EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

1

**Key Discussion Points from NESCAUM** **/WESTAR/States Meeting** **— October 23**  **- 24, 2012**  **Participants:** Lisa Rector, NESCAUM Dan Johnson, WESTAR John Barnes, New York DEC Louis Fontaine, Maine DEP Lisa Herschberger, Minnesota PCA Rachel Sakata, Oregon DEQ Rod Tinnemore, Washington DO E Amanda Aldridge, EPA Larry Brockman, EPA David Cole, EPA Jason DeWees, EPA John Dupree, EPA Chebryll Edwards, EPA Greg Green, EPA Roy Huntley , EPA Robin Segal, EPA Larry Sorrels, EPA Mike Toney , EPA Gil Wood, EPA Bill Huang, EC/R Beth Friedman, EC/R Graham Fitzsimons, EC/R **Minneapolis, MN Meeting**  Will try

to bring in different points of views.  90 attendees from all stakeholders. **State Needs [Note: Unless specified otherwise, all items in this summary are presented from**  **the NESCAUM/WESTAR/States’ viewpoint s**  **and may or may not represent EPA’s views.]**  States want a stringent rule, but more importantly , need EPA to expedite completion of this rulemaking. o EPA state d the original proposal package cleared OAR and OP, but was refused by OMB. The new goal is to get a proposal that OMB will accept.  Revision to the standard is 16 years overdue and the current rule does not reflect the requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for a NSPS. Furthermore, states need a federal regulation to address changes in the marketplace and continuing airshed issues from this source category . The rule needs mechanisms to making it easier to revise the rule in the future. o EPA is trying to figure out the best way to get it done, and with something states can get behind. o EPA state d that looking at cost eff ectiveness ($/ton) is alway s an important parameter.  The ty

pe of reductions needed depends on a variety of issue s .  EPA should adopt standards consistent with a rigorous application of the statutory requirements of NSPS to move the industry toward designing and building the cleanest burning devices.  EPA should re - visit their economic analy sis to ensure appropriate anal ys is for consumer products application . **Form of the Standard Issue** **s**  States are c oncern ed about units defining themselves out of the regulatory process . o The r ule needs to have broad enough definitions of de vices to avoid loopholes .EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

2

 States want to ensure a level playing field for similar device ty pes .  The rule n eed s to ensure that unit s , regardless of size, do not create local exposure issues hence the need for all devices to have a g/hr standard. **States Rec** **ommendation s**   EPA should compress emissions s tandards into three categories: room heaters, central heating devices and thermal storage devices. o Room heaters would include indoor woodstoves both catal ytic and non - cataly tic, single burn rate stoves, and pellet stoves . o Central heating devices would include hydronic heaters, boilers, and furnaces . o Thermal storage devices (both full and partial storage units) would include central heaters with hot water storage and masonry heaters .  The recommend m etric for each c ategory : o Room heaters

– gram per hour standard o Central h eating devices

– heat output standard and mass over time standard o Thermal storage devices

– heat output standard and mass over time standard **Level of Standard PM**   The preferable and the best option for environmental performance would be to set a stringent emission standard at the level of the best performing units , but th e hurdle may be too high .  The second option is, within the NSPS categories, to create “bins” to tier best performing units. o There is an overall support for the “bin” concept from EPA and states. o Binning would be in place upon promulgation. The states would want Bin 1, the lowest, to eventually

go away .  EPA stated that Bin 1 can’t go away for wood s toves based on the current cost anal ys is . o Bin 1 represents the status quo consistent with Washington (WA) standards and the majority

of wood stove models (<4.0 g/hr). Bin 2 reflects the average emission rates for the top 50% best performing units ( < 2.5 g/hr). Bin 3 reflects the average emission rates for the top 12% best performing units ( < 1. 3 g/hr) . o The states recognized the n eed for lower cost/ton if one were to phase out Bin 1 for woodstoves . o The states noted that they are still working to identify emission limit for units with storage devices . o States believe that Binning would promote and incentivize the development and sale of advanced technologies in the near- term, and accommodate a smooth transition to cleaner burning units by allowing manufactur ers to continue to sell most current technology

devices for a period of time while they design for the future. o In general states prefer tighter emission limits even if it means slightly longer compliance deadlines.EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

3

**CO**  NESCAUM will develop CO AERMOD anal ys is for other device types in addition to the anal ys es they

presented for hydronic heaters .  EPA say s that industry say s there is not enough dat a to justify setting a weighted average CO level. o EPA agreed that the proposal should require CO testing and reporting for each certification test . o States pointed out that Europe has had a CO standard at max burn rate for a long time without a separate type of test method.  States believe EPA needs to i dentify potential CO limits at least for Category 4 burn rate . o They believe PM does not always correlate to CO.  States suggested that CO could be added to existing LADCO mobile emissions sampling units. **Efficiency**  States want more specif icity with regards to necessary elements with CSA B415 for efficiency testing .  Greg Green will s et up a meeting with OAP to discuss DOE contacts for potentially conducting tests to support wood boilers/furnaces efficiency standards . **Economic Analysis Key Issues**   What is the incremental c ost/ton for emission limits to support an NSPS at tighter than the Washington state standards ? o EPA stated the acceptable national number for PM would likely need to be less than $10,000/ton, but $3,000/ton would be very good. **Items to Investigate**  In cremental cost of new models rather than full start up .  Analy sis of extending compliance time for more stringent standard .  Co - benefit anal ys is **Outstanding Issues**  Analy sis of cost benefit from other pollutants o Since EPA thought PM cost/ton was high, states want to know what is the cost/ton of PAH, CO, NOx, VOC and other pollutants, and if any of these are reasonable to move forward with. o States also want EPA to consider risk r eduction and the sum of total pollutant reduction. o States would also like to see a discussion of the added benefits to local communities where wood smoke is a problem.  Control technologies for wood stoves and hydronic heaters o Cost of add - on catal ys t technology ( e.g., clearstak/clearskies) o Li sa Rector will reach out to European manufacturers for use and c ost s of residential ESPs  EPA will reach out to retrofit catal ys t folks.EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

4

**New Test Procedure Short Term**  **Strategies**  If states can write a new procedure b y the end of the year, EPA promised to consider including it in this NSPS ( likelihood of states meeting this date is low).  EPA noted that there is authority for manufacturers to request alternative test methods for units that cannot use M ethod 28 .  EPA has precedents of allow ing the use of Meth od 301 procedures for new technologies and methods (but this would have to show equivalence with the test methods and associated emission limits) .  EPA noted that there could be potential for Bins 2 and 3 to have different test methods in addition to different emission limits. **Long Term Strategies**   Develop for next rulemaking or use b y states or petition to use in lieu .  States p refer to add measures to increase precision of current method (e.g., 3 replicate test runs) , though this is not necessary for this rule .  States are interested in developing a stakeholder process to create a new method , but they not supportive of using the ASTM process . **Key Focus Areas for Improving**  **Test Procedures**   Move to the use of cordwood as soon as practical .  Standardize fuel for testing with a standardized density range  Improve standardization of test operation protocols to challenge units under normal operatin g conditions and reasonable worst case conditions .  Need to ensure that the method has flexibility to allow testing of new technologies , including oxygen sensors and other devices .  Accurate measurement of semi - volatiles with losses minimized to the greatest extent possible .  Emission rates for start up, steady state and shutdown periods .  Multiple runs at the same level rather than data for only one run from multiple categories . **Existing Test Procedure**  Goal of State Recommendations o Improve precision of the test . o Limit opportunities to “game” the test and increase precision . o Eliminate elements (and associated costs) that do not add value . o Characterize maximum emission rate .  Areas of Improvement o Fuel o Device operation o Measurement method o Effi ciency

testingEC/R 1 1 /1/2012

5

**Fuel Issue** **s**  States s ense that for many devices current charge is a partial charge .  Fuel type and specifically density is a critical parameter to ensure precision

– wide variability

in density can have substantial impact on emission outcome **States’ Recommendations**   Move to density

range within the species required by the method. If this requirement would change the basis for emission levels then at a minimum density measurements should be recorded and reported.  Tighten weight range per Paul Tieg’s re commendation to less than 10%. o EPA stated that a lot of Pa ul Tieg’s recommendations are already in the current draft.  Provide the option to determine fuel as a percentage of firebox volume .  Investigate way s to use cord and crib in this method . o EPA suggested that perhaps manufacturer s be allowed the choice to test with either fuel for entry

via bin 1 , but must use cordwood and meet the standard for bin 2/3 designations . **Device Operation Issue** **s**  Start - up times provide an opportunity to “tinker . ”  Variation in coal bed can have a significant impact on emission outcome and reducing coal bed variation will increase precision .  Category

2 and 3 burns add cost and do not add value in terms of characterizing maximum emission rates. **States’ Recommendation**  **s**  Limit the start up time based on Paul Tieg’s recommendations .  Tighten the range of the coal bed to + - 1 % .  Eliminate category 2 and 3 burn categories and move to only require cat egory 1 and 4 (with at least 70% of the weighting applied to category 1) .  Rep licate testing (2 additional runs in whichever category is higher or perhaps category 1 TBD from workgroup) .  No averaging of categories

– set emission standard by burn category . **Measurement Issue**   Lack of precision due to particulate loss due to filter handling and measurement practices .  Lack of methods to control semi - volatile loss penalizes cleaner units . **States’ Recommendations**   Require that filters be pulled every 60 minutes. These filters should be measured and reported independentl y for all devices tested.  Require that filters weight measures for all devices be reported 12 hr, 24 hr, 48 hr and equilibration.EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

6

 Move to micro - balance, as needed, if filter weights become low . **Efficiency Testing Clarify type of testing expected**   Overall  Combustion  Delivered  Tighten language and specifications for efficiency testing to ensure consistent measurement of delivered efficiency . **Compliance and Enforcement Issues**  Third party certification

– States support independent third party testing and test review, but are concerned about the independence of companies hired directly by the manufacturers. o EPA noted that they

will investigate developing and using a CRADA to create a wall between manufacturer s and test review s .  Develop a process to capture data from failed tests .  Define appropriate holding time for units upon completion of testing . o EPA and States agreed that tested units don’t need to be held forever (may be pulled off in a ye ar); but, states want better documentation of the test settings.  Preference for EPA to have stronger field presence .  States and EPA discussed the o pportunity for some portions of the rule to be delegated to states . **Existing Stoves**   Deteriorating units

– How long after a unit is sold, should they keep working as normal?  States s ugg ested a service contract and audit every 2 ye ars to check that every thing is clean .  An analogy was made to cars : o Cars have a warranty from the manufacturer for a certain amount of time to cover any thing that doesn’ t come out clean. Suggested something sim ilar could be done for wood stoves. o EPA agreed that m anufacturer s shouldn’t be off the hook if something goes wrong down the road, so it’s not just on the dealer . o Some m anufacturer s have argue d that there is no connection between manufacturer s and retailer s after a unit is out; there needs to be a check for retailers . **Top Priorities for States and EPA**  Lisa Rector, NESCAUM - Getting the three “bins” concept through .  Lisa Herschberger, Minnesota PCA - Need to be able to show states how big of a problem this is compared to other source categories; shorter filter times , get visible emissions standard in future.  Rachel Sakata, Oregon DEQ - Developing a rule for outdoor wood boilers; binning concept; pushing to go past Washington’s standards .EC/R 1 1 /1/2012

7

 Rod Tinnemore, Washington DO E - Binning process; Washington still has non - attainment areas; field use and test; need to clean up test methods so not to get bogus numbers .  Amanda Aldridge, EPA - Binning concept; tightening the test methods; need more education .  David Cole, EPA - Binning concept; sharing data to provide justification for what we are doing.  Chebryll Edwards, EPA - Getting the wood stove standard better than Washington’s standard; get the binning process in the proposal and solicit public comments on it; methods not as important .  Mike Toney , EPA - Reducing the number of runs, and number of categories .  Gil Wood, EPA - Binning concept; cleaning up test methods; adding shorter filters .