From: Higgins, Cortney

To: Wood, Gil

Cc: Green, Gregory; Edwards, Chebryll; Koerber, Mike; Cole, David; Mckelvey, Laura; VanLare, Paula; Sorrels, Larry

Subject: RE: 11/15/13 Revised Version of the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters

Date: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:54:53 PM

Hi Gil. Thanks for the feedback. 

On #1 – thanks for the explanation. I have no further questions or suggestions.

On #2 below, here’s our follow up question/comment. I’m happy to setup a call if we need to

discuss this further. Otherwise, can language be added to caveat the standard.

The key paragraph:

Several industry representatives have indicated for months that they have been conducting

tests using cordwood and intend to provide that data to EPA as soon as possible. We had

hoped that the data would have already been provided, but we now expect it to at least

be provided during the public comment period. We will analyze the provided data carefully

and will make adjustments, as appropriate before the rule is finalized (likely over a year

from now). Further, if compliance data for Step 1 later indicate that additional unforeseen

adjustments need to be made, then EPA would still have sufficient time, considering that

Step 2 is five years after the effective date of Step 1.

Proposing numbers based on crib wood testing for cord wood testing may create a significant legal vulnerability,

unless EPA has data that confirms stoves perform similarly on both tests. Nonetheless, we appreciate the value

of proposing a specific number, but that number needs to be heavily caveated. If we can get some language that

clearly states that the proposed step 2 numbers are based on crib wood testing, that EPA expects that the Step 2

number would be reexamined based on the results of cord wood testing, some understanding of how that would

be done, and open the possibility of a supplemental proposed rule if the data suggests significant ‘unforeseen

adjustments,’ we’d be more comfortable. Leaving it to the five years between step 1 and step 2 isn’t a good

response, especially if firms must start R&D processes now to meet Step 2.

Finally, we are looking at the employment language send over on Tuesday – we have some edits,

and I think they’ll be ready by the end of the day. Any idea of when the new language will be

ready?

Thanks,

Cortney

From: Wood, Gil [mailto:Wood.Gil@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:53 AM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Green, Gregory; Edwards, Chebryll; Koerber, Mike; Cole, David; Mckelvey, Laura; VanLare, Paula;

Sorrels, Larry

Subject: RE: 11/15/13 Revised Version of the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters

Hi Cortney,
Thank you for your 11/28/13 edits. I have made all of your requested edits to the

preamble.

Additional information is provided below for (1) your request for additional information

regarding the list of prohibited fuels and (2) the SBA comments.

(1) List of prohibited fuels.

Several states, e.g., Vermont, Maine, and New York, have indicated to us that sometimes

operators use wrong fuels, including plastics, manure, animal carcasses, tires, railroad ties

(creosote), pressure-treated wood, etc. How “common”? I don’t know the number of

instances off-hand, but common enough that the states and labs and manufacturers were

concerned about it when we developed the 2007 EPA voluntary partnership program for

hydronic heaters (HH) and when the states developed their 2007 model rule for hydronic

heaters which several states used as the starting point for their state regulations. [FYI: Our

retired OAQPS communications director, Jeff Clark, had a neighbor who burned chicken

manure in a high-emitting hydronic heater next to Jeff’s house.]

The 2007 HH partnership agreement includes the following:

“a statement indicating that the following are among the materials/substances that should

not be used as fuel in a hydronic heater:

o trash

o plastics

o gasoline

o rubber

o naphtha

o household garbage

o material treated with petroleum products (particleboard, railroad ties and pressure

treated wood)

o leaves

o paper products

o cardboard”
The 2007 model rule includes the following:

“E. Prohibited fuels. No person shall burn any of the following items in an

outdoor hydronic heater:

1. Any wood that does not meet the definition of clean wood;

2. garbage;

3. tires;

4. lawn clippings or yard waste;

5. materials containing plastic;

6. materials containing rubber;

7. waste petroleum products;

8. paints and paint thinners;

9. chemicals;

10. coal;

11. glossy or colored papers;

12. construction and demolition debris;

13. plywood;

14. particleboard;

15. salt water driftwood;

16. manure;

17. animal carcasses; and

18. asphalt products.”

The 1988 NSPS contains the following:

“60.538 Prohibitions.

....

(f) no person shall install or operate an affected facility except in a manner consistent with

the instructions on its permanent label and in the owner’s manual pursuant to Section

60.536 (i) in this subpart.”

“60.536 (i). Wood loading procedures, recommendations on wood selection, and warnings

on what fuel not to use, such as treated wood, colored paper, cardboard, solvents, trash

and garbage.”

Appendix I of the 1988 NSPS contains the fuel specifics for the owner’s manual at “Section

3.3.4 Fuel Selection” on page 5914:

“Owner’s manual s shall include :

A. Instructions on acceptable fuels, and

B. Warnings against inappropriate fuels.

Example Text covering A and B:
“This heater is designed to burn natural wood only. Higher efficiencies and lower

emissions generally result when burning air dried seasoned hardwoods, as

compared to softwoods or to green or freshly cut hardwoods.

DO NOT BURN:

· Treated Wood.

· Coal.

· Garbage.

· Cardboard.

· Solvents.

· Colored Paper.

· Trash

Burning treated wood, garbage, solvents, colored paper, or trash may result in release of

toxic fumes and may poison or render ineffective the catalytic combustor.

Burning coal, cardboard, or loose paper can produce soot, or large flakes of char or fly ash

that can coat the combustor, causing smoke spillage into the room, and rendering the

combustor ineffective.” 

(2) SBA comments to pull stage 2 [sic] standards and limit discussion of stage 2 standards

to a possible future rulemaking based on the data gathered during stage 1 compliance.

One should not assume that the frequent EPA requests for comments and additional data

throughout the draft proposal indicate that we do not have sufficient data to support our

proposal. Rather, we are always open to comments and additional data on all aspects of

the proposal. We were open to additional data in November 2009 when we released a

draft review of the NSPS; we have been open to additional data ever since; and we will be

open to additional data even after this rulemaking is complete.

All current “certification values” for the 1988 NSPS have been in accordance with the

required EPA Test Method 28 which currently requires cribs. In the November 2009

WESTAR-hosted meeting to discuss the draft review, we expressed our interest in emission

testing with cordwood. Industry agreed that cordwood would be preferred.

The proposal would require testing using cribs and testing using cordwood for Step 1 upon

the effective date and only by using cordwood for Step 2 five years after the effective date.
Almost every stakeholder agrees that testing using cordwood is the right certification test

fuel for Step 2 and wants to see comparison data as soon as possible. ASTM, HPBA, states,

and EPA have been working together on a draft cordwood test method for wood stoves all

this year and have a refined draft ready for official ASTM balloting. [ASTM test method E2618 for cordwood testing of hydronic heaters and the CSA B415.1 cordwood method for

forced air furnaces have been available for years.] On almost every ASTM call, EPA has

encouraged the industry testers to voluntarily submit any “problem” emission test data as

soon as possible, but no problem emission data have been submitted to EPA, even

considering the frequent assertions by EPA and several states that use of cordwood for

future certification testing should be a win-win for both the environment/neighbors and

the manufacturers. In fact, rather than problems, some manufacturers have indicated that

they have already been designing and “real-world-testing” their stoves for years to be sure

that their stoves operate well in homes, not just in test labs.

Several industry representatives have indicated for months that they have been conducting

tests using cordwood and intend to provide that data to EPA as soon as possible. We had

hoped that the data would have already been provided, but we now expect it to at least

be provided during the public comment period. We will analyze the provided data carefully

and will make adjustments, as appropriate before the rule is finalized (likely over a year

from now). Further, if compliance data for Step 1 later indicate that additional unforeseen

adjustments need to be made, then EPA would still have sufficient time, considering that

Step 2 is five years after the effective date of Step 1.

In regard to the EO 12866 meeting with HPBA on 9/25/13 in which HPBA stated that there

is little correlation between results with crib wood and cord wood, one needs to also know

that HPBA has also frequently stated their conclusions that there is no difference in the

precision for cord wood testing and crib testing and that the variation is “most likely a

function of the random nature of burning wood.” As on 9/25/13, HPBA usually quotes Rick

Curkeet of Intertek, one of the two accredited labs that have the most experience with

wood stove certification testing.

We do not recall HPBA stating on 9/25/13 that a wood stove using cord wood could have

emissions “many times higher” than using cribs. That statement is not in the slide

presentation. Similarly, the presentation does not state “In fact, it is possible that a stage 2

BSER based on cord wood would be numerically higher than even the stage 1 BSER based

on crib wood.” Thus, we do not agree with SBA’s conclusion that “putting a number out

there now could make it difficult to fix in a supplemental proposed or final rule, particularly

given the emphasis put on ‘anti-backsliding’ elsewhere in the preamble.” We have been

told numerous times by both industry representatives and state representatives that they

much more prefer for EPA to propose specific numeric emission limits rather than BSER

technology discussions that do not specify emission performance levels.
Finally, the SBA comments that EPA should limit discussion of Step 2 to “mention of a

possible future rulemaking” would (a) be counter to the intent of Section 111 that NSPS be

based on BSER of today, not 1988 or 1995, (b) penalize those industry-leading

manufacturers that have already invested in developing cleaner and more efficient wood

heaters for the current marketplace and (c) reward those companies that prefer to stay

with the 1988 or 1995 status quo even longer.

Best regards,

Gil

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:13 PM

To: Wood, Gil

Cc: Green, Gregory; Edwards, Chebryll; Koerber, Mike; Cole, David; Mckelvey, Laura; VanLare, Paula

Subject: RE: 11/15/13 Revised Version of the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters

Hi Gil,

Below are comments on the redline preamble. Please let me know if you have questions.

- Remove footnote 2 or the “note to OMB” information – should just be the name of what goes in the

docket to support the point, not correspondence between us.

- Table 1, Footnote c, remove “good” – you don’t have any estimates of emissions reductions, right?

- Page 21 – Where/how has EPA “committed to action as expeditiously as possible.” If this rule is the first

time/place this statement has been made, suggest removing, as it is unnecessary, given the fact that

EPA is starting a rulemaking.

- Page 59: Replace “the older systems are so high-polluting that they” with “the older systems have” and

“old high-polluting units” with “older higher emissions units”

- Page 61 and elsewhere: replace “highest-polluting” with “highest emitting”

- Page 72, not clear what you mean by “since these units are inherently relatively clean” – I think there’s

an extra word – please correct.

- Page 74: Replace “There is no perfect predictor but historically wood heater” with “Historically, wood

heater”

- Page 75: replace “sparse” with “few”; insert “we have” before “limited data”; replace “good estimates”

with “emissions estimates.”

- Page 96: delete “not based on whether they are the cleanest, best performers currently available”

- Page 117: check new language – there are a few typos. Also, replace “would be unfair” with “would

provide a market advantage to indoor models.”

- Page 124: delete “in wood smoke.”

- Page 137: delete “wood treated with creosote, animal waste” or let’s discuss – is there any evidence

that these materials are commonly used for fuel (unlike trash or yard waste)? Also, how does the list of

prohibited fuel types (on page 188) and how this list compares to the list (if any) in the prior

rulemaking.

- Last page: Why is the burn wise checklist included? Where is it referenced in the reg text?
Additionally, here are comments from SBA:

The preamble includes this paragraph about the BSER determination for adjustable burn rate heaters:

For the proposed Step 2 (5 years after the effective date of the final standard), we considered “state-ofthe-art” systems that achieve a certification value of 1.3 g/hr. . . . The same analysis discussed above

showed that a level of 1.3 g/hr is achieved by 7 adjustable burn rate wood heater models in production

and sold in the U.S. today (noncatalytic and catalytic models combined). This includes 4 certified

noncatalytic wood heater models and 3 certified catalytic models.

By reference to the ‘certification value’ it appears that these models can meet a 1.3 g/hr standard using a crib

wood test. However, the proposal would require stage 2 compliance testing be conducted with cord wood. In

the EO 12866 meetings with HPBA, industry suggested that there is little correlation between results with crib

wood and cord wood, and that a unit meeting the crib wood standard could have emissions under a cord wood

test many times higher. (In fact, it is possible that a stage 2 BSER based on cord wood would be numerically

higher than even the stage 1 BSER based on crib wood. If so, putting a number out there now could make it

difficult to fix in a supplemental proposed or final rule, particularly given the emphasis put on ‘anti-backsliding’

elsewhere in the preamble.)

It appears that EPA has not established a basis for BSER of 1.3 g/hr using a cord wood test. Given the request

for additional test data made earlier in the preamble, it may be that it lacks the test data to determine what the

‘state of the art’ for a unit burning cord wood is.

If this is correct, it would be inappropriate to propose stage 2 at this time, particularly since the timing (5 years

for a 5-6 year R&D cycle) for stage 2 compliance is premised on industry engaging in intense R&D work starting

from the date of the proposal. If stage 2 is unattainable with current technology because it has been set based

on the wrong test, then even a corrected numerical standard in the final rule may not be attainable within the

time frame.

The same issue arises for most of the other non-pellet wood heaters.

If this is correct, and the BSER justifications are based on crib wood testing, EPA should pull the stage 2 standards

until it has sufficient data to propose a numerical standard based on cord wood data. It should limit discussion of

stage 2 to mention of a possible future rulemaking based on the data gathered during stage 1 compliance

(concurrent crib and cord wood testing). Proposing a number at this time would be misleading and could require

small entities to waste resources beginning a development cycle aimed toward an unreasonable, and perhaps

unattainable, standard.

Regards,

Cortney