than woodstoves and pellet-burners. ASTM E2515 is a much more flexible method that applies to parti culate emissions measurement from any bio-mass fueled appliance.

2. If ASTM E2515 is adopted, any discu ssion of particulate emissions limits
based on data from the current NSPS sh ould take into account the effect of the “5G to 5H adjustment factor”. For example it should be recognized that the 4.5 grams per hour “Washington State” limit equates to 3.0 grams per hour as measured by EPA method 5G or ASTM E2515.

Reason: The so-called adjustment factor has the effect of inflating the reported emissions by larger and larger amounts as the actual emissions rates

decrease. This is counter to what s hould be expected. It should be obvious that as the actual particulate emissions approach zero so should the results of any measurement method.

In essence the application of an adjustment factor results in converting a direct and accurate measurement with a small measurement uncertainty into a significantly different result with no sound technical justification.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5365211/3/2009 Page 

### 3 of 8

3. Voluntary consensus standards should be adopted wherever possible. This would include CSA B415.1 which is currently undergoing a substantial revision process and will a ddress many more types of solid fuel appliances than are currently covered by the EPA NSPS. In addition ASTM E2618 for Hydronic Heating Appliances and E2558 for fireplaces are already published and should be referenced to support emissions certification.

Reason: It is clear that all types of bio- mass fueled appliances will increasingly be targeted for regulation to achieve ambient air quality requirements. The use of existing consensus standards prov ides the quickest and most credible approach to providing a fair and reliable basis for determining product compliance. In addition, consensus sta ndards are required to undergo regular review and revision cycles which re sult in continuous improvement and

refinement of the methods. The fact th at the EPA NSPS has not been reviewed or revised for over 20 years in spite of many significant issues and short comings should be reason enough to adopt voluntary consensus standards.

The US federal government has a clear policy directive (OMB Circular A119) stating that government regulatory agencies must use voluntary consensus standards when such standards are available and meet the regulatory need. We believe that the ASTM and CSA standards developed in this area meet the criteria for use in regulatory programs.

4. Replace direct EPA product certifica tion with independent third-party certification per ISO/IEC Guide 65.

Reason: The existing NSPS process for certification has lacked an effective follow-up and auditing system. The Random Compliance Audit provisions

included in the NSPS have never been exercised. The Selective Enforcement Audit process has only been used in extreme circumstances.

We contend that third-party certificati on provides a substantially more robust and reliable approach to assuring on-going compliance of production units than the procedures and requirements contained in the current NSPS.

Third-party certification is already in place for the affected products under the requirements of appliance safety standard s and building codes. This process provides a high level of assurance th at certified production units conform to the certified design represented by the sample tested. This process includes regular unannounced inspections of the production facilities to verify that certified units continue to be manufactured to the documented design

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5356211/3/2009 Page 

### 4 of 8

specifications. The addition of an em issions and efficiency certification under this process would only require the addi tional testing necessary to determin e compliance. Thus, this approach adds very little cost to the product while substantially increasing the reliabilit y and credibility of the performance

certification.

5. Reformulate all emission requirements for heating appliances in units of emissions mass per unit of heat output. In addition, include a requirement for product certifications to include measured heat output and efficiency.

Reason: Solid fuel heating appliances ca n and should be evaluated for heating efficiency. The failure of the EPA NSPS to include a measured efficiency has provided no incentive for appliance de signers to work on improving heating efficiency. It should be recognized that greater efficiency translates directly to less fuel consumed to satisfy a given heat demand. This results in both lower emissions and lower consumption of fuel resources.

Stating emissions limits in terms of mass per unit of heat output (e.g. g/MJ or lbs/million Btu) provides for an equitabl e basis for regulation of all types of heating appliances from small room heat ers to large furnaces or boilers.

Including efficiency and heat output information on product labels will provide consumers with relevant and easily understood information upon which to base a more informed purchasing decision.

6. Specify CSA B415.1’s efficiency test procedure to determine direct heating appliance efficiency and heat out put. Use ASTM E2618 to determine delivered heat output and efficien cy for Outdoor Hydronic Heaters.

Reason: CSA B415.1 has a stack loss te st method that produces reliable and accurate test results. Revisions are in progress that with improve and simplify its application and broaden its applicabilit y to more appliance types. The new version of B415.1 will also include pr ocedures for determining the delivered heating efficiency of forced air furnaces . ASTM E2618 provides an appropriate

and accurate method to measure the out put and heating efficiency of ODHH appliances.

Reliable and accurate efficiency methods are necessary to support the US BioMass heating appliance tax incentive program.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5356211/3/2009 Page 

### 5 of 8

7. Elimina te the requirement for woodstove s and pellet burners to operate at under 1 kg/hr burn rate and replace the EPA NSPS categories with burn rates specified in terms of percentage of maximum burn rate.

Reason: The requirement for wood stoves to operate at under 1 kg/hr burn rate should be dropped in favor of th e minimum being a percentage of the maximum. This requirement has been unne cessarily design restrictive. Not all wood stoves are used to heat a single room of a typical single family home. This requirement has eliminated larger woodstoves which might have reasonable applications in heating larg er open spaces such as workshops, larger homes with open floor plans, ski chalets, etc. Only 2% of the 733 woodstoves certified by EPA had maximum rated outputs over 60,000 Btu/hr.

Experience has shown that it is very difficult to design a woodstove that has a

turn down ratio of more than about 4 to 1 that will operate cleanly and satisfactorily throughout its operating range . Of all the EPA certified stoves only 9% have a turn down ratio of 5 to 1 or more (many are pellet burners). The average is 3.2 to 1 (i.e. minimum burn rate is 31% of the maximum).

The result has been virtually no ava ilability of new clean burning woodstoves to replace larger old technology stoves being used where larger heat demands

are a real concern.

The CSA B415.1 burn rates of: <35%, 35 - <53%, 53 - <76% and 100% should

be considered.

8. Eliminate “Gram per Hour Caps”.

Reason: A gram per hour emissions cap serves to limit the output rate of affected appliances which actually burn very cleanly. This is a particular issue for furnaces and hydronic systems which are generally used to provide whole building heating requiring larger heat outpu t capacities. For example, a cap of 18 grams/hour limits the output of an a ppliance that would meet a 0.2 g/MJ (0.46 lb/MMBTU) limit operating at 80% efficiency to a burn rate of 5.7 kg/hour and a maximum output of 86,000 BTU/hr. Further, it should be understood that properly sized heating appliances operate at or near their maximum output 2% or less of the h eating season. Thus, even though the hourly emissions rates may seem high, th e environmental impact is actually very small. Most all affected appliances will operate in the lower 1⁄2 of their range for over 80% of the heating s eason where the typical gram per hour caps would not be exceeded by any compliant appliance.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5356211/3/2009 Page 

### 6 of 8

Caps also affect heat st orag e systems which are designed to burn large wood loads very fast and store the heat for us e over long periods. These appliances can burn extremely cleanly with very low emissions per unit of delivered heat, but may exceed the “cap” during the infrequent burn cycles.

Where heating applications require larger heat demands, caps could result in users being forced to buy fossil fueled appliances rather than using renewable bio-mass fueled equipment. Alternatively users might buy multiple smaller units to meet a larger heating demand application to work around the cap

issue.

9. Test all heating appliances with the fuel that they are intended to burn.

Reason: While we understand the trepidation many might feel regarding the cribs versus cordwood issue, this may well be the most important single issue facing the industry in the NSPS revision process. We now have perhaps the only opportunity there will be for the foreseeable future to debate and resolve this question.

The primary argument to re tain the EPA Method 28 Douglas fir crib fueling protocol centers on two issues.

a. Cribs are necessary to achieve reproduc ible and repeatable test results.

b. The existing database upon which we must rely to determine “best demonstrated technology” was generated using cribs. Thus, any new regulation limits will require futu re testing be done with cribs.

The first argument is demonstrably wrong. An increasingly robust data base of tests using real world cordwood fuel in multiple replicate tests of multiple appliances has shown variability that is no greater than that achieved with cribs. In fact, the available data from the EPA NSPS accredited laboratory

round robin tests with cribs show ed very poor repeatability and reproducibility.

While the second argument may appe ar convincing, the fundamental assumption inherent in the NSPS was th at appliances tested using cribs would perform similarly when operated in the r eal world with cordwood. In fact, many designers have gone the extra mile and tested their appliances with cordwood just to make sure that they would not perform poorly. However, no one has been required to do this and th ere are quite a few EPA certified units

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5356211/3/2009 Page 

### 7 of 8

that do not do nearly as well in the real world as their certification would

indicate. I n any case, the limits that apply are used in ambient air quality modeling and assessments and there is no re ason to believe that the levels that have been achieved when burning cribs could not be achievable when burning cordwood. If this is not the case, then one must question whether the entire concept of the EPA NSPS is based on a false assumption. That is, a clean burning appliance in the lab should be a clean burning appliance in the field.

There is no question that whatever test pr ocedure is mandated, manufacturers will soon produce products that will comply. It will not matter to many of them whether or not these new designs perform in the field as well as they do in the lab, and that is
the real issue. All the evidence available indicates that substant ial differences in both emissions and heating efficiency are li kely depending on whether cribs of cordwood fuel is used. There is nothing that indicate s real world use will be likely to result in better performance than in the lab. In fa ct, field performance may be little improved if products are tested with a very different fuel than they will be used with.

It is often necessary to sacrifice some el ement of realism in de signing repeatable and reliable laboratory tests. It is, however, not desirable to do so. And it is most certainly counter productive to do so when it is not necessary.

I have heard additional arguments in favor of the crib fuel load from its proponents
that boil down to these:

a. Cordwood loading cannot be well enough defined to prevent manipulations that could result in obtaining better performance than the appliance is really capable of.

b. Cordwood loading is too random to pr ovide consistent or reproducible

results.

c. Crib fueling only produces variable re sults because the control of density and moisture content is not tight enough.

No one has explained exactly how one manipul ates a fuel load that is too random to be reproduced to get unrealistically good results. In fact, the only manipulation I can imagine one might do to achieve this would be to select cordwood pieces of very uniform size and length and carefully stack them with very specific spaces between pieces – i.e. make them into a crib. In effe ct, a requirement to use cribs simply forces everyone to use the same fuel manipulation scheme rather than requiring designs to be robust enough to burn cleanly and efficien tly with fuel loads that represent real world variability.

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 5356211/3/2009 Page 

### 8 of 8

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 8431 Murphy Drive, Middleton, WI 53562 Even tighter control of density and mo isture content might serve to improve repeatability, but at the cost of even grea ter deviation from real world operation.

There are two clear trends that have emerged from the hard data that has been produced in this area. One is that cribs provide no improvement in repeatability over
cordwood. The second is that cribs are not predictive of cordwood emissions or efficiency performance. Give n these facts, retaining a cr ib based test method will likely suffer from ongoing credibility problems as it is obvious to everyone that consumers will not operate these appliances with carefully constructed lumber cribs.

I offer the following question regarding the fueling issue:

Which appliance design represents a superi or technology: one that burns consistently cleanly only when operated with an exactingly designed and controlled fuel load, or one that burns consistently cleanly with random and inconsistent fuel loads?

We believe the answer is obvious and would further point out that we have seen many examples of appliances that consiste ntly burn very cleanly using cordwood fuel. It is reasonable to assume that of the currently available certified woodstoves a substantial proportion would pass the emi ssions requirement if tested with cordwood. It is also likely that a signifi cant proportion would not. Under the current system there is no way for regulators or consumers to determine which ones are
which and this is the heart of the issue.

10. Consider Revision of the “5-Minute Start-Up” requirement for manually controlled appliances.

Reason: It is well known that start-up with a fresh fuel load can be critical in obtaining good combustion performance. Th e 5-minute limit seems arbitrary and over-rides reasonable manufacturer’s operating instructions.

Many of the so-called “outliers” in EPA woodstove test programs are simply the result of failure to operate at a high burn sett ing for long enough to establish and sustain secondary combustion.

Real world performance would benefit from mo re specific instructions to the user on how to assure good start-ups when reload ing. Laboratory testing should include following such instructions provided they are clear and reasonable

INTER TEK

Rick Curkeet, PE Chief Engineer – Hearth Products