# E C 

# /

R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734

FROM: Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

DATE: February 1 9 , 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from the Webinar for State, Local and Tribal Agencies on February 1 8
, 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 NS PS is final?

Answer : Gil replied that the advertising and marketing material (what’s shown on the webs ite 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 marke t ing 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 : W hat 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 . S ome of the hydronic heat ers 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 US EPA, as well as by some state environmental agencies. Larry Brockman of our wood sm oke 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 environ mental 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 : I s 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 consider ing . 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 manufacturer s 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 manufac ture and sales under Step 1. EPA does not h ave 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 t o Step 1 immediately

. R egarding 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 accor ding 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 t his proposal does allow delegation to the states upon request

– EPA does not force delegation. Principally EPA hope s 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 bod y 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

2involvement 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 an d pound per hour limits?

Answer : Gil replied that EPA considered opa city 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 hotli ne 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 i n 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)

... I s this right ? S hould the standards be a bit stric ter?

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 technolo gy can achieve

– what are the best systems today achieving

– these systems have to be demonstrated today, as of proposal. After looking at demon strated best systems, we t hen also look at the dollars per ton emission reduction, price impacts, impacts to sma ll 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 curren tly 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

3less 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 appropria te 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 geographicall y

- 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 repli ed 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 be com es final is not prohibited by this rule. But we do ask for

comme nt on th is . We also ask for comment related to a manufacturer suggest ion 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 d oes 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 homes 1


## ► 

## 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 wood

burning 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 effectiv 

## e 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 3 rd



# - 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