### Task 6

Technical Memorandum 4 (Final Report)

Control Analysis and Documentation for

Residential Wood Combustion in the MANE

- VU Region

Prepared for:

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc.

711 W. 40 th 

### Street

Suite 312

Baltimore, Maryland 21211

- 2109

Prepared by:

James E. Houck and Brian N. Eagle

OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.

5465 SW Western Avenue , Suite G

Beaverton, Oregon 97005

December 19, 2006

### ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Activity 2

2.1. Methodology and Intermediate Data 2

2.1.1. Wood Heaters and Fireplaces without Inserts Used for Heating 2

2.1.2. Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 6

2.1.3. Pellet Heaters 7

2.1.4. Manufactured Wax/Fiber Firelogs 7

2.1.5. Cor dwood Fuel Usage and Cordwood Mass 8

2.2. Activity by County, State, and Total MANE

- VU Region 11

3. Emissions Inventory 21

3.1. Methodology 22

3.1.1. Cordwood Heaters 23

3.1.2. Fireplaces without Inserts 24

3.1.3 . Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 25

3.1.4. Pellet Heaters 25

3.2. Emissions Inventory by County, State, and Total MANE

- VU Region 27

3.3 PM and VOC Emissions Inventory Apportioned by Month 44

4. Residential Wood Combustion PM 10 

### Rea sonable / Best Available Control Measures

(RACM/BACM) 46

5. Pollution Reduction Cost Effectiveness 52

5.1. Methodology 53

5.1.1. Criteria Pollutants 58

5.1.2. Cost Effectiveness Calculations 58

### iii

5.2. Cost Effectivenes s Scenarios by State and Average MANE

- VU Region 66

6. Summary 75

7. References 76

### iv

List of Tables

Table 1.01 List of Tasks 1

Table 2.01 Number of Cords Burned per Appliance by State for Heat 9

Table 2.02 Main Tree Spe cies Considered in the Average State Mass per Cord

Calculation 10

Table 3.01 Wood

- Burning Device Categories 21

Table 3.02 Emissions Inventory Air Pollutants 21

Table 3.03 Summary of Emission Factors 26

Table 3.04 PM Emissi

on Inventory 34

Table 3.05 VOC Emission Inventory 34

Table 3.06 NO

x 

### Emission Inventory 35

Table 3.07 CO Emission Inventory 35

Table 3.08 SO 2 

### Emission Inventory 36

Table 3.09 NH

3 

### Emission Inventory 36

Tab le 3.10 Benzene Emission Inventory 37

Table 3.11 Phenol Emission Inventory 37

Table 3.12 7

- PAH Emission Inventory 38

Table 3.13 16

- PAH Emission Inventory 38

Table 3.14 Benzo(a)pyrene Emission Inventory 39

Table 3.15 Naphthalene Emission Inventory 39

Table 3.16 1,3

- Butadiene Emission Inventory 40

Table 3.17 Formaldehyde Emission Inventory 40

Table 3.18 Acetaldehyde Emission Inventory 41

Table 3.19 Acrolein Emission Inventory 41

### v

Table 3.20 Cresol Emission Inventory 42

Table 3.21 PCB

TEQ 

### Emission Inventory 42

Table 3.22 Dioxin TEQ 

### Emission Inventory 43

Table 3.23 Methane Emission Inventory 43

Table 3.24 MANE

- VU Region Emission Inventory 44

Table 3.25 Average Total Heating Degree Days Apportioned by Month 45

Table 3.26 Monthly Percent of Average Total Heating Degree Days 45

Table 3.27 Total PM Emissions Apportioned by Month 46

Table 3.28 Total VOC Emissions Apportioned by Month 46

T able 4.01 Summary of Measures Available for RWC RACM

–PM 10 

### 48

Table 4.02 Summary of Measures Available for RWC BACM

–PM 10 

### 50

Table 4.03 RWC Regulations 51

Table 5.01 Improved Technologies and Fuel Alternatives 54

Table 5.02 Criter ia Pollutants 58

Table 5.03 Emission Factors for Gas Appliances Used for Heat 58

Table 5.04 Emission Rates for Appliances Used for Aesthetics 59

Table 5.05 Existing Appliance Annual Fuel Input Calculations 59

Table 5.06 Cost Calcul ations for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified

Freestanding Cordwood Stove 61

Table 5.07 Cost Calculations for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified

Cordwood Fireplace Insert 62

Table 5.08 Cost Calculations for the Addition o f an Insert or Gas Log Set into an

Existing Cordwood Fireplace without Insert Used for Heat 63

Table 5.09 Cost Calculations for the Replacement of an Existing Centralized

Cordwood Heating System 64

### vi

Table 5.10 Cost Calculations for the Addit ion of a Gas Log Set or Use of Wax/Fiber

Firelogs with an Existing Fireplace Used for Aesthetics 65

Table 5.11 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood Stove 67

Table 5.12 VOC Reducti on Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood Stove 67

Table 5.13 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood Stove 68

Table 5.14 PM Reduc tion Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Cordwood Fireplace Insert 69

Table 5.15 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Cordwood Fireplace Insert 69

Table 5.16 CO Reduct ion Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Uncertified Cordwood Fireplace Insert 70

Table 5.17 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set

into an Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Heating 71

Table 5.18 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set

into an Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Heating 71

Table 5.19 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set

int o an Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Heating 72

Table 5.20 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Centralized Cordwood Heating System 73

Table 5.21 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Centralized Cordwood Heating System 73

Table 5.22 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing

Centralized Cordwood Heating System 74

Table 5.23 Pollutant Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of a Gas Log Set or

Use of Wax/Fiber Firelogs in an Existing Fireplace without Insert

Used for Aesthetics 74

### vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.01 Total Number of RWC Devices 12

Figure 2.02 Total Number of Wood Heaters 12

Figure 2.03 Total N umber of Fireplaces without Inserts 13

Figure 2.04 Total Number of Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 13

Figure 2.05 Total Number of Pellet Heaters 13

Figure 2.06 Map of the Total Number of RWC Devices Used for Heat in the

MANE

- VU Regi on by County 14

Figure 2.07 Fraction of Households Using RWC Devices 15

Figure 2.08 Fraction of Households Using Wood Heaters 15

Figure 2.09 Fraction of Households Using Fireplaces Without Inserts 16

Figure 2.10 Fraction of Househol ds Using Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 16

Figure 2.11 Fraction of Households Using Pellet Heaters 16

Figure 2.12 Map of the Fraction of Households Using RWC Devices for Heat

in the MANE

- VU Region by County 17

Figure 2.13 Total Mass of Fuel Burned by RWC Devices 18

Figure 2.14 Total Mass of Cordwood Burned by Wood Heaters 18

Figure 2.15 Total Mass of Cordwood Burned by Fireplaces without Inserts 19

Figure 2.16 Total Mass of Cordwood Burned by Centralized Cordwood Heating

Systems 19

Figure 2.17 Total Mass of Pellets Burned by Pellet Heaters 19

Figure 2.18 Map of the Total Mass of Wood Burned by RWC Devices in the

MANE

- VU Region by County 20

Figure 3.01 Total PM Emissions from RWC Devices 28

Figure 3.02 Total PM Emissions from Wood Heaters 28

### viii

Figure 3.03 Total PM Emissions from Fireplaces without Inserts 29

Figure 3.04 Total PM Emissions from Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 29

Figure 3.05 Total PM Emissions from Pellet Heat ers 29

Figure 3.06 Map of the Total RWC PM Emissions for the MANE

- VU Region

by County 30

Figure 3.07 Total VOC Emissions from RWC Devices 31

Figure 3.08 Total VOC Emissions from Wood Heaters 31

Figure 3.09 Total VOC Emissions from Fireplaces without Inserts 32

Figure 3.10 Total VOC Emissions from Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems 32

Figure 3.11 Total VOC Emissions from Pellet Heaters 32

Figure 3.12 Map of the Total RWC VOC Emissions for the MANE

- VU Region

by Co unty 33

Figure 3.13 Monthly Percentage of Average Total Heating Degree Days Chart 45

### 1

1. Introduction

OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. (OMNI), under contract with the Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air

Management Association, Inc. (MARAMA), conduct ed five tasks for the control analysis and

documentation of residential wood combustion (RWC) in the 11 states and the District of

Columbia that make up the MANE

- VU region. The primary objectives of the tasks were to

determine the number of RWC units, act ivities, and emission factors for the various RWC

appliance types, then calculate an emissions inventory by county, state, and entire MANE

- VU

region, as well as provide a pollution reduction cost effectiveness analysis by state and MANE

VU region. The tit les of the five tasks and the dates of completion are listed in Table 1.01.

Table 1.01 List of Tasks

Task Number (Technical Memorandum Number) Title Date Completed

Task 1 Work Plan March 7, 2006

Task 2 Quality Assurance Plan March 30, 2006

Task 3 (Tech

nical Memorandum 1) Activity March 30, 2006

Task 4 (Technical Memorandum 2) Emissions Inventory August 29, 2006

Task 5 (Technical Memorandum 3) Cost Benefit Analysis October 3, 2006

The objective of the work plan task was to create a work plan in order to explain and outline the

project and create a project timeline. The objective of the quality assurance plan task was to

prepare an outline of the methods that would ensure quality data generation throughout the entire

project. The Work Plan and Qualit y Assurance Plan provided the foundation on which to begin

generating the documentation and calculations for the remaining tasks. The objective of the

activity task was to calculate the RWC activity by county, state, entire MANE

- VU region and

Heating Degr ee Day (HDD) category for the 2002 base year. The objective of the emissions

inventory task was to create an emissions inventory for the MANE

- VU region by county, state,

and HDD category using the activity data calculated in the activity task for the 2002 base year.

In order to create an emissions inventory, target pollutant emission factors for each appliance

type had to be calculated then multiplied by the activity. The cost benefit analysis task,

originally an analysis of RWC reasonable/best available control measures, was changed to a

pollution reduction cost effectiveness analysis based on a verbal agreement between OMNI and

MARAMA.

This Final Report (Task 6) is a summary of the results from the previous tasks. Section 2 of this

document summarizes

the RWC activity data by county, state, and the total MANE

- VU region,

and contains a description of the methodology used. The number of RWC devices, fraction of

households using RWC devices, and the amount of wood they burn are provided as maps with

reso lution to the county level, and as bar charts showing data to the state level. Section 3

contains emissions inventory data calculated in the emissions inventory task for the county, state,

and total MANE

- VU region, along with explanations of each category of RWC appliance types

and the associated methodology used. Section 4 contains the discussion on RWC PM 10 

### Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM) and Best Available Control Measures

(BACM) from the cost benefit analysis task. While the emphasis was placed on a cost

effectiveness analysis, the RACM/BACM discussion was included to illustrate control strategies

already developed to reduce RWC emissions. Section 5 summarizes the pollution reduction cost

### 2

effectiveness analyses calculated in the cost ben efit analysis task by state for each pollutant, and

explains the methodology supporting the analyses. The reader is referred to the cost benefit

analysis task for data by Heating Degree Day (HDD) category. Key references for all data

sources are included in Section 6.

There are several sources of data that have been published on RWC activity levels, emissions,

and practices covering the Mid

- Atlantic and New England states. These include: (1) The

MANE

- VU Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory pu blished by the Mid

- Atlantic

Regional Air Management Association , Inc. (July 2004 report), (2) Residential Energy

Consumption Surveys published by the Energy Information Administration, (3) the National

Emission Inventory published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (4) Simmons

Marketing Research reports, and (5) American Housing Surveys for the United States published

by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. In addition, the results of three RWC surveys at the state

- level have been

published in the last decade for the Mid

- Atlantic and New England area, which allow for

comparison of data extrapolated from the national

- and regional

- scale surveys to the state level

for three states. These are (1) 1995 Delaware Fuelwood Survey, (2) Residential Fuelwood Use

in Maine, Results of 1998/1999 Fuelwood Survey, and (3) Vermont Residential Fuel Wood

Assessment for 1997

- 1998. OMNI has reviewed these various sources of data 1 

### and used their

results in this eva luation. There is uncertainty in each of the approaches and MARAMA

recommends that each state make the decision on which calculation method to use for their

individual State Implementation Plans.

2. Activity

2.1. Methodology and Intermediate Data

Th ere are four main categories considered for the development of activity: (1) Wood heaters and

fireplaces without inserts used for heating, (2) Pellet heaters, (3) Centralized cordwood heating

systems, and (4) Wax/fiber firelogs.

2.1.1. Wood Heaters and Fireplaces without Inserts Used for Heating

The calculation of the number of wood heaters (freestanding wood stoves plus fireplaces with

inserts) by county that are used (in contrast to owned) was conducted by eight different methods.

The calculation of

the number of fireplaces without inserts used for heat (in contrast to owned or

used for aesthetics) was calculated by six different methods. Not all of the methods were used

for each county, as those methods that provided the most in depth results for a given county were

used solely or averaged to determine the number of RWC devices. Fireplaces used for aesthetics

were not included in the by county calculations because it has been calculated that the usage of

cordwood in fireplaces for aesthetics repres ents less than 10% of the total cordwood used in

fireplaces. However, for completeness, an estimate of the activity of fireplaces used for

aesthetics has been compiled on a state level (see Figures 2.13 and 2.15). Sources of data used to

calculate the nu mber of wood heaters and fireplaces without inserts used for heat included the

U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey reports, Simmons Marketing Research data,

### 3

Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association surveys, and various state surveys. Using a multip le

ownership factor and the number of households using wood heaters and fireplaces without

inserts, the total number of wood heaters and fireplaces without inserts were calculated. The

distribution of tree species by state and the typical weight of a cord of wood on a dry basis (db)

were calculated state by state. The mass of wood was corrected to 0% moisture from either the

given moisture content of a mass per cord, or the average moisture content of “seasoned” or

“aged” cordwood of 20% db. From the amo unt of wood used by appliance type, from the typical

mass of a dry cord of wood by state, and from the number of appliances per county, the dry mass

of wood burned by county, by state and by heating category was calculated for both wood

heaters and firepla ces without inserts used for heating.

Calculation Method 1

Data for specific counties were taken directly from American Housing Survey’s (AHS)

Metropolitan Area Surveys 2,3 

### . For some counties the data from two subareas listed in the AHS

documents were co mbined to obtain data for the entire county. In those documents, total stove

usage is considered as the sum of households using stoves as other heat and households using

stoves as main heat. Stove data are for solid fuel burning stoves only. Coal and ot her solid fuel

are insignificant compared to wood. Total fireplace with insert usage is considered as the sum of

households using fireplace inserts as main heat and households using fireplace inserts as other

heat. Both gas and solid fuel appliances were included in the AHS, so those that use gas fuel

were subtracted from the total number. Units using piped gas, using bottled gas, and area

household numbers were estimated from the AHS documents.

Calculation Method 2

Data for specific counties were taken from three state surveys (Delaware, Maine, and Vermont).

Method 2 a. Delaware

Each of the three Delaware counties was included in a 1995 survey 4 

### that calculated the fraction

of households with a wood burning appliance (WBA), as well as the type of WBA (i f any). The

number of households using wood heaters for heat was calculated using the fraction of

households that own a wood burning appliance, the fraction of those owning a WBA that have a

wood heater, the fraction of wood stoves used for heat nationall y, and the estimated number of

households in 2002 for each county. The number of households using fireplaces without inserts

for heat was calculated using the same fraction of households that own a WBA as above, the

fraction those owning a WBA that have a fireplace without an insert, the fraction of fireplaces

without inserts used for heat nationally, and the estimated number of households in 2002 for each

county.

Method 2 b. Maine

The number of wood heaters for Maine was obtained by using information fro m a 1998/1999

Maine residential fuel use survey 5 

### which contains the fraction of households, based on

geographical county location, that used a woodstove or fireplace insert as a major heating

appliance, as well as used wood as heating fuel.

### 4

Method 2 c . Vermont

The number of wood heaters and fireplaces without inserts used for heat in Vermont was

obtained from a 1997

- 1998 Vermont residential fuelwood assessment study 6 

### . The fraction of

wood burning households that use wood stoves, fireplaces with insert s and fireplaces without

inserts were multiplied by the fraction of households with a wood burning appliance, also

reported in the study, by county.

Calculation Method 3

For method 3, the average fractions of households that use a wood heater (wood stove and

fireplace insert) or fireplace without insert for heat were taken from each applicable AHS

Metropolitan Area Survey 2 

### . These fractions were then multiplied by the number of households

that were in each county and a part of a specific metropolitan stati stical area (MSA). For the

three New England MSA’s of Hartford, CT, Boston MA

- NH, and Providence

- Pawtucket

Warrick 3 

### , partial counties make up portions of the MSA. Only counties that had the majority of

their households in the MSA were used in method 3. This determination was made from U.S.

Census Bureau population. The number of households in each county during 2002 was derived

from the U.S. Census Bureau 7



### .

Calculation Method 4

For method 4, the average New York City data from subarea 1 of the AHS New York

- Nassau

Suffolk

- Orange Metropolitan Area Survey 2 

### was applied to each of the five counties (boroughs)

that make up New York City in an analogous fashion as described in method 3. The five

counties/boroughs are: Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York, and Rich mond.

The American Housing Survey for the New York City Metropolitan Area in 2003 used New

York City as one of its selected subareas, with the five aforementioned counties comprising the

city. The fraction that each county was of the city was found by di viding the number of

households in each county by the number of households in the city 7 

### . The resulting fraction was

used to determine the fraction of New York City that was representative of each county, and

when multiplied by the New York City survey num bers, a corresponding county number was

calculated.

Calculation Method 5

For method 5, the fraction of households that own a wood heater (woodstove plus wood

- burning

fireplace insert) was obtained from Simmons Marketing Research 8 

### by county size (populati on).

The fraction of wood stoves owned that were used for heat was obtained from a 2004 HPBA

survey (regional values) 9 

### and the fraction of fireplace inserts used for heat as compared to those

that were owned was obtained from the Minnesota state survey 10 

### . The number of households in

each county during 2002 was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. No fireplace without insert

data were available.

Calculation Method 6

For method 6 the fraction of households that own a wood heater (woodstove plus wood

- bu rning

fireplace insert) was obtained from Simmons Marketing Research by Nielsen Marketing Region.

The fraction of wood stoves owned that were used for heat was obtained from the 2004 HPBA

### 5

survey and the fraction of fireplace inserts used for heat as compa red to those that were owned

was obtained from the Minnesota state survey. The number of households in each county during

2002 was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. No fireplace without insert data were

available.

Calculation Method 7

Calculation me thod 7 entailed using the fraction of households by county that use wood as the

main heating fuel to index the total households using wood heaters and the total number of

households using wood

- burning fireplace without inserts for heating purposes. The fr action of

households by county that use wood as the main heating fuel was obtained from the 2000 Census

(long form results based on one

- in

- six houses). The ratios of the total number of households that

use wood as a heating source (sum of main and other h eating source) to those that use it as a

main source only were determined by proportioning the relative wood

- burning activity between

the rural and urban portions of each county. This was done because the urban and rural ratios

differ from one another. ( The AHS has developed these data for a number of categories. Ratios

for urban and rural areas both inside and outside MSAs were calculated). The fraction of urban

and rural populations in each county was determined for all counties from the U.S. Census

Bu reau data. The number of households that used fireplaces without inserts for heat was

determined by calculating the ratio of the number of households using fireplaces without inserts

used for heating obtained for AHS categories to the total numbers of hou seholds in the urban and

rural portion of each county that used wood as a main heating source. Once the fireplace without

inserts number was determined it was subtracted from the total number of households using

wood as heat to obtain the number of househ olds that used wood heaters (freestanding stoves and

fireplace inserts). The fireplace without insert numbers tabulated by the AHS included gas

fueled fireplaces, consequently, the fireplace without insert numbers had to be adjusted so that

only wood

- fuel

ed fireplace inserts would be included. This was accomplished by using the

HPBA 2004 survey data, which showed the national fraction of fireplaces without inserts that are

wood

- fueled, and adjusting that fraction to be applicable for each county. County adjustments

were based on the number of households that reported gas (utility, bottled, tank or LP) as their

main fuel by county ratioed to the national average (0.577).

Calculation Method 8

Method 8 cwas used due to the fact that method 7 was found to be less accurate for counties with

high population densities and not all counties with high population densities were separately

included in AHS’s Metropolitan Surveys. Fortunately, after reviewing all counties in the

MANE

- VU region with population densitie s of more than 2000 people per square mile, most of

them were accurately covered in specific AHS metropolitan surveys. For those counties not

covered separately in AHS metropolitan surveys, the method used to more accurately estimate

the number of househo lds that used wood heaters and fireplaces without inserts was to

interpolate between counties that bracketed them in terms of population density that were in the

same MSA. The fraction of households in these counties that used wood heaters and fireplaces

without inserts was adjusted based on the interpolation.

### 6

Final Estimate of the Number of Households Using Wood Heaters and Fireplaces without

Inserts

The final estimate of the number of households using wood heaters for heating was determined

one of thre e ways: (Scenario 1) If the county estimate was determined by method 1, 4, or 8

(which are mutually exclusive), then the number from method 1, 4, or 8 was directly used as the

final number of households using wood heaters in the county. (Scenario 2) If me thod 1, 4, or 8

were not used, then the average of methods 2, 3, 5 and 7 was used, except if the county was in

the New York Metro area and not calculated by method 1, 4, or 8. In this case (Scenario 3) the

average of methods 2, 3, 6 and 7 was used.

Total households using fireplaces without inserts for heating was determined one of two ways:

(Scenario 1) If the county estimate was determined by method 1, 4, or 8 (which are mutually

exclusive), then the number from method 1,4, or 8 was directly used as the final number of

households using fireplaces without inserts in the county. (Scenario 2) If method 1, 4, or 8 were

not used, then the average of methods 2, 3 and 7 was used.

2.1.2. Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

The activity of centralized cord wood heating systems (the sum of wood

- fired furnaces and

wood

- fired boilers) was estimated using: (1) The fraction of households that reported using wood

as their main heating fuel that used centralized heating systems (0.30) as estimated from a

Department

of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2001 national survey 11 

### . (2) The

number of households by county that used wood as their main heating fuel as determined from

the U.S. Census Bureau. (3) The average mass of fuel used per appliance in each of t he three

heating categories reported in the 2002 MARAMA survey. (4) Multiplication of the amount of

wood used per appliance in a county (both in cords and by mass) based on the heating degree day

category in which the county is located. Multiple appliance ownership is uncommon for

centralized cordwood heating systems and was not taken into consideration in the calculations.

Because there is particular interest in outdoor wood boilers (OWB), an estimate of number of

OWB as of 2002 in the MANE

- VU states was made from (1) EPA 114 data 12 

### , (2) a report

entitled, “Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State, October 2005,

prepared by the New York Office of the Attorney General 13 

### , and (3) communication with the

Vice President of Central Boil er 14 

### . The 2002 estimate for the MANE

- VU states was 8,329 units.

The 8,329 number was derived from (1) an estimate of 32,729 units sold nationally from 1995 to

2002, (2) an estimate of 5,132 units sold nationally before 1995 and still in use as of 2002, and

(3) an estimate of 22% of the units that were sold nationally were sold in the MANE

- VU states

(Most units have been sold outside the MANE

- VU states, mainly in the Midwest.). (32,729 +

5,132) X 0.22 = 8,329. As with the centralized heater category (of which OWB is a subset), the

number of households reporting wood as their main heating fuel to the U.S. Census Bureau was

used to index centralized wood heating system use by county. Because there are no estimates of

the amount of wood burned in OWB separ ate from the centralized heating unit category in total,

only the number of units, not the activities, were calculated and their activity is included as part

of the centralized heater data.

### 7

2.1.3. Pellet Heaters

Pellet heater activity was calculated by using the Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue (HPBA) 15 

### and

Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI) 16 

### manufacturer shipment records to determine the total number of

pellet heaters (pellet stoves and pellet inserts) in the U.S. as of 2002. As there were no sales

records, the s hipment records were used. Out of business necessity, stove retailers do not

maintain a large inventory of pellet heaters, hence stoves shipped to retailers is representative of

stoves purchased by consumers. Pellet

- fueled centralized heating systems wer e not included in

the calculation since their number is small as compared to pellet stoves and pellet inserts and

there are no records available for their shipment or sales. Multiple appliance ownership is

uncommon and was not taken into consideration in the calculations. Once the total number of

pellet heaters in the U.S. as of 2002 was calculated (518,884 units), the fraction of those units

present in the MANE

- VU region was estimated from PFI pellet shipment records. The PFI

northeast region is compose d of 10 of the MANE

- VU states, therefore a small adjustment was

made using the number of households using wood as their main heating fuel from the U.S.

Census Bureau records (as an index) to include Maryland and Washington D.C. in the estimate.

Once the t

otal number of pellet heaters in the MANE

- VU region was estimated, they were

proportioned to each county by the number of households using wood as their main heating fuel

as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Interestingly, the overall fraction of househ olds

calculated as owning pellet heaters (0.008) compared favorably with the number determined

from the 2002 MARAMA survey (0.01) 17 

### . Because, the number of households reporting using

pellet stoves in the 2002 MARMA survey was small (19), with one househol d reporting an

unreasonable number of pellet stoves (4) and another reporting using 3 tons of pellets without a

pellet heater, the average mass of pellets used per unit did not show any trends with heating

categories nor was it reasonable when compared to estimates obtained from the HPBA and FPI

data. Therefore, the latter data was used in calculating pellet heater activity. The typical

moisture content of pellets is 3% and the mass of pellets used was corrected accordingly to

obtain the activity in dry m ass of pellets.

The number of pellet heaters used for each county was found by multiplying (1) the total number

of pellet heaters reported to be in use in the MANE

- VU region by (2) the fraction of the total

MANE

- VU households with wood as heating fuel b y each individual county.

2.1.4. Wax/Fiber Firelogs

Even though the contribution of wax/fiber firelogs to the overall RWC activity is small, because

the use of wax/fiber firelogs has been of concern and also offers an emission reduction option as

comp ared to cordwood use in fireplaces, the activity for their use has been calculated. Further,

wax/fiber firelogs are important to include in the activity level determination simply due to their

widespread use and the perception that they need to be include d for completeness. According to

the survey conducted by the HPBA 9 

### , 23% of fireplace users normally burn artificial firelogs in

New England (defined by the HPBA surveyor as Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvan ia, Rhode Island and Vermont) and 19% in the

South (includes the MANE

- VU areas of Delaware, District of Columbia and Maryland).

Although wax/fiber firelogs do not contribute to the amount of cordwood burned by fireplaces,

their use does contribute to the activity of fireplaces.

### 8

There are two types of manufactured firelogs used in residential fireplaces without inserts

– wax/fiber firelogs and densified firelogs. The use of densified firelogs in fireplaces in the

MANE

- VU states as compared to wax/fiber fi relogs is insignificant. An industry survey

revealed that 11,411,192 wax/fiber firelogs were used in the Northeast between September 1998

and September 1999 18 

### . The average weight of a wax/fiber firelog is 4.95 lbs (40% 6 lb logs,

35% 5 lb logs, 25% 3.2 l

b logs and an insignificant number of 3 lb and 2.5 lb logs). The log

weight distribution estimate was based on an interview with a major manufacturer of firelogs 19



### . The typical moisture content of wax/fiber firelogs is 2% and the mass of firelogs was cor rected

to the mass on a dry basis. Adjusting the 11,411,192 number of firelogs used in the Northeast to

the 2002 base year by using the number of usable fireplaces in the Northeast census region 20 

### and

adding the estimated contribution of Maryland, Delawar e and Washington, D.C. to the northeast

number by apportioning the number of fireplaces used for heating in all the MANE

- VU region to

the number without Maryland, Delaware and Washington D.C. included, produces 13,887,242

firelogs, or 33,684 dry tons of fi relogs used in the MANE

- VU states in 2002. The total dry mass

of firelogs used in the MANE

- VU states was apportioned among the counties based on the ratio

of the number of fireplaces without inserts used for heating in each county to the total number of

f ireplaces without inserts used for heating in the MANE

- VU states (Figure 2.15). It needs to be

noted that wax/fiber firelogs are used in fireplaces without inserts used for both aesthetics and

for heating purposes. The number of fireplaces used for heati ng was used for indexing the

firelog use among counties as the relative breakdown between aesthetic and heating use among

counties was considered to be the same.

2.1.5. Cordwood Fuel Usage and Cordwood Mass

The number of cords burned by each of the ma in appliance types used for heat, by state, is shown

in Table 2.01. These data were calculated from the 2002 MARAMA survey 17 

### . Because it was

the best available data, the number of cords burned per appliance in each heating category from

the MARAMA survey

was used to determine the average number of cords burned per appliance

by county, depending on the heating degree day category in which the county is located. The

mass of cordwood burned in each appliance type can be found by multiplying the cords burned

per year by the average mass per cord for each state.

### 9

Table 2.01 Average Number of Cords Burned per Appliance by State for Heat

State Cords Burned

by Wood

Heaters

Annually Cords Burned by

Fireplaces without

Inserts Used for

Heat Annually Cords Burned by

Cordwood

Furnaces and

Boilers Annually

Connecticut 2.15 0.74 3.41

Delaware 0.95 0.51 0.75

Maine 2.56 1.68 5.38

Maryland 1.05 0.53 1.26

Massachusetts 2.34 1.28 4.38

New Hampshire 2.56 1.68 5.38

New Jersey 1.40 0.51 1.22

New York 2.41 1.51 5.30

Pen nsylvania 1.87 0.75 2.93

Rhode Island 2.17 0.54 1.96

Vermont 2.56 1.68 5.38

District of Columbia 0.86 0.46 0.68



### Table 2.02 shows the percentage distribution of the main tree species by state, and the resulting

average mass per cord by state. As studi es have shown that people tend to use cordwood that is

available in their immediate vicinity 21 

### , determining the distribution of tree species in the MANE

VU region and their associated cord weights is an appropriate step in the calculation of the

average ma ss per cord for each state. Average cord masses for each state were calculated by

apportioning the mass per cord of each tree species by the percentage distribution of the species

(Activity Table 13), and taking the sum of those fractions for each state. Table 2.02 is a

summary of the percentage of tree species by state. Many similar tree species were grouped

together in a species group in Table 2.02 in order to provide an overview. Those species that

accounted for less than 0.01% of the total tree spec ies for a state were only included as part of

the “other” category. Species contained within the “other” category make up less than 10% of

the total species in all states, less than 5% in seven states. The full list of species and their

respective distri

butions by state can be found in the activity task, and was used in the calculation

of the average cord masses in the activity task. Because the District of Columbia has little fuel

wood resources, its average mass per cord resulting from the tree species percentage distribution

is assumed to be equal to that of Maryland. These cord weights differ from previous studies

because they are derived from the tree species distribution in each state, and as each species has a

different mass per cord and each stat e has a different species distribution, each state will have a

different average mass per cord.

### 10

Table 2.02 Main Tree Species Considered in the Average State Mass per Cord Calculation

Full tree species distribution table re ference: 22

Species mass per cord references: 23

- 27

0% moisture db

Tree species with a contribution of greater than 0.01% only are included in the table.SpeciesConnecticutDelawareMaineMarylandMassachusettsNew HampshireNew JerseyNew YorkPennsylvaniaRhode IslandVermont

American

basswood 0.04%

- 0.03% 0.13% 0.27% 0.13% 0.14% 0.81% 0.41%

- 0.16%

American elm 0.57% 0.02% 0.13% 0.27% 0.28% 0.30% 0.58% 2.22% 0.86% 0.33% 0.65%

American holly

- 12.83%

- 7.52%

- - 1.92%

- - 0.16%

- Apple 0.23% 0.97% 0.06% 0.22% 0.16% 0.07% 0.17% 2.21% 0.69% 0.03% 0.54%

Ash 2.69% 0.09% 1.97% 1.37% 3.36% 2.65% 2.62% 7.48% 3.45% 0.94% 3.60%

Aspen 0.39% 0.33% 3.42% 0.21% 1.02% 2.26% 0.12% 2.87% 1.66% 0.36% 2.10%

Balsam fir

- - 35.29%

- 0 .55% 15.25%

- 3.43%

- - 12.16%

Beech 5.03% 0.77% 4.10% 2.57% 8.20% 8.04% 1.05% 8.69% 6.08% 1.29% 10.49%

Birch 15.79% 0.88% 11.67% 2.34% 11.16% 13.77% 3.39% 6.21% 11.57% 11.52% 10.96%

Black Locust 0.12% 0.70%

- 1.35% 0.07%

- 0.50% 0.27% 1.00% 0.02% 0.01%

Cedar 1.78% 0.85% 3.53% 0.63% 0.48% 0.10% 9.57% 1.82% 0.13% 0.32% 1.40%

Cherry 3.57% 2.54% 1.36% 5.45% 3.06% 2.53% 2.43% 3.81% 10.22% 2.02% 3.60%

Dogwood 0.39% 1.48%

- 2.30% 0.09%

- 0.77% 0.30% 0.90% 1.31%

-

Gum 0.96% 21.07%

- 15.69% 0.42%

- 9.77% 0.1 0% 3.09% 2.10%

-

Hemlock 6.25%

- 2.64% 0.14% 10.82% 7.29% 0.14% 5.07% 3.62% 1.06% 5.08%

Hickory 4.60% 0.88%

- 2.31% 0.99% 0.26% 1.27% 1.24% 1.67% 1.20% 0.30%

Hop

- hornbeam 4.82% 1.00% 0.71% 1.73% 2.15% 0.92% 1.44% 6.26% 2.92% 0.66% 3.75%

Maple 31.95% 21 .51% 19.44% 19.13% 29.45% 27.84% 18.19% 29.43% 28.22% 35.48% 32.90%

Oak 12.75% 10.61% 0.89% 9.43% 12.78% 4.74% 19.20% 3.00% 10.09% 24.00% 0.89%

Pine 4.56% 11.84% 2.04% 11.88% 11.39% 6.92% 18.43% 3.43% 2.78% 14.06% 2.38%

Poplar 0.21% 2.07%

- 4.24% 0.01%

- 1.21% 0.06% 1.13% 0.08%

-

Sassafras 1.23% 3.55%

- 2.68% 0.35%

- 2.55% 0.05% 1.95% 1.45%

-

Spruce 0.45% 0.00% 11.40%

- 1.19% 5.91% 0.01% 2.27% 0.14%

- 7.19%

Subtotal 98.36% 94.01% 98.71% 91.61% 98.24% 98.99% 95.48% 91.01% 92.58% 98.39% 98.15%

Other S pecies 1.64% 5.99% 1.29% 8.39% 1.76% 1.01% 4.52% 8.99% 7.42% 1.61% 1.85%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Dry Mass per

Cord (tons) 1.47 1.33 1.23 1.34 1.41 1.34 1.33 1.42 1.44 1.47 1.38

### 11

2.2. Activity by County, State, and Total MANE

- VU Region

Activity for RWC is the amount of fuel consumed by RWC devices. Activity data is provided

here by individual appliance type by state and for the total MANE

- VU region. There are four

main appliance categories. (1) Wood heaters, which are shown as the sub

- categories of a)

uncertified conventi

onal wood heaters, b) certified catalytic wood heaters, and c) certified non

catalytic wood heaters. (2) Data for cordwood fireplaces without inserts used for both heat and

aesthetics are shown. While cordwood burned in fireplaces without inserts for aes thetic purposes

are not shown in the emissions inventory task as the contribution to RWC is small, the amount of

cordwood burned for aesthetics is included here for completeness. Fireplaces without inserts

used for aesthetics burn about 0.069 cords/year 28 

### . From a 2002 HPBA survey 29 

### , it can be

estimated that for every one fireplace without an insert used for heating, 1.38 are used for

aesthetics. From this ratio, the 0.069 cords/year fuel consumption and from the county by county

estimates of fireplace wi

thout insert use for heating, an estimate can be made of the amount of

cordwood burned in fireplaces without inserts used for aesthetics. The mass of wax/fiber

firelogs burned by fireplaces without inserts is also included. (3) Data for pellet heaters ar e

shown, as well as, (4) data for centralized cordwood heating systems. The activity data are

shown in separate charts for each appliance type, and for total RWC units by state. Maps are

also provided showing the total number of RWC devices, fraction of household using RWC

devices, and the total wood consumed by the RWC devices by county in the MANE

- VU region.

It should be noted that the data shown in Figures 2.01

- 2.12 are for appliances used, not owned.

### 12

Figure 2.01 Total Number of RWC Devices

217,087

81,662 224,267

161,056 241,166 802,921

60,632 137,891

13,142 351,063 366,710 844,121

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000



### CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCNumber of Devices



### Figure 2.02 Total Number of Wood Heaters69,74616,15576,210141,670110,33550,817104,46422,71049,8751,99717,1853,98018,77734,90627,18512,52125,73972,84874,7235,59512,2894927,1711,6617,83614,56711,3455,22510,74130,40031,1822,3355,128205303,270295,660

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCNumber of Devices Conventional Non-Catalytic Catalytic

### 13

Figure 2.03 Total Number of Fireplaces without Inserts54,63928,36243,56976,62989,86835,63845,81112,98223,7955,08556,69329,42945,20779,51093,24636,97847,53413,47024,6905,277177,004158,743183,658164,711

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCNumber of Devices Used for Heat

Used for Aesthetics



### Figure 2.04 Total Number of Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

3,639

656 10,167

6,125 5,925 6,247

2,154 1,106 6,872

26 24,871

23,009

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCNumber of Devices



### Figure 2.05 Total Number of Pellet Heaters

8,004

1,417 22,491

13,284 13,144 13,624

4,708 2,431 15,234

60 55,648 51,234

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCNumber of Devices

### 14

Figure 2.06 Map of the Total Num ber of RWC Devices Used for Heat in the MANE

- VU Region

by County

### 15

Figure 2.07 Fraction of Households Using RWC Devices

0.164 0.266 0.425

0.180

0.142 0.329

0.077 0.113 0.176

0.146 0.629

0.054

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700



### CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCFraction of Households



### Figure 2.08 Fraction of Households Using Wood Heaters0.05280.05260.06970.04470.10370.03340.04150.06330.05450.00810.01300.01290.03560.01720.01100.02560.00820.01020.01560.01340.05600.00200.00540.00540.01490.00720.00460.01070.00340.00430.00650.00560.02340.00080.14450.2275

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCFraction of Households Conventional Non-Catalytic Catalytic

### 16

Figure 2.09 Fraction of Households Using Fireplaces without Inserts0.04130.09230.08260.03770.03640.07270.01470.02230.03690.03120.02070.04290.09570.08570.03910.03780.07550.01520.02310.03830.03240.02150.10850.1126

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCFraction of Households Used for Heat

Used for Aesthetics



### Figure 2.10 Fraction of Households Using Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

0.0028 0.0021 0.0030 0.0024 0.0128

0.0007 0.0035 0.0048

0.0027

0.0001 0.0313

0.0193

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCFraction of Households



### Figure 2.11 Fraction of Households Using Pellet Heaters

0.0061 0.0046 0.0065 0.0053

0.0015 0.0078 0.0107

0.0058

0.0002 0.0278 0.0695

0.0426

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCFraction of Households

### 17

Figure 2.12 Map of the Fraction of Households Using RWC Devices for Heat in the MANE

- VU

Region by County

### 18

Figure 2.13 Total Mass of Fuel Burned by RWC Devices

51,363 493,586

344,341 685,250

367,086

291,948 1,407,094

103,317 351,013

7,496 374,355 1,895,572

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000



### CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons



### Figure 2.14 Total Mass of Cordwood and Firelogs Burned by Wood Heaters220,35320,420239,413199,526362,268173,994813,44167,829175,9602,53743,1193,99646,84939,04370,88934,04737,991197,397159,17513,27334,43249617,9941,66719,55016,29329,58214,20815,85482,37566,4245,53914,369207194,1501,008,772

0 220,000 440,000 660,000 880,000 1,100,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons Conventional Non-Catalytic Catalytic

### 19

Figure 2.15 Total Mass of Cordwood Burned by Fir eplaces Without Inserts59,20119,25489,79454,248161,11780,05330,724191,0899,56355,0753,4705,7582,7033,8277,3409,0453,4114,35216,10118,2131,3692,3474872,4641,1551,9653,4564,0531,6071,9747,1387,9835861,073229340,348

0 80,000 160,000 240,000 320,000 400,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons Used for Heat

Used for Aesthetics Firelogs



### Figure 2.16 Total Mass of Cordwood Burned by Centralized Cordwood Heaters

18,257

655 67,099

10,355 36,463 44,935

3,485 2,981 50,938

26 97,028 186,662

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons



### Figure 2.17 Total Mass of Pellets Burned by Pellet Heaters

10,013

1,772 28,135

16,618 16,443 17,044

5,889 3,041 19,057

75 64,092 69,614

0 16,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 80,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons

### 20

Figure 2.18 Map of the Total Dry Mass of Wood Burned by RWC Devices in the MANE

- VU

Reg ion by County

### 21

3. Emissions Inventory

The emissions inventory was compiled by county, by state and for the entire MANE

- VU region and

has been provided for each of the major wood

- burning device categories (Table 3.01). The air

pollutants included in the inventory were selected based on their relevancy to RWC, availability of

reasonable emission factors, and comments provided by MARAMA’s review team. These air

pollutants are listed in Table 3.02.

Table 3.01 Wood

- Burning D evice Categories

Category Comments

Uncertified conventional cordwood heater

EPA

- certified non

- catalytic cordwood heater

EPA

- certified catalytic cordwood heater Sum of freestanding units and fireplace inserts

Cordwood

- burning fireplace without insert Separate emission inventories calculated for

cordwood and manufactured wax/fiber fuel use, also

for aesthetic and heating cordwood use.

Centralized Cordwood Systems Sum of cordwood furnaces and boilers. Both inside

and outside boilers included.

Pellet H eater Sum of freestanding units and fireplace inserts. Both

EPA

- certified and exempt units included.

Table 3.02 Emissions Inventory Air Pollutants

Pollutant Comments

PM 2.5 

### Assumed equivalent to PM, reported as 5H equivalent

PM 10 

### Assumed equivalent of PM, reported as 5H equivalent

Nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ) Reported as NO 2 

### Carbon monoxide (CO)

Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### )

Ammonia (NH

3 

### )

Benzene

Phenol

7

- PAH

16

- PAH

Benzo(a)pyrene

Naphthalene

1,3

- Butadiene

Formaldehyde

Acetaldehyde

Acrolein

Creosols Sum of o, m and p isomers

PCB TEQ



### Dioxin TEQ



### Methane

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

### 22

The calculation of the emission inventory for each appliance type broken down to the county

level, state level, and for the entire MANE

- VU region is str

aightforward. The dry mass of fuel

(activity) for cordwood, pellets, and manufactured wax/fiber firelogs, shown in units of

kilograms, compiled in the activity task was multiplied by the applicable emission factor in the

units of mass air pollutant per ma ss of dry fuel (g/kg, mg/kg, μg/kg, ng/kg, or pg/kg). The

emission factors were obtained by reviewing and averaging (if multiple sources were available)

data obtained from available reports and publications. The emission factor and emission

inventory tab les are offered with little narrative, as they are self

- explanatory. It should be noted

that while some of the emission factors tabulated in AP

- 42 (which are also the source of many

subsequent tabulations that are in the public domain) were used, new sour ces of data were also

used as the AP

- 42 data lack currency and are limited. For example, many pollutants are not

provided for each category of wood

- burning devices and some primary data sources referenced

in AP

- 42 clearly have values that can be considere d “outliers” in light of a review of more

extensive and current data. (See VOC discussion for fireplaces without inserts under Section

3.1.2.)

It needs to be emphasized that there is considerable and unquantifiable uncertainty in the

development of an em

ission inventory for RWC as the emission inventory is (1) the product of

RWC emission factors and activity, (2) the activity is, in turn, the product of the number of RWC

devices in use and the average mass of fuel burned in them annually, (3) the mass of fuel is

calculated from the average number cords burned annually and the weighed mass of a cord of

wood by state, and (4) the weighed mass of a cord of wood by state is dependent on the tree

species endemic to the state. There is no standardized methodolo gy for collecting or interpreting

these data and they have been compiled by various research organizations, governmental

agencies and hearth industry groups. As noted in the introduction to this report, OMNI has

reviewed previous emission inventories (see reference 1) and used them as a basis, along with

new data, to provide an improved emission inventory, however it is up to the individual states to

assess the inventory most appropriate for their applications, such as would be used in an State

Implementat ion Plan. The cost effectiveness portion of this report utilizes the emission

inventory data generated by the methods outlined here.

3.1. Methodology

Emission factors for each of the wood

- burning device categories (cordwood heaters, pellet

heaters, fi replaces without inserts, and centralized cordwood heating systems) have been

tabulated separately. The emission factors for cordwood heaters have been subdivided further

into uncertified conventional, certified non

- catalytic, and certified catalytic cord wood heaters.

Emission factors for fireplaces without inserts have been tabulated for both their use of

cordwood and manufactured wax/fiber firelogs.

As noted in the introduction, OMNI reviewed previous inventories and used their results and

input data , along with aspects of their methodology, to develop the methodology presented here.

As RWC is an area source, with numerous diverse appliance types and classifications, there is a

higher inherent uncertainty than for many point sources or more uniform s ources, such as

transportation. The methodology developed by OMNI was based on best professional judgment

### 23

and a corporate history with the hearth industry. It is necessarily limited and was steered by

existing databases and it is, in general, consistent with methods used for the development of air

quality emission inventories for other source categories. However, other methodologies have

been and can be used.

Some sources for the emission factors are themselves reviews, rather than primary sources and

h ence the emission factors listed in them are already averages. In these cases, the primary

references are included along with the reference to the review. Some sources included in

reviews were not included in the averages because the data contained in th em were clearly

outliers or were misinterpretations when compared with data from subsequent and more current

work.

The selection of data (references) for compiling average emission factors had a number of

criteria. These were:

1. The wood

- burning dev ice tested was a commercially available unit, not a novel research

unit, or an atypical unit not generally used by the public.

2. Reasonable burn rates and representative fuel were used in the testing.

3. A narrative was provided documenting established and/or technically sound testing and

analytical methodologies.

4. If there was a large enough literature database available for a given pollutant, the reported

emission factor or the emission factor calculated from data provided in the document was

evalua ted to determine if it were an outlier as compared to data from other sources (i.e.,

outside of two standard deviations of the mean of the other data). An outlier status could

be indicative of a non

- representative use of the wood

- burning devices, or measu rement or

calculation errors.

5. Adequate supporting ancillary data was supplied along with the key emission factor data to

establish the veracity of the results. These included fuel moisture, temperatures and

pressures associated with gas volumes, opera tional temperatures, stack gas velocities, etc.

6. The emission factor units or the units of data used to calculate the emission factors, as well

as units for supporting ancillary data, were provided.

7. Some of the references were review documents with the emission factors being the

compilation of primary measurements from more than one source. Care was taken to insure

that data form no reference was included in the calculation of the final recommended

emission factors more than once.

8. Calculation me thods were either provided or transparent.

9. Institutional and/or authorship information was provided with unpublished reports.

3.1.1. Cordwood Heaters

Emission factors for cordwood heaters are applicable to freestanding cordwood stoves and

cordwood fireplace inserts. All cordwood heaters sold after July 1, 1990 in the United States

have to be certified for low emissions unless they had an exemption. Two technologies have

been used to achieve low emissions. These are catalytic and non

- catalytic. C atalytic units, of

### 24

course, rely on a catalyst to reduce air emissions. Non

- catalytic technologies rely on the

introduction of heated secondary air and other design features to achieve low emissions.

It has been generally recognized that uncertified conve ntional, certified catalytic and certified

non

- catalytic cordwood heaters have different characteristic emission factors; consequently the

emission factors have been tabulated separately for each of the three types.

(1) Uncertified Conventional Cordwood Heaters

Emission factors for uncertified conventional cordwood heaters have been obtained from three

categories of heaters. These are: (1) heaters manufactured before the NSPS July 1, 1990

certification requirement, (2) currently or recently manufactured exempt units which operate

similarly to some old pre

- EPA certification units, and (3) low

- technology units sold outside the

United States.

(2) Certified Non

- Catalytic Cordwood Heaters

Emission factors for certified non

- catalytic cordwood heaters were pri marily obtained from: (1)

units that are certified under the NSPS program, and (2) high

- technology units sold outside of the

United States that are equivalent to modern certified units sold in the U.S.

(3) Certified Catalytic Cordwood Heaters

Emission fa ctors for certified catalytic cordwood heaters were primarily obtained from: (1) units

that are certified under the NSPS program, (2) catalytic units sold outside of the United States

that are equivalent to modern certified units sold in the U.S., and (3 ) research units that were

never produced and were not certified, but are similar to certified units. Catalysts degrade with

use, increasing emissions. Some of data used in the calculations of average emission factors

were for new units, and some were fr om used units.

3.1.2. Fireplaces without Inserts

Emission factors for fireplaces include manufactured units and site

- built masonry units both

operated with and without glass doors.

(1) Cordwood

Emission factors for fireplaces burning cordwood were de rived from fireplaces burning both

cordwood and from laboratory studies, which used dimensional lumber as a reproducible

surrogate for cordwood.

It is important to note that the VOC emission factor used in this report is much lower than the

VOC emission f

actor in AP

- 42. This is due to the fact that the AP

- 42 used an average of nine

emission factors from three documents created between 1977 and 1983 38.16,50,52.10 

### . Of those nine

emission factors, two were clearly outliers (from reference 52.10) since they are 37 and 13

standard deviations larger than the mean of 12.9 g/kg (which excluded the two outliers). Since

the report containing the two outliers only contained three emission factors, the entire report was

omitted. After the report’s three emission fa ctors were removed, 11 emission factors from two

more recent studies 37,51 

### were averaged with the remaining six factors from AP

- 42 to determine

### 25

the more reasonable updated VOC emission factor for fireplaces without inserts burning

cordwood.

(2) Manufactur

ed Wax/Fiber Firelogs

Separate emission factors were tabulated for manufactured wax/fiber firelogs burned in

fireplaces. Because wax/fiber firelogs are typically composed of 40% to 60% wax or wax

- like

materials, their emission characteristics are consider ably different than wood alone. Care should

be taken when reviewing the emission factors for wax/fiber firelogs as they contain almost twice

as much heat per unit mass as does wood, they do not require kindling and the manufacturers’

instructions are for one

- at

- a

- time use. Consequently, they are presented here for the purpose of

calculating an emission inventory, not for a comparison of their emissions with cordwood.

3.1.3. Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

Emission factors for centralized cordwood heating systems were calculated from data obtained

from: (1) cordwood

- fired hot

- air furnaces, (2) cordwood

- fired indoor boilers, and (3) cordwood

fired outdoor boilers (often referred to as hydronic heaters). Data from both more modern units

with heat st

orage tanks and gasification

- like designs and from more traditional units operating

intermittently with thermostatic control were included.

3.1.4. Pellet Heaters

Emission factors for pellet heaters were obtained from (1) older models, (2) modern models (3)

EPA

- certified models, and (4) EPA

- exempt models. Modern pellet heaters (stoves and fireplace

inserts) are of two basic technology types: bottom

- feed and top feed. Data from both types were

used in the development of emission factors. For some pollu tants, no data were available for

pellet heaters. In some of these cases, data from centralized pellet heating systems operating

under a continuous burning cycle were used to estimate emissions from pellet heaters, as

combustion conditions are similar.

### 26

T able 3.03 Summary of Emission FactorsPollutantUnitsUncertified ConventionalCordwood HeatersCertified CatalyticCordwood HeatersCertified Non-CatalyticCordwood HeatersPellet HeatersFireplaces without InsertsBurning CordwoodFireplaces without InsertsBurning ManufacturedWax/Fiber FirelogsCentralized CordwoodHeating Systems



### PM 2.5 * 

### g/kg 16.9 8.37 7.51 1.53 15.27 24.1 13.82



### PM 10 * 

### g/kg 16.9 8.37 7.51 1.53 15.27 24.1 13.82



### NO

x ** 

### g/kg 1.28 1.00 1.14 1.90 1.45 3.23 0.92



### CO g/kg 78.4 53.5 70.40 7. 96 74.6 68.5 91.8



### SO 2 

### g/kg 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.20 2.08 1.01



### NH 3 

### g/kg 0.85 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.90 0.002 0.90



### Benzene g/kg 1.08 1.12 0.48 0.01 0.34 0.45 1.38



### Phenol g/kg 0.15 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.24 0.02 0.12



### 7

- PAH g/kg 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.002 0.02



### 1 6

- PAH g/kg 0.32 0.14 0.16 0.35 0.38 0.06 0.26



### Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.84 1.97 1.09 3.34 0.37 0.48 1.37



### Naphthalene g/kg 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.21 0.13 0.03 0.07



### 1,3

- Butadiene g/kg 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.0005 0.08 0.01 0.01



### Formaldehyde g/kg 0.73 0.49 1.11 0.16 0.90 0.75 0.35



### Acetaldehyde g/kg 0.31 0.27 0.32 0.05 0.53 0.06 0.34



### Acrolein g/kg 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02



### Cresols *** 

### g/kg 0.08 0.27 0.23 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.07



### PCB TEQ 

### pg/kg 0.50 0.25 1.40 0.10 0.38 1.63 0.55



### Dioxin TEQ 

### ng/kg 2.30 1.14 0.40 1.900 0. 39 1.22 4.16



### Methane g/kg 32.0 13.0 14.2 0.12 7.21 38.75 13.05



### VOC **** 

### g/kg 18.4 8.60 10.1 0.02 9.43 16.9 5.85



### References 30

- 38,

38.01

- 38.11, 39 30

- 31, 33

-

38, 38.01

- 38.03,

38.05

- 38.06,

38.09

- 38.15 30

- 34, 36

-

38, 38.01

- 38.13,

38.16, 39

- 40, 44 30, 32,

35

- 36, 38,

38.17

-

38.18, 40

-

48 21, 30,

32, 37,

38.11,

38.16, 41

- 43, 49

- 54 32, 37, 41

- 43,

49.01

- 49.02, 49.06

- 49.08, 49.11, 49.15,

51

- 52, 52.13,

52.21

- 52.24, 53, 55 30, 32,

35

- 38,

45, 47,

56

- 58

* Reported as EPA Method 5H equivalent

** NO

x is total nitrogen oxi des reported as NO 2

*** Sum of o, m, and p isomers

**** If not specifically stated, assumed to be non

- methane VOC

### 27

3.2. Emission Inventory by County, State, and Total MANE

- VU Region

The emissions inventories are provided in Tables 3.05

–3.23 for each pollutant by state and

appliance category for the 2002 base year, and in Table 3.24 for the total MANE

- VU region by

pollutant and appliance category for the 2002 base year. As PM and VOC (an ozone precursor)

are the main criteria pollutants of concern for RWC and non

- attainment areas, their emission

inventory levels are also included in bar charts by state, and as a set of maps showing the total

PM and VOC emission distribution by county. The remaining 18 pollutants included in the

emission inventory were not provided as maps or figures, but are compiled in Tables 3.06

- 3.23,

as the pollutant distribution by county will closely follow the PM and VOC maps, which follow

the distribution of activity by county.

The maps, figures, and tables in this section r epresent emissions from devices used for primary

and secondary heating, and aesthetic fireplace without insert use. To obtain an intuitive

understanding of the differences between counties and states, it may be helpful to view both the

map of the fraction

of households using RWC devices for heat (Figure 2.12) and the map of the

total number of RWC devices used for heat (Figure 2.06), and compare them to the emission

maps (Figure 3.06 and Figure 3.12).

Emission inventories are provided in units of english tons of pollutant, except for

Benzo(a)pyrene, which is shown as pounds, Dioxin TEQ 

### , which is shown as milligrams, and

PCB TEQ 

### , which is shown as micrograms.

### 28

Figure 3.01 Total PM Emissions from RWC Devices

5,511

765 7,015

4,996 10,123

5,276

4,341 20,311

1,518 4,988

115 27,511

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000



### CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of PM



### Figure 3.02 Total PM Emissions from Woo d Heaters3,7243454,0463,3726,1222,9413,28113,7471,1462,97443324303522935322562851,4821,19510025941511416413624811913368955646120217,048

0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of PM Conventional Non-Catalytic Catalytic

### 29

Figure 3.03 Total PM Emissions from Fireplaces without Inserts9042941,3718282,4601,2224692,9171468415382426511413453682372641936859284783983948172193142665,196

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of PM Cordwood (heat)

Cordwood (aesthetic)

Firelogs



### Figure 3.04 Total PM Emissions from Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

252

9 927

143 504 621

48 2,580

1,341

41 704

0.4

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of PM



### Figure 3.05 Total PM Emissions from Pellet Heaters

15

3 43

25 25 26

9 107

98

5 29

0.1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of PM

### 30

Figure 3.06 Map of the Total RWC PM Emiss ions for the MANE

- VU Region by County

### 31

Figure 3.07 Total VOC Emissions from RWC Devices

5,389

660 6,346

4,896 9,499

4,735 4,467 25,774

19,768

1,555 4,557

95

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000



### CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of VOC



### Figure 3.08 Total VOC Emissions from Wood Heaters4,0423754,3923,6606,6463,1923,56214,9231,2443,22847435404723947153433831,9901,60513434751551416814025412213670857148124218,506

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of VOC Conventional

Non-Catalytic

Catalytic

### 32

Figure 3.09 Total VOC Emissions from Fireplaces without Inserts5581818465111,5197552901,8019051933502640718333421461631222542203359692733121135101843,208

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of VOC Cordwood (heat)

Cordwood (aesthetic)

Firelogs



### Figu re 3.10 Total VOC Emissions from Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

107

4 393

61 213 263

20 568

17 298

0.2 1,092

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCTons of VOC



### Figure 3.11 Total VOC Emissions from Pellet Heaters

409

72 1,149

679 672 696

241 2,618

124 778

3 2,844

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT DCPounds of VOC

### 33

Figure 3.12 Map of the Total RWC VOC Emissions for the MANE

- VU Region by

County

### 34

Table 3.04 PM Emission Inventory

Tons of PM

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 5,511 3,724 324 151 904 82 59 252 15

DE 765 345 30 14 294 42 28 9 3

ME 7,015 4,046 352 164 1,371 65 47 927 43

MD 4,996 3,372 293 136 828 114 83 143 25

MA 10,123 6,122 532 248 2,460 134 98 504 25

NH 5,276 2,941 256 119 1,222 53 39 621 26

NJ 4,341 3,281 285 133 469 68 48 48 9

NY 27,511 17,048 1,482 689 5,196 237 172 2,580 107

PA 20,311 13,747 1,195 556 2,917 264 193 1,341 98

RI 1,518 1,146 100 46 146 19 14 41 5

VT 4,988 2,974 259 120 841 36 26 704 29

D.C. 115 43 4 2 53 8 6 0.4 0.1

M

- V 92,471 58,789 5,112 2,377 16,701 1,122 813 7,171 386

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.05 VOC Emission Inventory

Tons of VOC

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Cat alytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 5,389 4,042 435 155 558 50 42 107 0.2

DE 660 375 40 14 181 26 20 4 0.04

ME 6,346 4,392 472 168 846 40 33 393 0.6

MD 4,896 3,660 394 140 511 71 59 61 0.3

MA 9,499 6,646 715 254 1,519 83 69 213 0 .3

NH 4,735 3,192 343 122 755 33 27 263 0.3

NJ 4,467 3,562 383 136 290 42 33 20 0.1

NY 25,774 18,506 1,990 708 3,208 146 121 1,092 1.4

PA 19,768 14,923 1,605 571 1,801 163 135 568 1.3

RI 1,555 1,244 134 48 90 12 10 17 0.06

VT 4,557 3,228 347 124 519 22 18 298 0.4

D.C. 95 47 5 2 33 5 4 0.2 0.002

M

- V 87,740 63,817 6,864 2,443 10,312 693 570 3,036 5

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 35

Table 3.06 NO

x 

### Emission Inventory

Tons of NO

x

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Cen tralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 487 283 49 18 86 8 8 17 19

DE 72 26 5 2 28 4 4 0.6 3

ME 638 307 53 20 130 6 6 62 54

MD 459 256 45 16 79 11 11 10 32

MA 899 465 81 30 234 13 13 34 31

NH 476 223 39 14 116 5 5 41 32

NJ 380 249 43 16 45 6 6 3 11

NY 2,445 1,294 225 82 494 22 23 172 133

PA 1,830 1,043 181 66 277 25 26 89 122

RI 134 87 15 6 14 2 2 3 6

VT 449 226 39 14 80 3 3 47 36

D.C. 11 3 0.6 0. 2 5 0.7 0.7 0.02 0.1

M

- V 8,280 4,462 776 284 1,586 107 109 478 479

*NO

x is total nitrogen oxides reported as NO 2

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.07 CO Emission Inventory

Tons of CO

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Ins erts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 28,016 17,279 3,036 963 4,416 398 169 1,675 80

DE 3,768 1,601 281 89 1,436 207 79 60 14

ME 36,650 18,773 3,298 1,046 6,699 318 135 6,158 224

MD 25,191 15,646 2,749 872 4,047 559 237 950 132

MA 51,409 28,407 4,991 1,583 12,019 655 277 3,346 131

NH 27,402 13,644 2,397 760 5,972 260 110 4,124 136

NJ 21,875 15,224 2,675 848 2,292 334 135 320 47

NY 142,126 79 ,102 13,897 4,407 25,390 1,157 489 17,130 554

PA 104,052 63,785 11,206 3,554 14,255 1,290 547 8,904 510

RI 7,695 5,319 934 296 713 95 40 274 24

VT 26,172 13,798 2,424 769 4,109 173 73 4,675 152

D.C. 560 199 35 11 259 37 16 2 0.6

M

- V 474,915 272,777 47 ,922 15,197 81,607 5,483 2,306 47,618 2,004

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 36

Table 3.08 SO 2 

### Emission Inventory

Tons of SO 2

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conve ntional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 73 23 9 4 12 1 5 18 2

DE 11 2 0.8 0.3 4 0.6 2 0.7 0.3

ME 133 25 9 4 18 0.9 4 68 4

MD 64 21 8 3 11 1 7 10 3

MA 140 38 14 6 32 2 8 37 3

NH 96 18 7 3 16 0.70 3 46 3

NJ 4 7 20 8 3 6 0.90 4 4 0.9

NY 447 105 39 16 68 3 15 189 11

PA 296 84 32 13 38 3 17 98 10

RI 18 7 3 1 2 0.3 1 3 0.5

VT 96 18 7 3 11 0.5 2 52 3

D.C. 2 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.01

M

- V 1,423 361 136 57 219 15 70 525 39

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU reg ion average



### Table 3.09 NH

3 

### Emission Inventory

Tons of NH 3

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 291 187 19 8 53 5 0.005 16 2

DE 41 17 2 0.8 17 2 0.002 0.6 0.3

ME 383 204 21 9 81 4 0.004 60 4

MD 262 170 18 7 49 7 0.007 9 2

MA 541 308 32 13 145 8 0.008 33 2

NH 288 148 15 6 72 3 0.003 40 3

NJ 225 165 17 7 28 4 0.004 3 0.9

NY 1,482 857 89 3 7 306 14 0.01 168 10

PA 1,077 691 72 30 172 16 0.02 87 10

RI 79 58 6 2 9 1 0.001 3 0.5

VT 272 150 15 6 50 2 0.002 46 3

D.C. 6 2 0.2 0.09 3 0.4 0.0005 0.02 0.01

M

- V 4,947 2,957 306 128 985 66 0.07 467 38

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 37

Ta ble 3.10 Benzene Emission Inventory

Tons of Benzene

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 3 27 238 21 20 20 2 1 25 0.1

DE 35 22 2 2 7 1 0.5 0.9 0.03

ME 429 258 22 22 31 1 0.9 93 0.4

MD 290 215 19 18 19 3 2 14 0.2

MA 569 391 34 33 55 3 2 50 0.2

NH 312 188 16 16 27 1 0.7 62 0.2

NJ 263 210 18 18 11 2 0.9 5 0.08

NY 1,660 1,089 95 92 117 5 3 25 8 1

PA 1,239 878 76 74 66 6 4 134 0.9

RI 94 73 6 6 3 0.4 0.3 4 0.04

VT 313 190 17 16 19 0.8 0.5 70 0.3

D.C. 5 3 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.001

M

- V 5,535 3,755 326 317 375 25 15 718 4

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.11 Phenol Emissi on Inventory

Tons of Phenol

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 64 33 11 4 14 1 0.05 2 0.1

DE 10 3 1 0.3 5 0.7 0.02 0.08 0.02

ME 81 35 11 4 21 1 0.04 8 0.4

MD 58 29 10 3 13 2 0.06 1 0.2

MA 122 53 17 6 38 2 0.07 4 0.2

NH 62 26 8 3 19 0.8 0.03 5 0.2

NJ 50 29 9 3 7 1 0.04 0.4 0.07

NY 321 149 48 17 80 4 0.13 23 0.9

PA 234 120 39 14 45 4 0.1 5 12 0.8

RI 17 10 3 1 2 0.3 0.01 0.4 0.04

VT 57 26 8 3 13 0.5 0.02 6 0.2

D.C. 1 0.4 0.1 0.04 0.8 0.1 0.004 0.003 0.0009

M

- V 1,079 513 166 58 258 17 0.6 63 3

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 38

Table 3.12 7

- PAH Emission Inventory

Tons of 7

- PAH

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 13 5 0.6 0.2 7 0.6 0.004 0.3 0.3

DE 3 0.4 0.1 0.02 2 0.3 0.002 0.01 0.05

ME 19 5 0.6 0.3 10 0.5 0.004 1 0.9

MD 13 4 0.5 0.2 6 0.8 0.006 0.2 0.5

MA 29 8 1.0 0.4 18 1 0.007 0.7 0.5

NH 15 4 0.5 0.2 9 0.4 0.003 0.8 0.5

NJ 9 4 0.5 0.2 3 0.5 0.004 0.06 0.2

NY 71 22 3 1 37 2 0.01 3 2

PA 48 18 2 0.9 21 2 0 .01 2 2

RI 3 1 0.2 0.1 1 0.1 0.001 0.05 0.09

VT 12 4 0.5 0.2 6 0.3 0.002 0.9 0.6

D.C. 1 0.06 0.007 0.003 0.4 0.05 0.0004 0.0005 0.002

M

- V 235 77 9 4 120 8 0.06 9 8

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.13 16

- PAH Emission Inventory

Tons of 16

- PAH

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 111 69 7 3 22 2 0.2 5 3

DE 16 6 0.6 0.2 7 1 0.07 0.2 0.6

ME 148 75 7 3 34 2 0.1 17 10

MD 103 63 6 2 20 3 0.2 3 6

MA 209 114 11 4 60 3 0.3 9 6

NH 111 55 5 2 30 1 0.1 12 6

NJ 86 61 6 2 12 2 0.1 0.9 2

NY 567 318 31 12 128 6 0.5 48 24

PA 417 256 25 9 72 6 0.5 25 22

RI 30 21 2 0.8 4 0.5 0.04 0.8 1

VT 104 55 5 2 21 0.9 0.07 13 7

D.C. 2 0.8 0.08 0.03 1 0.2 0.01 0.007 0.03

M

- V 1,904 1,096 107 40 410 28 2 134 87

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 39

Table 3.14 Benzo(a)pyrene Emission Inventory

Pounds of Benzo(a)pyrene

W ood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 702 370 94 71 44 4 2 50 67

DE 81 34 9 7 14 2 1 2 12

ME 1,025 402 102 77 66 3 2 183 188

MD 673 335 85 64 40 6 3 28 111

MA 1,219 609 155 117 119 6 4 100 110

NH 723 292 74 56 59 3 2 123 114

NJ 549 326 83 63 23 3 2 10 39

NY 3,696 1,695 431 325 252 11 7 510 465

PA 2,832 1,367 348 262 141 13 8 265 428

RI 202 114 29 22 7 0.9 0.6 8 20

VT 738 296 75 57 41 2 1 139 127

D.C. 10 4 1 0.8 3 0.4 0.2 0.07 0.5

M

- V 12,449 5,844 1,487 1,121 809 54 32 1,418 1,683

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.15 Naphthalene Emission Inventory

Tons of Naphthalene

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 37 20 3 1 8 0.7 0.09 1 2

DE 6 2 0.3 0.1 3 0.4 0.04 0.05 0.4

ME 50 22 3 2 12 0.6 0.07 5 6

MD 35 18 3 1 7 1 0.1 0.8 4

MA 69 33 5 2 21 1 0.1 3 3

NH 37 16 2 1 11 0.5 0.06 3 4

NJ 28 18 3 1 4 0.6 0.07 0.3 1

NY 188 92 14 6 45 2 0.2 14 15

PA 139 74 11 5 25 2 0.3 7 14

RI 10 6 0.9 0.4 1 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.6

VT 35 16 2 1 7 0.3 0.04 4 4

D.C. 1 0.2 0.03 0.02 0.5 0.07 0.008 0.002 0.02

M

- V 633 316 47 22 145 10 1 39 53

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 40

Table 3.16 1,3

- Butadiene Emission Inventory

Tons of 1,3

- Butadiene

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inser ts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 54 43 4 2 5 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.005

DE 6 4 0.3 0.2 2 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.0008

ME 61 47 4 2 7 0.3 0.02 1 0.01

MD 49 39 3 2 4 0.6 0.03 0.2 0.008

MA 94 71 6 3 13 0.7 0.03 0.5 0.008

NH 46 34 3 1 6 0.3 0.01 0.7 0.008

NJ 46 38 3 2 2 0.4 0.02 0.05 0.003

NY 254 198 17 8 27 1 0.06 3 0.03

PA 198 160 14 6 15 1 0.07 1 0.03

RI 16 13 1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.005 0.04 0.001

VT 44 35 3 1 4 0.2 0.009 0.7 0.009

D.C. 1 0.5 0.04 0.02 0.3 0.04 0.002 0.0004 0.00004

M

- V 871 684 59 28 86 6 0.3 8 0.1

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.17 Formaldehyde Emission Inventory

Tons of Formaldehyde

Wood Heaters Firep laces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 285 160 48 9 53 5 2 6 2

DE 41 15 4 0.8 17 2 0.9 0.2 0.3

ME 349 174 52 10 81 4 1 23 4

MD 261 145 43 8 49 7 3 4 3

MA 527 263 79 15 144 8 3 13 3

NH 266 127 38 7 72 3 1 16 3

NJ 226 141 42 8 28 4 1 1 0.9

NY 1,394 734 219 40 305 14 5 65 11

PA 1,038 592 177 33 171 16 6 34 10

RI 78 49 15 3 9 1 0.4 1 0.5

VT 246 128 38 7 49 2 0.8 18 3

D.C. 6 2 0.6 0.1 3 0.4 0.2 0.009 0.01

M

- V 4,719 2,530 756 139 981 66 25 182 40

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 41

Table 3.18 Acetaldehyde Emission Inventory

Tons of Acetaldehyde

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Co rdwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 128 68 14 5 32 3 0.2 6 0.5

DE 20 6 1 0.4 10 1 0.07 0.2 0.08

ME 168 74 15 5 48 2 0.1 23 1

MD 116 61 12 4 29 4 0.2 4 0.8

MA 246 112 22 8 86 5 0.2 12 0.8

NH 129 54 11 4 43 2 0.1 15 0.8

NJ 96 60 12 4 16 2 0.1 1 0.3

NY 653 311 62 22 182 8 0.4 64 3

PA 467 251 50 18 102 9 0.5 33 3

RI 34 21 4 1 5 0.7 0.04 1 0.1

VT 118 54 11 4 29 1 0.07 17 0.9

D.C. 3 0.8 0.2 0.06 2 0.3 0.01 0.0 09 0.004

M

- V 2,178 1,072 215 75 585 39 2 177 12

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.19 Acrolein Emission Inventory

Tons of Acrolein

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Hea ters

CT 16 10 0.9 0.3 4 0.3 0.04 0.4 0.05

DE 2 0.9 0.08 0.03 1 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.009

ME 20 11 0.9 0.3 6 0.3 0.04 1 0.1

MD 14 9 0.8 0.3 3 0.5 0.06 0.2 0.08

MA 30 16 1 0.5 10 0.5 0.07 0.8 0.08

NH 15 8 0.7 0.2 5 0.2 0.03 1.0 0.09

NJ 12 9 0.8 0.2 2 0.3 0.04 0.08 0.03

NY 78 46 4 1 21 1 0.1 4 0.4

PA 57 37 3 1 12 1 0.1 2 0.3

RI 4 3 0.3 0.09 0.6 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.02

VT 14 8 0.7 0.2 3 0.1 0.02 1 0.1

D.C. 0 0.1 0.01 0.003 0.2 0.03 0.004 0.0006 0.0004

M

- V 262 158 14 4 67 5 0.6 11 1

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 42

Table 3.20 Cresol Emission Inventory

Tons of Cresol

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 16 10 0.9 0.3 4 1 0.04 0.4 0.05

DE 3 0.9 0.08 0.03 1 0.5 0.02 0.01 0.009

ME 20 11 0.9 0.3 6 0.8 0.04 1 0.1

MD 15 9 0.8 0.3 3 1 0.06 0.2 0.08

MA 31 16 1 0.5 10 2 0.07 0.8 0.08

NH 15 8 0.7 0.2 5 0.6 0.03 1 0.09

NJ 13 9 0.8 0.2 2 0.8 0.04 0.08 0.03

NY 80 46 4 1 21 3 0.1 4 0.4

PA 59 37 3 1 12 3 0.1 2 0.3

RI 4 3 0.3 0.09 0.6 0.2 0.01 0.07 0.02

VT 14 8 0.7 0.2 3 0.4 0.02 1 0.1

D.C. 0 0.1 0.01 0.0 03 0.2 0.09 0.004 0.0006 0.0004

M

- V 270 158 14 4 67 13 0.6 11 1

*Sum of o

- , m

- , and p

- cresol isomers

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.21 PCB

TEQ 

### Emission Inventory

Micrograms of PCB TEQ

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 194 100 55 4 20 2 4 9 0.9

DE 24 9 5 0.4 7 0.9 2 0.3 0.2

ME 243 109 60 4 31 1 3 33 3

MD 177 91 50 4 18 3 5 5 2

MA 345 164 90 7 55 3 6 18 1

NH 180 79 43 3 27 1 2 22 2

NJ 157 88 48 4 10 2 3 2 0.5

NY 958 458 251 19 116 5 11 93 6

PA 723 369 202 15 65 6 12 48 6

RI 55 31 17 1 3 0.4 0.9 1 0.3

VT 175 80 44 3 19 0.8 2 25 2

D.C. 4 1 0.6 0.05 1 0.2 0.3 0.01 0 .007

M

- V 3,235 1,578 865 64 373 25 50 259 23

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 43

Table 3.22 Dioxin TEQ 

### Emission Inventory

Milligrams of Dioxin TEQ

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pel let

Heaters

CT 606 460 16 19 21 2 3 69 17

DE 60 43 1 2 7 1 1 2 3

ME 875 500 17 20 32 2 2 253 48

MD 541 417 14 17 19 3 4 39 29

MA 1,044 756 26 31 58 3 4 138 28

NH 621 363 12 15 29 1 2 170 29

NJ 474 405 14 16 11 2 2 13 10

NY 3,222 2,106 71 85 121 6 8 705 120

PA 2,384 1,698 57 69 68 6 9 366 110

RI 173 142 5 6 3 0.5 0.6 11 5

VT 642 367 12 15 20 0.8 1 192 33

D.C. 8 5 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

M

- V 10,649 7,263 245 294 390 26 37 1,959 434

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 3.23 Methane Emission Inventory

Tons of Methane

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts

State Total

RWC Conventional Non

C atalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

CT 8,698 7,051 613 234 427 38 95 238 1

DE 944 653 57 22 139 20 45 9 0.2

ME 10,215 7,661 666 254 647 31 76 876 3

MD 7,868 6,385 555 212 391 54 134 135 2

MA 14,845 11,593 1,008 385 1,161 63 157 476 2

NH 7,490 5,568 484 185 577 25 62 586 2

NJ 7,336 6,213 540 206 221 32 76 45 0.7

NY 41,445 32,281 2,807 1,071 2,453 112 277 2,436 9

PA 32,243 26,030 2,263 864 1,377 125 309 1,266 8

RI 2,571 2,171 189 72 69 9 23 39 0.4

VT 7,430 5,631 490 1 87 397 17 42 665 2

D.C. 129 81 7 3 25 4 9 0.3 0.009

M

- V 141,212 111,317 9,680 3,693 7,884 530 1,305 6,772 31

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 44

Of the 20 pollutants in Table 3.24, 17 of the emissions are in tons of pollutant. The

remaining t hree pollutants have their emission units listed in parentheses below the name

of the pollutant (Benzo(a)pyrene, PCB TEQ 

### , and Dioxin

TEQ 

### ).

Table 3.24 MANE

- VU Region Emission Inventory

Tons of Emission in the MANE

- VU Region

Wood Heater

s Fireplaces without Inserts Pollutant Total

RWC

Conventional Non

Catalytic Catalytic Cordwood

(heat) Cordwood

(aesthetic) Firelogs Centralized

Cordwood

Heating

Systems Pellet

Heaters

PM 92,471 58,789 5,112 2,377 16,701 1,122 813 7,171 386

VOC 87,740 63,817 6,864 2,443 10,312 693 570 3,036 5

NO

x * 8,280 4,462 776 284 1,586 107 109 478 479

CO 474,915 272,777 47,922 15,197 81,607 5,483 2,306 47,618 2,004

SO 2 1,423 361 136 57 219 15 70 525 39

NH 3 4,947 2,957 306 128 985 66 0.07 467 38

Benzene 5,535 3,755 326 317 375 25 15 718 4

Phenol 1,079 513 166 58 258 17 0.6 63 3

7

- PAH 235 77 9 4 120 8 0.06 9 8

16

- PAH 1,904 1,096 107 40 410 28 2 134 87

Benzo(a)pyrene

(lbs) 12,449 5,844 1,487 1,121 809 54 32 1,418 1,683

Naphthalene 633 316 47 22 145 10 1 39 53

1,3

- Butadiene 871 684 59 28 86 6 0.3 8 0.1

Formaldehyde 4,719 2,530 756 139 981 66 25 182 40

Acetaldehyde 2,178 1,072 215 75 585 39 2 177 12

Acrolein 262 158 14 4 67 5 0.6 11 1

Cresol** 270 158 14 4 67 13 0.6 11 1

PCB TEQ ( 

### μ g) 3,235 1,578 865 64 373 25 50 259 23

Dioxi n TEQ (mg) 10,649 7,263 245 294 390 26 37 1,959 434

Methane 141,212 111,317 9,680 3,693 7,884 530 1,305 6,772 31

*NO

x is total nitrogen oxides reported as NO 2

**Cresols is the sum of o

- , m

- , and p

- isomers



### 3.3. PM and VOC Emissions Inventory Apportione d by Month

Residential wood combustion can be apportioned by month by determining the average

number of heating degree days for each month (based on a 30 year average, see Table

3.25). The RWC monthly percentage distribution can be calculated by dividing the

average annual HDD, for each state, by each of the monthly HDDs. (Table 3.26, Figure

3.13). The resulting fraction of HDD can be used as a metric for apportioning RWC

emissions by month simply by multiplying the annual RWC emissions by the monthly

HD D fractions. The PM and VOC emissions by month are shown in Table 3.27 and

Table 3.28.

### 45

Table 3.25 Average Total Heating Degree Days Apportioned by Month*

State Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CT 6,069 1,177 997 846 522 232 42 4 1 4 115 421 681 1,018

DE 4,740 996 836 670 371 127 10 0 1 42 285 552 850

ME 8,012 1,456 1,234 1,071 706 386 125 35 58 242 579 860 1,260

MD 4,849 1,019 840 669 364 131 12 1 2 50 303 579 879

MA 6,407 1,209 1,031 891 573 276 62 7 19 141 450 703 1,045

NH 7, 588 1,405 1,186 1,018 653 320 85 18 49 221 565 842 1,226

NJ 5,444 1,091 920 763 450 183 24 1 5 77 366 622 942

NY 6,116 1,188 1,017 867 528 233 45 8 18 113 405 678 1,016

PA 5,909 1,159 974 809 478 214 41 8 18 110 411 681 1,006

RI 5,889 1,113 958 840 549 270 58 5 13 105 388 635 955

VT 8,110 1,487 1,277 1,097 693 337 97 31 68 250 596 886 1,291

D.C. 4,571 977 807 641 332 108 6 0 1 35 283 544 837

* Reference 59 and 60



### Table 3.26 Monthly Percent of Average Total Heating Degree Days

State Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CT 19% 16% 14% 9% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 7% 11% 17%

DE 21% 18% 14% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 12% 18%

ME 18% 15% 13% 9% 5% 2% 0% 1% 3% 7% 11% 16%

MD 21% 17% 14% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 12% 18%

MA 19% 16% 14% 9% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 7% 11% 16%

NH 19% 16% 13% 9% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3% 7% 11% 16%

NJ 20% 17% 14% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7% 11% 17%

NY 19% 17% 14% 9% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 7% 11% 17%

PA 20% 16% 14% 8% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 7% 12% 17%

RI 19% 16% 14% 9% 5% 1% 0% 0% 2% 7% 11% 16%

VT 18% 16% 14% 9% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3% 7% 11% 16%

D.C. 21% 18% 14% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 12% 18%



### Figure 3.13 Monthly Percentage of Average Total Heating Degree Days Chart

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPercentage of Total CT

DE

ME

MD

MA

NH

NJ

NY

PA

RI

VT

DC

### 46

Table 3.27 Total PM Emissions Apportioned by Month

State Annual

(tons)* Jan

(tons) Feb

(tons) Mar

(tons) Apr

(ton s) May

(tons) Jun

(tons) Jul

(tons) Aug

(tons) Sep

(tons) Oct

(tons) Nov

(tons) Dec

(tons)

CT 5,429 1,053 892 757 467 208 38 4 13 103 377 609 911

DE 723 152 127 102 57 19 2 0 0 6 43 84 130

ME 6,950 1,263 1,070 929 612 335 108 30 50 210 502 746 1,093

MD 4,882 1,026 846 674 366 132 12 1 2 50 305 583 885

MA 9,989 1,885 1,607 1,389 893 430 97 11 30 220 702 1,096 1,629

NH 5,223 967 816 701 449 220 59 12 34 152 389 580 844

NJ 4,273 856 722 599 353 144 19 1 4 60 287 488 739

NY 27,274 5,298 4,535 3,866 2,35 5 1,039 201 36 80 504 1,806 3,024 4,531

PA 20,047 3,932 3,304 2,745 1,622 726 139 27 61 373 1,394 2,310 3,413

RI 1,498 283 244 214 140 69 15 1 3 27 99 162 243

VT 4,952 908 780 670 423 206 59 19 42 153 364 541 788

D.C. 107 23 19 15 8 3 0 0 0 1 7 13 20

*From Table 3.04



### Table 3.28 Total VOC Emissions Apportioned by Month

State Annual

(tons)* Jan

(tons) Feb

(tons) Mar

(tons) Apr

(tons) May

(tons) Jun

(tons) Jul

(tons) Aug

(tons) Sep

(tons) Oct

(tons) Nov

(tons) Dec

(tons)

CT 5,339 1,035 877 744 459 204 37 4 12 101 370 599 896

DE 634 133 112 90 50 17 1 0 0 6 38 74 114

ME 6,306 1,146 971 843 556 304 98 28 46 190 456 677 992

MD 4,825 1,014 836 666 362 130 12 1 2 50 301 576 875

MA 9,416 1,777 1,515 1,309 842 406 91 10 28 207 661 1,033 1,536

NH 4,703 871 735 631 405 198 53 11 30 137 350 522 760

NJ 4,425 887 748 620 366 149 20 1 4 63 297 506 766

NY 25,628 4,978 4,262 3,633 2,212 976 189 34 75 474 1,697 2,841 4,257

PA 19,605 3,845 3,231 2,684 1,586 710 136 27 60 365 1,364 2,259 3,338

RI 1,543 292 251 22 0 144 71 15 1 3 28 102 166 250

VT 4,535 831 714 613 387 188 54 17 38 140 333 495 722

D.C. 90 19 16 13 7 2 0 0 0 1 6 11 16

*From Table 3.05



### 4. Residential Wood Combustion PM 10 

### Reasonable/Best Available Control

Measures (RACM/BACM)

While the emphasis was placed on a cost

- effectiveness analysis, the RACM/BACM

discussion was included to illustrate control strategies already developed by the U.S. EPA

to reduce RWC PM 10 

### emissions. In addition, some state and local air quality agencies

have developed and i

mplemented their own RWC control strategies, and this section is

aimed at helping agencies in the MANE

- VU region develop strategies to effectively

minimize RWC emissions. Many of the applicable control strategies define the number

and type of RWC devices that can be installed, while others implement no

- burn periods

during episodes of high emissions. Regulatory control strategies can be applied either to

changing out existing higher emitting appliances or controlling the installation of

appliances in new c onstruction. The cost effectiveness evaluation discussed in section 5

### 47

of this document specifically targets costs associated with the replacement of existing

appliances, as it compares the difference in “before

- and

- after” emissions and the

commensurate co sts associated with the change out. It needs to be remembered that

while controlling new installations is important, the impact of the change out of existing

appliances will potentially have a far more dramatic affect on air quality due to the very

large number of fireplaces and older technology wood heaters already in homes.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required under Section 190 of the

1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue RACM and BACM technical

guidance for PM 10 

### for

the RWC source category. The September 1989 publication,

“Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures”

(EPA

- 450/2

- 89

- 015) 61 

### was considered as fulfilling the RACM technical guidance

requirement. A subsequent document publi shed in 1992, “Technical Information

Document for Residential Wood Combustion, Best Available Control Measures,” (EPA

450/2

- 92

- 002) 62 

### fulfilled the BACM requirement. Because most of the products of

incomplete combustion (PIC) emitted by RWC are submicron (less than one micron in

size), the PM 10 

### control measures that have been developed for RWC are directly

applicable for the control of PM 2.5 

### . Stated another way, submicron particles from RWC

are both PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### because they have aerodynamic diameters l ess than 2.5 microns

and less than 10 microns, respectively, i.e., the same particles will be controlled by both

PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### control measures. Similarly, since most key air pollutants that are

emitted from RWC are PIC, control measures for particles (w hich are PIC) will also

reduce the emission of other key RWC air emissions.

Table 4.01 summarizes measures for RWC RACM developed by the U.S. EPA in EPA

450/2

- 89

- 015 61 

### . The RACM fall in three primary categories: (1) Improvement of

performance, (2) Reduc ing the use of RWC devices, and (3) Episodic curtailment. The

effectiveness in reducing RWC emissions and a related discussion of each of the various

activities are also provided in Table 4.01. In addition to the three primary categories for

RWC RACM, th

e RACM document emphasizes the importance of public awareness in

any RWC emission control program and provides considerable narrative on the subject

### 48

Table 4.01 Summary of Measures Available for RWC RACM

–PM 10



### Program Elements Effectiveness

(%) Discuss ion

1 . IMPROVEMENT OF PE RFORMANCE

State implementation

of NSPS 0 States are not expected to adopt this program element at

levels that would affect program effectiveness significantly.

Ban on resale of

uncertified devices 0 No credit recognized because requirement is largely

unenforceable: other elements will be required to include

disabling of retired used devices.

Installer Training

Certification or

Inspection Program = 5 Reduction in emissions from each new certified RWC

device where either the installer is trained/certified or the

installation is inspected.

90 Reduction in emissions from each new or existing

conventional, uncertified RWC device replaced with a

pellet stove. Pellet stoves

75 Reduction in emissions from each new or existing Phase II

EPA certified RWC device replaced with a pellet stove.

EPA Phase II certified

RWC devices ~50 Reduction in emissions from each new or existing

conventional, uncertified R WC device replaced with an

EPA Phase II certified RWC device.

Retrofit requirement <5 Reduction in emissions from each existing conventional,

uncertified RWC device equipped with a retrofit catalyst or

pellet hopper (to maximum when all existing uncertifi ed

RWC devices have retrofit devices installed).

~50 Reduction in emissions from each existing conventional,

uncertified RWC device replaced with Phase II certified

device. Accelerated

changeover

requirement

100 Reduction in emissions from each existing conventional,

uncertified RWC device removed and not replaced:

requires existing device to be disabled and not resold.

~50 Reduction in emissions from each existing conventional,

uncertified RWC device replaced with Pha se II certified

device. Accelerated

changeover

inducement

100 Reduction in emissions from each existing conventional,

uncertified RWC device removed and not replaced:

requires existing device to be disabled and not resold.

Require fireplace

inserts 0 No credit recognized for fireplace inserts, since inserts

change use of fireplace from aesthetic to primary heat

source, resulting in an increase in amount of wood

combusted and higher overall emissions.

Wood moisture <5 Reduction in total emissions from all RWC devices in the

community/ai

rshed.

Trash burning

prohibition 0 No credit recognized for eliminating trash burning in RWC

devices.

### 49

Table 4.01 (continued) Summary of Measures for RWC RACM

–PM 10



### Program Elements Effectiveness

(%) Discussion

Weatherization of

residences <5 Reducti on in total emissions from all RWC devices in

the community/airshed.

Opacity limits <5 Reduction in total emissions from all RWC devices in

the community/airshed.

2. REDUCING USE OF RWC DEVICES

Availability of alternative

fuels 100 Reduction in emiss ions from each RWC device

removed from service and replaced with device using

natural gas: recognize no more than 10% of RWC

devices replaced under program with no additional

incentives.

Emission trading Computation

required For a 2:1 trading ratio, the reduction in emissions from

each new stove would be calculated as the difference

between emissions of a new RWC device and 2 times

the average emissions per stove in the community:

multiplier would change for other trading ratios.

Taxes on RWC devices Va riable Emission reduction credit would vary with utility or

tax rate structure adopted and extent to which this

structure resulted in reduction in number of RWC

devices in the community versus reduction in use of

RWC devices.

Regulatory ban on RWC

devices in new dwellings 100 Reduction in emissions from new RWC devices

purchased for installation in new dwellings.

Regulatory ban on

existing RWC devices 100 Reduction in emissions from each RWC device

removed.

3. EPISODIC CURTAILMENT

Voluntary 10 Reduct ion in emissions for all RWC devices not

exempted.

Mandatory 60%

fireplace

50%

woodstoves Reduction in emissions for all RWC devices not

exempted.

Table 4.02 summarizes measures for RWC BACM developed by the U.S. EPA in EPA

450/2

- 92

- 002

62 

### . As shown in

Table 4.02, the BACM fall into two primary categories:

(1) Integral measures which are necessary for the success of a long

- term RWC pollutant

reduction programs but, by themselves, are not adequate to provide long

- term reductions.

(2) Flexible (long

- ter m) measures to reduce, eliminate, or prevent increases in pollutant

emissions for existing and/or new installations. With the exceptions of the device and

upgrade offsets, the specific elements of the BACM are essentially those described in the

RACM docum ent with the various efficiencies listed in Table 4.01 being applicable. The

### 50

methods for calculating device and offset ratios are provided as Appendix B to EPA

450/2

- 92

- 002.

Table 4.02 Summary of Measures Available for RWC BACM

–PM 10



### Integral Measures * 

### Flexible Measures that

Reduce or Eliminate

Emissions from

Existing Installations ** 

### Flexible Measures that

Reduce Emissions or

Prevent Emission

Increases from New

Installations ** 

### Flexible Measures

that Reduce

Emissions from

New and Existing

Installations **



### 1. Public awareness and

education. 1. Conversion of

existing wood

- burning

fireplaces to gas logs. 1. Gas fireplaces or gas

logs in new wood

burning fireplace

installations. 1. Device

offset.  



### 2. Mandatory curtailment

during predicted periods of

high PM 10 

### concentrations. 2. Changeover to EPA

certified, Phase II

stoves or equivalent. 2. Upgrade offset. ** ** 

### 2. Upgrade

offset.  



### 3. All new stove

installations EPA

- certified,

Phase II stoves or

equivalent. 3. Changeover to low

emitting device. ** * 

### 3. Res triction on number

and density of new

wood

- burning stove

and/or fireplace

installations.

4. Measures to improve

wood burning performance:

- control of wood moisture

content

- weatherization of homes

with wood stoves

- educational opacity

program 4. Require ment that new

stove installations be

low emitting.

* Integral measures are regarded as critical for the success of a RWC control program, but by themselves are not

intended to result in long

- term attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS for serious PM 10 nonattainme nt areas.

** Flexible measures are designed for permanent control of RWC emissions and thus long

- term attainment of the

PM 10 NAAQS

*** This measure is virtually identical to item 2, except that the changeover is recommended to a “low

- emitting”

device th at can document “in

- home” field test emissions less than the emission factor averages of “in

- home”

field test emissions data for EPA

- certified stoves. This can include classes of devices that are demonstrated to

be capable as a class of producing lower fi eld emissions, as well as, specific model units that perform better in

the field than the class collectively. (An example might include masonry heaters, uncertified pellet

- fueled

devices, and wood fired gasification centralized heating systems)

**** Offs ets are intended to achieve emission reductions, when retiring (device offset) or changing

- out (upgrade

offset) conventional stoves, greater than the emissions increase resulting from new stove installations.

### 51

The RWC RACM and BACM have been the basis for PM 10 

### innovative strategies

implemented in various western states and in their local jurisidcitons 63 

### and have also

been, in

- large part, the basis for a number of western state and their local RWC

regulations. Table 4.03 lists notable RWC regulations. Thes e regulations were provided

as Appendix A to the cost benefit analysis task for the convenience of MANE

- VU state

air quality planners and regulators.

Table 4.03 RWC Regulations

State Jurisdiction/Agency

Arizona Maricopa County

Bi

- State (California

and Nevada) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Butte County Air Quality Management District

Feather River Air Quality Management District

Glenn County Air Pollution Control District

Great Basin Unified Pollution Control District

Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Placer County

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

Shasta County Air Quality Management District California

Yo lo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

State of Colorado

City of Aspen and Pitkin County Colorado

City of Fort Collins 1



### Lincoln County Montana

Missoula County

Clark County Nevada

Washoe County

Oregon State of Oregon

Washington State of Wash ington

1. The regulation contains information on RWC regulations for the State of Colorado, Larimer County,

Poudre Fire Authority, City and County of Denver, Weld County/Greeley, Loveland, Boulder, El Paso

County/Colorado Springs, Mesa County, Grand Junc tion, Fruita, and Telluride.



### The northeast states, through NESCAUM, are developing a model rule for regulation

outdoor hydronic heaters. As part of this rule, strict particulate emission standards have

been developed which will take effect in 2008. In o rder to meet these limits, these

appliances may need to be redesigned.

Notable among state and local regulations is the Washington State standard. Washington

State has implemented more stringent standards for residential wood burning devices, so

devices installed in Washington State must be certified to the more stringent standard.

This has affected the stove marked because many U.S. certified stove manufacturers

choose to have their appliances certified to the more stringent Washington State standard,

### 52

u nless the manufacturer can or does not choose to test to the tighter standard. To provide

a sense of the stringency of the Washington State standard as compared to the NSPS

(generally referred to as the EPA standard), as of January 2006 approximately 40% of

non

- catalytic wood heaters certified for the U.S. EPA for sale did not meet the

Washington State standard.

Other factors beyond PM 2.5 

### and regional haze (i.e., VOC and fine particles), their

corresponding emissions and associated control costs covered b y the scope of this project

can, and should, also influence RWC regulatory policy. The greenhouse gas benefits of

biomass combustion and the minimal acid gas emissions (acid precipitation impacts)

from wood combustion are strong environmental advantages. Further, the fact that wood

is a domestic renewable energy source and the fact that the cost of the widely used home

fuels of natural gas, propane, and fuel oil have a history of rising together have been

responsible for the increase of RWC. For example, several states, notably New York, are

encouraging the use of renewable energy sources such as wood.

5. Pollution Reduction Cost Effectiveness

The cost benefit analysis task of the Control Analysis and Documentation for Residential

Wood Combustion Emis sions in the MANE

- VU Region project is a cost effectiveness

analysis for air pollutant reductions. The term “cost benefit analysis (cba)” that has been

used in the previous task is the general term typically used for the type of analysis

provided here, bu

t it has been replaced with the term “cost effectiveness analysis” in this

final report as it is more descriptive of the specific analysis that has been conducted. The

analysis focuses on the cost per unit mass of pollutant reduced when converting to

impr oved technology and alternative fuels from traditional uncertified cordwood

- burning

units (summarized in Tables 5.11

–5.23). In addition to the total cost effectiveness of the

conversions, the costs associated with each component of such conversions are provided

(Tables 5.06

– 5.10). All costs are based on cash purchases or expenditures and, as such,

neither discount nor interest rates were taken into consideration. Also, all costs were

based on nominal 2006 dollars and no attempt was made to make adjust ments to another

year dollar basis. The cost effectiveness analysis is for criteria air pollutant reductions

with emphasis being placed on PM and volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to PM 2.5 

### and ozone nonattainment, as well as regional haze, being topica l issues. As directed by

MARAMA, the emphasis of the cost benefit analysis task was shifted from a RACM

analysis to a cost effectiveness analysis to provide air quality planners and regulators

supporting information for their individual development of RAC M. Also as requested by

MARAMA’s Technical Oversight Committee, vent

- free devices are not included in the

tables for heating appliances as there is considerable concern regarding indoor air quality

and damage to homes by moisture created from their use, a s combustion gases are vented

indoors. For completeness, the cost effectiveness analyses for vent

- free appliances can

be found in the cost benefit analysis task. The vent

- free appliance data are also included

for the fireplace aesthetic use scenario as a esthetic use is the primary application of vent

free devices.

### 53

5.1. Methodology

There are five categories of widely existing, older technology wood

- burning devices used

for the air pollutant reduction cost effectiveness analyses. These are: (1) Freest anding

cordwood stoves, (2) Cordwood

- fueled fireplace inserts, (3) Cordwood fireplaces

(without inserts) used for heating purposes, (4) Centralized cordwood heating systems

and (5) Cordwood fireplaces used for aesthetic purposes. Table 5.01 lists these fi ve

categories with the improved technology replacement and installation scenarios, as well

as fuel alternatives that would reduce particulate and VOC emissions, which are

commonly used and are readily available to the public. Except for the fireplaces use d for

aesthetics category, the cost effectiveness analyses are presented by state. For the

fireplaces used for aesthetics, a single set of tables is provided for the MANE

- VU region

as the fuel usage in fireplaces used for aesthetics will not change signif icantly within the

MANE

- VU region.

### 54

Table 5.01 Improved Technologies and Fuel Alternatives

Existing Cordwood Device High Technology Replacement, Installation or

Alternative Fuel

Replacement with Certified NSPS Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Stove

Replacement with Certified NSPS Catalytic Cordwood

Stove

Replacement with Pellet Stove

Replacement with Gas Stove

–natural gas (B vent,

direct vent) Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood

Stove

Replacement with Gas Stove

–LPG

(B vent, direct vent)

Replacement with Certified NSPS Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert

Replacement with Certified NSPS Catalytic Cordwood

Insert

Replacement with Pellet Insert

Replacement with Gas Insert

–natural gas (B vent,

direct vent) Uncertified Cord wood Fireplace

Insert

Replacement with Gas Insert

–LPG

(B vent, direct vent)

Installation of Certified NSPS Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert

Installation of Certified NSPS Catalytic Cordwood

Insert

Installation of Pellet Insert

Ins tallation of Gas Insert

–natural gas

(B

- vent, direct vent) Cordwood Fireplace without Insert

Used for Heating

Installation of Gas Insert

–LPG

(B

- vent, direct vent)

Installation of Gas Log Set

–natural gas (vented and

vent free)

Installation of Gas Lo g Set

–LPG (vented and vent

free) Cordwood Fireplace Used for

Aesthetic Purposes

Wax/Fiber Firelog Fuel

Pellet Furnace or Boiler

Gas Furnace or Boiler

–natural gas Centralized Cordwood Heating

System

Gas Furnace or Boiler

–LPG

### 55

To facilitate understanding of the cost effectiveness analyses, descriptions of the various

appliances used, as well as a brief discussion of efficiency, are provided.

Cordwood

- Fired Stoves and Fireplace Inserts

Uncertified, certified catalytic, and certified non

- catalytic cordwood stoves and fireplace inserts

toge ther are considered cordwood heaters. They are designed to burn bulk cordwood and are

room space heaters, i.e., they primarily rely on radiant and convection heat transfer, in contrast to

centralized heating systems such as warm

- air furnaces or boilers wh ich utilized heat distribution

systems to heat multiple rooms. Fireplace inserts are essentially wood stoves that are designed to

be inserted into an existing fireplace cavity. Because of the heat transfer shielding effect of the

fireplace cavity and the fact the majority of existing fireplace chimneys are against an outside

wall, their heating efficiency is less than a similar freestanding woodstove model. Many

fireplace inserts have fans to facilitate transfer of heat from the portion that is inside th e fireplace

cavity. Both freestanding cordwood stoves and fireplace inserts rely on a natural draft using

room air for combustion, and the venting of exhaust. Though the majority of cordwood heaters

use room air for combustion, some insert installations, such as in mobile homes, require the use

of outside air for combustion.

Uncertified Conventional Cordwood

- Fired Stoves and Fireplace Inserts

Uncertified cordwood fired stoves and fireplace inserts include units manufactured before the

NSPS July 1, 1990 c ertification requirement, and currently or recently manufactured exempt

units which operate similarly to some old pre

- EPA certification units.

NSPS Certified Catalytic Cordwood

- Fired Stoves and Fireplace Inserts

Certified catalytic units pass the exhaust through a catalyst to achieve emission reductions.

Generally, a coated ceramic honeycomb catalyst is located inside the stove where the

incompletely combusted gases and particles ignite and are combusted further, thus reducing air

emissions and increasing

overall efficiency.

NSPS Certified Non

- Catalytic Cordwood

- Fired Stoves and Fireplace Inserts

Certified non

- catalytic stoves and fireplace insets rely on design features to reduce air emission

and increase efficiency. They generally rely on the introduct ion of heated secondary air to

improve combustion, as well as firebox insulation, and baffles to produce a longer, hotter gas

flow path, as well as other design features to achieve low emissions and higher efficiency.

Pellet Stoves and Fireplace Inserts

A nalogous to cordwood stoves and fireplace inserts, pellet stoves and fireplace inserts are

considered room heaters. They burn pellets generally made from wood sawdust, although there

has been, and continues to be, research into utilizing other biomass fue ls to make pellets.

Combustion air is drawn from the room for most models, and exhaust is vented outdoors. Some

pellet appliances utilize outside air for combustion if warranted. Pellet stoves and inserts require

the use of electric motors to power the combustion air and heat transfer fans and the pellet

feeding auger. Modern pellet units utilize electronic sensors and controls. Pellets are introduced

into the hopper, and the auger continuously feeds a consistent amount of pellets into the firebox.

The feed rate is controlled electronically by a feed rate setting selected by the user. There are two

basic designs: bottom

- feed and top

- feed models. Pellet units have a high efficiency and low

### 56

emissions due to the use of the electric auger and fan that prod uce uniform and controlled

combustion conditions. Some units are certified by the NSPS process and some are not. The

performance of the certified and uncertified models are similar. What is considered by most as a

“loop

- hole” in the NSPS regulations esse ntially allows certification to be bypassed.

Wood

- burning Fireplaces without Inserts

Fireplaces without inserts include manufactured units (often referred to as “zero

- clearance”

fireplaces) and site

- built masonry units operated both with and without glass doors. Combustion

air is drawn from the natural draft created by fire, and that same draft vents the exhaust through

the chimney. Fireplaces without inserts have low efficiency due to the large amount of heated

room air that is exhausted out of the chim ney from the draft. Many fireplaces without inserts are

not used in a given year, some are used for aesthetic purposes and some are used for heating.

Those that are used for heating are almost always used for secondary heating purposes and not

primary hea ting due to their low efficiency and lack of heat transfer capabilities. Manufactured

wax/fiber firelogs are often used as a fuel in them with about 30% of fireplace users nationwide

claiming that they use wax/fiber firelogs some of the time. Most firepl aces are wall

- mounted,

however, this category also includes some free

- standing models.

Direct Vent Gas Stoves and Fireplace Inserts (LPG and Natural Gas)

Direct vent gas stoves and inserts are sealed units that draw their combustion air from, and vent

the ir exhaust to, the outside air. Venting can be extended vertically or horizontally out of the

home. A common type of venting is coaxial, which has the exhaust pipe contained within the air

inlet pipe, so the temperature of the combustion air is raised, a nd the temperature of the exhaust

is lowered, creating more efficient combustion.

Vent

- Free Gas Stoves and Fireplace Inserts (LPG and Natural Gas)

Vent

- free gas stoves and inserts receive their combustion air from the room in which the unit is

placed, and all of the products of combustion are exhausted into the room as well. The high

efficiency of vent free units is due to the fact that the heat produced is kept in the room. Vent

free gas stoves and inserts have a maximum heat input in order to avoid emi tting excess CO,

CO 2 

### , or NO

x 

### into the room, and the units also have an O 2 

### depletion sensor or other device to shut

the unit down if oxygen levels become too low. It is important to note that vent

- free natural gas

and LPG stoves, inserts and log sets should not be considered options for primary or even

significant secondary heating use. There is considerable concern regarding indoor air quality and

damage to homes by moisture created from their use, as combustion gases are not vented. If the

devices are us ed prudently, these problems are minimized. Their appropriate role is for

aesthetics and minor secondary heating.

B

- Vent Gas Stoves and Fireplace Inserts (LPG and Natural Gas)

B

- vent gas stoves and inserts draw their combustion air from the room, and exh aust is vented

outdoors. These units use a draft hood for the proper venting of exhaust. B

- vent gas stoves and

inserts have lower efficiency than direct vent due to the fact that already heated room air is used

as combustion air, which is then exhausted to the outdoors, taking heat away from the room.

### 57

Vent

- Free Gas Log Sets (LPG and Natural Gas)

Vent

- free gas log sets can be used in a fireplace with the damper closed, or can be in its own

enclosure placed in a fireplace. As with vent free gas stoves a nd inserts, all of the products of

combustion are exhausted into the room, causing the unit to have a high efficiency. Also, the

same concerns of air quality and home damage as vent

- free stoves and inserts apply.

Vented Gas Log Sets (LPG and Natural Gas)

Vented gas log sets are used in fireplaces with the damper open. They are primarily used for

aesthetics because all products of combustion (including the vast majority of the heat produced)

are vented up and out of the chimney, causing the unit to have a low efficiency.

Centralized Cordwood Heating Systems

The centralized cordwood heating system category consist of both cordwood

- fired furnaces and

boilers. Furnaces rely on the transfer of warmed air through ductwork to heat multiple rooms.

Boilers rely

on pumps to transfer warm water to multiple rooms and radiators to provide heat.

Cordwood boilers are commonly either located inside or outside of the home. Cordwood boilers

are often referred to as hydronic heaters, as the water is generally not “boile d.”

Pellet

- Fired Furnaces and Boilers

Pellet

- fired furnaces and boilers use the same technology as pellet stove and fireplace insert

room heaters, except that they use a either a warmed air heat transfer system (furnaces) or water

heat transfer system (bo ilers) to heat multiple rooms.

Gas

- Fired Furnaces and Boilers (LPG and Natural Gas)

Gas

- fired furnace and boilers can either be natural gas or liquid propane gas (LPG) fueled.

Natural gas

- fueled furnaces are the single most commonly used home heating appl iance category

in the United States. Newer technology units with more efficient heat exchangers exhaust

systems allowing for the condensation of water, and technologies that minimize the use of pilot

lights have caused an improvement in efficiency.

Effic iency

There are different standards and methods used to measure efficiency, but in general efficiency is

the percentage of available heat that is put into the home divided by the available heat content of

the fuel. With the exception of some modern “conde nsing” gas furnaces, it is assumed that water

leaves the stack in the vapor phase, and thus the energy associated with state change of any

water, either in the fuel or created by combustion, is not available for heating. The vast majority

of the available heat that is not used for heating the room during combustion is exhausted out of

the stack with the heated stack gases, water vapor, and particles created from combustion. A

small amount of unutilized energy is associated with the incomplete combustion o f fuel, which

also reduces efficiency. Therefore, the more available heat that is kept in the room during

combustion and the more complete the combustion, the higher the efficiency of the device, and

visa versa.

### 58

5.1.1. Criteria Pollutants

As noted, th

e cost effectiveness analysis focused on particles and VOC. However, the cost

effectiveness for other relevant criteria pollutants are also included in the cost benefit analysis

task. The criteria pollutants and their treatment in this analysis are summa rized in Table 5.02.

While results for all criteria pollutants (except for lead) have been included in the cost benefit

analysis task, to facilitate the interpretation of the lengthy result tables, data for the less relevant

pollutants of NO 2 

### and SO 2 

### were not included in this final report. Results for the key pollutants

of PM, VOC and CO only were included in the final report.

Table 5.02 Criteria Pollutants

Criteria Pollutant Treatment/Rationale

PM 2.5 

### Total PM evaluated, majority of RWC particles submi cron

PM 10 

### Total PM evaluated, majority of RWC particles submicron

O 3 

### NMVOC evaluated (simply listed as VOC), VOC are ozone precursors

NO 2 

### NO

x 

### reported as NO 2 

### evaluated (in cost benefit analysis task only), NO and

NO 2 

### emitted from RWC, NO converted to N O 2 

### in atmosphere

CO Evaluated

SO 2 

### Evaluated (in cost benefit analysis task only)

Pb Not relevant, not evaluated, extremely low levels emitted, little data available

5.1.2. Cost Effectiveness Calculations

The cost of pollutant reduction, in $/ton, w as calculated by dividing the difference in cost by the

difference in total emissions, both resulting from the installation or replacement of the existing

wood burning device with an improved technology/alternative fuel. Total pollutant emissions

were cal culated by multiplying the emission factor for each of the five pollutants by the total

annual fuel input for each appliance and fuel type. Emission factors were calculated directly

using the best available research data for the improved technology applia nces and alternative

fuels. The emission factors for the improved cordwood stove and insert, and pellet stove and

insert technologies, for which the emission factors were developed in the emission inventory

task, are shown in Table 3.03. The emission fac tors for the existing appliances were also

developed in the emission inventory task, and are also shown in Table 3.03. Emission factors for

the gas appliances used for heat are shown in Table 5.03. Emission rates for the appliances used

for aesthetics ar e shown in Table 5.04. The sources used to develop each emission

factor/emission rate are referenced in the far right column.

Table 5.03 Emission Factors for Gas Appliances Used for Heat

Pollutant Emission Factors (g/input MJ) Gas Stoves/Inserts

PM VOC CO Referen ces

Natural Gas Stove/Insert, B Vent 3.74E

- 03 2.30E

- 03 1.94E

- 02 64

- 68

Natural Gas Stove/Insert, Direct Vent 3.74E

- 03 2.30E

- 03 1.94E

- 02 64

- 68

LPG Stove/Insert, B Vent 8.40E

- 03 2.50E

- 02 5.84E

- 03 69

- 70

LPG Stove/Insert, Direct Vent 8.40E

- 03 2 .50E

- 02 5.84E

- 03 69

- 70

Natural Gas Furnaces and Boilers 3.74E

- 03 2.30E

- 03 1.73E

- 02 65

- 67

LPG Furnaces and Boilers 8.40E

- 03 2.50E

- 02 5.84E

- 03 69

- 70

### 59

Table 5.04 Emission Rates for Appliances Used for Aesthetics

Polluta nt Emission Rates (g/hr) Aesthetic Appliance / Fuel Category

PM VOC CO References

Cordwood Fireplace Used for Aesthetics 64.30 39.60 313.0 37, 49

- 52

Vent

- Free Gas Log Set

- Natural Gas .0987 .0715 .554 64

- 67

Vent

- Free Gas Log Set

- LPG .221 .66 .154 69

- 70

Vented Gas Log Set

- Natural Gas

. 158 .0971 1.17 64

- 67

Vented Gas Log Set

- LPG .354 1.06 .246 69

- 70

Wax/Fiber Firelog Fuel 9.0 12.20 41.9 55



### Annual fuel inputs for the improved technology/alternative fuel categories were calculated in a

way that ensures the amount of fuel input for eac h appliance type would deliver an equal amount

of heat to a home, as determined by the annual fuel input of the existing appliance. This was

calculated by multiplying the existing appliance annual fuel input by the ratio of the existing

device’s efficienc y to the replacement/installation device’s efficiency. Therefore, the higher the

efficiency of the improved technology and alternative fuel replacement/installation, the less input

fuel is needed to reach the same level of heat output. Existing appliance annual fuel inputs were

calculated as shown in Table 5.05, and the appliance efficiencies are shown in Tables 5.06

– 5.09. As the annual fuel input varies with the number of cords burned in each state, the annual

fuel inputs will differ from state to sta te.

Table 5.05 Existing Appliance Annual Fuel Input Calculations

Wood Heaters Fireplaces without Inserts Used

for Heat Centralized Cordwood Heating

Systems

State Mass per

Cord (kg)

[C1] Cords

Burned

Annually

per Unit

[C2b] Total Mass

of Wood

Used per

Unit (kg)

[C3b] Annual

Fuel Input

(MJ)

[C4b] Cords

Burned

Annually

per Unit

[C2a] Total Mass

of Wood

Used per

Unit (kg)

[C3a] Annual

Fuel Input

(MJ)

[C4a] Cords

Burned

Annually

per Unit

[C2c] Total Mass

of Wood

Used per

Unit (kg)

[C3c] Annual

Fuel Input

(MJ)

[C4c]

CT 1335.0 2.15 2866 55,496 0.74 983 19,032 3.41 4551 88,124

DE 1207.3 0.95 1147 22,203 0.51 616 11,924 0.75 906 17,536

ME 1112.7 2.56 2850 55,181 1.68 1870 36,201 5.38 5987 115,931

MD 1213.5 1.05 1278 24,739 0.53 642 12,435 1.26 1534 29,695

MA 1275.1 2.34 2979 57,673 1.28 1626 31,492 4.38 5583 108,108

NH 1212.8 2.56 3106 60,143 1.68 2038 39,457 5.38 6526 126,355

NJ 1203.4 1.40 1686 32,646 0.51 608 11,780 1.22 1468 28,416

NY 1285.0 2.41 3095 59,932 1.51 1945 37,660 5.30 6809 131,834

PA 1 303.6 1.87 2433 47,114 0.75 979 18,963 2.93 3826 74,072

RI 1248.6 2.17 2710 52,464 0.54 668 12,939 1.96 2446 47,358

VT 1249.6 2.56 3201 61,971 1.68 2100 40,656 5.38 6724 130,194

D.C. 1213.5 0.86 1047 20,266 0.46 562 10,884 0.68 827 16,006

M

- V 1238.3 2. 03 2518 48,759 1.06 1309 25,339 4.15 5142 99,560

[C2] Reference 17

[C3] = [C1] X [C2]

[C4] = [C3] X 19.36 MJ/kg (average lower heating value of cordwood) 71

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 60

Each of the cost effectiveness sections takes into acco unt the costs associated with the use and

maintenance of each appliance category, and the installation/replacement of each newer

technology/alternative fuel category. Installation/replacement costs are based on the typical or

average costs and lifetimes o f each appliance, as estimated by hearth products retailers from

Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts 72 

### , including appliance costs, labor (carpentry and

masonry work), auxiliary hardware (chimney and chimney connector pipe), disposal of old

appliance, and gas plumbing. (For gas appliances it was assumed that the homes had natural gas

or LPG hook

- ups in place.) The estimates were attached as Appendix B to the cost benefit

analysis task. Additional Installation costs for gas log sets were obtained fro m the 2006 Hearth

and Home Buyer’s Guide 73 

### . Ancillary costs per year include three components (where

applicable): chimney sweeping, electricity, and catalyst replacement. (1) Chimney sweeping

costs (only necessary for wood burning appliances) were determ ined through personal

communication with the Chimney Safety Institute of America (CSIA) 74 

### . Estimates from the

CSIA were attached as Appendix B to the cost benefit analysis task. (2) Electricity costs (using a

nominal rate of $0.1275/kw

- h) 75 

### are relevant for stoves that have electrical components. For

example, pellet stoves require electricity to run their fan, auger, and other control components,

and inserts, as well as gas stoves, often use an electric fan to circulate hot air into the room. (3)

Cataly st replacement cost, relevant only to the certified catalytic cordwood stoves and inserts,

was annualized from the data provided by the hearth products retailers. Annual fuel costs for

cordwood, pellet, natural gas, and LPG fired appliances used for heat were calculated by

multiplying the annual fuel input by the fuel cost in $/MJ. The total annual cost per appliance is

the sum of the annualized replacement/installation cost, annual ancillary cost, and annual fuel

cost.

### 61

Table 5.06 Cost Calculations for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood

Stove

Scenario Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Freestanding Cordwood Stove

Heating Device Uncertified

Freestanding

Cordwood

Stove Certified

NSPS Non

Catalytic

Cordwood

Stove Certifie d

NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood

Stove Pellet

Stove Gas

Stove

Natural

Gas, B

Vent Gas Stove

-

Natural

Gas, Direct

Vent Gas

Stove

LPG, B

Vent Gas

Stove

LPG,

Direct

Vent

Install/ Replacement Cost ($)

- 3367 4150 3850 3400 3400 3367 3367

Lifetime (yrs)

- 1 9.3 19.3 15.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7

Annualized Install/ Replacement

($/yr)

- 174.1 214.7 256.7 192.5 192.5 190.6 190.6

Chimney Cleaning ($/ cleaning) 150 150 150 125

- - - -

Frequency (cleaning/ year) 1.5 1 1 1

- - - -

Annualized ($/yr) 2 25 150 150 125

- - - -

Cat replace ($/yr)

- - 43.00

- - - - -

Power Usage (kw)*

- - - 0.380 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144

Hours of Use Annually*

- - - 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368

Annual Electricity Cost ($/yr)

- - - 66.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25 .12

Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 225 150.00 193.00 191.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25.12

Install/Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 225.00 324.14 407.66 447.94 217.57 217.57 215.68 215.68

Efficiency** 54 65 70 75 65 75 65 75

Fuel Cost*** 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0157 0.0158 0.0158 0.0241 0.0241

* Reference 85 and professional judgment of OMNI

- Test Laboratories employees.

** Wood efficiency references: 33, 38, 77; Gas efficiencies based on OMNI

- Test Laboratories Testing

*** Fuel cost references: wood and pellets: 78; n atural gas: 79; LPG: 80

### 62

Table 5.07 Cost Calculations for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Cordwood Fireplace

Insert

Scenario Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Cordwood Fireplace Insert

Heating Device Uncertified

Cordwood

Fireplace

Insert Certified

NSPS Non

Catalytic

Cordwood

Insert Certified

NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood

Insert Pellet

Insert Gas

Insert

Natural

Gas, B

Vent Gas Insert

Natural

Gas, Direct

Vent Gas

Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas

Insert

LPG,

Direct

Vent

Install/ Replacement Cost ($)

- 3767 3700 3667 3350 3350 3300 3300

Lifetime (yrs)

- 19.3 19.3 15.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7

Annualized Install/ Replacement

($/yr)

- 194.8 191.4 244.4 189.6 189.6 186.8 186.8

Chimney Cleaning ($/ cleaning) 175 150 150 125

- - - -

Frequency (cleaning/ year) 2 1 1 1

- - - - Annualized ($/yr) 350 150 150 125

- - - -

Cat replace ($/yr)

- - 43.00

- - - - -

Power Usage (kw)* 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.380 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144

Hours of Use Annually* 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1 ,368 1,368 1,368

Annual Electricity Cost ($/yr) 25.12 25.12 25.12 66.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25.12

Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 375.12 175.12 218.12 191.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25.12

Install/Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 375.12 369.94 409.50 435.72 214.74 214.74 211.91 211.91

Efficiency** 49 60 65 70 60 70 60 70

Fuel Cost 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0157 0.0158 0.0158 0.0241 0.0241

* Reference 85 and professional judgment of OMNI

- Test Laboratories employees.

** Insert efficiencies are generally 5% lower than analogo us stove type efficiencies due to heat lost into firebox cavity,

and the fact that inserts are generally against the outside wall of a house, which radiates heat out of the house.

This is especially true for masonry chimneys, which lose heat through un

- in sulated masonry material.

### 63

Table 5.08 Cost Calculations for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set to an Existing Cordwood

Fireplace without Insert Used for Heat

Scenario Addition of an Insert or Gas Log

- Set to an Existing Cordwood Fireplace without

In sert Used for Heating

Heating Device Cordwood

Fireplace

Used for

Heating Certified

NSPS Non

Catalytic

Cordwood

Insert Certified

NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood

Insert Pellet

Insert Gas

Insert

Natural

Gas, B

Vent Gas Insert

Natural

Gas, Direct

Vent Gas

Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas

Insert

LPG,

Direct

Vent

Install/ Replacement Cost ($)

- 3600 3500 3500 3233 3233 3200 3200

Lifetime (yrs)

- 19.3 19.3 15.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7

Annualized Install/ Replacement

($/yr)

- 186.2 181.0 233.3 183.0 183.0 181.1 181.1

Chimney Cleaning ($/ cleaning) 150 150 150 125

- - - - Frequency (cleaning/ year) 1 1 1 1

- - - - Annualized ($/yr) 150 150 150 125

- - - - Cat replace ($/yr)

- - 43.00

- - - - -

Power Usage (kw)*

- 0.144 0.144 0.380 0.144 0.144 0.1 44 0.144

Hours of Use Annually*

- 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368 1,368

Annual Electricity Cost ($/yr)

- 25.12 25.12 66.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25.12

Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 150 175.12 218.12 191.28 25.12 25.12 25.12 25.12

Install/Ancillary Cos t ($/yr) 150.00 361.32 399.15 424.61 208.13 208.13 206.25 206.25

Efficiency* 18 60 65 70 60 70 60 70

Fuel Cost 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0157 0.0158 0.0158 0.0241 0.0241

* Reference 85 and professional judgment of OMNI

- Test Laboratories employees.

** Fireplace without Insert Used for Heat Efficiency: reference 81. Insert efficiencies are generally 5% lower than

analogous stove type efficiencies due to heat lost into firebox cavity, and the fact that inserts are generally

against the outside wall of a house, which radiates heat out of the house. This is especially true for masonry

chimneys, which lose heat through un

- insulated masonry material.

### 64

Table 5.09 Cost Calculations for the Replacement of an Existing Centralized Cordwood

Heating System

Scen ario Replacement of an Existing Cordwood Furnace or Boiler

Heating Device Centralized

Cordwood

Heating System Pellet

Furnace or

Boiler Gas Furnace or

Boiler

- Natural

Gas Gas Furnace

or Boiler

- LPG

Install/ Replacement Cost ($)

- 4575 3675 3675

Li fetime (yrs)

- 16.0 16.0 16.0

Annualized Install/ Replacement ($/yr)

- 285.9 229.7 229.7

Chimney Cleaning ($/ cleaning) 150 150

- - Frequency (cleaning/ year) 1 1

- - Annualized ($/yr) 150 150

- - Cat replace ($/yr)

- - - -

P ower Usage (kw)* 0.489 0.739 0.489 0.489

Hours of Use Annually* 2,548 2,548 2,548 2,548

Annual Electricity Cost ($/yr)* 158.69 239.91 158.69 158.69

Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 308.69 389.91 158.69 158.69

Install/Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 308.69 675.85 388.38 388.38

Efficiency** 47 75 79 79

Fuel Cost 0.0078 0.0157 0.0158 0.0241

* Reference 85 and professional judgment of OMNI

- Test Laboratories employees

** Efficiency references: cordwood: 13, 47, 58; pellet: same as pellet stove; gas: 82;



### The pollution reduction cost effectiveness analyses for existing fireplaces without inserts used for

aesthetic purposes were not conducted in the same manner as the aforementioned categories,

which are used for heat. The most likely changes to an existing fir eplace without insert used for

aesthetic purposes include using wax/fiber firelogs, adding a vent

- free gas log set, or adding a

vented gas log set (gas includes both LPG and natural gas). Since aesthetic use is more concerned

with the look and feel of the fire and not the total heat produced from fire, the fuel use rate was

used instead of efficiency. Total fuel used for each appliance and fuel category was calculated by

multiplying the fuel use rate by the average use of a fireplace without insert used f or aesthetics,

since it is assumed that the average appliance annual usage for aesthetics will be the same

regardless of the appliance type. Annual fuel cost was calculated by multiplying the annual

appliance usage (20 hrs/yr) by the applicable fuel usage rate (i.e. dry kg/hr, m 3 

### /hr, or l/hr), as well

as by the fuel cost ($/dry kg, $/m 3 

### , or $/l). On the same note, pollution reduction cost

effectiveness analyses for each state are not included, as average appliance usage for aesthetics

does not vary signif

icantly with the state within the limited climatic range of the MANE

- VU

states, and hence, the analysis is representative of the entire MANE

- VU region.

### 65

Table 5.10 Cost Calculations for the Addition of a Gas Log Set or Use of Wax/Fiber Firelogs with an

E xisting Fireplace Used for Aesthetics

Scenario Addition of a Gas Log Set or Use of Wax/Fiber Firelogs with an Existing

Fireplace Used for Aesthetics

Heating Device Cordwood

Fireplace

Used for

Aesthetic

Purposes Vent

- Free

Gas Log

Set

- Natural

Gas Vented Gas

Log Set

Natural Gas Vent

- Free

Gas Log

Set

- LPG Vented

Gas Log

Set

- LPG Wax/Fiber

Firelog Fuel

Install/ Replacement Cost ($)

- 1493 1483 1477 1467 NA

Lifetime (yrs)

- 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7

- Annualized Install/ Replacement ($/yr)

- 117.9 116.8 116.6 115.5

- Chimney Cleaning ($/ cleaning) 150

- - - - 150

Frequency (cleaning/ year) 0.5

- - - - 0.5

Annualized ($/yr) 75

- - - - 75

Cat replace ($/yr)

- - - - - -

Power Usage (kw)

- 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144

-

Hours of Use Annually*

- 21 21 21 21

-

Annual Electricity Cost ($/yr)

- 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

-

Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 75.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 75.00

Install/Ancillary Cost ($/yr) 75.00 118.28 117.18 116.96 115.87 75.00

Appliance Usage (hr/yr) 20 20 20 20 20 20

Fuel Usage Rate** 4.2 dry

kg/hr 0.69 m 3 /hr

(25,000

Btu/hr) 1.11 m 3 /hr

(40,000

Btu/hr) .063 l/hr

(25,000

Btu/hr) .101 l/hr

(40,000

Btu/hr) 0.74 dry

kg/hr

Fuel Cost*** $0.15/dry kg $0.605/m 3 $0.605/m 3 $0.612/l $0.612/l $1.06/dry kg 8

NA = Not Applic able

* Hours of use = 0.069 cords/yr burned for aesthetics X 1238.3 kg/cord (MANE

- VU average) / 4.2 dry kg/hr = 20 hr/yr

** Firelog usage rate references: firelogs: 49.01, 49.02, 49.06, 49.08, 49.11, 49.15, 52.13, 52.21, 52.24

*** Firelog cost references 83

- 84

### 66

5.2. Pollution Reduction Cost Effectiveness by State and Average MANE

- VU Region

The following tables summarize the cost effectiveness analyses for each improved technology

and alternative fuel replacement or installation. There are separate tab les for each pollutant,

organized by state and the total MANE

- VU region, except for the aesthetics category, which

only has one table organized by pollutant. If the total annual cost of the improved technology

and alternative fuel replacement or installat ion is less than the total annual cost of the existing

device, and there is corresponding pollutant reduction after installation or replacement, then there

is no cost for the pollution reduction, and the cell is marked as “**”. The cost effectiveness

tabl es are in reference to the replacement of an existing RWC device, and do not include new

construction. This is not a cost

- effectiveness project for other RWC control measures such as

described in the U.S. EPA’s PM 10 

### RACM/BACM guideline documents 61,62 

### . Co sts associated

with these measures are predominantly organizational and administrative associated with the

implementation of regulations and are outside the scope of this project.

The magnitude of pollutant reduction combined with the cost of the various mitigation scenarios

are what primarily drive the cost effectiveness analyses. Replacement units, new installations, or

alternative fuels that allow for greater emission reductions would have a lower cost per unit mass

of pollutant reduction if all costs were equal. Similarly, replacement units, installations or

alternative fuels with lower costs would have a lower cost per unit mass of pollutant reduction if

the magnitude of pollutant reductions were equal. However, due to climate and

sociodemographic d ifferences, the cost per unit mass of pollutant reduction for the same

mitigation scenarios vary from state to state as different amounts of fuel are characteristically

burned per appliance in the different states with commensurately different amounts of t otal

emissions. While the emission factors and the corresponding pollutant reductions for the same

amount of fuel used, for a given scenario, are the same from state to state, the total amount of

emission varies along with the total amount of fuel consume d. (More total emissions in cold

climates and in rural settings.) This, combined with fixed costs that are part of the cost

component and do not differ with location, produces higher costs per unit mass primarily in

states with warmer climates. For examp le, Delaware and Washington D.C. generally have lower

costs per unit mass of pollutant reductions as compared to New Hampshire, New York, and

Vermont.

### 67

Table 5.11 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Freestandi ng

Cordwood Stove

PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Pellet Stove Gas Stove

- Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Stove

-

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Stove

-

LPG, B Vent Gas St ove

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 7.68E+02 2.54E+03 8.34E+03 5.37E+03 3.55E+03 1.26E+04 9.79E+03

DE 5.18E+03 1.08E+04 1.50E+04 5.16E+03 3.34E+03 1.23E+04 9.52E+03

ME 7.85E+02 2.57E+03 8.37E+03 5.37E+03 3.55E+03 1.26E+04 9.79E+03

MD 4.43E+03 9.42E+03 1.39E+04 5.2 0E+03 3.38E+03 1.24E+04 9.57E+03

MA 6.57E+02 2.33E+03 8.17E+03 5.38E+03 3.56E+03 1.26E+04 9.79E+03

NH 5.40E+02 2.11E+03 8.00E+03 5.38E+03 3.56E+03 1.26E+04 9.80E+03

NJ 2.83E+03 6.41E+03 1.15E+04 5.27E+03 3.45E+03 1.25E+04 9.66E+03

NY 5.50E+02 2.13E+03 8.01E+03 5.38E+03 3.56E+03 1.26E+04 9.80E+03

PA 1.29E+03 3.52E+03 9.14E+03 5.35E+03 3.53E+03 1.26E+04 9.76E+03

RI 9.38E+02 2.86E+03 8.60E+03 5.36E+03 3.54E+03 1.26E+04 9.78E+03

VT 4.60E+02 1.96E+03 7.88E+03 5.39E+03 3.56E+03 1.26E+04 9.80E+03

D.C. 5.88 E+03 1.22E+04 1.61E+04 5.13E+03 3.31E+03 1.23E+04 9.48E+03

M

- V 1.17E+03 3.30E+03 8.96E+03 5.35E+03 3.53E+03 1.26E+04 9.76E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 5.12 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Uncer tified

Freestanding Cordwood Stove

VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Pellet Stove Gas Stove

- Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Stove

-

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Stove

-

LPG, B

Vent Gas Stove

-

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 8.26E+02 2.27E+03 7.20E+03 4.95E+03 3.27E+03 1.18E+04 9.15E+03

DE 5.57E+03 9.70E+03 1.30E+04 4.76E+03 3.08E+03 1.15E+04 8.90E+03

ME 8.44E+02 2.30E+03 7.23E+03 4.95E+03 3.27E+03 1.18E+04 9.15E+03

MD 4.76E+03 8.4 3E+03 1.20E+04 4.79E+03 3.11E+03 1.16E+04 8.95E+03

MA 7.07E+02 2.08E+03 7.06E+03 4.96E+03 3.28E+03 1.18E+04 9.16E+03

NH 5.81E+02 1.89E+03 6.91E+03 4.96E+03 3.28E+03 1.18E+04 9.16E+03

NJ 3.04E+03 5.74E+03 9.91E+03 4.86E+03 3.18E+03 1.17E+04 9.03E+03

NY 5.92E+02 1.90E+03 6.92E+03 4.96E+03 3.28E+03 1.18E+04 9.16E+03

PA 1.39E+03 3.15E+03 7.89E+03 4.93E+03 3.25E+03 1.18E+04 9.12E+03

RI 1.01E+03 2.56E+03 7.43E+03 4.95E+03 3.27E+03 1.18E+04 9.14E+03

VT 4.95E+02 1.75E+03 6.80E+03 4.97E+03 3.29E+03 1.18E+04 9 .17E+03

D.C. 6.33E+03 1.09E+04 1.39E+04 4.73E+03 3.05E+03 1.15E+04 8.86E+03

M

- V 1.26E+03 2.96E+03 7.74E+03 4.94E+03 3.26E+03 1.18E+04 9.13E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 68

Table 5.13 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified

Freestanding Cordwood Stove

CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Stove Pellet Stove Gas Stove

- Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Stove

-

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Stove

-

LPG, B

Vent Gas Stove

-

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 4.11E+02 7.13E+02 1.81E+03 1.16E+03 7.66E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

DE 2.77E+03 3.05E+03 3.27E+03 1.11E+03 7.20E+02 2.64E+03 2.04E+03

ME 4.20E+02 7.22E+02 1.82E+03 1.16E+03 7.65E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

MD 2.37E+03 2.65E+03 3.02E+03 1.12E+03 7.28E+02 2.65E+03 2.05E+03

MA 3.52E+02 6.55E+02 1.78E+03 1.16E+03 7.67E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

NH 2.89E+02 5.93E+02 1.74E+03 1.16E+03 7.68E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

NJ 1.51E+03 1.80E+03 2.50E+03 1.14E+03 7.44E+02 2.67E+ 03 2.07E+03

NY 2.94E+02 5.98E+02 1.74E+03 1.16E+03 7.68E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

PA 6.91E+02 9.90E+02 1.99E+03 1.15E+03 7.60E+02 2.69E+03 2.09E+03

RI 5.02E+02 8.03E+02 1.87E+03 1.16E+03 7.64E+02 2.69E+03 2.09E+03

VT 2.46E+02 5.51E+02 1.71E+03 1.16E+03 7.6 9E+02 2.70E+03 2.10E+03

D.C. 3.15E+03 3.42E+03 3.50E+03 1.11E+03 7.13E+02 2.63E+03 2.03E+03

M

- V 6.29E+02 9.29E+02 1.95E+03 1.15E+03 7.61E+02 2.69E+03 2.09E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 69

Table 5.14 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for th e Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Cordwood

Fireplace Insert

PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet Insert Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT   4.98E+03 2.32E+03 4.01E+02 9.40E+03 6.45E+03

DE **  1.12E+03 7.16E+03 ** ** 4.89E+03 1.94E+03

ME   4.98E+03 2.30E+03 3.84E+02 9.38E+03 6.43E+03

MD **  6.80E+02 6.79 E+03 ** ** 5.66E+03 2.71E+03

MA   4.92E+03 2.43E+03 5.13E+02 9.51E+03 6.56E+03

NH **  ** 4.86E+03 2.55E+03 6.30E+02 9.63E+03 6.68E+03

NJ   6.00E+03 2.46E+02 **  7.29E+03 4.35E+03

NY ** ** 4.87E+03 2.54E+03 6.20E+02 9.62E+03 6.67E+03

PA   5.2 3E+03 1.79E+03 **  8.86E+03 5.92E+03

RI ** ** 5.06E+03 2.15E+03 2.30E+02 9.22E+03 6.28E+03

VT   4.82E+03 2.63E+03 7.11E+02 9.71E+03 6.76E+03

D.C. **  1.53E+03 7.51E+03 ** ** 4.17E+03 1.22E+03

M

- V   5.18E+03 1.91E+03 **  8.98E+03 6.04E+03

M

- V repr esents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 5.15 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Cordwood

Fireplace Insert

VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certifie d NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet Insert Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT ** ** 4.30E+03 2.14E+03 3.70E+02 8.80E+03 6.03E+03

DE ** 1.01E+03 6.19E+03   4.57E +03 1.82E+03

ME **  ** 4.31E+03 2.12E+03 3.55E+02 8.78E+03 6.01E+03

MD ** 6.09E+02 5.87E+03   5.30E+03 2.54E+03

MA **  ** 4.26E+03 2.24E+03 4.73E+02 8.91E+03 6.13E+03

NH   4.21E+03 2.35E+03 5.81E+02 9.02E+03 6.25E+03

NJ **  ** 5.19E+03 2.27E+02 * * 6.83E+03 4.06E+03

NY ** ** 4.21E+03 2.34E+03 5.72E+02 9.01E+03 6.24E+03

PA   4.53E+03 1.65E+03 **  8.30E+03 5.53E+03

RI ** ** 4.38E+03 1.98E+03 2.12E+02 8.64E+03 5.87E+03

VT   4.17E+03 2.42E+03 6.55E+02 9.10E+03 6.32E+03

D.C. **  1.37E+03 6.50 E+03 ** ** 3.90E+03 1.14E+03

M

- V   4.48E+03 1.76E+03 **  8.41E+03 5.64E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 70

Table 5.16 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Uncertified Cordwood

Fireplace Insert

CO Reduct ion Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet Insert Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT * * ** 1.08E+03 5.00E+02 8.65E+01 2.01E+03 1.38E+03

DE ** 3.12E+02 1.56E+03   1.05E+03 4.16E+02

ME **  ** 1.08E+03 4.96E+02 8.29E+01 2.01E+03 1.38E+03

MD ** 1.89E+02 1.48E+03   1.21E+03 5.81E+02

MA **  ** 1.07E+03 5.24E+02 1.11E+02 2.04E+03 1.41E+0 3

NH   1.06E+03 5.49E+02 1.36E+02 2.06E+03 1.43E+03

NJ **  ** 1.30E+03 5.30E+01 ** 1.56E+03 9.32E+02

NY   1.06E+03 5.47E+02 1.34E+02 2.06E+03 1.43E+03

PA **  ** 1.14E+03 3.86E+02 ** 1.90E+03 1.27E+03

RI   1.10E+03 4.63E+02 4.97E+01 1.98E+03 1.35E+03

VT **  ** 1.05E+03 5.67E+02 1.53E+02 2.08E+03 1.45E+03

D.C. ** 4.26E+02 1.63E+03   8.92E+02 2.62E+02

M

- V **  ** 1.13E+03 4.12E+02 ** 1.92E+03 1.29E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 71

Table 5.17 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness fo r the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set into an

Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Heating

PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet

Insert Gas In sert

Natural

Gas, B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 7.60E+03 1.01E+04 1.26E+04   2.73E+03 1.54E+03

DE 1.65E+04 2.06E+04 2.27E+04 2.07E+03 1.29E+03 4.76E+03 3.57E+03

ME 5.06E+02 1.68E+03 4.49E+03 **  ** 1.12E+03 **

MD 1.55E+04 1.95E+04 2.16E+04 1.84E+03 1.06E+03 4.54E+03 3.35E+03

MA 1.68E+03 3.07E+03 5.83E+03   1.38E+03 1.95E+02

NH **  9.10E+02 3.76E+03 ** ** 9.68E+02 **

NJ 1.68E+04 2.10E+04 2.30E+04 2.14E+03 1.36E+03 4.83E+03 3.64E+ 03

NY 2.01E+02 1.32E+03 4.15E+03   1.05E+03 ** 

PA 7.65E+03 1.01E+04 1.26E+04 ** ** 2.74E+03 1.55E+03

RI 1.46E+04 1.84E+04 2.06E+04 1.63E+03 8.52E+02 4.33E+03 3.14E+03

VT ** 6.58E+02 3.52E+03   9.19E+02 ** 

D.C. 1.88E+04 2.33E+04 2.53E+04 2.60E+ 03 1.83E+03 5.28E+03 4.09E+03

M

- V 3.88E+03 5.67E+03 8.33E+03 ** ** 1.88E+03 6.95E+02

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 5.18 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set into an

Existing Fireplace without I nsert Used for Heating

VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certified NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet

Insert Gas Insert

Natural

Gas, B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 1.55E+04 1.86E+04 1.99E+04   4.48E+03 2.53E+03

DE 3.37E+04 3.80E+04 3.59E+04 3.35E+03 2.10E+03 7.82E+03 5.85E+03

ME 1.03E+03 3.09E+03 7.11E+03 **  ** 1.83E+03 **

MD 3.17E+04 3.59E+04 3.41E+04 2.98E+03 1.72E+03 7. 45E+03 5.49E+03

MA 3.43E+03 5.66E+03 9.22E+03   2.27E+03 3.20E+02

NH **  1.68E+03 5.94E+03 ** ** 1.59E+03 **

NJ 3.42E+04 3.86E+04 3.64E+04 3.47E+03 2.21E+03 7.93E+03 5.96E+03

NY 4.11E+02 2.43E+03 6.56E+03   1.72E+03 ** 

PA 1.56E+04 1.87E+04 2.00 E+04 ** ** 4.50E+03 2.55E+03

RI 2.98E+04 3.39E+04 3.25E+04 2.64E+03 1.38E+03 7.12E+03 5.15E+03

VT ** 1.21E+03 5.56E+03   1.51E+03 ** 

D.C. 3.83E+04 4.30E+04 4.00E+04 4.22E+03 2.96E+03 8.67E+03 6.70E+03

M

- V 7.90E+03 1.04E+04 1.32E+04 ** ** 3.09E+03 1 .14E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 72

Table 5.19 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of an Insert or Gas Log Set into an

Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Heating

CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Certifi ed NSPS

Non

- Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Certified NSPS

Catalytic

Cordwood Insert Pellet

Insert Gas Insert

Natural

Gas, B Vent Gas Insert

Natural Gas,

Direct Vent Gas Insert

LPG, B

Vent Gas Insert

LPG, Direct

Vent

CT 1.85E+03 2.19E+03 2.58E+03   5.58E+02 3.15E+02

DE 4.03E+03 4.48E+03 4.66E+03 4.24E+02 2.65E+02 9.73E+02 7.30E+02

ME 1.23E+02 3.65E+02 9.24E+02 **  ** 2.28E+02 **

MD 3.79E+03 4.23E+03 4.44E+03 3.77E+02 2.18E+02 9.28E+02 6.85E+02

MA 4.10E+02 6.67E+02 1.20E+03   2.83E+02 4.00E+01

NH **  1 .98E+02 7.72E+02 ** ** 1.98E+02 **

NJ 4.10E+03 4.56E+03 4.73E+03 4.38E+02 2.79E+02 9.87E+02 7.44E+02

NY 4.91E+01 2.86E+02 8.52E+02   2.14E+02 ** 

PA 1.87E+03 2.20E+03 2.59E+03 ** ** 5.61E+02 3.18E+02

RI 3.57E+03 4.00E+03 4.23E+03 3.34E+02 1.75E+02 8 .86E+02 6.43E+02

VT ** 1.43E+02 7.22E+02   1.88E+02 ** 

D.C. 4.58E+03 5.07E+03 5.20E+03 5.34E+02 3.75E+02 1.08E+03 8.37E+02

M

- V 9.45E+02 1.23E+03 1.71E+03 ** ** 3.85E+02 1.42E+02

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 73

Table 5.20 PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Centralized

Cordwood Heating System

PM Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Pellet Furnaces

and Boilers Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- Natural Gas Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- LPG

CT 8.46E+03 3.16E+03 9. 50E+03

DE 3.14E+04 7.81E+03 1.42E+04

ME 7.09E+03 2.88E+03 9.23E+03

MD 1.97E+04 5.43E+03 1.18E+04

MA 7.41E+03 2.94E+03 9.29E+03

NH 6.74E+03 2.81E+03 9.15E+03

NJ 2.04E+04 5.58E+03 1.19E+04

NY 6.57E+03 2.78E+03 9.12E+03

PA 9.54E+03 3.38E+03 9.72E+03

RI 1.34E+04 4.15E+03 1.05E+04

VT 6.62E+03 2.78E+03 9.13E+03

D.C. 3.41E+04 8.36E+03 1.47E+04

M

- V 7.81E+03 3.03E+03 9.37E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 5.21 VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Centra lized

Cordwood Heating System

VOC Reduction Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

State Pellet Furnaces

and Boilers Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- Natural Gas Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- LPG

CT 1.86E+04 7.46E+03 2.34E+04

DE 6.91E+04 1.84E+04 3.49E+04

ME 1.56E+04 6.81E+03 2.27E+04

MD 4.33E+04 1.28E+04 2.90E+04

MA 1.63E+04 6.96E+03 2.29E+04

NH 1.48E+04 6.63E+03 2.26E+04

NJ 4.50E+04 1.32E+04 2.94E+04

NY 1.45E+04 6.56E+03 2.25E+04

PA 2.10E+04 7.98E+03 2.40E+04

RI 2.94E+04 9.81E+03 2.59E+04

VT 1.46E+04 6.58E+03 2.25E+0 4

D.C. 7.51E+04 1.97E+04 3.63E+04

M

- V 1.72E+04 7.15E+03 2.31E+04

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average

### 74

Table 5.22 CO Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Replacement of an Existing Centralized

Cordwood Heating System

CO Reduction Cost Effect iveness ($/ton)

State Pellet Furnaces

and Boilers Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- Natural Gas Gas Furnaces and

Boilers

- LPG

CT 1.25E+03 4.74E+02 1.42E+03

DE 4.65E+03 1.17E+03 2.12E+03

ME 1.05E+03 4.33E+02 1.38E+03

MD 2.91E+03 8.15E+02 1.76E+03

MA 1.10E+03 4.42E+0 2 1.39E+03

NH 9.97E+02 4.22E+02 1.37E+03

NJ 3.02E+03 8.39E+02 1.78E+03

NY 9.72E+02 4.17E+02 1.36E+03

PA 1.41E+03 5.07E+02 1.45E+03

RI 1.98E+03 6.24E+02 1.57E+03

VT 9.79E+02 4.18E+02 1.36E+03

D.C. 5.05E+03 1.26E+03 2.20E+03

M

- V 1.16E+03 4.54E+02 1.4 0E+03

M

- V represents the MANE

- VU region average



### Table 5.23 Pollutant Reduction Cost Effectiveness for the Addition of a Gas Log Set or Use of

Wax/Fiber Firelogs in an Existing Fireplace without Insert Used for Aesthetics

Pollutant Reduction C ost Effectiveness ($/ton)

Pollutant Vent

- Free Gas Log

Set

- Natural Gas Vented Gas Log

Set

- Natural Gas Vent

- Free Gas

Log Set

- LPG Vented Gas

Log Set

- LPG Wax/Fiber

Firelog Fuel

PM 2.71E+04 2.99E+04 2.94E+04 3.41E+04 2.53E+03

VOC 4.39E+04 4.85E+04 4.83E+04 5.66E+04 5 .11E+03

CO 5.55E+03 6.14E+03 6.01E+03 6.97E+03 5.16E+02



### The cost effectiveness of the various mitigation options listed in Tables 5.11

- 5.23 are the central

part of any realistic emission reductions program for RWC in the MANE

- VU states. Wood

resource s are abundant and widely utilized as fuel, and heating is essential given the climate of

the region. Some areas are economically depressed. The cost to households of any regulatory

program mandating acceptable heating practices is a pivotal consideratio n. Likewise, the cost to

households of any voluntary program is paramount for its success. The cost effectiveness of all

reasonable scenarios for the replacement, modification or alternative fuel use for older existing,

high emission wood

- burning applian ces is provided in this report for regulators and policy

makers charged with the task of specifically lowering particulate, volatile organic compound and

carbon monoxide emissions from residential wood combustion. The tables provided here allow

for a dire ct comparison of the cost burden for each realistic mitigation option that would be

shouldered by residential users. As an example, for an average resident in the MANE

- VU region

with an existing older technology centralized cordwood heating system, the be st current option in

terms of cost among the pellet, natural gas, and LPG options, is natural gas (assuming natural gas

### 75

is available)(Table 5.22). Similarly, for wood

- burning fireplaces used for aesthetics,

manufactured wax/fiber firelogs offer the lowest cost per unit mass of air pollutant reduction

(Table 5.23).

6. Summary

OMNI conducted The Control Analysis and Documentation for Residential Wood Combustion in

the MANE

- VU Region to re

- evaluate previous RWC survey data, develop a new emissions

invent ory, and conduct emissions benefit and cost effectiveness analyses for RWC in the

MANE

- VU region. The resulting activity, emission, and cost effectiveness data resulted in an

extensive look at MANE

- VU RWC, and a basis for implementing various RWC control

measures. This project was conducted in a manner that would produce the most current,

relevant, and accurate RWC data for the MANE

- VU region. Such data allows states and

counties located within the region to assess the type and extent of RWC control meas ures that

would be most effective for mitigating their RWC emissions.

### 76

7. References

1. Broderick, D., Houck, J.E., Crouch, J., and Goldman, J., 2005, Review of Residential Wood

Combustion Data for Mid

- Atlantic and New England States, In Proceedings of 14 th



### International Emission Inventory Conference, Transforming Emission Inventories

– Meeting Future Challenges Today, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 11

–14, 2005.

2. U.S. Census Bureau, 2003, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/02

- 44, American Housing

S urvey for the Buffalo Metropolitan Area: 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98

- 35, AHS for the

Rochester Metropolitan Area: 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98

- 42, AHS for the

Baltimor e Metropolitan Area: 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/03

- 10, AHS for the

Northern New Jersey Metropolitan Area: 2003.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/03

- 53, American

Housing Survey for th

e New York

- Nassau

- Suffolk

- Orange Metropolitan Area: 2003.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Census Bureau, 2005,

Current Housing Reports, Series H170/04

- 13, AHS for the Pittsburgh Metropolitan

Area: 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/99

- 33, AHS for the

Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: 1999.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98

- 18, AHS for the

Washington Metropolitan Area: 1998.

3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, Current

Housing Reports, Series H170/04

- 26, AHS for the Hartford Metropolitan Area: 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98

- 3, American

Housing Survey for the Boston Metropolitan Area: 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/98

- 56, American

Housing Survey for the Providence

- Pawtucket

- Warwick Metropolitan Area: 1998.

4. Tanjukaio, R.V., and Mackenzie, J.E, 1995, Report on the 1995 Delaware Fuelwood Survey,

Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware.

5. Maine State Planning Office, 1999, Residential Fuelwood Use in Maine, Results of

1998/1999 Fuelwood Survey.

6. Vermont Department of Public Service, 2000, Vermont Residential Fuel Wood Assessment

1997

- 1998, DPS Technical Report #48.

7. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000,

ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/.

8. Simmons Market Research Bureau, Inc., 2003, Annual Studies of Media and Markets, Spring

2003.

### 77

9. DHM Group, 2005, 2004 Consumer Attitude and Usage Survey: Hearth Products, report to

Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association, Arlington, VA.

10. Wu, C.Y., Piva, R., Broderick, D.R., Houck, J.E., and Crouch, J., 2005, Emissions Inventory

Oriented R

esidential Wood Combustion Survey, 2005, In Proceedings of: 14 th



### International Emission Inventory Conference, “Transforming Emission Inventories

– Meeting Future Challenges Today”, Las Vegas, NV, April 11

–14, 2005.

11. U.S. Department of Energy, Energ y Information Administration, 2001 Residential Energy

Consumption Survey, http://www.eia.doe/emeu/recs2001/detail_tables.html.

12. Personal Communications, October 27, 2005, Gil Wood, Environmental Engineer, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standard, U .S. Environmental Protection Agency.

13. Spitzer, E., 2005, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State,

New York Office of the Attorney General.

14. Personal Communication, March 28, 2006, Rodney Tollefson, Vice President of Centr al

Boiler.

15. Personal Communication, October 20, 2005, Don Johnson, Director of Market Research,

Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, U.S. Stove, Insert and Pellet Stove Shipments,

1999

- 2004.

16. Pellet Fuels Institute, Pellet Fuel Shipment Data A rchive, 2004

–2005,

http://www.pelletheat.org/3/industry/survey.html.

17. MARAMA Survey Results, 2002, Survey questions outline: Population Research Systems,

LLC, 2003, Technical Memorandum No. 3: MANE

- VU Residential Wood Combustion

EI Project: Pilot

Survey and Final Survey Instrument, prepared for MARAMA.

18. Information Resource, 1998, Infoscan Standard Region Profile, Report to Duraflame Inc.,

Stockton, CA.

19. Solari, S., 2000, Duraflame Estimated

- Total Single Firelog Volume and Firelog Weight

Distribution Estimates, Duraflame Inc., Stockton CA.

20

. 

### U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/99

- RV, American

Housing Survey for the United States: 1999.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/01, Amer ican Housing

Survey for the United States: 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/03, American Housing

Survey for the United States: 2003

### 78

21. Fine, P.M., Cass, G.R., and Simoneit, B.R., 2001, Chemical Characterization of Fine Particle

Emissions from Fireplace Combustion of Woods Grown in the Northeastern United

States, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 35, no. 13, 2001, pp. 2665

- 2675.

22. Northeastern Research Station, 2006, Percentage Distribution of Tree Species by State,

US DA Forest Service.

23. Fuelwood Facts, 1980, Oregon State Extension Service.

24. Heating with Wood I. Species Characteristics and Volumes, University of Nebraska

Lincoln Extension Service, http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/forestry/g881.htm.

25. Firewood Ratin gs and Info, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. http://mb

soft.com/juca/print/firewood.html.

26. Wood Fuel For Heating, University of Missouri Extension,

http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/forestry/g05450.htm.

27. Stewardship Notes, Indian a Division of Forestry, http://www.state.in.us/dnr/forestry.

28. Houck, J.E., Mangino, J.E., Brooks, G., and Huntley, R.H., 2001, Recommended Procedure

for Compiling Emission Inventory National, Regional and County Level Activity Data

for the Residential

Wood Combustion Source Category, in proceedings U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Emission Inventory Conference, Denver, CO.

29. NFO World

- Group, 2003, HPBA Fireplace and Freestanding Stove Usage and Attitude

Study 2002, report to Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association, Arlington, VA.

30. Environ and Pechan, 2002, California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study Ammonia

Emissions Improvement Projects in Support of CRPAQS Aerosol Modeling and Data

Analyses: Draft Ammonia Inventory Development, prep ared for the California Air

Resources Board.

31. Environment Canada, 2000, Characterization of Organic Compounds from Selected

Residential Wood Stoves and Fuels, Report ERMD 2000

- 01.

32. Hedman, B., Naslund, M., and Stellan, M., 2006, Emission of PCDD/ F, PCB and HCB from

Combustion of Firewood and Pellets in Residential Stoves and Boilers, Environ. Sci.

Technol., vol.40, no. 16, pp. 4968

- 4975.

33. Houck, J.E., and Tiegs, P.E., 1998, Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review,

report to U.S. Environ

mental Protection Agency, vol. 1, EPA

- 600/R

- 98

- 174a.

34. Jarabek, J., and Preto, F., 2004, PCDD and PCDF Emissions from Residential Woodstoves,

Canmet Energy Technology Centre report.

### 79

35. Jordan, T.B., and Seen, A.J., 2005, Effect of Airflow Setting on the Organic Composition of

Woodheater Emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 3601

- 3610.

36. McCrillis, R.C., 2000, Wood Stove Emissions: Particle Size and Chemical Composition,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

- 600/R

- 00

- 050.

3 7. McDonald, J.D., Zielinska, B., Jujita, E.M., Sagebiel, J.C., Chow, J.C., and Watson, J.G.,

2000, Fine Particle and Gaseous Emission Rates from Residential Wood Combustion,

Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2080

- 2091.

38. U.S. EPA, 1992, Em issions Factor Documentation For AP

- 42: Section 1.10, Residential

Wood Stoves, EPA

- 450/4

- 82

- 003.

38.01. Barnett, S.G., 1989, Field Performance of Advanced Technology Woodstoves in Glens

Falls, N.Y. 1988

- 1989, vol. 1, New York State Energy Research and De velopment

Authority, Albany, NY.

38.02. Barnett, S.G., 1990, In

- Home Evaluation of Emission Characteristics of EPA

- Certified

High

- Tech Non

- Catalytic Woodstoves in Klamath Falls, OR, 1990, prepared for the

Canada Center for Mineral and Energy Technology, Energy, Mines and Resources,

Canada, DSS File No. 145Q, 23440

- 9

- 9230.

38.03. Burnet, P.G., 1987, The Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study, vol. 1, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA

- 600/7

- 87

- 026a.

38.04. Burnet, P.G., Houck, J. E., and Roholt, R.B., 1990, Effects of Appliance Type and

Operating Variables on Woodstove Emissions, vol. 1., U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 600/2

- 90

- 001.

38.05. Dernbach, S., 1990, Woodstove Field Performance in K lamath Falls, OR, Wood

Heating Alliance, Washington, D.C.

38.06. Jaasma, D.R., and Champion, M.R., 1990, Field Performance of Woodburning Stoves

in Crested Butte, During the 1989

- 90 Heating Season, Town of Crested Butte, Crested

Butte, CO, U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency Report EPA

- 600/7

- 91

- 005.

38.07. Leese, K.E., and Harkins, S.M., 1989, Effects of Burn Rate, Wood Species, Moisture

Content and Weight of Wood Loaded on Woodstove Emissions, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA 600/2

- 89

- 025.

38.08. McCrillis, R.C., and Merrill, R.G., 1985, Emission Control Effectiveness of a

Woodstove Catalyst and Emission Measurement Methods Comparison, Presented at the

78th Annual Meeting of the Air And Waste Management Association, Detroit, MI.

### 80

38.09. Simons, C.A., and Jones, S.K., 1989, Performance Evaluation of the Best Existing

Stove Technology (BEST) Hybrid Woodstove and Catalytic Retrofit Device, Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR.

38.10. Simons, C.A., Christia nsen, P.D., Pritchett, L.C., and Beyerman, G.A., 1987,

Whitehorse Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, the City of Whitehorse, Whitehorse,

Yukon, Canada.

38.11. Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Houck, J.E., and Pritchett, L.C., 1988, Woodstove

Emission Sam

pling Methods Comparability Analysis and In

- situ Evaluation of New

Technology Woodstoves, U.S. Department of Energy, DE

- AC79

- 85BP18508.

38.12. Allen, J.M., and Cooke, W.M., 1981, Control of Emissions from Residential Wood

Burning by Combustion Modificati on, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, OH, EPA

- 600/7

- 81

- 091.

38.13. Cottone, L.E., and Mesner, E., 1986, Test Method Evaluations and Emissions Testing

for Rating Wood Stoves, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, N C, EPA

- 600/2

- 86

- 100.

38.14. Residential Wood Heater Test Report, 1983, Phase II Testing, vol. 1, TVA, Division of

Energy, Construction and Rates, Chattanooga, TN.

38.15. Truesdale, R.S., and Cleland, J.G., 1982, Residential Stove Emissions from Coal an d

Other Alternative Fuels Combustion, in Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on

Residential Wood and Coal Combustion, Louisville, KY.

38.16. DeAngelis, D.G., Ruffin, D.S., and Reznik, R.B., 1980, Preliminary Characterization of

Emissions from Wood

- fi red Residential Combustion Equipment, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA

- 600/7

- 80

- 040.

38.17. Barnett, S.G., and Fields, P.G., 1991, In

- Home Performance of Exempt Pellet Stoves in

Medford, Oregon, U. S. Department of Energy, Orego n Department of Energy,

Tennessee Valley Authority, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

38.18. Barnett, S.G., and Roholt, R.B., 1990, In

- home Performance of Certified Pellet Stoves

in Medford And Klamath Falls, OR, U. S. Department Of Energy Report No. PS407

-

02.

39. Vikelsoe, J., Madsen, H., and Hansen K., 1994, Emission of Dioxins from Danish Wood

Stoves, Chemosphere, vol. 29, nos. 9

- 11, pp. 2019

- 2027.

40. Fisher, L.H., Houck, J.E., and Tiegs, P.E., November 2000, Long

- Term Performance of

EPA

- Certified Phase 2 Woodstoves, Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon: 1998

- 1999,

EPA

- 600/R

- 00

- 100.

### 81

41. Gullett, B.K., Touati, A. and Hays, M.D., 2002, PCDD/F, PCB, HxCBz, and PM Emission

Factors for Fireplace and Woodstove Combustion in the San Francisc o Bay Region,

Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1758

- 1765.

42. Crouch, J., and Houck, J.E., 2004, Comment on "PCDD/F, PCB, HxCBz, and PM Emission

Factors for Fireplace and Woodstove Combustion in the San Francisco Bay Region",

Environ. Sci. Tec hnol., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1910

- 1911.

43. Gullett, B.K., Touati, A. and Hays, M.D., 2002, Additions and Corrections to PCDD/F,

PCB, HxCBz, and PM Emission Factors for Fireplace and Woodstove Combustion in the

San Francisco Bay Region, Environ. Sci. Techn ol., vol. 38, no. 13, pp. 3792.

44. Hedberg, E., Kristensson, A., Ohlsson, M., Johansson, C, Johansson, P., Swietlicki, E.,

Vesely, V., Wideqvist, U., and Westerholm, R., 2002. Chemical and Physical

Characterization of Emissions from Birch Wood Combusti on in a Wood Stove,

Atmospheric Environment, vol. 36, pp. 4823

- 4837.

45. Brandon, R.J., 1980, An Assessment of the Efficiency and Emissions of Ten Wood Fired

Furnaces, report for the Institute of Man and Resources, Charlottetown, P.E., Canada.

46. Houc k, J.E, Scott, A.T., Purvis, C.R., Kariher, P.H., Crouch, J., and Van Buren, M.J., 2000,

Low Emission and High Efficiency Residential Pellet Fired Heaters, in Proceedings of

the Ninth Biennial Bioenergy Conference, Buffalo, NY, October 15

- 19, 2000.

47. J ohansson, L.S., Leckner, B., Gustavsson, L., Cooper, D., Tullin, C., and Potter, A., 2004,

Emission Characteristics of Modern and Old Type Residential Boilers Fired with Wood

Logs and Wood Pellets, Atmospheric Environment, vol. 38, pp. 4183

- 4195.

48. Ols son, M., Kjallstrand, J., and Petersson, G., 2003, Specific Chimney Emissions and

Biofuel Characteristics of Softwood Pellets for Residential Heating in Sweden, Biomass

and Bioenergy, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 51

- 57.

49. Broderick, D., Houck, J.E., and Crouch, J., 2005, Development of a Fireplace Baseline

Particulate Emission Factor Database, In Proceedings of: 14th International Emission

Inventory Conference, "Transforming Emission Inventories

- Meeting Future Challenges

Today", Las Vegas, Nevada, April 11

- 1 4, 2005.

49.01. Bighouse, R.D., and Houck, J.E., 1993, Evaluation of Emissions and Energy

Efficiencies of Residential Wood Combustion Devices using Manufactured Fuels,

Oregon Department of Energy, Salem. OR.

49.02. Broderick, D., and Houck, J.E., 2001, Environflame Firelog, Emission Test Report

prepared for, Weyerhaeuser Company, prepared by OMNI Consulting Services, Inc.,

Beaverton, OR.

### 82

49.03. Fiedler, J.D., 2004, Data prepared for the HPBA ASTM fireplace test protocol, by

OMNI Consulting Services, I nc., Beaverton, OR.

49.04. Fine, P.M., Cass, G.R., and Simoneit, B.R., 2002, Chemical Characterization of Fine

Particle Emissions from Fireplace Combustion of Woods Grown in the Southern

United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 36, no. 7, 2002.

49.05

. Freeburn, S.A., and Simons, C.A., 1989, An Automated System for Residential

Sampling of Woodstove Emissions, presented at AWMA International Specialty

Conference on Combustion and the Environment, Seattle, WA.

49.06. Hayden, A.C.S., and Braaten, R.W., 1991, Reduction of Fireplace and Woodstove

Pollutant Emissions through the Use of Manufactured Firelogs, Proceedings 84 th



### Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association,

Vancouver, BC, paper 91

- 129.1.

49.07. Houck, J.E., and S cott, A.T., 1999, Duraflame Emission Benefits Study, report to

Duraflame, Inc., prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. Beaverton, OR.

49.08. Houck, J.E., and Scott, A.T., 1999, Duraflame Emission Benefits Study, Results of

Two Supplemental Tests, report to Duraflame, Inc., prepared by OMNI Environmental

Services, Inc. Beaverton, OR.

49.09. Jaasma, D.R., Stern, H.S., Champion, M. and Albright, E., 1991, Fireplace Emissions

Test Method Refinement and Verification, report to Wood Heating Alliance, V irginia

Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA.

49.10. McCrillis, R.C., and Jaasma, D.R., 1993, Woodstove Emission Measurement Methods:

Comparison and Emission Factors Update, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,

vol. 24: 1

- 12, 1993

.

49.11. Muhlbaier, J.L., 1981, Particulate and Gaseous Emissions form Residential Fireplaces,

General Motors Research Laboratories report GMR

- 3588, ENV #101, Warren MI.

49.12. Myren, B., 2004, Data prepared for the HPBA ASTM fireplace test protocol, b y Myren

Consulting, Inc. Colville, WA.

49.13. Simons, C.A., Burnet, P.G. and Merrill, R.G., 1986, A System to Obtain Time

Integrated Woodstove Emission Samples, Proceedings of the 1986 EPA/APCA

Symposium on Measurement of Toxic Air Pollutants, EPA Report No. 600/9

- 86

- 013.

49.14. Washington State Building Code, 2004, Standard Test Method for Particulate

Emissions from Fireplaces, WAC 51

- 40

- 31200, Section 31

- 2.

### 83

49.15. Zielinska, B., Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C., Fujita, E., Richards, L.W., Neff, W., Dietric h,

D., and Hering, S., 1998, Northern Front Range Air Quality Study, Final Report to

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

50. Dasch, J.M., 1983, Particulate and Gaseous Emissions from Wood

- Burning Fireplaces,

Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 16, no.1 0, pp. 639

- 645.

51. Houck, J.E., and Broderick, D., 2002, Summary Report: Cordwood and Duraflame Firelog

Emissions, report for Duraflame, Inc., Stockton, CA.

52. Houck, J.E., and Crouch, J., 2002, Updated Emissions Data for Revision of AP

- 42 Section

1 .9, Residential Fireplaces.

52.01. Advanced Systems Technology, Inc., 1990, Development of AP

- 42 Emission Factors

for Residential Fireplaces Apex, North Carolina, EPA contract no. 68D90155.

52.02. Barnett, S.G., 1991, In

- home Evaluation of Emissions fr om Masonry Fireplaces and

Heaters, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Western States Clay Products

Association, San Mateo, CA.

52.03. Broderick, D. and Houck, J.E., 2001, Andiron Super

- Grate, Emission Test Report

prepared for California Hot Wood , prepared by OMNI Consulting Services, Inc.,

Beaverton, OR.

52.04. Broderick, D. and Houck, J.E., 2001, Emissions from Duraflame Firelogs, report

prepared for Duraflame, Inc., prepared by OMNI Consulting Services, Inc., Beaverton,

OR.

52.05. Clayton, L., Karels, G., Ong, C., and Ping, T., 1968, Emissions from Residential Type

Fireplaces, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San Francisco, CA.

52.06. Houck, J.E., Scott, A.T., Sorenson, J.T., Davis, B.S., and Caron, C., 2000, Air

Emissions Comparis ons between Cordwood and Wax

- Sawdust Firelogs Burned in

Residential Fireplaces, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Bioenergy Conference,

Buffalo, NY.

52.07. Kosel, P., 1980, Emissions from Residential Fireplaces, State of California Air

Resources Board, S tationary Source Control Division, Engineering Evaluation Branch

Report no. C

- 80

- 027.

52.08. Lipari, F., Dasch, J.M., and Scruggs, W.F., 1984, Aldehyde Emissions from Wood

Burning Fireplaces, Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 18, no. 5, pp 326

- 330.

52.09. O MNI Environmental Services Inc., 1995

- 2000, Reports on thirty

- six fireplace tests

submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 51

- 309

-

3102 and UBC Standard 31

- 2.

### 84

52.10. PEDCo

- Environmental, Inc., 1977, Source Testing for Firepl aces, Stoves, and

Restaurant Grills in Vail, Colorado, report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

contract no. 68

- 01

- 1999.

52.11. Purvis, C.R., and McCrillis, R.C., 2000, Fine Particulate Matter (PM) and Organic

Speciation of Fireplace Emissions, En viron. Sci. Technol., vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1653

-

1658.

52.12. Schauer, J.J., 1998, Source Contributions to Atmospheric Compound Concentrations:

Emissions Measurements and Model Predictions, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of

Technology, Pasadena, CA`.

52.13. Shelton, J., 1988, Testing of Sawdust

- wax Firelogs in an Open Fireplace, report to

Conros Corp., Duraflame Inc., and Pine Mountain Corporation, prepared by Shelton

Research, Inc., Santa Fe, NM.

52.14. Shelton, J., Sorensen, D., Stern, C.H., and Jaasma, D.R., 1990, Fireplace Emissions

Test Method Development, report to Wood heating Alliance and Fireplace Emissions

Research Coalition, prepared by Shelton Research, Inc., Santa Fe, NM and Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksbur g, VA.

52.15. Shelton, J.W., and Gay, L, 1987, Colorado Fireplace Report, Colorado Air Pollution

Control Division, report prepared by Shelton Research, Inc., Santa Fe, NM.

52.16. Snowden, W. D., 1975, Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces for Emission Factor

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

- 450/3

- 76

- 010.

52.17. Stern, C.H., and, Jaasma, D.R., 1991, Study of Emissions from Masonry Fireplaces,

report to Brick Institute of America, Reston, VA, prepared by Virginia Polytechnic

Insti tute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

52.18. Tiegs, P.E., 2000, The Effects of Fireplace Design Features on Emissions, report to the

Fireplace Manufacturer’s Caucus of the Hearth Products Association, prepared by

OMNI

- Test Laboratories, Inc., Beaver ton, OR.

52.19. Tiegs, P.E., and Houck, J.E., 2000, Evaluation of an Emission Testing Protocol for

Wood

- Burning Fireplaces and Masonry Heaters, draft report to Northern Sonoma

County Air Pollution Control District.

52.20. Wood Heating Alliance Firepla ce Technical Committee, 1991, WHA Fireplace

Emissions Test Method, internal memorandum.

52.21. Aiken, M., 1987, Canadian Firelog Ltd. Emission Testing, report prepared for Canadian

Firelog Ltd., Richmond, BC, prepared by B.C. Research, Vancouver, BC, pro ject no. 2

-

61

- 666.

### 85

52.22. Bartley, B. and Colwell, G., 1999, Glenn Colwell Residence Fireplace Source Test

Report, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Report No. 99178, San Francisco,

CA.

52.23. Muhlbaier, J.L., 1981, A Characterization of Emissi ons form Wood

- Burning

Fireplaces, General Motors Research Laboratories report GMR

- 3730, ENV #111,

Warren, MI.

52.24. Muhlbaier, J.L., 1981, A Characterization of Emissions from Wood

- Burning

Fireplaces, in Proceedings of 1981 International Conference on R esidential Solid Fuels,

Environmental Impacts and Solutions, Portland, OR, pp.164

- 187.

53. Pitzman, L., Eagle, B., Smith, R., and Houck, J.E., 2006, Dioxin/Furan Emissions, General

Emissions, and Fuel Composition of Duraflame Firelogs and Douglas Fir Cor dwood,

report for Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Seattle, WA.

54. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., 1993, Emission Factor Documentation for AP

- 42 Section

1.9, Residential Fireplaces, EPA Contract No. 68

- D1

- 0146.

55. Houck, J.E., 2005, Air Emissions and Pr oduct Characterization of Wax/Fiber Firelogs Sold

in the Great Lakes Region, report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

56. McCrillis, R.C., 1995, Review and Analysis of Emissions Data for Residential Wood

- Fired

Central Furnaces, In Procee dings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the AWMA, San

Antonio, TX, Paper No. 95

- RP137.04.

57. Rudling, L., and Ahling, B., 1981, Chemical and Biological Characterization of Emissions

from Combustion of Wood and Wood

- chips in Small Furnaces and Stoves, In Pro ceeding

of 1981 Conference on Residential Solid Fuels: Environmental Impacts and Solutions,

June 1

- 4, 1981, Portland, OR.

58. Valenti, J.C., and Clayton, R.K., 1998, Emissions from Outdoor Wood

- Burning Residential

Hot Water Furnaces, EPA

- 600/R

- 98

- 017.

59. National Climatic Data Center, 2002, State, Regional, and National Monthly Heating Degree

Days, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Historical Climatography

Serices No. 5

- 1.

60. National Climatic Data Center, 2002, Monthly Station Norma ls of Temperature

Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days: 1971

–2000, 18 Maryland (&

D.C.), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatography of the United

States No. 81.

61. U.S. EPA, 1989, Guideline Series, Guidance Document f or Residential Wood Combustion

Emission Control Measures, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 450/2

- 89

- 015.

### 86

62. U.S. EPA, 1992, Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best

Available Control Measures, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 45 0/2

- 92

- 002.

63. U.S. EPA, 1993, PM

- 10 Innovative Strategies: A Sourcebook for PM

- 10 Control Programs,

Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA

- 452/R

- 93

- 016.

64. GARD Analytics, Inc., 1997, Conventional Research House Measurements of Emissions

from Unvented Hear th Products, Gas Research Institute, Gas Appliance Technology

Center.

65. U.S. EPA, 1997, Emission Factor Documentation for AP

- 42 Section 1.4

- Natural Gas

Combustion, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Tri

angle Park, NC.

66. Muhlbaier, J.L., 1981, Particulate and Gaseous Emissions from Natural Gas Furnaces and

Water Heaters, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, MI.

66.01. U.S. EPA, 1977, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 3rd Ed., AP

- 42.

67. Surprenant, N.F., Hall, R.R., McGregor, K.T., and Werner, A.S., 1979, Emissions

Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems: Volume I. Gas

- and Oil

fired Residential Heating Sources, Contract no. EPA

- 600/7

- 79

- 029b.

68. Cole, J. T., and Zawacki, T.S., 1985, Emissions from Residential Gas

- Fired Appliances,

report no. GRI

- 84/0164.

69. U.S. EPA, 1997, Emission Factor Documentation for AP

- 42 Section 1.5

- Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Combustion, Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.

69.01. Written Communication, 1992, from W. Butterbaugh of the National Propane Gas

Association, Lisle Illinois, to J. McSorley of the U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,

NC.

69.02. Resources Re search, Inc., 1970, Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Contract

No. CPA

- 22

- 69

- 119.

69.03. Weishaupt Research and Development Institute, 1987, Nitrous Oxide Reaction with the

Weishaupt Flue Gas Recirculation System.

69.04. Phone Communicatio n Memorandum, 1992, Conversation Between B. Lusher of

Acurex Environmental and D. Childress of Suburban/Petrolane, Durham, NC.

### 87

70. Appendix K

- 2, Emissions Factors for Fuel Combustion from Natural Gas, LPG, and Oil

fired Residential Water Heaters,

www.ee re.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/k

- 2.pdf.

71. DeAngelis, D.G., Ruffin, D.S., Peters, J.A., and Reznik, R.B., 1980, Source Assessment:

Residential Combustion of Wood, U.S. EPA, contract no. EPA

- 600/2

- 80

- 042b.

72. Personal Com

munication, July 28, 2006, John Crouch, Director of Public Affairs, HPBA.

73. Hearth and Home, 2006, Buyer's Guide, pg. 14.

74. Personal Communication, July 11, 2006, Mark McSweeney, Executive Director, National

Chimney Sweep Guild.

75. Energy Inform

ation Administration, Table 7.4, Average Retail Price of Electricity to

Ultimate Customers by End

- Use Sector, 1993 through 2004 (Cents per kilowatt

- hour),

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat7p4.html.

76. Houck, J.E., and Sparwasser, R.C., 1 998, Economic Evaluation of the Replacement of Old

Technology Wood Stoves and Fireplaces and the Use of Alternative Fuels, Prepared for

Hearth Products Association, prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc.,

Beaverton, OR.

77. Houck, J.E., 2006, Resi dential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory South Coast Air

Basin and Coachella Valley Portion of Salton Sea Air Basin 2002 Base Year.

77.01. U.S. Federal Register, 1988, Standards for Particulate Matter, vol. 53, no. 38, Section

60.536.

78. Personal Co mmunications, 2006, New England Cordwood Sellers.

79. Energy Information Administration, Table 21, Average Price of Natural Gas Sold to

Residential Consumers, by State, 2004

- 2006,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_g as_monthly/

current/pdf/table_21.pdf.

80. Energy Information Administration, Table C3, Residential Propane Prices by Region and

State,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_stat

us_report/current/pdf/tablec3.pdf.

81. Modera, M.P., and Sonderegger, R.C., 1980, Determination of In

- Situ Performance of

Fireplaces, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract no. W

- 7405

- ENG

- 48.

82. Arthur D. Little, Inc., 2000, Residential Sector Data for the GRI Baseline Pro jection, report

to GRI, GRI

- 99/0172, Contract no. 6075.

### 88

83. Personal Communication, June 27, 2006, Chris Caron, Vice President, Duraflame Inc.

84. Personal Communication, June 26, 2006, David Hess, Conros Corporation.