EC/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

FROM: Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

DATE: February 19, 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from the Webinar for State, Local and Tribal Agencies on February 18, 

2014 – General Overview of the Wood Heater NSPS with Q&A Session

Gil Wood presented an overview to the wood heater NSPS during this webinar, which was 

hosted by EPA's Innovative Programs and Outreach Group, and answered clarifying questions 

following the presentation. The presentation slides are attached to this memo and the questions 

and answers are summarized below. An audio recording of the slide presentation is currently 

available at the following link: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/p97fjuped1t/

• Question: Is there anything to prevent a current dual-fuel outdoor wood boiler [a.k.a. 

hydronic heater] to be labeled coal-only in order to be sold after the NSPS is final?

Answer: Gil replied that the advertising and marketing material (what’s shown on the 

website and in the warranty) needs to say that burning wood in this device would void the 

warranty and would be illegal. Someone could decide that it’s coal-only in the future –

that’s a manufacturer’s marketing decision to make – but if it’s used for both it would be 

affected by this proposal, and if it’s marketed as being used for more than one [fuel] that 

would be illegal per this proposal.

• Question: What if anything will be done about existing hydronic heaters, which are 

renowned for horrible clouds of black smoke?

Answer: This rule is for new sources under Section 111. We hope that states, local 

agencies and tribes will develop programs to address existing stoves (eg., voluntary 

programs such as change-out efforts described in “Strategies for Reducing Residential 

Wood Smoke” on EPA’s Burn Wise website). There are some state efforts regarding 

change-outs of hydronic heaters. Some of the hydronic heaters are extremely dirty and 

have been tested at over 300 grams/hour. There are some Supplemental Environmental 

Projects (SEPs) that are part of enforcement actions by the USEPA, as well as by some 

state environmental agencies. Larry Brockman of our wood smoke team here [at EPA] 

and people in EPA’s Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA) like 

Charlie Garlow are trying to work with people regarding change-outs. Some states and 

locals have rebates. We are working with industry and with some environmental health 

organizations regarding ideas to help with existing units, which are a serious concern.

501 Eastowne Dr., Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919) 484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122
• Question: Is there a 3-step program for AAA wood and pellet stoves also?

Answer: Gil replied that yes, there is a 3-step program we are considering. Again, we 

think it’s an inferior option [to the proposed 2-step approach] but are taking comments.

• Question: Will there be any more exchange programs?

Answer: Gil replied that he hoped so, but EPA does not have money for exchange 

programs currently. EPA budgets are tight overall. We hope that there could be some 

partnership with industry, with environmental groups, or within SEPS, but EPA does not 

have money currently to directly support rebates for the change-outs. EPA will continue 

our educational efforts and continue helping exchange information on model programs, 

but we do not have money currently to go directly towards rebates and exchanges.

• Question: Would you please clarify the applicability of this proposal? Does it apply only 

to manufacturers or does it also apply to end users, distributers, etc. of these devices?

Answer: Gil replied that it applies to both [manufacturers and distributors] as well as end 

users. He noted that he used the term “manufacturers” several times, but this definition of 

manufacturers also includes distributors. EPA has different dates than in the 1988 rule for 

when limits apply to manufacture and when they apply to sales. This distinction is in this 

proposal as well for woodstoves regarding differing dates for manufacture and sales 

under Step 1. EPA does not have a distinction [between manufacturing and sales dates] in 

this proposal with regard to hydronic heaters and forced air furnaces principally because 

these older units are so dirty and they need to at least get to Step 1 immediately. 

Regarding end users, the 1988 rule actually affects end users too – that’s not new and 

EPA is continuing that in this proposal too. It is a violation under the NSPS for the end 

user to operate the stove improperly – that is, not according to the NSPS and not 

according to owners’ manuals. That’s why the 1988 rule contains so much language 

regarding what needs to be in the owners’ manuals, and that concept is continued under 

this proposal.

• Question: For Subpart AAA, would you please clarify the roles/responsibilities for state 

agencies that assume enforcement delegation for this regulation? How do these 

roles/responsibilities differ from the existing Subpart AAA?

Answer: Gil replied that the 1988 NSPS did not allow for delegation of authority to states 

– it is EPA-only under the 1988 rule. That changes with this proposal, as this proposal 

does allow delegation to the states upon request – EPA does not force delegation. 

Principally EPA hopes that some states will be interested in going to manufacturing sites 

(and we are already seeing encouraging signs from several states regarding this) in 

addition to the ISO-accredited certifying body going to the manufacturing site. EPA 

hopes that the state agency will also visit and help ensure that the manufacturer is 

following the QA plan and will help observe certification tests. We have several states 

that have expressed interest in volunteering to help observe these tests. [State 

2
involvement such as this] helps not only the federal EPA, but also states, locals, regions

and tribes [ensure protection of air quality]. 

• Question: Will EPA consider opacity standards along with the lb/MMbtu and pound per 

hour limits?

Answer: Gil replied that EPA considered opacity standards pre-proposal and did ask in 

the proposal for comment on this issue. Gil asked that commenters please include this 

issue in their [official] comments.

• Question: How does EPA identify and enforce end user violations?

Answer: Gil replied that this is a good question, as this question/answer is problematic. 

Gil noted that he’s not an enforcement person and so cannot answer what the 

enforcement policy will be. This rule does give EPA the authority to enforce. One 

suggestion has been an EPA hotline so that neighbors can report end-use violations and 

then EPA could follow up. Recognizing that EPA is a national organization, getting out 

to every local area will stretch EPA resources pretty thin. So EPA would hope that states, 

locals, and tribes will assist us on this. As for any of our rules, we would look at all 

[complaints] and prioritize the most egregious cases. 

• Question: The three subparts contain a "prohibited fuel types" list. Can you explain why 

only subpart QQQQ includes unseasoned wood in its list?

Answer: Gil replied that it appears a cutting-and-pasting typo error was made. All 

subparts should include unseasoned wood on the list of prohibited fuel types. Gil thanked 

the questioner for pointing out this error.

• Question: One of the later slides shows an expected reduction of ~4800 tons, but this 

seems to be about 1.2% of the national PM from residential wood combustion (according 

to a very quick query of the 2011 NEI)... Is this right? Should the standards be a bit 

stricter?

Answer: Gil replied that these standards are as strict as EPA can justify based on Section 

111 of the CAA. NSPS are based on best systems of emission reduction considering cost. 

So it’s a multi-pronged assessment. First we looked at what the technology can achieve –

what are the best systems today achieving – these systems have to be demonstrated today, 

as of proposal. After looking at demonstrated best systems, we then also look at the 

dollars per ton emission reduction, price impacts, impacts to small businesses, etc. These 

numbers/standards do represent the best systems. There is a little bit of room with regard 

to timing, with regard to the compliance schedule – so that’s why we’re asking for 

comment on, for example, the transition period of currently certified AAA units (i.e., do 

the currently certified wood stoves get the full 5 years of their certification or some lesser 

time); and is 5 years the right transition term/period between steps 1 and 2. We ask about 

the 8 year alternative approach, but we also ask whether industry can achieve Step 2 in 

3
less than five years. Unlike the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 

NSPS is not a health-based rule. In some areas [based on health concerns and related to 

the NAAQS], it may be appropriate for states, tribes or local jurisdictions to ban wood 

burning on some days, as a number of state and local jurisdictions already do. And in 

some areas, the states, tribes and local jurisdictions may determine that new units may not 

be appropriate at all – but that’s more of a geographic situation related to local air shed 

concerns rather than what EPA can do on a national basis. According to the EPA Office 

of General Counsel (OGC), EPA cannot establish geographically-based standards under

the NSPS. 

• Question: Do the new rules affect, in any way, sales of old, uncertified devices? In other 

words, will it still be legal for a distributor/individual to sell an old, uncertified unit to an 

end-user?

Answer: Gil replied that under this proposal, EPA does not prohibit sales of any stoves 

that were already in use prior to this rule becoming final. So the re-sale of an old [in-use] 

stove after this rule becomes final is not prohibited by this rule. But we do ask for 

comment on this. We also ask for comment related to a manufacturer suggestion that we 

not allow the continued sale of repair parts for old stoves [not meeting the standards], as 

some stoves are in-use in homes 50 years after their sale.

Finally, enforcement does have a hot line for any tips or complaints whether regarding 

industrial source categories or regarding woodstoves at epa.gov/tips. Thank you to 

Charlie Garlow for pointing this out.

• There were no further questions.

4
Residential Wood Heaters

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

Proposal – General Overview

Webinar for State, Tribal and Local Agencies

February 18, 2014

Please email comments on the proposal to the official docket at:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734
Current Schedule

► Proposal was signed by EPA Administrator on January 3, 2014

► The full proposal and fact sheets are available on-line at 

http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters

► The proposal was published in Federal Register on February 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

► There is a 90-day public comment period until May 5

► Opportunity to submit comments and data for EPA to consider

► Information on how to comment is on the website

► A public hearing will be held in Boston on February 26, 2014.

► Information on how to register is on the website.

► We will consider all comments and issue the final rule in 2015.

2
Scope of the Rules

We are proposing three subparts as follows:

► Subpart AAA (for “room heaters”) revision

– Adjustable burn rate stoves

– Single-burn rate stoves

– Pellet stoves

► Subpart QQQQ (“central heaters”) new rule

– Outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters

– Forced-air furnaces

► Subpart RRRR new rule

– Masonry Heaters

3
Summary of Proposal

► The 1988 NSPS requires manufacturers to design new residential wood heaters to 

meet particulate emission (PM) limits, have representative heaters (per model line) 

tested by an EPA-accredited lab, and attach EPA label after EPA approval.

► The proposal would update the 1988 NSPS to reflect today’s best systems of 

emission reduction, considering costs. These systems are ~80% cleaner and more 

efficient.

► The rule would affect models manufactured and sold after the rule is final.

► The rule would also establish new emission limits for types of heaters that have 

become popular after the 1988 NSPS was issued

► Step 1 emission limits would be required when the rule is final (2015) and tighter 

Step 2 limits will be required 5 years after the rule is final.

► Test methods would be revised to improve precision and better reflect the real world, 

e.g., use cord wood and consider peak, shorter-term emissions.

► The rule would also require testing and reporting efficiency and carbon monoxide.

► The projected monetized health benefits are far greater than the costs (>100:1).

4
Not Covered

► Existing heaters currently in use in people’s homes1

► Outdoor fireplaces, pizza ovens, barbecues, fire pits, chimineas, traditional 

Native American bake ovens, ceremonial fires 

► Heaters fueled solely by oil, gas or coal (or other non-wood materials) 

► Proposal by itself would not ban certified devices or restrict hours of use.

► New indoor fireplaces 

► Not effective heaters (this NSPS is for "residential wood heaters”)

► However, EPA is taking comment

► Fireplaces are included in an EPA voluntary program that encourages 

manufacturers to make cleaner-burning fireplaces and retrofits available for 

consumers.

► While the proposed rule does not cover existing heaters, state or local 

governments may wish to address them through local measures. “Strategies for 

Reducing Residential Wood Smoke” on EPA’s Burn Wise website includes ideas 

for local regulations, voluntary programs, funding mechanisms and best burn 

practices - all of which can help reduce particle pollution from existing woodburning appliances.

5
Outreach

► We conducted extensive outreach as we developed the proposal, seeking input 

from numerous wood heater manufacturers, state, local and tribal governments, 

regional air quality agencies, and citizen and environmental groups.

► We also participated in a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to seek input 

and advice. The preamble discusses the changes made to the proposal in 

response to the panel’s recommendations to reduce small business impacts as 

much possible while still meeting the legal requirements in the Clean Air Act.

► We will continue to work to address environmental and small business potential 

impacts throughout the process to get to the final rule.

6
Room Heaters (Subpart AAA Proposed Revisions) 

► Adjustable burn-rate wood stoves (focus of 1988 NSPS)

► Proposal would strengthen existing emission limits in two steps over a five-year 

period

• Step 1 – similar to Washington State’s 1995 limit for non-catalytic stoves (most 

adjustable rate EPA-certified stoves already meet today)

– EPA-certified stoves can continue manufacturing/sales until current 

certification expires, up to a maximum of five years

• Step 2 – meet strengthened limits (see table)

► Single burn-rate wood stoves (NOT covered by 1988 NSPS)

► Would have to meet the same emission limits as adjustable burn-rate stoves

► Pellet stoves

► Would be explicitly included

• Pellet stoves are inadvertently exempted from 1988 NSPS if their air-to-fuel ratio 

is >35:1. Exemption was intended only for typical open fireplaces with high 

excess combustion air.

► Would have to meet same emission limits as adjustable burn rate heaters

7
Room Heaters -- Proposed Emission Limits

8

Manufacturers must use 3rd-party, independent, ISO-accredited and EPA-approved test 

laboratories and certifying entities to demonstrate compliance with a representative appliance for 

a model line.

Subpart AAA Appliances Phases / Steps PM Emission Limits

Heaters with current EPA 

certification issued prior to the 

effective date of the Final Rule

Transition period from 1988 

rule through the later of the 

effective date of the final 

revised rule or expiration of 

current certification 

(maximum of 5 years 

certification and no renewal)

4.1 g/hr for catalytic 

heaters/stoves and 7.5 g/hr for 

noncatalytic heaters/stoves 

(1988 NSPS limits)

All other heaters (includes currently 

certified heaters after the 

certification expires) 

Step 1: upon the effective 

date of final rule (60 days 

after publication)

Step 2: 5 years after the 

effective date of the final rule

4.5 g/hr (weighted average)

1.3 g/hr for each burn rate 
Central Heaters (Subpart QQQQ Proposal )

► Would affect hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces

► Not subject to 1988 NSPS

► Hydronic heaters are also known as indoor and outdoor wood boilers

9
Hydronic Heaters (in Subpart QQQQ)

► In January 2007, EPA instituted a voluntary program and NESCAUM developed 

a model rule that several states subsequently used as a starting point for state 

regulations.

► Some manufacturers redesigned their models to be Phase 2 white tag “qualified” 

models >80% cleaner (in lab tests) than unqualified ones

► > 40 current qualified Phase 2 models

► > 30 manufacturers are signatory partners in the voluntary program

► 2-Step phase-in

► Step 1: test and certify to meet level similar to current Phase 2 white tag qualifying 

level for EPA voluntary “Hydronic Heater Program”

► Step 2: meet strengthened limits (see table) 5 years after effective date 

► Testing and certification process similar to revised subpart AAA

10
Hydronic Heater – Proposed Emission Limits

11

EPA also is seeking comment on a 3-Step approach over an 8-year period. This approach would 

include an interim limit of 0.15 pounds per million Btu heat output 3 years after the rule is published in 

the Federal Register.

Step PM Emission Limit Compliance Date

Step 1 0.32 pounds per million 

BTU heat output 

(weighted average) and 

a cap of 7.5 g/hr for any 

individual test run

60 days after publication of 

final rule

Step 2 0.06 pounds per million 

BTU heat output for each 

burn rate

5 years after publication of 

final rule
Forced-Air Furnaces (in Subpart QQQQ)

► Step 1 is based on the Canadian consensus standard.

► Step 1 is higher than HH because most forced-air furnaces have not progressed 

as quickly, but all should catch up by Step 2

12

EPA also is seeking comment on phasing in the limits in 3 steps over an 8-year period. This approach 

would include an interim emissions limit of 0.15 pounds per million Btu heat output 3 years after the rule 

is published in the Federal Register (the same interim limit as for hydronic heaters).

Step PM Emission Limit Compliance Date

Step 1 0.93 pounds per 

million BTU heat 

output (weighted 

average) and a cap 

of 7.5 g/hr for any 

individual test run 

60 days after publication of 

final rule

Step 2 0.06 pounds per 

million BTU heat 

output for each run

5 years after publication of 

final rule
Masonry Heaters (in Subpart RRRR)

► Currently not regulated

► Would require certification process similar to revised Subpart AAA

► Limit based on test data for typical masonry heaters that perform well.

► Asking for comments on alternatives to testing. Most heaters are custom built 

on-site, so testing each custom model could be difficult.

► Compliance deadlines based on production level

► Most companies make fewer than 15 heaters per year 

13

Annual Production Level PM Emission Limit Compliance Deadline

15 heaters or more 0.32 pounds per million 

BTU heat output 

60 days after final 

rule is published

Fewer than 15 heaters 0.32 pounds per million 

BTU heat output 

5 years after final rule 

is published
Test Methods

► Peak, shorter-term particulate emissions

► Would add multiple 1-hour filters for each test run to gather data regarding 

start-up and anticipated peaks.

► For Step 2, EPA would require compliance with emission limits at the lowest 

burn rate (“Category 1”) and the maximum burn rate (“Category 4”) rather 

than the weighted average of the four burn rates in the current NSPS.

► Cordwood test method

► EPA would add testing with cordwood to encourage best real-world 

performance. For Step 1, the manufacturer would submit 2 test reports, 1 

with cribs (dimensional lumber) and 1 with cordwood and choose which 

results to use for certification. Step 2 tests would all be with cordwood. 

► We will continue to work with states, labs and industry on the details.

► Precision

► The proposal includes improvements to the test methods to improve 

precision.

14
Efficiency and Carbon Monoxide 

► Efficiency

► Would require testing and reporting but not a minimum efficiency

► Carbon Monoxide

► Would require testing and reporting of CO but not an emission limit

► Information would guide consumers’ decisions

► Model line performance testing by 3rd-party

• ISO-accredited labs and certifying bodies

► Reviewed/approved by EPA

► Model lines also subject to audit testing

• Sealed/stored units used for original performance test

• Original drawings compared to actual unit 

15
Projected Impacts

► We estimate the rule would reduce fine particle pollution from new 

heaters by ~4,800 tons per year over the 2015-2022 timeframe; many 

reductions would be in areas with significant particle pollution problems. 

► Estimated monetized health benefits would be >$4 billion per year.

► Costs are estimated at ~$16 million per year.

16
Comments

► We encourage email comments to the official docket at:

► a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,

► Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

► Gil Wood

► wood.gil@epa.gov

► 919-541-5272

17